Etikettarkiv | jehovah

The Bible about SHUNNING sinners / heretics who cause division in church – excommunication

2 cor 2But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called A BROTHER be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. (1 Cor. 5:11)

There are sadly pastors and entire congregations who have completely misunderstood what the Bible says about brothers and sisters who have wandered off from the truth, resulting in a treatment which will not aid the lost persons at all.

There is one Biblical case which stands out in the Bible when it comes to ”shunning” someone, and that is when Paul criticizes the Corinthian church for not reacting despite one of their members living in a deep sin.

One sin makes you a sinner, but all sins are not of the same degree. Some sins are for example an ”abomination” before God, and we can also read about a sin ”not unto death”. Surely there is a difference between murdering an innocent person in cold blood vs being in an unexpected situation where a white lie is used in order to not reveal a nice birthday surprise? In the case of the Corinthian church, the sin in question concerned a man engaged in sexual immorality together with his father’s wife, which Paul considered was so detestable that it was ”not even named among the gentiles”. 

1 Cor. 5:1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles—that a man has his father’s wife! 2 And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3 For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.6 Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7 Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us.8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.9 I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. 10 Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.12 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? 13 But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person. (NKJV)

Paul refers to a previous letter, and he clarifies that he did not advise the Corinthians to not keep company with all sinners in the whole world because then they could no longer live in the world. What he meant was that they should not keep company with anyone called a brother (which means a Christian brother or sister) who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner. Those listed sins are rather serious, and Paul tells the Corinthians to not even eat with such a person (other people might get the idea that we are supporting them in their sins or that we are just the same). Jesus of course ate with sinners, but not all his company would be regarded as his ”brothers”.

We should not try to add to Paul’s words – or withdraw. For instance, he does not say we must not talk to such people or not even say hello. Surely it would be awesome if such sinners returned to the Lord, and what better means do we have to our disposal than talking to them and try to persuade them to repent?:

Ja 5:19 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

It is hard to convert someone from his sins if we are not even allowed to have a dialogue with him. The man in 1 Cor. 5 was engaged in a serious sin (an ongoing sin not repented of), so clearly he should not have been allowed to stay in that church gathering considering that a little leaven leavens the whole lump.  It is quite possible that the man in 1 Cor. 5 is again mentioned in Paul’s subsequent letter. In this letter Paul says that the punishment was sufficient for the man, and: you should rather forgive and comfort him, otherwise such a one might be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. Wherefore I urge you to reaffirm your love for him.” (NASB). 

2 Cor. 2:4 For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote to you, with many tears, not that you should be grieved, but that you might know the love which I have so abundantly for you.5 But if anyone has caused grief, he has not grieved me, but all of you to some extent—not to be too severe. 6 This punishment which was inflicted by the majority is sufficient for such a man, 7 so that, on the contrary, you ought rather to forgive and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one be swallowed up with too much sorrow. 8 Therefore I urge you to reaffirm your love to him. (NKJV)

So on the one hand Paul makes no room for a person engaged in sexual immorality (or other severe sins which he gives examples of), but on the other hand he provides a way back also for an ardent sinner provided that the person repents and leaves all sins behind. One can easily imagine that a man might be totally swallowed up with sorrow, if friends and family suddenly cease talking to him and pretend that he is nothing more than air. After a period with such a treatment, maybe the person claims to be sorry and openly repents, but can the church really trust that he has truly repented and that it is not rather a case of someone feeling lonely and wanting to return to his family and friends? God cannot be fooled.

Paul never tells us to cease having conversations with Christians even if they live in sin (it is possible to have conversations outside of a church gathering) and particularly not if they are family members. We are also told to not rebuke an older man but encourage him as you would a father. So we should react when people sin, but think about how we phrase ourselves and how we treat them. The goal is to see them return to the truth, so a condescending and patronizing attitude might not work.

