Towards, unto, into and in Theos

When we say unto/unto it is an allusion to the reciprocal nature of interaction that is seen between the Kerubym of the Kaporeth and in the interactions of Mosheh and Yahweh and ’Abraham and Yahweh who were both known as friends of ’elohym and knew him face to face.

Unto, on its own, is a journey to a destination.

The purpose of this post is to look at some occurrences of אל particularly where it is translated ‘to’/‘unto’.

We have already considered Genesis 1.9 as it is the first occurrence of אל in any of its homographs.

And ’elohym said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so (Gen.1.9)

Here the idea of אל is clearly a directional one with a destination, the one place that the waters should be gathered unto.

The next occurrences of אל in Genesis are highly instructive:

And out of the ground Yahweh ’elohym formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto ’Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever ’Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. (Gen.2.19)

and again 3 verses later:

And the rib, which Yahweh ’elohym had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. (Gen.2.22)

These are the first interactions characterised by אל in which, firstly, animals are brought unto ’Adam and then a woman, who is created out of him, is brought unto him. The first, which includes the verb ‘call’ and the word ‘name’, fulfills the initial idea of calling Yahweh’s name, that is a single direction of ‘unto’, but does not fulfill the second which is the reciprocal nature of calling. That is, that having been called by the name it is imperative for those faithful respondents to reciprocate in calling back to him. The need for the second occurrence of ‘unto’ hints at this secondary reciprocal element. ’Adam requires ‘a help as before him’ (verses 18,20) and the animals are not able to satisfy this requirement. Clearly this is because for someone to be ‘before him’ they must be in a face to face relationship and thus be able to interact in reciprocal speech and understanding. This is the foundational basis for the relationship between the man and the woman seen here but ultimately to be fulfilled in Anointed and the ekklesia in the age to come. The man is teacher, the woman receiver and reciprocator. When this reciprocal pattern is in evidence then the name is being fulfilled.

This makes what happens in the next chapter particularly problematic. Indeed, another major theme of אל comes into the dialogue in Genesis 3, although the presence of the homographic אל as ‘not’ is not present here but rather its inversion לא. Nevertheless, the chapter is littered with negatives and positives and the tension that arises when face to face relationships fail. The setting is of a series of conversations between a number of correspondents.

The precursor to this chapter is the second use of ‘not’ לא – in Genesis 2:

And Yahweh ’elohym commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it: for in the day that you eat thereof you shall surely die. (Gen.2.17,18)

After the commandment in Genesis 1.28 to go forth, multiply, fill the earth and have dominion over the creatures of the earth, this is the next commandment that is given to the man by ’elohym. It is clear that this is both a positive and negative commandment with a significant censure on failure to keep it.

The presence of the serpent as a means to introduce the temptation in the woman’s mind begins the process of opposing (or negating) the assertion of ’elohym to not eat. Not eating is life, eating is death. The woman is tempted and succumbs to the serpent narrative. The serpent represents that which is not of Yahweh. He is the embodiment of the not. Yahweh ’elohym is the embodiment of the yea. When the seed of the woman appears on the earth (who is also the son of Theos) he will undo the not of the serpent and affirm the yea of the promises of Theos.

And he said unto the woman, Yea, has ’elohym said, You shall not eat of every tree of the garden? (Gen.3.1)

The deep irony here that the serpent utters the word ‘yea’ (or indeed or also) should not be lost on us. He poses as the one making an emphatic statement of affirmation but in doing so he is questioning the not commandment of ’elohym by counterpointing his certainty. The real certainty is that disobedience to the command will certainly lead to death.

This is the beginning of a conversation of reasoning that will lead to the overthrow of the negative command. It is not the pattern of conversation anticipated in the ‘help as before him’ that was being provided for ’Adam. Rather than being a reciprocator to ’Adam the woman is overthrowing the kerubic pattern of man unto woman followed by woman unto man. She will replace it with its antithesis – woman unto man and man unto woman.

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also to her man with her; and he did eat. (Gen.3.6)

I have highlighted here the truncated form of אל. The outcome of this overthrow of the true reciprocal relationship of man unto woman leads to expulsion from the garden and to death. What she sees is the sensual man – the knowledge, sight, desire and ultimately the taste of the fruit which was not to be taken. The fruit is before her in a sight/appearance relationship but it is a relationship of temptation. The man is before her and she tempts him with what she has yielded to.

And Yahweh ’elohym called unto ’Adam, and said unto him, Where are you? (Gen.3.9)

When Yahweh finds the two and that they now know they are naked a period of interaction occurs in which blame and counter blame are thrown around until Yahweh addresses himself to the woman and to the serpent:

And Yahweh ’elohym said unto the woman, What is this that you have done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. (Gen.3.13)

And Yahweh ’elohym said unto the serpent, Because you have done this, you are cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon your belly shall you go, and dust shall you eat all the days of your life:

And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; it shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel. (Gen.3.14,15)

The outcome of the overthrow of the true order of obedience of ’elohym’s commandment, of the overthrow of the true pattern of man unto woman is a period of mutual antagonism between that which is of Yahweh (the yea), that is the seed of the woman (and the son of Theos) and between that which is not of Yahweh, that is the serpent and his seed, that is those who similarly are not of Yahweh. The inevitable and ultimate conclusion of that antagonism is a permanent end to the not while a temporary injurious state occurs by the not towards the ‘yea’.

Of course the immediate outcome of the overthrow of that true order is the expulsion from ‘Eden.

So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of ‘Eden kerubym, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of lives. (Gen.3.24)

The irony is that the very things which stand as a metaphor for the unification of ’elohym with man through the expression of the word one unto another are now used as a sign of antagonism between ’elohym and man preventing an opportunity to eat of the tree of lives and live for ‘olam. They keep the way of the tree of lives. The way remains but access to it is presently barred. However, by their presence and by their indication of the phenomenon of salvation via reciprocal speech and understanding, they stand as a reminder that the way to life is still possible.

