Why Do We Not Use The Name Of God YHVH?

[Ron Gurley]

YHWH = of the OT => God the Father of the NT

Exodus 3:13-15 (NASB)
Then Moses said to God,
“Behold, I am going to the sons of Israel, and I will say to them,
‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you.’
Now they may say to me, ‘What is His name?’ What shall I say to them?”
God said to Moses,
“I AM WHO I AM”;
and He said,
“Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘"I AM" has sent me to you.’”
God, furthermore, said to Moses,
“Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel,
‘The LORD, 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 ("I AM") forever,
and this is My memorial-name to all generations.

to God,...Hebrew 430...'elohiym....
II.(plural intensive - singular meaning)...D.the (true) God

“I AM"...Hebrew 1961...hayah...to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen...

‘The LORD,(all caps for reverence)...Hebrew 3068...Yehovah
"the existing One" A.the proper name of the one true God
i.unpronounced except with the vowel pointings of 0136 (YHWH unspoken)

The NAMES and TITLES of "God" in the NT:
Father (pater), God (theos). Master (kurios)

The NAMES and TITLES of "God" in the OTL:

The simple and compound NAMES/TITLES of God the Father (NIV / NASB versions of the Bible.)

A. ~YHWH = ~" I AM WHO I AM " = ~LORD = ~GOD = 'Yehovah ~ Jehovah = "Self Existent"
(e.g. Exodus 3:14; John 8:58; Hebrews 1:8)

B. Elohim = plural name: majestic and strong = (e.g. Genesis 1:26...Then God said,
"Let US make man in OUR image, in OUR likeness..."

C. Adonai = ~LORD = ~Master = (e.g. Gen 2:4 ...the LORD God made the earth and the heavens;
John 13:13 "You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am.
Matthew 22:44 " 'The LORD said to my Lord:
"Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet."

D. "El" = ~GOD = Compound names, showing characteristics

1. El Elyon = most high = strongest
2. El Roi = strong see-er
3. El Shaddai = Almighty God
4. El Olam = Everlasting God

D. "Jehovah (J.) " = ~GOD = Compound names, showing characteristics

1. J. Jireh = LORD will provide
2. J. Nissi = LORD my banner
3. J. Shalom = LORD is peace
4. J. Sabbaoth = LORD of hosts
5. J. Maccaddeshcem = LORD your sanctifier
6. J. Raah = LORD my shepherd
7. J. Tsidkenu = LORD our righteousness
8. J. El Gmolah = LORD GOD of recompense
9. J. Nakeh = LORD who smites
10. J. Shammah = LORD who is present

 

[Radagast]

The name for God in the OT is specifically YHWH.

In the New Testament, though, YHWH is never used (not even in OT quotes).

In the NT, "Lord" is used both for Jesus and for God as a whole.

 

[FredVB]

Exodus 3:13-15 (NASB)
Then Moses said to God,
“Behold, I am going to the sons of Israel, and I will say to them,
‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you.’
Now they may say to me, ‘What is His name?’ What shall I say to them?”
God said to Moses,
“I AM WHO I AM”;
and He said,
“Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘"I AM" has sent me to you.’”
God, furthermore, said to Moses,
“Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel,
‘The LORD, 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 ("I AM") forever,
and this is My memorial-name to all generations.

As I have mentioned in other places, the way it was originally written showed the name, it would have been more like this. God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘ "I AM" has sent me to you.’ ” God, furthermore, said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘Yahweh, 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-name to all generations."

In the New Testament, though, YHWH is never used (not even in OT quotes).
In the NT, "Lord" is used both for Jesus and for God as a whole.

Certainly, in the Bible we have now, and the manusctipts had of the new testament of the Bible that are checked, the name is not shown as such. But was it never included in early writings? That doesn't seem certain. There were prophetic passages of the old testament, which had the name mentioned, quoted in the new testament, anyway. There is more power in them with the name of Yahweh shown, when they are applied to Jesus, and that shows who he is. There is nothing stated, including what is in the new testament, to overide the statement given with the revelation of the name that it was the name forever and was to be remembered and it was for all generations. Yet Jesus showed obedient and godly living by his example to his followers. Jesus would not fail to do things the heavenly Father revealed to do. It can't be shown that Jesus never taught among the disciples following him with mentioning the name of Yahweh. Jesus did also pray, shown in John 17, "I have manifested your name to the men whom you have given me out of the world."

In Revelation as well the expression from Hebrew, "HalleluYah", is used, and I believe it was understood, it is actually expressing "Praise Yah!".

 

[Radagast]

Certainly, in the Bible we have now, and the manusctipts had of the new testament of the Bible that are checked, the name is not shown as such. But was it never included in early writings? That doesn't seem certain. There were prophetic passages of the old testament, which had the name mentioned, quoted in the new testament, anyway.

The New Testament has always quoted the Old Testament with YHWH replaced by "Lord."

