Are Jehovah and Jesus Wrong Names for Our God?
By Reed Benson
There is a small movement that vociferously asserts that Christians should only use the
Hebrew names for our God. The words Jehovah, LORD, and Jesus are considered
inaccurate and blasphemous bywords. Known as the sacred name movement, a loosely
knit school of thought that cuts across a number of denominational and theological lines,
they insist that one should only use the Hebrew names for God the Father and our Savior,
correctly and precisely pronounced. The advocates of this view generally promote four
basic ideas: First, the ancient Hebrew name for God can be accurately translated into
English with scholastic confidence. Second, this original Hebrew name for God can be
correctly pronounced by English tongues and lips. Third, you cannot know God unless
you use the proper pronunciation of his name from antiquity. Fourth, your prayers are
hindered and your eternal life may be compromised unless you know and call upon God’s
precise name from the ancient Hebrew language of the Old Testament.
Are these claims true? What follows is an evaluation of the major ideas of the sacred
name movement. That these four basic assumptions are either partly or completely
flawed and some of the scholarship that attempts to support them is sloppy and
superficial is the thesis of this article. Jehovah, LORD, and Jesus are absolutely
acceptable. The translators of the King James Bible, the longstanding choice of Scripture
for English speakers, made no errors in selecting these words to be the appellations for
our God. The following questions commonly arise regarding this topic. They provide a
fruitful manner to expand our understanding.
If we are not supposed to use Jehovah, LORD, or Jesus, what are we to use instead?
Here is one of the grave weaknesses of this movement, for there is no single agreed upon
alternative for Jehovah or LORD. Many suggest that Yahweh is the only acceptable
choice, but plenty of other sacred name advocates disagree. Some of the other leading
candidates to displace Jehovah and LORD are these: Yah, Yahvah, Yahveh, Iahueh,
Iahuah, and Yaohu. Nor is there unanimity of opinion for a replacement for Jesus. A few
of the other options are Yahshua, Yasha, Yehuah, Yahushua, Yaohushua, Iahushua,
Yahvahshua, and Yhwhhoshua. As one can see, there is considerable confusion and
disagreement even inside the sacred name movement! And, do not forget that it is an
axiom among them that you must get the pronunciation exactly right!
Is it true that the letter “J” is a recent addition to the English language? Indeed it is.
The letter “J” came into common usage since the production of the King James Bible in
1611. However, and many sacred name advocates are reluctant to concede this critical
point, the sound that J makes, as in "jump," is not a recent addition. Before the addition
of the letter J, the letter “I” was used, and the reader had to discern from context whether
to make the J sound or the I sound. This is why "Jesus" was spelled "Iesus" in the 1611
King James Bible, but was still pronounced "Jesus." We still do this with other letters,
such as with the word "circle," in which the C makes two different sounds. We know
from context and experience how to correctly pronounce it. The J sound has been in the
English language for a long time; scholars disagree how it got there. Some suggest it
came from the French language when William the Conqueror brought many French
words to us in the eleventh century. If this is true, it was a slight alteration of the J in
"Jacque," which is pronounced like the S in "asian" or the Z in "azure." Other scholars
disagree and claim it came earlier when the Vikings invaded in the ninth century. Still
others insist it has a more ancient history, rooted in the Anglo-Saxon tongue.
Was there a J sound in the ancient Hebrew language? The King James translators
thought so, although this is a question that cannot be answered easily. Arguments can be
found going both directions, but the clues are scanty, luring linguists into a measure of
speculation. Many simply assume the answer is no because there is no J sound in
Modern Hebrew; instead, the Y sound is used. Yet, Modern Hebrew was revived from
textual material alone, for until recent times, spoken Hebrew was utterly dead. Well over
a thousand years passed between the death of New Testament Hebrew, which was
probably the native language of Jesus, and modern Hebrew. Even more time has elapsed
since the demise of classical Hebrew of Moses’ era. It has been suggested that classical
Hebrew had a J sound that was derived from ancient Egyptian—an unproven thesis, yet
not implausible. Furthermore the Hebrew letter gimmel is presently pronounced with a G
sound; but some scholars think it used to sometimes make a J sound, as in "jimmel."
This could have been possible since several Hebrew letters still make more than one
consonantal sound.
It is self-evident the King James translators leaned toward the J sound rather than the Y
sound when compelled to use the name of God. As a general rule, the translators avoided
the translation of the Tetragrammaton, the name of God. They only attempted a
transliteration into English when absolutely compelled by context to do so, a total of only
seven times. And when they did, they selected the J sound. Plainly, reasons existed that
pointed said powerhouse team in this direction. Otherwise, they opted for LORD (all
upper case). In essence, their decision was to protect God’s name from casual use and
improper familiarity by utilizing an Anglicized form of the Tetragrammaton as a
“marker” to let the reader know that God’s sacred name was before them, a name that
had no equivalent in English and English lips would be unlikely to correctly pronounce.
