The question frequently is asked by those who are contemplating becoming a child of God, “How much do I have to know in order to become a Christian?” Some feel like they have to know virtually every detail in the Bible before submitting to the Savior to get rid of sin in their lives. Others believe they need every question under the Sun answered before becoming a Christian. Some want to know about the origin of the races. Others want to know whether or not there is life on other planets. The Bible, however, never indicates that for one to become a Christian, he has to know every detail about every book in the Bible, or that a person has to be able to answer every question that arises. But what, if anything, is necessary for a person to know before becoming a disciple of Christ?
First, an individual contemplating his spiritual life must understand that the reason there is even something for him to do is because he has sinned. Everyone who has reached the level of mental maturity (sometimes referred to as “the age of accountability”) so that he or she understands what sin is (cf. 1 John 3:4; 5:17), has sinned (Romans 3:10,23; 1 John 1:8). [The one exception, of course, was Jesus—1 Peter 2:22.] Sin is that which separates man from God (Isaiah 59:1-2). For a person to be saved, he first must have knowledge that he is a sinner, and as such stands in a lost condition. One of the reasons Jesus condemned certain Jewish priests, elders, and sects was because they did not admit their sinfulness after hearing the preaching of John the baptizer (Matthew 21:31-32)—though the tax collectors and harlots (i.e., sinners) did acknowledge their sin, and believed.
Second, the one who aspires to become a Christian must know something about Jesus—the One Who came to save us from our sins (Luke 19:10; John 3:16; Romans 5:6-8). A person does not have to know every one of Jesus’ parables, or be able to quote the Sermon on the Mount, but he must know that Jesus is the Son of God Who died and was raised so that all men might have their sins forgiven and live eternally with Him in heaven (Titus 2:11-14; Hebrews 2:9). In other words, before becoming a Christian, a person must have heard the Gospel (Good News) of Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:1-4).
Finally, the individual who aspires to become a child of God must realize there is something for him to do (cf. Acts 2:38; 16:30; 8:36). If one understands that the Bible says he must believe that Jesus is the Son of God (John 8:24), repent of his sins (Luke 13:3,5), confess that Jesus is God’s Son (Romans 10:10), and be baptized for the remission of his sins (Acts 2:38), he or she then possesses enough knowledge to put on Christ in baptism (Galatians 3:27) and become a Christian, being added by God to the church that Christ established (Acts 2:47; Matthew 16:18; Romans 16:16).
Contrary to the belief of some, a person who desires to become a Christian does not have to know the whole Bible thoroughly before he takes action. Nor is there a need to have every question imaginable answered. The Ethiopian eunuch heard one Christ-centered lesson from Philip before asking, “What hinders me from being baptized” (Acts 8:35-36)? The three thousand on Pentecost heard only one Gospel sermon before accepting the grace of God and obeying the plan of salvation (Acts 2:41). They did not wait around for years, thinking they were not knowledgeable enough to be followers of Christ. Rather, they were convinced of their sins (Acts 2:37), heard the Gospel, believed it, and obeyed it. It is after one becomes a Christian that God commands us a person to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ”(2 Peter 3:18), and to continue to study the Word in order to teach others (Hebrews 5:12; 1 Peter 3:15).
REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.
It is very common today to hear people say something like, “We just need to preach Jesus and not trouble each other with the Bible’s peripheral teachings.” Or, “We mustn’t get caught up in the details, just in Jesus.” Oftentimes, such things are said in an attempt to avert controversy. “Since all professed Christians believe in Jesus, but not all are united upon His doctrine, let’s just talk about Jesus, and leave the secondary issues alone.”
One of these alleged “secondary” or “peripheral” teachings that frequently is avoided in religious discussions is that of baptism. Since so much controversy has been “caused” by this subject through the years (e.g., Are we to immerse or sprinkle? Should we baptize infants? Is baptism really necessary for salvation?), some believe we can, and should, “teach Jesus” to the lost world, and somehow bring them to Christ, without ever introducing the doctrine of baptism. This may sound like a good idea to some, but we must ask, “Is this a biblical idea?” Did the apostles, prophets, preachers, and teachers of the first century have this mindset? Did they distinguish between “preaching Jesus” and “preaching baptism”?
