Installment VI

On page 27 the authors initiate their case regarding the title "El." As is the case with "Baal" and "Adonay," "El" has a sordid history of corruption, but as has already been established, "Paganism does not stop Yahweh," for as the Hebrew originals attest, this was originally Yahweh’s title. Although all of our acquaintances in the Yahwist Movement are fully aware of the stains that paganism has inflicted upon the title "elohim," the authors portray the Yahwist Movement pioneers as having been ignorant of this fact.

Perhaps they were, we don’t know, nor can we know for sure if the authors leave out documentation for their statements.

Note the following commentary as found on page 27: "What is amazing about this reference is the fact that ‘Unger’s Bible Dictionary’ is one of the Sacred-Name Movement’s most often quoted books. The linguistic arguments which we have advanced against the titles ‘baal’ and ‘adonay’ have relied heavily on the scholarship of this and other similar reference material. The irony is that the Bible dictionary that was employed by the early pioneers of the Sacred-Name Movement (in order to prove that ‘adonay’ and ‘baal’ were words guilty of a ‘pagan connection’) also proves that ‘el’ and ‘elohim’ ARE LIKEWISE ASSOCIATED WITH PAGANISM AND FALSE WORSHIP. However, although the full impact of this fact has only of late been realized by some Sacred-Name organizations, it is rather amusing to observe that our pioneers ‘chose’ to conveniently ignore the above reference. So, while on one hand ‘baal’ and ‘adonay’ were condemned and labeled unacceptable because of their ‘pagan connection,’ ‘el’ and ‘elohim’ were retained despite having the same ‘pagan connection’!"

We respond: First of all, if it is indeed true that some Yahwist Movement pioneers actually rejected "adonay" and "baal" because of their pagan connections while retaining "elohim," then the authors are indeed correct in pointing out such a double standard. All three titles have "pagan connections," despite having originated with Yahweh.

Secondly, however, nearly everyone with whom we associate in the Yahwist Movement is already keenly aware of the tainted history of "elohim." We have never had the occasion to report this bit of news "first hand" to anyone, for it had already been established as a truth before they met us! Thus, this is all "yesterday’s news" to us and many others! It may serve a good purpose to include this information for those who are reading it for the first time, but in light of the premise it is designed to help "prove," we cannot recommend it as "good reading" to anyone!

Finally (on this subject), we personally do not use the title "elohim" in reference to our Heavenly Father, but as we mentioned earlier with regard to the title "adonay," this is strictly a personal decision; it is certainly not a decision that we would dogmatically insist others adopt as well! The reason we choose to not employ the title "elohim" is this: June and I have a tough enough time as it is relating to people outside of the Faith, and we know from our own previous experiences that only a handful of people would understand us if we were to say, "Yahweh is our Elohim." Many would understand, "Yahweh is our Almighty," however, or in the case of the translation of "Abba," they would readily understand "Yahweh is our Father." June and I do our best to try to relate to those in and out of the Faith, and one way we can do this is by approaching people on their level. I recall the expression, "If you feed your hay to the sheep the camels can eat it, too." Referring to Yahweh as our "Elohim" does not usually give them something they can relate to, identify with or even understand. It certainly did nothing for us when we first heard the title used!

"Elohim" is assuredly a Hebrew word rich in meaning. In English, however, most people haven’t a clue as to what we are talking about when we say, "Elohim." They can, however, relate to titles such as "Almighty," "Mighty One," "Eternal," etc. Since authors Dale George and Silvio Soto acknowledge there is nothing wrong with translating titles such as "elohim," this is something on which we can all agree. With the understanding that "elohim" is a title that rightfully only belongs to Yahweh, but was wrongfully applied as a name for a false deity, we support the desires of others who choose to apply the title to its rightful owner, although we ourselves prefer to avoid using it in favor of reverent, meaningful translations.

CONNECTIONS?

On page 28 the authors provide the following commentary with regard to all words having proven pagan connections:

"The only way out of this dilemma is to go back to the beginning and start casting our foundation anew. EITHER WE ACCEPT THE IRREFUTABLE FACT THAT OUR TWO BASIC PRINCIPLES ARE CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE or WE WILL BE FORCED - in order to be consistent with the ‘principles’ we argue and defend - TO CONDEMN, ELIMINATE, and ERADICATE any and ALL words (both Hebrew and English) that can be demonstrated to have a pagan connection!! All things considered, there is no room for middle ground."

