Sacred Name Controversy - Removing The Fog of Religion

Go to content

Sacred Name Controversy

Christian Leadership Response
Sacred Names Controversy
By your servant, Dan L Baxley
Many years ago I requested information about the Name of our Savior and I was sent this response.  It is obviously a form letter or article sent out to anyone asking this question.  This church, the World Wide Church of God, originally known as the Church of God by Herbert W Armstrong and his son, Garner Ted Armstrong, both, now deceased.  The WWCG is also deceased, having many different splinter groups, scattered throughout the USA.  Too many to list, but from my experience all of them follow this teaching and others still loyal to the Herbert W Armstrong teachings.  I include this dated article because it is old but still up to date in the thinking and teachings and the response from others when this question comes up.  As with other emails about this question, I have included my response -- exposing the wrong thinking, the deception and, sometimes, the outright lies.  

First on this list is the World Wide Church of God, which no longer exists.  After multiple groups splintering off, for various reason, they all took with them many of the doctrines taught by this, now defunct church.  This teaching about the Sacred Name is a basic answer to the question of, Should I shouldn't I be using the Birth name of our Savior?  Not having the time to contact all splinter groups, about this question, I have taken this last of the teachings, year 2000, just before the World Wide Church came to an end with only splinters, big and a little, but from what I have seen and read, none of them have corrected this teaching of denial.  Also, this article, from the World Wide Church of God, covers just about everything and every answer received and given by other Christian organizations -- they are all teaching this very same thing.  With that in mind, by answering, or commenting on the features in this Article it is then and answer to all of the other Church of denial.  It is a pretty big deal for anyone to deny our Savior, or to replace His Name with another -- more on all of that later, as you will see.   Enjoy.

Send any comments or questions to:
The “Sacred Names” Controversy
The Late, Worldwide Church of God           
 Now and then, people will encounter a “sacred names” group that insists that it is essential to call God and Jesus only by their Hebrew names.   Must God only be addressed by a specific Hebrew name?  Should we avoid the name “Jesus” for Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior?
               The “sacred-name” question has been raised by many individuals and groups over the years.  What’s interesting about this idea is that those who claim we should use only the “right” name for God, do not agree on what that name should be!   For example, should we use “Yahweh,” “Jehovah,” “Yeshua,” “Yahshua,” “Yaohu” or some other transliterated versions of Hebrew names to address God?  Various “sacred names” groups will claim that one or another of these names is the correct one, and the others are considered incorrect.
               We should also realize that the “sacred names” groups are creating an issue over God’s name where none exists in Scripture.  This is the crux of the matter.  Nowhere does Scripture command all people to use a name for God that is supposedly a transliteration of Hebrew letters into English.  What “sacred names” people do is simply make this assertion, based on their misinterpretation of one or more Scriptures that say something about God’s name.  
My comment:  Acts 4:12 states that there is a name found, or given, among men, or mankind, by which we must be saved.  Also, the test verses for the “antichrists”:  II John 7, I John 4:2-4, I John 2:23,   
Here is an example of how this can be done.  We could turn to Judges 13:18, which contained God’s answer to Manoah, the father of Samson, when he inquired about the Lord’s name.  Here we read the following: “And the angel of the Lord said unto him, Why ask you thus after my name, seeing it is secret” (Judges 13:18, King James Version).  Misusing this Scripture, a person could put forth the theory that we should not have any name for God – and never utter it – because it is secret.  

My comment: With a little investigation it is not hard to find that the KJV had made a mistake in using the word “secret”, the more appropriate word being “wonderful” which is adequately pointed out in Adam Clark’s Commentary.  Virtually everyone that has undertaken to study the “Word” knows that the term “angel” also means messenger.  “Angel of the LORD” thus means, “Messenger of the YHWH”.  On top of this, when one understands the important role that “names” play in scripture you can easily see that Manoah and his wife (Father and mother of Samson) wanted to know this “messenger’s” name so they could honor him in some way, maybe even worship him.  The Messenger denied their request and told them to sacrifice to the LORD (YHWH).  Again, being a bible student, one should know that anytime you see LORD in capital letters it is the NAME (HaSham) of the God of Israel.  So, the Messenger of YHWH refused to give his name other than to say it is “wonderful”, a title found in Isaiah (IsaYaH) 9:6, a prophetic reference to the Messiah.

