Greek: ὕτως οὖν προσεύχεσθε ὑμεῖς Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς· Ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου·
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers: "The words 'Jehovah, hallowed be His name,' were familiar enough to all Israelites, and are found in many of their prayers, but here the position of the petition gives a new meaning to it, and makes it the key to all that follows. Still more striking is the fact, that this supplies a link between the teaching of the first three Gospels and that of the fourth. Thus the Lord Jesus taught His disciples to pray—thus, in John 12:28, He prayed Himself, 'Father, glorify Thy name.' "
Additionally, here is a footnote from a Journal Article, "The Fourteen Triads of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:21-7:12)" written by Glen H. Stassen:
"83 Dale C. Allison, Jr., The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press 172-73, 176-77, 180. Allison demonstrates the connection between Matt 5:1-2 and Moses ascending Sinai in Exod 19 and 20; he also shows that it was understood well before Matthew's time that Moses ascended to heaven to get the commandments. This could be another connection with 'Our Father who art in heaven.' Allison's account does not connect Matt 5:1-2 with 6:9, although in a personal communication, he did connect Matt 6:9 with the Tetragrammaton. For insightful discussion, see also Davies, Setting, 85, 93, 99, 116-18."
On page 305, Stassen writes: " 'Hallowed be thy name' (surely the Tetragrammaton, YHWH) in the first petition of the Lord's prayer is probably also connected with the revelation of YHWH in Exod 19 and 20."
So at least three scholars agree with Jehovah's Witnesses that Matthew 6:9 alludes to the Tetragrammaton. I'm sure that research will uncover more who agree, but it would be nice to find some ancient witnesses who likewise concur. However, one problem is what happened with the divine name during the Second Temple period.
14 comments:
It is worth recalling the scene from the Gospel of Luke, which mentions Jesus reading a messianic passage from the book of Isaiah (61:1-2) in the synagogue. The Watchtower Society usually only refers to the story up to Lk 4:21, but let's look at what follows. Jesus comments on the read passage with a single sentence: "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing" (21). After this, Luke tells us how the audience reacted to the reading: "All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his mouth..." (22). Thus, the audience agreed with the read text, and they had no objections even to Jesus's explanation.
But let's pause for a moment! In Isa. 61:1-2, there is the Tetragrammaton, that is, the four Hebrew letters (YHWH, Jehovah, or Yahweh) that represent the divine name. However, the Jews did not pronounce God's name, but referred to it with titles like Adonai (or Ha-Shem, Adoshem). Moreover, they also fiercely resisted the desecration and use of the Name. Only once a year, on the Day of Atonement, could the high priest legally pronounce it. Given that Jews strictly avoided pronouncing the Name, it is quite dubious that Jesus would have pronounced the Tetragrammaton in the synagogue. If he had, the audience would have been outraged and tried to kill him. However, remember what we read in the story: "All spoke well of him..." This comment would have been inconceivable if Jesus acted against one of their strictest religious traditions and pronounced the divine name. (In the story, there's no mention of an attempt to kill him until he confronts their unbelief.) Thus, the assertion that Jesus pronounced the Name at this time is pure speculation, unsupported by Jewish tradition or the biblical text itself.
So what is the significance of Jesus 'making God's name known' to the disciples? Didn't he teach them to pray for the 'name of the Father to be sanctified'? Let's pause again! How many prayers of Jesus are recorded in the New Testament in which he prayed to Jehovah? Not one! Every single time he refers to God as his Father, not Jehovah. The parent-child relationship is truly intimate when the child refers to his father not by name (e.g., calling him Robert, John, etc.) but as "daddy" (which is what the Aramaic term 'abba' denotes, referring to God in the Bible). To understand Jesus's comment correctly, we need to delve deeper into one of the peculiarities of biblical languages.
In biblical Hebrew, there was no word for 'person(ality)', so the word 'name' was mainly used to describe this concept. When it says 'God makes a people for his name', it means: He makes a people for himself. Similarly, when it says there is 'no other NAME under heaven' (Acts 4:12), it means there's no one else under heaven by whom we can be saved. It's no coincidence that Acts 1:15 is not usually translated literally: 'and in those days Peter stood up among the brothers—the company of persons was in all about 120 names'—so, 120 persons.
