How Was the Divine Name Translated in the Reformation? Part 4 Translators have wrestled with the divine name for centuries. Some have used it only to reverse course later. Andrew CaseThe previous articles in this series considered God’s desire for us to use his name, how the pronunciation was lost, and how the New Testament writers handled the matter. It remains, finally, to consider how it has been handled by translators since the Reformation. In that time there have been various departures from Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, which rendered the divine name as Dominus (“Lord/Master”), while others have maintained the tradition, which goes back to the Septuagint. The Reformers’ view Luther and Calvin were not in agreement on this. Luther followed the tradition of the Septuagint and used the German title “Herr” (Lord) in all caps, while Calvin’s choice was to use “Jehovah” for his French translation of the Psalms. Calvin explained his decision as follows: It would be tedious to recount the various opinions as to the name “Jehovah.” It is certainly a foul superstition of the Jews that they dare not speak, or write it, but substitute the name “adonai;” nor do I any more approve of their teaching, who say that it is ineffable, because it is not written according to grammatical rule … Nor do I agree with the grammarians, who will not have it pronounced, because its inflection is irregular; because its etymology, of which all confess that God is the author, is more to me than an hundred rules.1John Calvin, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony by John Calvin, trans. Charles W. Bingham (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1843), 127. The Wycliffe version of the Bible in English used “the Lord,” as did Tyndale’s unfinished translation of the Old Testament, but in a few places, like Exodus 6:3, he rendered “Iehouah.” This set a precedent for all early Protestant bibles, except Coverdale’s translation (1535). The King James Bible printed “Lord” in all caps when it represented YHWH, except in four places (Exod. 6:3, Ps. 83:18, Isa. 12:2; 26:4) where the translators felt the need to render it as a proper name, and in these places the name “Iehouah” appeared in the first printing (spelled as “Jehova” in later editions). Get new articles and updates in your inbox. Leave this field empty if you're human: Casiodoro de Reina, the first translator of the most famous Spanish version of the Bible (the Reina-Valera), took particular interest in avoiding the substitution of a title for the divine name. In the prologue to the 1569 publication of his work, he wrote the following: We have retained the name (Iehovah), not without serious reasons. First of all, because wherever it will be found in our version, it is in the Hebrew text, and it seemed to us that we could not leave it, nor change it for another without infidelity and singular sacrilege against the law of God, in which it is commanded “Do not take away from it, or add to it” (Deut. 4:4 and Prov. 30:5) … It also seemed to us that this mutation cannot be made without contravening God’s advice, and in a certain way wanting to amend it, as if He had done wrong all the times that his Spirit in Scripture declared this name, and it was to be another. And it is true, that not without particular and very serious advice, God revealed it to the world, and wanted his servants to know and invoke him; it would be a reckless thing to abandon it, and reckless superstition to neglect it, on the pretext of reverence. Someone could argue to us here that neither Christ nor the Apostles in their writings made amends for this error, etc. To this we answer, that they were never in charge of making versions, or correcting the facts, but attentive to a greater and more central matter, which was the announcement of the advent of the Messiah, and of his glorious Kingdom. They used the common version, which was then in use, which seems to have been that of the Seventy [the Septuagint], because they had plenty of it for their main purpose. Casiodoro De Reina’s 1569 Spanish translation used “Iehoua” throughout as seen here in Exodus 3. Modern translations By the nineteenth century, German scholars began to point out that the name “Jehovah” was a mistaken pronunciation, but many scholarly works in England continued to use “Jehovah.” In spite of these trends, English Christians did not see the necessity to produce an altered version of the Bible. By the nineteenth century, German scholars began to point out that the name “Jehovah” was a mistaken pronunciation. It wasn’t until the 1880s that “Yahweh” became a more frequently used pronunciation among scholars and students. Then, in 1901, American scholars prepared their own edition of the Revised Version (a revision of the KJV) for