So, we see at the very beginning a true unto/unto relationship of speech and reciprocity between man and ’elohym and the subsequent possibility of such between man and his help ‘as before’ him, the woman. The ensuing ‘unto’ and ‘not’ relationship of antagonistic reciprocity between serpent and woman, woman and man and the outcome of such – ‘elohym to man – undermines that first possibility and creates a long and arduous journey until such time that man with his help as before him can return to the true kerubic relationship with the creator in a new ‘Eden.

We have covered a number of prerequisites that get us to the point where we can focus on the path forward and the main thrust of the argument.

As has already been intimated, particularly in the ‘homographs’ section, the contention of this blog is that one of the titles which the creator of the heavens and earth has chosen to call himself by is ‘el (אל) and that the meaning(s) of that title can be inferred by reference to the homographs of that term. If we follow, therefore, the meanings of these homographs we should be able to gain a greater understanding of that one who calls himself, among other things, ‘el (אל). We saw that the meaning of the name that he has chosen to call himself by (Yahweh יהוה) has at its core the idea of being/becoming him. Knowing the meaning of ‘el (אל) will help us to fulfill that promise.

Besides the use of אל as a title to describe him, there appear to be at least 5 further homographic uses of אל.

1. as we have seen in previous blogs the use of אל as the preposition ‘to’/’unto’.
2. again, as noted in previous blogs, the use of אל as the less common negative ‘no’/’not’/’nor’/’neither’
3. the use of אל as a word for ‘power’ particularly in the sense of ‘control’
4. the use of אל as a less common variant for the word ‘this’.
5. the use of אל as a less common word for ‘oath’

The use of אל as a title for him is nicely illustrated in Exodus 34 where it is combined with the name Yahweh (יהוה) after Mosheh has asked him to reveal himself.

And Mosheh said unto Yahweh, see, you say unto me, Bring up this people, and you have not let me know whom you will send with me. Yet you have said, I know you by name, and you have also found grace in my eyes. (Ex.33.12)

I have highlighted the terms ‘unto’ (אל) and ‘people’/’with’ (עם) as we referred to these homographs in the homograph prerequisite post and, specifically, in relation to Exodus 3 and the revelation about Yahweh’s name. Mosheh is clearly referring back to that time when he says that Yahweh has commanded him to bring up this people from Mitsraym which was the context of the revelation of his name in Exodus 3. Mosheh goes on to say:

Now therefore I pray you, if I have found grace in your eyes, make me to know now your way, that I may know you, that I may find grace in your eyes: and consider that this nation is your people. (Ex.33.13)

At the heart of what Mosheh is trying to understand are the ideas of his name and his way, as if the two were somewhat synonymous. This appears to be the case when Yahweh says that he will place Mosheh in a gap in the rock where he will be covered over while Yahweh passes by and calls his name.

Mosheh goes up into the mountain with two tables of stone to replace the first broken set and Yahweh descends and stands with him there and passes by calling his name:

And Yahweh passed by before him and called, Yahweh, Yahweh ‘el (אל), merciful and gracious, longsuffering and abundant in lovingkindness and truth. Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means acquit, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and upon the children’s children unto the third and unto the fourth [generation]. (Ex.34.6,7)

‘el (אל) is here fundamentally associated with the calling of the name of Yahweh before Mosheh in a context of direction. Direction of speech between Mosheh and Yahweh; direction of the passage of the one calling his name and the juxtaposition of the term ‘way’ with the name.

The first in our list of homographic occurrences of אל is the translated ‘to’/’unto’ which we have already seen used above in Exodus 33. It is used in geographical terms, that is, unto a place and it is used in interactive speech, unto one another.

An example of the first is its first occurrence in the word:

And ‘elohym said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so (Gen.1.9)

Whereas an occurrence that could be said to encapsulate both is when the pattern for the Kaporeth (‘mercy seat’) is revealed:

And the Kerubym shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the kaporeth with their wings, and their faces are man unto his brother; unto the mercy seat shall the faces of the kerubym be. (Exodus 25.20)

Here, the interaction between the brother kerubym is seen as an unto/unto relationship and their faces are directional toward the place of the kaporeth where both the glory of Yahweh falls and the blood of the bullock and goat are sprinkled on the day of the atonements.

The second homographic use of אל is as the less common word for the negative, being an inversion of לא (lo’). We saw both these terms in use earlier. Firstly, לא (lo’) in use in Hoshea 1 – not my people and not mercy. We saw the use of אל in Ruth 1 where Ruth says, Intreat me not to leave you…

Another occurrence of the word אל translated as the negative occurs in Genesis:

And ‘Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray you, between me and between you and between my shepherds and between your shepherds for we are brothers. (Gen.13.8)

I’ve emboldened ‘unto’ here as it is also the word אל but the other occurrence is also emboldened as ‘no’. ‘Abram and Lot are in a close familial relationship. Pursuant to this, so should their shepherds, part of their households, be; just as the flock or people should be as one with their shepherd or head, as we saw in the section on homographs when we dealt with ‘I will be with thee/thy people’. Their relationship is characterised by the word ‘between’ which is often used in covenant making language. The relationship is one of speech, just as in Exodus Mosheh was involved in a reciprocal speech arrangement with Yahweh. In order for them to remain as one (the use of ‘brothers’ hinting at family unity and also being descriptive of the unity of the brother kerubym – see above) he intreats Lot that there should be no strife. Of course, the way that they resolve this issue is to separate their flocks and households owing to the need to find grazing.

