Sunday, March 17, 2024

Does "Jehovah" Mean "Lord"? (Working on)

 The claim is often made that the word "Jehovah" means "Lord". One stated: "Jehovah is taken from the Tetragrammaton it is a title meaning Lord." (The statement has been removed from the site from which it was taken) Another claims: "Yahweh, YHWH, Jehovah means Lord (Deuteronomy 6:4; Daniel 9:14)." In discussing Leviticus 20:8, one states: "Jehovah means 'Lord' and Mekoddishkem means 'sanctifies.'" Indeed, many scholars often present "Jehovah" as meaning "Lord", ekvidently based on the Jewish custom of changing the Holy Name to some form of the Hebrew word often transliterated from the Masoretic text as ADON (meaning "Lord"). Concerning Jehovah-Jireh in Genesis 22:14, Alexander MacLaren states that Abraham "named that place by a name that spoke nothing of his trial, but everything of God’s provision - ’The Lord will see,’ or ‘The Lord will provide.’" There are so many statements similar to these that one could find many, many times. But does "Jehovah" actually mean "Lord"?

Jehovah is definitely taken from the Hebrew Tetragrammaton that represents God's Holy Name, however, that name is in verb form, and does not mean "lord". In Exodus 3:14, God reveals himself as EHJEH (many prefer Ehyeh) ASHER EHJEH, and EHJEH. EHJEH is believed to be the first person form of an active verb meaning "to be". While JEHOVAH in verse 15 is believed to be the third person form of the same verb, although many scholars treat the Hebrew tetragrammaton as being a "name", and thus present as being a noun. Most translations render the name in verse 14 as "I am", or "I will be", etc. Many translations render the third person form of the name in verse 15 as "the LORD". A few render it as "Jehovah", which is not a translation, but a transliteration of one of the forms of the Holy Name as found in the Masoretic text. The actual translation or meaning of Jehovah would mean "He is", "He will be", "He causes to be", etc. The verb in Hebrew that is often represented in English as "Jehovah" (or "Yahweh) definitely does not mean "Lord". 

Evidently, however, the Jews had begun to substitute a form of ADON (Hebrew transliteration meaning "Lord") or in a form of EL (meaning "God") for Jehovah. There is, of course, nothing in the Bible whereby God has commanded that anyone change his Holy Name to other words that do not even mean the same thing.

Some claim that this was out of respect for God, but we cannot see how changing the Holy Name to "Lord" shows respect for God. It would like changing your name to "Sir" and never calling you by your name. Would you consider being called "Sir"as being your name instead of your name to be showing respect to you?

Some have noted that the Greek Septuagint renders the long form of EHJEH in Exodus 3:14 with Greek words that could rendered as "I am the Being". The short form is rendered simply as "the Being". From this, it is claimed that the name Jehovah means "Existence", or "the Eternal Being". Thus some render the Holy Name as "the Eternal". We cannot agree with this for several reasons. Both EHJEH of Exodus 3:14 and JEHOVAH of Exodus 3:15 are actually in verb form, and thus should not be "translated" with a noun. Regarding the Septuagint, ... (author reminder: need to find the Dead Sea Scroll Greek fragment for Exodus 3:14 to compare with the "Christianized" LXX)

Tuesday, February 28, 2023

The Name of Messiah

And there is salvation in no other one, for neither is there any other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” — Acts 4:12.

(We are in the process of updating this study)

(1) “What’s in a name?” is often asked, and this question usually implies insignificance to a person's name. For many, it may make no difference whether he is called Peter, James, John, Moses, Aaron or even Joshua (Jesus, Yahshua, Jeshua). Many use these names and other names today without any reference to their signification. But our study of the Bible impresses us with the idea that names, as used in the Bible, are many times full of meaning. In many instances, we find that names in Bible were given with reference to time, place or circumstance, past, present or future. Some names were given as monuments to remind of some special dealings of Jehovah, and others were prophetic. A person’s name often expressed his or her qualities, work or destiny. The very fact that the word “name” occurs more than a thousand times in the Bible confirms its theological importance. In the ancient world a name was not merely a label but was almost equivalent to whoever or whatever bore it.

(2) At times God intervened and changed a person's life and his future direction. When such happened, sometimes the person's name was change to reflect that new direction.  The name given to the first man,  “Adam,” is given the meaning of  “Red” by Brown-Driver-Briggs' Lexicon and is believed to indicate man’s origin “of the [red] earth, earthly.” (1 Corinthians 15:47) **** The name Abel means *need to correct****, and fitly represents the great Shepherd of the sheep, who gave his life for them. Abraham means “father of a great multitude,” or “of many nations.” His name was changed from Abram to Abraham when God made him the promise. (Genesis 17:5) In reference to the same great plan Sarai was changed to Sarah, “Princess.” (Genesis 17:15) These are prophetic in their character and point to the grand success of the good news in enticing the nations to Jehovah, the Father of all, through the agency of the “seed” of promise: The Messiah and His Church (Called Out Ones) the antitypes of Isaac and Rebekah. David means “Beloved” a type of Christ, the true King of Israel. David as a prophet personifies the Messiah, and God makes promises to him as if he were the Messiah.

(3) In I Samuel 25:25 we find this: “Nabal… is just like his name, his name is Fool, and folly goes with him.” The word “Nabal” means “foolish, senseless.” Nabal is described in the Bible as a rich man, having three thousand sheep and a thousand goats. (1 Samuel 25:2) But his richness is offset by his foolishness, as described in his name. According to 1 Samuel 25:3, Nabal was “harsh and evil in his dealing.” (New American Standard Version) King David set men to protect Nabal’s flocks of sheep and goats. When David heard that Nabal was shearing his sheep, David sent some of his men to request a offering from Nabal’s hand. Nabal forgot all that David had done for him, and rebuked David’s men. For this insult David was about to go with 600 men to kill Nabal. But one of the men told Abigail, Nabal’s wife all that had happened. In doing so, he described Nabal as a “worthless man that no man can speak to him.” (1 Samuel 25:17, New American Standard Bible, hereafter NASV) Abigail went before David with many gifts to plead for her husband and her people. She told David: “Please do not let my lord pay attention to this worthless man, Nabal, for as his name is, so is he. Nabal is his name and folly is with him.” (1 Samuel 25:25) David was moved by Abigail’s courage and discernment. He therefore blessed her and turned his heart away from bringing ruin to Nabal and Nabal’s people. When Abigail returned to Nabal, she found him holding a party, like a king. He was drunk. The next day Abigail told Nabal what had happened and his heart died within him so that he became as a stone. Ten days later Jehovah struck Nabal, so that he died. Thus Nabal’s name was very descriptive of the life he led.

(4) In Revelation 3:4 we read from the King James Version: “Thou hast a few names (Strongs Greek number 3686) even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments.” The Greek word for “names” is used here. It is very evident, however, that the reference is not to mere words that are used to distinguish one person from another, but rather to the individuals themselves. While we believe the King James Version is correct in translating the Greek word as “names,” we find that some translations substitute “people” in this case. (See NASV and New International Version.) While the thought is correct, by translating the word as “people” rather than “names” these translators fail to uphold the Greek text.


(5) The Greek word for name is also used in Revelation 3:1, which reads: “And to the angel of the church in Sardis write: He who has the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars, says this: I know your deeds, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead.” Here “name” again does not refer to words to distinguish one person from another, but rather reputation. The Christians in Sardis had a reputation of being “alive,” but in reality, they were dead before God.

(6) Name often means authority or power. Thus David sent his men to Nabal in his name, that is, with his authority. (1 Samuel 25:5,9) In Matthew 7:22, many are described as claiming to have done many works in the Master’s name, that is, with his authority. Peter and Paul were asked by the priests: “By what power, or in what name, have you done this?” (Acts 4:7) These references all show that by coming in the name of another means to come with the authority given by that person. It does not necessarily refer to the word itself that is used to distinguish that person.

(7) Likewise, when our Savior prayed the famous model prayer, he prayed to “Our Father” and that his name be hallowed or sanctified. (Matthew 6:9). It appears evident that, while the English form of the word used to distinguish the Creator, that is, “Jehovah,” is important to discern the one being spoken of, it is not the word “Jehovah”, or a certain spelling and/or pronunciation of that any English form thought to represent the Hebrew pronunciation of that name that is to be sanctified, but rather the personage behind the word.

(8) The Scriptures also use the word “name” in parallelism with memory, remembrance, or renown. “And God, furthermore, said to Moses, Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, “[Jehovah], the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, has sent me to you.” This is My name forever, and this is My memorial-name to all generations. ” (Exodus 3:15, NASV) In describing his idea of a wicked person, Bildad said: “Memory of him perishes from the earth, and he has no name abroad.” (Job 18:17, NASV) “O Jehovah, Your name endures forever; O Jehovah, Your memorial is from generation and generation.” (Psalm 135:13, Green’s Literal) In each of these cases, it is not the word used to distinguish the individual, but rather the reputation, prominence, etc., given to the remembrance of the individual bearing the name.

