In the past week or so, SurveyUSA began releasing state-by-state Presidential polls between Senator Obama and Senator McCain, along with several possible Vice-Presidential picks.
These polls are fun (for some people) to read, but should be taken with a grain of salt considering that most potential picks are not yet well known nationally, and the more well known picks tend to poll better.
Vice-Presidential candidates being polled with McCain include former Presidential candidates Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney, as well as Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Connecticut Independent Senator Joe Lieberman. Polling with Obama are Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, former Presidential candidate John Edwards, and Republican Senator Chuck Hagel.
Though dependent on the state, Huckabee and Lieberman tend to get the most support out of McCain's picks, Romney however, helps McCain very much in the swing state of Michigan, his first home state. Edwards gets the most support for Obama.
Huckabee tends to help McCain the most in the South. Rendell and Sebelius both help gain support for the Obama in their home states, though Sebelius on the ticket is not enough to overcome McCain in Kansas. Among McCain's candidates, Huckabee and Romney do the best among Conservatives, while Lieberman does the best among Moderates.
For full polling data, including crosstabs showing their support among party affiliation, ideological leanings, gender, race, etc., visit SurveyUSA's website.
In recent weeks, Senate prospects have brightened for Democrats with several pieces of good news, including several polls in states like Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oregon, and Texas that have shown Democratic challengers doing well. Harry Reid and other Senate Democrats chances at getting a filibuster-proof majority of 60 seats, which looked very small after they apparently didn't recruit good enough candidates for several contests, are looking up again:
Likely Democrat:
New Jersey (Lautenberg-D)
New Mexico (Open-R)
Virginia (Open-R)
Lean Democrat:
Colorado (Open-R)
Louisiana (Landrieu-D)
New Hampshire (Sununu-R)
Tossup:
Alaska (Stevens-R)
Mississipi (Wicker-R)
Lean Republican:
Minnesota (Coleman-R)
North Carolina (Dole-R)
Oregon (Smith-R)
Likely Republican:
Kansas (Roberts-R)
Kentucky (McConnel-R)
Maine (Collins-R)
Texas (Cornyn-R)
At least according to this list, it looks like Republicans will lose at least four Senate seats, and if they are very unfortunate, as many as thirteen. While I personally expect GOP prospects to brighten, Senate Democrats may start thinking about a veto-proof majority (67) in 2010 if it starts looking any better for them.
Charleston South Carolina is the official site of the nation’s first Memorial Day. In 1865 a group of liberated slaves are credited with starting Decorations Day, a predecessor of Memorial Day. During the Civil War, the historic race track in Charleston was the site of a Confederate prison camp for Union Soldiers. It was also a mass grave for Union Soldiers. The liberated slaves reinterred the dead Union soldiers into individual graves and created a cemetery in their honor. Approximately twelve years later, they returned and decorated the graves with flowers from the surrounding area; a very dangerous thing to do in the South. This very act created the first Decorations Day, named for the decorating of the Union Soldier’s individual graves. On June 28th 1968, Congress voted on the Uniform Holidays Bill, which in addition to changes to two other holidays, placed Memorial Day on the last Monday of May.
Obviously Barack Obama, Jeff Merkley, Mike Erickson etc. Won on Tuesday. Here are some less obvious winners:
The Democratic establishment: Democrat establishment candidates won almost every primary race. Barack Obama, Jeff Merkley, Kurt Schrader, and Kate Brown all won and all of them seemed to be the establishment picks. In the Attorney General's race John Kroger beat Greg Macpherson. Macpherson was probably more the establishment candidate, but that was the exception.
Conservative Republican State Rep. candidates: Matt Linland, Cliff Bentz, and Jim Weidner were among the conservative candidates who won their primaries. Liberal Republicans did not have as much success.
Congressional Democrats: In the open primaries for Congress district five, Kurt Schrader, the Democrats strongest candidate easily won. On the Republican side Mike Erickson won after a nasty primary, and opponent Kevin Mannix is not endorsing him, making it difficult for Republicans to win back this seat.
