Hallowed be Thy name.

[Clare73]

The law was not given to reveal aspects of God's nature, it was given to reveal sin (Romans 7:7).
We have been released from the law. (Romans 7:6; 1 Corinthians 9:20).
We have new law (Matthew 22:37-40), which fulfills the law (Romans 13:8-10).

God's law is described as holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12), and it can only be accurately described as such if the content of its laws reveal to us how to do what is holy, righteous, and good, which are aspects of God's nature. By denying that the law was given to reveal aspects of God's nature, you are taking the position that the laws that God chose to give are completely arbitrary and that they teach us nothing about who God is. For example, when God commanded to love our neighbor, your position is denying that we can learn from that command that love is part of God's nature. Sin is against God's nature, so by God's law revealing what sin is, it also revealed aspects of God's nature through doing the reverse. In other words, God's nature is the mark and sin is missing the mark, so by God's law revealing what it means to miss the mark, it also reveals by contrast what it means to hit the mark.

The only way that we can be released from the God's law would be if God's eternal nature were to cease to exist. In Romans 7:21-25, Paul said that he delighted in obeying God's law, but contrasted that with the law of sin, which held him captive, so Romans 7:6 should be interpreted as Paul speaking about being released from the law that held him captive rather than the law that he delighted in obeying, but sadly you would rather be released from the law that God gave as a gift to be a delight so that you can be bound to the law of sin, and which is the reverse of what Jesus gave himself to accomplish on the cross. In 1 Corinthians 9:21, Paul said in a parallel statement that he was not outside the Law of God, but under the Law of Christ, yet sadly you would rather be outside of the Law of God and not under the Law of Christ.

Non-responsive.

In the New Covenant, the former regulation has been set aside because it was weak and useless (Hebrews 7:18), and
a new law given in Matthew 22:37-40, which fulfills the law (Romans 13:8-10).

In Matthew 22:36-40, Jesus was not asked to give a new law, but rather he was asked about which commandments out of all of the commandments that God had already given, and Jesus responded by quoting two commandments that had already been given, so he was not given a new commandment. The greatest two commandments have always fulfilled the other commandments, which is why they are the greatest two, so Jesus was not making any changes or giving any information that was new. Likewise, in Mark 12:28-32, Jesus answered the question about the greatest commandment by quoting the Shema and the teacher of the law agreed with him, so again Jesus was not saying anything that wasn't already understood by others. A sum is the total of all of its parts, not something new that is different from its parts.

Non-responsive.

 

[Soyeong]

INDEED, with support from
1 Timothy 1:9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, etc etc....

Have you ever wondered why Adam and Eve got the command before they were supposedly sinful?

If the law is NOT for the righteous (I include innocence here) to point them the way to stay righteous, then there is a small problem here...

To say that God is righteous is to say that He does what is righteous, so there is contradictory to try to distinguish being someone who has a character trait from being someone who expresses that character trait. In Isaiah 51:7, the righteous are those on whose heart is God's law, so instructions for how to do what is righteous are not made for the righteous because the righteous already know how to do what is righteous and are already living in accordance with those instructions, but rather it is the unrighteous who have the need to be taught instructions how to do what is righteous. It would be absurd to think that once an unrighteous person repent from their disobedience to God's law and becomes righteous through faith that doing what is righteous is no longer for them and they are free to go back to living unrighteously in disobedience to God's law.

 

[Soyeong]

Non-responsive.


Non-responsive.

Indeed, we are agreed that your reply was non-responsive.

 

[Clare73]

Indeed, we are agreed that your reply was non-responsive.

My point demonstrated. . .

 

[ViaCrucis]

What is God's name and how important is it to get it right?

"Name" here is more than a "name", it's about identity. "Hallowed be Your name" is another way of saying that God is holy. The name which Christ reveals to us is "Father", His name is "Father" because Christ is the Son who came from the Father and shows us the Father, "If you have seen Me you have seen the Father".

Now as far as the name(s) of God go, God has many names in Scripture. The Name by which He chose to be known to Moses is "I AM that I AM", other translations of the Hebrew are "I will be what I will be". From this, it is often believed that God is called by the Tetragrammaton, the four-letter name of God YHWH. We aren't sure how to pronounce the Tetragrammaton, because Jewish tradition even before the time of Jesus held that this Name could only be pronounced in certain contexts, such as the the Jewish high priest entering the Holy of Holies of the Temple on Yom Kippur. We have guesses, the most common guess is that it was pronounced Yahweh, in the past the name was pronounced as Jehovah due to a quirk in the Masoretic Hebrew text.

Considering that God has always had many names, and nobody living today knows how to pronounce the Tetragrammaton, no it's not important to "get it right".

We approach God in prayer as "Our Father" as Christ taught, and thus the prayer is a confession of the Father's holiness, "Our Father in heaven, Your name is holy"; it is this name as Father that Christ extols as holy.

What about Jesus' name... How would his mother have pronounced it, and does it matter?

There is some speculation, but nothing definitive. We know that Mary would have spoken a Galielean dialect of Palestinian Jewish Aramaic, and so we can hazard guesses. Yeshu, Yesho, and Isho are all attempts I've seen. Many mistakenly think that Jesus spoke Hebrew and so try to use the Hebrew pronunciation of His name, which would have been Yeshua.

Outside of linguistic curiosity it doesn't really matter, no. Regardless of pronunciation, the standardized way of rendering Jesus' name into Greek was Iesous (Ἰησοῦς), Latinized as Iesus, and then when consonantal 'I' became the letter 'J', and thus Jesus.

All names undergo pronunciation shifts when passing through languages. Just consider that John, Juan, Johann, Ivan, and Sean, are all actually the same name.

-CryptoLutheran