Too lazy to read? Watch the video! (Any text that in italics was not read in the video.)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EMZmO3Q5SY
Early Christianity on the
Name of God the Father (and the Tetragrammaton)
Post-Apostolic Church
INTRO
This is the fourteenth video in a series on what the
Pre-Nicene Christians believed about the Divinity. And this is the eleventh
and last video about God the Father.
What have we heard about the Father’s name? Is it Elohim? Is it Adonai? Is it the tetragrammaton (YHWH), which might be pronounced as Jehovah or Yahweh or something else? Or, is the Father without a proper name? Is He only known by His titles such as the Lord, the Father or Abba, or simply God? In some religious circles, getting God’s name correct has the highest importance. How important is it?
PRE-NICENE CHRISTIANS:
The Pre-Nicene
Christians believed that the Father has no proper name. The idea that the Father has no name probably
sounds very foreign to Christians today.
First, let us allow the early Christians to explain why they believed
that the Father has no proper name. Aristides wrote,
God is not born, not made, an ever-abiding nature without
beginning and without end, immortal, perfect, and incomprehensible…. He has no name, for everything which has a
name is kindred to things created.
(Aristides. AD 125. ANF, vol 9, page 264-265.)
(http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.xiii.iv.html,
I)
Justin Martyr wrote,
We have been taught, and are convinced, and do believe,
that He accepts those only who imitate the excellences which reside in Him,
temperance, and justice, and philanthropy, and as many virtues as are peculiar
to a God who is called by no proper name.
(Justin Martyr. AD 160. ANF, vol 1, page 165.)
(http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.ii.x.html)
The belief that the
Father does not have a proper name was a strong belief in early Christianity. Justin also wrote,
No one can utter the name of the ineffable [indescribable] God. And if any one dare to say that there is a name,
he raves with a hopeless madness.
(Justin Martyr. AD 160. ANF, vol 1, page 183.)
(http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.ii.lxi.html)
Cyprian wrote,
Neither must you ask the name of God. God is His name. Among those there is need of names
where a multitude is to be distinguished by the appropriate characteristics of
appellations [that is, the process of naming things]. To God who alone is, belongs the whole name of
God. (Cyprian. AD 250.
ANF, vol 5, page 467.)
(http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.v.vi.html,
9)
Lactantius made the
same argument, perhaps explaining it better, writing,
God has no name, because He is alone. Nor is there any need of a proper name,
except in cases where a multitude of persons requires a distinguishing mark, so
that you may designate each person by his own mark and appellation. But God, because He is always one, has no
peculiar [proper] name…. For God, as I
have shown in the beginning, does not need a name. (Lactantius.
AD 310. ANF, vol 7, page 15, 65.)
(http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.iii.ii.i.vii.html,
“Now let us pass to divine testimonies…”)
(http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.iii.ii.ii.xvii.html,
“For God, as I have shown…”)
TITLES
When discussing the
topic of God’s name, it is worthwhile to understand the difference between a
name and a title. Justin Martyr wrote,
To the Father of all, who is unbegotten, there is no name
given. For by whatever name He be called, He has as His elder the person who
gives Him the name. But these words, Father, and God, and Creator, and Lord,
and Master, are not names, but appellations derived from His good deeds and
functions…. Also the appellation “God”
is not a name, but an opinion implanted in the nature of men of a thing that can
hardly be explained. (Justin
Martyr. AD 160. ANF, vol 1, page 190.)
(http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iii.vi.html)
Clement of Alexandria
speaks to the same thing, writing about the mystery of God,
It is without form and name. And if we name it, we do not do so properly,
terming it either the One, or the Good, or Mind, or Absolute Being, or Father,
or God, or Creator, or Lord. We speak
not as supplying His [proper] name. But
because we are lacking, we use good names, in order that the mind may have
these as points of support, so as not to err in other respects [of who God is]. (Clement of Alexandria. AD 195.
ANF, vol 2, page 464.)
(http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iv.v.xii.html,
“This discourse respecting God…”)
Clement says that any names, or titles, that we give the Father are to aid us in understanding the mystery of God. But even these are not the proper name of the Father.
