Malachi 1:6 condemns ministers today who do not use "yhwh" ?

41. Some say that Malachi 1:6 condemns the priests who hid God's name and is a reference to the ministers today who refuse to give honor to God by not using the Hebrew name. This usually means exclusive use of the "names" and the rejection of "other" names and titles.
"A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master: if then I be a father, where is mine honour? and if I be a master, where is my fear? saith the Lord of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise my name. And ye say, Wherein have we despised thy name?"

Pro-names advocates fail to quote verses 7-14, which shows that the priests were "despising" God's name by offering "polluted bread" and blind and lame animals as sacrifices. Would God's response have been any different if the priests had offered "polluted bread" and blind and lame animals using the name "yhwh"? Since God looks on the heart (1 Sam. 16:7), we know the response would have been the same.
The word "despise" here is translated from the Hebrew "bazah", (Strong?s 959), "to disesteem: despise, disdain, contemn (-ptible),+ think to scorn".

The allegation here is that some ministers don't use the Hebrew names because they "despise" them. Some ministers have publicly explained that one main reason is because the public is not familiar with the Hebrew names and would be confused. Others are reluctant to risk placing a "stumbling block" in front of potential converts. Paul talked about the importance of being "understood" when preaching the gospel (1 Cor. 14:19). Actually, more ministers are using the Hebrew names occasionally, as Jewish culture is becoming more popular in "Christian" religions. Merely using the "names" occasionally seems to be unacceptable to those pro-names groups which believe that the gospel and the "names" are inseparable.

42. Matthew 17:11 is used to support the concept that John the Baptist preached the Hebrew name.
"And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things."

This text says nothing about John preaching the name "yhwh". If the name had to be "restored" by John, then that would contradict the other pro-names arguments about 'the name and pronunciation were never lost', and that Christ "revealed" the Father's "name". (See Nos. 7 and 31, above.) If John had "restored" the "name", then what did Christ "reveal"?
Actually, John didn't have a "name" to restore or to reveal. The only means given to John, by which he was to identify the Messiah, was a visual sign (Jn. 1:30-34).

There is also an inconsistency here. If Christ were killed for saying the ?name? (#1 above), why was John not killed for the same reason instead of being beheaded as a ?tip? for an exotic dancer (Mk. 6:17-28). John was in prison for publicly addressing the adultery of Herodias, Herod?s wife (verses 17-20), not for saying a ?banned? name. The Pharisees did not accuse John of any wrong doing, yet they hired ?false witnesses? to eliminate Christ.

43. Pro-names advocates insist that Christ came with his Father's name "yah". They say that the Messiah's name is "yah" combined with "salvation" or "shua". They offer John 5:43 and John 14:26 as proof.
"I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive." (John 5:43).
"But the Comforter, which is the Holy [Spirit], whom the Father will send in my name, (it) shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (John 14:26).
Neither of these verses say that Christ came with his Father's name. The first states that he came in his Father's name. The second says that the Holy Spirit would be sent in Christ's own name. These scriptures are speaking of "authority" not "labels" (see Mat. 21:23-27; 7:29; Mk. 1:22, 27; Jn. 5:27 regarding Christ's authority).

44. Some say that Ex.23:13, Josh. 23:7 and Psalm 16:4 prove it is wrong to "mention" (use) any other title or name except "Yahweh" as the name of the Father. These verses are discussed in "Make No Mention...Of Other Gods", above. The English word 'mention' that is used in Ex.23 and Josh. 23 is translated from the Hebrew word 'zakar', which means "to mark", "remember", "call to in remembrance", "think on", and "well remember", in other words, "worship". The meaning of the Hebrew word shows that these verses are not commandments about forbidden words. If it were, then the prophets would have sinned when they spoke, by inspiration of God, the names of pagan gods.

45. Some pro-names groups say that Amos 4:13 and 5:27 prove that, by the way they are punctuated, that there is a difference between God's name and his titles.
"...The Lord, The God of hosts, is his name." (Amos 4:13).

"...saith the Lord, whose name is The God of hosts." (Amos 5:27).
[Pro-names groups say that this verse should read," "The Elohim of Hosts, whose name is Yahweh."]

The original Hebrew text does not contain any punctuation. Punctuation was added later by the translators. The original verses read:
"...The Lord The God of hosts is his name."
"...saith the Lord whose name is the God of hosts."
(Titles, names and appellatives were discussed at length, above.)