Look at Romans 10:9-13, for example: "because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. ... For 'everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'"

The last part is a word-for-word quote from Joel 2:32 in the Septuagint (Greek) version, which replaces YHWH by "Lord" (πᾶς ὃς ἂν ἐπικαλέσηται τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου σωθήσεται).

The power here comes from the fact that Paul is saying that Jesus is God. If you replaced only the second "Lord" by "YHWH," as the Jehovah's Witnesses do, you would be denying the deity of Christ.

Jesus did also pray, shown in John 17, "I have manifested your name to the men whom you have given me out of the world."

But Jesus taught us to pray using "Father," not "YHWH." There is no evidence that Jesus ever said the name YHWH.

And if saying "Lord" was good enough for Paul, then surely it's good enough for us.

 

[FredVB]

God said to Moses, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘Yahweh, 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-name to all generations."

Certainly, in the Bible we have now, and the manusctipts had of the new testament of the Bible that are checked, the name is not shown as such. But was it never included in early writings? That doesn't seem certain. There were prophetic passages of the old testament, which had the name mentioned, quoted in the new testament, anyway. There is more power in them with the name of Yahweh shown, when they are applied to Jesus, and that shows who he is. There is nothing stated, including what is in the new testament, to overide the statement given with the revelation of the name that it was the name forever and was to be remembered and it was for all generations. Yet Jesus showed obedient and godly living by his example to his followers. Jesus would not fail to do things the heavenly Father revealed to do. It can't be shown that Jesus never taught among the disciples following him with mentioning the name of Yahweh. Jesus did also pray, shown in John 17, "I have manifested your name to the men whom you have given me out of the world."

In Revelation as well the expression from Hebrew, "HalleluYah", is used, and I believe it was understood, it is actually expressing "Praise Yah!".

The New Testament has always quoted the Old Testament with YHWH replaced by "Lord."

Look at Romans 10:9-13, for example: "because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. ... For 'everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'"

The last part is a word-for-word quote from Joel 2:32 in the Septuagint (Greek) version, which replaces YHWH by "Lord" (πᾶς ὃς ἂν ἐπικαλέσηται τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου σωθήσεται).

The power here comes from the fact that Paul is saying that Jesus is God. If you replaced only the second "Lord" by "YHWH," as the Jehovah's Witnesses do, you would be denying the deity of Christ.

But Jesus taught us to pray using "Father," not "YHWH." There is no evidence that Jesus ever said the name YHWH.

And if saying "Lord" was good enough for Paul, then surely it's good enough for us.

You would really promote following Paul for his example? There are things shown from him that are not appropriate. I can't go wrong following Jesus as example to me.

The new testament of the Bible that we have now and the manuscripts for it don't have the name written that way and has Lord written in the quotations in place of it, this is not argued against, but we don't know for certain what changes there were from the original writings. We don't go wrong if we see those with the name in them the way they were revealed at the first. My points stand, Yahweh wanted the name that was revealed to be remembered, forever, from what was said, and no, Jesus was not dismissing that but observed it, just as what he prayed shown in John 17 shows.

I am not arguing at all about how to be saved, that is moot for this discussion. Jesus is Yahweh, anyway, as the heavenly Father is Yahweh. It would be the same if we read, "whoever calls on the name of Yahweh shall be saved". There is no denial of the deity of Jesus Christ here.

I don't say there is anything wrong with referring to the heavenly Father, and through Jesus Christ that is right for us. "Father" is not a name though, it is a role we are to notice. Nor is there any problem with many other names for God used among us. Still though the revealed name was for always being remembered, it is said that Jesus was showing the name to his followers, and those of us who do so should not be faulted for observing that.

 

[ViaCrucis]

By Jesus' time the use of the Tetragrammaton was already not in use by observant Jews in regular use. There's no reason to think Jesus strayed from the standard Jewish practice of the time, certainly if Jesus was using the Name that would have been quite the controversy. It's noteworthy that of all the things that seemed to upset the Pharisees and Sadducees, this isn't one of them. While silence is not itself evidence; I would still say it is noteworthy that of all the things that were charged against Jesus, use of the Name wasn't one of them.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Radagast]

You would really promote following Paul for his example?

Yes.

And I would point out that "Challenging Paul's position as an Apostle of Jesus Christ who (although not one of the original twelve) was sent forth by Christ after his conversion [Acts 9:15-16], or arguing against the inclusion of Paul's writings in the New Testament canon, is not allowed in any "Christians Only" forums (including the Controversial Christian Theology forum)."

The new testament of the Bible that we have now and the manuscripts for it don't have the name written that way and has Lord written in the quotations in place of it, this is not argued against, but we don't know for certain what changes there were from the original writings.

The original writings are the same as the Bible we have now, or almost exactly so.

My points stand, Yahweh wanted the name that was revealed to be remembered, forever, from what was said, and no, Jesus was not dismissing that but observed it, just as what he prayed shown in John 17 shows.