(9) The excellent language of David “You will not leave my soul in Sheol, neither will you allow your holy one to see corruption,” was fulfilled in the triumphant resurrection of Christ from the dead. “Therefore God has highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name of which is above every name.” (Psalm 16:8-11; Acts 2:25-36; Philippians 2:9, NASV) The name the only Most High has bestowed on Messiah is not the word represented in English as “Jesus” (or, Jeshua, Yahshua, Joshua, etc.). The Messiah already possessed the appellation representing that name before he was exalted. The “name” refers to a position or official relationship. Therefore it is the position that is meant when the word “name” is used in the verses cited. For we read “that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow.” (Philippians 2:10) At the name, the official position of Jesus (Yahshua) every knee must bow. To receive a prophet in the name of a prophet certainly refers to his official position and honor. — Matthew 10:41.

(10) “You must call his name Iesoun (transliteration from the Greek Received Text).” (Matthew 1:21) The Messiah’s name means “Jehovah is savior” or “Jehovah delivers.” Its meaning carries us forward from the mere word to the exalted official position, on account of which he can “save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him” as the means of salvation provided by his Father, Jehovah. (Hebrews 7:25; John 3:16,17; Acts 5:31; 1 John 4:14)

(11) The Messiah’s position is contrasted with that of man and angels, as he is Lord of both, having been given “all power in heaven and earth.” (Matthew 28:18) Hence it is said: “Let all the angels of God bow before him.” (Hebrews 1:7; Daniel 7:14,27) The reason is because he has “obtained a more excellent Name than theirs.’ (Hebrews 1:4) Again, in obtaining this more excellent name, the word used for his name did not change. It is not a word form or any certain pronunciation of the name (Yahshua, Iesous, or Jesus) that is being spoken of here, but rather the position of Messiah. It is the official capacity of the Son of God as Savior and King in the inheritance from his Father, which is far superior to the angels. He has been given a name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow both in heaven and earth. (Philippians 2:10) There is “no other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.” — Acts 4:12.

(12) It is in a similar sense that “a good name is to be chosen rather than great riches.” (Proverbs 22:1) The success of Jehovah’s work is to Him “for a name” an honor. (Isaiah 55:13) Additionally, to the obedient Jehovah promises an “everlasting name.” (Isaiah 56:5)

(13) “The name of the wicked will rot.” (Proverbs 10:7) Does this mean that the word used to distinguish the person would rot? No. It is the reputation of the person bearing the name that is spoken of as rotting, not the word used to represent the name. The word and the name here as elsewhere are not one and the same.

(14) With this view before our minds that the Messiah’s name refers to his official position, and not just to the use of a word to express his name, we approach the subject of the name of Messiah.

(15) In Hebrew, there are several forms, representing different pronunciations, of the word for Messiah’s name; one of those forms is often transliterated as Y@howshuwa`. It is the same word that was used to distinguish the son of Nun, rendered in the King James Version as “Joshua.” There are many speculations as to how the Savior’s name was pronounced in Hebrew; since no one on earth today knows for a certainty what ancient Hebrew actually sounded like, any claim to have an alleged “correct” English pronunciation of the Messiah name has to be based on suppositions. Additionally, the Hebrew does not have just one form and one pronunciation of the name of the Messiah; to claim only one as the true Hebrew pronunciation using someone’s method of transliteration of one of those forms would be to ignore the other forms. In English, however, one form is often used to represent several different spellings and pronunciations of names given in the Old Testament. Most English translators, in the Old Testament, render the name from the Hebrew that is later used of the Messiah as “Joshua” or “Jeshua.” The known Greek manuscripts of the “New Testament” scriptures usually present this name as ÅIhsou’ß transliterated into English as Iesous, although, similar to Hebrew, names in Koine Greek often change in spelling and pronunciation in harmony with contextual usage. Thus, there are at least three different forms and pronunciations of the same name in Koine Greek.
See:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/iesous.html

(16) However, an argument is made that the Christian Scriptures were originally written in Hebrew and later translated into the Greek. Accordingly, it is also argued that we should transliterate the name into English from the Hebrew, not the Greek. Many are advocating the use of the term “Yahshua” rather than “Jesus,” although some have advocated “Joshua, “Jahshua,” “Yeshua,” and other forms.

(17) Whether the “New Testament” was originally written in Hebrew, we do not know for a certainty. There are many things within the New Testament text itself that would seem to indicate otherwise: that the Messiah usually spoke Koine Greek and that most of his listeners seemed to know Greek better than Hebrew or Aramaic. On the other hand, except for what some have produced based on assumptions, we have not seen any actual proof whatsoever that the “New Testament” writings were originally written in Hebrew. All we have examined that asserts this view is highly speculative and often fanciful thinking designed to give credence to a demanded use of certain ways to spell and pronounce for the names of our Creator and his Messiah. None of this is actually relevant, except that based on the further assumption that God is demanded that one must pronounce these names as they were originally pronounced in Hebrew, one assumes that God is demanding a certain pronunciation in English. The Bible records no such demand from God regarding such pronunciations. God has made no such a demand, and historical documents show that in Bible times names were adapted to common forms of sounds from language from one language to another. These changes in forms of spelling and pronunciation did not actually create a different name, but each form is simply a linguistic form of the same name.

(18) Nevertheless, is often argued that personal names do not change from one language to another, and therefore the idea is presented that names should be transliterated from one language to another. For instance, if we listen to a news broadcast that might speak of the President of the United States in another language than English, the announcer will usually refer to him with the English pronunciation, and not translate the name into their language. Therefore, according to this argument, we should not translate the name of the Son of God into English either. It is actually a lie to read Isaiah 42:8 as saying, “I am the Lord; that is my name.”

(19) However, from our studies of what we have of ancient documents, we conclude that the practice common today that endeavors to keep the same pronunciation of a person’s name the same from language to language was not the practice in earlier times, and that it was not the practice in the time that our Savior was in the days of his flesh. If the Septuagint as originally translated used Greek pronunciations for Hebrew names, then this would tend to counter the argument that personal names do not change from one language to another. We do find many instances in writings translated from one language to another in which personal names were given a different sound according the language into which it was being translated. In Bible times, the indication is that names were neither transliterated nor translated form one language to another, but rather that names were rendered and adapted using sounds that contextual fit the target language. Thus the practice of taking the pronunciation of the personal name of a person over from one language to another language is probably a relatively modern custom. Furthermore, transliteration of names from one language to another may not result in keeping the pronunciation of the language of origin. For instance, in some languages, the beginning letter “Y” is given a sound similar “J” in the French Jacques. If one should seek to force, for instance, “Yahshua” as the only true form and pronunciation of the name, many people, if they followed their peculiar tradition of pronunciation, would not pronounce “Yahshua” in the same manner that we would pronounce that name in English, but it would sound more like our English pronunciation of “Joshua”. We should note, however, standardization of pronunciation began to form several centuries ago; in the last few centuries, as foretold by Daniel, travel has been increasing rapidly. (Daniel 12:4) People come and go much more quickly than in earlier centuries. Along with this has come rapid communications.With all the technological influence, it has generally become the custom to call people by their name in their native tongue, especially amongst journalists. But as far as we have been able to ascertain, this has not always been so. Regarding Jeremiah 52:24-34, Adam Rutherford states: “In these closing verses of Jeremiah too, it should be observed that Nebuchadnezzar is not spelt the Jewish way, but the Babylonian way, Nebuchadrezzar.” (Pyramidology, pages, 545, 546) This reveals that spelling and pronunciation of names of individuals did change from one language or dialect to another. The very fact that practically all manuscripts from earlier times contain names rendered in pronunciations common to the language testifies that this is so. Else there would not be many pronunciations of the same name represented in the various ancient languages.

(20) What do all the above findings mean for us today? Is it important to use what many consider the more Hebrew pronunciation of the Messiah’s name that is often claimed to have been Yahshua, or Yeshua? Or it is wrong to refer to the Savior as “Yahshua?” Should we totally reject the pronunciation “Jesus”? Are “Jesus” and “Yahshua” actually two different names, or just two variations of the same name? While linguists may refer to “Jesus” as an English name, yet they also point out that any other version is not actually a different name, but rather lingual modifications of the same name. The various spellings and pronunciations based on renderings from different languages or dialects are all really one and the same name. If we stop and think about it, it would seem ridiculous to think that the Almighty Jehovah and his Son would be overly concerned about such a triviality. Linguists tell us that names rendered according to lingual pronunciation are actually variations of the same name.

(21) Is it wrong, then, to use the term “Jesus?” With all the evidence above we come to the conclusion that this is more a matter of personal preference rather than whether it is right or wrong. Like Iesous and Yahshua, “Jesus” would be just another way of saying the same name.

(22) This is not so regarding the practice of substituting the expression “the Lord” for Jehovah as we discussed in our studies of the Holy Name. “The Lord” and “God are NOT variations of the Hebrew for God’s Holy Name. While there are many who claim they “translate” Jehovah as “the Lord,” no scholar we know of asserts that it carries the same meaning as the Hebrew verb that represents God’s Holy Name.

