YHWH and the Triunity Assignment
Andrew Hodge 8th March 2006
Assignment for Dogmatology T201
Jehovah and His Relationship to the Trinity
Introduction
Many Christians assume that the LORD God of the Old Testament is the Father, because the Son and the Holy Spirit do not ‘appear’ until the New Testament account.
Further thought establishes that all Persons of the Godhead have always existed, therefore all of them must have been omnipresent at all times including during Old Testament events. What, if any, was their role then? When the OT text describes the activities of the LORD, was it the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit acting? Two, or all three?
It is unsafe to assume that because the Triunity exists, then all Three would have been acting at all times, each perhaps to a greater or lesser degree depending on the OT occasion. Taken just a small step further, this assumption leads to Sabellianism or modalism “because it views one God who variously manifests Himself in three modes of existence: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”[1]
This is a view that could also apply to the NT, for even there it is not always clear Who the Agent of an action is eg Matthew 2:12, 22, 6:24, 30, 33 et al.
Further, we are less likely to identify a particular member of the Triunity in the OT because of its heavy emphasis on monotheism. However, the revelation of the NT clearly states that the Persons of the Triunity are to be found in the OT (eg Luke 24:44; John 5:39; John 12:37-41 and Acts 28:25-27 both alluding to Isaiah 6:5-10).
The purpose of this assignment is to examine relevant occurrences of LORD in the KJV, and determine Who is acting according to proper hermeneutics, particularly including the revelation regarding the Triunity in the New Testament.
It is outside the scope of this assignment to examine all 6519 instances of YHWH in the OT, but this is ultimately what would be required to do justice to the topic. In any case, much of the work of identifying Who is acting at a particular time has already been done by God Himself, mostly by the revelation of the Triunity in the NT.
The Names of God in the Old Testament
The Tetragrammaton YHWH in the Hebrew Scriptures has no official, not even Hebrew, pronunciation. ‘Official’ vowel pointings were added by the Masoretes between 600 and 1000 AD so as to allow easier public reading of the Hebrew text, but there is no assurance that the resulting “Yahweh” (or “yahwah” Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia) is the correct written rendering. “To avoid the risk of taking God’s name (YHWH) in vain, devout Jews began to substitute the word ădōnā(y) for the proper name itself. Although the Masoretes left the four original consonants in the text, they added the vowels ĕ (in place of ă for other reasons) and ā to remind the reader to pronounce ădōnāi regardless of the consonants. This feature occurs more than six thousand times in the Hebrew Bible.”[2] “In those places where ădōnāy yhwh occurs the latter word is pointed with the vowels from ĕlōhı̂m, and the English renderings such as “Lord GOD” arose (e.g. Amos 7:1).” [3]
With the exception of the JB, Yahweh is not used for the Name of God in any of the commonly used English translations, but the Latinised transliterated “Jehovah” is used in the Darby, ASV, NWT (for the JWs) and Young’s Literal translations. By convention, the English versions generally use the capitalised ‘LORD’ (KJV, NAB, NIV, ESV, NASB) to communicate ‘Jehovah’. The other two root words used for Deity, adon and el are broader words encompassing more than a description of God.
It is not proposed to examine the relationship of adon and el to the Trinity for several reasons:
First, the Triunity of the New Testament is an intensely personal relationship - not only within the essential Unity of God Himself but also between God and His people. Only ‘Jehovah’ in the Old Testament is compatible with this characteristic. For example, Adam and Eve hide from Jehovah in the garden, not from adon or el; it is Jehovah who speaks face to face with Moses, it is Jehovah who reveals Himself bodily on special occasions, etc.
