The NITPICKER'S GUIDE to COG Doctrinal Debate on ... 

The Sacred Name Doctrine

 

---

If this is your first visit to the Nitpicker's Guide, be sure to read THE KEYS before reading this article. It provides vital background material. See the menu button on the left.

Clicking on words in the article that are in italics and underlined will take you to a short definition in the NITPICKER'S Lexicon. After reading the definition, use your browser's BACK button to return to the article at the point you left it. At any time, you can use the Lexicon menu button at the left to go directly to the Lexicon for browsing.

---

Disclaimer: This article is not offered as a comprehensive treatment of the topic. It is intended to be merely a helpful overview.

---

Under Debate

In a nutshell

"Is it acceptable for Christians to use the common terms in their own language for the Creator, such as God and Lord in English? Or should Christians who do not speak Hebrew as their native language feel obligated to use only the Hebrew Tetragrammaton (usually rendered YHWH in English) when praying to the Creator, or speaking or writing about Him?

More than a nutshell

The Bible is a record of the Creator's revelation of Himself to mankind. By the second book of the Old Testament, Exodus, that revelation is almost exclusively aimed at the people descended from the Patriarch Abraham's grandson, Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel. These people were known as the Israelites, and the language they spoke was an ancient form of the Hebrew language.

In Exodus, Moses is confronted by the Creator in the form of a voice emanating from a burning bush. The voice tells Moses to tell the Israelites who are still captive in Egypt that "YHWH Elohim," the mighty one of their ancestors, has sent Moses to lead them to freedom. YHWH is believed by most commentators to be a form of the Hebrew verb for "to be," and to indicate something like "the eternal, everliving, self-existent one." The Hebrew word El is said to be a noun indicating "mighty one," with the term Elohim a plural of that.

The question under debate is whether, in calling Himself YHWH, the Creator was giving the only specific "name" that should ever be used with which to refer to Him. Among those who believe that this is the only name that should be used, the name Jesus is also avoided, in favor of what is believed to be the Hebrew form of His name, usually rendered Yashua or Yahshua.

Those who have actively promoted the concept that the Hebrew Names should be used are part of what is commonly called the Sacred Name Movement. Some of these individuals and groups take a moderate approach to this issue and encourage others to use the Hebrew Names, but do not aggressively condemn those who don't. However, the majority within the movement in modern times seem to embrace what is usually termed the "exclusive Sacred Name" position, or sometimes the "Sacred Name only" position. While dealing with people who have not yet been exposed to the details of the Sacred Name (SN) doctrine, such exclusive SN believers may be patient and conciliatory. However, if they believe that someone has enough information about the doctrine to be, in their opinion, accountable for choosing to reject the doctrine, then they may well accuse such a person of willful blasphemy.

Translation or Transliteration?

One way to characterize a primary aspect of the debate is to note that SN proponents insist that one should never translate the Hebrew word YHWH, but should always, in all languages and societies, transliterate it. To translate a word from one language into another, one picks a word or phrase in the second language that most clearly conveys the meaning of the original word. To transliterate a word from one language to another, one attempts to choose letters in the second language that will most accurately represent the sound of the word in the original language.

If a person from France with the first and last name Etienne Renard moves to the United States, he can choose to keep the "phonetic sound" of his names in French. (Since English and French letters are quite similar, he would not need to transliterate his name. This would not be so in the case of a Chinese person.) Or he can choose to translate the names into their meaning in English--Steven Fox. From the perspective of SN proponents, the latter should never be done with names.

The primary aim of this article is not to attempt to settle every nuance of this debate, nor to answer in detail every technical question that arises, but to provide a brief overview of the elements of the debate for those who are unfamiliar with the subject. The Webauthor will, indeed, share a personal perspective on the issues throughout the material. But each reader is left to do more research on the topic if desired, and come to his/her own conclusions.

History of The Debate in Sabbatarian COG circles

Although there are minor disagreements regarding exact dates and names among those who've studied the history of the so-called Sacred Name Movement, the consensus seems to be that there was no organized, wide-spread effort to promote the SN doctrine until the 1930s. A smattering of books written in the 1800s directly or indirectly addressed the topic, such as The Memorial Name, or Yaveh Christ, by Alexander MacWhorter of Yale University, copyrighted in 1857. But such books didn't seem to have sparked any organized response.

Almost all SN groups of the 21st century can trace their roots back ultimately to a handful of people active in or around the Church of God, Seventh Day (COG7) in the 1920s. This group shared roots with the Seventh Day Adventist Church (SDA) in the Millerite movement of the 1840s. Like the SDAs, the COG7's s primary doctrinal distinctive was the observance of the Sabbath on Saturday. But the COG7's founders had rejected the claims for the visions of Ellen G. White, and thus had separated from the founders of the SDA denomination before the official incorporation of that group in 1867.

