God's Holy Name in Revelation 1:8

Revelation 1:8 I am the Alpha and the Omega, saith the Lord [Jehovah] God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty. -- American Standard Version. 

A video on YouTube entitled “The Danger of Inserting 'JEHOVAH' in Revelation 1:8” makes several assertions regarding Revelation 1:8 that we hope to address in this study. 

Revelation 1:8

egw eimi to alpha kai to w legei kurios ho
I AM THE ALPHA AND THE OMEGA, IS SAYING LORD, THE
1473 1510 3588 0255_5 2532 3588 5598 3004 2962 3588
theos ho wn kai ho een kai ho erchomenos
GOD, THE (ONE) BEING AND THE (ONE) WAS AND THE (ONE) COMING,
2316 3588 1511_1 2532 3588 1511_3 2532 3588 2064 1511_2
ho pantokratwr
THE ALMIGHTY.
3588 3841 -- Westcott & Hort Transliterated Interlinear

Throughout the extant Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, we find that God's Holy Name has been changed to other words. This is simply a fact. The most common word used as God's Holy Name in the extant New Testament manuscripts is the Greek word often transliterated as KURIOS, or a form of KURIOS. It should be self-evident that this is the case in Revelation 1:8. 

The Greek indefinite KURIOS n this verse is combined with the definite phrase “ho THEOS”. This is the exact same phrase in the Greek as found in Acts 3:22, where it is definitely not referring to Jesus, but rather to Jehovah, who raised Jesus as the prophet like Moses. The exact same phrase is found in Luke 1:32, where it is absolutely again not referring to Jesus, but rather Jehovah of Hosts who gives the throne of David to Jesus. (Isaiah 9:7) I believe that the evidence is very convincing that in Revelation 1:8, God's Holy Name, often rendered into English as “Jehovah”, has been replaced with KURIOS.

No scripture tells us why God's eternal Holy Name has been changed to other words in the New Testament manuscripts. There is certainly no scripture giving anyone authorization to change the eternal Holy Name of God to other words that do not even mean the same as the Hebrew verb that is used for God's Holy Name.

We know that the Jewish leaders were promoting the false idea that the Holy Name was too Holy to pronounce. Thus, the claim is that they were advocating that the Holy Name be replaced with forms of the Hebrew words often transliterated from the Masoretic text as ADON (meaning, Lord) or EL (meaning, God, god, mighty). Oddly, many have claimed that by doing this so that they do not mispronounce the Holy Name. In reality, this results in actually mispronouncing the Holy Name with whatever words are used to replace the Holy Name.

The fact is that the scriptures nowhere say that God's Holy Name is too sacred to be pronounced. The fact is that this command is a commandment from men, not from God. 

The question is, did Jesus join with the disobedient Jews in changing the Holy Name to other words? 

The Old Testament specifies the name in which the Messiah was to come in Deuteronomy 18:15-19 and Psalm 118:26. That name has been changed to “the LORD” in most translations, thus making it appear that the name of the Messiah was “the LORD”. Again, God never authorized anyone to change His eternal Holy Name to other words. Many translations, however, render the Holy Name in these verses with the Latin forms “Jehovah” or “Yahweh”. Scripturally, these two Latin forms of the Holy Name are simply variations of the same Holy Name. 

In his words recorded at Matthew 23:39, did Jesus say in came in the name of KURIOS, or did he actually use some form of pronunciation of the Holy Name as given in the Hebrew of Deuteronomy 18:15-19 and Psalm 118:26? Since no form of ADON is ever presented anywhere in the Bible as being God's Holy Name, I highly doubt that Jesus would have used the Greek equivalent, KURIOS, as being the Holy Name. Indeed, it would constitute a lie. It would definitely not fulfill the name requirement as given in Deuteronomy 18:15-19, and would end up making Jesus a false prophet.

It is simply a fact, however, that God's Holy Name has been changed to other words in the New Testament. The evidence does suggest that God's Holy Name was changed to other words in the second century by Christian scribes. This may have been done in an effort to keep either the Romans or the Jews from destroying what we refer to as the New Testament scriptures. 

At any rate, we believe the evidence is undeniable that God's Holy Name has been changed to KURIOS in Revelation 1:8.

It is argued that Revelation 1:8 is spoken not by God in 1:1, but by Jesus, who is mentioned in verses 5–7. Others go further and claim that Jesus is also the one described in verse 4 as the One “who is, and who was, and who is to come,” seated on the throne. But this interpretation would essentially create two distinct figures, both identified as Jesus—one in the first part of verse 4, and another in verse 5.

Additionally, throughout the book of Revelation, the One sitting on the throne—the One “who is, who was, and who is to come”—is consistently presented as someone other than Jesus. For example, if Jesus were being equated with Jehovah God, the Almighty, the One on the throne in Revelation 1:4; 4:2, 8–10; and 5:1, then it raises a logical problem: Who is the Lamb in Revelation 5:6–7 who receives the sealed scroll from the Almighty seated on the throne?

More to be added later, God willing.

Links to studies related to Revelation 1:8.