publication in the USA, known as the American Standard Version (ASV). In this version they decided to use “Jehovah” consistently. Even though they were aware that Jehovah was not an accurate pronunciation, they decided it would be received better because it was still more well-known than Yahweh. They explained in their preface: The American Revisers, after a careful consideration were brought to the unanimous conviction that a Jewish superstition, which regarded the Divine Name as too sacred to be uttered, ought no longer to dominate in the English or any other version of the Old Testament, as it fortunately does not in the numerous versions made by modern missionaries.2Preface to the ASV, 1901, accessed January 16, 2021, https://biblia.com/books/asv/offset/389. Benjamin B. Warfield, who was influential at the time of the publication, expressed strong approval of this decision. But the public had a harder time accepting the change. As the Princeton Seminary Bulletin later remarked, “However correct this practice might be in scholarly theory—for the word in Hebrew is indeed a proper name, not a title—it was disastrous from the point of view of the liturgical, homiletical, and devotional use of the Bible, and was almost universally disliked.”3Robert C. Dentan, “The Story of the New Revised Standard Version,” Princeton Seminary Bulletin vol 11, no. 3 (Nov 1990): 212. Thus, when it came time to revise the ASV, the committee decided to revert to using “the Lord” instead of Jehovah. The resulting RSV was published in 1952. RelatedHow Was the Pronunciation of God’s Name Lost? Part 2Andrew CaseThe Bible Jesus ReadAndrew CaseWhy Didn’t the New Testament Authors Use God’s Name? Part 3Andrew Case This would not be the last time modern versions flipflopped on the divine name. The Catholic NJB version (1966) used “Yahweh,” but the revision switched to “the Lord” in 2019. The Holman Christian Standard Bible (2004) used “Yahweh” (albeit inconsistently), and then decided to reverse their decision only five years later with the Christian Standard Bible revision. To date, only one mainstream English Bible is committed to translating God’s name as a name: the Legacy Standard Version (2021), which is a revision of the NASB. The revisers write: “The effect of revealing God’s name is His distinction from other gods and His expression of intimacy with the nation of Israel. Such a dynamic is a prevalent characteristic of the Scriptures.” That said, since 1960 there are other (not mainstream) bibles that have arisen specifically to restore the translation of God’s name (more about that here). It should also be mentioned that the World English Bible (public domain) uses “Yahweh” consistently. Conclusion History shows us how the winds of market forces, fickle human opinions, ignorance, and tradition can toss modern versions to and fro and blow them about, especially regarding the translation of God’s name. Will translations like the LSB suddenly fall out of vogue and turn course as others have done? My hope is that the English Bible publishers rise to the task of taking a clear, systematic, robustly biblical stand on what they are going to do with the divine name and why. It is not an issue that can be resolved in a few paragraphs of a version’s preface or a few pages on a website. Rather, it calls for a decision based solidly on Scripture’s teaching that leaves no stone unturned, documented exhaustively, and open to the public.Notes1John Calvin, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony by John Calvin, trans. Charles W. Bingham (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1843), 127.2Preface to the ASV, 1901, accessed January 16, 2021, https://biblia.com/books/asv/offset/389.3Robert C. Dentan, “The Story of the New Revised Standard Version,” Princeton Seminary Bulletin vol 11, no. 3 (Nov 1990): 212.
Why Didn’t the New Testament Authors Use God’s Name? Part 3 The use of “Lord” for the divine name probably helped identify Jesus with the God of the Old Testament. Andrew CaseWe know that the inhibition for pronouncing God’s name came before Christianity, although we don’t know how widespread it was. It’s possible that rendering the divine name as “Lord” (kurios) had already been a strong tradition for centuries by the time we get to Jesus and the apostles. What’s clear is that the New Testament manuscripts we have all follow the tradition that the Septuagint set, which was to substitute the title “Lord” (kurios) for God’s name (YHWH). So, the fact that the New Testament never uses God’s personal name as revealed in the Old Testament, or even an approximation of it, is crucial. Why did the New Testament authors choose to do this? Was it because they thought God’s name was too sacred to write out in Greek transliteration and feared that God might strike