By the early 1930s, a handful of COG7 ministers had begun studying the issue of whether one ought to use the Hebrew name for the Almighty in worship. There was no solid agreement among them ... or even among scholars of the Hebrew language in general at the time ... on just what that name was and exactly how it should be pronounced. But in spite of this, a number of them began writing doctrinal papers and magazine articles promoting the concept that Believers ought to do something about the issue of the Hebrew name of the Almighty.

COG7 elders C.O. Dodd and Andrew Dugger co-authored a book in the early 1930s titled History of the True Church. Within a few years, both of them were no longer affiliated with the COG7 but had their own independent ministries. Dodd began publication of a magazine called The Faith in 1937, and within a year was publishing articles in it regarding the SN. He eventually was instrumental in the development of a loose association of SN groups throughout the country, most of which took as part of their group name "Assembly of Yahweh."

Over the next thirty years there were many squabbles among groups in this movement, with individuals splitting off and forming new groups continually. Jacob O. Meyer of Pennsylvania began studying the materials of this movement in the early 1960s, and fellowshipping and cooperating with a number of SN groups and ministries. In 1966 he launched his own radio program to promote the SN doctrine, and in 1969 he formally incorporated his efforts as the Assemblies of Yahweh, with headquarters in Bethel, Pennsylvania. His Sacred Name Broadcast and its companion magazine, the Sacred Name Broadcaster, continue to this day. 

By 1980 Meyer's organization began fragmenting over issues of leadership, and the coming years brought a variety of new split-off groups. Most tend to keep a doctrinal base fairly close to that of Meyer's Assemblies of Yahweh. The Internet has provided even the smallest SN ministry with the opportunity to spread their efforts widely. But Meyer's organization is likely still the largest and most widely known SN group.

A significant proportion of the growth in SN ministries in recent decades may have come from the turmoil that began within the Worldwide Church of God (WCG) in the 1970s, and with the major break-up of that organization that occurred within a decade of the death of founder Herbert Armstrong in 1986. Some accounts indicate Jacob O. Meyer had approached Armstrong in the late 1960s in an attempt to persuade him of the validity of the SN doctrine, but Armstrong wasn't interested. However, Meyer's radio broadcast often competed on the same channels across the country with the WCG's World Tomorrow program. And thus many WCG members were exposed to Meyer's teachings. This led to efforts by the WCG to counter these inroads by featuring a whole series of articles against aspects of the SN doctrine in the November, 1972 edition of the Good News, the WCG magazine published specifically for members.

Although this may have dampened the spread of the doctrine among WCG members for a time, the doctrinal and administrative chaos that soon characterized the WCG from the mid-1970s right up to its major breakdown in 1995 left many former members disillusioned about their theological foundations. And this left many open to being wooed by a variety of Sabbatarian ministries, including those with a SN emphasis. Other than the SN doctrine, many SN groups, including Meyer's Assemblies of Yahweh, have a doctrinal base quite similar to the old WCG, including observance of the weekly Sabbath and the annual Biblical Feasts, the avoidance of unclean meats, the rejection of traditional holidays such as Christmas and Easter, and rejection of the notion of an ever-burning hell. Thus individuals and families looking for a place for Sabbath worship because they left--voluntarily or through disfellowshipment--one or another of the break-offs of the WCG may find congregations of SN proponents more inviting than any of the other Sabbatarian alternatives that may be available to them.

Many groups with their roots in the old WCG still continue to disintegrate constantly to this day, with individuals, several families, and sometimes even whole congregations withdrawing from such denominations as the United Church of God. And, just has been true for the past thirty years and more, these newly "independent" folks often very quickly run across information about the SN doctrine. This is particularly true with the explosion of information now available on every topic imaginable on the Internet. Former WCG members often start by doing websearches to try to find Sabbatarian groups in their own area, which will promptly lead them to a number of SN websites.

Thus, even though the topic of the SN has been debated endlessly for over thirty years in Sabbatarian circles, the debate is never settled. For there are always new people coming along who discover the doctrine, get excited about it, and, all too often, want to force it upon their own small circle of friends and brethren. Frequently they do not realize that many such friends and brethren have already investigated the doctrine long ago, found it not persuasive, and have moved on. Thus constant harping on the topic in some fellowship settings quickly leads to disruption of the peace of the group, and, all too often, to fragmentation.

