The Messianic Sacred Name Movement

A Biblical Accounting
(Written some time in 2001 during a time when I was closely conversant with many of this persuasion)

By Charles Church

Introduction

At the advent of Jesus our Redeemer there was a radical reformation of the teaching and practice of God’s church, it’s former ordinances and doctrines being mostly ordained to typify the truths to be revealed at His first coming. The Levitical system was completely abolished, and the temple worship with it. (Is.22:20-25) The intriguing shadows depicted in the Old Testament now gave way to the living reality they had formerly prefigured. There was now a new high priest forever over the house of God, which the old had but darkly predicted. (Heb.10:11-24) And this great reformation did away with all such types of Him. “For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.” (Heb.7:12) “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.” (Heb. 8:13)
It has been a trial to the church of God that, from the days of our Lord Jesus unto this present ending hour, the adversary has sent his own in amongst the people of the Lord to resist this very reformation, sadly drawing at times some of the Lord’s true people into such a misguided party. That same animus against the apostles and early confessors of the Lord Jesus, is witnessed again in these contemporary apostles of modern Judaism, so called as that’s essentially what they make themselves. It was the same hardness of heart that stoned Stephen and Paul, and that put our Lord Jesus on the Cross, as wishes now to insist that the Law of Moses has not changed is we have just seen the scripture attest to. It was this hardness of heart that Paul derided in the Jews of his day, characterizing them for this sake as being displeasing to God and contrary to all men, filling up their sins always. (IThes.2:15) The whole New Testament is largely taken up with the controversies about the Jews trying to pollute this reformation with the error of returning to the carnal outward mosaic forms that prefigured the realities now afforded to those true elect children of God among the Jews, and among all nations, making of them both one new church, reconciled to God by the redeeming blood of the Messiah. (Eph.2:11-22)
While there has certainly always been a great deal of Judaizing thus afflicting the church of Christ from its inception until now, yet from time to time a doctrine will arise who’s advocates are either less aware, and therefore less ashamed, of its departure from the faith, or else less adept at dressing it’s arrant falsity with the garments of biblical plausibility, and such a doctrine we now have in the “Messianic Movement”, in more recent times styled as “Hebrew Roots” or “Law Keepers”, or by sundry other significations. These advocates, despite differences, are seemingly oblivious as to the most palpable absurdities of their fanatical tenets, such that their prosperity in gaining adherents would be more a wonder were we not presently accounted for in such a sad state in the church, and therefore more liable to its true members being deluded with the most conspicuous of falsehoods, so weak is our immunity from error.

It is fair to say that, from it’s inception, the modern Messianic “Hebrew Roots” Movement has been filled with a spirit of fanaticism and ignorance that characterizes nearly the entire movement from one end to the other, (despite exceptions), and has made it a spectacle of confusion and enormity, many among them advocating the most bizarre and ludicrous teachings, and a great number of them returning to animal sacrifice, and even denying the Lord Jesus to be God, or even to be the Messiah, returning thus altogether to the antichrist abomination of Judaism, such that one must greatly wonder at the progress it has made among what once appeared to be fruitful and zealous believers. This being the case, it seemed a useful endeavor to attempt to correct the more pronounced errors of the movement, in hopes that those of the Lord’s people which are among them, being clean of heart, though erring in mind, might “escape from them that live in error”, and find a place of understanding their Lord’s will. I do earnestly pray God’s blessing upon it, that He may indeed thus use it for these.

Chapter 1: Apostolic Authority for Using The Sacred Name

Perhaps the most salient feature of the Messianic movement is the “Sacred Name” doctrine, and so let us begin there. Of primary importance to the “Messianic” professor is what they consider to be the correct pronunciation of God’s proper name. Let us give a brief bit of background for the subject. My reader may or may not be aware of the peculiarity of the Old Testament in regards to the translation of the name of God. In the Old Testament we find literally thousands of times that the proper name of the God of Israel is used. This name, in the Hebrew, is spelled with four Hebrew consonants, depicted in English letters as JHVH, or YHVH depending on how you translate the first consonant. (The Hebrew letters are “yod hay vav hay”) These four letters are known as the “tetragramaton”. The minute “points” that you observe in Hebrew words are the vowels, typically called, simply, “vowel points”. In every example of the sacred name in all Hebrew manuscripts there are no vowel points whatever, making it’s pronunciation a complete mystery. Why this is the case is up for debate, and there are many theories. But the fact remains that the vowel points being absent leaves the proper pronunciation of the name entirely a mystery and its resolution of necessity a matter of pure conjecture.
So, of course, leave it to heretics to arrive upon this scene to make a thing they cannot possibly know by any means, the cardinal point of their entire doctrine, and next imagine that they have a truth that the ignorant masses of “institutionalized” Christians are completely ignorant about. And this appeal to human pride is it’s whole appeal, and it is a mercy of God to give them over to run headlong into such an asinine dogma and next to see themselves as far more enlightened than the benighted masses for it’s sake. It kindly identifies them as the cultists that they are, as they, with most cultists, have to deny the infallibility of scripture to arrive at their pet delusion.
One theory that has been conjectured is that the Masorites, the sect of Jews who were the guardians and scribes that kept the Hebrew scriptures, removed the vowel points to conceal the correct pronunciation of God’s name so that the name would not be profaned among the Gentiles, and would be passed down rather by oral tradition. The precious few times that the translators actually attempted to translate it they rendered it Jehovah, which, in my opinion, seems like a very good translation into the English tongue for reasons I will shortly present. But in nearly all the cases that this name is used in the original Hebrew, the translators just used the word “LORD” in capitals to signify that the proper name was used in the original Hebrew manuscripts from which they were translating in that rendering. When the name “Adonai” or “Baal” was being translated in reference to the person of Jehovah it is translated into the word “Lord”, the latter three letters being put in lower case.
Forgetting the fact that no one knows what the vowel points even are, it would, at first appearance, seem that the Sacred Name people have a very substantial case. For while we wouldn’t want to make a major issue over the proper pronunciation of the name of God when His Word has been pleased to reveal Him by so many names, yet there is a biblical precedent for making a major issue over leaving things out of the books you translate in the bible. At issue is that if the Hebrew word YHVH was used, then what right does the translator have to put down the word “LORD” or “Lord”? It appears presumptuous and irresponsible. What reply can be made to this?
Very substantial reasons indeed. Firstly, and most obviously, is the fact that they sill don’t know how to translate it, as they don’t have the vowel points. What exactly will they put down then when seeking to translate “JHVH”? A guess is the best t hey can do. Secondly, the apostles quoted multitudes of Old Testament passages where the proper name of God was used, (i.e., the “sacred name” YHVH), and in no case, as in not one, did they ever attempt to transliterate the sacred name into Greek, nor use the Hebrew form of the name itself with an attempt at providing the vowels, but in every case simply did as the Masorites had done, and used the Greek word for “Lord”, which is simply “curios”, even then failing to signify when the sacred name was use by using “LORD” instead of “Lord”¹. Hence the conclusion is perfectly unavoidable…… The apostles were not sacred name advocates, having denied it in each and every practical instance, and the whole distinction is an entirely modern, non-biblical, non-apostolic invention of false teachers. It is truly just that simple.
We are taught in the book of Ephesians that the church of the Lord Jesus Christ is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone.” (Eph.2:22) What church is this that feels itself at liberty to just entirely contradict the apostles and profess they were deceived? Their pet doctrine and practice is patently and undeniably unapostolic. In repeated instances we see the apostles quote Old Testament passages containing the Tetragramaton, (YHVH) which sacred name people stridently insist must be pronounced correctly in Hebrew, and yet the Apostles, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit render the name just like all the modern Christians sacred name advocates think of as ignoramuses for that sake. Thus their reflection upon the apostles of Jesus Christ! Thus their true thoughts about the authority of scripture, and of those who wrote it under divine inspiration!

