Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
| PentecostalTheology.com
Exodus 3:15 Literal Standard Version
And God says again to Moses, “Thus you say to the sons of Israel: YHWH, God of your fathers, God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob, has sent me to you; this [is] My Name for all time, and this [is] My memorial, to generation [and] generation.
Young’s Literal Translation
And God saith again unto Moses, ‘Thus dost thou say unto the sons of Israel, Jehovah, God of your fathers, God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you; this is My name — to the age, and this My memorial, to generation — generation
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And God said again to Moshe: “In this way speak to the children of Israel: ‘LORD JEHOVAH, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Yaquuv has sent me unto you’; this is my Name to eternity and this is my memorial to a generation of generations.
If forever means eternity, is God’s name really not in the New Testament? If it is not in the NT, then what does that say about YHWH being God’s name forever?
What are the arguments for and against the Father is the God/YHWH/Yahweh/Jehovah spoken of in this verse?
Troy Day
THIS !!! @highlight Philip Williams Jose Salinas Rasiah Thomas
Jose Salinas
Troy Day The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit name are YHWH. God in 3 persons blessed Holy Trinity!!
Philip Williams
Jose Salinas was Jesus the God of all nations in the OT?
Jose Salinas
Philip Williams Of course
Philip Williams
Jose Salinas Wrong! It was only after his resurrection that he was given such authority. Thus, in his early ministry he sent his disciples only to the lost sheep of Israel.
Rasiah Thomas
Philip Williams Although Jesus in the New Testament confirms that Jesus is Christ, in the Old Testament, the implied meaning of Christ is in a different name than the Creator.
Philip Williams
Rasiah Thomas Jesus created all things.
Rasiah Thomas
Philip Williams Perfectly said.
Jose Salinas
Philip Williams Scripture clearly shows that the Son already ruled long before the incarnation. Hebrews 1:8 cites Psalm 45:6 says of the Son,
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom.”
Psalms 45:6 NASB1995
It applies that directly to Christ. His throne is eternal, not something that began only after the resurrection. Matthew 28:18-20 marks His public enthronement as the risen Messiah, not the moment He first received authority.
Philip Williams
Jose Salinas Wrong! Thus, Moses reminds the Israelites about the angels taking charge of the nations at the time of Babel, but Jacob would belong to Jesus!
“When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. But the Lord’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage.” Deuteronomy 32:8-9 ESV
Indeed in Daniel we see the Lord battling against the Prince of Persia.
Jose Salinas
Philip Williams I’m guessing you’ve read Michael Heiser’s material?
Philip Williams
Jose Salinas I recognized this verse as referring to Jesus before I ever heard of Michael Heiser. My acquaintance with him was due to another matter, his posting slander about my friend’s discovery of Noah’s Ark. He the. wanted me to introduce him to the Dead Sea Scroll scientist Dr Stephen Pfann.
Moreover, this was hardly Heiser’s discovery as even Troy Day knows. Any competent biblical scholar should know that Jesus was the Old Testament King of Israel, but King of Israel only until after his resurrection. Of course Mormons think differently.
Troy Day
Jose Salinas Heiser of course @highlight John Mushenhouse is waste of time and deeply heretic I have posted on his poorly done dissertation before On Facebook a few days ago, someone posted a video by Michael Heisler, a PhD in Old Testament studies.
He has a number of videos. One thing he focuses on a lot is the idea of the divine council. I’ll give you a summary of what he teaches. A lot of this stuff were things I saw in the Bible, heard in Old Testament in college, or picked up from talking with a Old Testament scholar friend of mine, but Heisler connects the dots.
Here are some of the ideas he talks about:
– The Old Testament mentions the sons of God. Satan came to appear before God among the sons of god in Job.
– Heisler believes the sons of god in these passages are heavenly beings. He calls them members of the heavenly host. In some passages, entities besides God are referred to as ‘elohim’. I noticed this studying Hebrews. The New Testament says ‘Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels’– but the Hebrew is elohim. Elohim can be translated ‘God’ in some context and ‘gods’ in others.
– The Old Testament (Dead Sea Scrolls and LXX tradition) says that God divided the nations according to the number of the sons of God.
– There are verses in the Old Testament about other nations being alloted to other elohim/gods.
– God partners with and allows created beings to rule various things. We see this also with man.
– He believes there were 70 or 72 of these ruling spirits, presumably based on the number of nations in the table of nations in Genesis.
– Heisler believes that this refers back to the nations being divided after Babel, when men were trying to build a temple to interact with God on their own terms.
– Heisler mentions the ‘prince of Persia’ as an example of such a being.
