By the numbers:

• 42/50 in the Hebrew Bible
• 39/50 referred to being fearful in the sense of reverence (Hebrew yare or yare' or yirah)
• 8/50 in the New Testament
• 8/50 (all in the NT) referred to being fearful in the sense of terror (Greek phobeó or phobos)
• 3/50 referred to being fearful in the sense of dread (Hebrew pachad)

All but three of the Hebrew Bible uses of fear held a connotation of reverence. To put this in terms that may be better understood by modern readers: imagine your favorite celebrity has unexpectedly arrived at your local hangout spot, say a coffee shop for example, and you eagerly approach them to get your picture taken with them. The fear of not knowing how they might respond coupled with your admiration of them is essentially the sort of reverential fear that the authors hoped to evoke in their readers. Likewise (and sticking with the coffee shop analogy), the other three instances in the Hebrew Bible use fear with a connotation of dread; in this scenario, you realize that your boss has also arrived at this café, but you are supposed to be at home on a sick day. Meanwhile, all eight of the New Testament uses of fear pertain to the typical meaning: to be afraid of something.

Researching the situations in which fear was used, I found that in six cases (all but one in Leviticus, the other in Revelation) God was directly commanding his followers to fear him. Similarly, Jesus commanded that God should be feared once in both Luke and Matthew. In twenty-seven instances, there was no command to fear given in the context of the verse. In the remaining fifteen verses, the respective authors issued a command to fear God.

So what about our question: does God want his devout followers to be afraid of him? The short answer is an emphatic yes. The big picture implied by the connotations of the Hebrew words used in the oldest manuscripts seems to indicate that God’s followers should have a reverential fear for their creator with a hint of dread at the Lord’s incredible power. The New Testament’s Greek words, however, suggest that God’s people should fear Him as they fear most things in their lives – sincerely and cautiously.

#bible #christianity #judaism #oldtestament #newtestament #readerquestion

Sources:

[1] Hebrew Concordance – https://biblehub.com/hebrew/ [2] Greek Concordance – https://biblehub.com/greek/

Eric B – BA History, Minor in Religious Studies
Return to home

Biblical indications of monolatry exist within some of the earliest books of the Bible. For example, 1 Kings 18:27 indicates that Elijah recognized the existence of the Baalists’ god while he demonstrated the supremacy of his god, the Lord: “And at noon Elijah mocked them, saying, ‘Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened.’” Similarly, God declared his displeasure to the Israelites in Deuteronomy 17:3 with regard to his followers following other gods: “...and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have forbidden.” Also, Joshua proclaimed to the Israelites in Joshua 24:14, “‘Now therefore fear the Lord and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord.’”

Jewish tradition tended towards monolatry until the post-exilic period after 539 BCE (that is, after their exile under the Babylonians). [3] Scholars have posited that the physical crises experienced by Jewish people in this time period caused the evolution of their beliefs into monotheism. Whether from the major crisis of the exile or from a series of crises leading up to the exile, the result remained the same – the Israelites of the post-exilic period adopted monotheism. [4]

Centuries later with the arrival of the early Christian faith, debate began anew. While the idea of trinitarianism holds the majority view by modern Christians, this has not always been the case. Within the first couple centuries of the religion’s birth, substantial debate arose over the nation of Jesus and his place within the godhead. One early Christian presbyter and ascetic, Arius (c. 250-336 CE) suggested an early form of unitarianism (a singular god entity). The basic belief was that “the uniqueness of God, who is alone self-existent (not dependent for its existence on anything else) and immutable; the Son, who is not self-existent, cannot therefore be the self-existent and immutable God. Because the Godhead is unique, it cannot be shared or communicated. Because the Godhead is immutable, the Son, who is mutable, must, therefore, be deemed a creature who has been called into existence out of nothing and has had a beginning. Moreover, the Son can have no direct knowledge of the Father, since the Son is finite and of a different order of existence.” [5]

Comparably, other early Christians subscribed to the belief that Jesus did not truly exist as a human, rather he was a form of illusion. Within this concept existed two branches, one held that “Jesus’ body was a phantasm,” and the other believed that “Jesus was a real flesh-and-blood human. But Christ was a separate person, a divine being who, as God, could not experience pain and death.” [6] These latter docetics believed that the divine Christ entered Jesus during his baptism in the form of a dove and later departed from him at his death on the cross.

