Yahweh Is the Sweetest Name I Know

You are not wrong to sing, “Jesus is the sweetest name I know,” even though Yahweh is.

God gave himself the name Yahweh. No man gave him this name. It is God’s chosen personal name. He loves to be known by this name. It is used over 5,000 times in the Old Testament. It is almost always translated by *Lᴏʀᴅ* (small caps). But it is not a title. It is a personal name, like James or Elizabeth.

You know the name Yahweh best from its shortened form Yah at the end of Hallelujah, which means “praise Yahweh.” I love to think about this when I sing. When I sing, “Hallelujah,” I love to really mean, “No! I don’t praise you Bel, or Nebo, or Molech, or Rimmon, or Dagon, or Chemosh. I turn from you with disdain to Yah! I praise Yah. Hallelu Yah!”

God announced his name to Moses in Exodus 3:15. God said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘Yahweh, the God of your fathers. . . . This is my name forever.”

He preceded this announcement with two other statements so the meaning would be clear. He said, “I am who I am” (verse 14a). And he said, “Say to the people of Israel, ‘I am has sent me to you’” (verse 14b).

The Hebrew name Yahweh is connected to the Hebrew verb “I am.” So Yahweh is most fundamentally the One-Who-Is. “I am who I am” is the most foundational meaning of Yahweh. It means: My am-ness comes from my am-ness. My being from my being. My existence from my existence.

There are vast personal and covenantal implications of this. But this is foundational. No beginning. No ending. No dependence. He simply is, always was, and always will be. He communicates all of this with a personal name. To be sure, he has titles, and he has attributes. But this is a personal name. He packs the weightiest truth about himself into a personal name. Infinite greatness and personal knowability are in the name Yahweh.

Then in the fullness of time, Yahweh came into the world to seek and save the lost. The angel said to Joseph, “You shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21). Jesus is an English transliteration of the Greek Iesoun. And this in turn is a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew Joshua. And Joshua is a combination of Yah and “salvation” or “save”. It means “Yahweh saves.”

So Jesus means “Yahweh saves.” Jesus is Yahweh with a human nature coming to save his people from sin.

Paul confirms this in Philippians 2:11. He says of the risen Jesus, “Every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” That is a quote from Isaiah 45:23 where Yahweh is the one to whom every knee shall bow and every tongue confess. Paul is saying that, in the end, the whole world will acknowledge that Jesus is in fact Yahweh incarnate.

So you don’t have to choose between singing, “Jesus is the sweetest name I know,” and, “Yahweh is the sweetest name I know.” Indeed you dare not choose.

>> Fine - All you have to do is explain how those Hebrew and Aramaic puns came to be hidden beneath the Greek text.<<

No, I don’t have to. It’s not difficult to understand that Jesus spoke mostly Aramaic and of course Hebrew especially when in the synagogue. The lingua franca of those days was Greek and the New Testament was written in Greek to relate to the masses. Talk to any translator and you will find that word puns can not be translated most of the time. That doesn’t mean the Matthew we first written in Hebrew it simply means that Matthew was writing what Jesus said and quotes from the Hebrew Old Testement in Greek so had to translate from Hebrew to Greek which caused the puns to remain. It’s a rather simply consept to understand really.

We know that Matthew was a Jew, it’s not difficult to understand that there are non common Greek words in his gospel. That does not by any means indicate he wrote his gospel first in Hebrew. We can find the same thing happening today with people from other countries who imigrated to the US who now write in English but still will use their original speech patterns which are foreign to us.

Another consideration is the historical evidence ot the Greek manuscripts that have survived while no Hebrew manuscripts are in existence. Surely the Shem Tov can’t be considered authentic.

Those who promote the sacred name movement put their understanding in a few Hebrew Rabbis who do not believe that Jesus is the messiah who promote the Hebrew. I’ll put my trust in God who used faithfull Christians who copied the 24,000 Greek manuscripts.

>> Right, so next time you meet a Mexican named Miguel, call him Mike, and be sure to tell him he has no right to be offended... because we speak English around here.<<

As a matter of fact I have done that very thing. In America we speak English. Want to do business with me. Speak English.