(23) While we state that it is not wrong to refer to the Savior by Yahshua, or any of the other forms derived from Hebrew, Aramaic, etc., it would be wrong to add to the scriptures that the Most High demanding whatever chosen form one has chosen has to be used, or else one is calling upon a false name for salvation. The Bible never demands that the Messiah’s name has to be pronounced as it was originally pronounced in Hebrew, and, if it did, then since no one on earth today knows for certainty how it was originally pronounced in Hebrew, all we would be doing is guessing as to whether we were calling upon the only name by which we must be saved. Additionally, focusing on the pronunciation could actually take us farther and farther away from the mission our Master has given us to do, and lead us into disobedience. How so? What commission are we given by our Master? Especially in these last days it is even more imperative, as our Savior stated: “This good news of the kingdom must be preached in the whole world for a witness to all the nations, then the end will come.” (Matthew 24:14) “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.” (Mark 16:15) This does involve the name that the Most High has given by which we must be saved. But notice that we are not told to preach the word “Jesus,” “Yahshua,” etc. Preaching in the name of Yahshua or Jesus means that we recognize his true office, his position, and his role in the overall plan of the Father, as well as our own relationship to him. How much time do we spend in actual obedience to Yahshua/Jesus in preaching? How much time do we spend trying to prove a certain pronunciation of his name? “Remind them of these things, solemnly testifying before Jehovah not to dispute about words for nothing useful, to the throwing down of those hearing.” — 2 Timothy 2:14.

(24) We know that many have not recognized the true position of the Son and have gone forth preaching “another Jesus,” a Jesus after human tradition. (2 Corinthians 11:4) We believe that many of these will find themselves classed among the sinners in the Millennial kingdom. Thus, when they are raised in the last, they are depicted as coming to Jesus and asking: “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name [by your authority], and in your name [authority] cast out demons, and in your name [authority] perform many miracles?” (Matthew 7:22) They will wonder why they are being left out of the ruling house in the kingdom. Jesus says to them, “I never knew you. Go away from me, you illegal workers.” (Matthew 7:23) Thus Jesus is telling them that he never gave them legal authority to do the works they were doing and that he never recognized them as his disciples, even though they claimed that they did their works “in his name.”


(25) Despite our presentation above, in which we show why we believe that it is not wrong to use the word “Jesus” as the name of the Messiah, it is more important, we believe, that we preach who the savior is, and not focus on a word to use to represent who he is. As we have already pointed out, no one on earth today knows for a certainty how names were pronounced in ancient Hebrew. Additionally, in English, and it appears most modern languages, the spelling of names and pronunciation are standardized; this was not true in ancient Hebrew, for spellings and pronunciations changed depending on the context. The same is true of Koine Greek; there are at least three different spellings and pronunciations of the name of the Messiah in the New Testament Greek. Even if we could know the actual pronunciation of the Messiah’s name, just using that word or pronunciation does not mean that one is preaching the truth about Messiah. (2 Corinthians 11:4) For instance, one can use the word “Jesus”, or one can use the word “Yahshuah”, but still may not be presenting who is represented in the full Biblical meaning of the real Messiah. For instance, if one presents the Messiah as being a person of a trinity, or if the Messiah is still in the flesh, both of these teachings fall short of who is represented by the name Jesus. This becomes of even greater concern if the Messiah is being presented as sending billions to an eternity of conscious suffering, etc., for not accepting the added-on concepts.

(26) Furthermore, we want to be heard by our brothers who are still in the Babylonish covenants (lies, idolatry, and disobedience — Isaiah 28:15; 57:8). We do not want to become a stumblingblock to them. (1 Corinthians 8:9) Many may turn a deaf ear because they do not recognize whom we are speaking of if we use the term “Yahshua” to represent the Messiah’s name. “If you do not give a clear word through the language, how will it be known the thing being said?” (1 Corinthians 14:9) Most people are instantly afraid of anything that appears too different from what they have grown accustomed to. While the real Jesus himself is often a stumbling block, demanding the use of the word “Yahshua” (or any other English uncommonly used in English) with them may actually become an unnecessary stumbling block for those who make be seeking to worship in spirit and truth.

Obedience to our Savior

(27) As was mentioned earlier, the Messiah gave his disciples a command to do a work toward the world and fellow-believers. Listen to the Master’s voice: “Go . . . and as you go, preach, saying the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 9:6,7) And again, “Let the dead bury the dead; but you go and preach the Kingdom of God.” (Luke 9:60) The disciples of the first century took this command seriously. We read that “daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.” (Acts 5:42, King James Version) “And he [Paul] went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.” (Acts 19:8, King James Version) Paul told the Ephesians: “I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house, testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Acts 20:20,21, King James Version) And the Master’s disciples are taught not only to preach and to publicly proclaim the coming of the kingdom of God, but to pray for it, saying: “May your kingdom come. May your will be done on earth as it is done in heaven.” (Matthew 6:9,10) The One who dictated that prayer could not err. He would not teach us to ask for anything out of harmony with Jehovah’s will. Therefore that prayer will be answered. There will come a time when the kingdom of God will actually be SET UP in the earth. As a consequence of the setting up of that kingdom, His will must be done ON EARTH, even as it is done in heaven.


(28) It is Satan the Devil who would want to hinder us from preaching the Good News of Jehovah’s kingdom. He is very crafty today even as he was in the Garden of Eden. He is seeking to use every opportunity against us, as the apostle declares. (1 Peter 5:8) He is seeking to devour us. He wants to swallow us up in some manner or another. He is patiently and insidiously laying snares for any who would be a disciple of Jesus. He will use whatever means he has to brow-beat or cajole or otherwise inveigle us in order to keep us from obeying our Master. Our Master has seen it best to permit Satan to have this liberty, and it will not be taken from him until the time he is abyssed. Only then will he be removed in order that he will not be allowed to deceive the nations. (Revelation 20:2,3) Therefore we deduce that in some sense it is profitable to Jehovah’s people that this adversary be granted liberty against us. If it were not so, faith assures us that he would be bound without delay at once restrained of liberty to assault us.

(29) Writing on this same subject, the apostle Paul declares: “We are not ignorant of his devices.” Again he refers to the “wiles of the devil,” implying that he is an ensnarer who wishes to entrap us. Again he declares: “For we wrestle not with flesh and blood [merely], but [our chief conflict is] with principalities and powers [unseen], with wicked spirits in exalted positions.” (2 Corinthians 2:11; Ephesians 6:11,12) The apostle here calls attention to the fact that not Satan alone, but all the fallen angels, the demons, his coadjutors, are the foes of the called ones. Therefore Jehovah’s people must be continually on the lookout against their craftiness, schemes and plottings, all of which are more subtle than that of human beings.

(30) As to Satan’s methods of attack, we are given some suggestions also. Although he is alert, like the roaring lion, he never attacks us with a roar. On the contrary, he is very subtle. He creeps upon us in an unlooked place and at unlooked for times, to devour us, to overcome us, to crush out of us our opportunities of service and the rewards of kingdom service being offered to us.

(31) The apostle declares that Satan presents himself in his temptations as an angel, a messenger of God not a messenger of darkness, of error and of gross sin, for he knows that these qualities would alarm and repel all the children of the light. Rather he appears as an angel of light, a messenger of divine favor and truth. (2 Corinthians 11:14) And we are not ignorant of his wiles and devices. We see that for centuries he has used not only so-called “heathen” religious systems to delude and ensnare the heathen, but “Christian” religious systems, to deceive and ensnare those who claim to be the true people of God. At the making of the creeds of Christendom, during the dark ages, we may be sure that Satan was present, and that through various agencies he took an active part in framing their many blasphemous misstatements of the divine qualities and plan, and of deluding the people into thinking that these were the teachings of the divine Word. So through these channels he has wrought great havoc with the truth and greatly hindered Jehovah’s people from receiving both the milk of the Word, and its strong food, and from growing by these means to the stature of the fullness of manhood in Christ. — Hebrews 5:12-14; Colossians 3:2; 1 Peter 2:2.

(32) Coming down to our own day, we see that prophecies foretold a great increase of knowledge both of the divine plan and things pertaining to the world. (Daniel 12:4; 2 Timothy 3:7) Many truths long overlooked have been restored and are being restored. (Matthew 24:45,46; Luke 12:36,37,42,43) But remember how Satan approached Eve in the Garden of Eden? (Genesis 3:1,4,5) Part of what he said was true, but his reason for stating the truth was to lead Eve into believing a lie. (John 8:44; Romans 1:24,25) Likewise, today, Satan is misusing truths that are becoming known in such a way as to mislead as many as possible. “For false Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.” (Matthew 24:24, Revised Standard Version) The Muslim ministers shout out many truths but the end result is to get those who follow this way to deny the ransom sacrifice of the Messiah. Our neighbors who are caught up in the “Watchtower” organization present many truths, often in a very persuasive manner. But the end result is to get one to accept the leaders of their “organization” as the proper guides for any who want to come to the Creator in this time. Likewise, many others are being used, often unwittingly, to proclaim many truths in order to lead as many as possible, and if at all possible, the chosen ones, into a snare, that they might be figurative eaten by the figurative devouring eagles. (Job 39:27-30; Luke 17:32-37; Revelation 19:17,18) Among these are the Mormons, the Christian Scientists, Scientologists (Dianetics) and many more. These have put their faith and confidence in their leaders. Because of their faith in their organization, their apostles, their chosen leader(s), etc., they are blinded to many truths that otherwise they might have recognized. Only by becoming free of the controlling environment of these religious groups can one genuinely begin to see the truth.