We reply: Have the authors REALLY considered all options? We believe we have another option, mentioned earlier in this critique, an option that we believe Mr. George and Mr. Soto have either overlooked or have chosen to not consider as a valid option. In a nutshell, we readily admit that all languages, especially English, are littered with words having proven pagan origins. To eliminate only one such word from one’s vocabulary would in essence demonstrate not only the folly of the individual, but also his or her double standard. We once associated with a group that dogmatically insisted its members eliminate the words "amen," "happy," "happen," "good" "cereal," "church," "lucky," "fortune/fortunate," and a few others that do not presently come to mind. In my drive to assist with the elimination of "forbidden words" (as they called it), I came up with several others, such as "music," "mortuary," "mortician," "mortgage," "morphine," "vitamin," "clothing," "ammonia," "orphan," "panic,"etc. My list of additional "forbidden words" went over like a "lead balloon." On top of this, when I presented evidence that "good" and "god" are in fact unrelated words, they wouldn’t even take a peek at my evidence, much less acknowledge it. Bottom line: If you’re going to insist upon eliminating from your vocabulary any word that can be shown to have a pagan origin, then you can’t "pick and choose" the ones you want to retain! You have to take it as far as it can go! Is there a solution? We believe there is, and although we mentioned it earlier, we believe it bears repeating:

In our desire to please the Father, we can plainly see that we would have to practically invent a new language in order to come up with a pure one, unstained by words emanating from pagan worship. Since this is obviously not an option, how about trying to do the next best thing? How about choosing very carefully the words and titles we use in reference to our Heavenly Father and His Son? For example, a case has been made against using such words as "holy" and "sacred." It appears there is at least good reason to suspect that these words have a pagan origin. With this in mind, how about choosing to use other words in reference to our Creator and His Son instead of "holy" or "sacred"? Certainly Yahweh and His Son are worthy of the highest form of worship and honor we can give them. Do we give them that honor when we refer to them with titles or even adjectives that trace back to heathen worship? No, we do not. We thus believe our option is an alternative worth considering. Maybe we can’t change our language, but we can focus on the words in our language that we use in reference to the Father and His Son, can’t we? It is something that all of us need to work on, in our humble opinion. Perhaps, instead of referring to ourselves as being members of the "Sacred Name Movement," we should henceforth identify ourselves as members of the "Yahwist Movement." After all, if the word "sacred" is truly traceable to pagan worship, then why would I want to refer to Yahweh’s name as being "sacred"? With this in mind, perhaps, to the best of our abilities, we can come up with suitable alternatives to words emanating from heathen worship. Remember: Nothing is too good for Yahweh!

Authors George and Soto make an excellent point on page 32 of their article. They write, "What makes a word ‘clean’ or ‘unclean’ is NOT the mere existence of the word itself, but the THEOLOGICAL CONCEPT intended by the individual speaking. The Bible CONDEMNS the CONCEPT of IDOLATRY, but it does NOT do so on a LINGUISTIC BASIS!"

We comment: Agreed! As we all know, letters are written symbols to help us pronounce and read words. When we put certain letters together to form certain words, people become offended. By joining other letters to form other words, people are flattered! For example, when we put the following letters together and sound out the pronunciation, people are offended: D-U-M-M-Y. However, by joining letters to spell out words such as K-I-N-D or G-E-N-T-L-E, we tend to flatter people.

What if, say, we were to run across a culture in which everyone worshipped the Creator by His true name, Yahweh, but spoke a completely foreign language? And what if these people, in referring to Him as their "Almighty" employed a word pronounced "nerd"? How would you feel if you overheard one of their constituents utter the phrase, "Hachbah Yahweh roo nerd!", knowing that in English they were saying, "Praise Yahweh our Almighty!"? How would you feel about them referring to Yahweh as "our nerd"? Despite how WE might feel about referring to Yahweh in such a way, the fact would remain that to this culture the word pronounced "nerd" translates in a very noble way as the word "Almighty."

This in effect validates the point made by authors Dale George and Silvio Soto, that "what makes a word ‘clean’ or ‘unclean’ is NOT the mere existence of the word itself, but the THEOLOGICAL CONCEPT intended by the individual speaking." Thus, if it could be shown that the aforementioned culture respectfully referred to Yahweh as a "nerd," and the word "nerd" is not traceable to pagan worship, then the word is in essence "pure." For any English-speaking worshipper, however, it goes without saying that any reference to Yahweh as being "our nerd" would constitute an insult to Him, as English-speakers understand a "nerd" as being a derogatory appellative.