State House Republicans: John Nelsen, the Republican candidate for State House district 49, got a break on Tuesday when Nick Kahl, probably his weaker challenger, won his primary. Kahl is a young law student. Republicans also got their stronger candidate in district 24 where Jim Weidner won his primary easily.
Democrat voter turnout: Democrat voter turnout was HUGE, around 70%, which is WAY higher than normal primary turnout.
Crime victims: In the race for Washington County Circuit Court Judge in district 7 , Andy Erwin, who was the more pro-victims rights candidate, became the first challenger to knock off an incumbent judge in Washington county in 16 years.
Rick Dancer: Dancer, a former news anchor who easily won his primary for Secretary of State (he didn't have any opposition), will face Kate Brown in the fall. Brown was probably the weaker general election candidate out of or Senator Rick Metsger.
Here are ten questions that should be answered after tonight's voting:
Barack Obama will likely win the Oregon primary fairly easily...
...1. How many delegates will he win?
...2. What will the popular vote margin be?
...3.Can he close it out with a big win, or will it even be enough to offset his loss in Kentucky?
4. Will Steve Novick be able to pull an upset win in the Democratic U.S. Senate primary?
5. Will a last minute scandalbe enough to seal Mike Erickson's fate in the campaign for the Republican nomination in Oregon's congressional district five Republican primary, and deliver a win for Kevin Mannix?
9. In the several contested Republican Legislative primaries, will the more Conservative or more Liberal candidates win, or will it be balanced between the two?
10. Will Kurt Schrader be able to pull off an expected blow-out win in the Democrat primary for Congress district five?
In tomorrow's Democratic Presidential primary, 34 of Oregon's 52 pledged delegates will be awarded proportionally by Congressional district, with each district having a certain amount of delegates depending on the Democratic vote from that district in previous elections. Here is a look at each district:
District 1 has seven delegates. District one's Congressman David Wu has endorsed Obama, though it may not help much because Wu is not incredibly popular there. Obama should win this district: it has the smallest percentage of blue collar workers, a group that Clinton does well with, of all the Congressional districts in Oregon.
District 2 has five delegates, the smallest of any Oregon district, because of it's Republican lean. Clinton should expect to do well here since it is a rural district, where Clinton tends to do well in.
District 3 has nine delegates due to it's Democratic tilt. This district will likely lean towards Obama who tends to do well in urban districts such as this. Clinton may get a large share of the blue collar vote and Obama will likely easily win the black vote, which is the largest in the state. Obama is endorsed by Congressman Earl Blumenauer.
District 4 also has seven delegates. This district is hard to predict being part a rural district (where Clinton usually does well) and part a university town district (where Obama does well). Congressman Pete Defazio has endorsed Obama.
District 5 has six delegates. District five is a suburban district that is difficult to predict. Clinton is endorsed by Congresswoman Darlene Hooley and it has the largest Hispanic population (another group Clinton does well with) of any Oregon district.
Statewide, Obama leads 45%-41% in the latest poll, though he has been leading by a larger margin in most polls. Governor Ted Kulongoski has endorsed Clinton.
This election year is important for so many reasons. Setting aside the usual issues that affect the lives of everyday Americans…issues such as the economy, Iraq, Taxes etc., the events of yesterday in California should raise awareness of another issue that can impact our lives more than those previously listed. The issue at hand is the appointment of Judges. Yesterday, the California Supreme Court reversed Proposition 22, which amended the California Constitution to read the following…"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." This was voted on eight years ago on March 7 2000. This amendment was voted in with a 61.4% majority vote…to use an election term, this was a landslide. Eight years later, the Supreme Court ruled this to be unconstitutional. The court ruled with a 4 to 3 majority. Judge Kennard in his concurring opinion states “The architects of our federal and state constitutions understood that widespread and deeply rooted prejudices may lead majoritarian institutions to deny fundamental freedoms to unpopular majority group , and that the most effective remedy to this oppression is an independent judiciary charged with the solemn responsibility to interpret and enforce the constitutional provisions guaranteeing fundamental freedoms and equal protection.” To read the decision, along with other concurring and dissenting opinions, you can do so HERE.