them down if they did so? Or, had its pronunciation already been forgotten to history? Were they afraid that the Jews might be angry about it? Or, was it some other reason(s)? The writers never tell us why, so everything that follows here is speculation. Nevertheless, it’s an honest attempt to grapple with the issue. The New Testament authors knew the Old Testament Because the New Testament authors knew their Hebrew Bible better than we do, it’s highly unlikely that they were ignorant of God’s desire expressed in Exodus 3:15, the way David and the prophets freely spoke to God, calling him by name, and other passages we looked at in part 1 of this series. So, it’s safe to say that they didn’t consider God’s name too sacred to use in transliteration. Finally, we can eliminate the idea that they did so out of fear of the Jews, since they consciously did many other things that infuriated the Jews and brought persecution on them. So, let’s explore some other possibilities. Get new articles and updates in your inbox. Leave this field empty if you're human: The influence of the Septuagint First, it should be understood that the Septuagint became the standard for Jewish communities that were forgetting Hebrew in the midst of a world increasingly dominated by other languages like Greek, Aramaic, and Latin. The New Testament writers quoted from the Septuagint extensively, and it was a beloved text to the early Church. When a text is used as a standard for centuries like the Septuagint was, many things become ingrained in tradition. So it’s highly probable that the Septuagint’s use of the title kurios in the place of God’s name came to be a strong tradition in many circles. And because of this, it’s also probable that kurios came to be treated as a proper name, even though it’s not technically or lexically accurate to call it a name. (A modern example of a proper name would be “Joe,” and his title is “Mr. President”) If a community treats a title like a proper name for long enough, it will inevitably begin to feel like a proper name. Subsequent generations will continue to use it, not because they believe it’s wrong to pronounce the actual name, but simply because it feels like God’s name. This has happened in English and many other languages with the title “the Lord.” So it’s plausible that the New Testament authors upheld the tradition of kurios as a centuries-old tradition that people were accustomed to using to refer to God in a personal way. Since they were trying to communicate clearly to a wide range of listeners, some of whom didn’t speak Hebrew and were already familiar with calling the God of Israel kurios, they kept it as a convention for avoiding confusion in their message. At the same time, they were interested in heralding a new covenant in which a new name came to be exalted: Jesus. In Philippians 2:9–11 Paul writes: “Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” RelatedHow Was the Pronunciation of God’s Name Lost? Part 2Andrew CaseThe New Testament Use of Jewish PseudepigraphaAndrew CaseThe Letter and the SpiritAndrew Case I am convinced, along with many other scholars, that bestowing on Jesus the name/title “Lord,” as the equivalent of Yahweh, is how Jesus has been exalted to the highest place. The twofold result clause that makes up verses 10 and 11 is a direct borrowing of language from Isaiah 45:23, where Yahweh (the Lord) says that “before me every knee shall bow, and every tongue will swear [Septuagint has ‘confess’]” that “in the Lord alone are righteousness and strength.” This emphasis on “the Lord” (YHWH) as the one unto whom all shall give obeisance, seems to certify that what Paul has in mind is none other than the name, YHWH itself, but in its Greek form of “the Lord,” which has now been “given” to Jesus. So, “the name that is above every name” is Yahweh. And this probably has another layer of significance: the name Jesus, Yeshua (in Hebrew) means “Yahweh is salvation.” The divine name is historically embedded within Jesus’ name, and this is evident to those who understand Hebrew. But most of the people the New Testament authors were trying to reach were more familiar with Greek, so kurios served as a better way to show the relationship between Jesus/Yeshua and Yahweh. Intertestamental hyperlinks It seems that Martin Luther understood that the New Testament authors upheld this tradition of using kurios so that people could “draw the strong conclusion that Christ is the true God,”1Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Vol. 35: Word and Sacrament I, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 35 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999), 248–249. by associating Christ the kurios with the kurios of the Old Testament instead of having two different proper names Yahweh and Yeshua. In