– He believes God divided up the nations to heavenly beings to take care of them after the problem at Babel, and chose Israel as His own inheritance, starting the process by calling Abraham.
– He takes Psalm 82 to be about God in the council with the elohim there, to be about heavenly beings, not human judges. Heisler says God finds fault with their unjust ruling of nations given into their care. The last verse says that the LORD will inherit the nations.
– A Messianic Psalm offers the nations as an inheritance. (I think Heisler mentioned that.)
– In the New Testament, Paul wrote of principalities, powers, and other ‘territorial’ type rulers in heavenly realms.
– Christ has been given all authority on heaven and on earth.
– Christ’s return is associated with ‘the fullness of the Gentiles’ as Christ will inherit the nations.
– He points out similarities between the languages spoken at Pentecost, other conversion stories in Acts, and the table of nations.
– He believes Paul wanted to get to Spain to reach Tarshish, from the table of nations, after having evangelized many of the other nations mentioned in Genesis.
– Heisler thinks Paul had this same Old Testament understanding that these ‘elohim’ over the nations were territorial spirits, principalities or powers, who wanted to resist the kingdoms being given over to the Lord as His inheritance.
So basically, a summary is that there are these beings, that he believes are described as ‘sons of god’, who were entrusted with care of nations. They were rebellious and treated men badly and ended up being worshipped as gods. The Lord will take away these nations, and they are condemned to die like men and fall like princes. A major step toward the Lord reclaiming the nations is seen at Pentecost as the apostles begin on a journey that takes the gospel to the nations.
Heislers interpretation of Psalm 82 makes sense. It does seem odd that it would be about injustice among other nations and not Israel considering the focus of the Old Testament, but the last verse is about God inheriting the nations. Heisler does not believe he is filling in gaps with extra-biblical sources, but thinks world view is important. The Ugaritic archeological finds with Ugarit worshipping a pantheon that had El as the head of it seems to fit with this idea of the sons of god being some kind of ruling council. But it does not rely totally on it. He does argue that having an ancient world view that they would have had is important.
I’ve noticed references to other gods in the Pentateuch over the years, I’ve encountered the idea of the divine council, probably in college in a Bible class or in a conversation with someone who studies such things. I’ve also heard about ‘territorial spirits’ and a bit of teaching on principalities and powers from being exposed to the Charismatic movement. So some of this stuff fits with things I’ve learned and studied, but he kind of connected some dots I hadn’t connected. There are some assumptions, though. So I’m still mulling it over.
I notice Paul wrote about God demonstrating his wisdom to principalities and powers in heavenly places to the church.
If all this is the case, I do wonder about these spiritual entities as they relate to Satan. Paul wrote about the prince and power of the air. So it may be that these entities that came to be worshipped as gods follow him.
Job says that with His angels, He finds fault. But it does seem like there are plenty of ‘good guy’ angels. Does it seem odd if every single one of the territorial spirits failed and was judged, but not all the angels? But look at the mess with humanity and the fall.
Here is a Link. What do you think? https://www.pentecostaltheology.com/is-heiser-the-source-of-jesus-and-second-yhwh-divine-council-of-el-elyon-and-elohims-gods/
Frank Shearer
Troy Day
Troy Day
Frank Shearer This discussion truly highlights the depth and complexity of the topic! The translation of YHWH as “Lord” in the Septuagint is crucial for the bridge between Hebrew scripture and New Testament theology. When considering Exodus 3:15 and Deuteronomy 32:8-9, the divine name functions not only as an identifier, but also as a statement of covenantal relationship and divine authority.
The Trinitarian interpretation affirms the continuity of God’s self-revelation throughout Scripture, while historical scholarship (like Heiser’s work on the divine council) draws attention to celestial hierarchy and spiritual agency in biblical worldview.
Additionally, linguistic and cultural differences—such as the use of “Yesuva” in Tamil—show how the eternal name is shaped by both translation choices and local contexts. Examining Psalm 110 and Melchizedek typology further enriches our understanding of Christ’s kingship.
Ultimately, exploring both sides invites us to consider how God’s name signifies his character, authority, and ongoing revelation—across languages, traditions, and scriptural testimony.
Philip Williams
Troy Day The Septuagint translates this as Lord, the same name by which the disciples referred to Jesus!
Rasiah Thomas
Philip Williams Yes indeed.
Troy Day
Rasiah Thomas Jose Salinas Philip Williams Many scholars make only selective use of the traditional criterion of multiple attestation, excluding its application to the diverse and apparently independent accounts of Jesus’s resurrection appearances. Yet, Jesus’s post-resurrection message in the first-century sources that report it consistently focuses on mission (Matt 28:19; Luke 24:47–48; Acts 1:8; John 20:21–23) and, in connection with this mission, the empowerment of the Spirit (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4–5, 8; John 20:22) or Jesus’s presence (Matt 28:20).