GENDER OF GOD AS AN ANALOGY
Arnobius uses an
analogy to help us understand the nature of the Father. Though he focuses on the gender of the
Father, this can also apply to the name of the Father.
That no thoughtless person may raise a false accusation
against us, as though we believed God whom we worship to be male,—that is, for
this reason that when we speak of Him we use a masculine word,—let him
understand that it is not sex which is expressed, but His name, and its meaning
according to custom, and the way in which we are in the habit of using words. For the Deity is not male, but His name is of
the masculine gender. (Arnobius. AD 305.
ANF, vol 6, page 466.)
(http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf06.xii.iii.iii.viii.html)
In other words, even though we call God “He” and “Him,” this does not mean the Father has a gender. In the same way with His name, even though we call Him “God,” the Father does not have a proper name.
THE CORE OF THE EARLY CHRISTIAN BELIEF
Earlier, Cyprian and
Lactantius pointed out that one reason God does not have a name is because the
purpose of a name is to distinguish one person from other persons. But since God is above everything and there
is no one like Him, God would not need a name.
Justin explains this further, writing,
God had said to Moses, when He was about to send him to the
Hebrews, “I am that I am,” he [Moses] understood that God had not mentioned to
him His own proper name. For God cannot
be called by any proper name, for names are given to mark out and distinguish
their subject-matters, because these are many and diverse. But neither did any one exist before God who
could give Him a name, nor did He Himself think it right to name Himself,
seeing that He is one and unique. As He
Himself also by His own prophets testifies, when He says, “I God am the first,”
and after this, “And beside me there is no other God.”* [1.12] Then, on this account, as I
before said, when He sent Moses to the Hebrews, God did not mention any name,
but by a participle He mystically teaches them that He is the one and only God. (Justin Martyr. AD 160.
ANF, vol 1, page 181.)
* Isaiah 44:6.
(http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.vi.xx.html)
(http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.vi.xxi.html)
To be clear, while the
Pre-Nicene Christians said that God has no proper name, they believed that God
had many titles, or generic names that mankind can use. These titles are descriptions of who God is
and what God does. Whether it is Lord,
Father, God, the I AM, etc., the early Christians saw all these as titles and
descriptions of God which mankind could use as generic names for God.
SCRIPTURES: FIGURES OF SPEECH
One of the reasons the
early Christians believed that the name of God was not a proper name was
because the majority of the times when the Scriptures make reference to the
name of God, the Scriptures use figurative language. That is, when holy men invoked the name of
God, they did not have a proper name in mind, but referred to God’s greatness
or glory in a figurative way. Here are
some examples. As these are presented,
take note on how these examples cannot refer to a proper name.
Jesus prayed,
I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and
I am coming to You. Holy Father, protect
them by Your name that You have given Me, so that they may be one as We are
one. While I was with them, I was
protecting them by Your name that You have given Me. (John 17:11-12, HCSB)
In Jesus’ prayer, He
was talking about unity under God’s name, not about the Father’s proper
name. Jesus is probably referring
to the unity written by Moses,
Listen, Israel: The Lord our God, the LORD [the tetragrammaton]
is One. (Deuteronomy 6:4, HCSB)
Paul wrote,
Whatever you do, in word or in deed, do everything in the
name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him. (Colossians 3:17, HCSB)
In this verse, Paul is
using figurative language and is not referring to a proper name. In a parallel passage, Paul
phrased it differently, writing,
Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything
for God’s glory. (1Corinthians 10:31,
HCSB)
From the Ten Commandments,
You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in
vain. For the Lord will not acquit him
that takes His name in vain. (Exodus
20:7, Deuteronomy 5:11, Brenton)
Is God really concerned
about His proper name? Or is God
concerned about His people misrepresenting Him among the nations? After all, when people abuse the greatness of
God, God takes notice. [2.7] No
wonder God also said, writing through Isaiah and Paul,
On account of you my name is continually blasphemed among
the Gentiles. (Isaiah 52:5, Brenton)
The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of
you. (Romans 2:24, HCSB)
Before Moses, we see
times when God intentionally hid His name—for some reason. For example, there was the event when Jacob wrestled
with God all night.