One of the aims of this overview is to give enough information about the matters under debate for those who may be affected by this sort of confusion and confrontation to deal as promptly as possible with the issue. When all parties involved don't come to the table with the same level of information about the issues, it can lead to a situation in which conflict festers underneath the surface of relationships for extended periods. And that is a very unhealthy spiritual environment for new Believers to be brought into! Better to deal with the situation openly, above board, and swiftly.

A number of  articles elsewhere on the Web contain more extensive details about the historical background to the debate. One that readers may find useful is:

Origin and History of the Sacred Name Movement

Linguistic Background to the Debate

The graphic above displays the Hebrew letters that are used in the Old Testament manuscripts to indicate the word that is translated LORD throughout the King James Version of the Bible, including in this passage:

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. (Exo 3:15)

The word in the Hebrew is often referred to by commentators as The Tetragrammaton, (Greek tetra=four, gramma=letter) in essence, The Word of Four Letters. A general overview of some of the linguistic considerations regarding this word can be seen in the Tetragrammaton entry in the online Wikipedia encyclopedia.

Hebrew writing is read from right to left, so the first letter of the word is the "apostrophe"-looking mark on the right, and the rest of the letters follow toward the left. Modern linguistic scholars have concluded that the consonants represented by these letters in ancient times were likely close to the English letters YHWH. However, there is a certain amount of dispute over this ... they could also be YHVH. The pronunciation of the names of each of these consonants is generally agreed upon to be something close to yod, hay, vav, hay .

In addition, ancient Hebrew manuscripts had no markings to indicate what vowel sounds were in any given word. It was expected, evidently, that people would be taught to read the passages of the ancient biblical manuscripts by a knowledgeable person, and just memorize what vowel sounds would be necessary to complete each word. This would continue for generations. There is a problem with this, however, when people 3,500 years or so after the fact are trying to read each word--and the chain of knowledgeable persons has been broken.

Long before the first century, the Jews decided that the third of the Ten Commandments,  worded in the King James Version as "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain," meant that using the pronunciation of YHWH in any way that might be considered lacking in total gravity was forbidden. And thus, to avoid even the remote chance that they might disobey this commandment accidentally, they gradually chose to avoid speaking the word at all. History seems to indicate that, by the first century, the only person in the whole society who would utter it, and then only once a year on the Day of Atonement inside the Holy of Holies in the Temple in Jerusalem, was the High Priest. Even when reading the scriptures out loud, whenever they got to the YHWH, they would substitute the term "Adonai" (meaning "my Lord") for it. When speaking or writing about the word YHWH, modern Jews tend to just refer to it as The Name.

So it is difficult to understand how anyone in modern society can be completely sure of the correct pronunciation of this word that was so long kept under wraps. In ancient Hebrew,  just as in English, a wide variety of words might have the same consonants, just different vowels.  In English, ST could be sit, sat, or set. BD could be bid, bad, bed, or bud. In many cases, one has to rely on the context of a sentence to know which word should be understood. But in the case of a word like YHWH, with a pronunciation that has been shrouded in the mists of history, there really is no context to use to make a determination of exactly how it was pronounced anciently. (Another interesting oddity of ancient Hebrew is that there were not even any spaces between each word, nor indications by punctuation or capitalization of when a sentence began or ended. But discussion of that issue will not be considered in this article, as it isn't really relevant to the key issues.)

This lack of ancient vowel indications in the manuscripts is the reason why, among proponents of the SN movement, a very wide variety of possibilities are ... in some cases dogmatically ... taught as THE only proper way to pronounce the Name. These include Yahweh, Yahwah, Yahveh, Yahvah, Yahowa, Yehowah, Yahovah, Yehovah, and even YodHayVavHay (that variation has the speaker stringing together a vocalization of the names of the consonants, rather than adding any vowel sounds to the word itself.)

Some SN proponents will insist that the sincere Believer just needs to realize that he must use some attempt at vocalizing YHWH or YHVH, and that the Eternal will be pleased with his efforts. Others are utterly adamant, however, that their particular version must be used and that all others are inferior at best and insulting to the Eternal at worst. Admission into full fellowship in some groups can be limited only to those who will agree to the prescribed pronunciation. In fact, the list of possible transliterations of the Sacred Name, ones that are actually used by various groups, is much longer than the short list mentioned above. Here is one list from a "moderate" SN website that mentions that they accept all of the following as legitimate usage ... although they personally promote enthusiastically the terms Yahveh for the Heavenly Father and Yahu'shuah (abbreviated:Y'shuah, also pronounced Yehoshua or Yeshua) for the Messiah. They don't, however, present any historically or linguistically credible reasoning for their own choices.

