The Watchtower Society's commentary on 1st and 2nd Samuel

Read the watchtower Society's article here

 

 

SAMUEL, BOOKS OF

 

 

 

Two books of the Hebrew Scriptures that apparently were not divided in the original Hebrew canon. Indicative of this is a note in the Masora showing that words in First Samuel, chapter 28 (one of the concluding chapters of First Samuel), were in the middle of the book.

Writers and Time Covered. Ancient Jewish tradition credits Samuel with the writership of the first part of the book, and Nathan and Gad with the remaining portion. That these three prophets did write is confirmed at 1 Chronicles 29:29. The book itself reports: “Samuel spoke to the people about the rightful due of the kingship and wrote it in a book and deposited it before Jehovah.” (1Sa 10:25) However, on the basis of 1 Samuel 27:6, where there is reference to “the kings of Judah,” numerous scholars place the final compiling of the books of Samuel sometime after the ten-tribe kingdom of Israel came into existence. If the expression “the kings of Judah” denotes only Judean kings of the two-tribe kingdom, this would show that the writings of Samuel, Nathan, and Gad must have been put into final form by someone else. On the other hand, if “the kings of Judah” simply means kings from the tribe of Judah, these words could have been recorded by Nathan, since he lived under the rulership of two Judean kings, David and Solomon.—1Ki 1:32-34; 2Ch 9:29.

The fact that Hannah and an unnamed “man of God” used the expressions “king” and “anointed one” years before a king actually ruled over Israel does not support the argument of some that these passages date from a period later than indicated in the book. (1Sa 2:10, 35) The idea of a future king was by no means foreign to the Hebrews. God’s promise concerning Sarah, the ancestress of the Israelites, was that “kings of peoples” would come from her. (Ge 17:16) Also, Jacob’s deathbed prophecy (Ge 49:10), the prophetic words of Balaam (Nu 24:17), and the Mosaic Law (De 17:14-18) pointed to the time when the Israelites would have a king.

The historical narrative contained in the two books of Samuel commences with the time of High Priest Eli and concludes with events from David’s reign. It therefore covers a period of approximately 140 years (c. 1180-c. 1040 B.C.E.). As David’s death is not mentioned in the record, the account (possibly with the exception of editorial additions) was probably completed about 1040 B.C.E.

Authenticity. The authenticity of the account contained in the books of Samuel is well established. Christ Jesus himself, when refuting an objection raised by the Pharisees, cited the incident recorded at 1 Samuel 21:3-6 about David’s receiving showbread from Ahimelech the priest. (Mt 12:1-4) In the synagogue of Antioch in Pisidia, the apostle Paul quoted from 1 Samuel 13:14 as he briefly reviewed events from Israel’s history. (Ac 13:20-22) This apostle, in his letter to the Romans, used words from David’s psalm, which passage is found at both 2 Samuel 22:50 and Psalm 18:49, to prove that Christ’s ministry to the Jews verified God’s promises and gave a basis for non-Jews to “glorify God for his mercy.” (Ro 15:8, 9) Jehovah’s words to David at 2 Samuel 7:14 are quoted and applied to Christ Jesus in Hebrews 1:5, thus showing that David served as a prophetic type of the Messiah.

Outstanding, too, is the candor of the record. It exposes the wrongs of the priestly house of Eli (1Sa 2:12-17, 22-25), the corruption of Samuel’s sons (1Sa 8:1-3), and the sins and family difficulties of King David (2Sa 11:2-15; 13:1-22; 15:13, 14; 24:10).

Another evidence of the authenticity of the account is the fulfillment of prophecies. These relate to Israel’s request for a king (De 17:14; 1Sa 8:5), Jehovah’s rejection of Eli’s house (1Sa 2:31; 3:12-14; 1Ki 2:27), and the continuance of the kingship in David’s line (2Sa 7:16; Jer 33:17; Eze 21:25-27; Mt 1:1; Lu 1:32, 33).