Strong’s Concordance has this entry: “3068 יהוה, יְהוִה [Yâhovah /yeh·ho·vaw/] n pr dei. From 1961; TWOT 484a; GK 3378; 6519 occurrences; AV translates as “LORD” 6510 times, “GOD” four times, “JEHOVAH” four times, and “variant” once. 1 the proper name of the one true God. 1a unpronounced except with the vowel pointings of 0136 (adonai). Additional Information: Jehovah = “the existing One”.” [4]
LORD is used only to describe God; adon when used in its emphatic form adonay to refer to God (translated Lord, lord) is also used of men (eg Abraham, angels, pharaoh, Boaz, Eli, Joab, et al); el when used in its plural form elohim to refer to God, may also refer to humans. The entry for elohim in Strong’s Concordance states: “430 אֱלֹהִים [’elohiym /el·o·heem/] n m p. Plural of 433; TWOT 93c; GK 466; 2606 occurrences; AV translates as “God” 2346 times, “god” 244 times, “judge” five times, “GOD” once, “goddess” twice, “great” twice, “mighty” twice, “angels” once, “exceeding” once, “God-ward + 4136” once, and “godly” once. 1 (plural). 1a rulers, judges. 1b divine ones. 1c angels. 1d gods. 2 (plural intensive—singular meaning). 2a god, goddess. 2b godlike one. 2c works or special possessions of God. 2d the (true) God. 2e God.”[5] Therefore Elohim can be and is used to describe idolatrous heathen deities as well as the One true God of Israel.
It is clear that both roots adon and el are less appropriate in describing the unique personal God of the OT than is ‘Jehovah’.
Second, Jehovah is the Name that is specific to the relationship of God to His chosen nation Israel, by conditional and unconditional Covenants. In a sense, this parallels the relationship of the Triunity to the Body of Christ, the Church, with important differences related to the Dispensations in which they find themselves.
Third, when God is personally referred to in the OT eg “the name”, or “in the name” when individuals are prophesying, Jehovah is invariably the term used (ISBE II, 506). This indicates that when God wishes to establish or communicate a specific commandment or precept to His people, He does it with the ‘personal’ side of His character, typical of how the Triunity interacts with men.
Fourth, when God is explaining to Moses what His name - the LORD God YHWH-Elohim - in Exodus 3:14-16 means, He uses Hebrew grammar which reveals not so much the inner nature of His being, but His active, redemptive intentions on their behalf. YHWH is less “I am who/what I am”, but more “I will be who/what I will be” which carries a sense of active ongoing presence with His Nation while fulfilling promises (from ISBE II, 507).
This Name also carries with it the sense of presence with individuals eg when Jehovah promises to be with Moses at the burning bush commissioning, He will be ‘with his mouth’ (Ex 3:12, 4:12, 15); Jehovah also proclaims to be Redeemer (Ex 20:12) and forgiver (Ex 34:6).
This is very much like the relationship of the Triunity with the Redeemed even though the Dispensations are different. It should be noted at this point that the essential attributes of God do not change in spite of the fact that He deals with mankind differently at different times. It is therefore expected that the fully revealed Triune relationship of God with mankind in the NT should be evident in the OT. The OT concept of monotheism does not swamp the plenary Scriptural concept of the Triunity.
The concept of Jehovah as ‘Father’ in the OT
In the thinking of the early Church as expressed in their creeds, when speaking of God the Father, it was not that He was just the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, but was portrayed as the source of all being, the Creator, the eternal self-existent One. This is in line with the Great Commission, especially Matt 29:18-20, which clearly shows that all of Jesus’ power comes from His Father as the Source. This is not to say that either the Son or the Holy Spirit are inferior or subsidiary (as believed by the Gnostics), but that their earthly (and heavenly v18?) roles are directed by that part of the Trinity that remains in heaven. The Second Person of the Trinity agreed to the role He would play on earth, prior to the creation (Eph 1:4, Heb 4:3, 1 Pet 1:20, Rev 13:8, 17:8) in order to achieve the salvation of men. It is not unreasonable to assume that the other two Persons cooperatively formulated and supported this plan, as the kerygma of the NT demonstrates.
As seen below, it will be argued that the activity of Jehovah in the OT is actually the activity of the Triunity. It is again not unreasonable to speculate that this activity was planned before Creation. If so, the ‘Fatherhood’ of Jehovah is logically reduced to a role in heaven ‘directing events’ as is largely the case in the NT, where the hierarchy of ‘event management’ is of the Christ performing the will of the Father Who is in heaven, Jesus in turn promising to send the Comforter to permanently indwell the saved.
