God s Titles Not Restricted To One Language

Transcription

1 TRACT 11 God s Titles Not Restricted To One Language V. T. Houteff

2 Titles Not Restricted To One Language Question: Is it not a fact that the Bible translators changed the Creator s original Hebrew names (Elohim, Jehovah, El, Elahh, Elowahh, Bethel, and Tsur) to the names of Baal (God, Lord, etc.)? And if the Creator s names actually are Elohim, Yahovah et al., and if God, Lord, etc., are the names of the pagan gods, why, then, do we call Him by the latter? Answer: For the sake of correct and consistent understanding in referring to the words under discussion, we call the reader s attention to the self-evident fact that the various Hebrew words termed by the questioner as the Creator s original names, all being designative of some aspect or attribute of Divine nature or character, are therefore not names, but titles, of the Creator. Only the name Jehovah appears to be His Proper Name; therefore we shall herein treat it separately from the titles. In order to find the truth of this important two-fold question, we go back, not merely to the beginning of the Hebrew nation, but to the very beginning of all nations; that is, to 2

3 The Root of the Matter. We find that when God created mankind, and originated religious worship, He stated to His created beings His titles, in the language of Eden. Later, as sin entered, and as the people multiplied and wickedness increased, and as it continued even after the flood, God s anger against them for building the Tower of Babel caused Him to confound the language of all the earth, and to create out of it the languages of the nations. At that time, the original titles of God were given to the people in their respective tongues; because the titles of God, in a tongue foreign to the understanding of the nations, would have had no meaning to them. As their sins caused a still greater widening of the gulf between God and people, they, in protest, to satisfy their hearts desire for a visible God, made to themselves Idols, Named With The Divine Titles. Rather than give the idols names originated specifically for them, the makers honored them with the Divine titles in order to make it appear that the idols were the figures of God, a fabrication which is conclusively borne out by such manifest evidences as that the word, Elah, a Hebrew title of the Deity, is used by the Turks for the name of their god; that the word, Tsur, another Hebrew title of the 3

4 Deity, is used by the Russo-Slavic peoples as the title of their kings; and that Elohim is used in many cases of the gods of the heathen, who included in the same title the God of the Hebrews, and denoted generally the Deity when spoken of (sic) a supernatural being. Dictionary of the Bible, Smith, definition Jehovah. From these evidences, we see clearly that the names of the idols are, in fact, not the names of the idols, themselves, but the titles of God. Therefore, to restrict our address of Him to one language the Hebrew just because His titles in other tongues were once used in honor of idols, forces the conclusion that the idol-gods of the heathen have defeated God the Creator by robbing Him of His titles! What a forbidding thought! Hence, if we must attach more sacredness to letters expressing Deity in any one language more than in another, it should be Only In the Language of Eden or In All Alike. If from the beginning till today the whole earth was of one speech (Gen. 11:1), and had the day never dawned when the Lord did confound the language of all the earth (Gen. 11:9), then only could God s worshipers address Him in the language of Eden. But in view of the fact that from that hour to this, diversity and confusion of tongues have 4

5 been the linguistic lot of the human race, the Lord has never restricted His word to one universal medium of expression, but rather has accommodated it to all the peoples and multitudes and nations, and tongues of earth, thus accounting for The Different Titles of the Deity. The Jews called the expected Christ, Messiah but we who speak in English call Him the Anointed One, because in our language that is what the word, Messiah, means. The title Anointed One, is meaningless to a Hebrew, as is the title, Messiah, to an Englishman, unless the Englishman and the Jew speak both English and Hebrew, or else the words be interpreted to them in their respective tongues. Likewise is the case with the words, Elohim and God equivalents in their respective tongues. The multitudes of common people who speak English only, cannot intelligently address the Creator by a word foreign to the English language. For instance, when speaking of the One Who created all things, we necessarily must call Him by the English word, Creator, instead of by the Slavic word, Sutvaritel, or by the Greek word, Plasten. Thus, as it is proper in English to say Creator or Father, when addressing the One Who created all things, then, to be consistent, it must also be proper in English to call Him God, rather than to call Him by the Jewish title, Elohim. To the Jew, the words, Elohim, Elowahh, 5