other words, the Septuagint’s use of kurios was paving the way for a seamless, convenient, intelligible way to connect Jesus with Yahweh. The ability to use the same title for both Yahweh and Jesus throughout the New Testament made the overlap natural and more apparent to a Greek-speaking world. It facilitated a high Christology, and effortlessly infused the statement “Jesus is Lord” (Rom. 10:9) with a double meaning (see how this convention made Paul’s teaching possible in 1 Cor. 8:5–6). Just as Jesus saw himself all throughout the Old Testament (Luke 24:44), and just as the apostles consistently identified Jesus with Yahweh through allusion and direct quotation of Old Testament passages, the use of kurios allowed early Christians to see and hear that continuity between the testaments, identifying Christ as the God of Israel with a hyperlink across covenants (see another example in Rom. 10:13). So, it would seem that the apostles saw a few advantages in using kurios/Lord in place of God’s name: (1) it preserved an old tradition spread by the loved and respected Septuagint; (2) most probably treated kurios as a name; (3) it may have served to make extra clear that Jesus is Yahweh, the God of Israel. Does this mean that they ignored God’s desire in Exodus 3:15? Not at all. Does this mean that they ignored God’s desire in Exodus 3:15? Not at all. Since they were Jews and could read the scriptures in Hebrew, they were probably satisfied that God’s name was preserved there, in its natural habitat. They weren’t trying to publish a new translation of the Old Testament at the time. If they had, they may have made some different decisions than the original translators had concerning God’s name. Likewise, if they had written the New Testament in Hebrew, they probably would have used YHWH for God’s name. It’s important to approach this issue with humility. There are some people who would disagree with my hypothesis. Some believe that much of the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew (which is what multiple Church Fathers claimed), and therefore contained the divine name. Others believe that early Christian scribes changed what the original authors wrote to kurios/Lord for reasons unknown to us. There is no physical evidence for either of these claims. An idea for modern versions This brings us to the question: Is it possible to help contemporary readers enjoy the same advantages in a new translation of the whole Bible while rendering God’s name in the Old Testament as a name? Yes. God is called by the title adonai (“Lord”) over 700 times in the Old Testament, which maintains the hyperlink between both testaments. Thus, modern versions could simply translate those occurrences of adonai as “Lord” and render all 6,800+ occurrences of yhwh as “Yahweh.” The overlap the apostles enjoyed would be preserved while still honoring God’s desire in Exodus 3:15 and making clear to the reader that God actually has a name. In conclusion, the New Testament authors probably used kurios because it ended up being a naming convention that helped identify Jesus with the God of the Old Testament. Modern Bible publishers should feel at liberty to break with the Septuagint’s tradition, since the title “Lord” occurs so many times in the Hebrew Bible in reference to Yahweh. Over the centuries some English versions have chosen to render God’s name as a name in different ways, and this fascinating history is the topic of the final installment in this series. Related Illustration by David Fassett How Was the Divine Name Translated in the Reformation? Part 4Translators have wrestled with the divine name for centuries. Some have used it only to reverse course later. Andrew Case This article is in the public domain. You may freely use, share, and reproduce it. For a more in-depth treatment, see here.Notes1Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Vol. 35: Word and Sacrament I, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 35 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999), 248–249.
How Was the Pronunciation of God’s Name Lost? Part 2 Ancient tradition divides on the use of God’s name, with no clear reason why some banned it. Andrew CasePart 1 of this series is available here. It’s important to recognize right up front that we simply do not know with absolute certainty how God’s name was originally pronounced. The common English pronunciation of “Yahweh” is an educated guess, but we’ll never know for sure how it sounded when God spoke it to Moses. Two key things prevent us from knowing: (1) Hebrew was written without vowels for many centuries, so we’re left with only four consonants: YHWH, and (2) people started avoiding the pronunciation of God’s name long before Hebrew began to be written with vowels. And when the Hebrew Bible was