So when Jesus teaches to pray for God's name to be "sanctified", it means praying for people to regard God as holy. The quote from John's Gospel ("I have made your name known...") can gain a new meaning in light of the above. It's not just about making "the Name" known. The Jews knew that very well, they didn't need to be introduced to it. They needed to get to know the person behind the Name. This idea is reinforced by dynamic equivalence translations: "I have revealed YOU to the people... I made them know YOU and will continue to make them know..." or "... I showed them what you are like... I showed them what you are like..." These translations highlight the true meaning of Jesus's words. His goal was to show who Jehovah really is, which the Jews misunderstood so much. They knew his name, but they didn't really know who he was.
Nincsnevem, I will not go in circles on what we've already discussed or regarding things that are hard to establish now. So let's start with some things we do know: Abba likely does not mean "daddy," which Bible scholars demonstrated many moons ago. I can document and supply evidence of this point upon request.
The Hebrew and Greek words for "name" denoted many concepts; for example, they signify not only persons but a person's reputation and onoma is used to signify an office or authority. But sometimes "name" in Hebrew or Greek is equivalent to the English "proper name" or nomen proprium in Latin. Therefore, I utterly disagree that "name" simply refers to the person, even in Matthew 6:9. Moreover, it makes no sense to disassociate the nomen proprium from the person of God since as one scholar said, the two are virtually indistinguishable. To sanctify YHWH is to sanctify the person and vice versa. That would be like saying that Timothy's reputation precedes him but then severing the proper name from the person. What sense would that make?
When we pray for God's name to be sanctified, you are correct that it is not just the four letters that we want to be made holy. However, neither is it just the person of God either but both.
Ill just note that in the bible - there are examples of what "calling on the name" which itself involves the name & the person.
Names were important in bible times, so important in-fact, they were inseparable from the person - "a persons name reflected their [personality]" (paraphrase of a quote)
To make someone's name sanctified would be the persons reputation - The Jews well considered God "holy" (as God wanted us to be holy) - they wouldn't need to go much further.
However Jesus was preaching to people who didn't know God (and possibly his name, this is certainly a plausible case) - and may not know Gods personality (e.g God of the living and not the dead)
"How many prayers of Jesus are recorded in the New Testament in which he prayed to Jehovah? Not one! " - This does not have as much significance as you are trying to make out. Infact this is using black and white logic.
I only address my mum as "mum" does that mean my mum's name wasn't used by me or didn't exist?
you still have other sources to contend with to even come close to proving your point. (along with all your other downright misleading claims)
you'll notice a lot of the time Jesus is addressed as "Lord" or "Teacher" (Didaskale)
Ill note the phrase "the name of the Father" occurs in Rev - along with "Halleujah" (ironically they saw no significance in removing this, but this has an explanation - quite a logical one infact)
e.g 1 cor 2:16 - Where we have multiple variants with "Lord" in the non -quotation - If the name wasn't originally used (tho there is no known variant of Paul's quotation from the LXX with it, yes - this is clearly from the lXX) then how was their not a conflict in the scribes mind?
especially in light of when we get quotes of psalms 110:1 where at least the 2 "Lords" are differentiated, in this case no such thing occurs as the variant only replaces "christ" with "kurios" (see texutal critisism for results - e.g Step Bible) NOT wth a modifing factor like "moi" or "soi" (excuse the poor spelling, Im in a rush)
simple you cant... because the conflict at one point did not exist.
Thanks for the interesting reply, Anonymous. Psalm 110:1-2 was a highly cited verse in the NT and Patristics.
Taken from the book edited by Alvin F. Kimel, Jr. entitled This Is My Name Forever: The Trinity & Gender Language for God (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001), page 26. This comment is made by OT scholar Christopher Seitz:
"The notion that God has a proper name and can be differentiated from other deities with proper names is absolutely clear in the Old Testament. Other gods (ELOHIM) lay claims on humanity, but Israel is to have no god (ELOHIM) before or beside YHWH (Ex 20:3). Moreover, the character of the name is itself a matter of reverence, since the name really coheres with the God it names (20:7). One cannot therefore malign the name or substitute for the name another name, and somehow leave untouched the deity with whom the name is attached . . . Not taking the name of YHWH in vain implies, at a minimum, understanding that YHWH is not an 'accident' [non-essential property] detachable from a deeper 'substance,' that is, 'God himself.'"