“Your name will no longer be Jacob,” He said. “It will be Israel because you have struggled
with God and with men and have prevailed.”
Then Jacob asked Him, “Please tell me Your name.” But He answered, “Why do you ask My name?” And He blessed him there. (Genesis 32:29, HCSB)
This unique story about Jacob wrestling with God will be discussed in a future video on the Divinity.
But after Moses and when
God spoke to him from the burning bush, the Angel of the Lord appeared to Samson’s
parents.
Manoah did not know He was the Angel of the
Lord. Then Manoah said to Him, “What is
Your name, so that we may honor You when Your words come true?” “Why do you ask My name,” the Angel of the
Lord asked him, “since it is wonderful.”
(Judges 13:16-18, HCSB)
God said to Moses,
God spoke to Moses, telling him, “I am Yahweh [the
tetragrammaton]. I appeared to Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob as God Almighty, but I did not reveal my name Yahweh [the
tetragrammaton] to them. (Exodus 6:2-3,
HCSB)
With a simple reading
of this verse, it appears that God is talking about His proper name. After all, what God says is true: He did not
use the tetragrammaton with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Again, from a simple reading, this verse is
worded in a way that seems to imply that the tetragrammaton is God’s proper
name. Is there another Scripture that
says when and how God revealed His name?
In the gospel of John, Jesus said,
I have revealed Your name to the men You gave Me in the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and
they have kept Your word. (John 6:3,
HCSB)
Why would Jesus need to reveal God’s proper name to the apostles? Now, if God revealed His proper name to Moses, then didn’t the apostles already have God’s name from the book of Exodus?
Jesus said that He revealed God’s name to the apostles, but not once in the gospels did Jesus give God a proper name. In fact, not a single time in the whole New Testament is God given a proper name. (The closest the New Testament comes to using a proper name for God is Revelation 3:12. But even there, no proper name is used.) For these reasons, even Jesus referred to God’s name in figurative language or in titles.
In summary, most of the Scriptures that speak about God’s name, it cannot be interpreted as God’s proper name but is interpreted as figurative language or as a title. For example, when reading quite a few passages, it is hard for the reader to distinguish between the name of God and God Himself. The early Christians strongly believed this was the case with God’s name.
However, understanding God’s name as figurative language does not address an important thing that still must be addressed. What about the tetragrammaton? Today, it is a very common belief that the tetragrammaton is the proper name of the Father. We will talk about that next.
TETRAGRAMMATON: ETYMOLOGY
The tetragrammaton is
the name given for the four Hebrew letters that appear to be God’s name in the
Hebrew Old Testament. In English, it is Y-H-W-H. Many believe that this is the proper name for
God.
Let’s talk about the etymology of the tetragrammaton. From the beginning and even through the time of Jesus, the Hebrew language did not have vowels. Therefore, without listening to an ancient Hebrew speaker, it is impossible to know exactly how the tetragrammaton was pronounced. This is the reason why you might hear the tetragrammaton pronounced in different ways. Today, there are some folks who believe that a person must be able to pronounce the tetragrammaton correctly in order to be a true Christian. However, this belief has no Scriptural or divine basis.
Take Latin for example. How does the tetragrammaton relate to Latin? First, the translators translated the Hebrew letters into Latin letters: J-H-V-H. Next, they needed vowels, so the translators took the vowel sounds from Hebrew word for Lord, Adonai. Combining those things, the tetragrammaton in Latin became Jehovah.
This rendering of the
tetragrammaton in Latin seems to have existed from very early days. Clement of Alexandria lived around
195 AD. He wrote in Greek. But scholars believe we have found a small
fragment of his writings in Latin. So
keep in mind: the tetragrammaton comes from Hebrew, Clement wrote in Greek, and
his quotation has been translated into Latin.
Here, it has been translated it into English. Clement wrote,
That mystic name which is called
the Tetragrammaton, by which alone they who had access to the Holy of Holies
were protected, is pronounced Jehovah, which means, “Who is, and who shall be.” (Clement of Alexandria. AD 195.
ANF, vol 2, page 585.)