(33) What does all this have to do with the Messiah’s name? Just this, Satan has always used a truth by taking it to a great extreme in order to misuse it to his ends. Could this be what is happening with the name of the Messiah? Some spend so much time over words, and genealogy of words, that very little, if any, is actually spent in obeying Jesus’ command to preach the Good News. The real mission given by Jesus become subservient to the preaching of a word form. Timothy was told not to “give heed to fables and endless genealogies which brings doubts rather than God’s administration, which is in faith but the end of the commandment is love out of a pure heart and a good conscience, and an unpretended faith, from which some, having missed the mark, turned aside to empty talking.” — 1 Timothy 1:4-6.

(34) The aim of Satan is either to keep one from or turn one away from truly being a disciple of Jesus — one who obeys his voice: “Go, make disciples of all nations, teaching them,” etc. (Matthew 28:16-28) Satan would like to confuse us about the matter of making disciples. He would have us think that it is gathering people into belief in a certain pronunciation of a word, an organization, a church group, etc. He would want us, in effect, to begin preaching a “word,” an organization, a person, etc., and correspondingly to that extent leave off the preaching of the true Good News of the kingdom.

(35) But before one can preach the Good News of the Kingdom, one needs to understand what that “Good News” really is. Some preach that everyone who does not join their “organization” will be eternally destroyed in the destruction of Satan’s world. This is “good” news? Others teach that all who do not repent or accept their version of “Jesus” before death go into a state of eternal torture in a lake of fire. This certainly is not Good News for all people. Most of our studies are designed to help you understand the true Good News. We encourage all to read, pray, and study to make sure of what it is that we are commissioned to preach.

(36) Let us then take yet a more earnest heed to the Word that has been spoken, remembering the Master’s expression, He who hears these sayings of mine and does them, I will liken him to a man who built his house upon a rock and the rain descended and floods came and the storm beat upon that house and it did not fall for it was founded upon a rock a sure foundation. — Hebrews 2:1; Matthew 7:24-27; See our study: Building on the Right Foundation of Faith.

(This study was originally prepared by Ronald R. Day, Senior, in 1995; it has been updated and republished online several times since, the last being May 26, 2015: presently being updated -- 2023.)

Wednesday, January 11, 2023

The Holy Name in Matthew

In this study, we will endeavor to provide all the scriptures with the book of Matthew in which we believe that God's Holy Name was changed to other words. In most instances, we will find that God's Holy Name has been changed to a form of the Greek word often transliterated as KURIOS. However, at times God's Holy Name has been changed to other words, especially to forms of the words often transliterated as THEOS.

We will be using the American Standard Version (ASV) of the Bible as a basis.

All Hebrew and Greek words will be presented with transliterations into Latin characters.

Matthew 1:20 
But when he thought on these things, behold, an angel of Jehovah appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

The phrase rendered as "angel of Jehovah" in the Old Testament of the American Standard Version is found many times in the Hebrew scriptures. In most instances, in the Hebrew text, the phrase is without the definite article, which means that it could be rendered as "an angel of Jehovah" rather than "the angel of Jehovah". Nevertheless, the ASV usually adds "the" before each occurrence. In Matthew 1:20, the Greek text is likewise lacking the definite article before the Hebrew word for angel.

The addition of the definite article "the" in the Old Testament of the ASV and many other translations is probably due to the extra-Biblical teachings that there is only one "angel of Jehovah". The doctrine would have it that "the angel of Jehovah" or as many often would claim "the angel of the Lord", is Jesus, the alleged second person of a triune God, who evidently could be seen while the alleged first person of the triune God cannot be seen, etc. The usage in the New Testament, however, would not fit that concept, since it is obvious that the angel in Matthew 1:20 is not Jesus. Thus, the ASV does put "an" before the expression rather than "the".  This angel of Jehovah who appeared to Joseph was probably Gabriel as spoken of in Luke 1:11,19,26.

We should note that indefinite KURIOS of Matthew 1:20 has been rendered into English in the definite form "the Lord", that is, the definite article "the" has been added by the translators.

Nevertheless, it should be obvious that God's Holy Name has been changed to and anarthrous from KURIOS in Matthew 1:20, and thus that it would be proper to restore the Holy Name in this verse.


Matthew 1:22
Now all this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Jehovah through the prophet, saying, 
Matthew 1:23
Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, And they shall call his name Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us.

We have included verse 23 in order to complete the sentence and to show what is being referred to in verse 22.  The quote in verse 23 is from Isaiah 7:14.

He who spoke through the prophet Isaiah is Jehovah (Yahweh) as can be seen from Isaiah 7:3, Isaiah 7:7 and Isaiah 7:10. This is the same one person who is "God" in Hebrews 1:1,2, who spoke through the prophets of old and who now speaks through his Son. 

It should be obvious that God's Holy Name has been changed to an anarthrous form of KURIOS in this verse, and thus it would be proper to restore that Holy Name.

Thursday, August 4, 2022

Did Tyndale Invent Jehovah?

Sometimes we are presented with the claim that Tyndale created the name "Jehovah".

According to Wikipedia: "Jehovah was first introduced by William Tyndale in his translation of Exodus 6:3, and appears in some other early English translations including the Geneva Bible and the King James Version."

Evidently, this is referring to the form of the Holy Name as "Jehovah", not to the Holy Name itself. Actually, the Holy Name of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, often represented in English as Jehovah, was created by God Himself. Scripturally, speaking, however, names change in form from language to language, and yet they are not considered as different names but rather the same "name". It is only in recent centuries that people have begun to treat various forms as different names. 

God's Holy Name name is represented in ancient Hebrew with four Hebrew characters, without written vowels, as ancient Hebrew had no written vowels for any name or word. Some have claimed the Holy Name was not pronounced because it had no vowels. If this is true, then no name, no word in ancient Hebrew, was ever pronounced, since no word at all had written vowels. The fact that ancient Hebrew did not have any written vowels does not mean that the vowels were not pronounced when the words were spoken. There is definitely no evidence that, in the times of the Old Testament, no one gave any pronunciation to the Holy Name because it had no vowels. There is nothing anywhere in the Old Testament that says that God's Holy Name is ineffable. Nor is there anything in the Bible that says that God commanded that his Holy Name had to be pronounced in all languages exactly as it was pronounced in ancient Hebrew, or else it is a false name. All these ideas come from man, not from God.

In most ancient languages, however, names often took on different forms within the same language, often depending how the name is sounded in context. Each variation, however, was not considered a different name, but rather as being the same name. The same is true with names rendered from the Hebrew Scriptures to the New Testament Greek scriptures. Likewise, the evidence indicates that a name rendered from Hebrew to Greek may have been given different sounds in Greek than in Hebrew, but in such circumstances, the forms of the name in Greek were not considered as being a different name than what appears in the Hebrew, but they were still considered as the same name even though they did not sound exactly the same as they did in Hebrew.

Several centuries after Christ, the Masoretes sought to provide written vowels for the ancient Hebrew. One of the forms that they provided was that which can be transliterated into English as "Iehouah," "Yehowah," "Jehovah." etc., depending on whose transliteration method one may use. It is generally believed that the Masoretes took vowel points they supplied to form the words often transliterated as Adonay and/or Elohim to create the forms of the Holy Name as is given their text, but there is no evidence in their work that they did such. 

Regardless of how some have claimed to prove that the Masoretes used vowel points they have provided to form ADONAI to used in the tetragrammaton, their proof always ends up being some kind of hypothesis presented as being fact. In other words, it is assumed that this or that is true, and this or that is presented as being fact. We have never, however, seen anything presented from the Masoretes themselves as to why or how they used certain vowel points in the Holy Name. Actually, the internal evidence from the Masoretes' work would seem to indicate that they did not take vowel points they supplied for any other word so as to form "Jehovah". 

God's Holy Name in Hebrew is a verb, an active form of the root of "to be". In Exodus 3:14 we find the Holy Name first presented with the form often transliterated as EHJEH (some transltierate as EHYEH, or even EHYAH). The name, however, in Exodus 3:15, however, is in the Masoretic Hebrew the form that is often transliterated as "Jehovah", "Iehouah", "Yehowah", or variations of these forms. In Exodus 3:14, we find the name presented in the first person form, which can be translated as "I am", "I will be", "I cause to be", etc. In verse 15, however, we find the same name presented, but it is in third person form ("He is", "He will be", "He causes to be", etc.). These two forms should not be thought of as two different names, but they are still the same name, presented from different perspectives.