YHVH YHWH Yahweh Yahveh Yaveh Yaweh Jehova Jehovah Jahova Jahovah Yahova Yahovah Yahowah Jahowa Jahowah Yahavah Jahavah Yahowe Yahoweh Jahaveh Jahaweh Yahaveh Yahaweh Jahuweh Yahuweh Jahuwah Yahuwah Yahuah Yah Jah Yahu Yahoo Yaohu Jahu Yahvah Jahvah Jahve Jahveh Yahve Yahwe Yauhu Yawhu Iahu Iahou Iahoo Iahueh

 

Jeshua, Yeshua, Yeshuah, Yehshua, Yehshuah, Yeshouah,  Y'shua, Y'shuah, Jeshu, Yeshu, Yehoshua, Yehoshuah, YHVHShua, YHVHShuah, Yhvhshua, Yhwhshua, YHWHShua, YHWHShuah, Yhvhshuah, Yhwhshuah, Yahvehshua, Yahwehshua,  Yahvehshuah, Yahwehshuah, Yawhushua,Yahawshua, Jahshua, Jahshuah, Jahshuwah, Jahoshua, Jahoshuah, Jashua, Jashuah, Jehoshua, Jehoshuah, Yashua, Yashuah, Yahshua, Yahshuah, Yahushua, Yahushuah, Yahuahshua, Yahuahshuah, Yahoshua, Yahoshuah, Yaohushua, Yaohushuah,  Yauhushua, Iahoshua, Iahoshuah, Iahushua, Iahushuah, YAHO-hoshu-WAH

Biblical Background to the Debate

Old Testament

There are numerous references to the "name" of God in the Old Testament. Below are typical examples, with brief comments about each in light of the SN doctrine:

The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD. And everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved; for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be deliverance,  as the LORD has said, among the survivors whom the LORD calls.(Joel 2:31-32)

Some SN proponents have insisted, based on this passage, that only those who know and use their particular choice of phonetic pronunciation of YHWH will receive salvation. Unfortunately, since the SN doctrine wasn't even promulgated by any group until the last century, and thus virtually no one was actually using any of the variations of the Tetragrammaton, this would seem to mean that there were no true Believers who could have been saved during the period from the first century to the 20th.

Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name ... (Mat 6:9)

Psalms 86:12: I will praise thee, O Lord my God, with all my heart: and I will glorify thy name for evermore. (Psa 86:12)

SN proponents will frequently point out passages like this and ask, "If His name is to be 'hallowed' (respected and honored or set apart) and 'glorified,' (praised highly), shouldn't we know what that name  is so that we can revere it in these ways?"

In answer, it may be helpful to explore what David and others meant by the word translated in English as "name."

When most people use the English word "name" in everyday conversation, they usually mean a set of phonetic sounds ... as in, "the name Jonathan has three syllables." But that is not the only way the word is used in English. Consider each of these common English statements:

"The Ambassador of England came to visit the President in the name of the Queen." Did he come and introduce himself as "Elizabeth"? No, of course not. He came "representing the authority of and personality of" Elizabeth.

"Be careful not to bring dishonor on the name of your family." Does this mean not to say "Jones is a stupid name"? No, it means a member of the Jones family shouldn't do something illegal or immoral and thereby harm the reputation of the whole Jones family.

"Pro 22:1 A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches, And loving favor rather than silver and gold." Does this mean that there are bad names (my parents used to live next to a family whose last name literally was "Stinky"!) and good names like "Buenavista" (meaning "beautiful scene" )? No, it means that a good reputation is better than riches.

"He really made a name for himself!" Does that mean he didn't like the name his parents gave him and made up a new one? No, it means that he did great works and got a famous reputation.

"That horrible crime spree gave the small town a bad name." Does that mean that the town had a nice name like "Paradise" and was renamed after a crime spree to "Hell"? (Both of those towns exist in Michigan!) No, it means that the reputation of the small town as a lovely place to raise a family was besmirched by the crime spree, and its reputation had suffered.

The Hebrew word most often translated "name" in the KJV, shem, has all the same nuances of meaning.

Here's the entry in the Strong's Hebrew Lexicon for shem.

A primitive word (perhaps rather from H7760 through the idea of definite and conspicuous position; compare H8064); an appellation, as a mark or memorial of individuality; by implication honor, authority, character: - + base, [in-] fame [-ous], name (-d), renown, report.

If the Eternal wanted us to know the exact pronunciation of some specific word that He wanted us to use to talk to and about Him, he surely would have preserved that knowledge. He hasn't. The SN people haggle among themselves on how to pronounce YHWH.

Phonemes or Meanings?