But it’s not just a denial of what the apostles practiced, but of what Jesus Christ Himself practiced. Because Jesus also quoted the Old Testament in instances containing the sacred name, but never once attempted to afford some transliteration of the tetragramaton into Greek, or to provide the Hebrew utterrance of the sacred name directly, so as to settle the question decisively. He kept the tradition of just using “Kurios”. We know this from two different inferences. First is the apostolic record of what He taught when citing such passages. The biblical record is perfectely clear. He never interjected Hebrew in the apostolic record of what He taught, nor uttered the sacred name directly in Hebrew. But secondly, is the fact that Jesus used the “Septuigent” translation of the scriptures at all, in that it is the origin of the practice for using the Greek word “Kurios” for the tetragramaton. Were this the flagrant wickedness Hebrew Roots people like to represent it as, why do we find Jesus entirely validating it in every instance of His practice?
Proper names in the Septuigent were typically Hellenized, just as you frequently find them Anglicized in English translations, but there is found zero examples in the Septuigent of either attempting to state YHVH in the Hebrew tongue, or to attempt a transliterated Greek rendering. This was the bible that Jesus used, and quoted from, and of which He said, not one jot or title shall pass from it till all be fulfilled. Thus we have not only the apostolic approval demonstrated but the divine approve of Jesus Christ Himself, else He would have eschewed the translation as a fraud, just like Hebrew Roots advocates do with today’s versions thus translated.
What possible reply can be made to these facts. The only reply possible is to assail the validity of the bible itself, for all extant manuscripts of whatever textual family, or of any variant reading, simply render “YHVH” as the Greek “Kurios”, or “Lord”. The only way out for the sacred name people is to either repent, and renounce their error like a child of God, or to be consistent and deny that the bible is the word of God, and depart from the church of Christ altogether, and a good riddance in that case.
And the fact is that the great majority of them indeed take this second solution when given this choice, which shows the degree of their delusion, and reveals the pretense of fidelity the faith of the bible. They typically care nothing at all for the bible when practical instances of fidelity to it assert themselves. They make all sorts of ignorant and profane arguments about how scribes corrupted all the manuscripts, and the like. But the one question, in that case, that they need to be asked is this: Where do you get your religion, then? If the bible is corrupt, then where do you get the truth? There is only one answer…. somewhere else. And if you have to go somewhere else for your religion than the bible, then don’t pretend that yours is a religion of the bible, or that the bible defines your religion, just because you want to deceive people whose religion is defined by it. Either the bible is infallible, or your religion is unauthorized and a human invention.
This is where this doctrine leads: to infidelity. In order to believe the sacred name teaching one has to throw all modern and ancient translations of the bible out the window, and as well, any and all Greek manuscripts from which any or all of them were translated, because none of these have the least shred of evidence to even hint at the presumption of the sacred name doctrine. It is pure fable. Messianics like to carry on about how the “scribes” corrupted the scriptures and ruined them for posterity, but grant them their argument, and then what? Then they have nothing but human tradition…. nothing but popery with which to substantiate their teaching, and this is the way false teachers like it best, because it saves them from the embarrassing accountability of the bible.
And if the “scribes” corrupted all extant manuscripts, then how would they even know what the name of God is? Consult with the oral tradition of Cabalists or Freemasons? And if the scriptures are all corrupted then not only is theirs a man-made religion, but so is everyone else’s, as it thus removes all authority to truth, and leaves naught but bare subjective human opinion, mere ecclesiastical tradition and surmise…. bare popery…. to establish the truth from error, and the whole idea of a divinely inspired religion is thus negated and jettisoned, which divine inspiration is an indispensable cornerstone of all Christian thought.