A further homographic use of אל is as ‘power’ but particularly in the context of control. The idea of force, might and strength seem to be conveyed by other Hebrew words. An example of its use is also in Genesis:

It is in the power of my hand to do you evil: but the ‘elohym of your father spoke unto me last night saying, Take heed that you speak not with Ya’aqob good or evil. (Gen.31.29)

Again, note the occurrence of ‘unto’ in this verse. Here is a conversation of conflict and confrontation, not of reciprocity leading to oneness of mind. Laban, Ya’aqob’s father-in-law, asserts that he has the ability to exert harm over Ya’aqob, presumably either by his authority over his daughters or, more likely, by the force of men he has with him. The truth is that it is ‘elohym who has control here and Laban, reluctantly, has to recognise that. Further occurrences of אל as control, that is ‘the power of my hand’, are largely concerned with Yahweh.

The next homographic use of אל is as a less common form of the more common אלה (these), where אל is translated as ‘this’:

Sojourn in this land, and I will be with you, and will bless you; for to you and to your seed I will give all these lands, and I will perform the oath which I sware to ‘Abraham your father (Gen.26.3)

I have emboldened quite a bit here which is pertinent in the light of several of the foregoing blogs. Firstly, I will be (‘ehyeh אהיה) as used in the formation of the name of Yahweh in Exodus 3. With you (עמך), homographically ‘thy people’ as discussed in the homographs blog. ‘To’ as the truncated form of ‘unto’ as referred to in the blog on truncations. Finally, and the reason for its inclusion here is the word for ‘these’, which interestingly is in the singular and would be best translated ‘all the lands, the this‘ intimating possibly that the many lands are to become one singular inheritance in the ‘el.

Yahweh is speaking to the son of ‘Abraham, Yitshaq, to reaffirm the promises which he swore to his father about the future possession of the lands in that region. These promises were made with a view to their being accomplished in a time to come when all three of the patriarchs would see them come to pass.

The last homographic usage of אל is as a word translated ‘oath’ but is not the more common word mentioned above and in our blog on homographs.

Then shall you be clear of my oath, when you come unto my kindred; and if they give not to you, you shall be clear of my oath. (Gen.24.41)

The word ‘clear’ in this verse is the same as the word acquit in Ex.34.7 (see above), interestingly. The words emboldened are the homographic ‘oath’ and the full and truncated ‘to’/’unto’. Here ‘Abraham’s servant is recalling the oath that his servant made him swear to him concerning the fetching of a bride for Yitshaq, his son.

As has been intimated earlier, a homograph of אל is as the translation ‘not’/’neither’. It was used in one of the quotations used in a previous post. When Ruth says, Intreat me not (אל) to leave you. This is a form less common than its more ubiquitous inversion לא (lo’). This form of the negative is more widely used. It becomes quite obvious, for example, in Hoshea’ chapter 1 where it is used as part of the name of two of his children.

‘And she conceived again and bare a daughter and he said unto him, Call her name Lo-ruhamah: for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Yisra’el; but I will utterly take them away.’ (Hoshea’ 1.6)

Her name is made up of two words ‘not’ and ‘mercy’ because Yahweh will not have mercy on Yisra’el. A further child is named similarly:

‘Then said he, Call his name Lo-ammi for you are not my people and I, I will be not yours.’ (Hoshea’ 1.9)

So we can see that the opposite of Yahweh’s name, that is merciful, (Exodus 34.6), is embedded in the name of Hoshea’s daughter – not mercy. Interestingly, Hoshea’ is taken from the word ‘to save’ and is the name first given to Yehoshua’ before his name is moved into the future tense (he shall save) – Numbers 13.16

Similarly the opposite of the creative work embedded in Yahweh’s name, that is the creation of a people, is in the name of Hoshea’s son – Not a people. It is the negation of the promise that Yahweh will be(come) his people and they will be(come) him. It uses the critical ‘I will be’ from Exodus 3 but negates it. Yet the promise is that he will undo this negative and return once again to the positive ‘I will be’.

So we can see here that both אל and לא are used in the same way. That is, although the letters are inverted the meaning remains the same. This is not uncommon in Hebrew where letters are inverted or mixed around, in the case of 3 word stems rather than the 2 used here. Often these words bear a relation of meaning to one another and sometimes their relation is one of dissimilarity, sometimes to the point of complete inversion, sometimes it is an identical or similar meaning. This idea of inverting letters and changing meaning as well as inverting letters while retaining the same or a related meaning is particularly relevant when considering the homographic אל as a ‘not’ and something which is not a not, that is an affirmative. We might deduce, therefore, that in the title of ‘el (אל) there is an implicit sense of the affirmative and the negative. The commandment to not (eg ‘thou shalt not’) and the commandment to do (Thou shalt love the Lord thy Theos…).

Of course, the above raises the issue of what is antithesis. The opposite of a people is not a people and the opposite of mercy is not mercy. At some level, anything that is ‘not’ is by definition an antithesis. We consider that black is the opposite of white but in many cases it is as though anything that is not white is its antithesis. This becomes more evident as we consider the attribute of the negative to ‘el (אל). That is, that anything that is not of him is by definition antithetical to him and that anything that is of him is antithetical to every other value. Inversions of meaning may, therefore, be what we might call opposites but may be, simply, a not of the word it inverts. Hopefully in upcoming blogs we will look at the idea of ‘the other’ which may crossover well with this section.

Let’s look at a further example of an inversion.  
כפרת (kaporeth) is a word which is translated as ‘mercy seat’ in the Old Testament. It is based on the 3 letter stem כפר (kapar) which is translated predominantly as ‘covering’ or ‘atonement’. An inversion of this word ‘covering’ or ‘to cover’ (כפר) is the word perek (פרך). This occurs only a handful of times and is predominantly translated ‘rigour’ and once as ‘cruelty’. It is used in the context of people ruling in a hard and unsympathetic way, that is to say without mercy.

