I have come across different individuals/websites recently who suggest that using "Lord" instead of Yahweh is wrong, even pagan. While I have no problem with the name Yahweh, I think such suggestions are far fetched.

Please note the following points:

(1) The word "Lord" substitutes the word "Yahweh" in the vast majority of manuscripts of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT which was used by the early Christians.

(2) The original Greek NT uses the word "Lord" (Kurios) in place of Yahweh. In fact, nowhere in the Greek NT does the name Yahweh appear.

(3) Even the Aramaic NT (some claim that the NT was written in Aramaic) also uses Lord (Mara) in place of Yahweh (see. e.g. Mt. 21:9).

When therefore English translations use Lord in place of Yahweh, they are not being cheeky or disrespectful to God's name, but are following in the footsteps of the translators of the LXX, and the apostles who wrote the NT.

Best regards,
Gary

quote:

---

When therefore English translations use Lord in place of Yahweh, they are not being cheeky or disrespectful to God's name, but are following in the footsteps of the translators of the LXX, and the apostles who wrote the NT.

---

The way I see it is that they are following in the footsteps of tradition and error. Since we don't have the original writings of the apostles, we cannot know for sure what name was in the text. Even if the NT was written in Greek, it was a practice in that day to write the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) in Hebrew within the Greek text.

The bottom line is this; Deut 4:2 says it is forbidden to add to or delete from the Word. To delete "YHWH" from the text and substitute (add) a man-made title (LORD, Kurios, Adonai, HaShem, Marya, etc.) which is not even a translation of "YHWH" transgresses this commandment. The existence of this commandment also proves that Yahshua spoke Yahweh's name when reading Scripture, otherwise he would have sinned.

The word Lord is both in the Greek and the Aramaic NT in reference both to Jesus and to God the Father. When you say that we don't have the original writings of the apostles what exactly do you mean? Are you saying the the Word of God is corrupted? This is a very serious accusation. If it is corrupted, then it is useless! Is that what you are saying?

quote:

---

Originally posted by GaryP:
Hello John,

The word Lord is both in the Greek and the Aramaic NT in reference both to Jesus and to God the Father. When you say that we don't have the original writings of the apostles what exactly do you mean? Are you saying the the Word of God is corrupted? This is a very serious accusation. If it is corrupted, then it is useless! Is that what you are saying?

Blessings,
Gary

---

Shalom GaryP,

The removal of the Sacred Name of the Almighty from His Word is a very serious crime indeed! -- and yes, the fact of this corruption of scripture is ENTIRELY true. No, it is not "conspiracy theory" or some kind of New Age mumbo jumbo. As shocking as it is to hear, it is a well established fact which any Bible scholar would confirm. The preface or introduction sections of many Bibles often give the historical background about how the Name was removed. I too once believed that none of scripture could possibly be corrupted-- it is what we are led to believe. However, if you do a little research, you will find it is rock solid fact that the Name YHWH-- the Almighty's personal name-- was given in the Bible 6823 times, and each one of these 6823 times it was removed and replaced with the words, "THE LORD" or "GOD." (Or, in Jewish Bibles, often replaced with "HASHEM" ("The Name") OR "ADONAI" (roughly equivalent to "Lord"). Even more shocking is that the terms "Lord" and "God" are false-god titles derived from pagan worship.

Welcome to reality. On this website you will learn about the true faith as the Apostles walked it, and you will be richly blessed!

The following is copied from the "tracts" section of this website which our dear Brother Eliyah wrote clarifying some of the many deceptions we've been scammed into. You might also want to view the recent discussion in the thread, "Who cares what His Name is?"

Keep asking, knocking, seeking. May you be richly blessed in the Sacred Names of Yahweh and Yahushua,

Torah Zealot

FALSE TRADITIONS OF MEN

One of the many false traditions of men is the complete removal of our Heavenly Father’s name from the English translations of scripture. Just as you and I have a name, so does our Heavenly Father: Yet, because of this, few people even know His name.

“I am Yahweh, that is My name; And My glory I will not give to another, nor My praise to carved images.” (Isaiah 42:8)

Yet, in most bibles, it will say “I am the LORD, that is my name”. But this is not true. Man chose to remove the Heavenly Father’s name and put “the LORD” in its place. This is simple historical fact:

“Yahweh, the God of the Israelites, his name being revealed to Moses as four Hebrew consonants (YHWH) …. the divine name was increasingly regarded as too sacred to be uttered; it was thus replaced vocally in the synagogue ritual by the Hebrew word Adonai ("My Lord)” Encyclopedia Britannica, under the heading “Yahweh”.