And it is important to emphasize the fact that theirs is not just an objection to the way in which scripture has been translated, claiming that one translation is better than the other, or that one family of Greek manuscripts is better than the other, like as in the point that the KJV is a better translation of the scriptures, or that only the Byzantine family of manuscripts is valid, or the texts coming from them, like the TR. All these claim that God has preserved an authoritative witness to His will to all humanity. But these assert that the bible has not been thus preserved at all by anyone, and that therefore it can’t be trusted, and hence we need them to come along and enlighten us with their inventions.
Their claim has ZERO evidence for its teaching in ANY Greek manuscript, or in ANY translation, and hence consists in the infidel position that there is no bible left, in which case we are left to nothing but human authority….. humanism …… by which to determine the truth. Is it any wonder that hundreds of these people have apostatized outright and returned to Judaism? If there is a sacred name besides that of Jesus that we are supposed to know, and by which we are supposed to exclusively address God, then it is evident that the apostles didn’t know about it, or else that the New Testament which records their teaching is therefore false. Both can’t be true.

And once this claim is made literally anything can be taught in its name. I might teach that at the second coming of the Lord that the saints are supposed to be wearing little beanie caps with propellers on them to help lift them up to heaven, and that this is the angelic mode of transportation. It used to be taught in the bible, but then the scribes corrupted the manuscripts, and now I have arrived to announce the lost truth since you don’t have a bible that has the truth anymore. Having established his own creed on this exact ground, how will the Messianic “sacred name” advocate deny this doctrine without denying his own? They both have the exact same proof! Here is what the bible says: “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” (Is.8:20) “He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.” (John 8:47)

The sacred name advocate faces this dilemma: Having thus denied infallibility, he has no authoritative standard to get his religion from, and its now up to his apparently inspired discretion to determine what part to reckon as valid and which to cast to the flames. But of course this leaves him with no objective standard other than himself, as he is now the sole arbiter and authority to dictate what parts are valid, and which are corrupt. This makes his entire faith but an invention of men, having thus usurped the place of the bible in his own person. The apostles NEVER used the sacred name when quoting Old Testament passages that contained it. This one fact, by itself alone, did I say not another word, entirely, completely, decisively, and fatally disproves each and every claim of the entire theory. The apostles contradicted their dogma in every single instance where the bible quotes the Old Testament with the Sacred Name in it.

One would think that such a consideration might have occurred to these people when they read the bible. New Testament writers often quote the Old Testament, and NEVER ONCE translate the sacred name, nor pronounce it in their sacred language, Hebrew. Is it not rather imposing? To perhaps avoid that result, they have now even made new translations of the New Testament using the name Yahweh, (their notion of the correct pronunciation of the sacred name), and Ye’shua for Jesus, despite the fact they’re merely imposing their capricious self-will upon the credulity of their benighted followers, having not one instance in the Greek text to substantiate the least instance of their whimsical methodology. Such a production is not a translation. It is not even a paraphrase. It is an unabashed imposture of the word of God. whose purpose is but to establish a fable that doesn’t exist in the bible.
Allow me to give a brief demonstration. Let us use the first instance of this in the New Testament, out the many dozens that follow. “For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.” (Matthew 3:3) Here the apostle Matthew quotes Isaiah chapter 40, in which is found the proper name of God, Jehovah. If the Sacred Name teaching were a teaching from the apostles, then it is not presumption to assume they would have practiced their own doctrine. It’s perfectly self-evident that an apostle would have cited the passage precisely as all the modern sacred name people do in their translation of it….. “Prepare ye the way of Yahweh”, etc. Either the sacred name teaching is true, and the bible false, or else the sacred name teaching is false, and the bible is true. There is no tertium quid… no third possibility.
Notice further that the apostle in the citation just above used the word “Lord” instead of “LORD” in small capitals, not even thus signifying that the sacred name was used in the original passage, thus doing less than the “wicked scribes” in not only failing to write the supposed sacred name in Hebrew, or even to translate it into a modern tongue, but fail to even thus signify with the scribes that YHVH was that which was used in the original passage quoted! Does this sound like an important doctrine to the apostles? To hold the Messianic dogma they have to repudiate the bible, and if this is their doctrine, then let them say so plainly, and cease to quote it, and cease to represent themselves as though they were adherents of the religion defined by it.
Truly, many of them are so unabashed as to affirm that the bible in any present form is hopelessly corrupt. We give them this answer: Then don’t claim that the bible defines your religion, and cease to try to make yourself to appear as though you had a biblical religion so as to deceive and pervert and corrupt others who are true disciples of its truths and principles; and stop having bible studies, and using its verses as proof texts for any of your beliefs, as though you respected it as an authoritative expression of God’s perfect will, over which you didn’t presume to reign as the God of God.
And let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that YHVH or JHVH is truly pronounced “Yahweh”. So what? We have the apostolic example that it doesn’t matter. At issue is that these are not constrained by apostolic example or teaching, wanting but to appear singular in their supposed zeal and knowledge above the goyim pariah class of modern believer. At it’s root is but a self-righteous zeal that accommodates the doctrine as the medium by which they can feed a fanciful conceit that they are an enlightened class of believers elevated by such knowledge above the mass of religionists benighted by their ignorance upon the subject. And to prove this they throw the bible in the trash …. a proof of their pedigree, indeed.
The Messianic disciple’s perspective on such points will perhaps be something like this: “O.K., so pervert the bible so it doesn’t say the sacred name anymore, and then say that the subject is not important. But here lies the whole problem. If the bible is perverted, then how does he know what is important or what isn’t? That is the consequence of his doctrine that he is strangely blinded to, for the blind love of the doctrine makes him blind to its want of substantiation, and to the terrific host of hellish consequences that come in its train.