1 Tim. 5:1 Do not rebuke an older man but encourage him as you would a father, younger men as brothers,—8 But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

More verses about shunning and influencing a person to repent (KJV)2 Pet

Matt. 18:12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

If a man goes astray God would certainly like to see him back on track, so we too should seek out the lost person and try to influence him to repent for his sins and return to the fold. The prodigal son did just that – he confessed his sins, repented and returned to his Father. If a brother sins against us (or perhaps sins against a whole church gathering), then Jesus tells us to first speak to him alone. It is of course essential that the person understands in what way he has sinned so that he also understands the point we are trying to make. Just saying ”I hereby rebuke you, you evil heretic!” is not enough if the person does not understand exactly what he did wrong, plus it is questionable if it is the smartest way to express oneself.

It is of course a possibility that a church leader reacts to something that is no sin at all (but rather a case of misunderstanding or twisting someone’s speech), and then it is hard to repent for something that the accused person does not see as a sin. If the case is that it was truly a sin and if the accused person refuses to listen or repent, then two or three witnesses are needed to establish the case. If the accused person is still unwilling to listen or repent, then the whole church should be told. If the accused person is still unwilling to turn around, then he must be regarded as a heathen – but note that it is still possible to have friendly and polite conversations with heathens! We are not told to ignore heathens and treat them as they do not exist, and note that it does not say that we should treat them WORSE than heathens. Surely it is possible to treat also heathens with kindness and love?

Where in the Bible can we read that also all the children (small children and teenagers) of an excommunicated person must be excommunicated as well, and no longer have any contact with the church members? (Nowhere.) The children might have been really good friends with other youngsters in a church for many years, and does God really suggest that they are no longer allowed to play or socialize with each other any more?

We should also add the risk for that the witnesses blindly obey the church leader (especially in a cult environment) who in his turn might not be entirely obedient to the Scriptures. The opposite is also true, that the church leader might blindly believe the witnesses’ description of a case. The instructions from Paul of course only work if the whole chain is unbroken – and not if the church leader is in error and makes unfair judgments. That is also why Paul told both Timothy and Titus to not be too quick with the ”laying on of hands” (selecting a person to become a church leader), because then the whole church gathering will risk to be off course.

A charged person certainly has the right to defend himself (this is true even in a secular court room), particularly in a church gathering that is not in all circumstances based on the word of God (like in a cult). If the pastor requests that a person must repent, and does not even give him a chance to defend himself or correct misunderstandings, then something is utterly wrong.

Rom. 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences CONTRARY TO THE DOCTRINE which ye have learned; and avoid them.18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.19 For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.

Above we can read Paul saying that the brethren should ”mark them… and avoid them” if it concerns people who cause divisions contrary to God’s words. He does not clarify to what extent they should be avoided (avoiding does not necessarily mean that we cannot even walk on the same street as the person in question), but it evidently concerns people who continuously cause division in church contrary to God’s words. If such a person repents and ceases to cause division there is always a way back, but if he refuses to cease sinning Paul’s advice should be followed.

To ”mark” them does not mean that this marking must be repeated, and that the person can be verbally attacked as soon as you meet him. It is enough to do the marking once. However, if we continue to spend time with a trouble maker, eat with him and socialize with him (as in not avoiding him), then there is a risk that other people will interpret our undisturbed friendship as though we condone his actions. That is why Paul requests to see a change in our attitude towards a clear trouble maker. Paul does not necessarily tell us to stir up a huge drama scene as soon as there are minor differences of opinions about insignificant matters. I believe Paul is talking about clear cases of sin where a person is a trouble maker and/or causes a division in church over rather essential matters while refusing to back off.

Rom. 12:5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.—8 Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good.10 Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another;—16 Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits.17 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

Above we can see how important it is to be of one body, but also how important it is to show love and respect.

Titus 3:1 Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.3 For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; 9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

Paul gives instructions for a church leader, and if the church leader is subject to the word of God then it is a lot easier for the members to be subject to the church leader. However, we must always do as the Bereans (Acts 17:11) – to compare what we hear with Scriptures in order to know if what we hear is true. A church leader should speak evil of no man, be gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men, etc.  Since we too have been guilty of many sins, we could choose a wise way to influence people to repent. God has shown kindness and love to us, so we too should show the same to others. Not as in accepting their sin, but by consider the way we treat them and try to make them turn around.