But this idea is immediately seen for what it is – not scriptural or logical.  How could we speak of God or to God if we could not give him a name?  Besides, nothing in Scripture tells us we are to avoid using a name for God.  The verse in question itself doesn’t mean what this hypothetical theory would claim.  What the angel of the Lord was saying was that God’s name is “beyond understanding,” or “wonderful.”  That is, Manoah was being told that he was in the presence of deity or God.  Isaiah 9:6 speaks of the Lord as “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”  

My comment:  This is totally wrong.  This angel came as a representative of the Mighty YHWH.  This messenger angel denied giving his name only to keep them from worshiping him as YHWH.  It could be said that the angel did give his name and that his name is Wonderful and that would be the other side of the argument. The fact is that this messenger told them to sacrifice to LORD (YHWH) and not to him.  

Let’s briefly look at the fundamental idea of the “sacred names” groups, to see whether their claim is biblical.  To pose the question again:  Must we use only a certain Hebrew name for God or for Jesus?
First of all, Hebrew names or titles for God – which “sacred names” groups say we must use – are not found in the New Testament.  More than this, the apostles and early church used the Greek form of the Holy Scriptures (our Old Testament) because they lived in a Greek-speaking world.  Thus, even their Scriptures did not have whatever “sacred name” a particular group claims is the only one to be used in reference to God, or Jesus.  The New Testament writers wrote in Greek, and used Greek names for God, not Hebrew ones.
My comments:  Again, this is wrong.  Over and over again we see names as an issue in the first century church.  John 5:43, the Messiah states that he came in his Father’s Name.  Remember, the Messiah was given hi name at birth by and “angel” of God.  This angelic messenger told Mary and later Joseph the name to give to the child.  That name would include the Father’s name, see Mathew 1:21.  Now look at John 17:11 “… I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world and I am coming to you.  Holy Father protect them by the power of your NAME -- the name you gave me.”.  The New Testament is filled with quotes from the Old Testament.  The KJV translation consistently used the capitalized form of LORD to indicate the “name” being used, the name of the God of Israel, YHWH.  IF you can access an NIV bible, check out the preface in the front of this bible on page xii (12).  They admit using LORD in place of YHWH.  One more thing, JESUS, is not Greek, closer to Latin, maybe, but not even then really as the name Jesus, as we know it today did not exist before the 17th century.  It is of relative modern origin.  Some dictionaries point this out, concerning the letter “j”.  The English – American method of pronouncing the name Jesus is not the same as in Europe of the Spanish speaking peoples.  They pronounce the name Iesus as Hey-Zeus.  Now that is Greek - Zeus being the father of the Greek gods.   
Second, it’s clear that the “sacred names” claim has no merit if we simply stop to ask what the Bible says about the idea – or, actually doesn’t say.  Careful thought will help us realize that nowhere in the New Testament (or the Old Testament, for that matter) are we told that all people must use an ancient Hebrew pronunciation of God’s name.  Yet, if it were as important as “sacred names” people claim it is, we would have been told about it quite clearly, abundantly and explicitly in the New Testament.  But we aren’t.  To repeat, the New Testament writers simply used the names of God – and Jesus – based on pronunciations and spellings found in the Greek-speaking world.  
My Comment:  Wrong again.  Much of the writings of the New Testament were obviously aimed at Jewish people, the Israelite population.  Many scholars suggest that the gospel of Matthew was aimed at the Jewish population and there is a letter written specifically to the Hebrews.  To suggest that the Jews all spoke Greek, the language of the day, is ludicrous.  The Jews of Judah and of surrounding areas spoke many different languages but when it came to sacred writings, they would be hard pressed to throw their native tongue out in favor of a Gentile language.  Consider this, during the Pentecostal manifestation of the Holy Spirit, Peter stood along with all others and began to preach the Gospel to the crowd of people from all over the known world and they all heard the disciples speak in their own, home town, language, slave, Jews, Jewish converts, and visitors from Rome all hearing the Gospel in their own language.  Every country and state you can think of but not Greek.  Read this amazing account for yourself, Acts 2:5-11, and you will see.  One would think that if Greek was to be the sacred language of the New Testament, certainly there would have been some mention of Greeks being present, seems like everyone else was there.  Does this verse explain that the Greek language was not what the Bible teachers say it is?  Something to think about.
Third, quite obviously, the many ancient copies of the text of our New Testament have come to us without the use of a Hebrew “sacred name” for God or Jesus.  To try to get around this obvious fact, “sacred names” proponents claim that there must have been different original, non-Greek versions of the New Testament from which the sacred names were erased by unknown hands at an early date.  Think of what this means.  
My Comment: (Luke 24:47) And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His Name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. – And what do you suppose His Name would have been, beginning at Jerusalem?  His Name, certainly was NOT Jesus, because that name never existed then.  Someone has been hard at work covering, hiding and replacing The Name that was being Preached beginning at Jerusalem, some 1,900 years ago, and 1,500 years, or so, before the name JESUS was invented.  That is a FACT.  The GREEK version of the New Covenant is not different from the ENGLISH version, a version some groups claim is also INSPIRED.  Please.  Go back to a time the Gospel was first delivered – Pentecost, 30 or 33 AD and read off the names of all the Nations who heard the Gospel in their native, of Home Language and notice what is missing – GREEK.  There is no mention of the Greek language.  
(Act 2:8)  And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
(Act 2:9)  Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
(Act 2:10)  Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
(Act 2:11)  Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
(Act 2:12)  And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What does this mean?
Greek is missing.  Where is this, supposed, Inspired Greek?  Someone went to great lengths to mention every continent in the Roman Empire except the Greek?  Greek is only a language used to translate from, into other languages.  There is no argument that the language spoken among the people living in that region, surrounding Jerusalem, was Aramaic.  Was Aramaic the only language, obviously not, the Gospel call to repentance went out from Jerusalem FIRST and was spoken, delivered, announce and heard in all of those languages mentioned.  Are we then to assume that all of those languages are Inspired?  No, it is the message that is inspired, no matter what language used as the tool for the ears to hear and the mind to receive and digest and accept or reject -- the Call to Repentance, in the Name of our Savior's Birth Name, then and now, can be heard in any language, just as these first verses, in the first Gospel Message of Repentance demonstrate.

