I am currently updating my study titled "God's Identity According to Ancient Hebrew Scholars." The following is a modified excerpt from Objection #7 in Part 2 of that study:

B

ack in 1998, at one of the many feast venues we have attended over the years, we fellowshipped with some old friends from Indiana who made a yearly custom out of driving all the way down to Texas to attend the Feast of Tabernacles. On a pleasant, sunny afternoon during that feast, Mike and I were strolling about the immense lawn and enjoying the pleasant fall Texas weather as we chatted about our personal experiences and the daily challenges that confronted us, as believers, in an otherwise secular world. Our conversation took a negative turn, however, when I expressed my concern about the decision of several within the Yahwist community to regard the name/title God as an appropriate title for Yahweh. To my surprise, I quickly discovered that Mike is among those who embrace this belief! During the limited time that we had to visit, I summarized most, if not all, the reasons for why June and I feel this title actually dishonors Yahweh. However, it soon became obvious that my words were falling on “deaf ears.” Mike just didn’t seem able to process that referring to Yahweh as “God” dishonors Him. For reasons that he was apparently not willing to divulge, he is obviously not ready to abandon the title God.

     In my study, I explain how and why pro-God advocates' claim of a separate etymological root of the English word God just doesn’t pan out, and even if it did, those who uphold that reasoning are taking a word with a known pagan origin, a word that never came close to meaning “Almighty” or “Power,” and then redefining it to suit their desired translation of Elohim. And of course, they reject Yahweh’s definition (cf., the Hebrew text of Isaiah 65:11) in favor of man's definition. I would think supplying Yahweh's definition of God would stop all arguments, but my answer didn’t resonate with Mike. His adamant stand in favor of referring to Yahweh as God persuaded me that he has underlying reasons for not wishing to give it up, but I did not pursue them. Instead, I simply asked, “Can you show me how referring to Yahweh as ‘our God’ honors Him?”

     He replied, “Well, I just can’t see how it dishonors Him ....”

     I felt I had already explained to him exactly “how” referring to our Creator as “our God” does dishonor Him, so obviously he either wasn’t listening to me or else he has no problem with referring to our Creator with a title that is pronounced the same as the name of the Babylonian deity of fortune—a deity worshipped by those who forsake Yahweh (Isaiah 65:11). Mike obviously does not see the connection, nor does he have a problem with taking that same Hebrew name, redefining it, converting it to a title, then appropriating it to Yahweh. Clearly, he and I have vastly different understandings of the meaning of the word “honor.”

     At this point of our discussion, I attempted to offer Mike an analogy using basic human terminology. “Consider the English word ‘friend,’” I explained. “How would you like it if, instead of referring to you as my ‘friend,’ I were to henceforth refer to you as my ‘hitler’ as my own personal means of conveying that you are a very, very special friend? I would reserve using ‘hitler’ for only my most special friends. Would this be considered an appropriate way to enhance our relationship?”

     Consider the analogy: Just as many folks insist that there is nothing wrong with employing the name of a detestable idol as a translation of the Hebrew title “Elohim,” a similar case could be made for translating the Hebrew word reya (friend) into English as “hitler.” Knowing where the word/name Hitler has been and the negative connotation that is now associated with it, would such a translation in any way convey respect for a person with whom I would like to cultivate a very special relationship? We need to give Yahweh the same consideration, only on a much higher level! Clearly, after giving such an exemplary model of a nefarious name translated into a term to be reserved for a very, very special friend, I reasoned that Mike would at last see my point and agree that, indeed, it cannot and does not honor Yahweh to refer to Him as “our God.”

     However, Mike’s answer caught me off guard. Mike answered that if that’s what “hitler” meant to me—if the new term I crafted meant “very, very special friend” to me, then he would have no problem with it. I was frustrated by his response, but this is where I “dropped the ball,” so to speak, because I allowed our conversation to end at that point. In so doing, I missed a golden opportunity that day to make a very significant and vital point. In fact, I didn’t learn my lesson from that day because I repeated the same, exact mistake 24 years later at a different feast venue.