6 Elahh, and El mean Mighty One, Creator, the same as the word, God, in common acceptation, means to the Anglo- Saxon; the word, Otheos, to the Greek; the word, Bog, to the Slav; Gott, to the German; Gud, to the Scandinavian; Dios, to the Spaniard, and Allah, to the Turk. Therefore the words Elohim and its variants God, Theos, Bog, Gott Gud, Dios, Allah, Lord and so on, are, loosely, counterparts in their respective languages, the general signification of all of them being, in a broad sense, the same as that of the English name, lord, which is a title of respect given to a husband, to a nobleman, to an owner, to a proprietor, or to a certain official personage. It is from this common acceptation of the words that both God and Lord are applied to the Deity, and no more from a point of proper name than with the word, Father. This is aptly illustrated by the front-page cut of Augustus Caesar. This great Roman ruler had as one of his exalted titles, the term Pontifex Maximus, because he was worshiped, in the Pagan system, as their visible God on earth. Later this title was assumed by the Pope of Rome. Thus it was done with God s titles by the Baal worshipers. Moreover, the statue of Augustus is not Augustus himself. It is only an idol of him, adored by men after they could no longer behold his living presence. 6

7 So this possibility of exclusive royal, and even sacred titles being used by envious persons or applied to images, is a practice which unfortunately has always existed, and there is nothing that can be done about it as long as men continue to violate the commandment which says: Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God. Ex. 20:4. All the generic terms, in the various languages, are designative of what God is, rather than of Who He is; in other words, these terms are the titles of His nature and character, rather than of His identity. Therefore, if they were not translated into the languages of the nations, they would be meaningless to the people. From the combined evidences herein of Scripture, history, philology, and logic, we see clearly that the words, God, Lord, et al., were not originally, nor ever exclusively, the names of Baal, or of any other idol. Consequently there is Nothing Wrong With God s Titles in any Language. Obviously, then, though the heathen used the term, god, when addressing their idols, as some use the title, father, for a 7

8 person who is not their father, yet in so doing, they thereby no more truly made any idol God, than they thereby truly made the titles of the true God, the titles of idols; no more, in fact, than do those who misuse the word, father, so pollute it that we now need to call our earthly parent by some other title. And if it still be protested that these different titles of the Deity are profane because idol-worshiping nations used them, then by the same token of logic, it must be protested also that their Jewish equivalents be even more profane, because of the more disgraceful and reprehensible idolatry of the Jews, who mockishly mouthed these titles of the true God, while they went after strange gods and killed His prophets, not even sparing His only begotten Son. The very fact that when the pagans accepted Christianity, the Spirit of Truth elevated to the Christian sense these misused titles of the Deity, He demonstrated thereby that God created nothing in vain, and that there are no other gods before Him. Now therefore those titles, instead of becoming anathema to us, should have a better standing than before, as the Prodigal had after his return to his father s house. The apostle recognized this, and therefore raised no objection when the disciples in Antioch called themselves by the Lord s name in their native tongue, Christians (Acts 11:26). 8

9 Furthermore, the fact that the apostle Paul under Inspiration declared God unto the heathen, not in the terms (Jehovah, Elohim, et al.) of his intelligence and informed faith, but in the terms (The Unknown God) of their ignorance and uninformed faith, shows that God accepted forms of address to Himself other than the Jewish names. On this point, as on all other points, we stand with the apostles and the prophets. And as the apostles were thus found worthy of having their names written on the foundations of the Holy City (Rev. 21:14), we shall in like manner be found worthy to enter in through the pearly gates (Rev. 21:21), if we, too, abstain from Irreverently Using the Lord s Proper Name. If God s proper name is Jehovah, then dare we His created beings, be so disrespectfully familiar as to address Him by His Proper Name, rather than by one of His titles, God, Lord, Father, Creator, Saviour, etc., when we would not think of indulging the less disrespectful familiarity of addressing our earthly parents by their given names John, George, Bill, Dorothy, Ruth, Mary, etc. in place of their parental titles Father and Mother? Such irreverence practiced by the heathen might be excusable because of their ignorance, but practiced by enlightened Christians, 9