Most, but not all, commentators think that the "meaning" of YHWH is something like "the eternal, everliving, self-existent one." It is very obvious in the Bible that the specific "names" given to people (such as when Abram was changed to Abraham) have to do not with just phonetic syllables (phonemes) strung together, but with meaning. Thus, even if YHWH was the only "name"  we should use for the Almighty, it would seem that we ought to use the word or words in our own language that signify that meaning. As a matter of fact, many (including Bible translator James Moffatt in his version of the Bible) do choose to use the words "The Eternal" when writing about certain aspects of God's identity.

Consider this passage:

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (Isa 9:6)

That's the same Hebrew word there, "name=shem." It is quite obvious that this passage is saying that His identity will be that He is the Wonderful One, the Counselor of All, the All-powerful Mighty One, the Prince of Peace.

The All-Powerful One is certainly powerful enough to have carefully preserved and made perfectly clear exactly what He wants to be called by His children. He doesn't seem to have done so in terms of the YHWH "phonetic name." So evidently the use of any specific phonetic sound isn't what is important to Him.

Jesus had a really big Open Door to tell us what the specific name of the Almighty is when He said in the "Lord's Prayer," "Hallowed be Thy Name." But he didn't say we should say in prayer "YHWH in heaven, hallowed be thy Name--YHWH." He gave us the example of praying using the words "Our Father." Mothers and Fathers cherish the first time their children say "Daddy" and "Mommy," not when the child learns their given first names. Can we imagine our Heavenly Father is any different?

Here is the Greek translated "name" in the context of Jesus' prayer.

on'-om-ah
From a presumed derivative of the base of G1097 (compare G3685); a “name” (literally or figuratively), (authority, character): - called, (+ sur-) name (-d).

It is evident that Jesus wasn't talking about some phonetic sound, but the true Identity of the Mighty One of the Universe. We need to know all about His reputation and renown and mighty works. We need to spread that knowledge to as many as we can.

Isa 11: 9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of YHWH, as the waters cover the sea.

It is obvious by the context that this doesn't mean the knowledge of how to pronounce YHWH, but the knowledge of Who He is and what He has decreed as the best for Mankind.

There surely is no problem with using what one may think is the best approximation of YHWH, whether one is convinced that is Yahweh, Yahweh, Yahovah, or whatever else. Nor is there a problem with using what one believes to be the best approximation of the Hebrew form of Jesus, whether Yahshua, Y'shua, Yahoshua, or whatever else. But the Bible does not indicate we need to praise those phonetic words. We need to praise the reality of the Father and Son.

Other Concerns in the Debate

Names ... or Titles? 

A typical complaint in most SN promotional material is that such English terms as God and Lord, as well as their counterparts in Greek, Theos and Kurios, are not "names," they are generic titles. The implication is that it is wrong to refer to God by one of His titles, but rather that one should find out His personal name and use that, either exclusively or primarily. One reason given for this is that "God" without the capital G in English can refer to false "gods." And "Lord" in English can refer to people.

But the same is true in Hebrew. The word Adonai is used to refer to God in the Old Testament, it is a word meaning "Lord," and is also used of humans. Even the terms El and Elohim (mighty one or mighty ones), used consistently in connection with YHWH, are applied in the old Testament to humans at times.

So the problem cannot be just that the English terms are generic titles. The OT example shows that using titles to refer to YHWH is acceptable. The real issue seems to be whether one should use YHWH "most of the time" ... and whether there is something more inherently wrong with the titles as they appear in English. 

Pagan origin of English words God and Jesus?

This brings us to the matter of claims by some SN advocates that the common words God and Lord are not legitimate translations for the titles of God but are, rather, terms borrowed from paganism. Daniel Botkin, a Hebrew Roots author who uses the Sacred Name himself, describes this controversy [his use of the acronym SNO stands for "Sacred Name Only," the extremist position of the Sacred Name Movement]:

For further commentary by Botkin on Sacred Name issues, see the link at the end of this article.

Jesus=Zeus?

Another common claim in SN circles is that the English word Jesus is not really derived in any way from the Hebrew name for the Messiah, nor a Greek version (Iesous) of that Hebrew name, but really has its roots in paganism. Some insist it is made up of parts that mean "Zeus is healer." A related claim is that the term Christ (Christos in Greek) is related to the Indian god Krishna.

There is, however, no credible historical or linguistic proof at all of these etymological claims. And, in fact, many SN advocates have long since quit making these claims, as they have realized there was no substance to them. This has not, however, prevented many other from continuing to circulate outdated SN literature which promotes these ideas.

More information on the Jesus/Zeus claim can be seen at:

http://www.seekgod.ca/htwhatsinaname.htm

Translation or Transliteration in the NT?

