p. 186 | THE NAME by S. Osborn

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jun 12, 1879

THE NAME.

By S. Osborn

Wherever we go we find some persons who are great sticklers for the denominational name. They ask us why we do not take the name of Christian church, church of God, or some Bible name, and say they could go with us if we had the right name. But let me ask, What is there in a name to make people better or worse? All must admit there is nothing. Still a name is desirable as denoting distinctiveness in character or belief. In Bible times it was not unusual to change names when distinction of characteristics required it.

Thus, in the beginning the Creator was called God; he was also called Lord. But he was known by the name of God Almighty to Abraham. Ex. 6. He made his name Jehovah known for the first time to Moses. Ex. 6:3. And in Ex. 3:14 God called his name I AM THAT I AM. He is also called Ancient of Days, Heavenly Father, etc. These names are expressive of the various relations which the great God sustains to men.

We will now consider the names by which Christ is known in the Bible. He is called Shiloh, Gen. 49:10; Captain of the host of the Lord, Josh. 5:14; Heb. 2:10; Prince and Saviour, Acts. 5:31; Wonderful, Counsellor, Everlasting Father, the Prince of peace, Isa. 9:6; Michael, Dan. 12:1; The Branch, Zech. 6:12; a Priest, verse 13; and in the New Testament, Emmanuel, Matt. 1:23; Jesus, verse 25; King of the Jews, Matt. 2:2. He is also called Son of God, and Son of man. He is called a Priest forever after the order of Melchisedec; King of Kings and Lord of Lords, in Rev. 19:16; and in Rev 1:11, Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. Here we have some nineteen different names which are applied to our Saviour. Why so many names? Because they are suited to express his relation to man at different times. Abram’s name was changed to Abraham, Jacob’s name to Israel, these changes being made to express certain changes in their relation to God and his people.

Now let us consider the different names which have been applied to the church. The name first given to God’s people after the fall is found in Gen. 6:2; viz., Sons of God. They are called the seed of Abraham in Gen. 12:7, and Israel in Gen. 47:27. Coming to the New Testament, we find the followers of Christ called disciples. They were afterward called Christians. Acts. 11:26. But they were called the churches of Christ once, Rom. 16:16; and the church of God eight times, as in the following places: Acts. 20:28, 1 Cor. 1:2, 10:32, 11:22, and 15:9; Gal 1:13, and 1 Tim. 3:5. Now if “the church of Christ” was such an important name, why did it not have its origin sooner? this being twenty-seven years after it was said to be founded, on the day of Pentecost. And in fact it was ten years after that time before the disciples were called Christians. Acts. 11:26. It was in the year 60 that it was first called the church of God. Acts. 20:28. And yet we know the church was in existence long before this time. Read Matt. 18:17; Acts. 7:38. The term church does not occur in the Old Testament, but the term congregation occurs several times, having the same meaning as the word church, as shown by Paul’s quotation from Ps. 22:22, in Heb. 2:12; “Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.” He here substitutes the word church for congregation.

From these facts we deduct the following conclusions: 1. That the “church” of the New Testament was the “congregation” of the Old; 2. That church, under that title, was perpetuated in this dispensation. Mat. 18:17; Acts. 7:38. 3. That the changes in the names applied to the same objects at different times in the Bible are for the sake of denoting distinguishing characteristics. This idea is fully sustained in the language addressed to the seven churches, in the second and third chapters of Revelation. The address made here to these churches was not to the different organizations existing at any one time, but to the same church at different times in the gospel dispensation. (See thoughts on Revelation, chapters 1, 2, 3, published at the REVIEW Office, Battle Creek, Mich.)

One point I will especially call attention to in support of the above position; viz., the signification of the terms used to denote the churches: Ephesus means desirable; Smyrna, myrrh; Pergamos, height, elevation; Thyatira, “sweet savor of labor,” or, “sacrifice of contrition”; Sardis, “prince or song of joy,” or that which remains; Philadelphia, “brotherly love”; Laodicea signifies, “the judging of the people,” (Cruden). It is evident that inspiration has chosen these terms to express the characteristics of the people to which they refer, and not because the names themselves possess any intrinsic value.

The foregoing thoughts are in harmony with the name Seventh-day Adventist. 1. It distinguishes them among the numerous bodies of Christians in the land. 2. It represents the two leading features of their faith; viz., that they are believers in the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath, and also in the speedy personal appearing of the Son of God.

No name could be more appropriate. Take, for instance, the church of God. Is there any class of people organized that can truly say they are all followers of God? No one will claim this. Again, take the name of Christian church. In order that the name be appropriately applied, each individual belonging to the body must be truly a Christian. Every one will admit that this is not true of any denomination, under the existing circumstances. There is a church of God and of Christ upon the earth; but it is found in no one organization. Acts. 10:34. Only those that fear God and work righteousness constitute that church. S. OSBORN.