10 who ought to know better, it is inexcusable. We may with reverence use the word, Jehovah, only if a heathen should ask us, Who is your God? Then we could with solemn propriety answer Jehovah, the only true and living God. Never, though, when addressing God, can we reverentially use His Proper Name. As the God-fearing Jews anciently regarded the Divine Name as too sacred for utterance, so should enlightened Christians do today. However, the most ancient and hallowed Hebrew name for God was not only never commonly pronounced, but was even so-spelled, in an abbreviated form, that it could not be pronounced; so much so that the original pronunciation is not known. All we know for sure is the Consonant Form, Yhwh, Yvh, or Yhv. This abbreviated form of the name made it hard for the translators to spell out a pronounceable word. They, therefore, chose to supply what they thought were the missing vowels. The first syllabic term upon which there was general agreement was Jah. Other derivatives were supplied by different translators. Yahweh, Yahowah, or Yahovah were formulated to suit certain languages. The anglicized form evolved as Jehovah. Therefore, any improvised letters that go to make up the ineffable Name may not actually be the 10

11 Hebrew word after all! (See Funk and Wagnall s Standard Dictionary, definition Jehovah. ) If the original-name theory had proved correct, there is in the way Nothing to Prevent the Change. As we want, more than anything else, to be right in all things, therefore were it a sin to address the Deity in any language other than the Hebrew, we would immediately and unhesitatingly change out verbal mode of addressing Him. But as the matter now stands, we are not only unable to share any enthusiasm concerning such an original-name theory, and to accord it any of the truth and worth that some would lead us to believe that it assumes, but also we are more than ever before persuaded not to address the Lord by His proper name. In fact, every wide-awake Christian who sincerely serves the Lord, must plainly see that to conform to such a theory, is to cause the saints to insult their Creator by addressing Him by His Proper Name instead of by His title, and also to suffer the baleful results of becoming enthusiasts over some theory so appealing as virtually to exclude those truths vital to their salvation. Let us therefore Admit: These facts forever invalidate the movement that is now afoot to discard from the Christian use, the titles, God, Lord, 11

12 Christ, etc.; for to give up addressing the Deity by the titles which He has originated in the various languages, would mean defeat for God, and victory for the idols! Such misguided movements should be A Lesson. All present truth believers should now see the necessity of shunning every wind of doctrine regardless how plausible or reasonable it might appear to be. Remember the words: Behold, those that go toward the north country have quieted My Spirit in the north country. (See p. 27 of Tract No. 2, The Warning Paradox Zech. 6:1-8.) Get your doctrine, Brother, Sister, only from the golden bowl (see The Shepherd s Rod, Vol. 2), and be not like the waves of the sea, driven with the wind and tossed be not carried about by the many winds of doctrine that are blowing wildly from every direction to cause you to lose your way to the everlasting kingdom. 12

13 REFERENCES Acts 11:26 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. Rev. 21:14 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. Rev. 21:21 21:21 And the twelve gates [were] twelve pearls: every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city [was] pure gold, as it were transparent glass. Dictionary definition Jehovah. [Taken from Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume 12, 1959 ed.] JEHOVAH, the God of Israel. The pronunciation Jěhōvāh is an error resulting among Christians from combining the consonants Yhwh (Jhvh) with the vowels of ǎdhōnāy, Lord, which the Jews in reading the Scriptures substituted for the sacred name, commonly called the tetragrammaton as containing four consonants. It is first found in manuscripts of

14 Martini s Pugio Fidei (1278), belonging to the 14 th century; and Galatinus (1518) is found arguing against abbreviating it to Jova, on the analogy of the Latin Jovis (as proved by G. F. Moore). This avoidance of the tetragrammaton, due primarily to an over-rigid interpretation of certain passages in the Old Testament (e.g., Lev. xxiv ; cf. Exod. xx. 7), may have arisen from various motives: a feeling that a proper name for God implies the existence of other gods, the fear lest the sacred name should be mispronounced or otherwise profaned, and the desire to prevent its abuse in magical practices. If this hope was the reason, secrecy had the opposite effect; for the tetragrammaton became the greatest name in both Jewish and heathen spells and miraculous efficacy was attributed to mere utterance of it. Several centuries before the Christian era, the tetragrammaton ceased to be commonly used. Some later writers in the Old Testament prevailingly or exclusively employed ělōhîm, God, which editors in some parts uniformly substituted for Yhwh; various periphrases also took its place, such as the Most High, the God of Heaven and the King of Heaven in Daniel, or simply Heaven in I. Maccabees. The oldest Greek versions and the books written in Greek, e.g., Wisdom and II. And III. Maccabees, replaced Yhwh by Κύριος, Lord. The name was still pronounced only in the priestly benediction (Num. vi. 27) after the daily sacrifice in the temple, although a substitute was used in the synagogues, and by the high priest in his prayers and benediction on the Day of Atonement. The Rabbinic tradition that after the death of Simeon the Just (fl. 290 B.C.) it was no longer pronounced even on these occasions, is contrasted by