So this tradition continues to this day. But it isn’t very loving toward our Heavenly Father to take His name out of the bible, is it? Yet it is no secret. The translators of most bibles admit that they have done this if you just read the bible preface. His name is actually in scripture nearly 7,000 times, most often replaced with the title “LORD” or “GOD”. So keep this in mind: Our Heavenly Father really does have a name. His name is “Yahweh”, and He wants us to use it:

“Oh, give thanks to Yahweh! Call upon His name; Make known His deeds among the peoples!” (Psalm 105:1)

“And it shall come to pass that whoever calls on the name of Yahweh shall be saved.” (Joel 2:32a)

[Also see Acts 4:12, Psalm 68:4 and Isaiah 52:6|

We have also discovered that men have changed the name of the Messiah to “Jesus”. But His actual name is “Yahushua” (pronounced Yah-oo-SHU-a). The name Yahushua carries a very important meaning which is not found in the name “Jesus”.

Yahu = Yahueh/Yahweh (the Heavenly Father’s Name)

Shua = Saves

Therefore, “Yahushua” means “Yahweh saves” or “Yahweh (is) salvation”. Thus, scripture begins to make more sense when we read Yahweh’s words in the book of Matthew:

“And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Yahushua (Yahweh saves): for he shall save his people from their sins.” Matthew 1:21

So it was the Heavenly Father who named His Son and He had a really good reason for it. It isn’t very loving to change His Son’s name, is it? Would you want someone to change your son’s name? Yahweh wants us to walk in love, so why not do it? Why not leave His word alone and let it speak to us, just as He inspired it? Of course, many aren’t aware of these things. But once we learn about it, we should walk in love rather than false traditions.

quote:

---

When you say that we don't have the original writings of the apostles what exactly do you mean? Are you saying the the Word of God is corrupted? This is a very serious accusation. If it is corrupted, then it is useless! Is that what you are saying?

---

I am saying that the Greek manuscripts available to us today are all copies of copies of copies of the original writings. For example, Paul wrote a letter to the Ephesians. We don't have that original letter. All we have are copies of it that are hundreds of years removed from the date they were written. As any textual scholar will tell you, 95% of those manuscripts agree with each other, but 5% don't. If the Word was preserved infallible, even in the copies, we would have 100% of manuscripts in agreement. That 5% error includes the deletion of Yahweh's name from the text.

Keep in mind that the differences between existing manuscripts are, for the most part, minor and have no effect on the message of the NT. However, as far as the Name goes, it is a major problem, but not one that can't be corrected. All we need to do is restore the Name whenever we see an Old Testament verse containing "YHWH" in the New Testament. For example, when Yahshua read Isa.61:1 in Luke 4: 18, he had to say, "The Spirit of Adonai Yahweh is upon me . . ." or else he would have broken the command of Deut. 4:2. The Greek simply says, "The Spirit of "Kuriou" is upon me . . ." The Greek deletes "YHWH" from the text and adds "Kuriou". Not only that, but it deletes the word "Adonai" from the text. Why? Because it would not make sense in Greek to say, "The Spirit of Kuriou Kuriou is upon me" or "The Spirit of the Lord LORD is upon me."

The NT is certainly not useless because it has some corruption in it. Keep in mind, the original writings are not corrupted. We need to make ourselves aware of where errors may have crept in and correct them. Another notable error is 1 John 5:7 which was added to the Greek text hundreds of years after John wrote that letter.

http://www.hopefortoday.org/index.cfm?event=video

Here are a few more thoughts.

(1) The word Lord comes from Adonai which is one of the titles of God in the OT, NOT from the word Baal as so often claimed. Just check a Bible and whenever "Lord" is used of God it renders either YHWH or Adonai, never Baal.

(2) Did Jesus refer to the Father as YHWH or Lord? To answer this, we have to go by the Bible, not human opinions. Remember that Jesus told the Pharisees that they make null the word of God by their opinions. When you ask me whether Jesus referred to God as Yahweh or Lord, friends, you got to go by the books of the Bible where the words of Jesus are recorded. I am not saying He didn't use Yahweh because the Bible does not say He didn't; but He sure did use "Lord"; and He used the word "Father". And so did the apostles. Just read your NT.

(3) The suggestion that what manuscripts (mss) we have of the NT are copies of copies of copies simply misses the point. The mss we have are very ancient. The Chester Beatty papyri have been dated to very early 2nd century or even end of first, i.e. within 1 to 20 years from when John wrote. The P65 portion of Matthew has been dated to as early as AD65 ie just as Matthew was writings his gospel or very soon after. Furthermore, we have 5,000 Greek mss and another 10,000 Latin translations all of which have the word "Lord". They come from different areas, were preserved by different groups and have enough variant readings to exclude any notion of a conspiracy theory to "doctor" the text; yet the variant readings are so minute that they do not affect the theology of the NT in the slightest... wow!!! This is why even the most liberal theologians dare not doubt the text of the NT.