Links to studies related to Revelation 1:10,11

Links to studies related to Revelation 1:17,18

God's Holy Name in the Septuagint

Many believe that Jesus and the apostles used the Septuagint when quoting the Old Testament. Based on this assumption, they claim that Jesus and the apostles followed the Septuagint changing God's Holy Name to other words, such as forms of the Greek word often transliterated as KURIOS or KYRIOS (meaning, Lord). This is offered as proof that Jesus and his apostles joined in with the Jews in changing the Holy Name to other words.  Thus, it is further claimed that the original autographs of the New Testament also changed the Holy Name to other words.

We should, however, understand that the Septuagint as we have it today did not exist in the days of Jesus. What is often called the Septuagint is actually what some have called the "Christianized Septuagint". This version of the Septuagint did not exist in the days of Jesus and the apostles, and thus they could not have been quoting from it.

We should also understand that we do not have the original autographs of the New Testament. All we have are later copies that may, or may not, fully be what was originally written. We can only trust, by faith, that God preserved the writings and allowed errors to creep in as He permitted.

We do know that the Christianized Septuagint does have God's Holy Name changed to other words. We do not have a full manuscript of the earlier Jewish Septuagint, but we do have fragments of manuscripts that are thought to be from the earlier Jewish Septuagint. Do these fragments show that they changed God's Holy Name to other words? Actually, no, they do not. In fact, they show that they presented the Holy Name in some Hebrew form.

Papyrus Fouad 266 and the Nahal Hever manuscripts are two examples of ancient fragments that provide evidence of the Holy Name's original existence before the Christianized version was created, evidently in the second century AD. These fragments reveal the Holy Name inscribed in Paleo-Hebrew script (𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤄). The conclusion is that the earlier Jewish Septuagint did contain the Holy Name retained in Hebrew form; it did not replace the Holy Name with forms of Kyrios or Theos. Thus, this evidence suggests that if Jesus and the apostles were quoting from the Septuagint of that time, they would not have changed the Holy Name to forms of Kyrios or Theos.

We may add more to this later, God willing.

Advocate - Is This One of God's Names? (w)

"Advocate" is somtimes promoted as being one of God's names. The scripture given relative to this is 1 John 2:1, which reads: "My little children, I write these things to you so that you may not sin. If anyone sins, we have a Counselor with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous."  (World English) The assumption appears to be that Jesus is the Supreme Being, and thus, since it is assumed that Jesus is the Supreme Being, then one of the alleged "names" of the Supreme Being is Advocate. Of course, in reality, Jesus spoke of his God and Father as being the only true God, the only true Supreme Being, and by stating that the only true God had sent him, Jesus denied being the Supreme Being. (John 17:1,3) Likewise, Paul identifies only one person as being the 'one God' from whom are the all (1 Corinthians 8:6), the Supreme Being. Thus, "Advocate" is not a "name" of the only true God.

See:
Jesus is Not Jehovah


The word "advocate" is not actually a name, at least not in the sense that we speak of "Jesus" as being a name. The only personal "name" attributed to God in the Bible is the name often represented in the earlier Hebrew as "יהוה", often rendered into English as "Jehovah" or "Yahweh". The word "advocate" is a "name" in a more general sense as we might say that the word "apple" designates the name of a certain fruit. The word "advocate" is often confused with the word "mediator"; they do not actually mean exactly the same thing. The word mediator signifies one who seeks to reconcile two parties who are not in harmony with each other. Before one becomes a child of God, one is estranged from God, and thus, in need of a mediator by which to be reconciled to God. Thus, to become a child of God, one who receives Christ and has faith in the Jesus' sacrifice for our sins, become reconciled to God, and becomes a new creation, separated from the old creation that remains under God's wrath. (John 3:36; Romans 5:10,12-19; 8:1,17-22; 2 Corinthians 5:17; 1 Timothy 2:5,6) The new creature in Christ, being a child of God, is without sin, and thus no longer needs a mediator. However, since the new creature still has to contend with the sinful flesh, the new creature needs an advocate, someone who is like a lawyer, to appear on his behalf before the only true God, and yet this representation before God is still based on application of the blood of Jesus, which has been offered in sacrifice for us all. (Hebrews 9:24-26) In other words, for any sin attributed to the sinful flesh, Jesus does not offer a new sacrifice for that sin, but as the advocate of the new creature, he appears before God so that such a sin does not put the New Creature at enmity with God.

However, the Greek word rendered as "advocate" in 1 John 2:1 is a form of the Greek word often transliterated as "paraklétos" (Strong's #3875). This word is often generalized as meaning advocate or comforter. Thayer, however, gives it three meanings. In summary, Thayer presents it as meaning (1) advocate, (2) intercessor, (3) helper, succorer, aider, assistant. Forms of the word paraklétos are also found in John 14:15,26; John 15:26; and John 15:7, where it is applied to the "spirit of truth". In these verses, however, it is evidently not speaking of the spirit of truth as being an advocate or intercessor, but as a helper, succorer, aider, or assistant. (more to be added later) 

Does the Bible Forbid the Pronunciation of God's Holy Name?

