What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?

by Vanderhoven7 263 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • GodBeliever


    If all the Christians are the bride of Christ, who are going to be wedding guests?

  • JW GoneBad
    JW GoneBad
    Slimboyfat: "How come the people who insist the pronunciation of the divine name is a deal breaker don’t say the same about Jesus, whose pronunciation in the first century clearly does not match?"

    We've all heard this rebuttal before. Then don't say "Jesus"...that simple. You can use the terms Savior, Lord, Eternal Father, Great Teacher, Christ, Messiah, Anointed One or The Word. Everyone on earth will know you're talking about the Dude who layed down his life for mankind...not to mention all these expressions of endearment are acceptable to him & he welcomes them.

    It's waaay different when addressing the greatest personality in the Universe, Almighty God...and being on a 1st name basis with him. Firstly...you better damn well have it spelled correctly & pronounced properly. When the Jews were offering sacrifices to God back in the day...they had to be on their toes...their being imperfect was no excuse if they presented a defective animal...notice the stern wording of Malachi 1:6-8:

    "(6)A son honors his father, and a slave his master. If I am a father, where is the honor due me? If I am a master, where is the respect due me?” says the Lord Almighty.
    “It is you priests who show contempt for my name. “But you ask, ‘How have we shown contempt for your name?’ (7) “By offering defiled food on my altar. “But you ask, ‘How have we defiled you?’ “By saying that the Lord’s table is contemptible. (8) When you offer blind animals for sacrifice, is that not wrong? When you sacrifice lame or diseased animals, is that not wrong? Try offering them to your governor! Would he be pleased with you? Would he accept you?” says the Lord Almighty."

    It's no different today...God doesn't want to be called by some made-up, fictitious, diseased, lame name. WT's Geoffrey Jackson even hints/admits in the June 2015 JW Broadcast that they could of done better than 'Jehovah'! Listen to the first 10 minutes of that Broadcast and see for yourselves. Pay particular attention beginning @ 9:00 through 10:00. This clumsy Geoffrey Jackson says:

    "No one knows the exact pronunciation of the Divine Name. Scholars say a closer pronunciation is Yahweh rather than Jehovah...how important is the exact pronunciation of God’s name...not soo important..." (I'm paraphrasing)

    This quote coming from a guy who says he has a direct connection to the Almighty himself!

  • slimboyfat

    How do you know what God wants? “He would want it like this. He wouldn’t want that.” Where does that come from? Maybe he is happy with his name being used in somewhat different forms in hundreds of languages as JWs do. For all we know. Why not? Other than your say so.

    Another issue is the meaning of the name. JWs have leaned in pretty heavily on the meaning of the name coming from the root verb “to be”, and that it signifies that Jehovah becomes whatever he needs to become in order accomplish his purpose. That’s a pretty interesting and distinctive theological position, in my view, and presents a more compelling understanding of God’s interaction with humans than an austere Calvinist, predestinarian view.

    If JWs are 1) right that God still wants people to use him name 2) they’ve got the meaning of the name right, and 3) the implications it has for his character and interactions with humans in accomplishing his purpose: that’s a pretty interesting and distinctive set of things for a religious group to have correct. On top of that you can’t actually say for sure that Jehovah, or more likely the German Jehova, is not fortuitously close to ancient pronunciation, because even scholars who promote Yahweh will most often admit that it isn’t certain either. As I indicated earlier, the idea of a correct original pronunciation is problematic anyway, because it seems highly likely that it changed over time, and Isaiah, Nehemiah, Jesus and others would all have said it differently from each other anyway.

  • Vanderhoven7

    My take is that the Father did not want the Hebrew pronunciation his name to be known... because another person was to be more important for mankind to know and that's why we have only have a sequence of consonants roughly 7000 times in the OT and 3 Hallelujahs in the NT. Knowing and using God's name did nothing for the self-righteous Pharisees because they rejected that central person, His only begotten Son.

  • slimboyfat

    How do you explain verses such as Rev 3:12 on that view, Vanderhoven7?

    Plus how can Jesus’ name be “more important” Jehovah’s name, when Jesus’ name itself points to Jehovah as the source of salvation? Every bit of importance that is attached to the name Jesus is “to the glory of God the Father”. (Phil 2:11)

    It’s like you’ve got a king and the king’s ambassador. Then you look at a set of documents, count 40 occurrences of “king’s ambassador” and only 10 occurrences of “king” and therefore include that the “king’s ambassador” must be more important than the “king”. That’s a pretty odd conclusion come to.

  • Sea Breeze
    Sea Breeze
    If all the Christians are the bride of Christ, who are going to be wedding guests?

    @GB - Still trying to figure out a way to get in other than the front door ?

    First of all, the marriage supper takes place in heaven. So, right off the bat you got a problem if you think some secondary class of believers like the WT presents are there. According to them, this imaginary group never goes to heaven. So, right away your objection is shot down by WT's own theology.

    Like I mentioned on another thread, Jesus cleared this matter up on whether or not we need to be born-again with a new spirit or not. This way we don't get confused and misdirected by false brothers who try to teach "another way" in.

    But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. (Romans 8:9 KJV)

    Parables only teach a certain point to reveal a certain truth. You can take any illustration too far an make up just about anything. Romans 8: 9 is the point. You simply cannot get around that. If you are not spirit-begotten you are not friends with Jesus. You are rejected, period.

