Jehovah`s Witness/YHWH in the New Testament
QUESTION: Hi Mr. Jones,
I am newly baptized. I was wondering about the name Jehovah. I bet you are saying, well, it's a bit late for you to ask that, you are baptized now. But, I was thinking & I know that isn't a good thing for witnesses to do...We must Listen, obey & be blessed. Anyway, is God's name Jehovah a Hebrew name. Why would God name himself a Jewish name. Isn't God NOT Partial. Why would he give a Jewish name if he represents all people. He wouldn't do that, because man is too prideful. In the middle east his name is Allah, in another Buddah and so on. We just rec'd a revised NWT, easy english or should I say everyday language. The bible points out the Tetragrammaton. Uh? I just can't imagine the God of the Jews & Gentiles would still have a Jewish name.
Hope to hear from you. Can't ask these questions at the KH or from a sister or brother, because they think you are ...A THINKER..& we'll have none of that here at the KH, now will we.
Hope to hear from you. I have been following this site for sometime & I decided to ask you. You are no longer a witness but you are not angry or a misfit. You seemed to be well adjusted. I have noticed your replies & all you do is state the facts. I see none of your own opinion, just what you saw & heard.
Hope to hear from you
ANSWER: Yes, I was wondering why a newly baptized person is asking questions here. But you ask some serious questions, so I will get directly to it.
You asked, is God's name Jehovah a Hebrew name?
No. Neither the Hebrews nor the later Jews enounced "Je-ho-vah." Neither did they write "Jehovah." The Jews write the Hebrew Tetragrammaton as YHWH and pronounce it similar to "Yahweh" or sometimes "Yehwah."
Jehovah is a hybrid form of YHWH with vowels added in between.
In answer to the rest of your questions, I have copy/pasted information from another source. I am not the originator of the following, but it makes perfect sense to me.
The Tetragrammaton was God's old covenant name, identifying himself as the God of his covenant people, the Jews.
When that old arrangement ended and all humans regardless of race, both Jews and Gentiles, could have a personal relationship with God as their father, God saw fit to allow his Old Testament name identifying himself as the God of the Jews to disappear.
That is why Paul in his famous sermon at the Areopagus, Acts 17, never referred to this one universal God as YHWH, nor in fact in any other place in his epistles. Neither did Peter, James, John, Timothy or any of the other Apostles. God was no longer to be identified as a Jewish God by a Jewish name anymore.
The Watchtower religion, which is basically a quasi-Judeo cult, starkly misses this point, choosing instead to continually hark back to the OT and the old covenant name.
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION: Hi Mr. Jones,
First thanks for replying to me & not judging me for being baptized & asking this question. This explaination makes a great point. I most likely could not have expressed it this way. I agree with you. God would not be identified by any culture, he is the God of all. I did notice that in the NT, none of the apostles identified God as Jehovah. Also, in Jesus's model prayer, that was the opportune time for Jesus to make his Father's name known, don't you think. A JW thinking would be this..Jesus would not call God by his first name because God is his Father. The Prayer is as follows: Our Father....so, if Jesus didn't call God/The Father by his first name, then who are we? Didn't God say, you are to call only one Father & that's him. So, it's ok for us to call him God. There is only one God, with different names (names were given by man, man cannot NOT KNOW a person's name). Most folks when you say God, they get it...You don't have to identify him by name. Oh, it's nice that he has a name, but when you say God, there is no mystery.
I enjoy being a witness, it's hard though, because you are not allowed to express your feelings, well, that's a fib, you can but only the way the ORG. approves. I'm still working on Michael being Jesus. Can't swallow that at all. I don't express it to anyone, because that is what they want to believe. I will have to carry my own load when confronted & judged, so I will listen to the Org. check the bible to see if it lines up with the Bible & if it doesn't. I'll keep it to myself. The revised NWT, may just reveal that maybe some of the Org. doctrine may not be true...I think this revised edition may open eyes. Maybe not enough for folks to leave but to say, wow, I was right. Not sure if you know, but July 15, 2013 WT(study edition) has had many new understandings, 1914, FDS, Domestics, etc. What I'm also wondering is if some of the sisters & brothers who may have seen the light before The ORG. saw it & they were DF'd due to apostasy, will they be called back ? Just wondering.
Well if you enjoy being a Witness and enjoy being with them, I say go for it as long as that is your experience. I am glad that you can see that much of the doctrine that they hold to be THE truth is nothing more than human ideas and current understandings.
And yes, as "new light" is revealed, it would seem that those who were disfellowshipped for understanding it first should be reinstated. The FDS, 1914, the anointed remnant, the domestics. Same ole, same ole. It matters not in the grand scheme of things.