 

ABHIR - The Mighty One of Jacob

We find that the Bible uses the Hebrew word often transliterated as "Abhir" in the following verses:  Genesis 49:24; Deuteronomy 10:17; Psalm 132:2, 5; Isaiah 1:24, 49:26, 60:1.

Here are the instances as found in the Darby translation:

Genesis 49:24
But his bow abideth firm, And the arms of his hands are supple By the hands of the Mighty One [ABHIR] of Jacob. From thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel:
Psalm 132:2
How he swore unto Jehovah, vowed unto the Mighty One [ABHIR] of Jacob:
Psalm 132:5
Until I find out a place for Jehovah, habitations for the Mighty One [ABHIR] of Jacob.
Isaiah 1:24
Therefore saith the Lord, Jehovah of hosts, the Mighty One [ABHIR] of Israel: Ah! I will ease me of mine adversaries, and avenge me of mine enemies.
Isaiah 49:26
And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with new wine. And all flesh shall know that I, Jehovah, am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the Mighty One [ABHIR]  of Jacob.
Isaiah 60:16
And thou shalt suck the milk of the nations, and shalt suck the breast of kings; and thou shalt know that I, Jehovah, am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob.

The word transliterated as Abhir (or, Abir) is Strong's Hebrew #46, and it has the basic meaning of "strong". It is not a noun, but it is an adjective, and it is used as an adjective in all the verses given. Nevertheless, as an adjective, it is understood as being descriptive of a noun or pronoun, and thus, as in the Darby translation above, the pronoun "one" is supplied, and thus we have the entire phrase as the "Mighty One of Jacob" or the "Mighty One of Israel". Some may supply the noun "God". However, without adding a noun or pronoun, it could be rendered as the "strength of Jacob", or the "strength of Israel". Still, however, it is Jehovah who is being spoken of.

Abhir appears to be a close synonym to forms of the Hebrew word often transliterated as EL (Strong's 410), which is usually translated into English as "god" or "God"; however, the basic meaning of EL is that of strength or might, very similar to Abhir. In the KJV, forms of the Hebrew word EL are rendered as "power", "great", "mighty", "angels", and "exceeding", as well as by "idols", "god" or "God".
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/el.html
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/elohiym.html

ABHIR is only applied to Jehovah in the Bible. As a descriptive title, one could say that ABHIR is a "name" of Jehovah, but it is never given as being God's Holy Name. The Bible speaks of only one "Holy Name" of God, and it shows that "Holy Name" to be, as it is often given in English, "Jehovah" or "Yahweh". As such, both the English/Latin form "Jehovah" and the English/Latin form "Yahweh" are variations of the same one Holy Name found in the Hebrew Bible.

See also our study:
One Holy Name

Advocate - Is God Our Advocate?

Many often present a long list of "names" that often thought to be "names of God". One of the alleged names of God is often given as being "Advocate". As we have shown elsewhere, the Bible reveals only one name as being God's Holy Name. The Bible never speaks of "names" [plural] of God.

One of the scriptures given relative to this is 1 John 2:1, which reads: "My little children, I write these things to you so that you may not sin. If anyone sins, we have a Counselor with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous."  (World English) The assumption appears to be that Jesus is the Supreme Being, and thus, since it is assumed that Jesus is the Supreme Being, then one of the alleged "names" of the Supreme Being is Advocate. Of course, in reality, Jesus spoke of his God and Father as being the only true God, the only true Supreme Being, and by stating that the only true God had sent him, Jesus denied being the Supreme Being. (John 17:1,3) Thus, "Advocate" is not a "name" of the only true God.

Another scripture sometimes given is John 14:26, where the spirit of truth is referred as "Counselor", "Comforter", or "Advocate" (depending on which translation is used). Evidently, it is thought that God's Holy Spirit is a person of God, and wholly and fully God, and thus God is being referred to as "Advocate". Of course, trinitarians and some others believe that Jesus is Jehovah, and thus that Jehovah, the Son of Jehovah, is our advocate before Jehovah, the Father of Jehovah. The scriptures, however, reveal no such concept.

The Bible, however, never presents Jesus as being the God and Father of Abraham, the "one God" from whom are the all, nor is God's Holy Spirit ever presented as being a person of God, or as being "wholly and fully God [Supreme Being".

See our study: Jesus is Not Jehovah

Advocate is often listed as being a "name" of God. The word "advocate" is not actually a name, at least not in the sense that we speak of "Jesus", "Joshua", "Elijah", etc., as being names. The word "advocate" is a "name" in a more general sense, as we might say that the word "apple" designates the name of a certain fruit. This word, as applied to Jesus and God's Holy Spirit, could better be termed a "title" rather than "name".

However, the Bible reveals only one name as being God's "Holy Name". This Holy Name is often presented in English as "Jehovah" (based on Masoretic Hebrew) or "Yahweh" (based on a Greek rendering of the Holy Name). 