Paul goes on to say a man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject. This advice must also be understood correctly and with caution. It takes some serious sins in order to qualify as an heretic (someone who clearly rejects the word of God and refuses to repent), so we should not cause an inflation of the word by spreading out admonitions left and right as soon as someone has some minor disagreements and asks valid questions. Neither should we fall into the other ditch and be so ”generous” that we choose not to react even if people in our congregation are proud of their sins.

2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

Someone who refuses to accept the deity of Jesus, that he has come in the flesh, is labelled as a deceiver and even an antichrist. To accept Jesus as God is very central for the Christian faith. It is not certain that we should not allow anyone into our homes unless he/she shares our precise faith (particularly not if they are family members or relatives), but if someone wants to ”bring” an ”antichrist message” into our homes – like a former brother who would like to convert you and your family – then we should not accept him. I believe it is another matter if we invite lost people with the aim to convert them. Remember again that Jesus ate with sinners who did not view him as the Messiah.

Gal. 1:1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.2 Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.6 Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.

Paul tells us to ”restore” a person who is overtaken in a fault ”in the spirit of meekness” . Once again love and respect are taught here.

2 Thess. 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.7 For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;8 Neither did we eat any man’s bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:9 Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.13 But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing.14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.15 Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

We are told to ”withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us”, and the context here is about working and to not be a burden to others. ”For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies”. In such cases we are told ”them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread”. We are also told if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed” but also Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother”. If we are to admonish him as a brother, we think about how we phrase ourselves and we do not ridicule him, repeatedly call him an heretic (once is often enough) etc.

There are certain rules about elders:

1 Tim. 5:19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.

The Sacred Name Movement and its concern about the names YAHSHUA and YAHWEH

sacred nameThe big presupposition in the Sacred Name Movement is that the original documents underlying the New Testament were written in Aramaic (not Greek) and used the Sacred Names. These documents are supposed to have been destroyed by unnamed conspirators and substituted with Greek manuscripts using pagan names such as Jesus and God. If this is correct, then all of the early church fathers must also have been victims of this unfortunate conspiracy which have fooled most of the christian world (except for the believers of the SNM) because they all used the ”forbidden pagan” names such as Jesus and Lord. The fact is that people have called out to the name of Jesus Christ for almost 2000 years now and they have been wonderfully saved when the Lord answered their prayers which they have raised up to him with earnest and repentant hearts. Our relationship with the Lord depends upon the intent of our heart and not phonetics.

A short note about KJV. KJV translates the Hebrew name Yahweh with ”LORD” (capitals). ”Adonai” is translated with ”Lord” (capital L), and ”Elohim” is translated”God”. Example in Deut. 4:35 the phrase is ”The LORD he is God”, i e ”Jehovah, he is Elohim”. In the cases where Adonai is used together with Jehovah, the last word becomes ”GOD”. So the double name ”Lord GOD”  is translated from ”Adonai Jehovah”. There is a difference between Lord and lord in KJV. Early in history the israelites started to say ”Adonai” instead of  Yahweh.

Thanks to John McGlone for the following

The Sacred Name Movement (SNM) is a movement in Christianity that seeks to conform Christianity to its Hebrew Roots in practice, belief and worship. The best known distinction of the SNM is its belief in the use of a singular proper name for the God of Israel (YHVH/Yahweh) based upon the Tetragrammaton and the use of the Hebrew name they believe is the true Hebrew name of Jesus (Yahshua). They believe the Messiah’s name is YHWH pronounced, Yahwah.  Mainstream Christians and Hebrew scholars agree that Jesus’ real name was actually Yeshua. SNM believers also generally keep many of the Old Testament laws and ceremonies such as the Torah festivals and keeping kosher food laws. However, not every Sacred Name’ Group adheres to Old Testament festivals, dietary laws and other commands. The term ”sacred name” is not exclusive to this movement but is a general theological term in Christianity – a translation of the Latin nomen sacrum.

