Skip to main content

Jehovah's or Christians?

Image
By

 




The Watch Tower Society identify their followers as Jehovah’s Witnesses. By what name did early Christians identify themselves? Were they known as ‘Jehovah’s,’ or ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses’? Even Jehovah’s Witnesses admit, ‘We simply do not know how God’s ancient servants pronounced this name in Hebrew,’ saying their pronunciation is mere convention. - The Divine Name in Hebrew Scriptures. See also The Name: it isn't Jehovah on the Reachout website. If it’s so very important, why hasn’t the pronunciation been preserved, alongside the name?

Followers of the Way

The earliest Jesus followers were followers of ‘the Way.’ Paul, in his defence before the governor Felix, confessed to being one of their number (Acts 24:14; cf. Acts 9:1,2; 19:9,23; 22:4;24:22) This name and title comes from Jesus’ own teaching, ‘I am the Way…’ (John 14:6) The Bible tells us, ‘in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians.’ (Acts 11:26) This reflects their beginning to have a distinct identity that set them apart from other Jews.

Remember, the first Christians were Jews in the New Covenant of Grace. The only ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses’ were Jews still in the Mosaic Law Covenant. Significantly, those ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses’ were considered as married to Jehovah (Isaiah 54:1-6) while the Christian Church is the bride of Christ (Eph.5:25-27; Rev.19:7-9; 2 Cor.11:2; Rev.21:2)

Jesus not Jehovah

Jehovah’s Witnesses draw faulty inferences to assert God’s name was used in New Testament times:

  • The Lord’s Prayer (Mt.6) says,’Hallowed be your Name,’ therefore Jesus must have taught his disciples the name they were to ‘hallow.’

  • Jesus tells the Father, ‘I have made your name known,’ (Jn.17) therefore Jesus must have used the name.

  • The name is found in the Old Testament texts extensively quoted in the New Testament, therefore the name must have been uttered at every reading of those texts e.g. Luke 4:21.

They cannot, however, show you any evidence that these things are so. Indeed, all the evidence shows otherwise. The emphasis of the New Testament writers is overwhelmingly on the name of Jesus.

1 Peter 3:14,15 quotes Isaiah8:12,13.

Isaiah is speaking of Jehovah, ‘Jehovah of armies – he is the one you should regard as holy.’

Peter is referring to Jesus, ‘Sanctify the Christ as Lord in your hearts.’

Peter is applying the Isaiah verses directly to Christ, which is why the Watch Tower translators fail to put God’s name into 1 Peter 3:14,15, even though it is there in Isaiah. We will see, shortly, that they do the same with Joel and Acts 2.

Jesus’ name takes precedence throughout the New Testament. Consider the record of the early church in Acts alone:

Men healed in the Name Acts 3:6,16; 4:10,30

Salvation in the Name Acts 4:12; 10:43; 22:16

Baptism in the Name Acts 2:38; 8:16

Forgiveness in the Name Acts 10:43

Teaching and preaching in the Name Acts 8:12; 4:18; 5:28

Calling upon the Name Acts 2:21; 9:14,21

Speaking in the Name Acts 4:17; 9:27,29

Suffering in the Name Acts 9:16; 15:26; 5:41

Bearing the Name before nations Acts 9:15

Paul opposed the Name Acts 26:9

Called or designated by the Name Acts 11:26

The Name of? – Jesus.

In the New Testament, not only is God’s name not spoken, the name of Jesus holds primary importance. It was the first century church that downplayed the Old Testament name of God, and for good reason.

