Unveiling the Name of Jesus: A Guide to Understanding the Jehovaistic Titles

By Dr. Adrian G. Haymond

Unveiling the Name of Jesus: A Guide to Understanding the Jehovaistic Titles explores the source of power behind the name given to Our Savior and King, Jesus the Christ, by analyzing some of the names and titles given to the God of the Old Testament. By comparing the purpose of these names with the attributes demonstrated by Jesus, the book demonstrates the equality of Christ with the Almighty God. Through the study of such aspects of God as His steadfastness, power, righteousness, authority, and his ability to provide for His own, the reader can compare the instances where God exhibited these attributes with the same qualities shown in Christ in His role as Savior and Redeemer. The resultant analysis by the author establishes the Deity of Christ and substantiates the claim that He indeed is truly the God of the Old Testament, as His name encompasses all the titles and names of God as written in the Scriptures. The believer in Christ can be fully assured of the power inherent in the name of Jesus, that it truly stands above every other name in heaven and on the earth.

• Language: English
• Publisher: AuthorHouse
• Release date: Oct 30, 2015
• ISBN: 9781504957892

Dr. Adrian G. Haymond

Adrian Garret Haymond was born in Los Angeles, California, on October 9, 1963, to Mr. and Mrs. Henry Haymond. At an early age, he developed an insatiable appetite for knowledge, reading from various informational literature at the age of six, including encyclopedias and, of course, the Bible. This search led him to salvation in the name of Jesus when he was eight, which only increased his thirst for the Word of God. Called to the ministry at twelve years of age, he began a journey under the tutelage of Jesus Christ, which would enable him to explore, research, and eventually embrace the doctrine under which he received his salvation. Adrian learned at the feet of several accomplished men of faith, including Elder I. V. Harris, Suffragan Bishop Joseph Dorsey, and Bishop Howard A. Swancy, who allowed and encouraged his ministry to grow and flourish. In July 1983, he met his lifelong friend and mate, Marcy Mitchell, whom he married in November 1986, eventually resulting in a miracle of life, Chris Haymond, in 1994. In the meantime, he received his secular education at UCLA and the University of Phoenix, eventually obtaining an MBA in 2002, while also attending Aenon Bible College under the leadership of Dr. Norma Jackson as dean of the West Coast Campus. In 2015, Adrian received his ThD from Aenon School of Theology and Bible College under the guidance of Dean Mary F. Jordan. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Adrian has served in various auspices of the ministry, including youth pastor (at Holy Mission Apostolic Church) and Sunday school superintendent (at Peace Apostolic Church), working both on the local level as well as with state leaders of the California District Council of the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World Inc. While serving as superintendent, the Lord impressed upon the mind of Adrian to create a treatise on the book of Revelation. The seeds of Revelation: An Apostolic Commentary were planted during his formative years, cultivated through years of study and research on Johannine prophecy and urged by what he saw as errant attempts at deciphering what many saw as a mysterious and frightening book. In Revelation: An Apostolic Commentary, Adrian presents a refreshing view of what John the Apostle saw as a message of hope in an increasingly darkened world, giving encouragement to his audience that God will eventually overcome the evil that is in this world and reward those who diligently seek him. Currently, Adrian continues in his capacity as superintendent; he also serves as an instructor for Aenon School of Theology and Bible College and has conducted Christian education seminars for various organizations and church groups. Other accomplishments include two-time State Bible Bowl Champion at the California District Council, participation in the Leadership Academy at the University of California, Irvine, and president of Zotspeak Toastmasters for the 2014–15 year. He is a family man happily married to his wife of almost twenty-nine years, and he is a devoted father, uncle, brother and Great Uncle/Grandpa to numerous nieces, nephews, and godchildren. He has no inclination of stepping away from the faith that God endued him over forty years ago.

Book preview

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

A common connotation of Oneness among its critics is that it denies either the humanity or the deity of one or more aspects of the Godhead to account for the ascendancy of one of the three ‘legs’ (for lack of a better term). As Trinitarianism is accepted to be the best explanation for the character and nature of the Godhead, Oneness becomes distorted into various forms that, if accepted, would truly destroy the uniqueness of God. The Moody Handbook of Theology lists modalistic monarchianism, or Oneness, as related to the doctrine of Sabellianism, also equating it with Unitarianism. The New Cyclopedic Theological Dictionary elaborates on these definitions by first describing Sabellianism as a belief in which three successive manifestations, each appropriate (Father, Son and Spirit) in its own time, ceases when its time of revelation ends, and then defining Unitarianism as the belief that God is only one person, with Jesus Christ being merely human and not divine. Another misconceived notion of Oneness is Patripassianism, which holds that the Father not only became incarnate, but suffered and died, which is in direct contrast to the words of Jesus Himself, who declared God to be a Spirit (John 4:24). Paul reconfirms the concept of God as Spirit as he reveals liberty through the Spirit (II Corinthians 3:17)