finally written with vowels, artificial vowels were inserted into the spelling of God’s name in order to keep people from pronouncing it! So, in this article we’ll try to understand why—why did the Israelites go from swearing by Yahweh’s name, using it in prayer, song, and greetings to forbidding its use altogether? Why did the Israelites go from swearing by Yahweh’s name, using it in prayer, song, and greetings to forbidding its use altogether? Clues from the Bible God himself gives us a clue as to what might have motivated this historical change of attitude towards his name in the book of Amos. This book goes back at least to the 8th century BC, and thus represents the oldest evidence of what might have caused the shift. Amos warns the people of the coming exile and destruction that will punish their pride and oppression of the poor and needy. As he describes the horrors of Yahweh’s imminent judgment, he says, “And if the relative who comes to carry the bodies out of the house to burn them asks anyone who might be hiding there, ‘Is anyone else with you?’ and he says, “No,” then he will go on to say, ‘Hush! We must not mention the name of Yahweh’” (Amos 6:10). Thus, there exists the possibility that some Hebrews were so traumatized by what happened under Yahweh’s judgment that they preferred not to talk about him anymore. This trauma could have easily developed into never mentioning his name for fear that they might somehow run the risk of falling under a similar judgment. This trauma-induced fear could have then evolved into the substitution of titles for God’s name, which the Jews later labeled as a sign of reverence or respect. This idea of avoiding his name out of reverence or respect, however, cannot be found in Scripture, but rather is described in later man-made traditions. It’s also important to recognize that an ancient contingent of Karaite Jews condemned these traditions, saying that those who insist on avoiding the pronunciation of God’s name should be considered unbelievers. During the intertestamental period the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek (popularly called the Septuagint), and an interesting thing happened in the translation of Leviticus 24:16. The original Hebrew reads: “The one who blasphemes (naqab) the name of Yahweh shall surely be put to death.” But the Greek version reads: “The one who names the name of the Lord will surely be put to death.” RelatedHow Was the Divine Name Translated in the Reformation? Part 4Andrew CaseDoes God Want Us to Use His Divine Name? Part 1Andrew CaseWhy Didn’t the New Testament Authors Use God’s Name? Part 3Andrew Case Here, the act of blaspheming is translated into Greek as the simple act of naming. The manuscript tradition of Leviticus in Greek is unanimous without variation on this text. The Septuagint translators may have rendered “to blaspheme” (naqab) in Leviticus 24:16 as “to name” for any of the following reasons: In a spirit of piety, they could not even bring themselves to translate the verb “to curse/blaspheme/slander” when so directly connected to the divine name. So, they used circumlocution to generalize or soften the phrase. They simply misunderstood the Hebrew verb. They allowed a belief about pronouncing the divine name to influence their translation. Because of the Septuagint’s strong influence on post-exilic Judaism and the early Church, this reading may have led to the proliferation of sentiments against the pronunciation of the name. If an anti-pronunciation belief was already prevalent during the time of the translation, then it may have served to strengthen that belief. This is admittedly speculation, but nevertheless an important piece of evidence that needs to be mentioned and considered in the search for why the tide turned against vocalizing the divine name. Clues from outside the Bible The Babylonian Talmud offers another explanation,1Michael L. Rodkinson, trans., The Babylonian Talmud: Original Text, Edited, Corrected, Formulated, and Translated into English, vol. 1. (Boston: The Talmud Society, 1918), Rosh Hashannah 18b. but not as ancient as Amos or the Septuagint: the prohibition against the use of God’s name began as one of the anti-Torah decrees enacted by the Seleucid Greek tyrant Antiochus IV Epiphanes around 168 BC. This was part of his plan to convert the Jews to Hellenism. But when Judas Maccabeus defeated the Greeks, he restored the use of the divine name and established a law requiring the use of God’s name in contracts so that every Jew would regain the habit of using it. But the Rabbis were opposed to this decree and banned its use in contracts because those contracts might eventually be burned with the divine name written on them. Get new articles and updates in your inbox. Leave this field empty if you're human: The Essene