(4) The earliest mss of the OT, on the contrary, date from the turn of the era. Given that Moses wrote around 1400 BC and Malachi around 400 BC it means that we have anything between 1400 and 400 years from the time of composition of the different books of the OT and the earliest mss available. Talk about copies of copies of copies... (not to mention that there are many subtstantially variant readings in the different OT mss). Not of course that I doubt the text of the OT (I accept it's reliability by faith), but if we were to compare the reliability of the NT text with that of the OT purely on historical and scientific grounds, the NT is at least 100 times more reliable, if not more.

(5) Preserving the word of God intact is God's responsibility. "Your word is very pure; Therefore Your servant loves it" (Psalm 119:140) Our responsibility is to study it and gain understanding. When we declare that God's word is not reliable, we are saying that He was not able to preserve His word.

(6) Given that the word "Lord" appears 720 times in the NT and God 1317 times, if we accept that these words have been "added" by later, sinful hands, then we are saying that the word of God has been corrupted in over 2000 places. Friends, if the NT, a document which in my Bible takes up no more than 200 pages, has been corrupted in over 2000 places, then it is corrupt and not reliable. You should throw it away because if it is corrupt in 2000 places there is absolutely no reason why it shouldn't be corrupt in 10,000 places. So, if you make such claims about its reliability, you should have the honesty to throw it in the bin. You can't pick and chose and say this bit is reliable and this isn't.

(7) Actually, no self respecting theologian would ever say that the NT has been corrupted in 2,000 places. The vast majority of theologians, even of non-believing ones (and there are many) accept the reliability of the text purely on the grounds of the overwhelming evidence for it.

I would reccomend that as a principle, rather than try to adjust the word of God to suit our ideas, we should adjust our ideas to be in line with the word of God. To do anything less is spiritually dangerous.

Indeed we should not add or delete from the word of God. This is why I accept Yahweh as the name of God.

And since Kurios (Lord) appears 720 times in the NT and many more in the OT as Adonai, I accept Adonai/Kurios/Lord as a legitimate title for God.

Both are in the Bible so both are acceptable.

This is a subject that has been near and dear to my heart for sometime now. Below I am going to past an article I've written explaining in some detail as to why I use the name Yahweh in the NT when it is a quotation directly from the Old Testament, and also why I believe the name Yahweh is a vital part of the New Testament assembly today.

I do agree with you that the word Lord is a legitimate title for Yahweh or Yeshua. However, I disagree that the word God is, and I believe we dishonor Yahweh by referring to him as "our God". Seeing that is not the explicit subject at hand, I will simply address the issue of the tetragram in the Greek NT.

Best Regards,
Matthew Janzen

The Tetragramaton in the Greek New Testament
By Matthew Janzen

I was once shown a booklet at a debate I attended entitled The Tetragrammaton in the Christian Greek Scriptures. As I was shown the book the gentlemen stated something to the effect of, “This author has done extensive research in disproving the tetragrammaton in the Christian Scriptures.” I jotted down the title of the book, and the publisher, and told the man that I appreciated his efforts to point me to this book for further research. I was then forced to go into this particular authors studies and make completely certain that I was not misrepresenting Scripture, and not fully studying a matter out, before hearing it. Upon reading the book, very early on, I noticed the true intent of the author. His intent was not one that desired to disregard the name Yahweh or degrade it in the least manner. Please observe what this author, at one point, wrote.

]The perspective of this book is a current historical and textual understanding for the use of the Tetragrammaton in the Christian Greek Scriptures. As such, we are not emphasizing the place of the Tetragrammaton in the Hebrew Scriptures. However, the reader must remember throughout this book that God’s name is used extensively in the Hebrew Scriptures, and that the textual evidence supporting its presence is beyond any doubt. The New World Translation is to be commended for its use of the divine name in the Hebrew Scriptures.

The author of this book therefore does believe that the name Yahweh is used thousands of times in the section of the Bible known as the Old Testament. Not only does he recognize its usage here, he also believes the name Yahweh should be used by Christians or Messianic individuals in worship.

The name of God should be frequently and respectfully used in both corporate and private worship.

The author of this book rather aims at showing the Sacred Name’s absence in the Greek New Testament, as even the title of his book proclaims. For someone to make the claim that this author has disproved the authenticity of the sacred name Yahweh is nothing short of misrepresentation, something Christians should not be engaged in. So often I find those who, for the sake of saving face and not losing their pride, seek to involve themselves in misquotation and misrepresentation, and sheer prejudice for what they personally want the Bible to say. We should instead, always seek to have Yahweh’s Word prevail when we come to a place in our relationship with him that we have been incorrect on in the past. It is at this time when we should submit to His authority and overcome our problem of seeking to make our pet doctrine fit.
One point that does need to be addressed, is the absence of the name Yahweh from any Greek New Testament manuscript that is in known existence today. This fact is often unknown to people who believe in the exclusive use of the name Yahweh. However, no matter how unknown this fact may be to these people, it still remains as a fact, and a fact to be recognized, reckoned with, and examined with an open heart. In this section, we will deal with this objection in dialogue fashion, and given a mock discussion between proponents of both sides. In the end, you will have the option of which side you feel has presented the better argumentation. We pick up our conversation with two fictitious characters, Robert and Benjamin.