Some definitions to help clarify the issue.

Vowel points – It is widely recognized by Bible scholars that vowel points were not used in the ancient Hebrew. That leaves the consonants of YHWH alone which then makes the personal Name of God unspeakable in any tongue. This was the tradition of the Hebrews who revered God’s Name so much they chose not to speak it, thinking they may be using it in a blasphemous way. Where did vowel points come from then? The Jews themselves applied vowel points to make words like Adonai, etc. Translators through the centuries have applied a myriad of principles to numerous and complicated to describe here to apply different vowel points which have led to different renderings of Names of God in the Bible.

The ‘name’ – Gr. word onomo translated into English means ‘name’: the name is used for everything which the name covers, everything the thought or feeling of which is aroused in the mind by mentioning, hearing, remembering, the name, i.e. for one’s rank, authority, interests, pleasure, command, excellences, deeds etc. persons reckoned up by name the cause or reason named.

Sacred name believers hold that verses like Matt 28:19, require you to hold to a singular, sacred name, ie YHWH, Jehovah, Yehoshua to be a true believer. For example:

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the [YHWH] Father and of the [YHWH] Son and of the [YHWH] Holy Spirit,

Bracketed [YHWH] are obvious insertions and are for illustration only. If you were previously baptized the way Jesus instructed in this verse then according to their view you must be baptized again with the sacred name to be truly saved.
Another verse they like to use a lot Acts 4:12. Unfortunately, they ignore vs 13 which gives the context of this verse.

Acts 4:12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.

So by their teachings they will insert, YHWH, Jehovah, etc -ONLY concept into the text, thus nullifying what God has communicated. The conclusion of the matter rests with the proper definition of the word, onomo. We can easily see that it also means, ‘authority’ and in that context it would make sense for Jesus to instruct us to be baptized in the authority of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. We would not need a personal pronoun here considering the other definitions of the word, ‘name’. Likewise, it would also make sense that there is no other authority by which we could be saved other than God himself.

Faith or Doubt?

YHWH only believers are not putting faith in God’s Word, but calling it corrupted causing doubt and distrust.  Scripture can be shown to be reliable over and again when compared to earlier manuscript copies. Also, much of the corruption the emperor Constantine brought in led to the establishment of the Roman Catholic church and authorities to rule over the people vice serving the people as our Master has commanded. They tell us that the New Testament is corrupt wherever it speaks of Jesus, Lord, or God. They contend the name YHWH should be there instead. They will not agree that the Living God of the Bible could deliver His Word intact to today that we may understand what we should believe. Some concepts we must trust by faith and prove with evidence:

a. God has delivered His Word intact and understandable in almost every language in the world. b. The Holy Spirit teaches us all things. c. The corruption and hypocrisy in the visible church led many people away from the truth of the Bible. d. The Name of the Messiah is delivered into many hundreds of languages and God is able to communicate who that Person was and is. Lastly, we should not trust the teachings of men that cause us to doubt or negate God’s Word. We should rightly divide the Word of God that we may be led by the Holy Spirit into all truth.

2 Tim 2:15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God

The Pharisee’s who accused Jesus would have never used the personal pronoun of YHWH while he was being plotted against or interrogated prior to his crucifixion.

Matt 26:3-5 Then the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders of the people assembled at the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, and plotted to take Jesus by trickery and kill Him. But they said, “Not during the feast, lest there be an uproar among the people.

Matt 26:62-63 And the high priest arose and said to Him, “Do You answer nothing? What is it these men testify against You?” But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!”

The three major languages of Jesus’ time was Aramaic, Latin, and Greek and not ancient Hebrew. Probably most people read the Septuagint as scripture vs. ancient Hebrew. This would make Jesus’ scriptural references accurate vs. the slight differences we see in the ancient Hebrew.