This hierarchy of ‘event management’ in the NT fits well with the characteristics of the Dispensation of the Age of Grace. Rigid adherence to the concept of the Dispensational Governmental Styles of God must not overshadow the essential Triune nature of the Unity of God - the Trinity is inevitably present in all Dispensations, and in my view is worth searching for. As will be shown, to dismiss the Triunity when considering Jehovah is to deliberately short-change oneself of the spiritual treasures to be had.
The history of the development of the orthodox view of the Triunity assists in understanding its full revelation and the pitfalls which numerous individuals and churches have been trapped in:
The Early Church ‘fathers’ Hermas, Clement, Aristides, Justin and Irenaeus (ISBE II, 513) would agree with me there can be no subsidiary ‘demiurge’ which shares creation, revelation and redemption with the Father. In fact, all three act together but are not so isolated from one another that only the Father creates, only the Son redeems and only the Spirit gives grace.
Not all of these individuals had the whole story. Both Hermas and Justin, while accepting that Jesus and the Holy Spirit were Deity, nevertheless assigned them to a lower rank than the Father - more to express the economy of God’s dealing with events outside Himself, rather than to God’s being inside Himself.
Modalism cannot accept any distinction between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Moody Handbook of Theology: “The designation modalistic stressed the idea that God was one God who variously manifested Himself as Father, other times as the Son, and other times as the Holy Spirit. Even though modalistic monarchianists spoke of three persons, they nonetheless believed that there was but one essence of deity who variously manifested Himself in three different modes. Hence, the Father was born as the Son, the Father died on the cross and the Father also raised Himself from the dead. In fact, Praxeas, the probable originator of modalistic monarchianism, said the Father became His own Son.”[6]
This is clearly not consistent with the NT revelation of the Trinity, but is a trap into which one could fall if a strong presupposition exists, or if the Scriptures are taken as less than plenary.
“Noetus equated God specifically with the Father and argued that if Christ is God then He must be the same as the Father. For this reason he embraced the idea of the suffering Father (patripassianism). What Christ endures, the Father endures, even to the death and passion. On this view the term Father has meaning only in the sense of the fount of all being. It has no Trinitarian content. As Hippolytus pointed out, the terms “Father and Son can be used interchangeably as the situation suggests””. (ISBE II, 513).
Tertullian and Hippolytus (who exposed the modalistic error) and Novatian and Origen (middle of 3rd century AD) significantly advanced the concept of Trinitarianism by demonstrating the distinctiveness of the Persons of the Trinity but without ruling out a unity of substance. Adoptionism and Arianism (Seminars 15 and 17) resisted the Trinitarian view but were effectively rebuffed by the Council at Nicea in 325AD which declared that Jesus was “begotten, not made” as the Nicene Creed declares. This left the Father as the source of being of the Son and the Spirit in the Godhead, without the Son or the Spirit being any less God than the Father.
At this stage in the revelation of the truth of the Triunity, it has been appreciated that the Godhead is a Unity in itself, but that in the expression of that Unity in outward works, Three Persons are identified. All works involve all three Persons, but the activity of one of those Persons may predominate eg God suffered on the Cross as the Son not as the Father, but all three were involved in the whole process of death and resurrection (ISBE II, 513-514).
The next step in the logic of the development of Triunity is that “if the outward works of God are works of the whole Trinity, this means that God is no longer seen first as the Father in His capacity as the source of all created being. He is primarily and properly the Father within the one triune God” (ISBE II, 514). In my view this elevates the Triunity above its essential Unity, which in fact are equal characteristics of God. I think this is important to keep in mind.
It can be seen from the foregoing that there are two aspects to the ‘Father-ness’ of Jehovah in the OT. The proper distinction has finally been made between the ‘Fatherhood’ of God, and the ‘Father Person’ of the Trinity and this has continued into the orthodoxy of today. The first equates the concept of Father to the overarching Source of all being and all creation, and the second places the concept of the Father into a Unity with three Personal components Who are equal, but of which He is the first in order.