Contrast the early church fathers, who believed God the Father does not have a proper name or does not need to be distinguished from other entities since he is sui generis.
"However, the Jews did not pronounce God's name, but referred to it with titles like Adonai (or Ha-Shem, Adoshem). " - Which Jews exactly?
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/4Q120-fragment-20-1st-century-BCE-Leviticus-427_fig7_347885135
https://brill.com/display/book/9789004288171/B9789004288171-s003.xml
Hope it gets the point across Edgar, I was in a rush the other day when writing it, with everything going on atm, I have even less free-time than I did before.
Remembering what Flavius Josephus said about the divine name on the high priest Turban and the calling out of that name. Yes he the high priest used the actual name. Josephus Hebrew name is Yosef ben Matityahu. A first century historian who is considered very accurate. He plainly states the divine name was spoken in the 1st century. He calls the 4 Hebrew letters of the Tetragrammaton on the high priest head turban 4 vowels. Thus showing that the name was fully pronounced as he knew that their were 4 vowel the last one being silent. Yes the name was spoken by Jesus and his disciples in a proper way. Yehowah is the name.
Philip Fletcher
"The high priest’s cap (ὁ πῖλος) is the last item commented on by Josephus. He explains that the cap was similar to that of the ordinary priest, but made of hyacinth embroidery and worn above the first cap. The accessory was surrounded by “a golden crown (στέφανος χρύσεος), forged in a threefold row,”65 and blooming above it a golden calyx (κάλυξ χρύσεος), recalling a plant called in Aramaic saccharon (σακχάρῳ), or Greek henbane (ὑὸς κύαµος) (3.172).66 It was on the model of this plant that the “crown (στέφανος) was forged extending all the way from the nape of the neck to each of the two temples [of the head].” The calyx, also called the ephielis (ἐφιελὶς), did not cover the forehead. Josephus also mentions a golden plate on which were engraved the most “sacred letters with the name of God” (3.178). He, however, does not say by which word God should be called. Elsewhere Josephus states that God revealed to Moses his name. However, the name was not for men’s ears, and he, Josephus, was forbidden to speak about it (2.276)."
Josephus writes:
"Whereupon God declared to him his holy name, which had never been discovered to men before; concerning which it is not lawful for me to say any more"
Josephus also says that only the high priest could recite the Tetragrammaton on Yom Kippur, for ordinary people this would have been a sin deserving of the death penalty. Neither the New Testament nor any other ancient source indicates that Jesus, the apostles, or the early Christians violated THIS Jewish law. Otherwise, there would be a lot of sources that there was an uproar and conflict due to Christians pronouncing the Tetragrammaton "freely".
The Antiquities of the Jews 2.276 Whereupon God declared to him his holy name, which had never been discovered to men before; concerning which it is not lawful for me to say any more Now these signs accompanied Moses, not then only, but always when he prayed for them: of all which signs he attributed the firmest assent to the fire in the bush; and believing that God would be a gracious supporter to him, he hoped he should be able to deliver his own nation, and bring calamities on the Egyptians.
See J.G Gager - Moses in Greco Roman paganism Pg.144.
@Anonymous
You correctly note that names were deeply tied to a person's identity in biblical times. This is true across cultures, especially in the Jewish tradition where names carried meaning, significance, and often reflected character or divine involvement. However, this point does not necessitate the vocalization of the divine name "Jehovah" (or "Yahweh") by Jesus or early Christians. Rather, the name of God represented God's character, power, and reputation far more than it represented a specific vocalization of four Hebrew letters.
By the time of Jesus, Jewish tradition had already developed a deep reverence for the name of God, often substituting the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) with titles such as "Adonai" (Lord) out of respect. The Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament widely used by Jews at the time, replaced YHWH with “Kyrios” (Lord) consistently. This practice was already established by the 3rd century BCE, well before the advent of Christianity.