>> The one who is offended, and the one who is 'forcing', is the one insisting upon the Greek transliteration instead of the name it was transliterated from...<<

The day you can produce the Hebrew manuscripts that are older then the thousands we have in Greek we can talk.

>> Fine, if you want me to bump it up a notch, I surely can.<<

Go for it. Just keep it amongst the cult.

Talk to any translator and you will find that word puns can not be translated most of the time.

THERE's the truth, right there.

That doesn’t mean the Matthew we first written in Hebrew it simply means that Matthew was writing what Jesus said and quotes from the Hebrew Old Testement in Greek so had to translate from Hebrew to Greek which caused the puns to remain.

Except that the puns are not limited to the words of Yeshua... They are sprinkled throughout.

We know that Matthew was a Jew, it’s not difficult to understand that there are non common Greek words in his gospel. That does not by any means indicate he wrote his gospel first in Hebrew.

But that would be the simplest and most likely solution to the problem. If one doesn't have to protect Greek primacy, the simple solution would be the obvious one. Add the commentary of Josephus (who had a rough time with Greek, because 'his people' didn't encourage learning foreign languages), and the DSS vs Bar Kohkba letters showing vibrant Hebrew in use at the time complete with dialectic differences between Galilean and Judean, and there really is no doubt that Hebrew was a living language at the time.

Another consideration is the historical evidence ot the Greek manuscripts that have survived while no Hebrew manuscripts are in existence. Surely the Shem Tov can’t be considered authentic.

No consideration whatsoever - Rome, and the Roman church after Rome, destroyed everything Hebrew they ever got their hands upon. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In fact, it is glaringly absent since it has become known that Hebrew was indeed a living language at the time (and for 400 years after). One would expect Hebrew primacy coming out of Hebrew synagogues. How odd that the only language the Hebrews didn't write in WAS THEIR VERY OWN LANGUAGE.

Those who promote the sacred name movement put their understanding in a few Hebrew Rabbis who do not believe that Jesus is the messiah who promote the Hebrew.

Ahh... So YOU have some idea of where my faith comes from? YOU are the authority on MY faith? ROTFLMAO!!!

In fact I only put my faith in ONE Jewish Rabbi. Always have and always will.

Go for it. Just keep it amongst the cult.

Ahh, see? I have to shut up and ride in the back of the bus... And I am 'forcing' YOU? I am the hypocrite? LOL! Naw... I will ride in the front, and I will sit right next to you every chance I get... And I will continue to spout Hebraisms and with continued frequency, because I have every right to do so. And if it pisses you off, that ain't my problem, it's yours.

>>But that would be the simplest and most likely solution to the problem. If one doesn't have to protect Greek primacy, the simple solution would be the obvious one.<<

The obvious one would be that Matthew wrote the text in Greek. The Holy Spirit was trying to reach the largest audience so inspired the writers to write in Greek. Greek would have been Matthew’s second language so as anyone writing in their second language would retain some of their original language puns. I don’t have to “protect Greek primacy”. It’s evidenced by the many thousands of Greek manuscripts with no Hebrew manuscripts from the same period.

>>No consideration whatsoever - Rome, and the Roman church after Rome, destroyed everything Hebrew they ever got their hands upon.<<

Pure speculation in an attempt to inject Hebrew primacy. Besides, the Jewish Christians would have retained sufficient copies of any Hebrew texts. To think that they would have also destroyed any Hebrew texts defies credibility.

>>Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.<<

Where have we heard that before? Oh yeah, Catholics.

>>One would expect Hebrew primacy coming out of Hebrew synagogues.<<

Yes they would! And still no manuscripts predating the Greek. That should tell you something.

>>How odd that the only language the Hebrews didn't write in WAS THEIR VERY OWN LANGUAGE.<<

Not strange at all. The Holy Spirit knew what language would reach the most people.

>>Ahh... So YOU have some idea of where my faith comes from?<<

Well then why don’t you tell me who those supposed Hebrew texts came from that are dated long after any of the Greek manuscripts?