It can be readily appreciated that in the OT, the Name ‘Jehovah’ generally fits the concept of ‘Fatherhood’ rather than one of the three Persons of the Trinity. In my view, when the ‘Fatherhood’ of God is being expressed, this reflects the Unity of the Trinity to such perfection that there is no distinction of Persons, nor any need to do so for they act entirely as One.
The concept of Jehovah as ‘Son’ in the OT
Just because it is only the Son that is incarnate is no basis for assuming that the theanthropic appearances of God in the OT are therefore a revelation of the Son in the OT. Further, God the Father or God the Holy Spirit have the capacity to appear bodily before men if they so wished.
The argument that says “Jehovah relates only to Israel and Christ relates to all men, therefore they are different” only demonstrates a difference in Dispensation, not in fundamental character.
Much of the following is taken from L.P.Chafer "Systematic Theology" I, 332-334:
There is no doubt that Jesus should be included as manifesting Himself as Jehovah when OT and NT revelation are compared.
Zechariah 12:10 “And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.” Jehovah is speaking (Zec 12:1, 4, 7, 8) describing Himself both as “I” and “the LORD”, in the context of the Tribulation and the Second Coming. It can be no other than the Christ Who was pierced by the inhabitants of Jerusalem (see also Rev 1:7); Jehovah in this verse is claiming to be the Christ.
Jer 23:5-6 are interesting verses: “5Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. 6In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.” In verse 5, the LORD is speaking of someone else that He will raise up, clearly describing Jesus the Christ who redeems and judges from the throne of David in the end times. In verse 6, Jehovah then names this person as Jehovah-tsidkenu - the LORD our righteousness. Jehovah calls Christ Jehovah.
These two verses are interesting because we can see Jehovah acting both in His Fatherhood role - taking responsibility for progressing the earthly plan of a monotheistic God - and also in His Trinitarian role as the Person of the Father of the Christ. It also foreshadows the existence of at least two Persons of the Trinity. Christ is clearly our (the redeemed) righteousness (1 Cor 1:30, Rom 3:22, 2 Cor 5:21), therefore making Jehovah our righteousness. These two verses also suggest that Jehovah as Christ is not excluded from activity in the Age of Grace (see Eph 4:6) nor in the Millennial Kingdom.
Psalm 68:18 is a Messianic prophecy concerning Jehovah proven by its quotation in Eph 4:8-10 to concern Christ. A similar prophecy occurs in Ps 102 (esp v12) with Heb 1:10ff. Both of these instances equate Jehovah with Christ according to Chafer.
Isaiah’s testimony (6:5), “Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord [Jehovah] of hosts,” is interpreted by the Apostle John to be a reference to Christ. He states: “These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him” (Christ—John 12:41).[7] Further, Luke interprets the same situation in Isaiah (6:9-10) to be the activity of the Holy Ghost (Acts 28:25-27).
Jehovah declares Himself to be the First and the Last (Is 41:4, 44:6, 48:12); Christ does the same (Rev 1:8, 17, 18, 22:13, 16).
Chafer makes the comment that “A distinct and extensive proof that Christ is Jehovah is to be seen in the New Testament title of Lord which is applied to Him upwards of a thousand times. Jehovah is a Hebrew term which is not brought forward into the New Testament. Its equivalent is κύριος, which title is also applied to the Father and the Spirit. It is a justifiable procedure to treat the name Jehovah of the Old Testament as continued in its specific meaning into the New Testament by the name Lord. Such would be the natural meaning of many exalted declarations: “Lord of all” (Acts 10:36), “Lord over all” (Rom. 10:12), “Lord of glory” (1 Cor. 2:8), and “King of kings, and Lord of lords” (Rev. 17:14; 19:16).[8]”
In my view this is not logical. If kurios can also be applied to the Father and the Spirit in the NT it is by definition not specific for Christ.