This idea that the Greek is the language of Heaven is just, plain stupid.  But, guess what?  No matter the language, the pronunciation for His Birth Name is the same, no matter the language.  His Name does not change any more than yours does, from language to language, Putin is still Putin, Obama is still Obama, Trump is still Trump and even the spelling of these names remain the same when mentioned in the newspapers around the world.  When one world leader mentions another world leader they do not change his or her name, that would be ridiculous and yet, men do just that, when it comes to the Name, the only Name by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12 -- and part of the Gospel call to repentance).  I am called Dan, in Chinese, and Arabic, that is my given, birth name.  In France they say, Dan, in Britain they say Sam, or Ham – no, just kidding, to make a point.  Call me Sam and I won’t answer that phone call, nope, you got the wrong number.
 We begin with the real-world situation that not a single Greek New Testament manuscript that we have shows any evidence of the “original” Hebrew name for God or Jesus.  This means some person or group would have had to find and obtain every single Greek manuscript of any part of the New Testament – around the entire Mediterranean Sea area.  Then, this person or group would have had to erase from these manuscripts all references to whichever Hebrew “sacred names” are in question, and replace them with the Greek names for God and Jesus.  
Me: This remark is based on the false assumption that the Greek is the Inspired word and the language of Heaven.  Funny, how people keep quoting our Lord in Old English.  Funny, real funny.  But who is the joke on?  All of Christianity, that’s who.  An example illustrating the error and the admitted error from the Translators, themselves, we see in the New Testament where confusion is evident when quoting from the Old Covenant, using the name of Joshua, a name that is similar or the same as the name our Savior was given at birth – JOSUA – understanding the J letter has change in its pronunciation, over the last Century and should be pronounced as the Hebrew Y or Yod.  YOSHUA is closer to YaHshua than is the bogus name, JESUS, a name some one third of the world pronounces as Heyzeus.  Make sense?  Oh, the New Covenant confusion?  In the King James the name JESUS was used in reference to the Old Covenant JOSHUA – this did no work so well.  So, the modern translators admitted their error and ….. you think they corrected the New Covenant and restore our Savior’s Name to that found in the Old Covenant?  Nope, they went back and changed the two place where the name JESUS was supposed to mean the Joshua of the Old covenant and change those two places only.  Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 – KJV = Jesus.  NIV = Joshua.  This is an admission against the translators and those who continue to promote this deception.
When seen in this light, the “sacred names” idea is evidently preposterous.  To get around this logical impasse, it is simply claimed that the original text was tampered with in some unknown way, and the original documents have been entirely lost.  Quite conveniently, we might say!  One can claim the existence of anything when that something doesn’t exist.  But the fact is that there is no ancient New Testament manuscript in which Hebrew names for God are used instead of the Greek words.  “Sacred names” people must rely on a theory that cannot be proved because no evidence for it exists.  Any such idea that is put forth, which cannot be disproved because no evidence for it exists, is not a valid proof.  In short, the “sacred names” claim is an idea simply made up out of nothing.  
Me: This last paragraph is a witness against what this church and other churches with this same teaching and defense.  It is like a bank robber calling everyone else bank robbers.
One simple test, then, for any claim about a “right” Hebrew name for God (and a number of different variants are put forward) is to ask: Is it found to be the name used for God (or Jesus) in the New Testament?  If the name is not found in existing New Testament manuscripts, then the claim is false.
Me:  Nearly all of the variants are similar, very similar and if we allow for accent and dialects they are similar and understandable and recognizable as the same Name.  But, this is not the case with the name JESUS.  It is Geezus, which is not even close to His Hebrew or Jewish name a name that is still in the Old Covenant, even in the form of a Book, the Book of JOSHUA – restore the J to the Y sound, and drop the O which was added by dropping the H and we have – Y’shua, a from used by many in the Jewish community or among Biblical scholars.  Restore the H and you have YHshua, our Savior’s Birth Name, a Name found in the Bible, thousands of years before the newly invented name, JESUS, or is it Heyzeus, another bogus way of pronouncing this false name, JESUS.  If you hear this name in Latin, say, during a prayer at any Basilica in Italy and it sound very much like, ISIS an Egyptian goddess.  The comparison for which name is more like its original or more in tune with being repeated in other languages hold for the name YaHshua, but not for the name JESUS.  Every argument the use of His Birth Name falls back on those in support of the false name twice over.  