As the word כפרת (kaporeth) is lengthened from its 3 letter stem כפר (kapar) by the addition of a final ת (th) to make up the word translated ‘mercy seat’ so the 3 letter stem פרך (perek) is also similarly lengthened by a final ת (th) to make the word פרכת (paroketh) which is translated as ‘vail’ and is used to describe the vail that separated the holy from the holy of holies in the tabernacle. That is, it separated the holy (place) with the table of shewbread, the lampstand and the altar of incense within it from the holy of holies wherein was the ark of the covenant with the kaporeth (mercy seat/covering) on top of it.

We will, undoubtedly, visit the subject of the kaporeth later in this blog as it features in a number of issues surrounding the ‘to’/’unto’/’toward’ sense of ‘el (אל). However, it would be as well to mention a number of characteristics of it and the meaning of its name.

The kaporeth is a ‘covering’ or a lid to the open topped box which was the ark of the covenant, inside which were the tables of stone (the ten commandments, made up of both not and affirmative commandments), a pot of the bread from heaven and ‘Aharon’s rod that budded. This ark of the covenant was then covered by the kaporeth, a single piece of solid gold which formed the lid to the ark but out of which were crafted two creatures called kerubym whose wings overshadowed the covering and met at their apex while the faces of the creatures faced one another. The Hebrew says they were man unto his brother and they were unto the kaporeth.

In the New Testament the kaporeth, with its meaning of covering/atonement is translated into the Greek with the word ilasterion (ιλαστηριον) whose only other occurrence is translated ‘propitiation’ and is used to describe the reconciliatory work of Iesous in Romans 3.25. It is related to a verb which is used when Iesous gives the parable of the publican and the Pharisaios and it is the publican who is justified before Theos because he would not lift up his eyes to heaven but smote his breast and said, Theos be merciful to me, a sinner. Its only other translation in Heb.2.17 is ‘reconciliation’. A related word is translated as ‘merciful’ in Heb.8.12 quoting Yer.31.34 where the apparently equivalent Hebrew word is ‘to forgive’ or ‘to pardon’. Any of the usual words for ‘mercy’ both in Hebrew and Greek are unrelated to the idea of kaporeth or ilasterion. The point here is evident that the covering of the ark carries with it senses of covering and forgiveness. We may argue that the mercy of Yahweh is to forgive iniquity and transgression and sin, which is perhaps why the KJV translators chose the epithet ‘mercyseat’ but the focus is on the forgiveness and the method of its deliverance.

We have a juxtaposition in the tabernacle of two terms which are inversions of one another. At some level we may see an opposition in meaning. That is, that one is the ‘not’ of the other. The vail, coming from the word ‘rigour’ hinting at a lack of kindness (and mercy), separating from the object whose name is taken from the idea of covering and forgiveness. While the vail is in place access to the kaporeth is restricted to the annual entry of the high priest on the day of coverings or atonements (yom ha-kipurym יום הכּפּרים – atonements here taken from the same 3 letter stem as the kaporeth כפר – see above) . At the death of Iesous the vail is rent and access is restricted only to the saints (holy ones). The relationship of the two items and the terms that describe them is a juxtaposition firstly of geography, that is that the one faces the other and prohibits viewing or entry of the other. Secondly, there is a juxtaposition of meaning where one, in its name, reveals its purpose, forgiveness. The other however is ‘not’ that meaning.

The words used in the English bible that relate to the creator are inadequately translated, which is really a fundamental argument throughout this blog. In particular, as we have seen in the previous entry (prerequisites V) the term that is usually represented by the capitalised LORD is in fact the name Yahweh (or possibly Yahwah) – יהוה – whose meaning we discussed in prerequisites V and is described as his name (and memorial). Its meaning is ‘he will (cause to) be(come)’. It is sometimes represented as capitalised GOD especially in the prophetic book of Yehezq’el. It is then paired with the lower case ‘Lord’ which translates the Hebrew אדני (‘adonay) which appears in a plural form (Lords). It appears to be acceptably translated ‘Lord(s)’ carrying, as it does, a sense of authority over another by the Lord and reverence to the Lord by that person in submission to him. Interestingly a homograph of Lord is translated ‘sockets’ when referring to those objects of silver that were sunk into the ground to act as a foundation for the support of the poles that formed the tabernacle in the wilderness. This could be seen as a metaphor that, in the uncertain ground of the wilderness journey, ‘adonay is a sure foundation for the support of those raised up elements that form the dwelling of Yahweh among man.

The other terms that are often translated, poorly, ‘God’ are, in numerical order, ‘elohym (אלהים); ‘el (אל) and ‘eloah (אלוהּ). The last term is used mostly in the book of ‘Yob and occasionally in the Psalms and may be an emphatic version of ‘el (אל) which are then pluralised to ‘elohym (אלהים). Numerically ‘elohym is used ten times more than ‘el and ‘eloah is used only 57 times. Clearly, it is the title ‘el (אל) which is the focus of this blog and its various homographs and their meanings will be discussed in later blogs.

From time to time, and regularly accompanying the title ‘el (אל), is the title shaday (שׁדּי). This is usually translated as ‘Almighty’. In fact the word is, homographically, ‘breasts’, symbolising the nurturing and feeding of his people by shaday and is closely related to words meaning ‘field’ (again symbolising nourishment) and ‘destruction’. Again, the pairing of these opposites (nourishment and destruction) hints at the antitheses at the heart of creation which ‘el has put in place as a defining feature of his work and our understanding of it and which appears as one of the meanings behind the title ‘el as we shall see later on in future blogs.

In the New Testament, as we have discussed earlier, the word translated ‘God’ is Theos (θεος) coming from a word meaning to set or place. The verb ‘to set/place’ and the term Theos are used adjacent to each other in 1 Corinthians 12:

But now has Theos set the members every one of them in the body, as it has pleased him. (1 Cor.12.18)

And Theos has set some in the ekklesia, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of languages. (1 Cor.12.28)

So, Theos has set in place people within the assembly to perform certain tasks, to manifest the spirit, and that setting in place seems to have order, that is that possessors of certain gifts in the ekklesia at that time had preeminence, particularly the apostles, then the prophets and then the teachers. Mediation of the word having priority.