Tyndale, however, did not actually present God's Holy Name as "Jehovah". Tyndale usually rendered the Holy Name in English as "Lord", "Lorde", "the Lorde", etc. In seven instances, however, he rendered the Holy Name, not as "Jehovah", but as "Iehouah": Genesis 15:2; Exodus 6:3; 15:3; 17:15; 23:17; 33:19; 34:23. Nevertheless, in many, if not most, English dialects of that time this may have been pronounced more like we pronounce "Jehovah," or "Jehouah," or possibly with the "J" sounding something like "J" in the French "Jascques".
https://youtu.be/8zuQae2OrMI

Some, however, have claimed that one has to pronounce the Holy Name as it was originally pronounced or else it is not the Holy Name. The Bible itself makes no such claim. The reality is that no one on earth today knows how it was originally pronounced. Many have presented various hypotheses of how they thought it should be pronounced, and they present their hypotheses as being facts, but the reality is that they do not know for a certainty how it was originally pronounced. On the hand, those who make a such claim do not appear to think of what such an idea leads to, since no one on earth today knows for a certainty how it was originally pronounced. All we have are various conclusions based on assumptions that are often thought, or at least presented as being, fact.

Others claim that certain scriptures (such as Exodus 20:7 and Deuteronomy 5:11) forbid mispronouncing the Holy Name, or based on these or similar scriptures, some claim that the Holy Name should not be pronounced at all. This appears to be the basis for substituting Adonai or Elohim for God's Holy name. Oddly, if it is thought that God's name should not be pronounced for fear of mispronouncing the Holy Name, pronouncing the Holy Name as Adonai or Elohim (or, HaShem, Kurios, Lord, the Lord, God, etc.) would surely be pronouncing, actually mispronouncing, the Holy Name by whatever words are being used to replace the Holy Name. We do not know of anyone that actually avoids giving some kind of pronunciation to God's Holy Name. To not give any pronunciation to the Holy Name, when reading the scriptures aloud, they would actually have skip over every place where a form of the Holy Name appears. We have not found anyone who actually does this. 

Some claim that they avoid pronouncing the Holy Name by substituting other words, such as ADONAI, HASHEM, ELOHIM, LORD, the LORD, GOD, etc., for the Holy Name. In reality such substitutions do not avoid pronouncing the Holy Name, but rather doing this results in pronouncing the Holy Name as being whatever words are used.

For instance, in Isaiah 42:8, The Complete Jewish Bible rendering is: "I am ADONAI; that is my name." So when one reads Isaiah 42:8 audibly, he would pronounce God's Holy Name as "ADONAI". Is "ADONAI" the correct original pronunciation of the Holy Name? No, it is not. ADONAI is indeed a fake name, a fake way, to pronounce the one Holy Name of the Most High. If one is seeking to avoid the pronunciation of the Holy Name, or if one is seeking to not mispronounce the Holy Name, changing the Holy Name to ADONAI, and pronouncing the Holy Name as ADONAI is certainly not the way to do so.

Many Bible translations in English render Isaiah 42:8 similar to: "I am the LORD, that is my name." As this reads, one would actually be pronouncing the Holy Name as "the LORD." Does the "the LORD" actually give the original pronunciation of the Holy Name. Certainly not! Indeed, it give a false English form as being the Holy Name, and to pronounce the Holy Name as "the LORD" would certainly be a false pronunciation of the Holy Name.

The Message Bible translation renders Isaiah 42:8 as "I am God. That's my name." Again, is God the original and or the correct way to pronounce God's Holy Name? Obviously, it isn't. So if one is concerned about the correct pronunciation, or of not pronouncing the Holy Name, to pronounce the Holy Name as "God" certainly does not fit either concern.

Regardless, it is not our argument that "Jehovah" [or, Iehouah, Yehowah, etc.] is the way the Holy Name of originally pronounced. No one on earth today knows for a certainty how God's Holy Name was originally pronounced, or how it may have varied in pronunciation in ancient Hebrew. It is simply not important for us to know, or else God would have provided some definite way for us to know the original pronunciations. 



Saturday, March 21, 2020

The Holy Name In The Original Hebrew/Greek

The claim is often made that we have no proof that the holy name appeared in the original Greek of the New Testament, and so we are challenged to produce a scripture from the original Greek wherein we might find the holy name.

The problem with this kind of argument is that we do not have the original Greek autographs of the New Testament; all we have are copies of the original Greek writings. One cannot prove anything either way by the original Greek New Testament Scriptures, since we do not have the original Greek writings in order to prove what was originally written.

On the other hand, there is no record of Jehovah giving anyone authority to change the name of Jehovah (Yahweh) to forms of the Greek words often transliterated as Kurios, Theos, or Dunamis. Jesus never claimed such an authority, and Jesus actually claimed to come in the name of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  (Greek and Hebrew words are given with English transliterations throughout; we do not claim the transliterations represent the original pronunciation of the Hebrew or Greek words involved, which no one earth today knows for sure.)

The prophecy states that the Messiah would come in the name of Jehovah/Yahweh, not the name/authority of a God by the name of Kurios. Jehovah said to Moses concerning the Messiah: “He shall speak in my name.” (Deuteronomy 18:19) That the actual name is involved is shown in Deuteronomy 18:20, since it speaks of a prophet who would speak in the name of other gods. Thus, it is indeed vital that Jesus be recognized as coming in the name and authority of Jehovah, not Kurios. “Blessed is he who comes in the name of Jehovah!” (Psalm 118:26) “Kurios” (Lord) does not identify the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It is a common title used not only of men, but also of false gods. Thus, if Jesus said he came in the name of Kurios, one could wonder who he meant. Consequently, we have no doubt that that Jesus did not join with the rebellious Jews by substituting and taking away from his scriptural reference the most important name in the universe in Matthew 23:39, or any other place. No one in the scriptures has ever been given authority to change the name of the Most High to Kurios, or Theos, or Dunamis, etc.

To use the word KURIOS, LORD, as a proper name of a God, is similar to replacing Baal (Lord, Master) for Jehovah. Jehovah spoke of the time when the fathers “forgot my name for Baal [Lord].” (Jeremiah 23:27) Isn’t this what is happening with changing the holy name to the a different name, such as KURIOS (LORD)?

Later, rather than replacing Jehovah with forms of Baal, the Jewish leadership began to again seek to cause the people to forget the most holy name by claiming it would be blasphemy to speak his name orally (except in certain sacred places and occasions), and thus proposed orally replacing the holy name with Adoni (my Lord) or Adonai (literally my lords, being used as a plural intensive, thus meaning: Supreme or Superior Lord), rather than Baal (Lord, Master). Finally, sometime in the lifetime of Josephus, it appears that they went further in trying to get people to forget the most important name in universe by endeavoring to make it unlawful to speak the holy name at all. (In reality, the end result is that they were speaking the Holy name by words such as forms of the Hebrew words EL, ADON, or forms of the Greek words THEOS and KURIOS. Are we to think that Jesus or the Bible writers would join in such a conspiracy to remove the Most Holy name in the universe?

When Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, stated and identified Himself by his name to Moses, what did he say? “This is my name forever, and this is my memorial to all generations.” (Exodus 3:15) He did not say that this will be my name for now, and later my name will be something else. He said it was his eternal name. He never gave anyone authority to change that name. Kurios does not identify the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, since that word could be also applied to false gods, as well as to men.

Exodus 3:15 - And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. -- American Standard Version.

Many claim that they are substituting some ‘title’ so as to avoid speaking or mispronouncing the sacred name. Some claim that to mispronounce the Holy Name, or even to pronounce the Holy Name at all, is blasphemy, or that by changing Holy Name to other words shows respect for the Holy name. Such do not seem to realize that whatever “title” or “word” that they replace the Holy Name with does the very thing that they seek to avoid. In reality, if one is afraid that they will mispronounce the Holy Name, by replacing the Holy Name with other words actually assures that they do mispronounce the Holy Name by whatever that “title” or “word” that may be used.  In other words, when one uses substitutes, such as “the Lord” (forms of Adon, Kurios), “God” (forms of El, Theos), etc.,  in reality, such do not actually avoid pronouncing God’s name, for they pronounce that name using forms of Adon “Lord”, forms of EL “God”, or with something else such as HaShem (the Name). In effect, by claiming to avoid pronouncing the holy name, they, in reality, end up changing the Holy Name to one of the titles of God, or to a description of the name, and thus end up pronouncing the name in that manner.

Additionally, there is nothing in the Bible that says that one should not pronounce the Holy Name in accordance with common pronunciation of his language, nor is there anything in the Bible that says that if one pronounces the Holy Name, it must be as it was originally pronounced in the ancient Hebrew. Recognizing that both “Jehovah” and “Yahweh” are common English linguistic variations that can be traced by the original Holy Name, we have every reason to conclude that both of these do in fact represent the true name of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in English.