               Fourth, the unproveable premise of “sacred names” doctrine, if accepted, negates the possibility that Scripture can be authoritative for faith.  These groups ask us to believe that God did not preserve or was unable to preserve his Word on what they claim is a most important “truth” – the correct Hebrew name for God and Jesus – and that he, therefore, allowed essential parts of the New Testament to become lost and corrupted.  
Me: Again, this argument can be used against the JESUS supporters and promoters just as easily.  This article keeps mentioning the Hebrew or Sacred Names group.  I am not arguing for them. I find a lot wrong with what they are teachings, but not so much with His Name and His true identity.  I defend His Holy Name, as many in the Sacred Names groups do, but other of their doctrines I cannot and do not abide.  If you come to see the truth in His Birth Name, that does not mean you are then a member or must become a member of any Sacred Names groups or Hebrew Roots group or Messianic groups.  I have not found one that is correct in their attempt to restore the Old Covenant.  They may have His Name correct, but then – Rev 3:9, Mat 7:22, 24:5 – must be considered.
To believe the “sacred name” teachers, one must believe that God is unable to preserve his Word, and that his word is incomplete and corrupt.  Thanks be to God that he has preserved the essential teaching of salvation in the New Testament, and by doing so has proven the “sacred names” theory to be a misguided idea.  To repeat, the New Testament’s use of Greek names and titles for God and Jesus, rather than the Hebrew names, is devastating to the “sacred names” theory.  
Me: The word and the message is preserved and has been preached in all the world.  That, for me, has never been the argument.  Knowing the message and teaching it is very possible and has the ability to change lives, no doubt, but when the Spirit reveals this truth to you then what is your obligation – according to the New Covenant writings, the New Covenant Message?  It is to make the adjustment to the Truth, right?  Some, however, will argue and do argue that you should reject this clear truth and deny His BIRTH NAME for another – John 5:43.  Who, then, would tell you to do this?  Deny His Name, the Name given to Him at His Birth, a Name from His Heavenly Father?  1,500 years before the name JESUS ever appeared He had a Name given to Him, a Name found among men, but commanded to be given to Him by His Father in Heaven.  Common sense, and our spiritual sense says this is true.  
               Fifth, the Bible itself shows it is not wrong to translate God’s names from one language to another.  In the New Testament, the apostles used the Greek Kyrios 665 times and Theos 1345 times to translate the Hebrew name Yahweh!  These names are found in quotations of Jesus’ own words – and he said his words would not pass away.  In over 900 places in the New Testament, we find the Greek word Iesous used as the personal name of Jesus.   Since we have a “J” in English, it is perfectly proper for us to call our Savior, Jesus.  (Another variant of “sacred names” theory claims we should call Jesus “Yehoshua,” since there was no letter “J” during biblical times.  Yet, another group claims we should use a special name for God that does have a “J” – Jehovah.)   Since “God,” “Lord” and “Jesus” are the English equivalents of names and titles from the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, we can use them with full confidence that God accepts these names.  We do not need to learn or use some “secret” Hebrew name for God or Jesus, because Scripture does not command us to do this.
Me: Translate His Name?  This argument mixes up Translate with Transliterate.  Names, when properly transferred from  one language to another are transliterated, not translated.  Thus, our Presidents name appears in other languages and sounded out in other languages as it is in its original form.  Obama is Obama, in Russian or Israeli.  Trump, remains Trump in all news papers of the world.  Biden is Biden in all other languages, but when it comes to our Savior’s Holy Name, a Name He says is connect with His Father in Heaven is different?  We should change it?  No, they have changed it.  Again, who would do this?  Who would support this lie?  Who?           
 Sixth, even the Old Testament uses various names for God.  Besides Elohim and Yahweh, other names stated to belong to God are Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14), Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God (Hebrew, El), Everlasting Father and Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6).  In Zechariah 6:12, the Savior is named “The Branch.”  Thus, we find many names for God used in the Bible, in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, and these are translated from one language to another.
Me: the Old Testament uses many different Title but His Holy Name has remained the Same, from beginning to the end.  Of course, even this Holy Name has been changed, from the original four letters, YHWH, to LORD.  Why?  Some translation have kept His Name in the Old Covenant but in the New Covenant?  NOT!