community who copied the Dead Sea Scrolls also strictly forbade speaking God’s name in any context, including prayer, but they give no reason for this in their rulebook. Later writings in the Mishnah from the 3rd century AD describe a developing attitude of Jewish teaching on the issue: “The following have no portion in the world to come: … Abba Saul says: Also one who pronounces the divine name as it is written” (Mishnah Sanhedrin 10:1). Ironically, there is much rabbinic teaching that has contradicted the ban on speaking God’s name. If you read Mishnah Berakhot 9:5, 54a:1–9, 63a:7–8, Makkot 23b:10 and other Jewish commentaries on Judges 6:12, you’ll find ancient rabbinic agreement that using God’s name in simple greetings as Boaz did is not only permitted, but should be encouraged. Strangely, the typical practice and overwhelming culture around the divine name in Israel today is one completely contrary to what these traditional Jewish commentaries conclude. In my research I have not found a reason for this, and it is difficult to know with any certainty when the ban on using the name became mainstream. Clues from the Septuagint The majority tradition of the Greek translation of the Old Testament (or Old Greek) used kurios, “Lord” in place of the divine name. The great Christian manuscripts Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus all have kurios in place of God’s name. What motivated this? Some have suggested that this was a strategy used by authorities to facilitate the Hellenizing of Jews. By suppressing the special name of God and using kurios, it made it more universal and easier to harmonize with the emperors and gods of the Greco-Roman world.2Robert Wilkinson, Tetragrammaton: Western Christians and the Hebrew Name of God (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 51. Related Illustration by Peter Gurry. Images from iStock The Most Important Bible Translation You’ve Never Heard ofUsed by the Apostles and the early church, the Greek translations of the Old Testament may be the most important ever made. Andrew Case But some Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament differ from the standard of using kurios for the Name, especially amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls. For example, the Nahal Hever scroll fragments of the Minor Prophets (8Hev XII gr), dated from about 50 BC to 50 AD have the divine name written in paleo-Hebrew script in 28 places. Another scroll has iao in the place of the name. So, whether the original Septuagint translators first chose to use kurios or something else remains inconclusive, leaving us to speculate. Whatever the case may be, it appears that there was controversy or confusion amongst the Septuagint translators and revisers regarding what to do with the divine name, as well as a special interest in it. The practice of substituting the title kurios (“Lord”) for God’s name was widespread, but no one ever revealed a clear reason as to why. There’s much more to say about the Septuagint evidence, which you can read for free in my book on the divine name. Conclusion It seems that ancient Jewish tradition was divided on what to do with God’s name. If you think the evidence looks confusing, that’s because it is! It seems that ancient Jewish tradition was divided on what to do with God’s name, but there is no conclusive reason as to why some banned its use. Was it due to the trauma of exile, the mistranslation of Leviticus 24:16, the prohibition of an evil tyrant, reverence, or a combination of all of these? It’s impossible to be certain with the evidence we have. What we do know is that it eventually became standard to avoid pronouncing God’s name, especially in Jewish circles, and this played a part in the loss of how it originally sounded. In the next article we take a look at what the New Testament authors did with the divine name. Related Illustration by David Fassett Why Didn’t the New Testament Authors Use God’s Name? Part 3The use of “Lord” for the divine name probably helped identify Jesus with the God of the Old Testament. Andrew Case This article is in the public domain. You may freely use, share, and reproduce it. For a more in-depth treatment, see here.Notes1Michael L. Rodkinson, trans., The Babylonian Talmud: Original Text, Edited, Corrected, Formulated, and Translated into English, vol. 1. (Boston: The Talmud Society, 1918), Rosh Hashannah 18b.2Robert Wilkinson, Tetragrammaton: Western Christians and the Hebrew Name of God (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 51.