(http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iv.ix.html,
“That mystic name…”)
Remember, earlier, we read a quotation from Clement which showed that he believed the same as the rest of the early Christians: that God does not have a proper name. This quotation from Clement does not say anything different about what he believed about God not having a proper name. Clement is not talking about proper names but would refer to the tetragrammaton as one of God’s “good names”—as he had put it earlier. Here, he calls it one of God’s mystic names or titles.
Clement of Alexandria was not the only writer who mentioned the mystic name, Jehovah. Justin Martyr (1 time), Origen (3 times), and Hippolytus (1 time) also mention it.
TETRAGRAMMATON: HISTORY
Next, let us look at
the history of the tetragrammaton.
In the Old Testament, it appears that the tetragrammaton was in the oldest manuscripts. While the Jews were under Greek rule (300s or 200s BC), it was around this time that copyists appeared to develop a new tradition. Jewish scribes stopped copying the tetragrammaton and instead used Adonai (LORD) or Elohim (GOD). Take the Dead Sea Scrolls for example. In the first century BC, the Dead Sea Scrolls had a variety of traditions. Some manuscripts contained the tetragrammaton while other manuscripts replaced it with dots or dashes (which is called the tetrapencta).
As mentioned earlier, the Hebrew language did not have vowels. About a thousand years after Jesus and a thousand years before today, the Masoretes added vowel markings to the tetragrammaton. They were not perfectly consistent. In the Masoretic Text, we see different markings in different places. Based on the markings, the tetragrammaton is sometimes pronounced with two syllables as “Yehwah” or Yehwih,” or other times with three syllables as “Yehowah” or “Yehowih.”
Nearly all English Bibles are translated from the Masoretic Text. Most English translations have decided to stick to the ancient Jewish tradition of not translating the tetragrammaton. When translations do this, they will translate it as LORD in all caps. Though the translators use the English word Adonai, being in all caps, they are implying that the tetragrammaton appears there.
Next, let us talk about the Greek Old Testament. Unlike the Masoretic Text, the vast majority of Septuagint manuscripts do not contain the tetragrammaton. The translators of the Septuagint also followed the new tradition of their day, replacing the tetragrammaton with Lord. However, there are some very, very rare fragments of the Septuagint that have something different. In those few fragments, the Hebrew tetragrammaton appears. In these cases, the translators did not translate the tetragrammaton but left the Hebrew letters as-is.
Before moving on with the tetragrammaton in the Septuagint, it should be pointed out that Koine Greek, which is the language of Alexander the Great, the language of the Septuagint, and the language of the New Testament, was the first language in human history that had vowels in its written alphabet. Of course, this was an invaluable addition to humanity’s written communication. This allowed the Greek language to easily and more accurately be translated into other languages. No wonder the Greek language was the universal language for both the Greek and Roman Empires. No wonder God chose the Greek language to become the language of the New Testament. No wonder the Septuagint became such a popular translation for both Jews and Christians. Having vowels, the Greek language was both powerful and influential.
Let us return to the Greek Septuagint. Going further down the rabbit hole of rare fragments of the Septuagint, there are less than a handful fragments that have something extremely fascinating. They have the tetragrammaton in the Greek language! It is composed of three Greek letters and is called the trigrammaton: I-A-O. It is interesting that these are all vowels. As with the Hebrew tetragrammaton, we do not know how many syllables the Greek trigrammaton has. With two syllables, it is pronounced “YaHo.” With three syllables, it is pronounced “EeYaOh.” These super rare fragments of the Septuagint are ancient. They are dated to the first century BC and first century AD.
The vast majority of Septuagint scribes followed the same tradition from the Jews. Again, 99.9% of Septuagint manuscripts have Kurious (the Lord). Because the manuscripts are so, so few, the Greek trigrammaton is not worth analyzing. However, it is worth mentioning.
TETRAGRAMMATON: EARLY CHRISTIANS
Because the tetragrammaton
(and trigrammaton) did not exist in nearly all copies of the Septuagint, one might
wonder if this is the reason why the early Christians rejected the belief that
God has a proper name.
