Conclusions to Miscellaneous Arguments

Why is there so much confusion and contradiction among the pro-names groups over everything from doctrines, and proofs down to spellings and pronunciations? One pro-names individual blames it on those outside the names movement, citing arguments used by those responding to the "names" doctrines. Yet the argument about the letters on the high priest's headband (No. 26 above) is an example of contradiction between groups. Another example is the widespread disagreement over spelling and pronunciation.

One names supporter expresses it this way:
"The confusion surrounding the use of the sacred name Yahweh is manifested by the barrage of arguments and excuses launched by these various Jewish, Christian, and Moslem divisions and their subgroups to suppress the knowledge and use of the divine name."
Why, if the sacred name is considered so important in the Scriptures, do most of the religious teachings of the numerous Judaeo-Christian and Moslem sects set its doctrine aside? In a word eisegesis: the uncanny quality of human nature which insists upon reading into any given issue one's own personal ideas and interpretations.
This amusing game serves as a poignant reminder that humans in general are prone to place their own personal understanding into whatever they see, hear, and read. ... Further, the Scriptures proclaim that the name Yahweh is extremely valuable and the knowledge of it is necessary for salvation.
(Source: http://www.yahweh.org/publications/yahweh1.html)

With the exception of a few who reject the name "yahweh" (because of its use to refer to a pagan god), we are unaware of anyone who refuses to agree that "yhwh" and "yeshua" (or their variations) are Hebrew names for God and Christ. We are unaware of any Moslem "suppression" of Hebrew names. We are aware of an increasing interest among "Christians" in Hebrew culture including the use of Hebrew words as names. There also seems to be an increase in the Messianic Jewish movement, many of which use the Hebrew names.
As far as eisegesis, it does not seem to be limited to those outside of the names movement.
While the comment above does not reflect the attitude of many who believe in using the Hebrew names, we have included it here because it does represent comments often made by those who are proselytizing for acceptance of all the related arguments listed above, including the issue of salvation.

As for the actual causes of the confusion, it would appear that self-contradictory arguments are also a factor. For instance, the argument that 'just because no one can produce an original Hebrew NT, doesn't prove that it doesn't exist'. By such reasoning, one could claim that Elijah is still alive. Another example is the statement by many pro-names groups that "yhwh" is the "personal name" of the Father. This is stated as a critical reason for using this name. Yet many of these same groups will, at the same time, state that "yhwh" is also the name of the Son, and the "family" name of God.
For example an SDA website contains the following statement:
"Yode Hay Vav Hay - YHWH in Hebrew-Read from right side to left, pronounced "Yahweh" The family name of Heaven, by which we are called."
(Source: http://www.sda-online.com/public/index.htm)

The disagreement over spelling and pronunciation also contradicts the argument that the spelling and pronunciation were never "lost".
One of the larger pro-names sites, in quoting material to prove that Christ used "yhwh", offered as proof, "the Toldot Yeshu, a hostile Rabbinic parady (sic) on the gospel story (which) records a legend". This same article contained a quote from Josephus (Ant. 2:12:4) that, "the name (yhwh) was unknown before Moses". This demonstrates the weak material being offered as proof of the names doctrines, and at the same time, quotes a well-known source which contradicts the argument of other names groups that the "name" has been always been known to man.
Most names groups insist that only "yhwh" is acceptable, while the Stewarton Bible School which does use "the names", gives several reasons why the "other names" are also acceptable. Those reasons include:
1) that in the course of 400 years, over 800 million AV Bibles have been distributed in the world, while the names movement lacks the Hebrew scholars and the finances to duplicate this, even if they could agree on which "name" to use,
2) people who don't use the names, have their prayers answered, and
3) the preserved Bible used "Jesus Christ" in prophecy, without any reference by Christ about people using the "wrong name",
4) "to say that English-speaking people are addressing a pagan idol when they say "God", is to be out of touch with the English language and culture" (see also 1 Cor. 8:5-6), 5) the people of God are identified by their "fruit", character, and good words, not by their language or vocabulary, and
6) the sacred-namers don't display more or better spiritual fruit than believers in other church groups, and sometimes its worse (based on the author's personal experience, which he describes as "extensive").

Other pro-names groups say that different pronunciations are okay because those using them are "sincere". The use of "sincerity" as a measure of truth or righteousness, could imply a number of things, none of which are logical, or scriptural.

Questionable scholarship is also a factor in the confusion and contradiction. The example of changing the punctuation to reverse the meaning of a scripture was given above. One pro-names supporter posted three quotations to an Internet forum, as three separate "witnesses" that the NT was originally in Hebrew. History and archaeology have established that the language of Palestine in the 1st century AD was Aramaic, not Hebrew. The "three" quotes from Clement, Eusebius, and Josephus, were in reality, one opinion. The first was Clement's opinion which was recorded by Eusebius. The second was Josephus quoting Eusebius's account of Clement's expressing his opinion. The third was Josephus's restating, in his own words, Eusebius's account of Clement's opinion. The first quote is from Eusebius's work, the last two from a book by Josephus.
Finally, the quotation was about the book of Matthew only, not the entire NT. If Clement was correct in his statement, it still does not prove that the Greek version was a translation from the Hebrew. It could have just as easily been a translation from the Greek, or a separate original version by Matthew. In any case, we don't have it. We have only Eusebius's version of Clement's comment that Clement saw it, and no second witness to even verify that. While Clement is considered a "church father" by Catholics and other "Christian" organizations, the details of his life, conversion and subsequent actions, do not recommend him to us as a credible witness in the same sense as one of "the twelve" disciples of Christ. (See also Appendix 5.)

Other examples of questionable scholarship, which are by no means limited to this topic but which we have seen used in pro-names literature, include: 1) paraphrasing a source to say the opposite of what the source actually said, 2) paraphrasing a source's opinion as a fact, 3) quoting only the one source which agrees, or appears to agree with the point being made, when many or all other sources contradict the one used, 4) using incomplete quotes, or quotes out of context, to give an impression of proof, when the context or full quote offers no support or actually contradicts the point being made, and 5) original and second-hand speculation presented as proof.

What do the 50+ arguments above have in common? Approximately 60% of the arguments listed above are not scriptural statements but are opinions about scriptures. Of the remaining 40%, none are commandments of commission or of omission regarding the form of address for the Father or the Son. The scriptures presented as "proof" of the names doctrines fail to show a causal relationship between the use of Hebrew words and the blessings, protection and eternal life which are promised by God.

What is the "will" of God? The answer is discussed by Christ in Mat. 7.
"Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (Mat. 7:21-23).
Christ is speaking here, of "many" using the name "Lord", or according to the "Hebrew names" doctrine, using "yeshua", yet they "work iniquity". Since most of the Jewish groups do not believe in "yeshua", who are these "many" people and where are they? All the "Hebrew names" groups claim righteousness, partially or totally because of their use of the "Hebrew names". If they are the only ones "righteous" because of their use of the "names", then Christ says that "many" of them are working "iniquity".
It is significant that "the calling on the name of Christ (or yeshua)", is dis-associated (in Mat. 7) from doing "the will of my Father". Even the "name" combined with prophesy, exorcisms and other "wonderful works" does not guarantee entrance into the Kingdom and is dis-associated from "the will of the Father". The subject of this section is not names, but "wolves" and "fruit" (verses 15-20). Christ explains that what God is looking for, is "good fruit", and the "name" used, even if correct, is irrelevant. In the lists of the fruits of the Holy Spirit, speaking names in Hebrew is not included (Gal. 5:22-23).

Names Index / Next