    In his vision in Revelation 19:7–10, John saw and heard the heavenly multitudes praising God because the wedding feast of the Lamb—literally, the “marriage supper”—was about to begin. The concept of the marriage supper is better understood in light of the wedding customs in the time of Christ.

    From GotQuestions.org :

    These wedding customs had three major parts. First, a marriage contract was signed by the parents of the bride and the bridegroom, and the parents of the bridegroom or the bridegroom himself would pay a dowry to the bride or her parents. This began what was called the betrothal period—what we would today call the engagement. This period was the one Joseph and Mary were in when she was found to be with child (Matthew 1:18; Luke 2:5).

    The second step in the process usually occurred a year later, when the bridegroom, accompanied by his male friends, went to the house of the bride at midnight, creating a torchlight parade through the streets. The bride would know in advance this was going to take place, and so she would be ready with her maidens, and they would all join the parade and end up at the bridegroom’s home. This custom is the basis of the parable of the ten virgins in Matthew 25:1–13. The third phase was the marriage supper itself, which might go on for days, as illustrated by the wedding at Cana in John 2:1–2.

    What John’s vision in Revelation pictures is the wedding feast of the Lamb (Jesus Christ) and His bride (the Church) in its third phase. The implication is that the first two phases have already taken place. The first phase was completed on earth when each individual believer placed his or her faith in Christ as Savior. The dowry paid to the bridegroom’s parent (God the Father) would be the blood of Christ shed on the Bride’s behalf. The Church on earth today, then, is “betrothed” to Christ, and, like the wise virgins in the parable, all believers should be watching and waiting for the appearance of the Bridegroom (the rapture). The second phase symbolizes the rapture of the Church, when Christ comes to claim His bride and take her to the Father’s house. The marriage supper then follows as the third and final step. It is our view that the marriage supper of the Lamb takes place in heaven between the rapture and the second coming (during the tribulation on earth).

    Attending the wedding feast will be not only the Church as the Bride of Christ, but others as well. The “others” include the Old Testament saints—they will not have been resurrected yet, but their souls/spirits will be in heaven with us. As the angel told John to write, “Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb” (Revelation 19:9). The marriage supper of the Lamb is a glorious celebration of all who are in Christ!

  • Vanderhoven7

    Hi Slim,

    Re: Revelation 3:12 Adam Clarke writes:

    A pillar in the temple - There is probably all allusion here to the two pillars in the temple of Jerusalem, called Jachin and Boaz, stability and strength. The Church is the temple; Christ is the foundation on which it is built; and his ministers are the Pillars by which, under him, it is adorned and supported. St. Paul has the same allusions, Gal_2:9.

    I will write upon him the name of my God - That is, I will make him a priest unto myself. The priest had written on his forehead קודש ליהוה kodesh laihovah, “Holiness to the Lord.”

    And the name of the city of my God - As the high priest had on his breastplate the names of the twelve tribes engraved, and these constituted the city or Church of God; Christ here promises that in place of them the twelve apostles, representing the Christian Church, shall be written, which is called the New Jerusalem, and which God has adopted in place of the twelve Jewish tribes.

    My new name - The Savior of All; the light that lightens the Gentiles; the Christ; the Anointed One; the only Governor of his Church; and the Redeemer of All mankind. There is here an intimation that the Christian Church is to endure for ever; and the Christian ministry to last as long as time endures: He shall go no more out for ever.

    - - - - -

    Not sure what your point is. I did not say the Tetragrammaton is not important. It's just that we don't know how to pronounce it in Hebrew. I believe there is a reason for that and that is now, in this life, it is not important that we know how to pronounce it. What is important is that we call on the name of His Son Jesus so that we can be forgiven, indwelt by the Spirit of God and become a new creation in Christ. Calling on the name or person of Jehovah alone will not save anyone unless He first comes to the Son and allows the Son to reveal and give him access to the Father.

    Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." John 14:6

    “All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” Luke 10:22

  • slimboyfat

    I don’t find anything in the NT that says Jesus and the early Christians didn’t use God’s name. The most popular OT quote in the NT is the Psalm that says: “Jehovah said to my Lord, sit at my right hand”. A pretty odd verse for early Christians to use if the text and recitation of it didn’t still preserve the distinction between “Jehovah” and the messianic “Lord” at that time.

    The early LXX used Yaho. Roman authors say first century Jews called their God Yaho. Early Christian dictionaries spelled God’s name Yaho. The gospels say Jesus made God’s name known. Jesus’ own name includes the divine name within it. What grounds are there for saying Jesus and the early Christians didn’t use God’s name?

  • Riley

    One of the old testament titles of god was "the hashem" which literally meant " the name ". Throughout the old testament you hear things like " we have established the name of god here " or " an angel with the name of god lead me ". It was a reference to the power or being of what god was or is. Not just uttering a magical word.

    When Jesus says things in the new testament to the reference making the name of god known, it is more making reference to the power or being of what God is, not just providing first century Christians with the missing letters of the tetragrammaton.


  • Vanderhoven7

    Hi Slim,

    No doubt the Pharisees treasured and proclaimed God's name relentlessly and yet the were children of the devil. It didn't do the a lick of good because they wouldn't kiss the Son who alone could set them free from the kingdom of darkness. Only those set free by the Son are free indeed.

    There must be a reason that we do not find the name of God on the lips of Jesus or His disciples in the New Testament. What do you think that is?

Share this