Imagine walking around with a heavy load on your shoulders. Unless you were exceptionally strong, would you not become weighed down after awhile?
There is nothing necessarily wrong with feelings of guilt, but excessive guilt can be destructive: it could be just like carrying a heavy load around with us that ultimately weighs us down.
Please notice how King David described the excessive guilt he felt in Psalm 38:3-8.
(after reading)
Before Jehovah extended forgiveness to him, David felt sick and his guilt was like a heavy burden that he could not bear. Similarly, some today feel guilty because of sins they committed before becoming Witnesses or others feel discouraged because of sins committed after learning the truth. While not all guilt is bad and a healthy sense of guilt might help us to abandon a sinful course, the danger is excessive guilt. But just what do we mean by excessive guilt?
It means that the guilt one feels continues even after he/she has repented
and Jehovah has extended forgiveness (compare Proverbs 28:13). This kind of guilt can be
harmful and unbearably burdensome. Therefore, how can we avoid it?
Notice David's words in Psalm 39:4-5.
(after reading)
David emphasizes that life is short; it is like a quick breath or short exhalation. Consequently, instead of living in the past or reflecting on old mistakes, we need to look forward and make our future days count (Philippians 3:13). It is possible to concentrate on the future by putting spiritual goals first and obeying God's commands. Furthermore, it is imperative to use our time wisely (Ephesians 5:15-17).
However, despite our best efforts, feelings of excessive guilt might well up from time to time. One way to combat these feelings is found in Psalm 39:12.
(after reading)
Jehovah invites us to approach him in prayer and we should pray even if feelings of guilt make it difficult to pray. After all, Jehovah knows there are times when it's difficult for us to suppplicaste him. However, the holy spirit can plead in our behalf and we can use prayers recorded in the Bible like Psalm 51 or Psalm 65 when it''s difficult for us to articulate our thoughts. In the final analysis, Jehovah appreciates our sincere efforts and takes our whole life course into consideration.
May we take comfort in the words of Isaiah 55:7.
4 comments:
👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿
This chapter springs to mind:
[2Co 7:9-10 NASB95] [9] I now rejoice, not that you were made sorrowful, but that you were made sorrowful to [the point of] repentance; for you were made sorrowful according to [the will of] God, so that you might not suffer loss in anything through us. [10] For the sorrow that is according to [the will of] God produces a repentance without regret, [leading] to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death.
Dear Mr. Foster, could you move this to the post "Interesting Book Review of Robert J. Wilkinson's "Tetragrammaton"" ?
@Anonymous
While it is true that Jerome preserved transliterations like "Alleluia" in the Psalms, this does not indicate a broader policy of retaining the full Tetragrammaton or its derivatives in his Latin translation. Jerome transliterated names containing the divine element (Yahu, Yah) based on phonetic convention rather than explicit theological preservation of YHWH. For instance, "Yehoshua" became "Iesus" (Jesus) in Greek and Latin, losing the explicit reference to YHWH while maintaining its meaning ("YHWH is salvation").The word "Hallelujah" (transliterated from Hebrew) was already well-established in Jewish and Christian liturgical traditions, making it a special case. It was likely retained due to its liturgical prominence and use in praise, not because of a broader principle of preserving the Tetragrammaton in names. Thus, Jerome’s treatment of "Alleluia" does not contradict the fact that he replaced YHWH with "Dominus" in the text of Scripture or adapted compound names according to linguistic and cultural norms.
Replacing the Tetragrammaton with κύριος was not about "stupidity" but cultural and religious context. By Jerome’s time, Jewish tradition had already moved toward using substitutes like "Adonai" (Lord) for YHWH in liturgical and oral readings. This was reflected in the Septuagint’s widespread use of κύριος. Names like Yehoshua or Elijah (Eliyahu) were adapted to Greek and Latin phonetics in the same way other Hebrew names were. This is why Jerome transliterated names rather than preserving the explicit "YHWH" element, consistent with linguistic conventions of his time. The substitution of κύριος was not "stupid" but a practical and respectful adaptation that reflected centuries of Jewish tradition.
Jerome’s omission of the Tetragrammaton was not a result of personal bias or theological agenda but of adherence to tradition. By Jerome’s time, Jewish readers had long substituted "Adonai" for YHWH in Scripture readings. The Septuagint, widely used by early Christians, followed this practice by using κύριος (Lord) for YHWH. Jerome worked within the Christian tradition, which had already adopted κύριος as the standard rendering of YHWH in Greek texts and "Dominus" in Latin. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Jerome had a specific directive or agenda to "remove" the divine name. Instead, he followed the precedent established in both Jewish and Christian traditions.
While scholars like Trobisch and Shaw provide valuable insights, their arguments must be assessed against the broader body of evidence. The earliest LXX manuscripts, such as P. Fouad 266 and 4Q120, show diversity in how the Tetragrammaton was handled (e.g., retained in Hebrew, transliterated as ΙΑΩ, or replaced with κύριος). By Jerome’s time, κύριος was already the dominant rendering. Jerome’s translation aligns with both the Jewish practice of substituting "Adonai" for YHWH and the Christian tradition of using κύριος. Appealing to authority does not negate the manuscript evidence or Jerome’s own testimony about his translation principles.
Post a Comment