The entry for kurios in Strong’s Concordance carries the following information: 2962 κύριος [kurios /koo·ree·os/] n m. From kuros (supremacy); TDNT 3:1039; TDNTA 486; GK 3261; 748 occurrences; AV translates as “Lord” 667 times, “lord” 54 times, “master” 11 times, “sir” six times, “Sir” six times, and translated miscellaneously four times. 1 he to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has power of deciding; master, lord. 1a the possessor and disposer of a thing. 1a1 the owner; one who has control of the person, the master. 1a2 in the state: the sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman emperor. 1b is a title of honour expressive of respect and reverence, with which servants salute their master. 1c this title is given to: God, the Messiah. Additional Information: For synonyms see entry 1203, despotes.See entry 5830 for comparison of synonyms. [9] “
This information takes away from the specificity of kurios for Jehovah, or indeed for any Deity, and does not agree with the personal characteristic inherent in Jehovah. Although one of the essences of Christ is His personal relationship to His redeemed (Jn 17) none of the Greek Names used of Him in the NT specifically communicates this, therefore further removing kurios from a supposed equivalence with Jehovah (see chart Appendix 1).
Nevertheless, the OT scripture cited above is sufficient to show that Jehovah regards Christ as Jehovah and that cannot be argued with. Further, we have the testimony of Christ Himself where He says He is the “I am” (Jn 8:58), a specific title for Jehovah (Ex 3:14). This is stated in the context of Jesus rightly criticising the Jews for not believing their own OT. They clearly understood what He meant because they immediately attempted to stone Him to death for blasphemy. He proved Who He was by “going through the midst of them” without harm.
What remains in question is whether Jehovah regards Christ as Jehovah in every instance of YHWH in the OT? My view is that He does not. In those OT passages where Jehovah and Christ are both mentioned, Jehovah is describing Another, not relinquishing any of Himself, but is actually giving Another the same status that He has. This is a confirmation of an equality of Persons in the Godhead, suggesting that in Jehovah’s economy He generally acts as at least two indistinguishable Persons.
It must also be noted that where the Son can be identified as such in the OT it is usually as a Messianic prophecy or as a description of a Person, not as a Deity that is currently acting. It is not acceptable to believe that although Christ may be called Jehovah that He is therefore the sole ‘component’ of Jehovah. Vehicles may be called ‘wheels’ but that is only one component of their construction.
The concept of Jehovah as the Spirit of the Trinity in the OT
The full revelation of the Holy Spirit as an equal member of the Trinity can only be gained from the NT. Nevertheless, the OT has hints regarding His Presence and His role as one of the Three Persons.
Isaiah 11:1-5: “1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: 2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD; 3 And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears: 4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprovea with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked. 5 And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.”
This OT passage includes reference to all three Persons of the Trinity, and describes the Spirit as being “of Jehovah”, listing a number of ministries that He will exercise in the “rod out of the stem of Jesse” ie Christ.
The Spirit is called “of Jehovah” in 26 references from Judges to Micah and “of Elohim” in Ex 31:3.
Isaiah 48:16 is interesting: “16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me. “ The first part of this verse is the Lord GOD (Adonay-YHWH) speaking through Isaiah, the second is Isaiah describing his commission. In the latter instance, the implication is that God is composed of three entities: Lord (Second Person?), GOD (First Person?) and his Spirit (Third Person), acting simultaneously.
The Trinity is foreshadowed in Zec 12:10 (above) where Jehovah pours out His Spirit on His people so that they bitterly mourn for piercing the Son; and in Ps 68:18 where Jehovah describes the future redeeming activity of the Son so “that the LORD God might dwell among them” in the Person of the Holy Spirit (supported by Eph 4:8-10).
Comparison of the blessing on Israel in Num 6:24-26 to the blessing on the Corinthian Church in 2 Cor 13:14 is suggestive but not conclusive for the activity of the Triune God in Numbers. Similarly, in Is 6:8, Jehovah uses the plural pronoun “us” to describe Himself, and the seraphim present at this occasion praised God with a three-fold “Holy, Holy, Holy” hinting at His tripartite nature.
Cooperative functioning of all three Persons is demonstrated in Is 63:7-10 where Jehovah bestows blessings on Israel (vv7, 9), is called their Saviour (v8), and the rebellious nation “vexed his Holy Spirit” (v10).