BENJAMIN: So you see, Robert, the Creator really does have a proper name, and name He gave himself, in part to distinguish him from all of the other false mighty ones of the Bible.

ROBERT: I’ve got no problem with that. My issue is that this name, Yahweh, is not found in any known Greek New Testament manuscript available today. Do you not think that the Lord would have preserved His name in the New Testament if it is of so much importance?

BENJAMIN: Robert, I understand your concern, but I really do not think you’re looking at all aspects of this objection. For instance, people of your belief often miss the fact that the short form of the sacred name, Yah, like in Psalms 68:4 is found in the Greek New Testament manuscripts we have. In Revelation 19:1-6 we find four times where the Greek word Alleluia is spoken and Greek lexicons like SEC let us know that this word of praise has the meaning of “Praise ye Yah!” If those in Revelation could praise the heavenly Father by His name Yah (Psalms 68:4) why can’t we today? Furthermore, this same short, poetic form is also seen to be in the names of other individuals in the New Testament. Such as, Uriah, Abijah, Uzziah, Hezekiah, Josiah, Jechoniah, all of which names are found in Matthew 1:6-11, and there are many more throughout the rest of the New Testament portion of Scripture.

ROBERT: Good point, Benjamin, but my concern is with the full form of the name. While the prophet Joel said that whoever calls on the name Yahweh will be delivered (Joel 2:32), the New Testament, if you believe it Benjamin, has Peter stating that whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be delivered. The Greek text uses the term Kurios, a word that means Lord, not Yahweh.

BENJAMIN: Yes, I do believe what Peter said, the question is though, who was the first one to speak the prophetic utterance? Joel or Peter? Obviously Joel was the first one to utter the prophecy by direct inspiration of the heavenly Father, and the Father said through Joel that whoever calls on the name Yahweh shall be delivered. At the time Peter wrote that, he obviously knew of Joel’s prophecy. After all, Peter did not have a written New Testament, but only an Old Testament. Peter mentioned the prophet Joel in Acts 2:16, therefore he certainly knew that Joel stated Yahweh in his prophecy. Peter understood that holy men of old spoke as they were moved upon by the Holy Spirit (1 Peter 1:18-21), thus he viewed Joel’s utterance of the name Yahweh as inspired and authentic.

ROBERT: But Peter said Kurios… Kurios Benjamin… you cannot get around that.

BENJAMIN: I’m not attempting to get around it, are you attempting to say that Peter actually told those in Jerusalem in Acts 2 to call on the title / name Kurios? A name which could refer to any one of the false mighty ones of the Bible like Dagon or Baal?

ROBERT: Well, I’m just saying I believe the New Testament Scriptures, that is, that they are just as inspired as the Old.

BENJAMIN: Robert… you think I don’t? Of course I believe they are inspired, breathed out of the very mouth of the Almighty, but that doesn’t do away with what was written at the time Peter and others made their statements in the New Covenant era.

ROBERT: From what I’m hearing you just cannot believe them, because you deny that Kurios is what came out of Peter’s mouth.

BENJAMIN: Please try to understand what I’m saying. Peter only had the Old Testament, the Old Testament said Yahweh, Peter knew that was inspired, why would he declare a title in place of the name that Joel was inspired to write? Especially when that title can be and is applied to a host of gods throughout the Bible. There are many kurios’ Robert, as 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Deuteronomy 10:17 state, but there is only one who is named Yahweh. This, coupled with the facts of internal evidence presents a weighty case for retaining the Tetragrammaton in the New Testament.

ROBERT: Internal evidence?

BENJAMIN: Yes, internal evidence. We must remember that Yeshua said in John 17:26 that he declared His Father’s name, the name that was written almost 7,000 times in the Old Testament Scriptures. Do you think the Messiah lied?

ROBERT: Of course I do not believe that Christ lied…

BENJAMIN: Then you believe he did declare His Father’s name?

ROBERT: Well, the Greek New Testament does not have Christ using the name Yahweh, so therefore he declared his name as Kurios or Theos according to the Greek text.

BENJAMIN: You do not give any possibility for the terms Kurios and Theos being metonymies or circumlocutions for the sacred name at any point in the New Testament?