It is Jesus that is seated at the Father’s right hand in the heavenly places, ‘far above all rule and authority and power and dominion and above every name that is named…’ Eph. 1:20,21

It is Jesus that that is, ‘highly exalted and given the name above every name.’ Phil.2:9

The Father’s commandment is, ‘that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ…’ 1 Jn.3:23

Jesus told his disciples they would be ‘hated by all for my name’s sake.’ Mt.10:22

It is in the name of Jesus we serve, and in his name we gather Mt.18:5,20

It is for Jesus’ name’s sake true believers abandon this world and it’s values Mt.19:29

The Saints will suffer tribulation for Jesus’ name’s sake Mt.24:9

Jesus is Jehovah

In 1917 Joseph Franklin Rutherford (Judge Rutherford; 1869–1942) succeeded Charles Taze Russell as president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. He changed the group’s name to Jehovah’s Witnesses in 1931 to emphasise their being God’s chosen people. Their apologetic for the change is based on verses like Isaiah 43:10.

‘‘You are my witnesses,’ declares Jehovah, ‘Yes, my servant whom I have chosen…’’ NWT

This verse is about God’s people being witnesses of God’s exclusive reality. It is significant that Jesus, in Acts, tells his followers:

‘You will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.’ Acts 1:8 ESV

Why didn’t he say, ‘you will be witnesses of Jehovah’? I suggest he did. Consider in whose name the church operates, Christians believe, salvation is preached.

Joel prophesied, ‘...everyone who calls on the name of the LORD [YHWH] shall be saved.’ Joel 28:32

Peter, quoting directly from Joel, declares at Pentecost, ‘...this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel...[therefore] Repent and be baptised every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins…’ Acts 2:15-38

Read the entire passage and see, Joel’s prophecy is fulfilled – in the name of Jesus Christ.

See also:

Did Jesus use the Name?

Should the Name Appear in the New Testament?

How Should we Sanctify God's Name?

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Obama's mother posthumously baptized into LDS Church - Salt Lake Tribune

By
In the wake of his remarkable success it seemed that the world and his wife wanted to claim President Obama as their own with even an Irish connection being dug up. Now the Mormons have got in on the act by posthumously baptising his mother. They have in the past upset the Jewish community, the Catholic Church and now the American President with this wacky and unbiblical practice but there is no indication that they will review it. And, of course, it is always someone else’s fault and they promise a thorough inquiry to uncover the real culprits. Maybe they should try looking in the mirror. President Barack Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, who died in 1995, was baptized posthumously into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints last year during her son's campaign, according to Salt Lake City-based researcher Helen Radkey. The ritual, known as “baptism for the dead,” was done June 4 in the Provo temple, and another LDS temple rite, known as the “endowment,” was...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mormon Christians? Whats in a Name?

By
The Mormon Church, disturbed by the continuing identifying of polygamus sects in the news with the name Mormon, recently issued a press statement aimed at "clarifying" issues. It is interesting to note that if you substitute the name "Christian" where they use the name "Mormon" it makes a very good argument for us against the claims of the Mormon Church. The full press release is reproduced below in italics with each paragraph rewritten in ordinary text to present it from a Christian perspective. SALT LAKE CITY 10 July 2008 On 26 June, Newsroom published a package of information featuring profiles of ordinary Latter-day Saints in Texas. With no other intention but to define themselves, these members provided a tangible depiction of what their faith is all about. They serve as the best distinction between the lifestyles and values of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a Texas-based polygamous group that has recently attracted media attent...
70 comments
Read more

Is atheism an intolerant belief?

By
The Big Questions , Sunday 2 August 2009, third question. A growing number of Britons say they are certain there is no God - but how do they know? Professor John Adams of the North Yorkshire Humanist Association begins by asking theists what evidence they have for their beliefs. Paul Woolley of Theos continues by pointing out Richard Dawkins description of faith as a 'virus', and the appalling track record of atheism in the 20th Century, as spearheaded by Pol Pot and Stalin. Chloe Clifford-Frith of the Humanist and Secular Students Society contends that Stalin did not do the things he did because he was an atheist, but because he was evil. Paul Woolley rejoins that atheists are trying to have it both ways when they claim that religion is the cause of evil, but refuse to acknowledge the ideological impetus of atheism when it comes to many evil acts. Mao and Stalin both replaced God with the State - a 'religious' manoeuvre. Rev Alistair Rycroft of St Michael Le Belfrey Ch...
18 comments
Read more