In Acts 8:26-40, we read how the Spirit of God instructed Philip to approach a non-Christian from Ethiopia, a man of great authority under Candace, queen of the Ethiopians. When Philip came near the Ethiopian eunuch, he sat beside him, and, beginning at Isaiah 53, “preached Jesus to him” (vs. 35). Now, if Philip had the mindset of some twenty-first-century Bible teachers, his preaching would have been limited to only the “central truths” about Jesus (e.g., His death, burial, and resurrection; His deity; etc.). The very next verse, however, indicates that Philip’s preaching of “Jesus” must have included preaching on the importance of baptism, for the Bible indicates that the eunuch asked, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” (vs. 36). From this one question, we learn that Philip had to have instructed the eunuch previously concerning the necessity of water baptism. Respected Bible scholar J.W. McGarvey commented on this verse, saying,
He [the Ethiopian—EL] had learned not only that there was such an ordinance, but that it was the duty and the privilege of men to observe it when properly prepared for it. He also desired to be baptized, and his only question was whether he was a suitable candidate. As he had known nothing of Jesus as the Christ up to the moment of Philip’s preaching to him, he had certainly learned nothing definite concerning the baptism which Jesus had ordained; and we are consequently forced to the conclusion that what he now knew he had learned from Philip’s preaching(n.d., pp. 157-158).
Indeed, Philip included baptism in his preaching of Jesus. Unlike some preachers today, there was no hesitation about meshing Jesus and baptism together. Why would there be? After all, Jesus stressed the necessity of baptism before His ascension into heaven (Matthew 28:18-20; cf. Mark 16:15). Peter commanded those who heard him preach on Pentecost to “repent and be baptized” (Acts 2:38). Philip had preached it among the Samaritans (Acts 8:12-13). And it was a part of the lesson Ananias taught Saul (Acts 22:16). As H. Leo Boles once wrote, “No inspired preacher of the gospel then preached Jesus without preaching the baptism that Jesus commanded; no gospel preacher today can preach Jesus without preaching the command to be baptized” (1941, p. 138). Amen.
REFERENCES
Boles, H. Leo (1941), Commentary on Acts of the Apostles (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).
McGarvey, J.W. (no date), New Commentary on Acts of Apostles (Delight, AR: Gospel Light)
REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.
Dan Barker, the ex-preacher who deconverted to atheism, is most famous for his book Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist. In this treatise against God and religion, Barker discussed a book that he wrote for children that contained these words: “No one can tell you what to think. Not your teachers. Not your parents. Not your minister, priest, or rabbi. Not your friends or relatives. Not this book. You are the boss of your own mind. If you have used your own mind to find out what is true, then you should be proud! Your thoughts are free!” (1992, p. 47). Noble sentiments indeed!
But, as one digs deeper into Barker’s book, it quickly becomes clear that those sentiments do not find a willing practitioner in the person of Dan Barker. In his chapter on prayer, Barker wrote:
Don’t ask Christians if they think prayer is effective. They will think up some kind of answer that makes sense to them only. Don’t ask them, tell them: “You know that prayer doesn’t work. You know you are fooling yourself with magical conceit.” No matter how they reply, they will know in their heart of hearts that you are right (1992, p. 109, emp. in orig.).
From Barker’s statement about what should be “told” to those who believe in prayer, it is easy to see that he does not necessarily believe his previous statement that “no one can tell you what to think,” or that a person should use his own mind “to find out what is true.” In fact, what Barker is really trying to say is that a person should only think for himself if such thinking will lead him to believe that there is no God, or that prayer does not work, or that all religion is nonsense. If thinking for himself leads a person to believe in the efficacy of prayer or the existence of God, then that person should be “told” what to believe.
In truth, the Bible demands that each person weigh the evidence for himself or herself. First Thessalonians 5:21 states: “Test all things; hold fast what is good.” Among those things that should be tested are the writings of skeptics like Barker. When blatant inconsistencies pepper their pages like so many spots on a Dalmatian, then those writings should not be “held fast.”
REFERENCE
Barker, Dan (1992), Losing Faith In Faith—From Preacher to Atheist (Madison, WI: Freedom from Religion Foundation).
REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.