Was there a J sound in Greek or Latin from which we get Jesus? Most linguists
agree that Latin did not utilize the J sound. It is less clear regarding Koine Greek, the
Greek in use in the New Testament era which has not been spoken for some fifteen
hundred years. And as far as Classical Greek, the language of the Iliad, composed some
six hundred years before the time of Christ, little is known about the precise
pronunciation of that more primeval dialect. This only emphasizes how little is known
about long dead languages. Jesus is the Anglicized Greek form of the Hebrew name
Joshua, the conqueror of Canaan. Was there originally a J sound in Joshua? Scholars
cannot honestly assert with confidence if there was or was not. And of course this does
not even address New Testament Hebrew that was probably Jesus’ native language, of
which precise pronunciation is also not known since it has been a dead language for over
a millennium. Thus, we cannot say with precision how our Savior Jesus’ name should be
pronounced. Although Latin probably did not have a J sound, Greek and Hebrew might
have. Honest scholars leave room for doubt on the precise pronunciation of Jesus’ name.
Can we know perfectly the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton? No. In terms of
pronunciation, the four Hebrew letters that comprise the name of God do not correspond
exactly to four letters in Greek, Latin, or English. We can approximate the four letters,
and most sacred name advocates choose YHWH. Of course, W is a relatively recent
addition to the English language as well as J, so it is odd that so many sacred name folks
choose W since they seem so opposed to J. Others, however, think that JHVH is a better
approximation of the Tetragrammaton in English. But that is only the beginning of the
debate, for classical Hebrew had no vowels and no markings that indicated where vowels
should be inserted or what vowel sounds should be utilized. Since it is impossible to
speak without vowels, the ancient reader had to know by experience how to solve this
problem. No clues were available until the ninth century after Christ when Hebrew
scribes added little marks called vowel points to aid in proper pronunciation. But by that
relatively late date, there is no assurance whatsoever that the language had not drifted in
pronunciation dramatically from where it was in the Old Testament times when the
Tetragrammaton was first used—a full two thousand years earlier.
To illustrate how easy it is for a language to drift, consider how "Did you" can end up
sounding like "Did-jew." Or consider that the word "badge" has no J but certainly has a J
sound. In brief, it is impossible to say what the precise original pronunciation of the
Tetragrammaton might have been. This is why the wisdom of the King James translators
should not be lightly shrugged off. They were the best linguists in Europe in an age when
the study of languages drew the best minds available. They were honest enough to
recognize that which was unknown and allow their uncertainty to be reflected in their
translation by using LORD as a marker for the somewhat mysterious name of God.
LORD is a perfectly appropriate way to refer to our great Creator.
Is the name “Jesus” derived from the pagan Greek god Zeus? Absolutely not. Based
on shallow and superficial observations, this absurd linguistic fiction has oddly gained
traction with many who latch on to what they believe are new insights. The name Jesus
came to Greek from the Septuagint several hundred years before Jesus was born
(remember His name was Joshua) in the form Iesous. This was the most natural way to
render Joshua in Greek and had nothing to do with a conspiracy to undermine our
Savior's identity (He was yet unborn). From there it passed into Latin and English and
other European languages. Proponents of the Zeus/Jesus connection claim Iesous really
means "Hail Zeus" or alternatively "Healing Zeus." (Please note they do not agree with
each other.) But these are superficial phonetic coincidences, which are common in all
languages. It is a bit like saying that the golfer Tiger Woods was named after a jungle
infested with large striped cats. Jesus and Zeus have nothing in common, and it is
unnecessary to avoid the word Jesus.
Is the name “Christ” derived from the pagan Hindu deity Krishna? No. Again, this
is a groundless assertion based on the most shallow of observations, certainly not a clear
understanding of the Greek origin of Christ. The Greek word Christos is derived from
Chrio, which means to anoint. In the Septuagint, it was used to mean the anointed one,
an equivalent of the Hebrew word Mashiach, which has been Anglicized into Messiah.
Christ and Krishna have nothing to do with each other. Christ is a wonderful and
appropriate way to refer to our Savior.
Does the word “lord” refer to a pagan Canaanite deity? It can, but it almost never
does in the Bible. The argument goes that lord (lower case) means baal, which was one
way to refer to a pagan Canaanite god. Thus, the word lord (lower case) should be
avoided. This represents only a superficial understanding of the situation. In truth, lord
(lower case) means master on a personal level. It can refer to one's master in a
lord/vassal relationship or in an employer/employee relationship or in a husband/wife
relationship. If lord is a word to be avoided, someone needs to tell our God, for He used
lord (baal) to describe Himself as a husband/master to Israel: "For thy maker is thine
husband [baal]; the LORD of hosts is his name. . ." (Isaiah 54:5). Also in Jeremiah we
find this: "Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that
I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt: which my covenant
they brake, although I was an husband [baal] unto them, saith the LORD" (Jeremiah
31:32). It is clear from Scripture that we should not be afraid to use the word lord (lower
case) or Lord (master with a divine inference) in reference to God.