Monday, July 15, 2019

Does The Holy Name Mean “The Eternal”?


(Links need to be updated for this study)

The claim has been made that when God answered Moses pertaining to His name in Exodus 3:13,14, that God, by answering “I AM THAT I AM”, asserted his own eternity and removes Himself from having any designated name. The claim seems to be stating that Jehovah has no designated “name,” as does his Son (Jesus, Joshua, Yahshua, Yeshua), or any name similar to men like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. However, such a statement does not fit the Old Testament as a whole, since the Bible does indeed many times speak of the Holy Name of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and gives the designation of that name.

Even in Exodus 3:15, we read:

God said moreover to Moses, “You shall tell the children of Israel this, ‘Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and this is my memorial to all generations.”

Thus, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob does indeed declare Himself to have a name, and proclaims that name to be His name forever.

Getting back to God’s answer to Moses, what does “I AM” mean? If one looks up the Hebrew word attributed here in Strong’s Concordance, we find that it is Hebrew #1961; Strong transliterates this as “Hayah”. This word is the infinitive, meaning, “to be”. This is could be deceptive, however, since Strong gives the infinitive of the verb, not the actual verb as it is used in Exodus 3:14. The expression “I AM” in the Hebrew form is the first person singular conjugation of the infinitive, HAYAH, and is usually transliterated as EHYEH. “I AM THAT I AM” is, therefore, often transliterated as EHYEH ASHER EHYEH. In other words we cannot plug the infinitive (HAYAH – to be) into Exodus 3:14 for the would mean “To be that to be”, which would not express the original thought.

According to Strong, hayah (Strong’s #1961, this word means “to exist,” but he adds, “i.e., be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary).” The claim, therefore, is that Jehovah was speaking about His existence when he stated these words. From this comes the related claim that the EYHEH means “ETERNAL”, although, in reality, simply stating one’s existence does mean that the person exists eternally. Thus, the idea of eternal existence has to actually be added to what God proclaimed of Himself in Exodus 3:14.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was indeed proclaiming his name to be EHYEH ‘ASHER EHYEH, or, to use the short form, EHYEH. This is said to be a substantive verb form, from which it is evidently concluded that one can “translate” the verb as a noun. Many Hebrew “names” use substantive verbal forms, so the holy name of God is not unique in this sense. Some, however, would seem to single out EHYEH in Exodus 3:14, as though this were something unusal only in that name, so as to make it appear to be that this usage means that we should render the Holy Name in English as a descriptive noun, in this case “The Eternal”. However, Hebrew names that use substantive verbal forms are not usually given a nounal interpretation or translation, nor are they usually rendered into another language with such an interpretive noun. The verbal substantive simply means that the verb itself is used as though it were a noun. In other words, although the word itself is a verb, it is used as a noun. However, the verbal names are usually NOT changed into a noun that are thought to be an interpretation of the substantive verb, and we have no reason to make such an exception in the case of God’s Holy Name as revealed in Exodus 3:14,15.

Nevertheless, the claim is made that “Jehovah” is a clumsy “translation” of the Hebrew verb used, evidently meaning Exodus 3:15. In Exodus 3:15, we do find the third person singular form of the verb, HAYAH. Again, it would be inappropriate to attribute the infinitive to the word that God declares to be His Name in Exodus 3:15, since it is not an infinitive; it is in the third person, singular, meaning “HE IS”. “Jehovah” is an English transliteration of that verb form from the Masoretic text. As such, Jehovah would take on the meaning of the original Hebrew, “HE IS”. If, however, “JEHOVAH” is a clumsy “translation” of the name in Exodus 3:15, then we would have to conclude the same thing is true of practically every name in the Bible that has been rendered into English, including the names Elijah, Joshua, Jesus, etc. “Jehovah” is indirectly based on the Masoretic text, wherein the Masoretes have given vowel points which gives the holy name an approximate pronunciation of “Yehowah,” using one form of English transliteration. Using any such English pronunciations, however, as related to either the Hebrew or Greek does not mean, however, that we are expressing the original Hebrew or Greek pronunciations, since we do not know if the phonemes we are giving to the English characters actually match that of the Hebrew phonemes. This is true of all the Hebrew words (not just the Holy Name). In Jesus’ day, the Hebrew had no vowel points, but Hebrew, or at least the Aramaic, was still being used. Shortly after A.D. 70, Hebrew became a dead language.

It was not until several centuries after Christ that Jewish scribes began to assign vowel points to Hebrew words. In other words, they were dealing with a dead language when they added the vowel points. Some claim that the Masoretes deliberately put vowels points that would cause one to mispronounce the holy name, but, as yet, we have not seen any conclusive evidence that this is true. Of course, even the Masoretes may have had difficulty assigning vowel points, since they were dealing with what had become a dead language at the time they assigned those vowel points. Thus, as one Hebrew scholar stated, we cannot be absolutely sure that any of the vowel points actually represent the original pronunciation of any of the Hebrew words. Nor can we be sure that our English phonemes actually match the original sounds, not only of the vowels, but also of the consonants.

Some argue that “Yahweh” actually represents the Hebrew pronunciation. Directly, however, the Latin form “Yahweh” came into existence as a result of the Greek rendering of the holy name with vowels, such as might be represented with the Latin vowels: IAOUE or IAUE. It is from this Greek usage that the English “Yahweh” was formed, by taking the Hebrew consonants YOD HE WAW HE and overlaying it with the assumed Greek pronunciation, and then attributing the English transliteration as being “Yahweh”. Regardless, however, we have nothing definite, but we do have probably over a hundred of theoretical guesses based on assumptions, about the true original pronunciation of the Holy Name in Hebrew. In reality, we have no more reason to assume that we need to have the exact same original pronunciation of God’s Holy Name than of the name of his son. The most common renderings in English of the Holy Name are Jehovah and Yahweh. The most common renderings of the name of his son into English are Jesus and Joshua. We should not view these renderings as different “names,” however, but simply as variations of the same one “name.” As being English renderings, respectively, they are all correct English pronunciations.

The claim, however, is that the word should always be rendered as in fact Dr. Moffat usually renders it, “the Eternal”. This we have to disagree with, since the Bible no where authorizes us to change the holy name to a noun: “The Eternal.” This phrase is actually a man’s nounal interpretation that has been given to the substantive verbal form of the holy name. If we are to do this with God’s name, what about the name of His Son? Should we stop referring to the Son as “Jesus” and start calling him “The Eternal’s Savior,” thereby giving an interpretive nounal meaning to his name? And what about all the other Hebrew names? Let us take the name Isaac, which is a verbal form meaning, “he laughs.” The name is a substantive verbal form, a verbal form that in Hebrew is being used as a nounal appellation. Should we bring that into English as “The Laughter.” Or perhaps we should give it the interpretation: “The Laughing One(?),” rather than the common English form, “Isaac”? Actually, the scriptures do not show that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ever authorized changing his holy name to such a nounal interpretation as “The Eternal.” We do not have Moffat’s translation of the Old Testament, but we would suspect that if he is changing the holy name to “The Eternal,” he has Isaiah 42:8 reading something like: “I am the Eternal, that is my name.” I am not sure how Moffat would fit this nounal interpretation into Exodus 3:14: “The Eternal who The Eternal(?).” If anyone has Moffat’s rendering of Exodus 3:14, we would like to see it. We suppose that he would have the holy name changed in Exodus 3:15 to read something like:

God said moreover to Moses, “You shall tell the children of Israel this, ‘The Eternal, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and this is my memorial to all generations.”

This would not, as one has claimed, mean that “God asserts His own eternity and in fact removes Himself from association with any question of designating names,” since it would have God as asserting a name designated as “The Eternal.” However, we will emphasize that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob never authorized anyone to change his name to a nounal descriptive, such as “The Eternal.” This is man’s doings and man’s interpretations. It assumes first that the verbal form, EHJEH (or EHYEH) and JEHOVAH (or, YAHWEH), are referring to eternal existence, and then it assumes that such eternal existence can be summed up in nounal phrase, “the Eternal.”