One of the most frequent nouns in the Hebrew Bible is God’s personal name, “Yahweh.” Found approximately 6,800 times in the Hebrew Bible—more than any other proper noun—it serves as the central identifier of the covenant God of Israel. Yet, despite its frequency, it remains one of the most misunderstood and debated terms in biblical studies. Rendered variously as “the Lord” (note the small caps), “Jehovah,” or simply “the Name,” this term offers a profound window into the ancient Hebrew understanding of God’s nature and presence. In this article, we will explore how the original ancient Hebrew scribes showed reverence for the name of God and survey modern speculations on what the name “Yahweh” means.
Distortions of the Name
As important as the name of God is, there are distortions of it in the popular imagination. One example is the “Yahweh meme” that continues to circulate on social media (see Figure 1). This meme is sometimes captioned with the notion that the word “Yahweh” is onomatopoetic and represents the act of breathing. Hence, the inhale (“yah”) and the exhale (“weh”) proclaim God’s name with every breath. Such an assertion sounds powerful and can even be correlated with Scripture, for God indeed gives breath to all living things (e.g., Genesis 2:7; Isaiah 42:5). Unfortunately, the claim is fallacious. No ancient interpreter ever claimed it, and the theory has no linguistic credibility. Apparently, an overeager rabbi is responsible for the notion. “Yahweh” is not an onomatopoetic representation of breathing.
Figure 1: A version of the “yah-weh” breathing meme
An older and better-known distortion of the name “Yahweh” is the made-up word “Jehovah.”1 Though reverent in intent, the word was created in an effort to combine the Masoretic Ketiv (“what is written”) and the Qere (“what is read”). To explain, out of reverence for the divine name, Jewish readers avoided pronouncing “Yahweh” aloud, substituting instead the term ‘adonai (“my Lord”). This substitution became traditional and is still practiced in Jewish reading custom today. In the Middle Ages, Christian transliterators thought it would be a good idea to take the consonants of Yahweh—in Latin “JHVH”—and add the vowels of ‘adonai, thereby creating (with slight modifications) the word “Jehovah.”The earliest known use of “Jehovah” dates to 1381, and the term gained currency in the English-speaking world through translations such as the King James Version (1611) and the American Standard Version (1901). By contrast, the English Standard Version (2001) and the New American Standard Bible (2020) never use the word “Jehovah.”
Reverence for the Name
In Scripture
The sanctity of the divine name is a major biblical theme. The third commandment in Exodus 20:7 declares, “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain” (ESV). The prohibition is not merely about speech but about bearing (nāśā’) the name of Yahweh in a way that misrepresents or fails to respect His character. God’s name is bound to His reputation and covenantal presence among His people.
The gravity of misappropriating the name is further illustrated by the man who curses the name (Leviticus 24:10-16). Those who heard the curse were required to testify and participate in the execution, thereby bearing witness and upholding the holiness of God’s name. This explains that words absolutely matter, and that cursing the divine name was tantamount to assaulting God. On the positive side, Deuteronomy 12:3-5 commands Israel to seek “the place that the Lord your God will choose…to put his name.” This shows that God’s “name” signifies more than a moniker by which He is known. On the contrary, the name represents His very presence and authority. Therefore, when the people of Israel honor God and His sanctuary, they honor His name. The biblical reverence for the name of God reflects an attitude transmitted through the generations.
In the Dead Sea Scrolls
Reverence for the divine name continued and intensified in later Jewish tradition, as the Dead Sea Scrolls attest. The ancient biblical manuscripts from Qumran preserve fascinating differences in the ways they represent the name “Yahweh.” Some scribes simply write the name of God in square, Aramaic characters no different from the rest of the words in the manuscript. For example, the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa) represents the divine name in the standard script (see Figure 2).
Figure 2: The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa) (http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/)
Other Hebrew manuscripts intentionally designate the name of God by using a different script. There is some evidence that the original scribe would leave a blank space where the name of God ought to appear. Perhaps a more senior scribe would then come along and write the name in Paleo-Hebrew letters. This practice was apparently intended to draw special attention to the name of God, indicating its sacredness in comparison with the other words in the text (see Figure 3).
A third way of representing the name of God in the Dead Sea Scrolls is the method simply called “tetrapuncta” (“four dots”). To avoid writing Hebrew letters altogether, some scribes replace the divine name with four large, distinct dots (see Figure 4). This writing method generally belongs to the non-biblical scrolls, but there are exceptions (some scrolls of Isaiah and Samuel use the tetrapuncta method).