To answer these arguments, Oneness does entail the concept of modalistic monarchianism, which presents God as revealing Himself through modes that can be classified as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, depending upon the context in which He chooses to be manifested. Unlike Sabellianism, modalistic monarchianism does not by necessity invalidate the existence of one with the existence of the other modes. In other words, one can see the Creator at work in nature, experience the salvation given by the Son, and feel the Spirit moving and guiding in daily life. Hence, the manifestation of one mode does not preclude the existence of the others. In addition, the existence of one Person is buttressed by such manifestations, as God appears as He should be to meet the needs of whatever the situation calls for. Perhaps David Bernard, in his book The Oneness of God, says it best when he defines modalistic monarchianism as emphasizing the undivided unity and sovereignty of God.

Also, Oneness holds that Jesus is not only human, but divine, the two diverse elements of His nature merging into one inseparable entity that by its very nature allowed the miraculous event of salvation to take place. While His humanity allowed the Son to die on the cross, and therefore become the perfect Sacrifice, His deity called for His resurrection from the grave, destroying the power of death and empowering us with the hope of everlasting life (I Corinthians 15:12-22, 54-57). In the book Truth Shall Triumph, Ralph Reynolds not only presents the necessity of the substitutionary death of Christ (in His humanity), but also brings forth the validation of His death by His resurrection, stating unequivocally that Jesus Christ is both human and divine. This refutes the charge that Oneness doctrine holds similar to Unitarianistic beliefs.

To encapsulate, Oneness belief shows that while the manifestation of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit continue together unto this present day, the various dispensations in which God deals with man leads us to conclude that He reveals himself to His creation by various titles, specific for the needs of the situation involved. For instance, Abraham needed God in a different sense than Moses did (Genesis 17:1, Exodus 3:14). More recently, the apostles and the believers of today need God to act upon mankind in a way that differs markedly from what the older patriarchs required. While the sacrifices of the altar certainly pointed the way to Jesus the Messiah, God dealt with the people according to His promise to Abraham or His law dispensed through Moses. In contrast, today God deals with us through the atoning blood of the Son. As a result, the type of truth that would be revealed to a prophet or seer in the Old Testament would not suffice for today’s believer; and what has been given to us could not help the seeker of truth in the time of David or Ezekiel. In His wisdom, God reveals Himself according to what is required at the time, and through His wisdom, the plan of salvation and deliverance is presented to us through the dispensations of innocence, conscience, human government, promise, law, grace, and the coming millennial kingdom.

What’s in a name?

Central to the Oneness belief is the importance given to the name of Jesus as the revealed name of God for the dispensation in which we currently live in. In the world of today, a name’s chief (and mostly its only) function is to set a person, place or thing apart from another, serving to identify a specific item or person for a particular purpose. However, in Biblical times, a name had a much deeper meaning. According to Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, there was a vital connection between the name of a person and the person identified by that name. The name can represent a host of attributes, including (but not limited to) a person’s desired characteristics as earmarked by the parents, the circumstances surrounding a child’s birth, the place where the child was born, a parent’s relationship with God, or the child’s appearance. Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible adds that in some cases, a name is given based on the supposed destiny of the child, such as the name Moses meaning ‘draw out’ - as Moses eventually was the tool God used to draw His people out of bondage in Egypt. Certainly a name to the parents of Joshua and Caleb meant more than to the parents of today’s children.

As circumstances developed, the names of certain individuals in the Bible were changed to more closely reflect the purpose and destiny of the person being named. For instance, Abram’s name was changed to Abraham (as well as Sarai’s to Sarah) to underscore the exaltation of both parents’ future purpose in God’s plan, a plan that not only involved their descendants, but also the welfare of the entire world (Genesis 17:5-8,15-16). Later on, Abraham’s grandson had his name changed to reflect his destiny as prince of God’s chosen people. While most people know this individual as Jacob, his new name lives on in a nation that has repeatedly confounded the ages, continuing to retain its distinct identity even when all others of its time have either fully assimilated into the culture of the prevailing powers of the time, or were exterminated through warfare or ill times. Truly, no nation has proved to be such a puzzle of perseverance and survival than Israel, named after the younger son of Isaac who was first designated ‘supplanter’ (Genesis 35:10-12). In the New Testament, Simon the brother of Andrew was renamed Peter by the Lord Jesus Christ, who understood the disciple’s role as the steadfast apostle who preached at Pentecost, the other disciples standing with him (Matthew 16:15-19).