Jesus operated WITHIN the Jewish religious context and adhered to these established traditions. Nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus insist on reinstating the vocalization of the divine name YHWH. Instead, when quoting Scripture, Jesus uses "Kyrios" (Lord), which was the common and accepted practice. His goal was not to reintroduce an exact pronunciation of God’s name but to reveal God's nature, mission, and relationship with humanity—primarily as "Father."
You argue that sanctifying God’s name means upholding God's reputation. This is correct, but it's crucial to clarify what it means to sanctify God's name. In the Jewish and Christian context, "sanctifying" God's name refers to upholding and honoring God's reputation and character. It doesn't necessarily mean repeating the Tetragrammaton. To sanctify God's name means to act in ways that reflect God's holiness and to bring glory to God through righteous actions. This understanding can be seen in passages like Leviticus 22:32: "Do not profane my holy name. I must be acknowledged as holy by the Israelites. I am the LORD, who made you holy." Here, "acknowledging" God’s name is about honoring His holiness, not just vocalizing a name.
When Jesus teaches his disciples to pray, "Hallowed be your name" (Matthew 6:9), he is teaching them to pray for God's holiness to be recognized and honored throughout the world. This prayer is not about reintroducing a specific pronunciation but about living in a way that reflects God's character and leads others to honor Him.
Your point about Jesus referring to God as "Father" and not explicitly using the name "Jehovah" is significant. It highlights that Jesus emphasized the relationship with God as a loving Father rather than focusing on the use of a specific name. The New Testament overwhelmingly records Jesus addressing God as "Father" (Abba), which reflects the intimate relationship between Jesus and God. This is not a "black and white" argument, as you suggest, but a reflection of the shift in how God is to be understood in light of the new covenant. Jesus reveals God not simply as a distant, transcendent being (as the Tetragrammaton might emphasize), but as a loving, personal Father who is close to His people.
The fact that Jesus does not use the Tetragrammaton in any recorded prayer underscores the point that the exact vocalization of God's name is not as crucial as Jehovah's Witnesses claim. If it were essential to salvation or to Christian practice, we would expect to find explicit instances of Jesus using the divine name in the New Testament. Instead, we see a consistent focus on God as "Father."
You bring up textual criticism and variants where "Lord" is used in the New Testament, especially when quoting the Old Testament. The substitution of "Lord" for YHWH in New Testament quotations is consistent with the Septuagint and reflects the Jewish tradition at the time. This is not evidence of a conspiracy to remove the divine name, but rather an acknowledgment of the established practice of using "Kyrios" (Lord).
The fact that no Greek manuscripts of the New Testament contain the Tetragrammaton is telling. If the divine name had been an essential part of early Christian practice, it would have appeared in at least some manuscripts. Yet, we have over 5,000 Greek manuscripts, none of which include the Tetragrammaton. This shows that early Christians followed the Jewish practice of using "Lord" when referring to God.
You mention "Hallelujah" (Praise Yah), which appears in the New Testament (especially in Revelation 19:1-6). This is an example of a retained Hebrew phrase that includes a short form of God’s name. However, "Hallelujah" is an exception and is not indicative of a broader practice of using the full Tetragrammaton.
The use of "Hallelujah" in the New Testament shows that Hebrew expressions were sometimes retained in Christian writings, especially in a liturgical or worship context. However, this does not mean that early Christians were using the full Tetragrammaton in their daily prayers or preaching. "Hallelujah" is a liturgical term of praise, not a direct invocation of the Tetragrammaton.
The insistence by Jehovah's Witnesses on the use of the divine name "Jehovah" is not supported by the practices of Jesus or the early Christian church. Jesus emphasized a relational understanding of God as Father and followed the Jewish tradition of using "Lord" when referring to God. The absence of the Tetragrammaton in the New Testament manuscripts underscores that the exact vocalization of God's name was not essential to early Christian faith or practice. Instead, what is central is the relationship with God through Christ, living in a way that reflects God's holiness, and bringing glory to His name—not merely through vocalization but through action and faith.
Post a Comment