46. Some give John 17:6, 26 as proof that Jesus revealed the sacred name to his followers and stirred up much controversy for doing so.
One article actually says that re-introducing the name to the "11 disciples" was a main part of his ministry as assigned by the Father. This article also says that "Yahweh" is the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. (This contradicts the other pro-names argument that the name was "never lost". It also contradicts the argument that "yahweh" is a "personal name" of the Father.)

"I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word."
"And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them." (Jn. 17:6, 26).

The controversy was not over saying a "name" (See argument # 1, above).

In John 17, Christ addresses God as "Father" six times and as "God" once. No single "name", other than "Father" and "God", is mentioned here. Verse 6 mentions "thy word", which is explained in verse 17 as God's "truth" not God's "name".
In verse 1, Christ prays to the Father, "glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:". In verse 4, Christ explained how he "glorified" his Father, "I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do". The "work" he finished is explained in verse 8, "For I have given them the words (plural) which thou gavest me: and they have received them (plural), and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me."
The "words" he was given are in verse 2, "As thou hast given him (Christ) power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou (Father) hast given him (Christ)."
Christ came with the gospel (good news) of salvation. To say that he came with the gospel of a "name" is to offer a substitute or false gospel.

47. Some offer Luke 11:52 as proof that Christ attacked the Pharisees for deleting the sacred name from the sacred texts.
"Woe unto you lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered."
This does not say that the "name" is the "key of knowledge" although some names groups teach this as doctrine.
The parallel scripture in Mat. 23:13 says, "for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in."
Christ is condemning the scribes and Pharisees for obscuring the truth of salvation, not for hiding a name. By emphasizing their own traditions they created a stumbling block for themselves and for others.
To equate the word "yhwh" with being a password to salvation, diminishes the value of Christ's sacrifice and the sacrifice of his Father.

48. One pro-names group says that Christ will not return until the "name" has been "restored", whatever that means. "Acts 3:21 confirms this marvelous truth by stating that Yahshua is seated in heaven and will remain there until the reinstitution and restoration of ALL THINGS, including the Sacred Name."
(Source: http://www.teshuvah.com/yati/articles/third_commandment.htm).

"(Christ) Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." (Acts 3:21).

Christ gave the signs of the "end" (Mat. 24). Several prophets (Ezek., Dan. and others) and the book of Revelation describe end time events. The "restoration" of a "name" is not mentioned. This argument contradicts the argument (#42 above) that John (as "Elijah") "restored all things"(Mat. 17:11). It also contradicts the argument (#7 above) that Christ "revealed" the name of the Father.

(See also Mat. 24:48-49, 37-39.)

49. One group says that knowing the name "Yahweh" will bring you "great joy".
"What a joy that will be when you rediscover His Name to be neither Thomas Nelson, Jack Hayford, Mr. Kirkbride, the American Bible Society, Lord-God, Almighty God,
or any other religious jargon, but rather YAHWEH and Yahshua! Allow Proverbs 30:4-5, to
be personally fulfilled in your believing life."
(Source: http://www.teshuvah.com/yati/articles/third_commandment.htm).

"Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him." (Pro. 30:4, 5).

These scriptures say nothing about "joy". "God" (elowahh) is the only name used here.

50. Some say that: "Zeph. 3:9 reaffirms Messiah's last days mission by stating that the latter days will be characterized by a return to the heavenly language of Hebrew (the language of both the first and second covenant), "so that ALL NATIONS OR PEOPLES (including born again Ephraimites Christians) CAN CALL ON "THE NAME" OF YAHWEH AND SERVE HIM WITH ONE SHOULDER"!"

From a pro-names web site:
"What a glorious ongoing restoration we are seeing in these last days. The ongoing ministry of Messiah Yahshua, in restoring the Sacred Name to His people to be used for deeper intimacy and answered petitions, will see an ultimate fulfillment both in the kehilah of Yahshua, and also in the land of Israel. Hosea 2:16 reads as follows:

And it shall be in that day' declares YAHWEH, `that you shall call me my husband and no longer call me my Baal (MY LORD). And I shall remove the names of the baals (lords) from her mouth and they shall no more be remembered by their name".

A) Zeph. 3:9 says, "For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent."
Verse 8, which was not quoted in the above statement, gives us a time setting for verse 9. Verse 8 describes the gathering of the world's armies to fight against Christ. This hasn't happened yet, so the "for then" and the "pure language" of verse 9 can not be here yet. Since Hebrew is spoken by some people now, it can't be the future "pure language".

B) We don't see any "glorious movement" toward speaking Hebrew. One author who has researched the "names movement" for several years estimates that all the names congregations together total less than 5,000 members.
The use of various forms of "yhwh" does not constitute "a return to the Hebrew language". Most of the nearly 200 variations in names for the Father and the Son are "contrived" words not found in the Hebrew language.