In effect, the ruling of just four Judges could now affect future state laws as many states will begin to question the constitutionality of such laws. Here in Oregon, Measure 36 overwhelmingly passed in 2004, which stated the following: “It is the policy of Oregon, and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.” Hmmm…sounds familiar. Although the California decision was a state action, this is an example of legislation from the bench; a key issue in the next presidential race. The next president will have to appoint potentially hundreds of federal judges over the next four to eight years. In addition, the Supreme Court will face the retirement of possibly five justices. If Barack Obama is our next president…what type of Judge do you think he will appoint? What of Hillary or McCain? This is an issue we should all be aware of. Whom do you want to create our laws, our elected officials, or appointed judges? Well…that is for us to decide, is not it?
Last week I raised the possibility of a write-in campaign for Ron Saxton. If a candidate receives enough write-in votes and accepts the nomination, they can still appear on the November ballot. There are several other write-in efforts for Oregon's May 20th primary. Here are a few of them:
President:
One columnist suggested perhaps writing-in Al Gore in the Democratic primary in an effort to draft him as a solution to the unresolved Democratic primary fight.
Congress:
District 1: Small business owner and military veteran Stephan Brodhead is running a write-in campaign for the Republican nomination. He was disqualified from the ballot because he wasn't a registered Republican for the required 180 days. Brodhead is a more conservative option than the somewhat liberal candidates Joel Haugen and William Chappell.
District 4: In a recent mailer, the Lane county Republican party suggested writing-in popular Springfield Mayor Sid Leiken for the Republican nomination to take on Rep. Pete Defazio, who is so far unopposed.
State Senate:
Oregon Republican party Chairman Vance Day sent a letter to district 25 (Gresham area) Republicans asking them to write-in businessman Dave Kim for the nomination.
State Rep:
Tim Bero, a businessman for 25 years in his district, is running an active write-in campaign for the nomination in district 32 (parts of Clatsop, Columbia, Tillamook, and Washington counties). Bero will face Democrat Debbie Boone in this oddly drawn out district.
Jim Ellison, a Republican precinct committeeman, is running for the nomination in district 33 (Parts of Multnomah and Washington counties) to take on far-left Legislator Mitch Greenlick.
Keith Forsythe, a local business owner who has been a resident of St. Helens his whole life,is running for district 31 (parts of Clatsop, Columbia, and Multnomah counties) to take on unopposed first full term Democrat Brad Witte.
Former Legislator Pat Farr is the write-in candidate for Republicans in district 14 (Eugene area). Farr would be matched up against freshman Rep. Chris Edwards in the general election.
Dr. Bill Young (district 13, also the Eugene area) is also suggested by the Lane county Republicans:
Dr. Bill is an independent thinker who would vote on bills based on what is best for the district and the state. Dr. Bill would not blindly follow any party's leadership, unlike the current Democratic incumbent.
One of my interests is human nature. Thus, in my search for a better understanding of human nature, I am led to the study of natural law and of conscience. As C.S. Lewis is the modern standard bearer for Conscience, I have compiled a short examination of his arguments (from Mere Christianity).If you are using Internet Explorer, this post will probably not display properly. IE is not a very good browser. If you're interested in upgrading your browser to something that actually works...download Firefox.
All human beings on the earth have an innate idea that they should behave in a certain way. Regardless of their actions, they are unable to remove this feeling. However, interestingly, regardless of feeling—in fact, in opposition to feeling—they do not always behave in this way. They instinctively know the “Law of Nature,” and yet, they break it. In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis argues that these two particulars are the underpinning of all clear thinking regarding how humans behave. Consider the impulses of the human body. How does the mind determine what action to make when it has two simultaneous impulses that contradict each other? The Law of Human Nature is naturally the deciding factor. This Moral Law is not any one particular instinct or any specific set of instincts. Rather it directs the instincts; it is a guide, which promotes goodness and right conduct. Many descriptive words refer to this Law of Human Nature, consider Natural Law, fair play, decency, morality, ethics, principles, honesty, or integrity. Lewis believed that one must admit that Right is Right and that this Right is independent of what people think. If one does not adhere to this concept, then one is forced to accept the proposal that no morality is “better” or “righter” than, for example, Nazi morality. This forces the believer into a quagmire: “if my morality is no better then Hitler’s, what ‘right’ do I have to oppose him?” The answer is “no right.” Moreover, Lewis makes the point that quarreling testifies to the legitimacy of Natural Law. When a disagreement exists between two people, clearly each person believes he is “right.” When quarreling, both parties try to appeal to some sort of standard. Every people and every culture have this standard, or this “implanted awareness” of God. Moreover, it is intrinsically implanted into every person.