ROBERT: I’m not sure I understand you Benjamin, but I do know that Christ did use Kurios and Theos.

BENJAMIN: Once again, let’s remember the life setting of John 17 and the Messiah’s high priestly prayer. The Messiah was from the tribe of Judah, a Hebrew man, one which read from the Hebrew Scriptures termed the Tanak by the Jewish people of that time and this time. Yeshua did not carry around a New Testament, His Bible was the Tanak. In the Tanak, Yeshua’s Father proclaimed His name as Yahweh approximately 7,000 times. Do you actually think that the Messiah would have substituted this name Yahweh for something entirely different that could be shared by any other false, heathen mighty one? Just around 400 years before Christ’s first advent, Yahweh himself rebuked the priests through the prophet Malachi that despised His name. Is he now okaying those that choose to substitute His name?

ROBERT: I still rest my case on the Greek New Testament.

BENJAMIN: C’mon Robert, you need to take an honest look at the points I’m showing you. All you can do is go back and say, “Well the New Testament says Kurios” and totally ignore at least the possibility that the name Yahweh originally belonged in certain places which have Kurios in the New Testament, especially when the New Testament author quoted an inspired passage from the Old Testament that used the name Yahweh.

ROBERT: Haven’t you studied out the issue of the Masoretic text verses the Septuagint? Most quotations by New Testament authors quoting the Old Testament are taken from the Septuagint text which does not contain the name Yahweh, but instead has Kurios or Theos. I might add that the Septuagint text predates the Masoretic text by 1,000 plus years, and therefore should be considered the superior text.

BENJAMIN: The fact is, first of all, that the Septuagint is a translation of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. Furthermore, you are incorrect on the absence of the tetragrammaton in the Septuagint. The oldest copies of the Septuagint contain the name Yahweh written in the Hebrew characters, right in the midst of the otherwise Greek text. This was confirmed by professor George Howard of the University of Georgia in his article entitled “The Name of God in the New Testament”. I’m pretty sure I brought a copy of this article, as I knew we would get into this discussion today. Notice here on page 2 of the article what Mr. Howard writes:

In 1944, W.G. Waddell discovered the remains of an Egyptian papyrus scroll (Papyrus Fuad 266) dating to the first or second century B.C. which included part of the Septuagint. In no instance, however, was YHWH translated kyrios. Instead the Tetragrammaton itself - in square Aramaic letters - was written into the Greek text.

ROBERT: But, Benjamin…

BENJAMIN: Wait a second Robert, look at what else he writes on page 2 concerning his conclusions on the earliest copies of the Septuagint:

Thus we have three separate pre-Christian copies of the Greek Septuagint Bible and in not a single instance is the Tetragrammaton translated kyrios or for that matter translated at all… This presents a striking comparison with the Christian copies of the Septuagint and the quotations of it in the New Testament which translate the Tetragrammaton as kyrios or theos.

ROBERT: See, Benjamin, the Christian copies of the Septuagint translate YHWH as Kurios. I told you that from the beginning.

BENJAMIN: I think you’re missing Mr. Howard’s point, Robert. The oldest copies of the Septuagint we have contain the sacred name, while later copies of the Septuagint do not. Therefore, back 2,000 years ago when Yeshua walked the earth, He would have had access to these older Septuagint copies, and if he quoted from them he would have retained the sacred name in His quotation. Furthermore, there are times when the Messiah’s statements in the gospels align more with the reading of the Masoretic text and then other times where there is not identical alignment, but the meaning is still in tact. Surely you are not trying to convince me that the Messiah transgressed the third commandment by not using the name Yahweh and saying something other than what the text of the Old Testament he was carrying said are you?

ROBERT: Well, I guess I am seeing your point a little more clearly, but I still say the Greek New Testament doesn’t contain the name Yahweh.

BENJAMIN: Robert, please understand me. Technically, I agree with you, but when you place together all evidence we have on the issue, especially the weighty evidence we find in the pages of Old Testament Scriptures emphasis on the name of the Father, there is no way to shun the possibility, and I would even say the probability, that this name was really declared by the Son, just as the Son said in John 17. He manifested his name, not a title or generic name, if you will.

ROBERT: I just do not want to cast any doubt upon my faith in the Bible, Benjamin. It seems that your belief causes me to deny the pages of New Testament Scripture.

BENJAMIN: Hold on a second Robert, I still do not think you are fully comprehending my position. I am not denying the New Testament documents. My point is that when a place in the Greek New Testament uses Kurios, like in Acts 2:21, and the Old Testament Scripture from which it is quoted uses Yahweh, either Yahweh originally belonged in that place because of the certain factors I’ve mentioned in this discussion of ours, or the word is used as a metonymy for the name Yahweh, with the understanding that Yahweh is the name of the Lord, the name of Kurios. Maybe a good example would be the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16. Here the rich man said to tell his brothers not to come to the place he been taken. Abraham responded to this man that his brothers had Moses and the prophets to hear. Now, do you believe Moses and the prophets of the Old Testament were still alive speaking for the rich man’s brothers to hear?