Chapter 2: The Correct Pronunciation of the Proper Name of God

The sacred name advocates teach that it is of singular importance that God’s proper name be pronounced in Hebrew, and in no other language….. as though they had any authoritative way to determine what that proper pronunciation was, and as though it were anywhere intimated in the bible that God’s primary concern that His name be pronounced only in a certain language by men of every nation. Let us now address these claims.
First, is the fact that as God, in His perfect providence over all things, did not see fit to preserve His name in scripture. This is a fact that none can or will deny, and yet it leaves the sacred name disciple to wholly guess what the correct vowels were in the name YHVH. He has absolutely no way to know whether he even knows the sacred name, or whether anyone else does. Predictably, therefore, the sacred name people are all in disagreement as to the proper pronunciation, some of them conjuring pronunciations entirely ludicrous and without any resemblance to the consonants at all, no matter what vowels they have guessed at. Yet this one factor…. The correct pronunciation of the proper name of God, is the pinnacle of their theology.
One would think that it might have occurred to them that if they were to make such a signal issue out of the correct pronunciation of the name that they might have made appeal to some authority higher than their mere arbitrary caprice. If the Bible doesn’t indicate the proper pronunciation, then by what authority will we enforce any pronunciation as the proper one, but by a human authority, and therefore by no authority at all? Do they not realize how perfectly stupid this makes them appear? It is a spectacle not altogether unlike the Fable of the King’s Clothes by Hans Christian Andersen. They strut in the most naked of principles and expect everyone won’t see through it.
Secondly, it is assumed that to translate the name into another language is to mispronounce it. This is an absurd assumption. My name is Charles. If I go to France it is phonetically pronounced “Sharl”. And if I go to Germany it is pronounced “Karl”. And if I go to Mexico it is pronounced “Carlos”. Does anyone assume that they do me some dishonor if they thus address me in any such nation? Should I take affront to the fact, as though there were something sacred about English or English people, such that all other nations were required of God to bow to our language? Who ever thought such a thought once in their life? And yet upon this assumption, contrary to every sacred name disciples’ own sentiments and convictions, is his doctrine partially founded.
Thirdly, it is an occult preoccupation to be obsessed with the correct pronunciation of the name of God. Freemasonry, for instance, makes a great issue out of the correct pronunciation of the name of God. (Which they imagine is “Jobulon”) Not that they are obsessed with the correct pronunciation of the name of Jehovah, but the principle remains the same…. a preoccupation with the precise way in which the name is pronounced, instead of the precise way in which its owner is esteemed, loved, worshipped, and revered. One cannot wonder if indeed this is not the source of the whole movement.
Fourthly, let us ask the question: On the day of Pentecost, when all the apostles were speaking in tongues, “every man heard them speak in his own language”. (Acts 2:5-11) Now if they were sacred name people, as Messianic people like to suppose, then when they spoke the wonderful works of God, we must assume that they refused to speak the name of God to these people, as they then would have done so in another tongue…. an abomination to the sacred name people. But then how did they give glory to the right God? Or how did they signify what God they even spoke of? OBVIOUSLY they spoke the name of God, and according to the text, spoke it in other tongues…. a heresy according to the sacred name advocate, yet inspired of the Holy Spirit. If they heard the apostles speaking the name of YHVH each in their own language, i.e., not in Hebrew, then they didn’t hear them using the name Yahweh, or whatever the correct Hebrew pronunciation truly is, and not only were they not sacred name people…. but neither is God who inspired the event by the immediate agency of the Holy Spirit. Will these impute folly to God directly? Will they impute sin to the Holy Spirit? If any of the languages of those then present proximated to our English language, maybe they even heard them say the name Jehovah. I would reckon they just heard the word for Lord in their languages, just like the apostles were inspired of God to do in every other instance we have any record of, and which Jesus Christ Himself did in the days of His earthly pilgrimage.
And it will here be profitable to enquire, What was the meaning of Pentecost, anyway? Was it not to demonstrate that the religion of the Jews was no longer to the Jews only? That it was to the whole world, to men of every nation, kindred, and tongue?
Paul puts it thus in Ephesians 2, “Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.”
This awesome passage proves in the clearest of terms that there is no difference between the Jew and the Gentile, as they have both been “made one”. That God has one ecclesiastical body, not two… one church, not two…. a Christian Church, not a Jewish or Gentile one, having been made one in Christ Jesus. Notice that it says of the Gentiles that in times past they were Gentiles, being “aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.” But by the blood of Christ they were brought to salvation, Who came and preached peace to you which were afar off, (Gentiles), and to them that were nigh. (Jews) And the conclusion? “Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God”. Interestingly enough, the Greek word translated to “commonwealth” in verse 12 is the word we get the English word “politics” from… politeia, pronounced, “pol-ee-ti’-ah”. So they were aliens from political Israel, and strangers from the spiritual covenant. But being reconciled to the King of Israel, Jesus Christ, they are said to be “no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God”… i.e., included in political Israel, and of the spiritual covenant of salvation. The Greek word translated to the English “fellowcitizens” is the word “sumpolites”, pronounced soom-pol-ee’-tace, and meaning “possessing the same citizenship”, and having the same root word as that for commonwealth in verse 12. Thus out of Christ we are aliens to political Israel, but in Christ we are made fellowcitizens politically, and heirs of the promise spiritually.
I make this distinction, because of the dispensational influence which has convinced people that there is still something remaining with the Jews in a political sense, and that there shall be in a spiritual sense. Yet scripture says they are both one, and have entered into the same political body, having the same King, and into the same spiritual covenant, having the same Saviour, and the same salvation, if so be that Jew or Gentile has believed on the Lord Jesus. Unbelieving Jews were cut off from this body because of unbelief, and believing Gentiles were grafted in, but there is but one body comprising Jew and Gentile.
Thus there is nothing any more valid about Jewish language or culture, than there is about English language or culture, or any other language or culture. Indeed there never was anything sacred about Hebrew culture per se, or its language. When Paul asked the question, “What then advantage hath the Jew” he referenced the fact that they were given the word of God as their chief benefit, but makes no mention of their language or culture being holy. This is but a matter of unbelieving Jewish pride. Indeed it took the early Jewish Christians a good while to get over this. Peter had to see a vision before he could think of eating with a Gentile, and even after this he lapsed. (Acts10:9-23, Gal.2:12-21) Paul called this truth, that Jew and Gentile should be of the same body “The mystery”… “That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel”, (Eph.3:6), This “mystery” was one which took the Jewish Christians a good while to assimilate, and which those who were rejected for unbelief are yet in the blindness of to this day. Strange to tell, however, that modern Gentiles should find the same stumbling block as these, seemingly unable to “hold the mystery of the faith in a good conscience”, like the Jews of old! Bizarre that the spirit of unbelieving Judaism should so infect the modern professed follower of Jesus Christ!
Pentecost was the great sign of this event taking place. It was the time when God showed this great truth in a way calculated to impress the Jew, and to signify that His church was no longer a Jewish one, nor a Gentile one, but, if I may risk appearing “politically correct” a multicultural one. In the tongues of all present His glorious truth was manifested, to show that out of every kindred tribe and tongue his people now would be called. (Is.19:25) As Jesus said, “And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.” (Jn.10:16)