This greek verb to set/place (tithemi τίθημι) is used in quotation in a number of places but one is in Maththaios 22:

The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit on my right hand, till I set your enemies under your feet (Math.22.44)

This verse is quoting Psalm 110.1 where the verb ‘to set’ (שית) is related to the idea of ‘setting his name there’ which we saw in Prerequisites (homographs). This intensifies the sense of Theos being about a set place, ordered under his hand at a future time.

Above, in Maththaios 22 we notice that the word LORD is first capitalised and then in lower case. This is because the Psalm from which it is quoting uses Yahweh first and then ‘adonay. However the Greek is using kurios (κυριος) for both words and, indeed, this is the word used in the New Testament that is translated by the English ‘Lord’.

Another title for him is ‘Almighty’ which is the Greek pantokrator (παντοκρατωρ). Only once is this term used outside of Revelation and is probably relatively accurately translated, coming from the greek words for all (things) and power/might.

The final term that is used for Theos is ‘Father’ (pater πατηρ). The term ‘Father’ is used widely in the New Testament but very sparingly in the Old Testament perhaps because the causal meaning inherent in being a father is already implied in the causal meaning associated with Yahweh’s name – he will (cause to) be(come).

‘In the beginning he, [that is] ‘elohym created the heavens and the earth’ (Gen.1.1)

In Biblical Hebrew, as in many languages, the form of the verb and that of the noun which is the subject of that verb should agree in number and gender. The awkwardness of the above translation of Genesis 1.1 is because the noun (‘elohym) is a masculine plural noun but it does not agree with the verb which is in the masculine singular (he). So, although they agree in gender, they do not agree in number. The reason behind this is because the motivating force, the impetus and direction, of the creative activity is being governed by the singular he, the Theos of Iohannes 1.1 who, in the beginning, was the word. He is the one creating but it is ‘elohym, the masculine plural agents of his plan, who are enacting the word, the pattern which he has instructed them of, who are carrying out that directive.

‘see now that I, I am he, and there is no ‘elohym with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand. (Deut.32.39)

A feature of Biblical Hebrew is also this absence of the verb ‘to be’ on many occasions. Instead terms, here pronouns, are juxtaposed with an implied ‘am’ between. When the verb ‘to be’ is invoked it is, therefore with added significance. The creator Yahweh speaks in the first person singular but refers to himself in the third person singular. This is because the word is given to his people to allow them to be able to understand and approach him. He (the I) gives us the information to come to know him (the he). He creates life and he can take it away (the opposite); even when man has sinned (is wounded) he can be healed; he has ultimate control (the power of his hand). Note here the presence of these opposites. Antitheses, we will see later on, play an important part in his identity. Control also is fundamental in coming to know ‘el (אל).

Therefore my people shall know my name: therefore they shall know in that day that I am he that does speak: behold, it is I (Yesha’yahu 52.6)

The passage in question is set at a time when the people he had called to demonstrate his name in themselves had signally failed to do this task. He identifies a future time when this trend will be reversed. In that day (when they will truly embody his name) they will know that I am he.

This movement from the ‘I’ to the ‘he’ in the context of the name is particularly clear at the point when he reveals his name, and its meaning, to Mosheh, in Exodus 3:

‘And Mosheh said unto ‘elohym, Who am I that I should go unto Phar’oh and that I should bring forth the people from Mitsraym?’ (Ex.3.11)

Note here the two occurrences of the word unto (‘el אל) which are in bold type and the threefold use of ‘I’ by Mosheh. It is because Mosheh does not grasp that the ‘I’ who will be bringing them out of Mitsraym is the ‘he’ who is speaking to him and so he says to Mosheh:

And he said, Certainly I will be (‘ehyeh אהיה) with thee; and this shall be a token unto thee, that I have sent thee: When thou hast brought forth the people out of Mitsraym, ye shall serve ‘elohym upon this mountain. (Ex.3.12)

I have left the 17th century English in place here to show the difference between the singular (thee/thou) and plural (ye) of the word ‘you’. ‘elohym is telling Mosheh that it is not the I (Mosheh) but it is the I (‘elohym) who will be carrying out this work, so that, when Mosheh obeys the word spoken to him, he will be the I (‘elohym). The verb ‘I will be’ is the same that we saw in the section ‘Prerequisites III’ along with the homographic ‘with thee/thy people’. Above, you will remember, we noted that the use of the verb ‘to be’ is not as common as in English and so adds weight when it is invoked. Here it is in the future tense and in the ‘I’ (1st person singular) form. It is at a point in the future that he will be with Mosheh, that is when he is before Phar’oh and speaking the words which he has given him. Mosheh’s response to this is:

And Mosheh said unto ‘elohym, Behold, when I come unto the children of Yisra’el, and shall say unto them, The ‘elohym of your fathers has sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? (Ex.3.13)

Again we should note here the repeated presence of the homographic ‘el אל translated ‘to’/’unto’ (in bold type). Mosheh is involved in a conversation with ‘elohym firstly and then a foreseen conversation he will have with the people of Yisra’el. Mosheh has asked about his name in the context of one (Mosheh) speaking as an agent of another (‘elohym) and ‘elohym’s response to this question is a direct one:

And ‘elohym said unto Mosheh, I will be (אהיה) who I will be (אהיה): and he said, Thus shall you say unto the children of Yisra’el, I will be (אהיה) has sent me unto you. (Ex.3.14)

and:

And ‘elohym said moreover unto Mosheh, Thus shall you say unto the children of Yisra’el, Yahweh (יהוה) ‘elohym of your fathers, the ‘elohym of ‘Abraham, the ‘elohym of Yitshaq, and the ‘elohym of Ya’aqob, has sent me unto you: this is my name to/for ‘olam (לעלם), and this is my memorial to all generations. (Ex.3.15)