ROBERT: Don’t be silly Benjamin, of course I know that Moses and the prophets had died before this time. What’s your point?

BENJAMIN: My point is that even though the rich man’s brothers could not literally hear Moses or the prophets speaking, the text said that is what the brothers had. In reality all they had was their writings. Thus the literal text said they could hear Moses and the prophets, but in reality they could only read or listen to someone else read Moses’ writings. This is what is called metonymy Robert. When Peter said to call on the name of Kurios, if he actually said that, which is what you’re contending for, it is to be understood that the name of Kurios is Yahweh as proclaimed quite undeniably throughout the Old Testament.

ROBERT: I’ve never looked at it that way.

BENJAMIN: All I’m asking is that you consider the possibility as of now. Also consider that if the prophecies of Joel and others would not have come to pass, they would be false prophets. Remember what Yahweh said in Deuteronomy 18:21-22... I’ve got my New Living Translation with me:

You may wonder, ‘How will we know whether the prophecy is from the Yahweh or not?’ If the prophet predicts something in Yahweh’s name and it does not happen, Yahweh did not give the message. That prophet has spoken on his own and need not be feared.

See, Robert, Joel predicted that those who call on the name of Yahweh would be delivered, if that prophecy was “fulfilled” with people calling on a title, a title that you could apply to Baal or Dagon, the prophecy didn’t come to pass and Joel is a false prophet.

ROBERT: Well, was Peter a false prophet?

BENJAMIN: No, Robert, Peter was inspired, but Joel came first. Please do not forget the understanding and harmonization I’ve shown you up till now in regards to this. Also note that there are several other prophecies in the Old Testament that have had their fulfillment already under the New Covenant or are yet to be fulfilled at a later date, that are prophetic references involving the name Yahweh strongly in their prophecies.

ROBERT: Oh yeah, could you point me to some.

BENJAMIN: Yes, I’ve got them written down. There’s Jeremiah 16:19-21 that talks about the Gentiles knowing Yahweh’s name in the future, then you’ve got Jeremiah 23:5-6 as well as Jeremiah 31:31-34 referring to the New Covenant. References in Ezekiel can be found in 36:23-27; 39:7, and 43:7, and then there’s Micah 4:1-5 and 5:1-4. Zephaniah 3:9-13 speaks of Yahweh restoring a pure language to His people so all may call upon His name and trust in His name Yahweh. You also have Zechariah 13:7-9 and then 14:9 where it speaks of His name being Yahweh at a future time. I’m not willing to ignore all the explicit references to the name Yahweh that is involved in prophecies dealing with the times in which we live. These prophecies make it plain that Yahweh did not decide His name was not to be used by His New Covenant Assembly. Yahweh wants us to still proclaim His name as the name above every name even under the New Covenant in which we live.

ROBERT: Well, Benjamin, you’ve given me something to look at. I would like to leave you a book I’ve got by the author Lynn Lundquist dealing with this subject though. Please keep an open mind and read it to see what you think.

BENJAMIN: Oh, I’m familiar with the book, but I’ve only read about half of it off of the internet publication. I’d be more than glad to take the book. From what I’ve read so far, Mr. Lundquist upholds the name Yahweh, but just doesn’t like the Jehovah’s Witnesses reasons for placing it in the New Testament. Have you read Mr. Gregg Stafford’s responses to Mr. Lundquist on the internet?

ROBERT: No, who is Gregg Stafford?

BENJAMIN: He is a Jehovah’s Witness apologist. While I do not agree with him on a few certain things, he presents good arguments for the use of the tetragrammaton in the New Testament. Mr. Lundquist’s rebuttals are also available for anyone wanting to read both sides of argumentation, such as yourself. My point is that there are other people out there, more scholarly than myself, who argue for the use of the Tetragrammaton in the New Testament Scriptures.

ROBERT: At least I now understand why you feel the way you do.

BENJAMIN: And believe me, I understand your position too. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this with me.

Conclusion

It cannot be denied that the name Yahweh, in its full form, does not appear in any of the Greek New Testament manuscripts we have in existence; I’m not arguing that point. My reason for using the name Yahweh in the New Testament is because of the internal evidence found time and time again throughout the pages of Scripture. If the Messiah did not declare His Father’s name as Yahweh, what did He declare it as… the LORD? Why declare such when every other false mighty one in Scripture can be referred to by the same appellation? Did the Messiah declare His Father’s name as being GOD? A name which sounds identical to the name of a false mighty one worshipped by those who forsake Yahweh (Isaiah 65:11)?