Does God Want Us to Use His Divine Name? Part 1 The Old Testament shows that God wants his people to use his personal name, which is why it is used nearly 7,000 times. Andrew CaseGrowing up, I understood that the name of God was “the Lord.” As I got older, I began to understand that when I saw the Lord in all caps, that meant that it was God’s special, divine name that he revealed to Moses. This seemed strange and confusing to me—adding a level of complexity to understanding a Bible that was already difficult enough for a teenager to understand. I don’t remember when it was that I first heard the name Yahweh pronounced, but when I went to seminary, I quickly realized that it was an accepted pronunciation and spelling for God’s name, especially in academic circles. So how did we get to this point where nearly every English Bible uses “the Lord” (a title) in place of his personal name? Can we know how God’s name was originally pronounced? Shouldn’t we avoid using God’s name out of reverence for the sacred? Why didn’t the New Testament authors use God’s name? How do Bible translators decide whether they should render something like Yahweh or the Lord? These are all important questions that we will try to answer throughout this series. But first, we need to answer a foundational question: What is God’s revealed desire regarding the use and preservation of his name? God’s desire Many people think that God is offended by the pronunciation and use of his personal name in any and every context. For example, in Jewish circles there is a strong consensus that it is blasphemous to pronounce or even write God’s name, and that everyone must refer to him only through titles such as “Lord” or “The Name” out of respect and honor. The desire to fear God and treat his name with honor is to be commended, but Scripture teaches that this is done by loyal love and obedience, not by eliminating the pronunciation of his name (Deut. 28:58). In order to test this idea, we must turn to Scripture to understand what God wants us to do with his name. Many people think that God is offended by the pronunciation and use of his personal name in any and every context. Let’s begin with Exodus 3:15: “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘Yahweh (יהוה), 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 forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations.” In Hebrew the last sentence reads literally: “This (is) my name forever, and this (is) my memorial/remembrance/mention (זכר zeker) to all generations.” Some versions like the NET Bible and KJV translate zeker as “memorial,” but the word in this context can be understood as implying the speaking of the name, since things that remain unspoken are usually lost in oral cultures. That’s why the NIV translates: “This is my name forever, the name you shall call me from generation to generation.” In Isaiah 26:8 God’s name and “mention/remembrance” are paired together again, hearkening back to Exodus 3:15: “O Yahweh, … your name and remembrance (from zeker) are the desire of our soul.” The opposite of this remembrance is the grave, where Yahweh’s name is not heard: “For in death there is no remembrance (zeker) of you; in Sheol who will give you praise?” (Ps. 6:5, see also Eccles. 9:5). Hosea also echoes Exodus 3:15 when he writes, “Yahweh, the God of armies, Yahweh is his memorial name (zeker)” (Hos. 12:5). The psalmist also picks up the same theme: “Your name, O Yahweh, is everlasting, your remembrance, (zeker) O Yahweh, throughout all generations” (Ps. 135:13). Thus, it’s clear that God wants us to remember/memorialize the name he revealed to Moses on Sinai, which many scholars pronounce as Yahweh. But what about the names of other gods? Other gods’ names If we return to Exodus, we find the verbal form of zeker used to prohibit the mentioning (and hence remembering) of the names of other gods: “and the names of other gods you shall not mention (tazkiru) nor shall they be heard upon your lips” (Exod. 23:13). The point of the verse is that God’s name is the only one worthy to be on people’s lips, and thus remembered and made famous. Other gods should not be allowed to compete with him in this arena. In the same vein, Joshua says, “and the names of their gods you shall not mention (tazkiru) nor shall you swear by them nor shall you serve them nor shall you bow down to them” (Josh. 23:7). In other words, a unilateral agreement of silence when it comes to the names of the gods is a way of forgetting and belittling them, which will help the Israelites avoid swearing by them and serving them. Evidence from vows One of the practical ways God established the use and remembrance of his name was through vows. Scripture speaks clearly about this in Deuteronomy 6:13: “It is Yahweh your God you shall fear. Him you shall serve and by his name you shall swear” (see also Deut. 10:20). Jeremiah, as a faithful Torah student, reiterates the importance of this: “And it shall come to pass, if they will diligently learn the ways of my people, to swear by my name, ‘As Yahweh lives,’ even as