El is singular for the English, God.  Elohim is plural for the English Gods.  The Branch is not a name but a title, a teaching method to illustrate what and who YaHshua, our Savior would be.  He is not NAMED the BRANCH, He is called The Branch, something most can understand.  Prince of Peace is not a name either.  Who would say the a President of Peace is a name?  Someone, with a Name, could have many titles, like, say, President, King, Spirit of Truth but these are not names but titles and positions, ranking.  This claim that He has many Names, is true, of course, but not in any of the examples given.  The only Name He has revealed to us is His Name and the Name of His Son, not any other name by which we must be SAVED – Acts 4:12 – and the opposition to this are reaching to grab any lame reasoning to continue the deception.  Actually, it may be an unconscious effort at protecting those who came before – those in the Christian historical community, such as those called the fathers who came before them, setting certain standards in the halls of religious teaching.  To uncover this great truth about this greatest of all deceptions would be to deny all those fathers who have come before, and as their student children the fathers must be protected and so, the deception continues.  Or, something like that, and if that is the case then they have some kind of excuse but a weak excuse, as our Savior, YaHshua, says – Mark 7:8-9 – obeying the traditions of men rather than the Commandment of God – and what is one of the Commandments of God – to Preach in His Name, to Baptize in His Name.  Oh, well, according to the reasoning, presented by the World Wide Church and others using similar reasoning, the name should be a name the Church fathers dreamed up in the 15th century – does that make sense?  Of course not.
At least one “sacred names” group that claims we should use a special Hebrew name for Jesus bases its assertion, in part, on Acts 4:12.  This gives us an opportunity to see how “sacred names” groups misuse the Scriptures in support of their theory, so let’s briefly look at this passage.  The verse in question says the following in reference to Jesus: “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.”  The obvious purpose and meaning of this passage is to show that Jesus is the author and finisher of our salvation, and that no one else is.  This verse does not tell us to use a special Hebrew name for Jesus.
Me: Wow.  This last paragraph is amazing – that is amazingly stupid.  Sorry, but if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck it must be a duck.  Talk about twisting a verse to one’s own purpose, the very thing they accuse the Hebrew roots people of doing with this verse – for that matter, anyone who would say this verse says what it says – there is no other name, found among men, by which we MUST be Saved – Acts 4:12 is as clear as it gets.  But, wait, this article from the World Wide Church has more to say.  Let’s remember, also, that before for the World Wide Church went under it had established it self as a Christian power house, it had Ambassador College with a full curriculum, specializing in religious studies.  They had all the necessary tools and research available to look into and to correct this deception, and, they were known for stepping on the toes of other Christian works, when it came to doctrine, but, in this case, they joined the Christians in the outright denial of our Savior’s Birth Name.  Why not just say – Yes, we know that He was name Joshua, or YaHshua but we prefer to use the newly invented name, Jesus – Geezus, and to then tell you that that is the Greek?  
The next interesting point to notice is the context of Acts 4:12.  The Greek word for Jesus, transliterated Iesous, is used throughout this chapter (verses 2, 10, 13, 18, 27, 30, 33).  In fact, as stated earlier, this is the name used for Jesus throughout the entire New Testament.  No Hebrew name for Jesus appears here.  Again, the “sacred names” theory is shown to be wrong.
Me: It just keeps getting better.  First off, Jesus is not ever, or at least, rarely transliterated Iesous.  If Iesous is His Name in the INSPIRED Greek then why not use it?  JESUS, does not say or sound like, IESOUS, which a transliterated JESUS would sound like, that is what a transliteration is supposed to be, and exact, or nearly exact way of saying a name from a different language into your own language so it sounds like the original language.  Dan, in other words, would be transliterated as Dan in Chinese or any other language.  Our Savior’s Hebrew, or Jewish Name, as a transliterated word would be into a language or series of letters from another language, like English, and reproduced in the English letters to replicated the sounding out of His Name, correctly, as it would sound in Hebrew or the Jewish language.  This would mean, that the Greek, if a true transliteration, would make the sound, as pronounced in Greek, the same as if made or spoken by one of the Apostles, like some Peter might have said in Acts 4:12 – what name do you suppose He was using?  It certainly was not JESUS or IESOUS.  And, for the record, IESOUS is more kin to Latin than Greek.  The Greek, also wrong, would be Inoous, but never mind, we can make it any name we want so, Iesous will work.  But, notice, in the following Strong’s Greek Dictionary, how this name is supposed to be sounded out and ask yourself, “Does this sound like JESUS?”  Not even close, right?  