>>Ahh, see? I have to shut up and ride in the back of the bus...<<

No, I simply expect, as the Holy Spirit did, that one speaks and writes in the language of those he wants to relate to. Not try to denigrate those who speak one language because you somehow think a different language is somehow more holy or something. God caused the apostles to speak in the language of those who were listening. Sacred name people should take a hint.

The obvious one would be that Matthew wrote the text in Greek.

I am not speaking only of matthew - and no, your position is not obvious. Hebrew and Aramaic artifacts in the Greek text deny your claim.

The Holy Spirit was trying to reach the largest audience so inspired the writers to write in Greek.

There are pretty early translations into many languages - not just Greek... and that is my point. Nary an Hebraic copy at all. Likewise (for many years), no early Aramaic either. A dearth. That isn't natural, considering where the texts originated, and stinks of censorship.

Pure speculation in an attempt to inject Hebrew primacy.

Your grasp upon history is flawed. Hebrews were persecuted even more that the Christians - and once the pagan syncretic christianity was accepted, those which went contrary to it continued to be persecuted. Why do you think that so much of common era Judaism comes from Babylonian roots? Because the texts escaped the purges in the west, and could be preserved in the Parthian empire, beyond the control of Rome.

Besides, the Jewish Christians would have retained sufficient copies of any Hebrew texts. To think that they would have also destroyed any Hebrew texts defies credibility.

Those who stayed Jewish remained within the sphere of Judaism, subject to the anti-semitism of Rome, and more so thereafter, when the Roman church came to her power.

Start with the council of Laodicea and work backwards into the Western Empire - By Laodicea one can certainly see that the Roman church is on her way - mentions of 'mysteries', intentions toward regulation and insularity... And even yet then (4th century), they had the need to call Sabbath-keeping Christians 'anathema' and preventing things of the Jewish Holy days. Not to say that one cannot also work forward either - This same sort of thing can be found all the way into Medieval times. Between the Muslims and the Roman church, the hammer and the anvil, there is nothing left of the beginnings.

Yes they would! And still no manuscripts predating the Greek. That should tell you something.

Oh, it DOES! It tells me that nothing much survives centuries of persecution and destruction! Why do you suppose so very little survives from the late 2nd Temple through the early Church? Why do you think the history then is robust from Alexandria and Rome, but only later from Antioch, and even then, primarily from those three schools? You should do a study of tyrannical censorship - look at what is left in an area dominated by Muslims or Nazis,then compare. maybe then you would see the fingerprints that I see.

And 'predates' doesn't mean anything. The Masoretic Text, from which your Old Testament is derived, did not enjoy primacy or the ability to 'predate' the Roman church's texts for most of history - It was not until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls that the proto-Masoretic school found succor. Now one would have to be a fool not to admit to the validity of the Masoretic, and the bare fact that it represents the texts of the Jerusalem Temple. Yet there are many who still do... Stuck in what their church has taught, and failing to see what is right before their eyes.

Well then why don’t you tell me who those supposed Hebrew texts came from that are dated long after any of the Greek manuscripts?

Ahh, the Shem Tov is stuck in your craw - So tell me, Do you think a Jew brought before a tribunal of the Roman church, to prevent himself from loss of all worldly goods, eviction from all Roman provinces, imprisonment, and perhaps even death, is going to use the occasion for propaganda? But it doesn't matter to me... As I have already told you, many times, I am not relying upon any of the Hebrew Matthew texts, nor am I exclusively pointing to Matthew, so the point is moot, as far as your accusations are concerned.

No, I simply expect, as the Holy Spirit did, that one speaks and writes in the language of those he wants to relate to.

Unfortunately for you, you do not have the authority to 'expect' anything from me.

Not try to denigrate those who speak one language because you somehow think a different language is somehow more holy or something.

ROTFLMAO!!! I am not the one denigrating here. Project much?

God caused the apostles to speak in the language of those who were listening. Sacred name people should take a hint.

I can certainly see that you are not listening - but others are. Careful now - The Ruach Hakodesh moves as He will.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.