Why Does God Take Names, and Can One Name Represent the Entirety of God?
Relevant Words of God:
Could the name of
“God with us,” represent God’s disposition in its entirety? Could it fully articulate God? If man says that God can only be called Jesus, and may not have any other name because God cannot change His disposition, then such words are blasphemy! Do you believe that the name Jesus, God with us, can represent God in His entirety? God can be called many names, but among these many names, there is not one which can encapsulate all that God has, there is not one which can fully represent God. And so God has many names, but these many names cannot fully articulate God’s disposition, for God’s disposition is too rich, and extends beyond the knowledge of man. The language of man is incapable of fully encapsulating God. Man has but a limited vocabulary with which to encapsulate all that he knows of God’s disposition: great, honorable, wondrous, unfathomable, supreme, holy, righteous, wise, and so on. Too many words! Such a limited vocabulary is incapable of describing what little man has witnessed of God’s disposition. Later on, many people added more words to better describe the fervor in their hearts: God is too great! God is too holy! God is too lovely! Today, sayings such as these have reached their peak, yet man is still incapable of clearly expressing God. And so, for man, God has many names, yet He has no one name, and that is because God’s being is too bountiful, and the language of man is too inadequate. One particular word or name is powerless to represent God in His entirety. So can God take one fixed name? God is so great and holy, so why do you not permit Him to change His name in each new age? As such, in each age that God personally does His own work, He uses a name that befits the age to encapsulate the work that He does. He uses this particular name, one that possesses the significance of the age, to represent His disposition in that age. God uses the language of man to express His own disposition. Even then, many people who have had a spiritual experience and have personally seen God still feel that one particular name is incapable of representing God in His entirety—and what a pity that is! They do not call God by any name, and simply call Him “God.” Their heart seems full of love, yet it also seems beset with contradictions, for they do not know how to explain God. What God is is too bountiful, there is simply no way of describing Him. There is no single name that can summarize God’s disposition, and there is no single name that can describe all that God has and is. If someone asks Me, “Exactly what name do You use?” I will tell them, “God is God!” Is that not the best name for God? Is it not the best encapsulation of God’s disposition? So why spend so much effort seeking the name of God? Why think so hard, going without food and sleep, for the sake of a name? The day will arrive when God is not called Jehovah, Jesus, or the Messiah—He will simply be called the . At that time, all the names that He took on earth shall come to an end, for His work on earth will have come to an end, after which He shall have no name. … You should know that God originally had no name. He only took on one, or two, or many names because He had work to do and had to manage mankind. Whatever name He is called by, isn’t it freely chosen by Him? Does He need you, a creature, to decide it? The name by which God is called is according to what man can apprehend and the language of man, but this name cannot be encapsulated by man. You can only say that there is a God in heaven, that He is called God, that He is God Himself with great power, too wise, too exalted, too wondrous, too mysterious, too almighty, and you can say no more; that is all you know. In this way, can the name of Jesus alone represent God Himself?,
from “The Vision of God’s Work (3)” in The Word Appears in the Flesh
In each age and each stage of work, My name is not baseless, but holds representative significance: Each name represents one age. “Jehovah” represents the Age of Law, and is the honorific for the God worshiped by the people of Israel. “Jesus” represents the Age of Grace, and is the name of the God of all those who were redeemed during the Age of Grace. If man still longs for the arrival of Jesus the Savior during the last days, and still expects Him to arrive in the image He bore in Judea, then the entire six-thousand-year management plan would stop in the Age of Redemption, and would be incapable of progressing any further. The last days, furthermore, would never arrive, and the age would never be brought to an end. That is because Jesus the Savior is only for the redemption and salvation of mankind. I took the name of Jesus for the sake of all the sinners in the Age of Grace, and it is not the name by which I shall bring the whole of mankind to an end. Although Jehovah, Jesus, and the Messiah all represent My Spirit, these names only denote the different ages in My management plan, and do not represent Me in My entirety. The names by which people on earth call Me cannot articulate My entire disposition and all that I am. They are merely different names by which I am called during different ages. And so, when the final age—the age of the last days—arrives, My name shall change again. I shall not be called Jehovah, or Jesus, much less the Messiah, but shall be called the powerful Himself, and under this name I shall bring the entire age to an end.
from “The Savior Has Already Returned Upon a ‘White Cloud’” in The Word Appears in the Flesh