Plurality of entities but with a single function is also shown in Gen 1:26, Ecc 12:1 and Is 54:5, with the notable additions of the great works ascribed to all three Persons on separate occasions in the OT - Creation, creation of man, the Incarnation of Christ and the death of Christ. The other combined works of the Trinity are revealed only in the NT (Seminar 12).
None of these passages say that the Spirit is Jehovah, but they are consistent with the NT orthodoxy that the Spirit ‘proceeds’ from the Father and the Son.
Conclusions
1. ‘Jehovah’ is a proper noun without gender or number that describes the intensely personal nature of God in the OT
2. Although Jehovah is not described as being plural, the other two roots (Adonai and Elohim) when used alone to describe God in the OT are frequently used in the plural, in part to foreshadow the Triunity.
3. The orthodox view of the Trinity as finally revealed in the NT is a plenary view and therefore applies to the Jehovah/God of the OT.
4. The Unity and Triunity of the Godhead are equal in importance
5. Two aspects of Jehovah in the OT must be distinguished - His ‘Fatherhood’ of the Unity and the ‘Father-Person’ of the Trinity.
6. The OT “LORD” in the KJV refers primarily to the activity of the Fatherhood role of God in taking responsibility for and progressing His plan on earth, in cooperation with the Son and the Holy Spirit, which all together are seen as an economic ‘monotheistic’ Unity, not as separate Persons. It follows that Jehovah does not equate to the Father Person of the Triunity.
7. The separate natures of the Triunity become much more apparent in the Age of Grace, but their expression alters again in the Tribulation and the Millennium, as it does in the other Dispensations, and it must be made clear that the fundamental nature of God remains unchanged throughout.
8. The entire sequence of history from Creation to Consummation was planned by the One God of three Persons Who desired to express themselves in different ways at different times.
9. Jehovah is therefore one of the expressions of the Triunity in the OT.
Bibliography
L.P.Chafer "Systematic Theology" Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Dallas Theological Seminary 1948 and 1976
Paul P Enns "The Moody Handbook of Theology" Moody Press Chicago 1989
Harris, R. Laird, Robert Laird Harris, Gleason Leonard Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. electronic ed., Chicago: Moody Press, 1999, c1980.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) General Editor Geoffrey W. Bromiley William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company Grand Rapids, Michigan 1979-1988
Strong, James. The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible: Showing Every Word of the Text of the Common English Version of the Canonical Books, and Every Occurrence of Each Word in Regular Order. electronic ed., Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship., 1996
Appendix 1
----
[1]Enns, Paul P. The Moody Handbook of Theology. Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1997, c1989.
[2]Harris, R. Laird, Robert Laird Harris, Gleason Leonard Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. electronic ed., Page 013. Chicago: Moody Press, 1999, c1980.
[3]ibid
n n: noun
pr pr: proper noun or pronoun
dei dei: deity
TWOT Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament
GK Goodrick-Kohlenberger
AV Authorized Version
[4]Strong, James. The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible : Showing Every Word of the Test of the Common English Version of the Canonical Books, and Every Occurence of Each Word in Regular Order. electronic ed., H3068. Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship., 1996.
n n: noun
m m: masculine
p p: particle or participle or person or plural
TWOT Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament
GK Goodrick-Kohlenberger
AV Authorized Version
n n: noun
m m: masculine
p p: particle or participle or person or plural
TWOT Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament
GK Goodrick-Kohlenberger
AV Authorized Version
[5]Strong, James. The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible : Showing Every Word of the Test of the Common English Version of the Canonical Books, and Every Occurence of Each Word in Regular Order. electronic ed., H430. Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship., 1996.
[6]Enns, Paul P. The Moody Handbook of Theology. Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1997, c1989.
[7]Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. Originally Published: Dallas, Tex. : Dallas Seminary Press, 1947-1948., Vol. 1, Page 333. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1993.
[8]Ibid p334
n n: noun or neuter
m m: masculine
TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
TDNTA Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Abridged in One Volume
GK Goodrick-Kohlenberger
AV Authorized Version
[9]Strong, James. The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible : Showing Every Word of the Test of the Common English Version of the Canonical Books, and Every Occurence of Each Word in Regular Order. electronic ed., G2962. Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship., 1996.
a reprove: or, argue