The following quote is from the Strong's Greek Dictionary -- remember, this Dictionary about biblical Greek and Hebrew was conposed in the 17th century.  As you can see, the understanding about His Name was understood, and when you and I understand that the Letter J was not pronounced as we pronounce it now as Geezus, then we can see that the scholars, a couple of centuries back did understand, it has only be the last few decades that this lie has really taken hold.  As you read this quote from Strong's remember to pronounce the J as the Y as used in the word, Yod -- see how, Jehoshua, becomes, YeHoshua and not JESUS?  Saying it is JESUS does not make it so, it is furthering the deception while admitting to the truth.
̓Ἰησοῦς - Iēsous - ee-ay-sooce'
Of Hebrew origin [H3091]; Jesus (that is, Jehoshua), the name of our Lord and two (three) other Israelites: - Jesus.

What does Acts 4:12 mean when it refers to the matter of “name”?  When the passage says “there is no other name under heaven” by which we must be saved, it is referring to the Person of Jesus Christ, not to some special phonetic pronunciation or spelling of his name, whether Hebrew or otherwise.  We are saved by Jesus’ redemptive work – by what he did on our behalf, not by the letters of his name.  When we accept Jesus as Savior, we accept him as the One who is Savior.  Whether we spell or pronounce his name differently, depending on our language, is incidental.  In any case, most Western languages will spell Jesus’ name in a similar way, though the pronunciation may differ somewhat from language to language.  
Me: Here is the pat answer to all of the questions about His Holy Name.  Remember, when we pray to our Heavenly Father, we were instructed to pray, “Our Father in Heaven, Holy is your Name”, and our Lord said that He came in His Father’s Name. This should clue us in to the fact that the Name is Holy and if our Savior is coming in that name and is named after His Father, like most sons, then what is His Name?  It certainly is not, JESUS.  The Pat answer from all of these deniers, as mentioned, is simply to say that when the word NAME is used it really does not mean a NAME, no, it means a person or by authority, but never does it mean the Name, or His Name, never a literal meaning only a suggestion of a Person, or a God, among many others.  And that, in itself is a problem.  How do you distinguish your God from all of the other Gods?  What about baptism?  We can be baptized into any name – just pick a name, it does not matter?  Really?  Remember, the false name JESUS never existed with the First Believers were baptized into the Name of the Father and the Son.  
               What does it mean to call upon someone’s “name” or to do something in a person’s “name”?  Does that mean we do the calling or doing in the act of precisely spelling or pronouncing his or her “correct” name?  Not at all.  When we act in someone’s name, we do so in that person’s office or authority.  An officer of the law may arrest a criminal “in the name of the crown” or “in the name of the law.”  To do so in someone’s name means to act by his authority, and the power or government he represents.  Similarly, if we seek protection or help in the “name of God,” we seek his Person, not some particular set of letters or sounds.
Me: If the Secretary of State goes to other countries he, or she, goes in the Name of the President – a good point, as the author of this article of denial is saying.  But, does this mean that the Secretary of State does not know the name of the President, whom they are representing or by whose authority they are operating?  Of course not, that would be ridiculous to suggest such a thing and yet, here we are, reading just such a silly reasoning.
In conclusion, we can use God’s names as they are spelled and pronounced in any language. We can use the name for God that exists in our own language.  As English-speaking people we use the word “God.”  Germans can use “Gott,” Spanish people can use “Dios” and Greeks can use “Theos” when referring to God.  And, so on.  It is neither scriptural nor logical to require the use of God’s names in Hebrew rather than Greek or English or some other language.  God understands and honors all languages.  He looks on our hearts, not on our lips.