The sacred name doctrine is but an infatuation with Jewish culture, not with the name of God, for, as we shall shortly see, many of them apply the necessity of Jewish language beyond the mere name of God, but insist that other words also have to be pronounced in Hebrew. Thus it is not the name that is sacred to these people, but the language in which it is pronounced. And were it only in respect to the name, yet what is intrinsically unsacred about pronouncing the same name in another language? So which one is sacred…. the name or the language? It would more accurately be called the sacred language movement, being but an obsession with Jewish language and culture. But where does scripture ascribe to this language any significance or importance whatever? The only importance given to being a Jew was that they had the scriptures, and sacred name advocates generally feel that the scriptures are all corrupt now; and if they are not, then it is a fact that they are translated into nearly every language….. so what is left for them to be jealous for? Was it the truth conveyed in the Hebrew scriptures that were a benefit to the Jew, or the Hebrew language that conveyed it to them? Kind of a “no brainer” don’t you think?

Chapter 3. The Many Names of God

One of the more bizarre assumptions of the Sacred Name movement is the assumption that there is only one name that God has given Himself. This is a patent and perspicuous error, and one easily and incontrovertibly refuted. Reference the following proofs. First, in Exodus chapter 3 we find the following:
“13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his NAME? what shall I say unto them?
14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.”
Here you have God telling Moses that his name is “I AM”. Moses asked for God’s name, and this is God’s answer: “I AM”. Is that to contest the fact that God’s name is Jehovah? By no means. It is to contest that God has only one name. Now, this reflection is liable to the objection that the Hebrew word translated as “I AM” in Ex.3:13 (Strongs H19161: haya) is the root word for the name Jehovah, (H3068: Jehovah), and therefore, it will be asserted, the two names are actually identical. But let us consider that the names Charles and Charlemage are also derived from the same root word. This does not make them the same name. And God has directly indicated both of these names as his proper names. Haya, and Jehovah are not the same name simply for one have a gramatical derivative of the other. One thing that this demonstrates is that the meaning of the name, and not just the spelling or pronunciation, appears to be the matter of importance to it’s Owner, in as much as they both indicate the eternal being of God.
Secondly, is the name of God, “El Shaddai”, aptly translated as “God Almighty”. “And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them” (Exodus 6:3) Here God says that His name by which He made Himself known to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, was “El Shaddai”… the almighty God. God Himself testifies in this place that El Shaddai is His name. Furthermore, we see the plurality of names in this verse, God testifying that while Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob only knew Him as El Shaddai, yet now he makes himself known by another name, even Jehovah, or JHVH, and by this latter name he most frequently makes reference to Himself in the remainder of the Old Testament.
Sacred name people think to make the point that after this time God was known only by JHVH, Jehovah, Yahweh. This does nothing to blunt the force of the argument that God has still given himself more than one name. But this is not only objectively false, as God is addresses Himself by many other names after this, but here He calls both El Shadai and Jehovah His name in the same sentence.
Thirdly is the name, “Adonai”. Sacred Name/Messianic people have singled out this name for special reprobation, as they think it sounds like the name of Adonis…. the name of a false god. Again, the only way to prevail in their objection is to throw their bibles in the trash, as the name “Adonai” is used in reference to Jehovah many hundreds of times throughout the Old Testament. So either we have no bible, hence no religion, or Sacred Name people are again being whimsical. Here is an example: “And Moses said unto the LORD, O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant: but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue.” (Exodus 4:10) It reads like this: “Moses said unto Jehovah, O my Adonai, I am not eloquent”, etc.. Suppose that some object that God does not here call Himself by this name, but only Moses. Then Moses was not a sacred name professor. But here God’s speaks for Himself: “What mean ye that ye beat my people to pieces, and grind the faces of the poor? saith the Lord GOD of hosts.” (Isaiah 3:15) The word for Lord in this verse is “Adonai”. Or again: “The LORD spake also unto me again, saying, Forasmuch as this people refuseth the waters of Shiloah that go softly, and rejoice in Rezin and Remaliah’s son; Now therefore, behold, the Lord bringeth up upon them the waters of the river, strong and many, even the king of Assyria, and all his glory: and he shall come up over all his channels, and go over all his banks”. (Is.8:5-7) The first word Lord in this text is Jehovah, the second, Adonai. Thus “Jehovah spake” and called himself “Adonai”.
Or consider this: “Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD. And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” (Is.7:11-14) Notice that Isaiah asks Ahaz to ask Jehovah for a sign, but Ahaz declines. The prophet then says The Lord Himself shall give you a sign, etc., only now he uses the word “Adonai”, demonstrating beyond question that the two names are interchangeable. Either that or we need to do with Isaiah’s prophesy what Jehoiakim did with Jeremiah’s. (Jer.36:23)
Lastly is the whole book of Ezekiel. Throughout this entire book God refers to himself as Adonai Jehovah, translated as “Lord GOD”. In keeping with the grammatical nomenclature of capitalizing the name of Jehovah, GOD is thus capitalized, and Lord is not, the word “Lord”, then, being rendered from the Hebrew name Adonai. And again… if this is a mere corruption of the manuscript, per the Messianic claims, then we have no true manuscript left, as none have it any different than this; and thus all men are left but to conjecture as to what the proper name is, or what the truth about anything else is, for that matter, the Messianic/Hebrew Roots advocate included.
Fourthly, is the name “Baal”, which merely means, “Lord” or “Master”, or even “Husband”, as we shall see. It is acknowledged in this instance that God does never say that this is His name, only that he calls himself by it, apparently as a title, and this is adverted to, simply to show that God is not as tender and jealous as to what he is called, as the Sacred Name people imagine, even calling Himself by the name/title commonly used for a false God. “Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 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 unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.” (Jer. 31:31-33) The word here translated “husband” is the word Baal. Further proof that this was a name that in fact the people of Israel did call Jehovah by, and apparently without prior complaint, can be found in the following: “And it shall be at that day, saith the LORD, that thou shalt call me Ishi; and shalt call me no more Baali.” (Hos. 2:16) But did this Hebrew word really signify and reference same name as the false god “Baal”? Let the next verse determine the answer. “And it shall be at that day, saith the LORD, that thou shalt call me Ishi; and shalt call me no more Baali. For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth, and they shall no more be remembered by their name.”
Fifthly, is the name/title of God itself. This is seen as a great evil to Messianic people to use the name/title “God”. So what do they do with the fact that the bible uses the word thousands of times? Some would tell us that only the Hebrew word, “El” should be used, despite the fact that the two words mean exactly the same thing, and though the one therefore constitutes a valid and accurate translation of the other. And how would they translate “El”? Are they saying that translations out of the Hebrew tongue are evil, ipso facto? Or only that the translation of the names and titles of God is evil? And what warrant is given for any such belief?
What they are saying, so far as I can tell, is not that there is a “sacred name”, because they don’t even claim that this is the name of God, but that there must be a sacred language, in as much as they insist that this word be spoken in Hebrew, their sacred language. True to this claim they almost universally tote all sorts of Hebrew cultural novelties, such as the wearing of tassels, the yarmulke, Jewish music, etc., and perhaps we could even say that the real issue is one of a “sacred culture”. In fact, the word “Messianic” is indeed well chosen by them, as it really says it all…. Everything just has to be Jewish…. It is sin to pronounce anything in the Greek language, like saying “Jesus”, instead of “Joshua”, or “Je’shua”; or saying the Greek based, “Christ” instead of using the Sacred Hebrew Language, and saying therefore: “Messiah”. Yeah, so audacious have these errorists now become that they even renounce the name Christian, saying outright that the Christian religion is a false religion. And why? Because it uses Greek based words, instead of using the sacred language! ABSURD! ASANINE! BLIND! As if true religion were to be determined by such things! It just goes to show how infinitely far from God such teachers are in proposing such extravagance and carnally minded folly as the most distinguishing character of the church of God. What will they do with this: “And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” (Acts 11:26) Or this: “Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.” (1 Peter 4:16) Say that the bible teaches a false religion? Where do they get their sacred name, then? Are they not really saying that the New Testament is what is false? Indeed, this is what a great many of them have come to, returning outright to Judaism, and it is a decided tendency of all such teaching.