The authors of the New Testament quote the Old Testament frequently. Whenever they quote a passage containing one of the Hebrew references to YHWH in the original, they translate it with such Greek terms as Theos ("God") and Kurios ("Lord") . In other words, they translate rather than transliterate.

Transliteration of the name of the Messiah  

In addition to totally rejecting the Greek (Iesous) and English (Jesus) forms of the name of  the Messiah, some SN teachers insist that it is absolutely necessary to use a form of the Hebrew that includes "Yah" in the name by which one refers to Him. One influential teacher in the Hebrew Roots movement who takes this position is self-styled "Messianic Rabbi" Michael John Rood.

The following information is from Nitpicker's Guide Webauthor Pam Dewey's profile of  Michael John Rood, posted on her Field Guide to the Wild World of Religion website. 

Throughout the Hebrew Roots movement, most teachers advocate that believers should avoid the terms God, Lord, and Jesus, and use instead the Hebrew name of the Almighty (transliterated variously as Yahweh, Yahveh, YodHeVavHe, Yahovah, and more) and Hebrew name of the Messiah (Yashua, Yeshua, Y'shua, Yahoshuah, Yahshua and more.)

As a Hebrew Roots teacher, Michael John Rood does indeed advocate this. But, in an evident attempt to foster a sense of elitism in his own supporters as compared to even others in the Hebrew Roots movement, he comes down strongly on the absolute importance of saying the name of the Messiah in precisely the way he uses it himself:

From Tape 1 of The 70 Week Ministry of the Messiah

And so when I say the name of YAHshua, I am saying the most beautiful name in heaven and earth. This is the name by which you MUST be saved. So I like to pronounce it correctly.

And you'll notice I do not pronounce it the way that many Messianic Jews have been raised to pronounce it as Yeshua, which misses the point of YAH. It is not Yeshua, the emphasis is not on salvation, the emphasis is on YAH, the Name of God. YAHshua. Because it is our God whose name is emphasized in every Hebrew name. That is where the emphasis is. But because of a tradition that has turned people away from the truth, as it talks about in Titus 1:14, it says, "Do not give heed to Jewish fables or Jewish traditions and the commandments of men which turn away from the truth."

The primary problem with this position is … that the word "YAHshua" is evidently itself "a tradition of men." And it is not just a tradition of Jewish men, but rather of Gentile men wishing to address the Almighty in a language not their own.

The author of the following excerpts is someone who is part of the Hebrew Roots and Sacred Name movement himself, and he advocates using the Hebrew names. But he is evidently more honest than some regarding how important exact pronunciation is to the piety of the believer.

Excerpts from an article at http://www.yashanet.com/library/Yeshua_or_Yahshua.htm

The Messiah's Hebrew Name: "Yeshua" Or "Yahshua"?

Dr. Daniel Botkin explains the Hebrew linguistics of the names "Yeshua" and "Yahshua" and how "Yahshua" is a mistransliteration by Sacred Name advocates to fit an erroneous interpretation of John 5:43 and how "Yeshua" is far more accurate. He also clearly establishes the fact that the English name "Jesus" has absolutely no pagan connection and is simply a derivation of "Yesous," the Greek transliteration of "Yeshua." Most important, Dr. Botkin addresses that slander and criticism surrounding the name controversy in entirely non-Scriptural and not glorifying to the Holy One of Israel.

… The opponents of the Yeshua form claim that this pronunciation is the result of a Jewish conspiracy to hide the Savior’s true name. Those who call the Messiah Yeshua are accused of perpetuating a Jewish conspiracy and "denying His name" or "degrading Him" by their use of the Yeshua form. If you have never read or heard these outlandish accusations, you probably will eventually. From time to time I receive personal letters to this effect.

The proponents of the Yahshua form claim that the Messiah’s name was the same as Joshua’s, written [vwhy or [wvwhy (Strong’s #3091). The only problem is that neither of these Hebrew spellings of Joshua’s name can possibly be pronounced "Yahshua." The third letter in Joshua’s name (reading from right to left) is the letter vav (w) and a vav cannot be silent. The letter vav must be pronounced as either a "v" or an "o" or an "u." (In the case of Joshua, it takes an "o" sound, giving us "Ye-ho-SHU-a." Strong’s confirms this pronunciation.) For a name to be pronounced "Yahshua," it would have to be spelled [wv--hy, and no such name exists anywhere in the Hebrew Bible. You don’t have to just take my word for it, though. Dr. Danny Ben-Gigi says of the Yahshua form that "there is no such name in Hebrew" and that "people invented it to fit their theology." Dr. Ben-Gigi is an Israeli and the former head of Hebrew programs at Arizona State University. He is the author of the book First Steps in Hebrew Prayers, and he designed and produced the "Living Israeli Hebrew" language-learning course. Dr. David Bivin, a Christian, says that the Yahshua form "is rooted in a misunderstanding." Dr. Bivin is a renowned Hebrew scholar and teacher and author of Fluent Biblical Hebrew.