In the above scenario, worshippers are innocently referring to the Creator Yahweh with a title that would come across as offensive in our culture, but one which is honorable in theirs. The fact that pronouncing a word so offensive to us would be honorable to the other culture does not justify our referring to Yahweh as a "nerd," yet does it exonerate the foreign culture for doing the same thing. While our "theological concept" of the word "nerd" makes it unthinkable for us to refer to Yahweh in such a way, the "theological concept" of the word "nerd" to that foreign culture validates its use by them, thus proving Dale George and Silvio Soto’s assertion that "what makes a word ‘clean’ or ‘unclean’ is NOT the mere existence of the word itself, but the THEOLOGICAL CONCEPT intended by the individual speaking."

With this in mind, however, let us briefly consider this point so aptly made by the authors. Is the name/title "God" in and of itself an unsuitable term? Well, let us remember that the name of a false Babylonian deity condemned by Yahweh (IsaYah 65:11) is pronounced "God."

There are those, however, who for whatever reason, choose to employ the following mentality: "But don’t you know that the English word ‘God’ isn’t the same as the Hebrew word pronounced ‘gawd’? The word WE use pronounced ‘gawd’ traces back to the Teutonic people during the Middle Ages. The two words have completely different and separate origins." For these people, we have two comments. Number one, we have already shown that the Teutonic people applied this title to their own heathen worship. How can we in good conscience say, "Well, there’s nothing wrong with taking this title used by heathens and applying it to the Heavenly Father"?

Secondly, would those who somehow adopt the mentality that the English "God" cannot in any way be identified with the Babylonian deity named "God" feel the same way about the word "Satan" or perhaps "Zeus"?

Let’s try another hypothetical situation: Let’s suppose that all your life you had been somehow shielded from the fact that the name of the devil is "Satan." You had referred to him as "Lucifer" and "the devil," but you had NEVER heard anyone refer to him as "Satan." In fact, in all the Bible translations you had read, every time you came to a specific Bible passage wherein he is referred to as "Satan," your translation rendered his name as "Lucifer" instead.

With this background information in mind, let us now suppose that the name you had been taught as belonging to the Creator is "Satan." All your life you had been accustomed to attending worship services wherein people were lifting their voices in song and in adoration, shouting, "Praise Satan!" In fact, you yourself were accustomed to praying to and praising the name "Satan"

Of course, however, the day finally came when someone approached you and tactfully informed you that "Satan" is in truth the name of the devil and NOT the name of the Creator. Stunned by this remark, you naturally asked for proof. Your informant then produced a "Strong’s Concordance" and a Hebrew-English Old Testament Interlinear Bible. To your utter amazement and shock, nearly every time the adversary is referred to by name in Scripture, he is called "Satan." The translators, you now discover to your stunned surprise, cloaked the true name of the Creator in favor of the name that in fact belongs to the devil! As for the name of the Creator, you learn for the first time in your life that His real name is pronounced "Yahweh."

But wait! There’s more! With this revelation reshaping your mind and your thought processes, you proceed to eliminate the name "Satan" from your vocabulary, except to acknowledge that it is the name of the adversary. Sadly, everyone around you seems unable to either accept or grasp this truth, as your friends, relatives and neighbors all continue to joyfully attend the Church of Satan, believing that when they pray to Satan they are praying to the Creator of the Universe. You and your new-found circle of believers, however, know this to be far from true, for you now recognize the extent of the deception so tenaciously perpetrated upon the inhabitants of this world.

But wait! There’s more! From within this circle of believers to which you now cling in fellowship emerges a man who advises you that, while it is true that "Satan" is not a proper name for the Creator, it is nevertheless a viable TITLE for Him. Besides, he insists, etymologists believe the English pronunciation "satan" and the Hebrew pronunciation "saw-tawn" are in fact totally unrelated words. Not only this, but the fact that "satan" means "adversary" can equally be applied either to Yahweh or to the devil, for Yahweh is indeed an adversary to those who defy Him and is even referred to as an adversary in the Bible. Thus, he reasons, even if this title means "adversary," it can properly be applied to the Creator. Therefore, he concludes, those who prefer to refer to Yahweh as "the Satan" are completely justified in so doing; in fact, this man encourages you to do the same. What should you do?

Are there enough similarities in the above "potential scenario" to allow you to understand what the authors are suggesting we do with the name/title "God"? "God" was/is the name of the Babylonian deity of fortune. This alone should cause bells and alarms to go off in our minds and red flags to start waving in our faces The pronunciation of this name/title, furthermore, was never once employed as a title for the Almighty by those inspired to write the Hebrew text of what we call "Scripture." More bells and alarms should be sounding, red flags waving like crazy.