That is not to say that each and every follower of this error is a child of the devil. I am far from being so persuaded. But those that teach such things, and make attack upon the name of Jesus, before which all nations and men shall one day bow, and to make an attack on His bride as a whore, which they do, and to call His religion a lie, without repentance, yes, each of these are destined to eternal damnation, for there is none other name by which we must be saved, and it said it in Greek, not Hebrew. (Acts 4:10-12) No, they don’t have to say it in English, but if they insist upon the sacredness of the language in which the name is pronounced, it is evident that their jealousy is not for the name, but for the language, and thus demonstrate that the name they really don’t know or understand.
Sixthly, and finally, is the name “Jesus”. The angel told Joseph, “Thou Shalt call his name JESUS, and he shall save his people from their sins.” (Mat.1:21)
We have noticed before the Messianic claim that the name of Jehovah, being the last name revealed in the Old Testament, and from that time used far far above any of the others, let us then apply their own doctrine to the name of Jesus. The name of Jesus was indeed the most recent name of God revealed to humanity, and used with much greater prominence from that point on, and is specifically stated to be exalted above every other name. “Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth”. (Phil.2:9-10) From the day that this name was announced by the angel, you never see the name Jehovah used again. The Bible teaches outright that Jesus is God. “Thomas saith unto him, My Lord and My God”. (Jn.20:28) Not just a God, but my God. Is He your God? He is God and this is His name: Jesus. And this is the name by which all mankind must be saved, or they will be eternally damned to hell to suffer the vengeance of eternal fire. “Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at naught of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:10-12) “To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” (Acts10:43 cf. vs.36) If you don’t believe in the name of Jesus you are not saved, and cannot be saved until you do. That is not to say that English is the sacred language, such that you have to pronounce it in English, but that the scripture states that it is by faith in that name alone by which men can be saved from hell, and that if you call that sacred name the name of a false God (many Hebrew Roots advocates think the sacred name of Jesus is a derivative of the Greek idol Zeus) you renounce the God of the bible, and with it the salvation that is by Him. “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Rom.10:9-13)
And here is the crux of the whole matter. The above text proves to any rational man’s satisfaction, and beyond, that the name of Jesus is the sacred name. For the very text quoted, “Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed” is a quote from Isaiah 28:16, which reads: “Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.” (Is. 28:16) The words “Lord GOD” in this text are translated from the Hebrew words “Adonai Jehovah”. Thus Paul is saying in Romans 10 that if you confess and believe in the name of Jesus that you will be saved, quoting as proof of his doctrine a verse that says essentially the same thing about the name Jehovah. And as if that were not clear enough, Paul concludes his point thus: “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” And this is a quote from Joel 2:32, which reads: “And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call. (Joel 2:32) This statement, then, makes the same point as the former, only more plainly. Paul says that if you believe in your heart on the name of Jesus, and confess His name with your mouth, that you shall be saved according to the scripture promise of Joel, “Whosoever shall call on the name of Jehovah shall be delivered”. And we see the same pattern in other places as well, such as in comparing Mat.3:3 with Isaiah 40:3, or Jn.12:41 with Isaiah 6:1-5.
But the sacred name people, not content to just to ignore these plain and imposing verses of scripture, must, as the unbelieving Jews of old, rather “blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called”, that name that God has exalted above every name, claiming that the name Jesus is really the name of a false God, and this merely on account of its phonetic semblance to the name of the Greek god, Zeus. What will they say, however, when, at the last day, they are compelled to bow the knee to the name of Jesus… the name they professed through life as a false god, and the name alone by which scripture teaches they could have been saved? Under what rock will they hide to avoid having to confess that name as belonging to the eternal judge before which they stand, the which they blasphemed through life as the name of a false god? Scripture teaches that all creation be prostrated before that name at the last day, and these are part of creation. That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth”. If the sacred name professor can find a locality outside of this description then he will not bow before the name of Jesus at the last day. (Phil. 2:10)
And let the sacred name advocate face up to this: That this passage in Phil. 2:10 is but a reflection upon Isaiah 45:23. Philipians 2:10 reads thus: “That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” And Isaiah 45:23 reads thus: “I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.” Is it not manifest that this is the very passage that Paul is making reference to in Phil.2:10, teaching that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow? But if you take the most casual look at Isaiah 45:23, you will see that it is Jehovah that is speaking! (H3068) Thus providing an apostolic and authoritative equation between them. Thus this doctrine, so proud and boastful and complacent of its elevated knowledge of the true name of God, is in fact but a gross and perverse blasphemy of that sacred name revealed in the word of God, and by which all men must be saved, if saved they are to be.
In concluding this chapter it is perhaps fit to point out that we have by no means exhausted the catalog of names of God that might be given, among them, Immanuel, (God with us), Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace, etc. etc. etc. The point in this chapter is but to obviate, first, that the sacred name advocate’s exclusive predilection for the name “Yahweh” is of his own making, and while used much more frequently than any other in scripture, yet is it never once used in the New Testament, and there is plainly no obligation whatever to use it exclusively as a name. Where does the bible teach that it alone, among the many names of God, must be exclusively used?And secondly, that the Messianic doesn’t even know the sacred name, but rather affirms that the sacred name of scripture is the name of a false god.