Changing of names was not limited to people. Places were also changed, as Bethel (‘house of God’) was before named Luz (Genesis 28:19), and Jebus became what we know as Jerusalem (Judges 18:20). This should not surprise us, as streets, towns and even entire nations have changed names to illustrate current ideologies, persons in power, or changes in culture. Therefore, St. Petersburg becomes Leningrad and back to St. Petersburg, Rhodesia morphs into Zimbabwe, and various streets, schools, freeways and other major structures in the United States are renamed after famous personages, including presidents, inventors, generals, sports figures and influential civil rights leaders. Sports teams change their names due to political and social pressure, to better address their constituency, or through legal necessity. And individuals have legally had their name changed as a sign of religious conversion, a new attitude about life, a heightened awareness of their status and assumed purpose, or to rid themselves of painful situations experienced earlier in their lives. Perhaps we find that names mean much more to us than we realize.

The names of God

As the names of people or places have changed throughout the years, so has the name by which our Creator and Maker has revealed Himself. In this case, the One who changes the name is God Himself, the reason being to show forth His identity in the most effective way possible, either to an individual or to a group, for a particular point in time or for an epoch or age. Anyone who truly understands the role that God plays in the lives of those who worship and love Him realizes that He can fulfill one’s every need and supplication. God can be everything and IS everything to those who wait on Him and follow His word. Paul alluded to this very characteristic when he gave honor to the One who can do ‘exceeding abundantly, above all that we ask or think’ (Ephesians 3:20). Still, the mind of man has an extremely difficult time grasping concepts that speak of qualities without boundaries, such as omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience, eternity and infinity. Conceiving of One that cannot be seen, with unquantifiable prerogatives and characteristics, takes a degree of faith that many just can’t seem to bear. Describing God in anthropomorphic terms illustrates man’s attempts to describe Him in ways that can be understood. Using terms such as ‘right hand’, ‘eyes’, ‘hind parts’, and ‘ears’ conveys God’s strength, perception, position and ability to hear, but should not be taken as proof that God does or does not have such items as eyes, ears and other parts and organs that would seem natural to the human anatomy. The same care must be taken to attribute God’s actions as one who has ‘feathers’ or ‘wings’ - for protection or strength - without actually ascribing such organs to His person. Nevertheless, these descriptions of God show the listener how He can fill the needs of His people in a variety of ways, and in methods unfathomable for us to understand fully. Therefore, one person may see His ‘right hand’ as strength and position, while another focuses on his ‘feathers’ that comfort and protect from those who would try to harm.

These same types of descriptions can be applied to the names through which God has revealed Himself. For instance, to Abraham, God was identified as El Shaddai Adonai, the Lord God Almighty who reigns over all and who towers over any self-proclaimed power. For Moses, God revealed himself by the tetragrammaton YHWH, or Yahweh, the I AM THAT I AM, or ‘I am He who exists’, conveying two ideas; 1) that no one created God and at no time was there a moment without the existence of God, and 2) He will be whatever His people need Him to be. For David, who lived a hardened existence as a shepherd tending his father Jesse’s sheep, God was the Shepherd that provides protection, sustenance and peace for him. Isaiah saw Him high and lifted up, with His train filling the temple, therefore alluding to His majesty and holiness. Each description is at once absolutely correct and incomplete, for separately they portray a small part of the mosaic that is the Almighty God. At the same time, each description suffices for those who require His manifestation to them. For each portrait, embodied by the name in which He revealed Himself, although not complete, more than satisfies the wants and needs of the subject in mind. While each name may only suggest a part of God, His revelation was and is enough to bring His people through whatever trial they must face unto a closer relationship with the caring Father.

Jesus and the names

When a little child was born of a virgin in the city of Bethlehem, a new name was given, prophesied so clearly by the prophet Isaiah. Whereas most Christians have read the account given in Isaiah 9:6, where the child would be called Wonderful, Counselor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father and the Prince of Peace, it was also stated in another prophecy by the same prophet that the name of this child would be Immanuel (or Emmanuel - Isaiah 7:14), meaning ‘God with us’. The Gospels record this as equating this name with Jesus, which in essence brings forth a salient point - that Jesus the Christ is God with us. Not merely a theophany or an image, but the very person of God somehow wrapped in a human body in a manner never before accomplished and most likely never to be done again. This conclusion must by necessity lead to another, a conclusion that involves the very name of Jesus.