Those who support use of the title "God" for the Creator are quick to justify it as not being entirely bad, as it is the name given to one of Yahweh’s prophets, not to mention one of the twelve tribes of Israel. They conveniently overlook the fact that Leah, in naming Zilpah’s son "God," uttered the Hebrew equivalent of "Good fortune!" (cf. Gen. 30:11, NIV, NRSV). We could debate long hours over whether or not this was truly an honorable name to give to one of Jacob’s sons, but for those searching for the "facts of the matter," here are some things to consider:

• Regardless of whether or not "God" was the name of a son of Jacob prior to its being known as the name of a false deity, the fact remains that it was indeed the name of a false deity long before the mind of man devised it as an acceptable name/title for the Creator of the universe. Unlike the titles "baal," "adonay" and "elohim," the title "God" does not originate with the worship of Yahweh. It was never a title ascribed to Him by those inspired to write what we recognize as the original Hebrew Scriptures.
• Leah, who gave Zilpah’s son the name "God," was herself born and raised in the very pagan household of Laban, who himself worshipped many idols (Gen. 31:19, 30). Could it be that she was raised believing in God, the deity of fortune? Yes, this is possible. The fact that the deity isn’t named until IsaYah 65:11 does not mean such a deity wasn’t worshipped by Laban and his household, and it is thus possible that Leah chose to employ this name as the name for Zilpah’s son. But even if this name was noble from the start, the fact would still remain that it later became corrupted BEFORE anyone so much as dreamed of using it as a title for Yahweh! Do we thus honor Yahweh by referring to Him with a title that squares with a tribe of Israel, yet later was attributed to a false deity? If we must refer to Him with a title that matches a name of one of the tribes of Israel, why not one with a more blessed history and meaning, such as "Simeon," which means "One who hears"? Or how about "Yahweh our Issachar" (reward)?
• Just because an individual is given a name commonly identified as the name of a pagan deity, this does not mean the individual is cursed and/or cannot be considered as worthy of service to Yahweh. Such is the case with the prophet Gad, and such is the case with a man named Apollos, mentioned in I Corinthians 3:5-6. We have no control over the names we are given at birth, and no Scripture precedents exist attesting to men taking it upon themselves to change their names. This prerogative seems to be reserved for Yahweh and His representatives. Conversely, however, it is prudent to note that there are no Scriptural precedents for men to take a name originally ascribed to a false deity and then apply that name as a title of Yahweh. Do we dare bestow upon ourselves an authority not even recognized by Yahweh’s servants of old?
• Many justify referring to Yahweh as "God" simply because, as mentioned above, "God" is the name of one of the twelve tribes of Israel. One man wrote, "I do not feel the argument that the word God is referring to the idol of fortune is based upon good etymological reasoning. One of the tribes of Israel was named Gawd or God long before the reference you refer to in the prophets (Is. 65:11). I do not hear any rebuke coming from the word of Yahueh for Leah naming her son this name."

Once again, isn’t it interesting that, of the individuals who mention a preference for the title "god" because it happens to be the name of one of Jacob’s sons, none of them selected any of the OTHER twelve tribes in their quest for an appropriate title for Yahweh? Why aren’t there folks out there calling upon "Yahweh our Dan" or "Yahweh our Reuben"? We know why and so do they. Only the tribe that goes by the pronunciation "gawd" has a name that squares perfectly with the name/title by which the majority of English-speaking peoples today refer to the Creator, and by referring to Yahweh as "our God," this will bring about more acceptance and consequently, more converts. The fact that "God" also just happens to be the name of a false Babylonian deity is just a minor blip on their screens. It is amazing what impact the art of compromise has on bringing in converts, all under the guise that "It can’t be wrong if Yahweh didn’t smite Jacob for allowing one of his sons to have that name!"

Now that we know and understand the truth about the title "God," let us return to our potential, hypothetical situation, only this time we can substitute the name/title "God" in place of "Satan" (along with a few minor variations). We have been taught that the name of our Creator is "God," and we have attended Churches of God where we have shouted, "Praise God!" We have since learned, to our amazement, that "God" is in fact NOT the name of the Creator, but the name of the Babylonian deity of fortune. Discovering His name as being Yahweh had a sobering effect on us, and we determined to call upon that name henceforth. Nevertheless, we had to sadly accept the fact that our friends, neighbors and relatives do not share our zeal for Yahweh’s name. Instead, they continue to joyfully worship in their churches of God, praising the name/title "God." Now, however, we are approached by men claiming to be servants of Yahweh who maintain that, while "God" is not a proper name for the Creator, there is nothing inherently wrong with applying it as a title for Him. In fact, they reason, no etymologist can be produced to prove the contention that the English name/title "God" is connected with the name of the Babylonian deity of fortune. Therefore, they conclude, those who prefer to refer to Yahweh as their "God" are completely justified in so doing; in fact, these men encourage us to do the same. What should we do?