Think about it. When we read the following verse
in our Bibles, we know about the tetragrammaton and we naturally infer that it is
the proper name for Father God. Many
modern Christians teach that the tetragrammaton is the personal name for Father
God.
Jehovah (tetragrammaton) is a man of war: Jehovah (tetragrammaton)
is his name. (Ex 15:3, ASV)
But for the early
Christians, they read the verse this way from the Septuagint.
Lord (kurios) shatters [with] wars: Lord (kurios) [is] his
name. (Ex 15:3, LXX)
Could it be that the Pre-Nicene Christians believed so strongly that Father God does not have a proper name because they were not familiar with the tetragrammaton as we are today? In other words, if the tetragrammaton appeared in the Septuagint—which was their Old Testament--, would the Pre-Nicene Christians have believed differently about God’s name?
Most likely, they would
believe the same. As mentioned before, a few Pre-Nicene Christians did know of the existence of
the tetragrammaton in Latin. These included
Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, and Origen. It appears that these writers would say the
same thing about the tetragrammaton as they say about the other titles of
Father God, such as Almighty, Lord, Creator, Master, and Father. Clement of Alexandria said that the tetragrammaton
can be translated as, “Who is, and who
shall be,” which he would say is a descriptive title. For example, they would see the
tetagrammaton being used just as the Hebrew word ehyeh, which is another name that
God gives Himself.
Moses said unto God, “Behold, when I come unto the children
of Israel, and shall say unto them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me unto
you.’ And they shall say to me, ‘What is
his name?’ What shall I say unto them?” God said to Moses, “I AM THAT I AM.” And He said, “Thus shall you say to the
children of Israel, I AM has sent Me unto you.” (Ex 3:13-14, ASV)
In conclusion, what are we to do with the tetragrammaton? What if it is the Father’s proper name? Currently, because of the lack of information about it being a proper name and because Christians did not put a large significance into the tetragrammaton, there is not much we can do. Coincidentally, this is what the early Christians did with the tetragrammaton. Neither the Scriptures nor the Pre-Nicene Christians taught that understanding the Father’s proper name or speaking that name correctly is a requirement for Christians. If the Father’s proper name was essential to us spiritually, or if it was a mark of a true Christian, the Pre-Nicene Christians and most certainly the Scriptures would have made this belief more evident.
TRIGRAMMATON: EARLY CHRISTIANS
We have seen how the Pre-Nicene
Christians knew about the existence of the tetragrammaton. Interestingly, they also knew about the existence
of the trigrammaton also! Unfortunately,
they did not write about it being used in the Scriptures or not. When they recognized the trigrammaton, they
wrote about how it was being used in their day.
It wasn’t being used by church but by heretics.
Irenaeus and Origen wrote that, in Gnosticism, Iao was the name of their second deity.
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.ii.xxxi.html,
5 and 11
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.ix.vi.xxxi.html
Irenaeus wrote this about
the Macosians, a form of Gnosticism.
Others still repeat certain Hebrew words, in
order the more thoroughly to bewilder those who are being initiated…. He who is initiated, replies, “I am
established, and I am redeemed; I redeem my soul from this age [world], and
from all things connected with it in the name of Iao, who redeemed his own soul
into redemption in Christ who lives.”
Then the bystanders add these words, “Peace be to all on whom this name
rests.” (Irenaeus. AD 180.
ANF, vol 1, page 346.)
(https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.ii.xxii.html,
3)
Irenaeus wrote the
following about Valentinians, another form of Gnosticism. He explained what they believed about the
origin of one of their gods, Sophia.
As Horos thus obstructed her [Sophia] further
progress, he exclaimed, “IAO,” from where, they say, this name IAO derived its
origin. (Irenaeus. AD 180.
ANF, vol 1, page 321.)
(https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.ii.v.html,
1)
It appears that the
Gnostics were trying to claim the trigrammaton as originating in their religion. Tertullian wrote the following about the Valentinians,
another form of Gnosticism.
Horos, who had met her mother so opportunely,
[had] fallen in with the daughter quite as unseasonably, so as to explain at
her, “IAO!” just as we hear the cry, “Out of the way, Romans!” or “By the faith
of Caesar!” From where (as they will
have it) the name IAO comes to be found is in the Scriptures. (Tertullian.