     At a Feast of Tabernacles celebration in 2022, I was asked to give the first three parts of my five-part PowerPoint presentation titled “Tracing the Origin of the Word God.” The presentation was delivered on three separate days of the feast, and I presented Part 3 on the “Last Great Day.” At the conclusion of each presentation, I fielded questions from the audience. Things went well until the Last Great Day. A pro-God advocate named Jeff, who had not witnessed Parts 1 and 2, approached the front of the sanctuary and challenged my reasoning. I don’t mean to impute motives, but let’s just say it quickly became clear to me that Jeff didn’t approach me with the noble intention of reasoning together. Once I answered one of his challenges, he moved on to a different one with the apparent intent of making me look bad in front of the audience. The first challenge was the classic one about the name Gad being on one of the gates of the New Jerusalem, an argument which I quickly defused. The next one was his personal protest that “not speaking the names of idols” actually means “not speaking their authority," a contention his dad had raised after one of my previous presentations. I address that argument in Newsletter #28.

     In my attempt to help Jeff and my audience to quickly grasp my point, I proceeded with the same argument I used on Mike back in 1998. I asked Jeff how he would like it if I came up with my own personal word to use for my very, very special friends, and that word is hitler. Hopefully, we understand from history that this word is traced to the name of one of the most savage and ruthless dictators of all time. I asked Jeff if would he mind if I called him “my hitler”?

     In that moment, I’m guessing I completely forgot how my friend Mike answered that same question 24 years earlier because Jeff came up with the same, exact answer. He replied that if that’s what ‘hitler’ means to me, then he would be understanding of my personal conviction, and he wouldn’t be the slightest bit offended because he would understand that, to me, hitler meant "very special friend." He would therefore respect my use of hitler. My reaction to Jeff’s answer was essentially the same as it was to Mike's answer 24 years earlier: I was admittedly stunned. Surely he wouldn’t like it if I called him “my hitler,” would he? But I needed to remember, Jeff was determined to justify his choice of referring to Yahweh as “God,” even if it meant going to extremes, so naturally, he would go along with such a nefarious choice for a title. So how did I “drop the ball” on those two occasions of 1998 and 2022? How did I fail to capitalize on a golden opportunity to prove a legitimate point?

     I haven’t seen Jeff since 2022, and I doubt if I ever see him again, but if I could do it all over again, here's how our conversation should have gone that day:

Me: Suppose I wanted to come up with a term that, to me, conveys that someone is more than just a friend. I want a term that shows they’re a very, very special friend. The word I come up with is “hitler.” So to show you you’re my very, very special friend, I start calling you “my hitler.” Would you be okay with that?

Jeff: Sure, if that’s what “hitler” means to you, then I would respect your intentions!

Me (how I should have answered): Okay, so now let’s reverse the roles. Let’s say that to you, “Hitler” means “very, very special friend,” but to me it means one of the most savage and ruthless dictators of all time, responsible for the deaths of six million Jews. Would you still choose to call me your “hitler,” knowing what it means to me? Or is this all about you and what it means to you?

     Assuming that Jeff would answer, “Yes” and “Yes” again, that would tell me all I really need to know about him and his moral compass. I can’t help but wonder how the Nazi death camp survivors would react to Jeff’s answer. I realize the odds of him ever reading this are quite slim, especially since I discern that his mind is already made up, but just in case he should happen to stumble across my “corrected” scenario, I would love to know if he would still pursue the same approach, i.e., “it’s all about me—what it means to me—not the other person, and certainly not what it means to Yahweh.” I have likewise not seen Mike since our feast encounter of 1998, but I would certainly like to know, if the roles were reversed and hitler were to mean “very, very special friend” to him, would he refer to me as his hitler if he knew what it means to me? And does what God means to Yahweh matter to Mike?

     Of course, that’s the principal question I have for both Mike and Jeff, as well as all pro-God advocates: “If Yahweh has already identified God as the name of a heathen idol worshipped by those who forsake Him, which presupposes He detests God, would you then choose to refer to Him as your God?

     I was hesitant to include the accompanying photograph of Adolph Hitler. I know pro-God advocates will think I’m being extreme with my analogy. I would counter, “If the Creator of the universe has told us through the prophet Isaiah that God is the name of an idol worshipped by those who forsake Him, and if we know (which we should) that an idol is a devil (1 Cor 10:20), then which is worse—translating “very special friend” as hitler or translating Elohim as God? Who’s the extremist?

20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to Elohim: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.

     Elsewhere in my study, I address the fact that when the Hebrew scholars who translated the Septuagint in the first century BCE came to the idol's name pronounced God (גַד), they translated it daimon ("demon"). That was their understanding of "who" God is. Today's culture would certainly label them extremists!