I do not know of a single individual that knows Hebrew well enough to actually read it and understand it and converse in it who uses the Yahshua form.

Please do not misunderstand. A person does not need to know Hebrew and Greek linguistics in order to be spiritual. However, if a person is going to take it upon himself to instruct others about subjects of a linguistic and Hebraic nature, he should know the Hebrew language and he should know some basics about linguistics. This is especially true if he is going to use his Hebrew-based linguistic teachings to accuse his brethren of being part of a "Jewish conspiracy" to "deny the true name of the Messiah."

To people who actually know Hebrew – people like Dr. Ben-Gigi, Dr. Bivin, and others – it is very obvious that those who insist on the Yahshua form know very little about the Hebrew language. The only Hebrew that most of these self-appointed scholars know is what they can learn from a Strong’s Concordance. Strong’s is a great study tool and a fine place to start, but it is not a means by which a person can learn the Hebrew language.

If no Hebrew-speaking natives ever used the term "Yahshua," where did Hebrew Roots teachers like Rood get the idea that it was the correct form of the Messiah's name?

… So where did the transliteration Yahshua come from? This form of the name can be traced back to the beginnings of the Sacred Name movement, a movement that grew out of the Church of God, 7th Day, in the late 1930s. I have in my files an article entitled, "A Brief History of the Name Movement in America" by L.D. Snow, a Sacred Name believer. According to this article, "John Briggs and Paul Penn were the FIRST to pronounce and use the name Yahshua" (emphasis Snow’s). This was in 1936 and in 1937, the article states. No information is given about how Briggs and Penn came up with this (mis)translation.

Later Sacred Name literature appeals to the Messiah’s statement in John 5:43 as "proof" of the Yahshua form: "I am come in My Father’s name," He said. In the minds of Sacred Name believers, this means that "Yah," a shortened form of Yahweh, must appear in the name of the Son. However, the Messiah did not say "My name contains My Father’s name" or "My Father’s name must appear inside My name" or any such statement. He said absolutely nothing here about His own name. The only "name" mentioned here was the Father’s name. He said, "I am come in My Father’s name," which simply means that He was coming by His Father’s authority, on His Father’s behalf. If we take Yeshua’s statement "I am come in My Father’s name" to mean that His own name must contain the Father’s name, then we ourselves cannot do anything "in the Father’s name" unless our own personal name happens to contain the syllable "Yah." The folly of this interpretation is also evident if the same line of reasoning is applied to the rest of Yeshua’s statement: "…if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive." If the logic of Sacred Name believers is applied to this half of the verse, it would be saying "a person’s name must contain his own name," which is meaningless. If, on the other hand, "in his own name" means "by his own authority," then the statement makes sense.

Why is the Yahshua form used by no one but Sacred Name believers and people who have been influenced by Sacred Name believers? Probably because no such name exists in the Hebrew Bible and, to my knowledge, no such name exists in any extra-Biblical Hebrew literature. It appears that Dr. Ben-Gigi is correct when he says that people invented the name Yahshua to fit their theology.

See the link above for more details on this matter.

In addition, author Botkin has another very useful article addressing more aspects of the SNO doctrine:

Linguistic Superstition and the Sacred Name Movement

[From the introduction]

Let me begin by saying that I am in favor of the reverent and proper use of the Sacred Names. In our congregation, we utter the Name every Sabbath when we face Jerusalem and say the Shema: "Hear, O Israel, Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is One." Every day throughout the week, I utter the Name in private prayer more times than I can count. However, I avoid using the Name in casual conversation, because I truly do regard it as a Sacred Name which should be used only in a sacred context.

The issue I wish to address is misrepresentation of that "Name." To distinguish between those who (like me) are not opposed to using the Sacred Name in a sacred context and those whom I call "hardcore" advocates, I will refer to the latter as "Sacred Name Only" groups.

Did Jesus use the Sacred Name

Some SN advocates are adamant that Jesus Himself openly used the Sacred Name throughout his ministry when speaking to His disciples and when preaching to the public. In fact, they not only insist that He used YHWH, but that this use is what ultimately led to his crucifixion!