If the name Yahweh was simply removed from the scene, so to speak, then the third commandment likewise must be abolished; seeing that it is intrinsically involved with the name Yahweh. According to this commandment we are not to bring Yahweh’s name to naught (vain); which in one case means we should not cause it to be forgotten. Realizing that the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John took place (at least for the majority) under the Old Covenant, and that the third commandment would be applicable at this time, are we willing to conclude that no one at this time proclaimed the name Yahweh? Are we willing to say that the very Son of the Almighty did not use the name Yahweh, and in His ministry transgressed the third commandment? These things should be considered by those not willing to accept the internal evidence found within the pages of Scripture.

Matthew Janzen

First, let me commend you on a very well written article as well as on the gentleness with which you express yourself. When all has been said and done, whether Jesus used or not the tetragrammaton is not of major consequence for me because I do not believe salvation is to be found in correct pronounciation of a name, but in a person. YHWH is so well established in the OT that it needn't any further confirmation from the NT to be legitimate. So, YHWH is a legitimate disegnation of God irrespective of whether Jesus used it or not.

However, I do need to sound a note of caution on a few issues.

(1) The LXX manuscripts (mss) that contain YHWH are very few in comparison to those that contain Kurios. Sure, they are very old. But the very fact that they are so few in number cannot prove that using YHWH was an extensive practise, or the only one considered appropriate initially. The fact that NT writers quote from LXX mss that use Kurios indicates that for the apostles those mss were at least as legitimate if not more. In fact, they probably chose those over the ones with the tetragramaton in them.

(2) You correctly note that Yah appears appended on words like alleluyah etc. This in itself shows that there has been no "conspiracy" to remove the name. It seems that the apostles simply felt that using Kurios was more appropriate for whatever reason (maybe respect for Jewish sensitivities who felt that pronouncing it was a sin???).

(3) As much as you and others would like to believe YHWH was in the original NT in places where today we see Kurios you have to admit that all arguments to that effect are speculative without manuscript evidence in support. Until (or rather if ever) such evidence becomes available, we have not only to put up with the Kurios mss, but to actually appreciate them as reflecting God's intend. After all, it is His responsibility to preserve the purity of His word; ours to study it.

(4) Finally, there is some evidence that Kurios was used in pagan contexts; but so was YHWH. True, YHWH seems to have been a name unique to the Hebrew God but in the many times that Israel went into apostasy they used YHWH in their worship of idols.

Thanks again for a good post and blessings,
Gary

I hope you are still out there to read this post in response to your last one. After you recommended your 4 points to me I had to leave town for an appointment out of state, up north. I wanted to have the chance to not just glance at your points, but take them into serious consideration. You appear to be a knowledgable person who can carry an intelligent and worthwhile conversation. I most assuredly respect that.

You wrote:

quote:

---

When all has been said and done, whether Jesus used or not the tetragrammaton is not of major consequence for me because I do not believe salvation is to be found in correct pronounciation of a name, but in a person.

---

I agree that salvation is found in a person or being, but who is that person or being? No doubt, the tetragrammaton is more than just four letters and the sound they convey, but nevertheless they identify our Creator, much like the name Dagon identifies the mighty one of the Philistines in Scripture. The name of Yahweh is tied to salvation in many of the OT Scriptures in which it is used. Some of which are:

I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of Yahweh. {Psalms 116:13}

And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of Yahweh shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as Yahweh hath said, and in the remnant whom Yahweh shall call. {Yoel 2:32}

In studying the Scriptures we see that salvation comes from the Creator or Mighty One talked about on just about every page, but it is futile for us to try and disassociate that one true Mighty One from the name He gave to himself, and desired for us to address Him by.

You continued:

quote:

---

(1) The LXX manuscripts (mss) that contain YHWH are very few in comparison to those that contain Kurios. Sure, they are very old. But the very fact that they are so few in number cannot prove that using YHWH was an extensive practise, or the only one considered appropriate initially. The fact that NT writers quote from LXX mss that use Kurios indicates that for the apostles those mss were at least as legitimate if not more. In fact, they probably chose those over the ones with the tetragramaton in them.

---

Any scholar of the NT looks heavily towards the most ancient readings of the NT manuscripts, even if they are few in number. For instance, the majority text of the NT reads at Yohanan 1:18, "only begotten Son", while Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, along with P66 and P75 (two of the oldest papyri of the NT)read "only begotten Theos (G-d)". This is why translations of the Bible such as the NASB, NRSV, or NIV use G-d as a translation, basing the reading on the ancient manuscripts, even though the majority text states otherwise.

The tetragrammaton is so solid in the OT, right up to the time of Malachi, that there is no reason to assume that its usage just fell off the face of the map at large. Yahweh rebukes the priests who despise his name in this prophetic book (Malachi 1:6-11), does he not rebuke those that don't even use His name just 400 years later in the book of Mattithyahu (Matthew)?