The word "advocate" is often confused with the word "mediator"; they do not actually mean exactly the same thing. The word mediator signifies one who seeks to reconcile two parties who are not in harmony with each other. Before one becomes a child of God, one is estranged from God, and thus, in need the mediator by which to be reconciled to God. Thus, to become a child of God, one who receives Christ and has faith in the Jesus' sacrifice for our sins, becomes reconciled to God, and also becomes a new creation, separated from the old creation that remains under God's wrath. (John 3:36; Romans 5:10,12-19; 8:1,17-22; 2 Corinthians 5:17; 1 Timothy 2:5,6) The new creature in Christ, being a child of God, is without sin, and thus no longer needs a mediator.  In 1 John 4:1, John is not speaking to the world estranged from God, but rather he is speaking to sons of God, those who have already been united with God and who are thus no longer 'dead through their trespasses", but who have been 'made alive with Christ'. -- Ephesians 6:5.

An advocate is one who appears before a judge in their defense. Jesus is, in effect, the lawyer who serves as the counselor or advocate for the sons of God. Since the new creature still has to contend with the sinful flesh, the new creature needs an advocate, someone who is like a lawyer, to appear on his behalf before the only true God. Nevertheless, this representation before God is still based on application of the blood of Jesus, which has been offered in sacrifice for us all. (Hebrews 9:24-26) In other words, for any sin attributed to the sinful flesh, Jesus does not offer a new sacrifice for that sin, but as the advocate of the new creature, he appears before God so that such a sin does not put the New Creature at enmity with God.

Below needs to be edited:

The world has no advocate with the Father, but "we have."

The consecrated household of faith is represented in heaven itself by him who redeemed the whole world. This is in accordance with our topic of last Sunday, which many of you have doubtless followed through the public press. We there showed that after our Lord had finished his sacrifice at Calvary, been raised from the dead on the third day, spent forty days with the disciples, establishing them and preparing them for the work before them, he then ascended up on high, there to appear in the presence of God on our behalf, as today's text declares, "to be our advocate." (Heb. 9:24)

The figure is a peculiar one. An advocate, an attorney, appears to answer for his client, not to answer for others; and so, although our Lord paid the ransom price for the sins of the whole world, or, as John 2:2 says, he was a propitiation [satisfaction] for the sins of the whole world, nevertheless he did not appear for the whole world at his first advent. The world has not retained him as an advocate. Only believers have come into this relationship, and consequently only for these did he appear, only for these has the redemption through Christ been applied; only these, therefore, have been brought into covenant relationship with the Father.

The same Jesus, on the basis of the same sin offering finished at Calvary, will in the next age take up the cause of the world – not as an advocate, not as appearing before the Father for them and having them justified through faith, but as a go-between, a mediator between God and man. God stands for his own justice. Mankind in general, the world, are in more or less of a rebellious attitude, lovers of sin, blind to their true interests. The Mediator undertakes a work on their behalf, to bring in reconciliation between God and these his rebellious subjects, and to recover the latter by opening the eyes of their understanding, by giving them valuable lessons and experiences respecting the blessings of righteousness and the undesirableness of sin, and thus to bring back as many as possible to fellowship with the Father, and to restore them mentally, morally and physically to the original likeness of God.

By the end of that Millennial age the Mediator will be ready to introduce the perfect members of the race to the Father, blameless and irreprovable – all those rejecting his ministries of reconciliation will have been cut off in the Second Death. Thenceforth there will be no more sorrow, pain, sighing, crying, dying, because all the former things will have passed away, the Mediator will have effected his grand work of destroying sin and bringing in everlasting righteousness.

How precious the thought that, while the world is mentally, morally and physically poisoned by sin and blind to it own best interests, the time shall yet come when they will be blessed with the opening of the eyes of their understanding and with all the assistances necessary for their recovery. And how the Lord's words resound in our ears, "Blessed are your eyes for they see and your ears for they hear." (Matt. 13:16)

We may well thank God that the light of the knowledge of his goodness has shined into our hearts, and that we no longer need to wait for the Mediator's work to reconcile us, but now in advance turn to the Lord promptly, as soon as we have heard of his grace in Christ. And how gracious is his provision in all respects for our adoption into his family, our begetting of the Spirit to a new nature, that we may become heirs of God and joint-heirs with his Son in the glorious Kingdom which is to bless the world.

How blessed, too, is this special privilege which we are considering today, namely, that although in our imperfection we must concede that we are trespassers of divine grace and fail to come up to the terms and conditions of our covenant, nevertheless God has provided for us an advocate, Jesus Christ the Righteous, whose righteousness has been imputed to us, by whose stripes we are healed, our blemishes covered and not counted to us, but counted to him who died for us on Calvary. Let us rejoice in this loving favor, and [NS360] more and more zealously strive to keep ourselves unspotted from the world, and to keep close accounts with the Lord, so that our consciences will be sensitive, and even slight violations of the law of love will appeal to us as contrary to our covenant and send us to the blood again, which makes and keeps us whole.

Does "Jehovah" Mean "Lord"?

 

* Pronunciation of YHWH

* Martini and Yohoua

* The Name of Messiah

ADONAI - Superior or Supreme Lord

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.

Reference
Bible Hub's analysis of Matthew 1:20

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.