Perhaps the name of Jesus was already being used to some extent in New Testament times as a transliteration of the Hebrew Joshua (Jeshua, Jehoshua). Surely proof exists of many who used in part the name of God in compound form for their own offspring. Many of the kings of Judah, including Jehoshaphat, Uzziah, Hezekiah, and others contain in their names some aspect of God, either with some form of Yahweh (or Yah) or Elohim (or El). However, combined with the pronouncement and identification of Emmanuel, this child of Mary, conceived of the Holy Ghost, carries a name that does not merely express the wishes of the parent, but describes exactly who this child is. For Jesus means literally Jehovah is salvation and as God, He came down to save according to Isaiah 63:5. Because He came to accomplish what He set out to do (provide salvation to the world), His name becomes the only name under heaven by which mankind must be saved (Acts 4:12), and the name under which every knee must bow (Philippians 2:10).

So what does this have to do with the Old Testament names through which God revealed Himself to the holy men of old? This book will endeavor to illustrate that each name used by God in the Old Testament pointed to the name of Jesus in its fulfillment. Each aspect that God reveals by a particular name becomes fully represented in Christ, either directly through the application of salvation in its various forms, or through the actions of Jesus either as the humble Servant-man or the King of kings that can be claimed as a result of His sacrifice - again pointing to salvation. Not only does the earlier titles and names of God point to the perfect Man and the risen Savior, but they also confirm the pre-existence of Jesus as God in His role as Father-Creator, as well as His eternal station as Alpha and Omega. When one considers the relationship of each revealed name of God with the name of Jesus, proof builds upon proof that the best way this can fit as an interlocking puzzle remains to consider and eventually conclude that Jesus Christ is not merely the second Person of the Godhead, but the express image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15) as well as the Lord Almighty who commands our worship and honor. We do not dissolve the Father or place the Spirit in a subservient role. Instead, the exaltation of Jesus lifts both the Father and the Spirit to a place where each position shares equal billing, equal importance, and equal respect. For the same Person is more than able and willing to fill all three roles simultaneously, while doing justice to each.

The names of God mentioned and compared in this book are by no means an exhaustive list. Truly there are many titles and attributes of God in the Old Testament that have their parallel in our risen Savior, but the intent here is not to provide the reader with all titles, names or prerogatives of God. Instead, the intent of this book is to list and compare enough names of God with the deeper meaning of the name Jesus to buttress the case of Christ being not only the God-man, but also the only Person of the Godhead. This makes the Father and the Spirit no less real, but it exalts the name of Jesus as Paul declares (Philippians 2:9). Indeed, whatever we do, ask or think, we are to do it all in the name of Jesus (Colossians 3:17), for in His name are all the prerogatives of the Old Testament titles of God. Under the umbrella of salvation, God demonstrates His power, love, presence, wisdom, strength, immutability, eternality, peace - for it took all of these qualities to save a cursed race from itself and to reconcile man back to Him. As a result, it appears only fitting that the name God would use for mankind today reflects all of which salvation entails. That name, in a nutshell, is Jesus.

CHAPTER 2

ELOHIM (GOD)

The beginning of the Bible immediately introduces God as a foregone conclusion, as though it would be foolish not to believe otherwise. No narrative is given as to how God came into being, no story of what took place that led to this point. The reader is left to reason that God has always been since the beginning, and there can be no conception of a time within the confines of eternity when God never was. The Hebrew word used in Genesis 1:1, elohim, is mistaken by many as evidence of a plurality of persons when such was never in the though of the Hebrew writers that ascribed this title to Him. Where it applied to the gods of the Canaanites, the Babylonians, the Egyptians or the other heathen nations around, such a description of plurality would be apt and appropriate. When it comes to God, however, the noun occurs with modifiers such as ‘holy’ or ‘righteous’ that clearly mark the usage in the singular.

Is elohim a name?

It appears that the intent of the Hebrew writers, in ascribing the name elohim, was not to give it a clear distinction, but rather to describe the overall position of the Almighty; that is, the Deity above all. As it was used in reference to the deities worshipped in lands encircling Israel, it seems that should be all is necessary, that elohim is as much a name of God as ‘boy’ is to a young male, ‘dog’ is to a tongue-wagging canine, and ‘book’ is to what one is reading at this present time. In The Name of the One True God, Gordon Mallory presents the case of elohim being a common name for deity, and therefore not a name in the same aspect as we would think of specifying a particular being. While this is certainly true in a strict sense, it does not