Me: I just cannot resist – “…not on our lips?”
(Heb 13:15)  By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to His Name.  
The famous, “He looks on our heart”, so we are all good?  And this coming from a Christian institution who teachers doctrines, like the Sabbath Doctrines as necessary to be part of God’s House, things you must do in order to be one of His people.  But, by the standard the World Wide Church of God set forward in this last statement, all anyone has to do is be of good heart and we are all just fine.  How the worm turn.  I wonder if the demise of that organization may have had something to do with their full on denial of His Holy Name?  Besides all of the other scandals that broke out after Herbert W Armstrong and his son split, and the Wolves jumped in and tore everything to pieces, of course, just and idea or a real possibility.  
In conclusion, the idea that we must address God by some specific set of English letters that supposedly transliterates a Hebrew word creates an issue over God’s name where none exists in Scripture.  God does not require knowledge of a password or set of vocal sounds, as though becoming a Christian means we are entering a kind of secret society.  Salvation comes as a free gift of God through faith in the atoning and saving work of our Savior, Jesus Christ.  We are not saved because we utter a particular name for God or for Jesus.  Thanks be to God that we can have an abiding personal relationship with the Persons of the Triune God – the Father and the Son (Jesus), as they dwell in us through the Holy Spirit.
Me: If it is not necessary to use any particular name then why is the completely made up name, Jesus, defended?  Why not support everyone who wants to use His Birth Name, as these fools suggest that it does not matter.  Why not say that the use of His Birth Name is perfectly fine but we, or they, prefer to use a different Name, a name of another, as opposed to His Birth Name?  
(John 5:43)  I am come in my Father's Name, and you receive Me not: if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive.

How does anyone explain this verse?  He comes in the Father's authority?  Or He comes in the Father's Name?  But, another will come in his own name -- a different name -- and that one you will received or accept?  You cannot get around the fact that this is about Names, about True Identity.  Just as EliYaH in his day fought against the 400 priests of Ba'al and the 400 priests of Jezebel, over names.  That event was all about whose god, as they all called out on the various names of their gods would answer.  When EliYaH's turn came up, he did not shout, and by the authority of whomever you are -- NO, he called out to YaHWeH and YaH WeH answered.  And so it is today.  
Origin of this Article, The Sacred Names Controversy
Worldwide Church of God, 2000
This Church had three different break ups before it finally collapsed after the death of Hebert W Armstrong. The first falling out and division came soon after Garner Ted Armstrong produced an issue of the Tomorrow’s magazine in denying our Savior’s birth Name.  The physical reason for the division between Garner and his father, Herbert was personal, until it was found Garner had been a little more than lose in his sexual escapades.  He departed, taking some with him and reestablished a work in Texas.  Both of the Armstrongs are dead and buried, but many splinter groups still exist, some bigger than others but none, that I have found, have ever embraced the truth about our Savior’s true Identity.
I do hope this article and the accompanying comments from His servant and your servant, is encouraging and informative and helps you clear away this Fog of Religion.  Peace, Dan
Comments and questions to:
Back to content