I think you misunderstand John 17.

 

[FredVB]

You would really promote following Paul for his example? There are things shown from him that are not appropriate. I can't go wrong following Jesus as example to me.

The new testament of the Bible that we have now and the manuscripts for it don't have the name written that way and has Lord written in the quotations in place of it, this is not argued against, but we don't know for certain what changes there were from the original writings. We don't go wrong if we see those with the name in them the way they were revealed at the first. My points stand, Yahweh wanted the name that was revealed to be remembered, forever, from what was said, and no, Jesus was not dismissing that but observed it, just as what he prayed shown in John 17 shows.

I am not arguing at all about how to be saved, that is moot for this discussion. Jesus is Yahweh, anyway, as the heavenly Father is Yahweh. It would be the same if we read, "whoever calls on the name of Yahweh shall be saved". There is no denial of the deity of Jesus Christ here.

I don't say there is anything wrong with referring to the heavenly Father, and through Jesus Christ that is right for us. "Father" is not a name though, it is a role we are to notice. Nor is there any problem with many other names for God used among us. Still though the revealed name was for always being remembered, it is said that Jesus was showing the name to his followers, and those of us who do so should not be faulted for observing that.

By Jesus' time the use of the Tetragrammaton was already not in use by observant Jews in regular use. There's no reason to think Jesus strayed from the standard Jewish practice of the time, certainly if Jesus was using the Name that would have been quite the controversy. It's noteworthy that of all the things that seemed to upset the Pharisees and Sadducees, this isn't one of them. While silence is not itself evidence; I would still say it is noteworthy that of all the things that were charged against Jesus, use of the Name wasn't one of them.

I would say there is no reason to presume Jesus, who spoke certainly for being against traditions not consistent with what Yahweh says in the scriptures, which he was obeying perfectly, would not remember the name for always before those who were his followers, even as he said he did do in John 17. They respected him and it would not then be controversial to them. They never did though fully follow his examples in everything. The silence otherwise in the scriptures is indeed not evidence, we have those things that are said to still remember the name that was revealed to be the name forever.

I would point out that "Challenging Paul's position as an Apostle of Jesus Christ who (although not one of the original twelve) was sent forth by Christ after his conversion [Acts 9:15-16], or arguing against the inclusion of Paul's writings in the New Testament canon, is not allowed in any "Christians Only" forums (including the Controversial Christian Theology forum)."

The original writings are the same as the Bible we have now, or almost exactly so.

I think you misunderstand John 17.

It would be against rules to be flaming others. I have been on these forums for eight years. I have twenty-seven hundred and forty-eight posts. In not one of them have I indicated that Paul was not an apostle. It is right to follow Jesus as our example, he lived perfectly. Paul said so. And Paul did not do everything perfectly, and he said so too. There are examples showing it in the scriptures, such as his quick temper to react, as in Acts 23.
Paul said to him, “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! Do you sit to judge me according to the law, and command me to be struck contrary to the law?” Those who stood by said, “Do you malign God’s high priest?”

Jesus would not respond to the high priest that way, even when he would be put to death from the occasion.

Paul's teachings in the scriptures are important and I don't speak contrary to them. Such can't be found. Suggesting this position against Paul was a red herring.

Maybe everything of the original writings remains the same, but there are various manuscripts that are not all exactly with the same wording. There isn't certainty.

I am sure I understand that phrase in the passage rightly, especially in light of what is said for it in other scriptures, I don't see any other sensible way to understand it.

 

[FredVB]

I would say there is no reason to presume Jesus, who spoke certainly for being against traditions not consistent with what Yahweh says in the scriptures, which he was obeying perfectly, would not remember the name for always before those who were his followers, even as he said he did do in John 17. They respected him and it would not then be controversial to them. They never did though fully follow his examples in everything. The silence otherwise in the scriptures is indeed not evidence, we have those things that are said to still remember the name that was revealed to be the name forever.

Maybe everything of the original writings remains the same, but there are various manuscripts that are not all exactly with the same wording. There isn't certainty.

I am sure I understand that phrase in the passage rightly, especially in light of what is said for it in other scriptures, I don't see any other sensible way to understand it.

Besides the clearer understanding with Exodus 3:15 with seeing "Yahweh" is the name to be remembered and that it is for all generations, shown first with the four letters that were available for it in Hebrew writing, and the thousands of other times the name is shown in the Bible that have it as the most frequent name of God shown, often with it in the expression "I Am Yahweh", and also with people speaking this name, addressing Yahweh or speaking of Yahweh to others, there is this for a sample showing the name is for all people, with those coming to Yahweh:
Isaiah 56:6-7
Also the foreigners who join themselves to Yahweh,
to serve him,
and to love Yahweh’s name,
to be his servants,
everyone who keeps the Sabbath from profaning it,
and holds fast my covenant;
I will bring these to my holy mountain,
and make them joyful in my house of prayer.