Lewis is by no means the only person to come to this conclusion. Indeed, the Psalmist attests to this:
The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language Where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, And their words to the end of the world (Psalms 19:1-4).
Additionally, the Apostle Paul declares:
For since the creation of the world His invisible qualities have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, both His everlasting power and Mightiness, for them to be without excuse (Romans 1:20)
Similarly, John Calvin states that:
‘There is within the human mind, and indeed by natural instinct, an awareness of divinity.’ This we take to be beyond controversy. To prevent anyone from taking refuge in the pretence of ignorance, God himself has implanted in all men a certain understanding of his divine majesty. Ever renewing its memory, he repeatedly sheds fresh drops. Since, therefore, men one and all perceive that there is a God and that he is their Maker, they are condemned by their own testimony because they have failed to honor him and to consecrate their lives to his will. If ignorance of God is to be looked for anywhere, surely one is more likely to find an example of it among the more backward folk and those more remote from civilization. Yet there is, as the eminent pagan says, no nation so barbarous, no people so savage, that they have not a deep-seated conviction that there is a God. So deeply does the common conception occupy the minds of all, so tenaciously does it inhere in the hearts of all! Therefore, since from the beginning of the world there has been no region, no city, in short, no household that could not do without religion, there lies in this tact confession of a sense of deity inscribed in the hearts of all.
Indeed, the perversity of the impious, who though they struggle furiously are unable to extricate themselves from the fear of God, is abundant testimony that his conviction, namely, that there is some God, is naturally inborn in all, and is fixed deep within, as it were in the very marrow…. From this we conclude that it is not a doctrine that must first be learned in school, but one of which each of us is master from his mother’s womb and which nature itself permits no one to forget.[1]
Likewise, Thomas Aquinas, the Catholic theologian, called Human Nature Ratio, which in the Greek is rendered the classical logos. Aquinas defines natural law as “a share of eternal law in rational creatures.” Since it mirrors eternal law, or associates with it, natural law is, as such, divine.[2]
In his famous passage, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the French philosopher, proclaimed, “Conscience, conscience! Divine instinct, immortal and celestial voice. . . .”[3] However, this postulation was not first formed in the Enlightenment; rather it goes as far back as antiquity. The Stoic philosopher Lucius Annaeus Seneca wrote, “God is near of you, with you, in you. A sacred spirit has its seat in us. It is the observer and keeper of our good deeds and our wrongdoings.”[4] This is the Stoic idea of conscience: it is divine. In Western regimes, law is axiomatic, that is, it arises from the will of “the people.” The people know what to do because they listen to their conscience. Thus, the law is based, in the last resort, on the conscience of the people. This is the understanding of Vox populi, vox Dei, “The voice of the people, is the voice of God.” Consider the words of the fifteenth century philosopher Nicholas of Cusa:
All legitimate authority arises from elective concordance and free submission. There is in the people a divine seed by virtue of their common birth and the equal natural right of all men so that all authority—which comes from God as does man himself—is recognized as divine when it arises from the common consent of the subjects.[5]
This is to say that conscience is divine in its natural state.
Some people say that the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behavior known to all men is unsound because different civilizations and different ages have had relatively different moralities. For example, men have differed in regards to which people one should be unselfish to—whether it was only one’s own family or one’s fellow countrymen or everyone. However, they have constantly agreed not to always put oneself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether one could have only one wife or four. However, they have always agreed that one must not simply have any woman one liked.