What’s in a Name?

According to the ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, the name Ieusus (Jesus) is a combination of 2 mythical deities, IEU and SUS (ZEUS, a Greek god).” – (www.wwyd.org). I went to the link they recommended and I tracked this down to an obvious skeptic of Christianity who wrote a book called, “Dictionary of Christian Lore and Legend” by J.C.J. Metford. It is no surprise to me that those who do such unscholarly work would quote a secular biased book as a source document for their views. Incredibly, the original quotation does not even line up with the final source reference which claims that Iesous means, ‘worship Zeus’.

The ”correct name” idea is refuted by the fact that three languages were being used in Israel at the time of Christ. A form of Hebrew (Aramaic), Greek and Latin were all being used. It was not usual for someone to translate something into all these languages including names. For instance, the inscription on the cross of Christ read in all three languages. Therefore this inscription many of the Jews read, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Latin, and in Greek.

John 19:20 Here is the proper definition:

Ἰησοῦς Iesous G2424 Jesus = ”Jehovah is salvation”

1) Jesus, the Son of God, the Saviour of mankind, God incarnate

2) Jesus Barabbas was the captive robber whom the Jews begged Pilate to release instead of Christ

3) Joshua was the famous captain of the Israelites, Moses’ successor (Ac. 7:45, Heb. 4:8)

4) Jesus, son of Eliezer, one of the ancestors of Christ (Lu. 3:29)

5) Jesus, surnamed Justus, a Jewish Christian, an associate with Paul in the preaching of the gospel (Col. 4:11)

Χριστός pronounced Kristos G5547 Christ = ”anointed”1) the Messiah, the Son of God 2) anointed

Dr. Brown is a PhD in Semitic languages which includes Hebrew and Aramaic, a Jew by birth, and a follower of the Messiah. He is a worldwide recognized authority on this subject. The following is a partial excerpt from Dr. Brown’s response to the aforesaid Britannica article.

”The response to this statement (which has as much support as the latest Elvis sightings) is quite simple: We know where the name I­­esous came from: the Jewish Septuagint! In other words, this was not some later, pagan corruption of the Savior’s name; rather, it was the natural Greek way of rendering the Hebrew/Aramaic name Yeshua at least two centuries before His birth, and it is the form of the name found in more than 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. This is saying something! The name I­­esous is also found in Greek writings outside the New Testament and dating to that same general time frame. Although it is claimed that the Encyclopedia Britannica says that “the name Ieusus (Jesus) is a combination of 2 mythical deities, IEU and SUS (ZEUS, a Greek god)” it actually says no such thing. This is a complete fabrication, intentional or not. In short, as one Jewish believer once stated, “Jesus is as much related to Zeus as Moses is to mice.” Unfortunately, some popular teachers continue to espouse the Jesus-Zeus connection, and many believers follow the pseudo- scholarship in these fringe, “new revelation” teachings. Not only are these teachings and practices filled with error, but they do not profit in the least. So, to every English-speaking believer I say: Do not be ashamed to use the name JESUS! That is the proper way to say his name in English—just as Michael is the correct English way to say the Hebrew name mi-kha-el and Moses is the correct English way to say the Hebrew name mo-sheh. Pray in Jesus’ name, worship in Jesus’ name, and witness in Jesus’ name. And for those who want to relate to our Messiah’s Jewishness, then refer to him by His original name Yeshua—not Yahshua and not Yahushua—remembering that the power of the name is not in its pronunciation but in the person to whom it refers, our Lord and Redeemer and King.”

There must be some understanding of transliteration and translation as the Bible has been translated into thousands of languages but must on occasion where there are words that do not exist from one language to the other a transliteration must be made of that word. In that case, letter by letter the corresponding word is formed into the new language making a new word in that language that did not exist before. One example I will use is the Yehovah – Jehovah problem which sacred name believers use to point out the ‘errors’ of the Bible. In Latin Yehovah is translated as Jehovah but they will use that and say, ‘Look there was no ‘J’s in the Hebrew language so Jehovah and Jesus could not be true.’ The problem with that is of course there are J’s authorized for use in Latin and English.