15 the well-attested statement that in the last generations before the fall of Jerusalem (A.D. 70) it was uttered so low that the sounds were lost in the chant of the priest. After that event the liturgical use of the name ceased, but the tradition was perpetuated in the Rabbinic schools; it continued also to be employed by healers, exorcists and magicians, and is found on many magical papyri. It is asserted by Philo that only priests might pronounce it and by Josephus that those who knew it were forbidden to divulge it. Finally the Samaritans shared the scruples of the Jews, except that they used it in judicial oaths. The early Christian scholars therefore easily learnt the true pronunciation. Clement of Alexandria (d. 212) gives Ιάοσε or Ιάοσαι (or in one manuscript Ιάοσ), Origen (d ) Ιάη, and Epiphanius (d. 404) Ιαβε (or Ιασε in one manuscript); Theodoret (d. 457) says that the Samaritans pronounced it Ίαβε (or Ίαβα) and the Jews ια (if the text is rightly restored). This direct testimony is supplemented by Ίαβε or Ίαβα or even Ιαωούηε in Greek magical texts and by Yāwē in an Ethiopic charm. Clearly a form like Yahweh underlies all these transliterations except, which represents ehyeh or, in the Babylonian punctuation ahyah, I am, a verbal form sometimes used as the Divine name (Exod. iii., 14). Diodorus Siculus (1 st century B. C.), and Macrobius (5 th century A. D.), in giving Ιαω, which agrees with Ιαο in Jerome (d. 420), reflect Yāhû; and Porphyry (fl. 275) with Ιεύω goes back to Yĕhō as found in proper names. Modern Theories In spite of this testimony, modern scholars have differed widely as to the true pronunciation of the name. Thus Scaliger (1598) inclined to Yahweh or Yehweh and Genebrardus (1600)

16 proposed Ihue (cf. Heb. yihyeh, he becomes ) or Iahue. Mercerus (d. 1570) suggested Yehĕweh (cf. Heb. ehyeh, I am ), Arias Montanus ( ) Jeveh, and Brinton (1899) Jahva. Other scholars were led astray by supposing that Ιάω or Ιαο represented the tetragrammaton; thus Drusius (c. 1604) argued for Javōh, Bellermann (1818) for Yāhôh, and Sayce (1894) for Yahăvah. The arguments, however, of a succession of learned scholars from the end of the 15 th to the beginning of the 19 th century gradually prevailed; the support of Eichorn (1793) and the conversion of Gesenius ( ) and Ewald ( ), who at first favored Yahwōh and Yĕhōvāh respectively, to Yahweh ensured the general acceptance of that form, though Yahwōh still finds occasional adherents. The form Yahweh, in which the first h is voiced and the accent falls on the second syllable, is of the type of such a place-name as Yabhneh (Eng. Jabneh ), which is properly the imperfect tense of a verb and means he causeth to build; the alternative Yabhnĕ ēl (Eng. Jabneel ), meaning God causes to build, shows that the implied subject in the abbreviated form is God. While however, it is universally admitted that Yahweh is a verbal form, its precise sense is uncertain. Firstly, it is disputed whether it is the intransitive or the causative theme; the former would be expected to take i in the first syllable, although this i was probably a originally, while the latter takes a invariably. Secondly, the root from which it is derived is open to doubt. The writer of the priestly narrative, who regards it as intransitive, identifies it with yihyeh, he is or becomes, he will be or become, when (having changed the third into the first person to suit the context) he explains it by the phrase EHYEH ăsher EHYEH (Exod. iii.,