Is Emmanuel an acceptable name for our Savior? Of course. It is odd that sacred
name proponents do not press Emmanuel as an alternative to Jesus, for Matthew 1:23
plainly offers this as a most appropriate appellation for our Savior: "Behold a virgin
shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name
Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." Emmanuel is a cognate for the
Hebrew word Immanuel. There has been almost no drift of the word from Hebrew to
Greek to English. So why do they not trumpet Emmanuel as the only way to say the
name of our Savior? The answer may lie in a peculiar quality that some people have: a
desire for secret, special knowledge that they believe elevates them above others who are
ignorant. Emmanuel has been too well known, too obvious, too ubiquitous in its usage.
We need something new, secret, recently uncovered!
Do we have to use the sacred name of God to know Him intimately? No. We need to
know the person—by whatever name or title is used. Many sacred name advocates will
retort, "How can you know the person if you do not even know His real name?" To
illustrate how this often actually happens, consider two relationships I had with authority
figures in my life. I got to know them both very well, never using, and for a time never
even knowing, their first names. Perhaps you can relate to these examples.
When I was in high school I had a shop teacher, Mr. Glenn. I took his class four years
straight and knew him well, as he did me. He taught me, trained me, joked with me, and
occasionally reprimanded me. I could read his mind by the expression on his face and
knew the commands he was about to give before he spoke. I met his wife, knew his
children, visited his church, and even drove his sporty car. His first name was Mike, but
I would never refer to him or think of him as Mike, but always Mr. Glenn. I will never
forget him or his impact on my life. On occasion I still see him, and now, thirty years
later, he is still "Mr. Glenn" to me. To this day, I do not know if his first name is actually
Mike or Michael, but it makes no difference because the relationship was not based on
the name, but on the person and his position of authority.
A second illustration is my father. Long before I knew my father’s name was Carl, I
loved him, trusted him, and knew that he cared and provided for me. I would sit on his
lap, lean on his shoulder, look at the picture book he would read to me, romp on his back
on the living room floor, and tremble when his voice grew stern. To me he was just
"Dad." I remember the moment when I learned his first name was Carl and his middle
name was Edward. My thought was this: how did he get such weird names? I had no
friends named either Carl or Edward, so these seemed peculiar. But by that time, at about
age five, my relationship with him was already well established and intimate. My life
would have been shattered if he had been taken from me or I from him. Until then, he
had never told me his real name, and I did not feel obliged to "figure it out." Today,
decades later, knowing him as an adult, I still call him Dad and would be uncomfortable
calling him Carl. In fact, it seems inappropriate, for Dad is a better reflection of my
relationship to him than Carl.
In both these cases, it was the relationship that counted, not the name. The shared values
and experiences defined these relationships and fill them with love, trust, respect, and
sometimes a little fear. By themselves, a name, title, or appellation provide none of the
vital sinews of an intimate relationship. So, do I need to know the precise pronunciation
of Jesus to truly know Him? No. Merely knowing His name does not save our souls, but
a personal relationship with His person does.
Is there anything more important than knowing God's name? Yes. God's Word is
more important than His name: "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy
name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above
all thy name" (Psalm 138:2). This plainly implies that doing what He commands is
more important than speaking His name, calling Him Lord, Master, Yahweh, Yashua, or
any other lofty appellation. Please recall the words of Jesus: "Not everyone that saith
unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he which 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 I will profess unto them, I never knew
you; depart from me ye that wok iniquity. Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings
of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man who built his house upon a
rock" (Matthew 21:22-24). As a father, the obedience of my children is what fills my
heart with joy. My willing obedience is what made my Dad proud of me when I was a
youth. Our obedience is what makes our Father in heaven pleased with us, far more than
having special knowledge about how to pronounce His name in a language long dead.
What is the conclusion of the matter? Advocates of the sacred name movement
presume that the ancient Hebrew name for God can be accurately translated into English
and our lips and tongues have the ability to properly pronounce it. In truth, it has been
shown that God's Hebrew name from antiquity can only be approximated, and then not
without scholastic doubt. They further insist that use of this special, formerly secret
knowledge is the key to a vibrant relationship God, without which your prayers are
hindered and your eternal life may be compromised. This gross error has been shown to
be false. You can trust the King James translators when they landed upon Jehovah,
LORD, and Jesus as appropriate appellations for our Creator and Savior.