What if the argument is correct that the inspired writers of the CGS did in fact use the Divine Name, Jehovah, in either its Greek or Hebrew letters, in their writings? For that is the argument that the WT and its defenders have offered us as the reason for the addition/restoration of the Name in the NWTCGS, that the Inspired Authors would of faithfully translated what was in the LXX or the Hebrew Text when they quoted from it.
Even if we are to take this argument to be true, all that would do is show all the more that in fact the authors of the GSC did in fact not hesitate to identify Jesus as Jehovah, and even directly quoted OT passages that identify Jehovah and apply that to the Lord Jesus.
For example, take the reading of Paul?s words in 2 Thessalonians 1:9, which reads?
*** Rbi8 2 Thessalonians 1:9 ***
9 These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction from before the Lord and from the glory of his strength
This is a direct quotation from the LXX, a passage that translated the Hebrew that we know contained the Divine Name, Jehovah, as seen in the NWT?s reading of Isaiah 2:21?
*** Rbi8 Isaiah ***
21 in order to enter into the holes in the rocks and into the clefts of the crags, because of the dreadfulness of Jehovah and from his splendid superiority, when he rises up for the earth to suffer shocks.
Thus, the LXX translators, when they came to the personal name of God, Jehovah, would have either written the Hebrew or Greek name for God, (YHWH, or Iao) or they would have written ?kurios.? Either way, the referent was in fact to God Almighty, the LORD, Jehovah Himself as written about by Isaiah in the OT. If the NWT was consistent and honest in its conversion of the substantive ?kurios? to the Divine Name in CGS passages that either quoted from the OT, or shows that in context or action that Jehovah was implied by the inspired authors, then why, in 2 Thess 1:9, do we not find the personal name for God, Jehovah, restored faithfully to the NT text by the NWT? Is it not also a direct quote from the OT, a passage that did in fact use the Divine Name? In fact, why do we not even see a footnote in the NWT here listing a reason why it was not restored, or the many ?J? documents that did in fact, use a form of the Divine Name here? When the Thessalonian congregation heard the reading of what we call 1:9, they would have immediately recalled the LXX from Isaiah 2:21, and understood that Jesus was the One that would bring ?judicial punishment of everlasting destruction? in line with what was spoken of Him in the preceding verse talking about the Lord Jesus coming ?from heaven with his powerful angels in a flaming fire.? Check and compare the NT to the LXX, and you will see that Paul was quoting word for word from the LXX.
If the NWT was faithful and consistent in its insertion of the Name, the Text at 2 Thess 1:9 should have read..
9 ?These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction from before Jehovah and from the glory of his strength.?
It is of interest that the Name was not used here with an OT quote, when it was used in other places in the NWT where the NT author does not quote from the LXX or OT text that uses the Name.
Indeed, if the autographs did have the Name in there before it was removed by ?apostate Christians,? as the WT maintains, then why did the NWT copy the ?apostate Christians? by not restoring the name to the text at 2 Thess 1:9, where you have a direct quote that must of included the Name?
The WT argument actually backfires on them, for if in fact the autographs of the NT had the Divine Name, then we have positive identification that Jesus was identified as Jehovah not just in OT quotes and applications, but in the authors also using the Name for Jesus. Thus, the NWT has actually outdone Trinitarians and other translations in adding the Divine Name of God to the GSC where the referent is the Lord Jesus Christ, such as Romans 10:13, Colossians 3:23,24, 1 Thess 5:2, 1 Peter 3:10, 12, and other verses that are speaking about the lordship of Christ. Thus, it is the NWT that allows for the understanding that the NT authors not only applied OT passages that spoke of Jehovah God and His actions to Christ, but the NWT also applied the name Jehovah to the Lord Jesus, going far beyond what others have done, yet all the while asserting that the NT nowhere identifies Jesus as Jehovah.
Thus, according to my research, the NWT at 1 Peter 3:15, 1 Peter 2:3, 2 Thess 1:9, 1 Thess 4:16, all should of read ?Jehovah,? not ?Lord,? since the evidence that the NWT appeals to in other places was also available in these verses. However, as I wrote about earlier, not even the NWT could mask the glory of Christ being identified as Jehovah in the NT, for Paul tells us, as read in the NWTGSC at Romans 10:9, 13..
9 ?For if you publicly declare that ?word in your own mouth,? that Jesus is Lord, and exercise faith in your heart that God raised him up from the dead, you will be saved?.
13 For ?everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.?
Thus I conclude by showing that if the NWT and the many persons that say that the NT should have the name ?Jehovah? restored to the NT, then this, if done faithfully, only works to show all the more overpoweringly that Jesus not only is the one whom the NT authors identified the actions of the OT Jehovah with, but that in fact they also knew that the Lord Christ Jesus was also given the name ?Jehovah,? the ?name that is above every name,? and used it with application to Him.
Indeed, the Witnesses own translation is bearing witness against them, when they deny this marvelous truth, so clearly presented in the NWT, that Jesus is called Jehovah. I have no problem with using the name ?Jehovah,? in fact, I encourage it. Neither would I have any issue with the NWT using the Name had they only been honest and faithfully rendered ?kurios? as ?Jehovah? in all the texts where the ?J? documents had inserted it, and not covered this up by keeping it as 'Lord' when the context was about Christ. However, there bias is clearly seen, and needs to be exposed by Christians who love truth more than all else. The position that the Witnesses take in this matter is therefore found to be contradictory, and is not based upon a solid and honest approach to Bible translation and exegesis. The fact of the matter is that there is clear evidence in the NT that the inspired authors did often identify Jesus with Jehovah, both in action and OT quotations, and that identification need not be veiled by Christians today who seek to know the Truth of the Bible?s teaching concerning the person of Christ, that He is indeed the Lord, the One who has all authority, not just over Earth, but also in the Heaven.
Free in the Christ
Daniel Michaels
It's 8:09 pm in Bangor Maine USA I'm a morning guy.