Is there a “Higher Being”? Lewis advocates two reasons that support belief in one. The first is the universe that He has made. Cleary, proclaims Lewis, this demonstrates that this Being is a great artist. The second is the Moral Law, which, apparently, He has put into our minds. Based on the evidence of the Moral Law, one can conclude that the Being who created the universe is exceptionally concerned in right conduct, fair play, thoughtfulness, valor, devotion, honesty, and truthfulness. In this sense, the account given by Christianity and some other religions, that God is “good” is most agreeable. Nevertheless, the Moral Law is in no way lenient. It tells each individual to do the right thing, and it does not seem to care how painful, or dangerous, or difficult it is to do. If the “Higher Being” or “God” is like the Moral Law, than He is not credulous. According to the evidence of Natural Law, and according to the evidence of the universe, it is evident that there must be a “Higher Being” who created the universe and the inhabitants of the universe. This Being has set forth standards for what is “Righteous” and what is “Sinful.” What is Right and what is Wrong. These standards are ingrained in all people and relay a spiritual longing. Thus, not only is man by nature a “political animal” (if one adheres to the beliefs of Aristotle), but man is also, by nature, a “spiritual animal.”
[1]Calvin as quoted in Reason and Belief in God, 56-66
[2]Aquinas Thomas, Summa Theologica, IaIIae, q. 91, a. 2, c; ad 1m; a. 4, beginning.
[3] Rousseau, Emile IV, trans. Allan Bloom (New York: Basic Books, 1979), 290.
[4] Seneca, Ad Lucilium epistolae, 41, 1-2; ed. L.C. Reynolds, Oxford, t. 1, 108.
[5] Nicholas of Cusa, De concordantia catholica, III, 4, 331 (Opera Omnia, vol. 14, 348); trans. P.E.
Sigmund (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 230.
Barack Obama was long expected to win the North Carolina primary easily and keep it close in Indiana.
Hillary Clinton however, took the lead in the polls in Indiana and closed the gap in North Carolina in the week or so preceding the primary voting, which caused heightened expectations for Clinton and lower expectations for Obama. This probably hurt the Clinton campaign because Obama ended up winning by double-digits in North Carolina and kept it close in Indiana.
This expectations game caused many pundits, pollsters, and politicians to be ready to declare Obama the nominee, also causing Superdelegates to move to Obama, completely erasing Clinton's previous Superdelegate lead.
However, the expectations game may swing in Clinton's favor. While a large part of the media etc. assume Obama is the nominee, and expect him to cruise through the rest of the primary, Clinton will likely win the West Virginia primary on Tuesday, maybe even by a huge margin. A big Clinton win may surprise many voters and give her new momentum heading into the important primaries in Oregon and Kentucky on May 20th (Super Tuesday IV anyone?).
With the momentum heading into the May 20th primaries, Clinton will likely win Kentucky and maybe keep the vote close in Oregon, although Obama will almost certainly hold on and win there. With those two wins for Clinton, who knows what could happen? The Florida and Michigan delegate controversies have yet to be decided, and Obama may not reach the required 2,025 delegates to win by then.
In early April John McCain said he had compiled a list of about twenty Vice-Presidential possibilities. This week is a wild guess of the twenty people McCain has on his list, starting with the most likely:
1. MN Gov. Tim Pawlenty
2.Fmr. OH Rep. and former OMB Director Rob Portman
Theology and politics are intrinsically intertwined. I see no reason simply to address part of an equation. Accordingly, here is a short essay I threw together on the last subject I researched. If you are using Internet Explorer, this post will probably not display properly. IE is not a very good browser. If you're interested in upgrading your browser to something that actually works...download Firefox.
Introduction
The names of God unveil the essence of who God is, describe His qualities, and depict His work in both our lives and in the universe. In revealing His names, God reveals parts of his character.[1] The great poet William Shakespeare once posed the question:
God’s characteristics are revealed throughout the Bible by the descriptive names he chose to use in His relationship with His people. Every culture in the world has a different meaning for the word “god.” Every people and every culture have an implanted awareness of God. Thus, we see that the search for the “God” is intrinsically implanted within every person. The Psalmist attests to this (Psalms 19:1-4):
The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language Where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, And their words to the end of the world.
To understand the names of God is to know God better. This essay will concentrate on a short exploration of God’s primary name and an examination of one of the lesser-known names of God.