Figure 4: 1QS (the Rule of the Community) (http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/)
Finally, some scribes wrote the term ‘adonai in place of the divine name YHWH in the text but add a marginal note or visual marker to note the change. This is the earliest example of the Ketiv-Qere method utilized by the later Masoretic scribes. With this method scribes transmitted accurately the text as “written” (ketiv) while signaling that a different term is to be “read” (qere). Perhaps this writing method suggests the custom of refusing to pronounce the name of God, encouraging the substitution of the word “Lord” instead (see Figure 5).
Figure 5: The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa) (http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/)
These variations seem to indicate a desire to preserve the sanctity of the divine name while also protecting the community from accidentally violating the commandment against misusing it. However, the scribes responsible for the Dead Sea Scrolls are not consistent in applying their methodology. For example, the Great Isaiah Scroll exemplifies multiple different methods of representing the name of God. Ultimately, we can observe the desire to highlight the name of God in a special way, but we cannot know exactly why the scribes did what they did.
The Greek Transliteration IAO (IAΩ)
With such reverence for the divine name, the earliest translators of the Bible faced a tremendous challenge: how does one render the name of God? The simplest method—still practiced by translators today—is to transliterate whatever words one cannot or does not wish to translate. At least one early translator of the book of Leviticus thus renders the divine name in Greek as ιαω (representing “yaw”) (see Figure 6).
Curiously, the divine name ιαω also appears frequently in the Greek magical papyri. These texts, composed by non-Hebrew speakers, suggest that the pronunciation of Yahweh’s name was known both inside and outside the Jewish community. The inclusion of the divine ΙΑΩ in incantations implies that the name was believed to carry special magical power even among pagan practitioners. While such usage is obviously indicative of a superstition contrary to biblical worship, it provides historical evidence that the name “Yahweh” was pronounced, at least among some Greek speakers. Thus, even in misappropriation, these sources testify to the enduring recognition of Yahweh’s name in its original form as a force to be deployed to one’s benefit.
The Meaning of the Name
So far, we have discussed respect for the name of YHWH, but it might be of interest to explore what the name means. Over time, interpreters proposed a range of possible meanings for YHWH, some drawn from related Hebrew roots.2
“To be”: the most popular hypothesis derives the name from the verb hāyāh, meaning “to be.” Some scholars have suggested that the name of God is a causative form of the verb “to be,” indicating “he who brings into being.”3 If this is correct, then the emphasis is on God’s power to create. Support for this option derives from a wordplay in Exodus 3:13-15. At the burning bush, a hesitant Moses asks for God to reveal His name, which provokes the response, “I am who I am,” or “I will be whom I will be.” Lest this seem like a dismissal of the question, God instructs Moses to tell the Israelites,“I am has sent me to you.” The divine name consists of the consonants yod-hey-waw-hey (יהוה), and the term “he is” yod-hey-yod-hey (יהיה), nearly identical. “I am” is simply the first-person form of the term, personalizing what God is (or will be) to Israel. He will be for them, always sustaining and supporting them by His abiding presence.4 The Septuagint supports this derivation, translating the phrase, “I am the one who is” (ἐγὼ εἰμὶ ὁ ὤν), emphasizing “being” rather than “becoming.” This philosophical rendering shaped later Christian theology, linking Yahweh’s identity with divine immutability and eternity. The derivation from “to be” (hāyāh) remains the most likely explanation.5
“To blow”: the same verbal root as YHWH possibly relates to the breath or spirit of God, but it rarely carries this meaning in Biblical Hebrew.
“To fall” or “to rain”: storm deities were always popular (cf. Baal), and some suggest YHWH is connected with rain which falls from heaven. It is unlikely that the biblical God would be described in such unidimensional terms.
“To destroy”: the same root refers to destruction, which could be connected to God’s power in judgment. However, this name would also signify a unidimensional God.
“To desire, to be passionate”: the same root could imply God’s zealous love for His people, but this root is rare in Biblical Hebrew.
Battle cry (“Yah!”): this term could possibly have been echoed in Israel’s war shouts through which invoking God’s name expressed dependence on His deliverance. The Bible leaves no example of this battle cry, thus rendering it highly unlikely as an explanation.