they taught my people to swear by Baal, then they shall be built up in the midst of my people” (Jer. 12:16). This is a surprising promise to restore the other nations along with Judah, if they will learn the ways of Yahweh’s people. RelatedHow Was the Divine Name Translated in the Reformation? Part 4Andrew CaseHow Can You Know We Have the Right Books in the Bible?Andrew CaseHow Was the Pronunciation of God’s Name Lost? Part 2Andrew Case Thus, it is clear that swearing by Yahweh’s name constitutes an important mark of those who belong to and follow him. Conversely, Yahweh places no value on avoiding the use of his name either out of reverence, or to avoid the risk of blasphemy. Consequently, to avoid using the name of Yahweh to make a vow would be to go against his explicit wishes. Many people in the Hebrew Bible conform to Yahweh’s desire that his name be used to swear or vow. Boaz says to Ruth, “as Yahweh lives, I will redeem you” (Ruth 3:13). The people defend Jonathan to Saul by saying, “As Yahweh lives, there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground” (1 Sam. 14:45). Even Saul says of David, “As Yahweh lives, he shall not be put to death” (1 Sam. 19:6). Elijah (1 Kings 17:1) and Micaiah (2 Chron. 18:13) are other examples. Typical use of the name If it were forbidden to use God’s name, we would expect that righteous men like Boaz and Elijah would refrain from using it. Yet that’s simply not the case. We even see evidence of the divine name in casual greetings. Ruth 2:4 reads, “Now Boaz came from Bethlehem and said to those harvesting, ‘May Yahweh be with you!’ And they answered him, ‘May Yahweh bless you!’” Although there is no uniform agreement among commentators about how casual or formulaic this greeting was, what is clear is that the divine name is being used in a non-religious context as a kind of greeting. The context gives more weight to the idea that this was a standard greeting like “Good morning!” This seems to be yet another practical way Yahweh’s name was remembered throughout generations (see also Judg. 6:12). The name was not considered too sacred to pronounce in everyday interactions. Furthermore, it’s important to observe how Eli instructs young Samuel to address God in 1 Samuel 3:9: “Eli said to Samuel, “Go, lie down, and if he calls you, you shall say, ‘Speak, Yahweh, for your servant hears.’” It’s striking that a priest of God tells a little boy to call God by his name directly. One would think that if ancient Israelites had a strong custom of showing respect to God by addressing him only by “my Lord,” then Eli would have instructed Samuel to do so, but he did not. Given God’s love of children displayed throughout Scripture, it should come as no surprise that he welcomes them to call him by name. Get new articles and updates in your inbox. Leave this field empty if you're human: How God’s name differs Finally, Yahweh made himself unique amidst the gods of the nations by revealing his own personal name. All the other gods around the Hebrews were called by titles or elements of creation that they ruled over or represented. Examples include Baal (“Lord”), Dagon (probably “grain”), and Molech (“ruler” melek, with the vowels of “shame” bosheth). It makes sense that pagan gods did not have personal names because they were not intended to be related to on a personal level, but rather to be manipulated in order to get the good life. We lose this striking contrast between the pagan gods and Yahweh when we avoid using the personal name he revealed. Thus, I might suggest that we lose this striking contrast between the pagan gods and Yahweh when we avoid using the personal name he revealed and only use a title. By only translating the name as “Lord” in the Old Testament, we may be unintentionally blinding the reader to this particular uniqueness of the one true God. Does this same criticism apply to the New Testament writers? Not at all, as we will see in a subsequent article. Conclusion God clearly wants his personal name to be remembered forever. And the best way to remember his name is to do what David and other biblical writers did: use his name freely, especially in prayer, praise, vows, and in retelling his marvelous works throughout history. No passage in Scripture forbids the use of God’s name, which is why it is used nearly 7,000 times by the biblical authors. So how did we lose God’s name in many traditions and Bible translations? We’ll treat this question in our next article in this series. Related Illustration by David Fassett How Was the Pronunciation of God’s Name Lost? Part 2Ancient tradition divides on the use of God’s name, with no clear reason why some banned it. Andrew Case This article is in the public domain. You may freely use, share, and reproduce it. For a more in-depth treatment, see here.