By the time of the First Council of Nicaea in 325 CE, the vast majority of Christian leaders already held the beliefs that they expressed in the Nicene Creed and unequivocally demonstrated their trinitarian views:

We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through Whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth, Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down, and became incarnate and became man, and suffered, and rose again on the third day, and ascended to the heavens, and will come to judge the living and dead, And in the Holy Spirit. But as for those who say, There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance, or created, or is subject to alteration or change – these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes. [7]

In short, the Jewish faith largely shifted from quasi-pluralistic beliefs in their earliest recorded texts into a strict monotheism after their exile in Bablyon in the late 6th century BCE, and the Christian faith rapidly developed a trinitarian, monotheistic system of belief within the first couple centuries after Christ’s death.

#bible #christianity #newtestament #judaism #oldtestament

Sources:

[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/henotheism.

[2] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/monolatry.

[3] Wiley Blackwell, The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Ancient Israel, edited by Susan Niditch (Hoboken, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc, 2016), 263.

[4] Robert Karl Gnuse, No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel (Sheffield, Great Britain: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 215.

[5] Britannica Editors, “Arianism,” Encyclopedia Brittanica, accessed March 21, 2026, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Arianism.

[6] Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 15.

[7] “THE CREED OF NICAEA – AGREED AT THE COUNCIL IN 325,” Early Church Texts, https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/creed_of_nicaea_325.htm.

Eric B – BA History, Minor in Religious Studies
Return to home

Christians can set aside differences in the specifics of the nature of the godhead and agree that there is a God who created the Universe. However, anyone who has ever read from the Bible knows that many names and titles are used throughout the text to refer to the divine creator. Each of these names and titles hold unique meanings that reveal the history of the Christian and Jewish faiths, and exploring these will enhance one’s understanding of the totality of God as presented across the Bible – first in the Old Testament and then in the New Testament. No details will be offered regarding the English translations of God’s names, such as God, Lord, the Father, etc.

The names and titles of God present in the Tanakh (Old Testament) showcase the foundational understanding of God as he reveals himself to his followers. Perhaps the most widely known name, YHWH, is also the most common iteration to appear in the Tanakh. This name, also referred to as the Tetragrammaton (named for its composition of four constants), was the one which was revealed to Moses in Exodus. [2] YHWH evidently resembles the third person singular imperfect form of a verb, which means “to be;” this implies YHWH means “He is” or “He will be” or even at a deeper level “to live” or “to breath.” [3] This goes on to impart the idea that God of the Israelites was unique among contemporary gods of their neighbors in that he was and is a living god, the “author of life.” [2]

The next most common name associated with God is Elohim. [2] This name has a complex and largely unknown origin, but some scholars suggest it originated from an old Arabic verb alih, which may mean the name would translate as “He who is the object of fear or reverence,” but there is no certain answer. [2]

A similar name, El, is present in the Tanakh. This title, like Elohim, was used outside of early Jewish traditions in those of other neighboring nations to refer to other deities. It simply means “God,” and it is often used in conjunction with another word, such as in another name for God, El ‘Elyon (“most high God”). [2] Another case, El Shaddai, is used frequently in the Book of Job. Shaddai refers to God as “the Almighty,” but the root word’s meaning imparts a translation of “devastator” or “destroyer.” [2] This may suggest that the author of Job wanted to convey God as a being of unspeakable power and used this name to that end.

Other common names for God in the Tanakh are Adonai, meaning “my Lord,” and Ba’al, which worked as an equivalent to YHWH but also served as an element in compound names like Jerubbaal. [2] Comparably, YHWH and Elohim often appear alongside another name for God, Ẓeba'ot (“hosts,”) such as YHWH Elohe Ẓeba'ot (“YHWH God of Hosts.”) [2]

The point of the matter is that the God of the Tanakh cannot be simply reduced to anything quite as simplistic as “God” or “Lord” without the loss of the powerful, historical roots of the deity of the Christian and Jewish faiths. Foregoing the exceedingly prevalent forms like YHWH for the generalized God deprives the believer of the depth of the textual meanings behind God’s names.