17 14); this can be translated I am that I am or more exactly I am wont to be that which I am wont to be or I will be that which I will be. The first implies that Yahweh s nature can be defined only by itself or that, while he is, as opposed to non-existent heathen deities, he exists not simply in an abstract sense but actively, ever manifesting himself under fresh aspects (Oehler); the second means that he will be with Israel in future afflictions as in the present oppression (Rashi) or that he will show himself to Israel under the manifold attributes of goodness and so on (Davidson), or that he will be it, viz., the performer of his promises (Ewald). The interpretation ὁὤν, he who is, of the Alexandrian version, in implying metaphysically the assertion of this absolute being, is incorrect; for hāyāh, became or was denotes being phenomenally, not essentially or ontologically. Although the general idea connected with the tetragrammaton by the priestly writer, and after him by the Israelites, was obviously that of a being who both is and manifests his being, the possibility cannot be excluded that he intended to attach to it a theological sense totally different from its original meaning. It was already recognized in the middle ages that formally it might have a causative meaning (Aaron ben Elijah). Consequently it has been translated he causes to be, and this has been variously interpreted as signifying that he creates or gives life (Gesenius) in the sense that he is the giver either of existence (Schrader) or of life and deliverance (Kuenen), that he calls into existence the events of history (Lagarde), or that he brings to pass, viz., performs his promises (Le Clerc).

18 The intransitive interpretation agrees with Hebrew tradition but is open to certain objections: that (I) i would be expected in place of a in the first syllable, and (2) the correct form is hāyāh, not hāwāh, was in biblical Hebrew. Both can be easily explained: (I) the a may be an archaism, of which there are traces in the Old Testament; (2) the form hāwāh is found sporadically in biblical Hebrew and, being customary in the neighboring dialects, especially Aramaic, may once have been normal in Hebrew. The causative interpretation, apart from the doubt about w for y, is liable to far more serious objections: that (I) hāyāh, though used of a fulfillment of a definite promise or prediction, can hardly be abstractly so employed with no indication of the promise, and (2) the causative theme of hāyāh is found in no Semitic language, except late Syriac, but is replaced by that of some other root. Those, therefore, who still regard it as causative refer it to hāwāh, found once in Hebrew in the form hāwā, fell; they interpret this as he causes to fall, sc. the rain (Robertson Smith; cf. Arab haway, fell ), or he overthrows, sc. with lightning (Green; cf. Arab ahway, overthrew and Heb. hōwāh or hawwāh destruction ). But, even though Yahweh was often depicted as a storm-god, the fact that the Heb. hāwa, fell is late and rare renders this explanation highly improbable. Even less likely are the attempts to explain it either as he falls like a meteoric stone or he blows (Wellhausen; cf. Arab. haway, fell and blew ), on the grounds that his worship originated among the Kenites or Midianites or other tribes to the south of Palestine and that several places sacred to him, e.g., Horeb, Sinai and Kadesh, lay in northern Arabia, or as he loves (Gardner; cf. Arab,

19 haway, loved ). Such Arabizing interpretations are a priori doubtful, and the traditional Hebrew explanation is in itself as reasonable as anything else hitherto proposed. Outside the Old Testament Yhwh occurs only on the Moabite Stone (c. 850 B.C.); the usual form is Yh or Yhw, occurring in unvocalized texts of the 5 th and 4 th centuries B. C. These forms appear in the Old Testament sporadically as the independent Yāh and regularly as Yāh- or Yāhû- at the end and -Yeho or -Yô at the beginning of proper names. Elsewhere the initial and final forms in composition respectively are Yw- and -Yw in the 9 th, and Yh- and -Yhw in the 7 th, Yhw- and -Yhh in the 6 th, Yh- and -Yhw or -Y in the 5 th century B.C.; thereafter most of these forms seem to have been used indiscriminately. In Assyrian and Babylonian texts, which alone give the contemporary vocalization, the tetragrammaton appears in transcribed Hebrew names as Ya- in the 9 th, Yau- and -Yau or - Ya in the 8 th and Yâḫû- and -Yâma (for Yâwa) in the 5 th century B.C. These point to Yā as the original pronunciation, in which case the final consonant was merely an orthographic device to avoid a final vowel; similarly, the medial h in Yā(h)w and Yā(h)h must have served merely to mark the a long. Afterwards, this h came incorrectly to be pronounced, as the hard h in Yâḫû- and the Biblical Yĕhô- and -Yāhû show. The forms Yĕhô and Yô, which arise out of Yĕhau- and Yaurespectively owing to a similar mispronunciation of the orthographic w and the change of aw or au into ô according to Hebrew practice, were fully established by the 3 rd century B.C., since ō has replaced a almost always in the Septuagint. It was formerly held that Yāh and similar forms were abbreviations of Yahweh. The arguments, however, against