*** More to be added later, God willing.

{Matthew 1:24} Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of Jehovah commanded him, and took his wife to himself;

{Matthew 2:13} Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of Jehovah

appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, "Arise and take the young child

and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and stay there until I tell you,

Matthew 2:14} He arose and took the young child and his mother by night,

and departed into Egypt, {Matthew 2:15} and was there until the death of Herod;

that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Jehovah through the

prophet, saying, "Out of Egypt I called my son."

{Matthew 2:19} But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of Jehovah

appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, {Matthew 2:20} "Arise and take

the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel, for

those who sought the young life of the boy are dead."

{Matthew 3:3} For this is he who was spoken of by Isaiah the

prophet, saying,

"The voice of one crying in the wilderness,

   make ready the way of Jehovah.

   Make his paths straight."

{Matthew 4:4} But he answered, "It is written, 'Man must not live by bread

alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of Jehovah.'"

{Matthew 4:7} Jesus said to him, "Again, it is written, 'You must not test Jehovah, your God.'"

{Matthew 4:10} Then Jesus said to him, "Get behind me, Satan! For it is written, 'You must worship Jehovah your God, and you must serve him only.'"

{Matthew 5:33} "Again you have heard that it was said to them of old time,

'You must not make false vows, but must perform to Jehovah your

vows,'

{Matthew 6:33} But seek first the Kingdom of Jehovah, and his righteousness; and all these things will be given to you as well.

{Matthew 15:6} he will not honor his

father or mother.' You have made the commandment of Jehovah void because of

your tradition.

{Matthew 19:24} Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of Jehovah."

{Matthew 21:9} The multitudes who went before him, and who followed kept shouting, "Hosanna to the son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of Jehovah! Hosanna in the highest!"

{Matthew 21:31} Which of the two did

the will of his father?"

   They said to him, "The first."

   Jesus said to them, "Most certainly I tell you that the tax

collectors and the prostitutes are entering into the Kingdom of Jehovah

before you.

{Matthew 21:42} Jesus said to them, "Did you never read in the Scriptures,

'The stone which the builders rejected,

   the same was made the head of the corner.

This was from Jehovah.

   It is marvelous in our eyes?'

{Matthew 21:43} "Therefore I tell you, the Kingdom of Jehovah will be taken away from you, and will be given to a nation bringing forth its fruit.

{Matthew 22:31} But concerning the resurrection of the dead, haven't you read that which was spoken to you by Jehovah, saying, 

{Matthew 22:32} 'I am the

God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?' Jehovah is not the God of the dead, but of the living."

{Matthew 22:37} Jesus said to him, "'You must love Jehovah your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.'

{Matthew 22:43} He said to them, "How then does David in the Spirit call him Lord, saying, {Matthew 22:44} 'Jehovah said to my Lord, sit on my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet?'

{Matthew 23:39} For I tell you, you will not see me from now on, until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of Jehovah!'"

{Matthew 28:2} Behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of Jehovah

descended from the sky, and came and rolled away the stone from the

door, and sat on it.

Did Tyndale Invent Jehovah?

The Holy Name In The Original Hebrew/Greek

Does The Holy Name Mean “The Eternal”?

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)

The Myth That Jehovah Was Pointed with the Vowel Markings of Adonai

Debunking the Myths of Sacred Namers

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

Did A Catholic Monk Invent “Jehovah”?

Many assertions are often made concerning the English form “Jehovah”; such assertions are often presented as being fact, although in reality much of what is presented is inaccurate historically. Most of the statements we are referring seem also be based on the assumption that “Jehovah” is a separate “name” from the Holy Name as it appears in Hebrew. Most of these also seem to assume that if God’s Holy Name is not pronounced exactly as it is in Hebrew, that it is a false “name”.

One makes the claim: “The term ‘Jehovah’ was the invention of a Catholic monk (Raymundus Martini) in AD 1202.” 

Another states: “We can trace the name Jehovah to the first person to use it, a Roman Catholic monk from the 1200’s.” 

Another site states: "The first recorded use of this spelling [Jehovah] was made by a Spanish Dominican monk, Raymundus Martini, in 1270."

Surrounding this claim are theories of how  "Jehovah" was formed. These conflicting theories are often presented as being historical fact.

One claims: "About the 13th century the term 'Jehovah' appeared when Christian scholars took the consonants of 'Yahweh' and pronounced it with the vowels of 'Adonai.'"  This appears to assume that the form "Yahweh" is the correct name while Jehovah is incorrect. The reality is that the the vowel points were added by the Masoretes long before the 13th century.

 An author on another site (actually this statement appears on several sites) states: "The word 'Jehovah' comes from the fact that ancient Jewish texts used to put the vowels of the Name 'Adonai' (the usual substitute for YHVH) under the consonants of YHVH to remind people not to pronounce YHVH as written." Actually, what is being called here "fact" is simply somebody's theory; what ancient Hebrew texts are being referred to is not given. The first Hebrew text to supply vowel points was the Masoretic text which was completed sometime before the tenth century. One could call that ancient, although usually "ancient" is used of earlier manuscripts than the Masoretic text. The author continues: "A sixteenth century German Christian scribe, while transliterating the Bible into Latin for the Pope, wrote the Name out as it appeared in his texts, with the consonants of YHVH and the vowels of Adonai, and came up with the word JeHoVaH, and the name stuck." We could not confirm anything stated in this sentence. .We know, however, that the vowel points that provide the rendering of "Jehovah" were already in the Masoretic text long before the sixteenth century.