YHVH
One of the post-exilic apostasies of Orthodox Judaism was the avoidance of the Name of the Almighty, the (so called) Tetragrammaton (the four lettered nameיהוה ). Later, following in the Jewish tradition, the Christian Church substituted the name LORDin place of the Tetragrammaton, YHVH. A quandary is created with such changing of names. The name that appears in the majority of English Bibles today is LORDwhich is a translation of the Hebrew Adonay. According to the rabbinical tradition, Judaism uses Adonay in place of Yahweh. Rabbinic writers derive the prohibition of pronouncing the Tetragrammaton from Leviticus 24:16: "And he that blasphemeth the name of YHVH, he shall surely be put to death." According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:
The Hebrew participle noqedh, here rendered "blasphemeth,” is translated honomazon in the Septuagint, and appears to have the meaning "to determine", "to denote" (by means of its proper vowels) in Genesis 30:28; Numbers 1:17; Isaiah 62:2. Still, the context of Leviticus 24:16 (cf. verses 11 and 15), favours the meaning "to blaspheme.” Rabbinic exegetes derive the prohibition also from Exodus 3:15; but this argument cannot stand the test of the laws of sober hermeneutics (cf. Drusius, "Tetragrammaton", 8-10, in "Critici Sacri", Amsterdam, 1698, I, p. ii, col. 339-42; "De nomine divino", ibid., 512-16; Drach, "Harmonic entre l'Eglise et la Synagogue", I, Paris, 1844, pp. 350-53, and Note 30, pp. 512-16). [3]
Thus, the translators paraphrase one of the names of Elohim (and thereby, miss an opportunity to extrapolate on His awesome character) and in translating instead of transliterating the translators add a word that was inserted by men—and is not inspired by Elohim.
Transliteration and Translation
The chief distinction between transliteration and translation is the difference between a comparison of sound and a comparison of meaning. Generally, most words going from one language to another are translated. However, proper nouns are not translated but transliterated.[4] The translators of the King James Version note this as a rule:
The names of the Prophets, and the Holy Writers, with the other Names of the Text, to be retained, as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used.[5]
Pronunciation of YHVH
An argument over the pronunciation of YHVH (יהוה) has existed for years. With the evidence available today, a conclusive resolution is unlikely. However, the basic form of God’s name is clearly known. The Tetragrammaton is formed by four Hebrew consonants: yud – hey – vav – hey. Two predominate ways to determine how ancient words are pronounced exist.[6] The first is to hear a native speaker pronounce the word. The second is to know the position of the tongue and mouth of the native speaker as he makes the words. Linguists do not have access to either the former or the latter. Because of this, there are dozens of credible ways to pronounce the Tetragrammaton.
Personal Name of God
Of the many reasons to use the Personal Name of God, three reasons resonate distinctively. The first is to identify and accordingly exalt the bearer of this Name as the personal God of Israel and of the cosmos, as opposed to the universal interpretation of a rather mystical, almost unidentifiable “being,” as held by most religions. The second is to make known the name “YHVH” to the many individuals who assert to follow Him but who do not know His Name—so that they may consecrate and praise His name—and so that His Name may be honoured among the nations (Malachi 1:11; Isaiah 12:4). The final reason is to conform with what may be the more correctly interpreted instruction of Exod. 20:7 concerning the use of His Name: “Do not make His Name worthless,” By withholding the proclamation of His Name, we may well be guilty of "making His Name worthless.” Proverbs 30:4-6 poses the question: “What is His [God’s] name, and what is His Son’s name, If you know? Every word of God is pure…. Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.” Taken literally, this is precisely what rabbinic Judaism and contemporary English scholars have done: they took away the personal name of God (YHVH) and replaced it with the counterfeit “Adonay,” “LORD” or “GOD.” Addressing this subject, the translators of the Revised Standard Version state:
While it is almost if not quite certain that the Name was originally pronounced ‘YHVH’…. For two reasons the [Revised Standard Version] Committee has returned to the more familiar usage [of substituting either “the LORD” or “GOD” in place of YHWH] of the King James Version: (1) the word ‘Jehovah’ does not accurately represent any form of the name ever used in Hebrew; and (2) the use of any proper name for the one and only God ... was discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church.[7]
Similarly, the translators of the New American Standard Bible state: “This name [YHVH] has not been pronounced by the Jews.... Therefore, it has been consistently translated Lord.”[8] These statements exemplify what Yeshua (Jesus) said in Matt. 15:3, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?”
