Dr Paul Allen

  Several instances throughout Exodus (e.g., Ex 16:10; 34:5) have made clear that the visible manifestation of Yahweh’s presence often occurs as a cloud. Since the Israelites conceived of Yahweh as invisible, they needed a visible entity—​a reminder or symbol that could be seen by the human eye—​to reassure them that Yahweh was indeed present with them. That visible entity is often referred to in the OT as the “glory” (kabod) of Yahweh. Isa 40:5, e.g., states that it is the “glory of the LORD” that “all people will see.” Once the construction and arrangement of the tabernacle in Exodus are complete, the glory of Yahweh, in the form of a cloud, fills the place that Moses cannot even enter it (Ex 40:35).  It seems, therefore, to have been more than something that could merely be seen; it could be sensed in other ways. At one point in Exodus, the “glory” is called a “consuming fire” (24:17). The glory of Yahweh was reassuring and fear-inspiring all at the same time. This is reminiscent of

One of the more surprising truths of the Christian religion is that we don’t know for sure how to pronounce the name of our own God. Good evidence suggests it should be   Yahweh , but good evidence is all God has chosen to leave us—not certainty. There is one thing we do know, though: God’s name is not  Jehovah . That word is a colossal, unrepealable, European mistake. People can get really uptight about the way the name of God gets translated in English Bibles. The Jehovah’s Witnesses, a non-trinitarian religious group, have made it one of their leading distinctive to insist that the best way to translate the Hebrew word יהוה (YHWH) is with the English word  Jehovah . Their custom-made Bible, the New World Translation, uses it over 7,000 times. Even the venerable King James Version uses it seven times. But there are at least two excellent reasons why  Jehovah  should not appear in any English Bible. 1. Jehovah was created by a misunderstanding. First,  Jehovah  is the weirdest kind o

“I am that I am”—God’s response when Moses asks for his name is famous for both its simplicity and its mystery (Exod 3:14 LEB). What exactly does it mean? In Hebrew, God says ehyeh asher ehyeh (“I am that I am”). The verb form for “I am” is ehyeh. If you’ve studied a language, you know that verbs—action words—have grammatical person and number. With most languages, “number” refers to singular or plural; “person” refers to the subject of the verb. When I taught biblical languages, I would explain it this way: I am number one (first person). You are second fiddle (second person). Everyone else (he, she, or they) is a third party (third person). In this sentence, the name of God, ehyeh, is a first-person, singular form of the verb “to be” (hayah). It’s a statement of self-existence—and, therefore, a denial of being created by any higher power or force. Yet, the consonants used in ehyeh are not exactly the same as those found in the name of God in thousands of other places in the

Dagon Bows to Yahweh And when the people of Ashdod arose early in the morning, there was Dagon, fallen on its face to the earth before the ark of the LORD (1 Sam. 5:1-6). The unthinkable has happened —the ark of the covenant has been captured by Israel’s archenemies, the Philistines. While it rested in the tabernacle, it was a symbol of God’s presence with His people. In the same way, its removal is a sign to Israel that “ ‘the glory has departed’ ” (1 Sam. 4:22); that is, that God has removed His presence to chastise His people for their sin. God has allowed the ark to be taken. However, as we will see, He is fully capable of bringing it back. The Philistines take the ark to their city of Ashdod, site of the temple of Dagon, a fertility god worshiped not just by the Philistines but by other people groups in Mesopotamia, Syria, and Phoenicia during this time. The ark is set “by Dagon.” The Philistines may be placing the ark before their god as a symbol of his “victory” over

We all have watershed moments in life, critical turning points where, from that moment on, nothing will ever be the same. One such moment in my own life came when I rediscovered the word  elohim .  My friend handed me his Hebrew Bible , open to Psalm 82 . He said simply, “Here, read that . . . look at it closely.” The first verse hit me like a bolt of lightning: God [ elohim ] stands in the divine assembly; he administers judgment in the midst of the gods [ elohim ]. LET'S GO EXPLORE THE BIBLE I’ve indicated the Hebrew wording that caught my eye and put my heart in my throat. The word  elohim  occurs twice in this short verse.  Other than the covenant name, Yahweh , it’s the most common word in the Old Testament for God . The first use of the word in this verse worked fine. But since I knew my Hebrew grammar , I saw immediately that the second instance needed to be translated as plural. There it was, plain as day:  The God of the Old Testament w

For every man threw down his rod, and they became serpents. But Aaron’s rod swallowed up their rods (Ex. 7:12). The first time that Moses appealed to Pharaoh, he did so in word only. But this time Moses is directed to prove that he is God’s messenger: “Show a miracle for yourselves.” no doubt, Pharaoh said this hoping that none would be wrought. But even if Moses did do something supernatural, Pharaoh was prepared to discredit him. He had called his wise men to counter anything Moses might do. So when the staff of Aaron turned into a serpent, the wise men cast down their staffs, transforming them into snakes. Pharaoh must have been quite proud of himself. But there was more to come. Moses’ serpent swallowed the others, thus testifying to the power and supremacy of Yahweh. Still, Pharaoh hardened his heart to the plain truth. This is a classic example of a man who refuses to believe. He demands evidence, he demands proof in the form of a miracle, and when a miracle is delivered, he

Cima da Conegliano - David and Jonathan - WGA04912 (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) This generation has more opportunities for communication than any before it, with email and social networking making it possible to interact with others 24/7. Yet suicide rates are higher than ever, and antidepressant medications have become almost standard fare. We have more connections than ever before, but they’re not relationships. We still feel alone. People need authentic community—a sense of communing with someone—to feel whole and healthy. The story of David and Jonathan portrays the true nature of friendship : “the soul of Jonathan became attached to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul” (1 Sam 18:1). Jonathan could easily have been jealous of his friend; David was a great warrior and had just been brought into the household of Jonathan’s father, the king, as the king’s protégé (1 Sam 17:48–58; 18:2). Instead of being jealous, Jonathan responded with love and kindness, and

Original, unrestored version of "Jephtha's Rash Vow", by James Gundee & M. Jones, London. Published January 20, 1807. Illustrates the description of Jephtha in Antiquities of the Jews, Book V, by Flavius Josephus NOTE: Due to filesize limitations, this has been cropped somewhat from the original scan, but no other modifications have been applied (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Judges 11 is one of the darkest chapters in the Bible. God ’s judge, Jephthah , offers up his only child as a human sacrifice , under the incredibly sinful assumption that Yahweh is worshiped in the same way the pagan gods are. The story stands as evidence that without faith, God’s people are as depraved as the world, and that Israel is in desperate need of a savior better than a Judge. Two articles ( here and here ) that have argued against that understanding of Judges 11, essentially saying, “no, no…you have it all wrong…God wouldn’t allow one of his Judges to do something that horrible… Je

An example of Allāh written in simple Arabic calligraphy. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) A rose is a rose is a rose. This dictum reinforces the adage that a rose by any other name is still a rose. The idea is that the essence of the rose is not conditioned by what name is attached to it. It is its res, not its nomina, that determines what it is. In different languages, the same flower is known by different names, but it is still the same flower. When we apply this idea to theology things get a bit more complicated. Indeed the rose adage has been transferred indiscriminately to religion in order to create a theological concept. The concept is: “God by any other name is still God.” Now certainly, it is true that the immutable essence of God is not changed by the alteration of His name. In English, we may say “God,” in German “Gott,” in Greek “Theos,” yet all these names or words are used to point to the same Deity. Beyond this, however, things get murky. It is a quantum leap to go from