One asks: "The version Jehovah was invented by a Catholic monk in the middle ages–so, the question is, how can a word made up by a Catholic monk centuries later possibly be God’s name?" The term "middle ages" is vague, but evidently this is referring to the inaccurate claim being circulated that Raymundus Martini created the form "Jehovah." It is even often claimed that he supplied the vowels from Adonai and/or from Elohim, etc., to create the form "Jehovah."

It is claimed that “Jehovah is a false name” “made up by a Catholic monk”.  It is claimed that Jews do not believe in saying the “name of the Lord” Another asks: "How can 'Jehovah' have the same meaning as 'Yahweh' when it is a different name."  Evidently, the assumption is that Jehovah and Yahweh are not variations of the same name, but that the two forms are two totally different names.  Oddly, the author makes no assumption regarding the use of "Jesus", although the English form "Jesus" is definitely NOT the way the name was originally pronounced in ancient Hebrew. The author goes on to say: "'Jehovah' was made up by putting the vowels of  'Adonai' into the Tetragrammaton, which Hebrew experts (I have quoted 3 in my study) say is an impossible form." Hebrew so-called "experts" have to work from various theories and assumptions; these "experts" were not alive several thousand years ago so as to be able to be able to verify their theories. We need to be careful in putting trust in theories of men, no matter how "expert" they may appear to be.

Nevertheless, arguments that place a lot of emphasis on the original pronunciation as being the only actually name of the Creator are actually all irrelevant to usage of the form "Jehovah" to represent the Holy Name in English, or similar forms in other languages. All of these arguments would have meaning ONLY IF such are supported by a scripture saying that the Holy Name has to be pronounced as it was originally pronounced in ancient Hebrew or else it is a false name. God has not given any command that his name or any other Hebrew name has to be pronounced in other langauges as it was originally pronounced in ancient Hebrew or else it is not His name, or that it is another name. Furthermore, the assumption would demand that every language have the sounds of every Hebrew name in each language; more than likely many languages would not have the same sounds as anceint Hebrew. Most scholars agree that the many Hebrew names found in the Koine Greek of the New Testament are not pronounced as they were in ancient Hebrew. On top of that is the fact that no one one earth today knows for a certainty how God's name, or even His Son's name, was originally pronounced in ancient Hebrew. Further, no one on earth today knows for a certainty what the Koine Greek sounded like. All we have are the various theories that many promote about this and that upon which this or that pronunciation is thought to be correct, etc.

A side note: One in Texas claims to be have received divine revelation as to the correct English pronunciation and spelling. He has so many odd English spellings of Hebrew names and other words in his writings it is sometimes difficult to read what he writes. This man makes claims for his group similar to claims that Joseph Rutherford made for the Jehovah's Witnesses organization that he, Rutherford created, and called "Jehovah's visible organization." The governing body of the Jehovah's Witnesses today continues to make the same claims, often even greater, claims for authority, denouncing an eternal doom on all who do not come to them for salvation. The focus on the Holy Name taken to extremes, and especially on some certain form of pronunciation of the Holy Name, often becomes a smokescreen Satan makes use of to turn one's attention from the glad tidings of great joy that will be for all the people.

As to the English form "Jehovah": it is actually based on the major form of the Holy Name as found in the Masoretic Hebrew text. The idea of insertion by Christians later of the vowels of Adonai and/or Elohim is simply someone's theories. The usual charge, however, is that the Masoretes themselves inserted vowels into the tetragrammaton to form Jehovah (or, Yehowah); this also, however, is an assumption that has been repeated so many times that it has become accepted as fact. Some scholars, however, have claimed that this assumption is not true; that the Masoretes did not take vowel points they supplied from other words to create the form from which "Jehovah", "Iehouah", "Yehowah", etc., are derived. So far we have found no evidence that the Masoretes did take the vowel points they supplied to form ADONAI or ELOHIM to use in the Holy Name.

Some authors like to to point out the Holy Name in the original Hebrew had no vowels, and they make many claims because of this. Many even seem to think that the lack of vowels is peculiar to the tetragrammaton of the Holy Name. The reality is that the original Hebrew has no written vowels at all for any name or any word whatsoever. The vowel sounds were spoken, however.

Nevertheless, the vowel points for the Holy Name were not originally provided by any Catholic monk, nor any Christian; they were provided by the Masoretes long before any Monk provided a transliteration of the Holy Name from the Masoretic Hebrew text. The Masoretes provided at least two different variations of the Holy Name, evidently depending on its contextual usage. This indicates that the Holy Name may not have had just one pronunciation, but at least two, depending on the context.