For brevity’s sake, I will include a list of some of the names for God found in the Tanakh instead of detailing them at length before continuing to the New Testament.

Table 1 [4]

Unlike the Tanakh, the New Testament was authored largely in Greek, and the names and titles of God used reflect Greek traditions instead of Hebrew ones. The most common name found in the New Testament is Theos, which was the translation of the Hebrew name Elohim into Greek. Theos was usually used to refer to God the Father. Similarly, the name Kyrios, meaning “lord” or “master,” frequently appears to refer to God in a similar fashion to the Hebrew Adonai, but it is also used at times to refer to Jesus.

Due to the complexity of the various Greek names used to refer to God as a single entity or as a dual meaning to refer to the Father or Jesus, I will provide a list that will share a few of the most common, least ambiguous names used in the New Testament.

Table 2 [4]

#bible #christianity #judaism #oldtestament #newtestament #readerquestion

[1] https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/christian-denominations-by-the-numbers.html

[2] https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11305-names-of-god

[3 ] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Yahweh

[4] https://www.bartehrman.com/names-of-god

Eric B – BA History, Minor in Religious Studies
Return to home

In Jesus’ time, the dogwood grew To a stately size and a lovely hue. ‘Twas strong and firm, its branches interwoven. For the cross of Christ its timbers were chosen. Seeing the distress at this use of their wood Christ made a promise which still holds good: “Never again shall the dogwood grow Large enough to be used so. Slender and twisted, it shall be With blossoms like the cross for all to see. As blood stains the petals marked in brown, The blossom’s center wears a thorny crown. All who see it will remember Me Crucified on a cross from the dogwood tree. Cherished and protected, this tree shall be A reminder to all of My agony.”

Additionally, some individuals point to the fact that dogwood trees bloom in April around Easter Sunday, marking the resurrection of Jesus after his crucifixion.

While the Middle East is home to a broad array of flora and fauna, the dogwood tree (Genus Cornus) is not, however, one of its native trees. In fact, the dogwood trees most Americans are familiar with (Cornus florida) are only native to eastern North America and parts of northern Mexico.[1] With that said, there is at least one species of dogwood that may well have grown in Israel during the lifetime of Jesus, Cornus mas. This variety does not produce the blossoms described in the poem above. Cornus mas actually produces small yellow flowers that eventually become bright red fruits. Cornus mas also flowers earlier in the year than the Cornus florida of North America.[2]

The question of whether or not Jesus was crucified on a dogwood cannot, of course, be answered with absolute certainty. The available evidence suggests that it is unlikely he was crucified on a dogwood cross, and he certainly was not crucified on a dogwood species native to North America. Unfortunately, there is no record of what wood was used for the crucifixion of Jesus. The word used in the Greek New Testament translations is staurós, which simply refers to “an upright stake, hence a cross (the Rom. Instrument of crucifixion).”[3] It is also worth noting that the word had the previous connotation of referring to a pole or pale (a stake on which one is impaled).[4] With that said, it is entirely possible that the cross that Jesus carried may have only been the cross-beam that would be attached to a pole at the site of execution. It has been noted by scholars that Romans crucified people with varying means, and the details provided by the New Testament do not reveal a definitive answer.

#bible #christianity #newtestament #readerquestion

[1] https://bonap.net/MapGallery/County/Cornus%20florida.png.

[2] Steve Whysall, “Cornus mas,” Vancouver Sun (Vancouver, B.C.), October 5, 2009, https://vancouversun.com/news/staff-blogs/cornus-mas.

[3] Strong’s Greek Concordance, s.v. “stauros,” accessed March 14, 2024, https://biblehub.com/greek/4716.htm.

[4] Gunnar Samuelsson, Crucifixion in Antiquity, (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 241.

Eric B – BA History, Minor in Religious Studies
Return to home