The way to harmonize this is to realize that the use of Kurios and Theos in the NT were used a metonymies for the tetragrammaton in the NT. The use of metonymy is when one name or noun is used instead of another, to which it stands in a certain relation. Numerous examples of metonymy can be found in the Bible. Some are "he" for "Yoseph" in Genesis 41:13; "basket and store" for the "fruits and crops they hold" in Deuteronomy 28:5; "days" and "years" for "elderly men" in Job 32:7; the list could go on and on.

When a person reads the OT, and they read things like "Trust in the name of Yahweh" or "Call upon the name of Yahweh" so many times, they can understand that when Kepha (Peter) says to call upon the name of "Kurios" (Acts 2:21) especially seeing that he's quoting the prophet Yoel, he is saying to call upon the name of Yahweh.

You continued by saying:

quote:

---

(2) You correctly note that Yah appears appended on words like alleluyah etc. This in itself shows that there has been no "conspiracy" to remove the name. It seems that the apostles simply felt that using Kurios was more appropriate for whatever reason (maybe respect for Jewish sensitivities who felt that pronouncing it was a sin???).

---

Yes, the short form of the name (Yah) appears four times in the book of Revelation 19, where the word "Alleluia" (meaning 'Praise ye Yah') was used in praise to the one which sat upon the throne. This short form was also used numerous other times in the names of men who lived during NT times. Men such as Abiyah (Mattithyahu 1:7). If a person wanted to know what the name Abiyah meant at that time (1st century A.D.) they could look at the construction of the name and easily conclude that it meant "My Father (Abi) is Yah (Yahweh)", much like those living in OT times could conclude that Eliyah's name meant "My Mighty One (Eli) is Yah (Yahweh)" Neither name had anything to do with the Hebrew word adonai or the Greek term kurios, much less the English term lord.

You state that it is possible that those writers of the NT where sensitive for Jewish feelings that pronouncing the tetragram was a sin. The question then needs to be asked, why do you think certain Jewish people of that time considered it a sin? When did this "doctrine" come about? Evidently, not a single patriarch or prophet ever looked upon pronouncing the tetragram as a sin, for they used in extensively in there OT writings. So why did some Jewish people consider it to be a sin if pronounced? Could it be because they did not look to sacred scripture in order to form their belief system, and instead opted for personal choice and decision? Please ponder on this.

You then wrote:

quote:

---

(3) As much as you and others would like to believe YHWH was in the original NT in places where today we see Kurios you have to admit that all arguments to that effect are speculative without manuscript evidence in support. Until (or rather if ever) such evidence becomes available, we have not only to put up with the Kurios mss, but to actually appreciate them as reflecting God's intend. After all, it is His responsibility to preserve the purity of His word; ours to study it.

---

I do believe that the name Yahweh is to be understood in many places that use the Greek term kurios in the NT. There are other places which use kurios apart from quoting OT Scripture or in usage towards reference to Yeshua or other commen men at that time in which a translation of "lord", "master", "ruler" etc. will suffice.

We are to base our beliefs on what the original NT said in this case, not only on manuscript evidence, but also upon internal evidence. Any textual criticism takes both into account. The internal evidence on the Scriptures weighs heavily in favor of the tetragram's usage in the original manuscripts of the NT, whereas the actual manuscript evidence is lacking in the manuscripts we have of the Greek NT. I've explained this in my post with the fictitious dialogue.

You then stated:

quote:

---

(4) Finally, there is some evidence that Kurios was used in pagan contexts; but so was YHWH. True, YHWH seems to have been a name unique to the Hebrew God but in the many times that Israel went into apostasy they used YHWH in their worship of idols.

---

Yahweh was the name that was unique to the Hebrews "Mighty One" in Scripture. There was no other mighty one called by that name anywhere in the pages of holy writ. This is in stark contrast to the way in which the Hebrew term adonai is used in the Masoretic text, or in which the term kurios is used in the Septuagint. Both terms are used as generic titles/names of other mighty ones. They were not unique terms that could only be applied to Yahweh. This proves that kurios could not be the name of the Mighty One of Israel, seeing it can be applied to all the other false mighty ones, as well as applied to any man that had the position of a king or ruler.

The fact that heathens of later times, outside of Scripture, chose to refer to their mighty one(s) by the name Yah or Yahweh, does not negate this names unique usage in Scripture. The name of Yahweh is originally pure and devoted to the one, true Mighty One of the Bible (Genesis 2:4), what men do with it outside of Scripture does not negate its uniqueness inside of Scripture.

Keep up the good work. I can tell you are a student of the Bible.

Your friend,
Matthew Janzen