There is, however, no credible biblical or historical evidence for this claim. It seems to be a product of "circular reasoning" on the part of avid SN proponents: If the doctrine of the Sacred Name is true, and all Believers must use it, it would have been impossible for Jesus--as well as the Twelve and Paul--to avoid preaching this doctrine and using the Name openly. And yet the custom of the time was that no one but the High Priest, on the Day of Atonement, should ever speak the Name out loud. So if Jesus did use the Name openly, it would have been considered blasphemy, and surely they would have put Him to death for this.

However, there are many confrontations between Jesus and the Scribes and Pharisees throughout the Gospel accounts. The issue of His use of YHWH is never mentioned in any of these accounts. If He would have been using the Name throughout His ministry, it would have not taken them years to accuse him of blasphemy--it would have happened almost immediately after the beginning of His public ministry.

Was all of the New Testament written originally in Hebrew?

The most significant use of circular reasoning among the advocates of the SN doctrine is the insistence that all of the documents of the New Testament were originally written in the Hebrew language, in spite of the fact that absolutely no ancient copies of any Hebrew "originals" have ever been found. The reasoning goes like this:

The Sacred Name doctrine is true. The New Testament is true. But the New Testament as we have it now, in both modern translations and ancient manuscripts, does not contain YHWH at all, and the text contains such substitutes as God, Lord, Jesus, Iesous, Kurios, and Theos. According to the Sacred Name doctrine, these are unacceptable. Therefore all of the ancient manuscripts that contain them must not be copies of the originals, but of Greek translations made by copyists who were ignorant at best and evil conspirators at worst. And almost all translations into English are made from these corrupt manuscripts, so they are all also in error.

One minor proof often offered to show that the NT must have been originally written in Hebrew are what are called "Hebraisms" in the content of some of the books. These would be turns of phrase that were not found in ancient Greek writings, but that sounded like the kind of idioms, thought patterns, and so on that are used in ancient Hebrew. But this is no conclusive evidence of a Hebrew original. It can just as easily be accounted for by the fact that the author did, indeed, speak, read, and write Hebrew as one of his languages. And would be evidence that he was a Jewish author writing in Greek, but including some of the thought and language patterns of his own culture. 

Beyond this sort of circular speculation, there is no credible evidence of the theory of Hebrew originals for all of the New Testament documents.

An online book, THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS GREEK, by Gary Mink, a former member of a SN group, addresses some of the claims of the SN movement about this matter in much more depth. Inclusion of this link should not be taken as a specific blanket endorsement of all of the theology and practices of the author, or of everything on his website. Nor is it intended as a validation of every single point in the document linked. It merely indicates that the author provides some helpful documentation and commentary on the topic at hand.

The Bottom Line

The issue should not be whether or not it is acceptable for English speaking people to choose to use Hebrew names when talking about God. Of course it is. The issue is whether one can substantiate from the Bible that it is both God's preference and His demand that they do so.

The major reason this cannot be not so, at least from the perspective of one who believes in the inspiration of the New Testament,  is the very existence of that New Testament. The NT was written in Greek, not Hebrew. As mentioned above, some SN teachers try to insist that it was all, including the writings of Paul to Gentile churches, written originally in Hebrew, but that all copies of those original Hebrew manuscripts have been lost (or deliberately destroyed), and all we have left are (inferior) Greek translations. The reason they do so is that all the NT manuscripts, clear back to the late first or early second century, use the Greek names and titles for God and Jesus ... Theos, Kurios, Iesous, and so on. If it was acceptable for Luke and Paul to use the non-Hebrew names and titles, it must certainly be acceptable for modern Christians to do so. But the exclusive SN position denies this. So the only choice they have is to assume that all the originals have been lost.

But there is absolutely zero historical proof that this ever happened. And there is not one ancient NT manuscript in Hebrew. Not one!

In fact, if this huge disappearance did actually happen, then all Christians and Messianics have absolutely no reason to have any confidence in anything they think they know about Jesus, nor in any of the teachings of the New Testament. Those documents could have been utterly corrupted during the alleged "translation" into Greek. There would be no use in bothering to try to interpret exactly what some NT passage means based on the Greek wording and grammar and such, because Bible students would have no idea if it did or didn't reflect some assumed "Hebrew original."

This should be the biggest concern about the various so-called Sacred Name "translations" of the New Testament.  They are not accurate translations of some ancient manuscripts ... because they insert the Hebrew names throughout the NT without having any manuscript evidence that this was intended by the original authors. They are imposing what they "want" the NT to say, not what they have any documentation for, regarding what was actually written by those authors. This is pure intellectual dishonesty.

And intellectual dishonesty is not a helpful or credible way to establish the foundations of the pure Faith of the Bible.