20 this view are overwhelming: (I) the short forms show that ya was the essential syllable, although on this theory it would be merely a prefix; (2) the inscriptions and papyri, as well as proper names, show that Yh or Yhw, not Yahweh, was the extra-biblical form; (3) it is a priori improbable that a name held so sacred as Yahweh would be commonly abbreviated; (4) no other Semitic race ever shortened the names of its gods; (5) the endeavor to assign an abstract meaning to a divine name bears the impress of a later period of theological reflection. It has, therefore, been suggested, as Greek speculation shows, that Yahweh comes from an original Yahw, afterwards vocalized Yāhû, either by adding a questionable ending -ay become -eh (Grimme) or an -h like the Arabic vocative -âh (Lukyn Williams and Burkitt) or else by assimilation to yihyeh, he is (van Hoonacker). This last suggestion is probably correct; but even so, it fails to account for Yāh as well as Yāhû. It is, however, not impossible that the primitive form was simply Yā, which Hebrew orthography required to be written Yāw or Yāh; later, when w was not thought sufficient to indicate the long vowel, h was inserted, giving rise to Yā(h)w, which came to be mispronounced Yāhû (on the false analogy of saḥw developed into sāḥû, swimming ). This development explains the presence of a and w, where i and y would be expected if Yahweh were connected with the substantive verb; for primarily they belonged to the primitive Ya(hw), but secondarily the recollection of the archaic a in the imperfect tense and of the North-Palestinian and Aramaic hāwāh=hāyāh, became aided their retention.

21 This Yā was probably ejaculatory in origin (cf. Gr. Βάκτος and Ίακτος); for yâ and yāh is a common Semitic exclamation. At the Exodus the national unity of the Hebrews was enforced by the worship of one national God, and the adoption of the preeminent God of the patriarchs together with the alteration of his name from the meaningless Yā to the significant Yahweh reinforced the new idea. The transition, which was effected by a prolongation of the ejaculation natural in moments of emotion or excitement, may have been a gradual process; but its assimilation to and explanation by a simple verb was an act of inspiration. This new name, though at first widely known, as the Moabite Stone shows, was soon considered too sacred for daily use and confined to the Scriptures, while the older form persisted in profane use. On this theory there is no essential discrepancy between the statement that in the days of Enosh men began to call upon the name of Yahweh (Gen. iv, 26) and God s assertion that in the time of the patriarchs by my name Yahweh I was not known (Exod vi, 3); for the writer or compiler of the first passage substituted the later Yahweh where strict history required Yāh, while in the second he was right to the extent that God was known not as Yahweh but as Yāh before the Exodus. It has been argued on several grounds that Yahweh was originally a non-hebrew deity. That he was a Kenite (Tiele) or Canaanite (Land) god is little more than conjecture. Thus it has been claimed that the name Aḫiyami, found on a cuneiform tablet at Tanaach (c B.C.? ) is the Hebrew Ăhîyāh, Ahijah meaning Brother of Yami (Yawi)=Yah(weh); but this final element may just as well be