We realize that “man” has been debating the meaning of the holy name for centuries. Can we come to a certain understanding of its meaning? We believe that the Bible itself is designed to give us the proper the meaning. Donald E. Gowan, in his book, Theology in Exodus, sums up some, but not all, of the Biblical designs that show the proper meaning of the holy name, although he is hesitant to be definite about its meaning:

Quote from: Theology in Exodus, page 83
4. Should the verb ‘ehyeh be read as present or future tense? (Some even mix them.) The evidence points toward future, although it cannot be conclusive. The first-person singular of the verb “to be” is used in a rather restricted way in the Old Testament. It occurs without waw-consecutive forty-two times (counting the parallels 2 Sam. 7:14 and 1 Chron. 17:13 as one), and in twenty-nine of those God is the subject. All of the latter are future in meaning, and of those with other subjects, only Ruth 2:13, 2 Sam. 15:34, and some difficult and questionable passages in Job (Job 3:16; 10:19; 12:4; 17:6) have anything other than a clearly future sense. With God as the subject, the verb form occurs nine times in the formula “I will be with you” and eleven times in the formula “I will be your God and you will be my people.” This suggests very strongly that the form should be translated, not “I am,” but “I will be.” (11)5. Does the root hayah ever mean “existence” in the Old Testament? (12) Certainly it is used many times simply to indicate that some “is’ (e.g., “an the earth was a formless void,” (Gen. 1:2), but existence as over against nonexistence is not a subject Old Testament writers discuss, except perhaps in Second Isaiah: “I am Jehovah, and there is no other; besides me there is no god” (Isa. 45:5). But if the writer of Exodus wanted to tell his readers that God said to Moses he is the only God who exists, or (worse yet) that he is “absolute existence” (Maimonides and others), there was a straightforward way to do it — exactly as Second Isaiah did.
Lest any may not get the point here regarding Isaiah 45:5, we need to ask the question, what Hebrew verb form is used in Isaiah 45:5 for the words “am” and “is”? Is it a form of the verb hayah? Many may be surprised when we say that Isaiah used no verb form at all. The words “am” and “is” are supplied by translators. Most editions of the King James Version denote this by putting the words “am” and “there is” in italics, showing that there is actually no written verbs in the Hebrew in this verse. This implies that the usage of ‘EHYEH in Exodus 3:14 is more than just about existence vs. non-existence, eternal or otherwise.

While there is much we disagree with on this site (the author is evidently trinitarian), we will quote some of what the author says about the verbal forms ‘EHYEH and YAHWEH:

Quote from: Scripture Research – Vol. 2 – No. 17
The derivation of JeHoVaH seems to be from a root word meaning “TO BE”, i.e., Havah. This could be translated in either of two tenses. in the Qal, corresponding to a static perfect in which all movement has ceased, it would then mean, HE IS (if spoken by others) or I AM, if spoken by Himself. That is, The Supreme Being, The Self-existent, underived, self-sufficient, absolute BEING. The A.V. reflects this in Ex. 3:14, where God names Himself with the words:”I AM THAT I AM.”
If this be the only concept and proper translation, then the Name would be YEHWE or YEHWEH.
538
If the phrase EHYEH ASHER EHYEH, (I AM THAT I AM), is in the older Hiphil imperfect tense (most able authorities on the Heb. text favor this), then the Name would more nearly approach YAHWE or YAHWEH as a pronunciation. The meaning of this tense is an expansion over the other. From mere self-existence, an apathetic and immobile being in constant repose, distant and unfeeling … to One in constant movement, not only in connection with past revelations of Himself, but in loving living movement, acting in the present circumstances and affording new manifestations of Himself in the future. The whole context of the JeHoVaH passages bear this out. It is JeHoVaH Who has seen the affliction of the people in slavery … it is He Who will lead them forth. He will love them with an everlasting love and judge them when they embrace other gods. He will be gracious to whom He will be gracious — He will be to His people all that they need.
The important fact is that the name has the pre-form-ative ‘yod’. The force of this construction is to give the word a future or indefinite sense. The stress would fall on the active (and future) or continuing manifestation of the Divine Existence. The phrase EHYEH ASHER EHYEH, if rendered in the Hiphil tense would be translated:
“I Shall Be What I Shall Be”
“I Will Become Whatsoever I Please”
“I Will Be What I Will Be”
“I Will Be That I Will Be”
If spoken by others the “I AM” of Ex. 3:14b would be expressed as:
“He Who Brings Into Existence”
“He Who Shall Be (or) Shall Become”
“He Causes To Become”
The author of the above, evidently believing that this speaks of Jesus as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, then endeavors to apply this meaning to the “seed of the woman,” in the sense of “the coming one.” In reality, the one promised by Jehovah in Genesis 3:15 is not “Jehovah” Himself who made the promise. Since this sidetracks the topic, however, we will not address this in detail at this time.

The point is that the verb forms ‘EHJEH and JEHOVAH are used in active terms. The “active” sense of these Hebrew verbal forms do not actually mean the expressions as we might interpret them into English in the phrases give above, since these phrases are only an approximation of the active sense of the verbal forms. All of them, we believe, although they try to express the active sense of the verbal forms, and probably express the best as possible in English, still they all probably fall short of the fuller sense as such expressed in the Old Testament times.

The contextual usage of Jehovah gives evidence that Jehovah is used in connection with Jehovahs’s covenants and his promises, and His faithfulness to His promises. Recognizing this, most scholars refer to the holy name as the ‘covenant name of God with Israel.’ Nevertheless, by this, they usually want to limit the Holy Name’s importance only to Israel after the flesh, and that, in the Old Testament only. This, of course, would ignore that the seed of Abraham belongs to the Old Testament covenant with Abraham, which convenant is implied in the reference to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The covenant with Abaham, however, has much to do with the Christian’s relationship with God. — Galatians 3:16-29.

Therefore, we read:

Jehovah appeared to Abram, and said to him, “I am God Almighty. Walk before me, and be blameless. I will make my covenant between me and you, … I will establish my covenant between me and you and your seed after you.” — Genesis 17:1,2,7.

Jehovah appeared to [Abraham], and said, … ‘In your seed will all nations of the earth be blessed.” — Genesis 26:2,4.

The covenant with Abraham, Paul tells us, was 430 years before Jehovah gave the Law covenant to Israel. It is this covenant of Jehovah with Abraham that is applied to those who belong to Jesus. — Galatians 3:17-19.

Why is this covenant of Jehovah with Abraham so important to Christians? It is because Christians, by faith, enter into that covenant that Jehovah made with Abraham as the seed of Abraham. Thus the Holy Name should be just as important to Christians as it should be to Israel according to the flesh. (Luke 22:29 — Rotherham; Galatians 3:26,2) Jesus is the blessed one who came in the name of Jehovah. — Deuteronomy 18:15-22; Psalm 118:26; Matthew 21:9; 23:39; Mark 11:9,10; Luke 13:35; 19:38; John 12:13.

In reality, since the main covenant involved is regarding “the seed of woman” (Genesis 3:15), as well as “the seed of Abraham,” the promise of Jehovah, the Holy Covenant Name does involve Jehovah’s active interest in fulling the promises to both the Israel of the Old Testament, and Israel of faith in the New Testament.

The point is that God’s Holy Name, Jehovah, means more than just that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is eternal, but rather that HE IS WHO HE IS, or HE WILL BE WHO HE IS. This covers all God’s qualities, His wisdom, love, justice, power, and his faithfulness to His Word. Like His Son, God of Israel cannot deny Himself; what He says will be — His promises are certain. — 2 Timothy 2:13.

It is being claimed that to give God a name, as men and false gods have a name, is to bring Him down to the level of those false gods and make Him one among them.

(1) In fact, “we” do not have to “give” God a name. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has given Himself a name. However, by replacing the holy name with “the Lord,” “God,” “Adonai,” or any other form, even “the Eternal,” what really happens is that man is indeed giving God a different name than He has given Himself.

(2) Scripturally, the name “Jehovah” does indeed distinguish the only true God from all the false gods, images, gods formed by the hands of men.

Exodus 3:15 – God said moreover to Moses, “You shall tell the children of Israel this, ‘Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and this is my memorial to all generations. — Matthew 22:32; Mark 12:26; Luke 20:37; Acts 3:13; 7:32.

1 Kings 18:24 – Call you on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of Jehovah; and the God who answers by fire, let him be God. All the people answered, It is well spoken.

2 Chronicles 33:22 – He did that which was evil in the sight of Jehovah, as did Manasseh his father; and Amon sacrificed to all the engraved images which Manasseh his father had made, and served them.

Nehemiah 9:5 – Then the Levites, Jeshua, and Kadmiel, Bani, Hashabneiah, Sherebiah, Hodiah, Shebaniah, [and] Pethahiah, said, Stand up and bless Jehovah your God from everlasting to everlasting; and blessed be your glorious name, which is exalted above all blessing and praise.

Psalm 105:1 – Give thanks to Jehovah! Call on his name! Make his doings known among the peoples. — Acts 2:21; Romans 10:13.

Ps 138:2,5 – I will bow down toward your holy temple, And give thanks to your Name for your lovingkindness and for your truth; For you have exalted your Name and your Word above all. Yes, they will sing of the ways of Jehovah; For great is Jehovah’s glory.

Isaiah 12:4 – In that day you will say, “Give thanks to Jehovah! Call on his name. Declare his doings among the peoples. Proclaim that his name is exalted!” — John 17:26.

Isaiah 42:8 – I am Jehovah, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to engraved images.

Isaiah 48:2 – (for they call themselves of the holy city, and stay themselves on the God of Israel; Jehovah of Hosts is his name):

Jeremiah 3:17 – At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of Jehovah; and all the nations shall be gathered to it, to the name of Jehovah, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the stubbornness of their evil heart. — Ephesians 4:17,18.