Again, note the occurrences of to/unto (in bold) and the use of to/for ‘olam, which we mentioned in the blog about truncations as an occurrence of the shortened form of ‘to’/’unto’ and indicative of a journey in time. However, the real significance of this verse is the use of the name Yahweh (יהוה) and it being referred to as ‘my name’ and ‘my memorial’. The verb ‘to be’ in its first person singular future tense – I will be (אהיה ‘ehyeh) – has been transposed into the 3rd person singular future tense – he will be (יהיה yihyeh) – but the 2nd y (י) being replaced with a w (ו). This appears to imply a causal sense to the verb but the critical issue is that when his name is formalised as a name rather than the verb alone it is moved from the ‘I’ to the ‘he’. We are therefore able to say that ‘he will (cause to) be’ is his name. This name that causes to be is closely linked to the idea of agency, that is it pertains to those who act on his behalf, just as the ‘he’ in the beginning is enacted by plural ‘elohym. It is the word given by the ‘he’ to the ‘they’ which allows them to be (or indeed become) him. It is this revelation that he gives which allows us to refer to him as the ‘he’ rather than the ‘I’. If we were to utterly be(come) him and demonstrate his qualities in ourselves then we could, with his son Iesous, say ‘I am’, as he did in the New Testament. Indeed, if we strive to attain unto him and are found faithful in that age (‘olam) then we also shall be able to say, I am.

So, the ‘I’ gives us the ability to understand him as ‘he’ through revelation of his mind by his word. If/when we attain to that mind we will also say, because we have become, ‘I’.

To conclude, therefore, we can see that the name is about agency or representation. When someone is sent by him to do his will, to speak his words, by the instruction of the word, then they become him. When they speak they are no longer their own ‘I’ but the ‘I will be’ that is him. When this is recorded for others in his revelation it becomes ‘he’. ‘He’ is the revelatory cause and manifestational outcome.

We have already seen in the previous blog entry how that the preposition ‘el אל (‘to’ or ‘unto’) can be shortened, or truncated, down to one letter, that is the letter ל (l), and still retain the sense of ‘to’ or ‘unto’. This was seen in the format ‘I will be to them for ‘elohym and they shall be to me for a people’. Recurring, as it does, in the prophecies of Yehezq’el and Yeremyahu.

This, again, is relevant to the argument about the use of the homographic ‘el אל and its transferable meanings. Truncation in prepositions is a common phenomenon in biblical Hebrew. These prepositions are pre-positioned directly in front of the word which they govern and are directly attached to the beginning of that word. An interesting occurrence is the use of לאל in place of the longer form אל־אל (to/unto ‘el). Both forms occur in the Hebrew Old Testament and it is possible that the longer form creates a greater emphasis on the ‘to’/’unto’ sense.

The same truncation process also occurs with other prepositions such as מ (m) from the long form מן (min) meaning ‘from’/’of’ and ש (sh) from the long form אשר (‘asher), meaning ‘who’.

Furthermore, and perhaps of significance in the progression of this blog is the use of the preposition ב (b). This letter is known as ‘beth’ and is taken from the word for house (beth בית). Early Hebrew, both paleo-Hebrew and before that proto-sinaitic, are somewhat pictorial in nature and letters seem to bear a resemblance to certain things which they then bear the name of. In this case the letter ‘beth’ is supposed to, in a pictorial form, represent a house. In any case, one of the primary meanings of ב when prefixing another word is that of ‘in’. This heightens the relationship of the truncated ב with the word from which it was seemingly taken (בית – house) because the journey ‘into’ ends with being ‘in’ and the final ‘in’ is often in a/the house. Thus:

And the city shall be accursed, even it, and all that are therein, to Yahweh: only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all that are with her in the house (בבית), because she hid the messengers that we sent. (Yehoshua’ 6.17)

So here, as with Noah, salvation is dependent on being in the house and, presumably, her relatives, after being called by her, had to make that journey unto, before being in, the house.

A common use of the preposition ל (l) is in the term לעולם (le’olam), usually translated ‘for ever’ but really meaning ‘to/for the age’. The use of the truncated ל (l) in this phrase will be useful in upcoming blogs in considering ‘el אל as not only a journey in distance but also in time.

The term Homograph is constructed from two Greek words meaning ‘the same’ and ‘writing’. As a word it is not present in the Greek New Testament but is used in the English language to describe a word that is made up of the same letters but may not necessarily either be pronounced the same or mean the same thing. We are going to use homograph to describe a word that is spelt with the same letters and has a relation with other words spelt the same.

A premise to the trajectory of this blog is that one of the terms, incorrectly, translated ‘God’ in the Hebrew Old Testament (‘el אל) is an identical spelling (that is, a homograph) to the Hebrew word for ‘to’ or ‘unto’ (‘el אל). Furthermore, that this fact is pertinent to understanding the meaning of one of the titles by which the creator has decided to call himself by. This argument relies on accepting that there is a relationship of meaning between scriptural homographs. In this case that relationship is to say that there is a directional sense embedded in the meaning of this particular title for the creator (‘el אל) and that this goes to the heart of a particular and profound aspect of his identity. This being the case it would be wise to show that there is room in the word to grasp the significance of homographic relationships.

Homographs, as we mentioned above, are when two words are identical in the letters that they present, in this case the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. This can be because they present the same 2 or 3 letter stem or they present the same in a constructed form.

In the first category we can look at the homograph שבע (sheba’) 

This occurs as the verb ‘to swear’ and as the number ‘seven’. They occur together in Genesis 21 where ‘Abraham swears an oath with ‘Abimelek concerning a well. ‘Abraham sets seven ewe lambs of the flock by themselves and ‘Abimelek asks what they mean.