Chapter 4: Was the New Testament Written in Hebrew?

In continuity with the “sacred language” aspect of the Messianic movement most of them like to claim that the bible was really written in Hebrew, and that this supposed “fact” has been obscured, covered up, and lost to posterity. Like nearly every other claim they make, they haven’t a shred of reasonable evidence that this is the case. Where are all the Hebrew New Testament manuscripts which constitute the factual basis for such a claim? In accordance with most other Messianic claims, there isn’t any such textual evidence in existence on the face of the earth. And it wouldn’t matter if there were…… they would be proven fraudulent by the very words they contained, for the New Testament has internal evidence which refutes the whole idea. Let us look at two sets of scriptures, and see if you can’t foresee the point which they make.
First:

John 5:2 Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.
John 19:13 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.
John 19:17 And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:
Acts 1:19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
Acts 21:40 And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,
Acts 22:2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)
Revelation 9:11 And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.

Revelation 16:16 And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.
And second:

Matthew 1:23 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.
Mark 5:41 And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise.
Mark 15:22 ¶ And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull.
Mark 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
John 1:38 Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?
John 1:41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.
John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
John 9:7 And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.
John 20:16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.
Acts 4:36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,
Acts 9:36 ¶ Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named Tabitha, which by interpretation is called Dorcas: this woman was full of good works and almsdeeds which she did.
Acts 13:8 But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith.

The conclusion is rather obvious, is it not? What would you think of someone who walked up to you and said, “Hi, my name is Bob, which in the English language is Bob”? Would you not think they had lost their mind? To the degree that these don’t wish to share in such a repute, they should put away such an altogether absurd and embarrassing doctrine. The NT authors were writing in Greek, and thus when they used a Hebrew word they had to explain the fact, and interpret it. What sort of sense would this make if they were writing in Hebrew? What sort of person would this make sense to? It is a complete answer to the whole claim. There is no need of making the point by historical means…. it is perfectly self-evident from the higher authority of the scriptures themselves, no matter what translation you use, or in what tongue. It is just one more example of Messianic self-will and intractable caprice.

Conclusion:

There is great abundance of foolish argumentation which comes from the sacred name movement, and there is no purpose to answering it in all its minutiae of folly. As the saying goes, why flog a dead horse? Why enter into the minutia of the issue when it is so boldly and demonstrably wrong? Any who are going to be convinced, are. “He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.” (Rev. 22:11) The bottom line is that the Messianic/Sacred name people have no way of knowing what the supposed sacred name even is, and if they could know it, it would be a thing wholly contrary to the incontrovertible example of the apostles, and of their own social mores as well, to insist that the name is forbidden to be spoken in another language. Where is this prohibition? Where is the name forbidden to spoken in Swahili, Arabic, Chinese, German, or English? By what authority, then, is the prohibition made? By a human authority, by no authority at all.
A candid mind will require no more than what has been already presented, and a humble heart will overcome its pride and acknowledge their error….. just like every other Christian in the many errors we all make so frequently through life. These facts leave us with this simple conclusion: Either the sacred name teaching is an error, or people don’t presently have a bible that tells the truth, and in fact have no way of knowing if they ever have, and therefore have no way of even knowing if their whole religion is true of false, the name of God included. For any real Christian these options won’t long perplex them.
I remember hearing about the “Sacred Name” doctrine for the first time back in the early 1990’s, and thinking to myself, “Now that is so outlandish it will never be swallowed by anyone”. It was one of those occasions where my sanguine confidence in basic human discernment was destined to embarrassment. This teaching has spread far and wide beyond all proportions of its plausibility. That such doctrines can prosper is only a testament to the pitiful conditions prevailing in the churches, and to the want of godly ministers among them, who are supposed to be the biblical remedy for such problems….. “That they be no more children, tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine.” (Eph.4:11-16) That is not to berate the advocates of the “sacred name” movement, or the “Messianic movement”, but merely to lament the degree to which nearly any doctrine, if only it be false, will spread in the present vacuum of God’s blessing in His church, and among the religious community. To throw in my mite upon the subject, I have submitted this brief review for the reader’s consideration.
In concluding, let us look at Exodus chapters 33 and 34. Here Moses requests that God would show him His glory, to which God replies, “I will make all my goodness to pass before thee, and will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee.” (Ex.33:18-19) This event is described in chapter 34. God tells Moses to go up to the top of the mountain and appear before Him. ”And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD. And the Lord passed before him, and proclaimed, “The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.” (Ex.34:5-7)
Here God reveals His NAME to Moses. And what did Moses see? A scroll let down from heaven that had the correct spelling of YHVH, vowel points and all, complete with diacritical marks, and a voice giving him the correct pronunciation, with instructions that men must from henceforth, throughout all ages, and among all nations and tongues, pronounce it in Hebrew? No such matter. The NAME of the Lord was revealed to Moses, by God revealing to him what He was LIKE. Merciful, gracious, and longsuffering, yet judging the wicked. Yes, the text contains the name of Jehovah, but the fact is that, not only did Moses immediately reply to God with the name “Adonai” after just being told His name was “Jehovah”, (Ex.34:9), but more importantly is the fact that God had revealed His mere name to Moses at a much earlier time than this in Ex. 6:3. So what was God showing Moses in revealing his name here, that he had not had revealed before? More than what a sacred namer could give him, were he even correct somehow in his conjectured pronunciation. This is the name that the sacred name advocate has yet to learn in most instances. Jehovah showed Moses what he was LIKE….. “merciful, gracious, longsuffering, abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty”, etc.. and this was to reveal His name. This is the true God. You can pronounce His name like He Himself pronounces it in heaven, and yet go straight to hell without mercy… without the knowledge of Jehovah, Yahweh, JHVH, The Lord, Jesus. What folly to thus occupy yourself on the dangerous ground of this life with something that you can just as well take to hell with you, so you can pronounce it there in blasphemy through all eternity, together with Satan, who doubtless knows the sacred name far better than these do! May God grant to you a spiritual understanding of so important an issue, and bring you again to the God of the bible, always ready to “forgive all manner of sin and blasphemy” to the children of men, because He is “The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty.” (Ex.34:5-7) May all those truly born of God, strive to know that Sacred Name.