Nevertheless, if one should get all upset, or claim that one should not pronounce the Holy Name in English because we do not know for a certainty how it was originally pronounced, then, to be consistent, we should not pronounce the name of the Messiah, either. Definitely we should not pronounce the Holy Name as "the Lord" or "God". If the correct pronunciation of the Holy Name is the issue, then we know for a certainty that the Holy Name was not originally pronounced as "the LORD", "GOD", HaShem, ADONAI, ELOHIM, KURIOS, etc. "Jesus" is an English pronunciation which certainly is not the same pronunciation as the original Hebrew, and no one knows for a certainty how the name of the Messiah was originally pronounced in the original Hebrew. Most who get all upset about the pronunciation of God's name as "Jehovah" seem to have no qualms about pronouncing the name of God's Son as "Jesus."

On the other hand, the Jews who claim that oral pronunciation of  the Holy Name is not appropriate, do not, in fact, refrain from pronouncing the name, but they often will indeed orally pronounce the name as being Adonai (Lord), Elohim (God), HaShem (the name), or as something else. If they would not actually say the Holy Name at all, they would have to read Deuteronomy 6:4 as “Hear, Israel: — is our God; — is one,” which, of course, ends up being nonsense. If a Jew reads aloud Deuteronomy 6:4 from the Jewish Publication Society translation, he will be saying, “Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one.” In effect, he will still be attributing the Holy Name to being “the LORD”, and pronouncing, saying, the Holy Name, as being “the LORD”. The ancient Hebrew pronunciation of the Holy Name, however, is most definitely NOT “the LORD”. Deuteronomy 6:4, in the World English, reads, “Hear, Israel: Yahweh is our God; Yahweh is one.” In the American Standard, it reads, “Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.” Either of these latter two translations are definitely much better than totally changing the Holy Name to “the LORD”, which does not mean the same thing.

Indeed, we do not know of any person, when reading the Bible aloud, who does not pronounce the Holy Name with some kind of oral expression. We do not know of anyone who simply skips the Holy Name so as not to pronounce the Holy Name, despite their claims of not pronouncing the Holy Name by pronouncing the Holy Name as "ADONAI," “the LORD” or “GOD”, or whatever else.

For more of our studies related to Holy Name, see the listing of this site:
https://nameofyah.blogspot.com/p/on-this-site.html

Links to various sites in this study does not mean that we agree with the views presented on those sites.

Ronald R. Day, Sr., Restoration Light (ResLight, RlBible) Bible Study Services.

Did Pietro Colonna Galatino Invent the Form "Jehovah"?

Malachi 2:1,2 - Give Glory to My Name

Malachi 2:1-2 - And now, O priests, this command is to you.[2] If you will not hear, and if you will not set it on your heart to give glory to My name, says Jehovah of Hosts, then I will send the curse on you, and I will curse your blessings. And indeed, I have cursed it, because you are not setting it on your heart. -- Green's Literal.

This was a direct command to the priests of His covenant people, Israel. The principle holds true, however, with the common priesthood (1 Peter 2:9) of those who belong to Christ in the covenant made with Abraham. (Galatians 3:17,18,26-29) Such should indeed, seek to glorify the name of the God and Father of their Lord Jesus both in word and deed. 

On the other hand, there are "priests" who profess to be Christian who claim authority over fellow believers. Such generally pursue a course similar to the servant Jesus describes in Matthew 24:48-50; Luke 12:45. It is not for us to judge these, however, although we can judge that their actions are not in harmony with the Bible. These often, in some way or other, claim a lordship over others, similar to the Gentiles that Jesus spoke of in Matthew 20:25; Luke 22:25. Even the use of the Holy Name can be misused as a point to beat fellow believers into subjection. Indeed, such often by their teachings and authoritarian practices bring discredit to the name (reputation) of the One whom they claim to be glorifying.

Related:

The Parable of the Four Servants

Nevertheless, it still should be recognized that the Holy Name should not be changed to other words, such as Adonai, Elohim, Lord, the Lord, God, etc. Not only does doing this mean that one is adding to and taking away from the God's words, but it presents many verses throughout the Bible with a lie. God did not say that His name is the LORD, as many translations read in Isaiah 42:8, thus to change the Holy Name to other words in such scriptures actually represents a lie.

Did God's People in the Old Testament Times Utter the Holy Name Aloud?

By Ronald R. Day, Sr.

One claims that we cannot produce one manuscript where Moses wrote the name completely in Hebrew.

Actually, we don't know of any Hebrew manuscript of the Old Testament that does not at all produce the Holy Name completely with all four of the Hebrew letters that represent the Holy Name; those letters are usually referred to as YOD HE WAW HE or JOD HE VAV HE. Therefore, we assume that by writing the name completely is meant with the vowels. The original Hebrew had no written vowels, but the vowels were spoken when the words were uttered. The commonly used Masoretic text produced after Christ not only has the four letters but also the added vowel points, which have been added, not just to the Holy Name but to each and every word in the Hebrew Old Testament, since the original Hebrew had no written vowels at all for any word.

In a comparatively few instances, God's Holy Name is presented in its shortened form with two letters YOD HE HE, usually rendered into English as YAH or JAH. However, in most instances, the fully Holy Name has all four letters.