‘And he said, for these seven ewe lambs shall you take of my hand, that they may be a witness unto me, that I have digged this well. Wherefore he called that place Beer-sheba’ because there they sware both of them’ (Gen.21.30,31)

I have highlighted the relevant words – seven and sware – to show how they correspond. The fact that the two terms are linked in meaning is evident to ‘Abraham too as he explicitly connects them. That is, there are seven ewe lambs as a sign that he was swearing this oath with ‘Abimelek.

In the same verse (31) we also have the use of the term ‘there’ (שם) which is homographic with the verb ‘to set/place’ and the word for ‘name’. Interestingly this verb to set or place has a relation to the New Testament Greek word from which the title Theos (θεος) comes. That is, that at the heart of the meaning of Theos (θεος) is the idea of a set place.

Again these terms occur in close proximity with one another and are, therefore, clearly linked.

‘But unto the place which Yahweh your ‘elohym shall choose out of all your tribes to put his name there, unto his habitation shall you seek, and there you shall come’ (Deuteronomy 12.5)

As you can see in the Hebrew text, as in the English, the 3 homographs are put together – ‘to put’, ‘his name’ and ‘there’ with a further ‘there’ at the conclusion of the verse (all highlighted).

So, there is a place which he shall choose and he requires his people to seek it out and to come unto it, presuming therefore that when they come unto it he is there.

Furthermore, as a matter of interest which will be highly relevant in the coming argument the word ‘unto’ (אל) occurs both in its full form and in its truncated form (ל) in this verse (Deut.12.5). In a sense we shall see that this verse is a perfect summing up of the argument of this blog. That is, that there is a journey to take unto a final settled destination and that the process and final destination are summed up in the idea of the name (of Yahweh) and the journey in the title ‘el (אל) and the destination in the title Theos (θεος).

The third of our homographic examples is the Hebrew word עם and its constructed form עמך. In the first form the word means ‘with’ or ‘people’ and in the second ‘with you’ or ‘your people’ where ‘you’ is in the singular (in the KJV thee/thy).

An example where the two seem to come together is in Deuteronomy 32:

‘Rejoice, you nations with his people’ (Deut.32.43)

This is then quoted up into Romans:

‘Rejoice you nations with his people’ (Rom.15.10)

In the first passage the word ‘with’ is not present in the Hebrew text but the homographic ‘people’ is. In the New Testament quotation the words ‘with’ and ‘people’ are both present in the text. The spirit of Theos instructing us that the sense of ‘with’ is included in the word ‘people’. This shows that in certain circumstances the homograph can hold more than just one of the meanings at the same time.

With you/thee occurs, for example, in Yehoshua’ 1:

‘There shall not any man be able to stand before you all the days of your life: as I was with Mosheh so I will be with you: I will not fail you or forsake you. (Yehoshua’ 1.5)

In the following verse there is also a strong context of Yahweh creating a ‘people’ firstly through the work of Mosheh and now through Yehoshua’ as he takes them into the land and divides it into an inheritance for them. The sense of Yahweh promising to be (in the future) with Yehoshua’ as he was (in the past tense) with Mosheh is important, the verb ‘to be’ in the future tense being critical here as it is critical in Exodus 3 where ‘I will be’ is the basis for the revealing of the name of Yahweh to Mosheh and the people being created by him. Here the ‘I will be’ is about taking the people forward through the person of Yehoshua’ whose name means ‘he shall save’ and is identical to Iesous’ name in the New Testament (see Math. 1.21).

A similar pattern is evident in Judges where Gide’on is called by Yahweh to smite the people of Midyan:

‘And Yahweh said unto him, Surely I will be with you and you shall smite Midyan as one man’ (Judges 6.16)

The context again is of Gide’on saving the people of Yahweh. Yahweh is using Gide’on as one man leading and saving his people. This is done with the use of the relatively rare construction used both in Yehoshua’ 1 and Exodus 3 – ‘I will be’ – with the notion of him being with the representative man for the purpose of saving him and his people. Again, we see an example of homographs used in the close context of understanding the name both of Yahweh (the father) and Yehoshua’/Iesous (the son)

The use of ‘your/thy people’ occurs in the book of Ruth:

‘And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave you nor to return from following after you for where you go I shall go, where you lodge I shall lodge, your people are my people and your ‘elohym my ‘elohym.’ (Ruth 1.16)

We can note here that people are juxtaposed with ‘elohym. This juxtaposition of people and ‘elohym is used repeatedly in the books of Yeremyahu and Yehezq’el where it is combined with the form of the verb ‘to be’ used in Yehoshua’ 1. Thus:

‘I will be to them for ‘elohym and they shall be to me for a people.’ (Yehez.37.27)

In the “I will be with thee”, homographically interpretable as “I will be thy people” it is as though the former quotation from Yehezq’el has been contracted down into one phrase. In the elongated quotation the truncated form of ‘el (אל), that is ל, is repeatedly used and translated ‘to’ and ‘for’. Thus, ‘I will be to them for ‘elohym and they shall be to me for a people.’ The idea of being, as in becoming and taking on an identity, is seen as occurring at a future time when the identities of ‘elohym and people are intertwined, are so ‘one unto another’ that they are one. Thus the promise of, at the same time, being with thee (Mosheh and then Yehoshua’) are indistinguishable from ‘elohym being the people. So, Yahweh being with these shepherds of Yisra’el is a precursor for him being the people and them being him. The being and becoming the identity of Yahweh which happens to the shepherd first then happens to the flock subsequently because the shepherd, having first become ‘elohym, then teaches them how to become ‘elohym too. As this process is certain to occur it is as though the people are in the shepherd as he stands before Yahweh to receive his teaching.

As we have established that we are now enquiring after Theos. It is critical that we consider the expression of himself, that is the word of Theos.

The expression of the spirit or mind which is Theos, that is the word, is spirit and is Theos.