Appendix
Regarding Those That Repent of the Doctrine, but persist in the practice of using Hebrew pronunciations of God’s name.
It has been an observation of mine that there is a certain bondage to the sacred name doctrine which it’s advocates commonly share, such that while some may finally come to confess that they do not strictly reckon Hebrew pronunciation of God’s name(s) as a thing commanded nor therefore universally obligatory to others, yet they themselves can’t seem to break with the practice in good conscience. Of course this is a complete contradiction, but understandable in a certain degree. After having insisted upon it as a duty, the corruption thus wrought in their conscience may make them feel that they commit sin against God by truly repenting and following the biblical examples of the New Testament, its authors and subjects. But if the persuasion truly exists that they were mistaken about this obligation, to that degree the conscience should feel relieved of such impositions, and when such a persuasion is wanting in this effect, the persuasion needs but be reconsidered. Secondly, is the fact that having confessed this teaching with some degree of zeal, it can be embarrassing, when repentance is not thorough, to admit in such an overtly practical and public way that you were simply in error, and that you have returned to the biblical model. Human pride, just like mine, or of any man, can tempt these thus to attempt to salvage something out of their mistake, instead of more forthrightly acknowledging their error of mind and spirit. None of us is above such a motive, yet it remains that if this be the motive for it, it is a bad cause on any ground.
But thirdly, and more importantly, is the fact that, at its very root, the sacred name practice is but an infatuation with Jewish language and culture, as though it held some biblical and morally obligatory sway over the consciences of God’s people, and constituted some sort of Christian New Testament duty or virtue to imitate, or at least that it was somehow more spiritual. While this is the essence of the sacred name teaching it is also the essence of Judaizing….. and this is reckoned a very great sin indeed in the New Testament. If an infatuation with Hebrew language and culture is the essence of the sacred name doctrine, and it is, then the presence of this preference demonstrates that the essence of the doctrine has not been repented of, regardless of the claim that they no longer see it as universally obligatory for others. To what other cause will they ascribe their preference?
In any of these three cases the person who is forsaking this teaching needs to repent, and discontinue the use of the Hebrew names….. unless he is Hebrew, and lives in a nation where they speak Hebrew, as this only is accordant with the biblical model in a most perspicuous degree. Where in the bible did the Jews ever speak the Name of Jesus in any other language than that language of the people among whom they dwelt? And what motive could exist for such a weird practice? What would be the point? For whose sake would it be practiced? Let us notice a few things in more detail in respect to this problem.
Firstly, is the fact that if the teaching is such that it is sincerely forsaken as an error, then the desire to disassociate from it is a duty, and then conformed to with the same zeal as they formerly adhered to their error. Thus if I see that the anti-trinitarian views of the oneness people are in error, I will not wish to use their jargon so as to associate myself with their error, but to the degree that my repentance of it is genuine I will on the contrary possess a spontaneous zeal to disassociate myself with it plainly, without being told by others that I am supposed to have this zeal.
Secondly, is the fact that using the Hebrew name when you are an American is fanatical. People will argue that if the Lord Jesus really doesn’t care if I say His name in Hebrew or Greek, then upon what ground can it be refuted as an error? Precisely upon this ground: That it is confessed that the Lord Jesus doesn’t care what language you pronounce His name in, so as to accommodate the linguistic peculiarities of the nations He created, and among whom He sent His gospel, as one language or culture is not sacred above another. But to speak His name in a foreign tongue is to do just that… it is to regard one language as more spiritual, or agreeable to duty…. which is a contradiction of the very cause for which He makes the allowance. If you are not a Hebrew, then to make a practice of speaking His name in Hebrew is completely outside of this accommodation, and constitutes either a mere fanatical caprice, or, as was hinted at earlier, a mere unwillingness to confess that you erred in your former beliefs….. like we can be tempted of our pride to do.
May God bring all those of His dear people to a decided and consistent testimony in the matter, that there be no divisions among them, but they may be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment, that they be no more children tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine. (ICor1:10,Eph.4:11-16)