Eloah
The word “Eloah” (אלוהּ) is the singular (or dual) of “Elohim” (אלהים) and appears more than 50 times in the Tanak (Old Testament), primarily in the more poetic passages. The singular form is used in a handful of places for heathen deities (e.g., Second Chronicles 32:15; Daniel 11:37-8), though in the majority of cases, the name is used for the Elohim of Israel. The Hebrew word is quite similar to the Aramaic Elah, the usual name for God in Biblical Aramaic. It has been suggested that the term comes from two elements of Aramaic: El and Ah (a shortened form of Ahyeh, Exo. 3:14, "I shall be," the designation of YHVH in the first person).[9] This suggests the possibility that initially two separate gods were involved and later combined. Such a suggestion does not seem likely inasmuch as the term is almost always used in Scripture as a description of the true God. Most likely, it is akin to the term El, which was in use rather early. Then, after a period of disregard among God's people, the term was revitalized to a limited use perhaps through the contacts with Aramaic, where a similar term was in constant use.[10] Marvin H. Pope in his Book, El in the Ugaritic Texts, notes that Eloah never has the article although it is once determined by the suffix (Hab. 1:11) and found once in the construct (Psa. 114:7). He further points out that it never occurs in permutation with another divine name.[11]
Divine Comfort and Assurance
Eloah seems to convey divine comfort and assurance to God’s people (rock, Deut. 32:15, Psa. 18:31, Isa. 44:8, a strong fortress, here referring to the anti-God, Dan. 11:37, 38, 39, and a shield Pro. 30: 5). At the same time, it conveys terror and trepidation to the enemies of God’s people (trembling, Psa. 114: 7, slaying, Psa. 139:19, to those of God's people who forget Him, Psa. 50:22). In Hab. 3:3, the prophet speaks of Eloah coming from Teman. In Job, Teman is associated with one of Job's three friends, Eliphaz (Job 4:1). The term Eloah, used for God, is predominantly used in the book of Job (more than 40 times) by Job and Eliphaz in their debating. Only in one situation does Zophar use the term (Job 11:5-7). Bildad never does. Elihu uses it, perhaps in imitation of the former speakers (six times in chapters 33-37). YHVH himself, in speaking to Job, uses the term twice: once in a context of his providence and once in parallel to "the Almighty." Moreover, interestingly, the Levites in the post-exilic period used the name Eloah (Neh. 9:17) when referring to the descriptive revelation of YHVH given in Exodus, where El and YHVH were originally used. (Exo. 34: 6-7). Eloah is the Mighty and Powerful One, and in Him, we can be comforted and protected.
Biblical Uses of Eloah
Verse
Context
Usage
Deut. 32: 15
Song of Moses
The Rock of salvation.
Deut. 32: 17
Song of Moses
Not sacrificing to God
2 Cor. 32:15
Sennacherib boasting against YHVH
No other god…was able to deliver
Neh. 9:17
Song of the Levites
A God ready to pardon, merciful…
Psa. 18:31
God the sovereign Savior
Who is a rock except God?
Psa. 50:22
God the Righteous Judge
You who forget God... lest I tear you to pieces….
Psa. 114:7
God's deliverance of Israel
Tremble, O earth…at the presence of the God of Jacob
Psa. 139:19
God's perfect knowledge of man
Oh, that You would slay the wicked, O God! …
Pro. 30:5
The Wisdom of Agur
Every word of God is pure, He is a shield….
Isa. 44:8
God's blessing on Israel
Is there a God besides Me? Indeed, there is no other Rock.
Dan. 11:37
The Northern king's blasphemies
...Nor regard any god; for he shall exalt himself above them all…
Dan. 11:38
The Northern king's blasphemies
He shall honor a god of fortresses; one his Fathers did not know….