Jeremiah 8:19 – Behold, the voice of the cry of the daughter of my people from a land that is very far off: isn’t Jehovah in Zion? Isn’t her King in her? Why have they provoked me to anger with their engraved images, and with foreign vanities? — 1 Corinthians 10:22.

Jeremiah 16:21 – Therefore, behold, I will cause them to know, this once will I cause them to know my hand and my might; and they shall know that my name is Jehovah.

Ezekiel 30:13 – Thus says the Lord Jehovah: I will also destroy the idols, and I will cause the images to cease from Memphis; and there shall be no more a prince from the land of Egypt: and I will put a fear in the land of Egypt.

Joel 2:32 – It will happen that whoever will call on the name of Jehovah shall be saved; For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be those who escape, As Jehovah has said, And among the remnant, those whom Jehovah calls. — Acts 2:21; Romans 10:13.

Micah 4:5 – Indeed all the nations may walk in the name of their gods; But we will walk in the name of Jehovah our God forever and ever.

Zephaniah 3:9 – For then I will purify the lips of the peoples, that they may all call on the name of Jehovah, to serve him shoulder to shoulder.

Zechariah 13:9 – I will bring the third part into the fire, And will refine them as silver is refined, And will test them like gold is tested. They will call on my name, and I will hear them. I will say, ‘It is my people;’ And they will say, ‘Jehovah is my God.'”

It is claimed that the word “name” [SHEM] in Exodus 3:15 is based on the idea of renown or fame, as when we say “he made a name for himself”, and “memorial” — zeker — is rememberance or memory. It is further claimed that “For ever” — Ieolam — extends the name and the memorial, the fame and memory, into the illimitable future, into a continuance without a stipulated or visible ending. In what clearer terms could there be conveyed to mortal man. the realization that all his endeavours to know or visualize or defined God, the Creator, the Almighty, the Heavenly Father, call him what we will, the one simply expression “the Eternal” includes all and sets him for ever apart from the every other object of veneration and every other form of authority that has existed or can arise amongst man.

First we are told that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob does not have a name, but now we are told by the same author that the name [that he does not have?] means renown or fame. The Hebrew word “shem” does not, of itself, carry any thought of renown or fame. It can, under certain circumstances, refer to the fame earned which is associated to the appellation itself. We would not say that a certain newscaster made a name for himself and then attribute the term “the Newscaster” as the “name” associated with that fame, which is basically the same kind of thing that one does when one replaces the holy name with a man’s interpretation of that name, such as “the Eternal.” Yes, Yahweh is eternal, but he is much more, and His holy name means more than that. His being eternal does not relate to His keeping of his promises; the term man has replaced for the holy name, that is, “the Eternal,” simply relates to God’s eternal existence, which would imply neither anything good or bad, nor anything active toward the Israelites, so as to offer any hope to the Israelites as related to such a meaning. Thus, by limiting the holy name to the expression, “The Eternal,” one actually subtracts from the full meaning of the holy name.

And please note that the substitution of “the Eternal” for the holy name does not, as claimed, mean that such replacement in fact removes God from association with a name designation. It simply changes the name designation to “the Eternal,” and thus, “the Eternal” becomes the name designation, in the same way that many translators and copyists have changed the holy name to forms of the titles “the Lord,” “God,” etc.

We should also note that those who advocate that the Hebrew YAHWEH should be “translated” as the “the Eternal”, almost always do not refer to the holy name as “the Eternal,” but usually they follow the KJV tradition of using “the Lord” or “God” in references where the holy name is used in the Hebrew. For instance, when they refer to scriptures that use that word, do they they present that word as “The Eternal”, or do they use the KJV change to “the Lord” or “God”? Look at their writings eleswhere to see if they are actually following through with that idea that God’s Holy Name should be “translated” as “the Eternal.” Most often, you will find that they do not actually follow through with this. We believe that this only illustrates how strongly entrenched this change of the Holy Name to “the Lord” has affected so many of us. Many speak of the Holy Name as “the Lord” without giving it a second thought.

And one should realize that this does indeed, in effect, attribute the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as having the name of “the LORD”. Such would read Isaiah 42:8 as “I am the Lord; that is my name.” One would be attributing that God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as having as His Holy Name, “the Lord”. “The Lord”, however, is NOT God’s Holy Name. That reading is the result of changing God’s Eternal Name to that of “the Lord”, something that has not been authorized by God.

We are trying not to be overly-critical, but since the most important name in the universe is involved — the Holy Name of the only Most High, we believe that we should, as Bible Students, be more careful of how we present that Holy Name. We know that we all have, in times past, presented things we thought and believed at the time to be accurate, only later to find out that we were not as accurate as we thought, and thus we need to go back and adapt our study presentations so that they might be more accurate.

Related:

The Holy Name in the Original Hebrew/Greek

“I am” Statements of Jesus

The Holy Name in Genesis

Tuesday, November 20, 2018

Martini and the Vowel Points


(Please note that many links are provided to other sites; we do not necessarily agree with all conclusions presented on those sites.)

Raymundus Martini was the author of the work called Pugio Fidei, which was not written in English, but rather in Latin. He also authored some other works. He lived about 300 years after the Masoretes had completed their work on the Hebrew text. The Masoretic text has the vowel points long before Martini was alive. The English forms Jehovah, Yehowah, Iehouah, etc. (depending on whose transliteration method is being used), are definitely transliterations from the Masoretic text corresponding to the vowel points that the Masoretes used in the Holy Name long before Martini was born.

As far as we know, Martini's original works in Latin are not online, and as yet I have not been able to examine them. From what we can determine, he challenged the form presented by the Masoretes, and presented the Holy Name as "Yohoua." We still have not been able to determine how he came up with this pronunciation, nor have we found anything about why he rejected the Masoretic forms of the Holy Name. Oddly, when his work was published after his death, the Holy Name was presented as "Jehova", which does appear to conform closely to the Masoretic text, although it drops the last consonant. Martini definitely did not take vowel points from the Masoretic words ELOHIM and/or ADONAI to form "Jehovah," despite the false claims that he did. Such simply does not conform with the historical facts. The Masoretic text had the vowel points in the Holy Name long before Martini was born.

However, the most common claim is that the Masoretes took vowel points from other words to create the form from which Jehovah is rendered. As best as we can determine, the first to suggest that the Masoretes substituted vowel points they supplied for ADONAI and/or ELOHIM was Wilhelm Gesenius. Gensenius lived from 1786-1842, about 700 years after the Masoretes completed their work. As best as we can determine, he was also the first to suggest that "Yahweh" was the original pronunciation, based on sounds attributed to a Greek form of the Holy Name. The form referred to is often transliterated as IAUE, and given Latin sounds, and placing those sounds with a transliteration of the tetragrammaton as YHWH, results in Yahweh. The reconstruction, however, depends on a lot of theory and assumptions, and although the theories and assumptions may be presented as being fact, they are still theories and assumptions. The reality is that the form Yahweh depends more on theories and assumptions than do the forms found in the Masoretic Hebrew. Nevertheless, as Wikipedia states, "The consensus among scholars is that the historical vocalization of the Tetragrammaton at the time of the redaction of the Torah (6th century BCE) is most likely Yahweh." Again, this is based on the assumption that the Masoretes substituted vowel points they supplied to form the Masoretic word often transliterated as ADONAI and/or ELOHIM.

As to theory, the whole study of linguistic history, as far as sounds, is based on theories. No one on earth today knows for a certainty even what English sounded like four hundred years ago, not to mention the many variations of English. We have theories, but written works suggest that there were many different dialects of English, lacking the uniformity we are used to today. Scholars, however, most often present their theories as being fact, although scholars often disagree with each other. No one on earth knows what ancient Hebrew actually sounded like, nor even the Koine Greek of the New Testament, despite the often detailed explanations of sounds that some scholars often present.

And then there is the study of the Masoretic text itself and the sounds often attributed to both the consonants and the vowels. It is obvious that the Masoretes sought some standardization of sounds, and thus it is possible that in doing so, they neglected sound variations of various consonants as well as the sounds attributed to their vowel points. In other words, where the Masoretes usually promoted one sound for each consonant, this may not actually reflect all the original Hebrew sounds.

There is some evidence that some copies of the Hebrew Old Testament may have had some kind of written vowel system before the Masoretes. There is no evidence, however, that the Masoretes used any earlier manuscripts with written vowels, however, in the creation of the Masoretic text.

In the Wikipedia article on "Names of God", we find the assumption presented as being fact:

The Masoretic Text uses vowel points of Adonai or Elohim (depending on the context) marking the pronunciation as Yəhōwāh (יְ הֹ וָ ה, [jăhowɔh] (About this sound listen)); however, scholarly consensus is that this is not the original pronunciation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism#YHWH
(Much of the wording in this article presents a lot of opinions and assumptions -- both historical and otherwise -- as through fact.)

However, the fact that most scholars agree on an opinion (consensus) does not necessarily make the opinion correct.

References:
(We do not necessarily agree with all conclusions given by these authors)

More may be added to this later... R. R. Day.