At the current state of evidence, we must admit that relating the name Yahweh to the verb “to be” is best, but other options exist, and it is impossible to be certain which is correct. The German theologian Walther Eichrodt aptly observes, “One can conclude…that in Israel people were less interested in the etymological interpretation of the name of God than in the concrete meaning it carried which was derived from elsewhere, namely, from historical manifestations of this particular deity’s power.”6
Conclusion
From the distortions of the divine name in modern times to the reverence shown in ancient times, from Moses’ burning bush encounter to the New Testament’s repeated identification of Jesus as Lord, the legacy of the name “Yahweh” stands as an enduring testament to the God who is and who acts. By drawing from the reception history of God’s name, we can be encouraged to avoid abstractions, oversimplifications, and irreverence. In so doing we learn to commune with the ancient people of faith who sought to preserve the sanctity of the name of God and be drawn deeper into our devotion to Him.
Endnotes
1 See Justin Rogers (2018), “Where Did ‘Jehovah’ Come From?” Reason & Revelation, 38[12]:134-136, December, apologeticspress.org/where-did-jehovah-come-from-5631/.
2 For a fuller discussion of the various possibilities, see the fine summary in Karel van der Toorn (1999), “Yahweh.” Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst (Leiden: Brill), pp. 910-919.
3 E.g., David W. Baker (2003), “God, Names of” in The IVP Dictionary of the Old Testament Pentateuch, ed. T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker (Downers Grove, IL: IVP), pp. 362.
4 Thomas B. Dozeman (2009), Exodus. Eerdmans Critical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), p. 134.
5 David Noel Freedman (1986), “יהוה, YHWH,” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, trans. David E. Green (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 5:513.
6 Walther Eichrodt (1933), Theologie des alten Testaments (Leipzig: Hinrichs), 1:91.
REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.
It is reported that Oscar Wilde, the British playwright, once said that there was enough suffering on any given street in London at any given time to prove that there is no God. For millennia, skeptics, agnostics, atheists, and infidels have pointed accusing fingers at the suffering in this world, and have demanded that such evil and pain militates against the concept of an all-powerful, all-loving God. Even Christians have been faced with faith-trying episodes of suffering in their lives. How could a loving God allow such bad things to happen to His human creations?
In this brief article, an in-depth study of that question cannot be undertaken (for an in-depth look at this topic, see Major, 1998). It is, however, the case that one small aspect of the problem can be presented: suffering in the lives of humans can lead them to establish a right relationship with their Creator. Consider Manasseh, the king of Judah, as a case in point. In 2 Kings 21, the Bible records that Manasseh “did evil in the sight of the Lord” (vs. 2). He “practiced soothsaying, used witchcraft, and consulted spiritists and mediums” (vs. 3). But his sins did not stop there; rather, he acted “more wickedly than all the Amorites who were before him” and “made Judah sin with his idols” (vs. 11). In addition, the text records that Manasseh “shed very much innocent blood, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another” (vs. 16). This evil king seemed to be rotten to the core, and beyond hope of turning to God.
Due to his sin, the Lord sent the army of Assyria to raid Judah. The Assyrians captured Manasseh and led him away with hooks (probably nose hooks) and bronze fetters to the land of Babylon. In this destitute condition, when Manasseh’s suffering was at its worst, the Bible records: “Now when he was afflicted, he implored the Lord his God, and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers, and prayed to Him; and He received his entreaty, heard his supplication, and brought him back to Jerusalem into his king. Then Manasseh knew that the Lord was God” (2 Chronicles 33:12-13, emp. added). Upon regaining the throne, Manasseh removed the idols and foreign gods and re-established worship of the one true God. Only through his “affliction” did Manasseh realize that he needed God.
So it is with many today. The cares of this world have a way of keeping people from contemplating their actual relationship with God. Yet, when suffering hits their lives, the real issues of life often come into much clearer focus. C.S. Lewis once wrote that pain was God’s “megaphone to rouse a deaf world.” David, the inspired psalmist, in a prayer to his God, wrote: “Before I was afflicted, I went astray, but now I keep Your word” (Psalm 119:67). It is a sad fact that some people never look up to God until they are laying flat on their backs. Do not be deceived into thinking that all suffering and pain is “useless.” On the contrary, “count it all joy when you fall into various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience”(James 1:2-3).
REFERENCES
Major, Trevor J. (1998), “The Problem of Suffering,” Reason & Revelation, 18:49-55, July.
REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.