As we consider the above, let us now return to the point made by Mr. George and Mr. Soto on page 32 of their treatise. In accordance with their claim, we agree that what makes a word "clean" or "unclean" is NOT the mere existence of the word itself, but the "THEOLOGICAL CONCEPT" intended by the individual speaking. While we agree with this point, we must add to it an item that needs to be factored into the equation When the "individual speaking" learns that the word he has been using all his life traces back to having been the name of a pagan deity long before men chose to apply it to our Heavenly Father, what does this do to his "Theological concept"? Shouldn’t it turn it upside down? Shouldn’t his "Theological concept" of the word "God" be totally rearranged to the point that he dumps it altogether?

Consider also the dangers of adopting the mentality that words can only be determined as ‘clean’ or ‘unclean’ based upon the ‘Theological concept’ of the individual speaking the words. Doesn’t this reasoning open the door for us to admit that "anything goes"? The concept of "clean" or "unclean" words becomes user defined, not culture defined and certainly not Yahweh defined! As George Gabler wrote us in an e-mail dated 09/21/00,

"It should be pointed out that their basic argument is that the use of language is user defined. This presents a problem in interpreting the Scriptures because it undermines YAHWEH’S original intent. If the user, or present day terminology, has redefined any portion of the language, in this case the name ‘God,’ the original intent is obscured or lost."

And what is the original intent of the word "God"? In fact, what is the original intent of verses such as Exodus 23:13, wherein we are commanded not to speak the names of heathen deities? Not only do people speak such names, they apply one as a title for Yahweh!

Dale George and Silvio Soto conclude Part One of their article on pages 32-33. Shown below is the final paragraph of Part I, as found on page 33:

"We must reconsider our positions anew. We should never forget that while it was NOT a sin for Israel to refer to Yahweh and Yahshua by their divinely appointed Hebrew titles, IT WAS CERTAINLY A SIN TO REFUSE TO ADDRESS THEM BY THEIR TITLES! Inspiration did NOT grant Israel the personal choice of determining if they were going to acknowledge these divine titles. It was NOT a matter of liberty, but one of moral obligation, as it was their solemn duty to accept, promote, and proclaim the divine titles which Inspiration had revealed had been appointed to both Yahweh and Yahshua!

Anything short of this could only constitute willful rebellion and sin!! The Bible leaves no room to doubt this was most certainly the case."

In the paragraph preceding the one shown above, the authors write, "In the process, we have developed a doctrinal practice where we belittle, deny, or refuse to acknowledge the importance Inspiration gives to the divinely appointed titles of Yahweh and Yahshua. In short, we have stripped the Father and the Son of the glory and honor that the titles ‘elohim’ and ‘adonay’ are intended to convey! This is nothing short of heresy!!"

We reply (as we have replied before): These same authors elsewhere acknowledge (p. 41, et al) that "elohim" and "adonay" can be translated, which my family and I are pleased to do. We therefore wonder, "What exactly is the problem?"

As we close our critique of Part One of the article "The Truth Regarding Inspired Titles," we would like to insert George Gabler’s concluding comments on this section of the treatise:

"The authors have consistently read into scripture a greater importance attributed to sacred titles than actually exists. Many titles are ignored, showing the gross inconsistency of their theory. And the admission that English [translations] may be used undercuts the hypocrisy of the entire premise. While certain titles are used, some profusely, there is no condemnation for not using a ‘title.’ However, if using [a title] were a requirement, then refusing would be explained as a punishable offense. It isn’t! As I just explained, there is a difference between being morally obligated and a matter of law. Since by their own admission it is not a matter of law, it could not be a sin, because sin is lawbreaking. Without a law, there is no sin."

End of Installment Six

Please excuse us for pausing for two days before sending our final installments on this issue, as our practice is to not log on our computer on the Sabbath day. With Yom Kippur coming the day after the Sabbath, this means we will not be able to send our final installment(s) until Sunday evening. Please feel free to use these two days not only for worship and fellowship, but also for reviewing our perspective as presented thus far. We thank everyone for being so patient as to allow us to completely present our position before responding. Once our final installment has been sent and read, we invite questions and comments. May Yahweh’s blessings be with all, and especially with Darrell Whitfield’s father, who has undergone heart surgery.—Larry Acheson