Conflicts in the argumentssacred name2

From the YHWH point of view the Messianic prophecies in Isaiah 7:14 and Matt 1:22-24 must be corrupted. We can see that this brings conflicts between the scriptures which must be explained away by this system of unbelief. The book of Isaiah was written approx 700 B.C. This is an awesome fulfillment of God’s Word from the OT to the NT providing evidence of our faith to believers and skeptics alike.

Is 7:14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. [meaning God with us]

Matt 1:22-24 So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: 23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel”, which is translated, “God with us.”

These prophecies fulfilled reveal the errors of sacred name theology.

Is 9:6For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

In this passage we see a multitude of names listed and the passage actually calls it, ‘His name’. Notice that His name WILL BE…that is future tense, which they refuse to acknowledge. The defenders of this doctrine will say those are just titles, but why doesn’t the Bible say, ‘And His titles will be called…’ They will often use this passage as the bulwark for their belief, inserting YHWH into this verse.

Is 42:8 I [am] the LORD, that [is] My name; And My glory I will not give to another, Nor My praise to carved images.

LXX Is 42:8 ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ θεός τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ ὄνομα τὴν δόξαν μου ἑτέρῳ οὐ δώσω οὐδὲ τὰς ἀρετάς μου τοῖς γλυπτοῖς

In this passage, we see in the Hebrew transliterated Yehovah which we see has great similarity to YHWH. Sacred name proponents will insert YHWH into this text. But you can see by the Greek Septuagint written 250 B.C. the word is κύριος, which means Lord. How could the Septuagint have a name in the text 250 BC when the ”corruption” did not happen until 325 AD according to the SNM view? That is an incredible 575 years of difference.

Exodus 3:13-15 And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

In this passage God is calling Himself in the Hebrew: H1961 hayah hayah הָיָה. This is a personal pronoun defined as, always existing being. This word also matches the definition of Jehovah or Yehovah as always existent One. So there is no problem with either the words or the definitions. Logically, we can see that though they are different languages or translations they have the same meaning, thus the same name. How can any finite creature of God name the one who is eternal? Essentially, most of these ‘names’ given in the Bible are descriptions of God. When He is named it is by His hand within the Bible not ours.

Rev 19:12-13 His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.

Here we see that God has an unknown Name and another name called the Word of God. Which in the G3004 λόγος and is defined as Logos : denoting the essential Word of God – Jesus Christ. We see this personal pronoun for Jesus again in John 1:1. Just these two verses should be enough to convince anyone that YHWH only is inconsistent with the Bible. The answer they will always give when faced with such evidence from the Bible is these verses were corrupted by Constantine. We have already proven is a false presumption. This of course refers to this system of doubt of God’s Word instead of faith or trust in the same.

Rev 19:16 And He has on [His] robe and on His thigh a name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

Here the word King is Baseloose G935 βασιλεύς and means prince, leader of the people, commander, lord of the land. The word LORD G2962 (all caps) is Koorios κύριος and means:

1) he to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has power of deciding; master, lord a) the possessor and disposer of a thing 1) the owner; one who has control of the person, the master. 2) in the state: the sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman emperor b) is a title of honour expressive of respect and reverence, with which servants greet their master c) this title is given to: God, the Messiah.

The obvious deduction here must be that God has used many names throughout the history and languages of mankind. After all, God created language and He confused languages at the tower of Babel. He also gives us the intelligence to translate/transliterate between languages that we may have the understanding in communication. The teaching of a particular ancient Hebrew ‘sacred’ name as the only way to pronounce and believe upon His name is false as we have shown and contradicts the Bible in many places. This causes a stumbling block for both believers and unbelievers alike.

Lastly, I would say that it is not a problem if a believer desires to use the Name of YHWH. It becomes problematic and unbiblical when someone says that this is the only authorized name for the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.