Nevertheless, one has argued that the four letters of God's Hebrew name are shortened from the full name expressed in Exodus 3:14 as "I AM WHO I AM". The reality is that "I AM WHO I AM" is the first first-person expression of the Hebrew active verb meaning "to be". Jehovah gives his name in the first person as "I AM WHO I AM", signifying that He cannot deny himself -- He cannot deny who He is -- and he cannot deny His promises. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was indeed proclaiming His name to be EHJEH ‘ASHER EHJEH (transliterated from the Masoretic text), or, to use the short form, EHJEH (transliterated). In Exodus 3:15, we find the third person singular form of the verb JEHOVAH (transliterated), which the World English renders as Yahweh, which has the basic meaning of "HE IS", which, in turn, is short for HE IS WHO HE IS. Thus, Jehovah (Yahweh) is short for HE IS WHO HE IS, or HE WILL BE WHO HE IS. He cannot deny Himself; what He says will be — His promises are certain. This is similar to what is said of Jesus in 2 Timothy 2:13,“he remains faithful — he can’t deny himself.”

We have been told to look to the Hebrew scriptures and the Tanakh for no Jew ever would utter the name of God out loud for fear of taking his name in vain and thereby breaking the commandment.

"Tanakh" usually refers to the Masoretic Hebrew text. We find no evidence at all in the Tanakh that no Jew would utter the name of God out loud, rather we find the very opposite. Let's examine a few verses from the Jay Green's Literal Translation of the Tanakh.

Exodus 3:13 - And Moses said to God, Behold, I shall come to the sons of Israel and say to them, the God of your fathers has sent me to you; and they will say to me, What is His name? What shall I say to them?

God responded:

Exodus 3:14 - And God said to Moses, I AM THAT I AM; and He said, You shall say this to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me to you.
Exodus 3:15 - And God said to Moses again, You shall say this to the sons of Israel, 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 from generation to generation.

Exodus 3:16 - Go, and gather the elders of Israel and say to them, Jehovah, the God of your fathers has appeared to me, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, saying, visiting I have visited you and have seen what is done to you in Egypt.

Is it true that Moses could not possibly obey the command of God, since he could not utter the name?

God spoke to Moses:

Exodus 4:22 - And you shall speak to Pharaoh, So says Jehovah, My son, My first-born is Israel.

Did God give Moses a command that he could keep, because he could not utter the Holy Name aloud?

It is recorded that Moses and Aaron stated to Pharaoh:

Exodus 5:1 - And afterward Moses and Aaron came in and said to Pharaoh, So says Jehovah the God of Israel, Send away My people, and they shall feast to Me in the wilderness.

Did they actually state the Holy Name to Pharaoh? That they actually did utter the Holy Name can be seen in Pharaoh's response:

Exodus 5:2 - And Pharaoh said, Who is Jehovah that I should listen to His voice to send away Israel? I do not know Jehovah, and I also will not send Israel away.

Here it records a non-Hebrew as speaking the Holy Name.

Further, we read that David said to Goliath:

1 Samuel 17:45 - And David said to the Philistine, You are coming to me with sword, and with spear, and with javelin. But I am coming to you in the name of Jehovah of Hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, which you have reproached.

Did David simply pass over the Holy Name, so as to say, "I come to you in the name of of Hosts"? It should be obvious that David did indeed utter aloud the Holy Name to Goliath.

We also read:

1 Kings 10:1 - And the queen of Sheba heard of the fame of Solomon as to the name of Jehovah, and she came to test him with hard questions.

How did the queen of Sheba know of the name of Jehovah, if the Jews did not utter that name out loud?

Elijah stated to the Baal worshipers:

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.

Did Elijah not utter the name, in effect, actually saying: "I will call on the name of --"? That would make no sense. If he did not utter the name, that would mean that he did not actually identify whose name he would call upon.

When David spoke to the princes of Israel, did he not utter the Holy Name out loud?

1 Chronicles 22:18-19 - Is not Jehovah your God with you? Yea, He has given you rest all around, for He has given into my hand the inhabitants of the land, and has subdued the land before Jehovah and before His people. Now give your heart and your soul to seek to Jehovah your God, and rise up and build the sanctuary of Jehovah God, to bring in the ark of the covenant of Jehovah, and the holy vessels of God, to the house that is to be built in the name of Jehovah.

If David did not utter the Holy Name out loud, then he would have said:

1 Chronicles 22:18-19 - Is not your God with you? Yea, He has given you rest all around, for He has given into my hand the inhabitants of the land, and has subdued the land before and before His people. Now give your heart and your soul to seek to your God, and rise up and build the sanctuary of God, to bring in the ark of the covenant of, and the holy vessels of God, to the house that is to be built in the name of ---.

He would not have completed the sentence with any word to show in whose name the house was to be built.

We could go on with many more quotes similar to this, but this proves the point. Yes, the Tanakh does indeed give us every reason to believe that God's people of Old Testaments times did indeed utter God's Holy Name Aloud. The idea that God's Holy Name is not utterable comes from man, not from God. God never gave anyone any command to not utter his Holy Name or to change and thus pronounce his name with other words that do not even mean the same, such as ADONAY, ELOHIM, etc.