AD 207. ANF, vol 3, page 511.)
(https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.vi.xiv.html)
It is hard to tell if
Tertullian agreed that the trigrammaton belonged in the Scriptures or not. He might be merely be saying that the Gnostics
claimed this. But Origen said that they
pulled the trigrammaton from the Scriptures.
He wrote,
I could have given many more illustrations to
show that we are acquainted with the opinions of these deluders, and that we
disown them, as being alien to ours, and impious, and not in harmony with the
doctrines of true Christians, of which we are ready to make confession even to
the death. It must be noticed, too, that
those who have drawn up this array of fictions, have, from neither
understanding magic, nor discriminating the meaning of holy Scripture, thrown
everything into confusion; seeing that they have borrowed from magic the names
of Ialdabaoth, and Astaphaeus, and Horaeus, and from the Hebrew Scriptures him
who is termed in Hebrew Iao or Jah, and Sabaoth, and Adonaeus, and Eloaeus. Now the names taken from the Scriptures are
names of one and the same God; which, not being understood by the enemies of
God, as even themselves acknowledge, led to their imagining that Iao was a
different God, and Sabaoth another, and Adonaeus, whom the Scriptures term Adonai,
a third besides, and that Eloaeus, whom the prophets name in Hebrew Eloi, was
also different. (Origen. AD 247.
ANF, vol 4, page 588.)
(https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04/anf04.vi.ix.vi.xxxii.html)
In Origen’s commentary
on John 1:1, he makes a very unrelated side note, writing,
For Iao means etymologically: lifting up,
elation. (Origen. AD 228.
ANF, vol 9, page 322.)
(https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.xv.iii.ii.i.html)
Origen’s complaint is not that the Gnostics were using the wrong name. His complaint is that the Gnostics believe that these names were proper names. And because they borrowed their beliefs from “magic.” These two foundations of theirs caused them to think that these proper names were the names of different gods. This is the trap that the Gnostics fell into. As we saw before, the purpose of proper names is to distinguish between persons who are in a group. Origen would say all these are generic names, or titles, of God—because there is only one God. When there is only one God, there is no need for that God to have a proper name.
CONCLUSION
We have looked at what
the early Christians believed about the name of God. We have looked at various Scriptures
that speak about the name of God. And we spent a large amount of time analyzing the tetragrammaton. Having considered this topic from multiple
angles, we might be left with more questions than answers. In order to put this video together, it took much
more time and research. In fact, as new
information presented itself, the video’s script was completely rewritten a couple
times. Certainly, novels could be written
about this topic, but it is time to end.
Let us end the video with a quick review and with a message of encouragement.
From the beliefs of Pre-Nicene Christians, the belief that God has no proper name boils down to three reasons.
(1) Names are given by
parents. Every created thing is named by
their parent. Even God named Adam. But as for God, He has no parent. Therefore, no one gave God a name.
(2) The purpose of
names is to distinguish equal beings from each other. Humans need names to distinguish each human
from another. As for God, He has no equal;
there is not any god besides God. Therefore,
there is no reason for God to give Himself a name.
(3) The titles that
God gives Himself and that man gives God are descriptions of who God is and what
God does. God is identified by titles and
figures of speech that describe His personality, His actions, and His
greatness.
What we can do is have
hope for what the Father’s name will mean for us in the end, if we are faithful. In whatever we do, if we do it in the name of
God, we will bring glory to Him. Jesus said
that those who are faithful will receive a brand new name.
[To Pergamum:] Anyone who has an ear should listen to what
the Spirit says to the churches. I will
give the victor some of the hidden manna. I will also give him a white stone, and on the
stone a new name is inscribed that no one knows except the one who receives it…. [To Philadelphia:] I am coming quickly. Hold on to what you have, so that no one takes
your crown. [To] the victor: I will make
him a pillar in the sanctuary of My God, and he will never go out again. I will write on him the name of My God and the
name of the city of My God—the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven
from My God—and My new name. (Revelation
2:17, 3:11-12, HCSB)
Blessings and so forth.