In the beginning was the word and the word was towards Theos and the word was Theos. The same was in the beginning towards Theos. (Ioh.1.1,2)

And:

But the hour comes, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the father in spirit and in truth: for the father seeks such to worship him. Theos is spirit and they that worship him must worship in spirit and in truth (Ioh.4.23,24)

So the word and Theos are the same yet the word is also in a reciprocal relationship towards him. That is, it goes out from him, being him, and returns to him. The word is the expression of spirit. Theos is spirit.

Furthermore, because the word is Theos and Theos is without fault, then the word is also without fault. Man, contrariwise is full of faults. The word which is Theos, is of Theos and returns to Theos is faultless. The copying and enunciating of it by man is not without fault.

Furthermore, the pure and faultless word which is Theos needs to be sought out by man.

The glory of ‘elohym to conceal a word and the glory of kings to seek out a word (Prov.25.2)

The expression of his spirit is seen in the 66 books of the Bible. 39 of which, in the Old Testament were written in Hebrew, with the exception of portions of Dany’el and ‘Ezra’ which were written in Aramaic. The Hebrew which we have is written in a square Aramaic script that seemed to have emerged from Babylon from around the time of Dany’el and ‘Ezra’. Whereas the originals were probably written in paleo (or proto) Hebrew, a kind of Phoenician alphabet and, possibly, in the case of the first 5 books of the bible a script some refer to as proto-sinaitic. In any case all of these scripts are slightly different representations of the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. The 27 books of the New Testament are written in koine (or common) Greek.

We are constantly in a process of trying to refine our association with this revealed word to try to get to the original expression of spirit which is Theos. If we use a modern English translation we are further away from that distilled spirit than if we are looking at Greek and Hebrew biblical manuscripts. If we are further away from receiving the pure spirit of Theos then we are further away from reciprocating it and, therefore, further away from him. Clearly, the word of Theos, being Theos, is only present in its pure form in heaven but, nevertheless, we must strive to attain unto that mind.

Furthermore, following on from the points made above about the purity and originality of texts in an attempt to get close to that ideal this blog will be based on analysis of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia text for the Hebrew Old Testament with the proviso that it is understood that the original written form would not only have been written predominantly in paleo-hebrew script but would have also been written without pointing and accents as also is the case for the Greek New Testament for which we will reference the 26^th Edition of the Nestle-Aland Text and the Hodges/Farstad 2^nd edition of the Majority Text, which not only would have been unaccented but also written in uncial (capital) form.

Why should we use the greek word Theos (θεος), the Hebrew word ‘el (אל) or any of the other words used to describe the creator in the Bible, rather than the commonly used term ‘God’?

The habit of the Roman empire was to assimilate local deities and customs (feasts etc) into the empire as it was present in a particular locality. This made various nations and tribes less hostile to the empire as they were not under the impression that the empire had utterly subdued them, destroying their customs and, therefore, their cultural identity, but had merely modified the names and feasts of their tradition.

In the early 4th century AD, during the reign of Constantine the Great, christianity became the official religion of the Roman empire. In the same century Bishop Ulfilas (311-383) translated the Bible into Gothic, the language (whose alphabet, it is argued, he largely created from Greek and Latin) of the Visigoths and Ostrogoths who were then resident in central Europe. In this translation, or perhaps more accurately in this first presentation of the Bible in the newly created Gothic language, he substituted the Greek term Theos (θεος) and/or the Latin term Deus with the Gothic ‘Gudan’. This term was also the term used to describe a proto-Germanic deity and may have been the origin for the term Goth. It is one of a number of deities shared with the Scandinavian nations where the Goths emerged from where he was called Odin and in the British Isles as Wodan. Eventually, as German developed, the term became Gott, which today is still used (in German) as the noun ‘God’.

We can see, therefore, that the use of the term ‘God’ originates in the habit of Romans of assimilating nations and their deities into the prevailing Roman culture and, in this case, religion. Its presence indicates a compromised position where a Norse/Gothic deity has been confused with the one revealed in the bible. As is the case in assimilation and compromise the values of the two become confused and their qualities bleed into one another.

If language is the expression of a mind then by using the term ‘God’ we are, however unwittingly, part of an expression which the creator of the heavens and earth did not choose for himself, therefore we are not expressing his mind but the mind of a false understanding of another, mythological, deity. We should therefore prefer to use the term he uses and the meaning underpinning it.

And perhaps also why in that order? As mentioned in the previous blog the motivation for starting this journey, several years ago, was the realisation that one of the words translated ‘God’ in the Old Testament was the Hebrew word ‘el (אל) which is the same word as ‘to’ or ‘unto’. Also that the main word translated ‘God’ in the New Testament is the Greek word Theos (θεος). We might conclude, therefore, that there is an equivalence between the two.

In the new testament there are two primary words for forward direction. These are pros (προς) and eis (εις). They are both translated ‘to’ and ‘unto’ but carry further senses. Particularly, pros (προς) which is also translated as ‘before’ and ‘with’. The second word – eis (εις) – is most usually translated as ‘unto’ or ‘into’. A good way of seeing them both and differentiating their meanings is to think of a journey to a house. Pros (προς) is the journey taken that ends up with you standing before, or in front of, the house whereas eis (εις) is the journey taken that ends up with you in, that is inside, the house.

We can see, therefore, that this journey starts out facing a direction, embarking on it and following the path until we come face to face and then, finally, in Theos. Theos is the one we must turn our head towards, aim towards, draw near to and, finally, become one with. We can see therefore the journeying element of ‘el (אל) combining with the set place, or final destination, of Theos (θεος).

The phrases pros ton Theon (προς  τον θεον) – towards/before the Theos; pros Theon (προς θεον) – towards Theos; eis ton Theon (εις τον θεον) – unto/into the Theos; and eis Theon (εις θεον) – unto/into Theos are all used in the New Testament. We will come to these in another blog.

For now we will move onto our first prerequisites blog dealing with the question of why we should use the term Theos and not God.