C) Some have already been experiencing "deeper intimacy and answered petitions" for many years without using Hebrew names. Some, who have only within the past few years heard the Hebrew names doctrines, still experience "deep intimacy and answered petitions" without using Hebrew to address the Father or to refer to the Messiah.

D) Hosea 2:16 says that we shall call Him, "Ishi" (husband), not "Yahweh".

E) If "Yahweh" is the Father, and "Yashua" is the Son, then according to Hos. 2:16, we shall call the Father, "husband" instead of Christ. This contradicts the widely accepted analogy that Christ is the spiritual "husband" of the "church". If this scripture is referring to the Son, then it contradicts the argument that "yahweh" is the "personal name" of the Father.

51. Some say that when Matthew wrote one thing, he actually meant something else. Specifically, that when he wrote "kingdom of God" and "kingdom of Heaven", what he actually meant was "kingdom of Yahweh".

From a pro-names web site:
"Many biblical scholars have even speculated that Matthew the talmid manifested the error of ineffability in his gospel as well! Due to his Levitical background (Matthew was known in traditional circles as Levi), his attempt to give reverence to the Sacred Name, has caused us some modern day confusion. These same scholars have come to the conclusion that the synonymous and often interchangeable terms, Kingdom of G-d and Kingdom of Heaven found only in Matthew's gospel, are both New Covenant masks for YAHWEH. Don't forget that Matthew was writing primarily to a Jewish audience showing them that the
promised King Messiah had in fact been manifested to Israel, thus fulfilling all the prophetic pronouncements of the Suffering Servant. He did not want to offend or be a stumbling block to his intended traditional Jewish audience, which was the very audience that he was witnessing to! Substituting YAHWEH in all these verses would eliminate these different
interchangeable and supposedly synonymous terms, thus bringing uniformity to the text. According to these scholars these verses should properly read "Kingdom Of YAHWEH" in all instances."
(Source: http://www.teshuvah.com/yati/articles/third_commandment.htm).

A) The author above, failed to identify a single one of the "many biblical scholars" to which he refers. In pro-names literature, such un-named sources often turn out to be other contemporary pro-names supporters, who are not "scholars" by academic standards.

B) If it was permissible for Matthew to avoid using the name "yhwh" in order to avoid offending others, then why is it considered mandatory for divine favor, blessings, protection, and salvation?

C) This paragraph illustrates a device frequently found in pro-names literature. It begins with a sentence that includes a form of the word "speculation" and concludes with a statement "of fact" (e.g. "these verses should properly read "Kingdom of YAHWEH" in all instances.").

D) The term "kingdom of God" is also found in Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans,
1 Corinthians, Gal, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, and Revelation.
The terms of "kingdom of Christ, (or) Lord, (or) his Son, (or) Jesus" are found in Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Peter, and Revelation.
So the argument of achieving "uniformity" by changing the wording of Matthew is without any merit.

E) The argument of Matthew ?attempting to give reverence to the Sacred Name? by using a substitution contradicts the most basic pro-names arguments, that substitution is offensive to God and is a sin according to Ex. 20:7.

F) Using the logic of this argument, we would have to ask, did Matthew mean the rest of what he wrote, or did he mean something else? Did Christ mean what he said, or did he mean something else. Did God actually offer us ?forgiveness? and ?salvation? or did he mean ?something else??

52. Some seem to believe that, while the terms "God" and "Lord" cannot be used, it is permissible to write "G-d" and "L-rd". We found no explanation of how this would be accomplished in conversation.
The following statement is from a pro-names web site:

" The belief system of ineffability is the belief system behind the omission of the "o" vowel, that even the most secular of Jews avoid when writing either L-rd or G-d. This omission is a meaningless act of monkey see, monkey do and scores no brownie points with YAHWEH. If anything, this practice is a lack of reverence and understanding, whereby unregenerate Jews change pagan titles by omitting the "o", all the while believing that they are engaged in a holy act of reverence."
(Source: http://www.teshuvah.com/yati/articles/third_commandment.htm).

We have yet to see an explanation of how the pro-names supporters would have preached "yhwh" to the Greeks in Athens, in lieu of Paul's successful method of referring to the Greek's own "Agnostos Theos" or " To The Unknown God" (Acts 17:21-23, 32-34).

53. One argument is that there is a difference between a title and a personal name for the Father and the Son. Another is that descriptive terms are not personal names. And another says that names are not translated but transliterated. These three arguments are addressed in the first part of this article. (See "Titles and Names", "Translation and Transliteration", and "Shem and Descriptive Attributes".)

Names Index / Next