The coherence of these sources need not rely on verbatim agreement: comparison with other ancient biographies shows that the Evangelists’ ancient audiences would not expect these reports to recount Jesus’s words verbatim.3 That Luke can summarize the heart of the commission in different wording in his own two accounts,4 clearly meant to be read together,5 confirms that he never expected anyone to think otherwise.
Still, if Jesus spent any substantial amount of time with his disciples (Acts 1:3), he probably did repeat some key themes multiple times and in multiple ways (1:4–5). Did Jesus himself command baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19)? Or at the least, did he provide the raw material that quickly led to trinitarian belief among his followers? (For Matthew, baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit presumably evokes Jesus’s own baptism and experience of the Father and Spirit in Matt 3:16–17; cf. already Mark 1:10–12.)
Far from being a late development, as has often been supposed, Jesus’s divinity or Jesus as an object of worship appears in the earliest extant examples of New Testament Christology. While we cannot expect Paul to reflect later Nicene language, he often applies biblical language for YHWH to Jesus: for example, Zech 14:5 in 1 Thess 3:13; Deut 6:4 in 1 Cor 8:6; Isa 45:23 in Phil 2:9–11; and OT day of YHWH language in 1 Cor 1:8; 5:5; 2 Cor 1:14; Phil 1:6, 10; 2:16.6 Granted, his status appears subordinate to that of the Father in Paul (for example, Rom 8:3), but this remains the case even in the late first-century Christology of John’s Gospel https://www.pentecostaltheology.com/craig-keener-jesuss-trinity/
Rasiah Thomas
Although readers or followers should not find it difficult either to read or speak the name of our God, Yahweh or Jehovah, instead of YHWH, we should follow the Hebrew name, which is more appropriate, “Yesuva”, without any confusion, and the Tamil language follows the same for easy calling.
Troy Day
Rasiah Thomas https://www.pentecostaltheology.com/is-heiser-the-source-of-jesus-and-second-yhwh-divine-council-of-el-elyon-and-elohims-gods/
Troy Day
Main Question: Is YHWH/Yahweh/Jehovah the eternal name of God? The post references Exodus 3:15 and links to broader arguments on PentecostalTheology.com.
Arguments Presented:
Septuagint and Lord: One comment states the Septuagint translates the name as “Lord,” which is what the disciples called Jesus.
Trinitarian View: Another user asserts that the name YHWH applies to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as “God in 3 persons” (Holy Trinity).
Alternative Scholarly Perspective: There’s a rebuttal claiming this view is incorrect, citing Moses’ reminder about national angels at Babel and Jacob’s belonging to Jesus, and references Deuteronomy 32:8-9 and Daniel’s Prince of Persia.
Influence of Michael Heiser: The conversation touches on the scholarship of Michael Heiser regarding these passages, clarifying that some participants recognized these biblical connections before reading Heiser.
Old Testament Kingship: It is argued that Jesus was the Old Testament King of Israel until after his resurrection, and that this was not uniquely Heiser’s discovery.
On Naming and Language: Another comment suggests it is not difficult to use “Yahweh” or “Jehovah,” but proposes using the Hebrew “Yesuva” as more appropriate, especially as it aligns with Tamil usage for clarity.
Overall: The thread discusses theological arguments from multiple perspectives (translation, Trinity, biblical scholarship, terminology) on whether YHWH/Yahweh/Jehovah should be considered God’s eternal name, with references to biblical texts, scholarship, and linguistic considerations.
Troy Day
Excellent scholarship discussion here. The Septuagintal translation of YHWH as Kyrios (Lord) establishes critical continuity between Hebrew scriptures and NT Christology. The Deuteronomy 32:8-9 pericope, viewed through the lens of celestial hierarchy and divine hegemony, necessitates reconsideration of traditional subordinationist frameworks. Philip’s point regarding Jesus’ Old Testament mediatorial kingship merits further examination within the context of Psalm 110 typology and the Melchizedekian priesthood. Rasiah’s linguistic analysis regarding transliteration versus proper pronunciation also warrants scholastic consideration. @followers John Mushenhouse @phillip williams Kyle Williams Glynn Brown
Jim Newbould
Jesus kept it comprehensive-able
When Is A Mountain
Not A Mountain ?
Rev Jim
Troy Day
comprehensive-able comprende? Joe Absher Jose Salinas