22 Yamu, a deity apparently found in the Hebrew Yĕmû ēl, Jemuel, which means Yĕmû=Yamu is god, or corresponds with - ām as seen in the Hebrew Ăḥî ām, Ahijam, in which case it is a mere termination. A Babylonian connection for Yāhû, afterwards Hebraized as Yahweh, has been urged on the ground that a god called Yaû(m) occurs in such names as the Bab. Yaûm-ilum which is compared with the Heb. Yô ēl, Yahweh is god; but the absence of the determinative sign indicating a god before yaûm and the discovery of the possessive pronoun yaûm, my makes the rendering Mine is God far more plausible. Similarly, in such names as Ya weilum, it is probable that ya we is not a divine name but a verbal element, although its meaning is still unknown. Again, names like the Bab. Bēliya and Bēliau are not identifiable with the Heb. Ba alyāh, Yah is lord, not only because there is no mark of divinity before the final element but also because -ya, yau and so on are well known hypocoristic endings in Assyro- Babylonian, as in the neighboring languages. The argument for the existence of a Babylonian god called Yau rests entirely on proper names; and since these can be otherwise satisfactorily explained, it must be given up. Further, the occurrence of Yāh in proper names outside Hebrew territory proves nothing; for Azriyâu ( Azariah ), lord of Ya udi, Yaubi di, king of Hamath, and Yôrām ( Jehoram ), prince of Hamath, may have been Hebrews or descendants of Hebrews who had settled abroad and founded their own petty kingdoms; so Yō ēl ( Joel, if the name is rightly interpreted) on a Maltese inscription may be the name of a Jewish settler. Names like Uriah the Hittite and Tobiah the Ammonite prove even less, since the ending may not be the divine

23 element but a Hebraized form of the hypocoristic -ya; the Assyrian Ṭābiya and Uriyâ, as well as the Cassite Uriya, are the foreign counterparts of these names. Yet the common recognition of heathen gods outside their own countries as attested on monuments and in proper names makes it necessary to admit the possibility of a sporadic worship of a god called Yahweh outside Hebrew territory. But the evidence hitherto adduced is equivocal and indirect, and no direct evidence exists; for the identification of the Heb. Yāh with the Bab. Ea, the god of wisdom, is a discovery periodically made by amateurs, which needs no refutation. p. 27 of Tract No. 2, The Warning Paradox, In response to Zechariah s question as to who the horses were and where they were going, the angel answered: The black horses which are therein go forth into the north country; and the white go forth after them; and the grisled go forth toward the south country. And the bay went forth, and sought to go that they might walk to and fro through the earth. Zech. 6:6,7. Though the angel s answer discloses the respective directions toward which the black, white, grisled, and bay horses went, it omits to make the slightest mention of the red horses, thus riveting the conclusion that the red horses were martyred and went nowhere so far as their final destination is concerned. This being clear our next step, logically, is to identify The Second Chariot. And in the second chariot [were] black horses. Universally, the figurative significance of black is bondage. So as the martyrdom of the early Christian church was followed by the

24 Dark Ages of religion, from 538 A.D. to 1798 A.D., it is very evident that the chariot with the black horses represents the church and its leadership during this long prophetic period in Ecclesiastical Roman bondage. This fact is borne out by the angel s explanation of [p. 27] the horses destination: The black horses, he said,...go forth into the north country. And the north country is the Biblical term for ancient Babylon, as is quickly seen from the following scriptures:...saith the Lord God...I will bring...nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon...from the north. Ezek. 26:7. Again: when the Jews were returning from Babylon to Jerusalem, God spoke through His prophet Zechariah, saying: Ho, ho, come forth, and flee from the land of the north (Zech. 2:6), thus identifying Babylon as the north country. But as we are dealing with the fulfillment of prophecy in the New Testament era, the north country in this connection must be antitypical Babylon Christianized Rome where God s people during the New Testament period have gone. This clear-cut truth concerning the second chariot, leads us to the exposition of The Third Chariot. Zech. 6:1-8 6:1 And I turned, and lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and, behold, there came four chariots out from between two mountains; and the mountains [were] mountains of brass. 6:2 In the first chariot [were] red horses; and in the second chariot black horses; 6:3 And in the third chariot white horses; and in the fourth chariot grisled and bay horses.

25 6:4 Then I answered and said unto the angel that talked with me, What [are] these, my lord? 6:5 And the angel answered and said unto me, These [are] the four spirits of the heavens, which go forth from standing before the Lord of all the earth. 6:6 The black horses which [are] therein go forth into the north country; and the white go forth after them; and the grisled go forth toward the south country. 6:7 And the bay went forth, and sought to go that they might walk to and fro through the earth: and he said, Get you hence, walk to and fro through the earth. So they walked to and fro through the earth. 6:8 Then cried he upon me, and spake unto me, saying, Behold, these that go toward the north country have quieted my spirit in the north country.