The record is in complete harmony with the rest of the Scriptures. This is especially noticeable when examining the psalms, many of which are illuminated by what is contained in the books of Samuel. King Saul’s sending messengers to watch David’s house in order to kill him provides the background for Psalm 59. (1Sa 19:11) David’s experiences at Gath, where he disguised his sanity to escape death, are alluded to in Psalms 34 and 56. (1Sa 21:10-15; evidently the name Abimelech appearing in the superscription of Psalm 34 is to be viewed as a title for King Achish.) Psalm 142 may reflect David’s thoughts while hiding from Saul in the cave of Adullam (1Sa 22:1) or in the cave in the Wilderness of En-gedi. (1Sa 24:1, 3) This is perhaps also the case with Psalm 57. However, a comparison of Psalm 57:6 with 1 Samuel 24:2-4 seems to favor the cave in the Wilderness of En-gedi, for there Saul, as it were, fell into the pit he had excavated for David. Psalm 52 pertains to Doeg’s informing Saul about David’s dealings with Ahimelech. (1Sa 22:9, 10) The action of the Ziphites in revealing David’s whereabouts to King Saul furnished the basis for Psalm 54. (1Sa 23:19) Psalm 2 seems to allude to the attempts made by the Philistines to unseat David as king after his capture of the stronghold of Zion. (2Sa 5:17-25) Trouble with the Edomites during the war with Hadadezer is the setting for Psalm 60. (2Sa 8:3, 13, 14) Psalm 51 is a prayer of David, beseeching forgiveness for his sin with Bath-sheba. (2Sa 11:2-15; 12:1-14) David’s flight from Absalom provides the basis for Psalm 3. (2Sa 15:12-17, 30) Possibly Psalm 7 finds its historical setting in Shimei’s cursing David. (2Sa 16:5-8) Psalm 30 may allude to events in connection with David’s erection of an altar on the threshing floor of Araunah. Psalm 18 parallels 2 Samuel 22 and pertains to Jehovah’s delivering David from Saul and other enemies.

Sections Missing in the Greek “Septuagint.” First Samuel 17:12-31, ; 1Sa 17:55–18:6a does not appear in the Greek Septuagint as contained in Vatican Manuscript No. 1209. Numerous scholars have, therefore, concluded that the omissions are later additions to the Hebrew text. Arguing against this view, C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch comment: “The notion, that the sections in question are interpolations that have crept into the text, cannot be sustained on the mere authority of the Septuagint version; since the arbitrary manner in which the translators of this version made omissions or additions at pleasure is obvious to any one.”—Commentary on the Old Testament, 1973, Vol. II, 1 Samuel, p. 177, ftn.

If it could be definitely established that actual discrepancies exist between the omitted sections and the rest of the book, the authenticity of 1 Samuel 17:12-31, ; 1Sa 17:55–18:6a would reasonably be in question. A comparison of 1 Samuel 16:18-23 and 1 Samuel 17:55-58 reveals what appears to be a contradiction, for in the latter passage Saul is depicted as asking about the identity of his own court musician and armor-bearer, David. However, it should be noted that David’s earlier being described as “a valiant, mighty man and a man of war” could have been based on his courageous acts in single-handedly killing a lion and a bear to rescue his father’s sheep. (1Sa 16:18; 17:34-36) Also, the Scriptures do not state that David actually served in battle as Saul’s armor-bearer before he killed Goliath. Saul’s request to Jesse was: “Let David, please, keep attending upon me, for he has found favor in my eyes.” (1Sa 16:22) This request does not preclude the possibility that Saul later permitted David to return to Bethlehem so that, when war broke out with the Philistines, David was then shepherding his father’s flock.

Regarding Saul’s question, “Whose son is the boy, Abner?” the aforementioned commentary observes (p. 178, ftn.): “Even if Abner had not troubled himself about the lineage of Saul’s harpist, Saul himself could not well have forgotten that David was a son of the Bethlehemite Jesse. But there was much more implied in Saul’s question. It was not the name of David’s father alone that he wanted to discover, but what kind of man the father of a youth who possessed the courage to accomplish so marvellous a heroic deed really was; and the question was put not merely in order that he might grant him an exemption of his house from taxes as the reward promised for the conquest of Goliath (ver. 25), but also in all probability that he might attach such a man to his court, since he inferred from the courage and bravery of the son the existence of similar qualities in the father. It is true that David merely replied, ‘The son of thy servant Jesse of Bethlehem;’ but it is very evident from the expression in ch. xviii. 1, ‘when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul,’ that Saul conversed with him still further about his family affairs, since the very words imply a lengthened conversation.” (For other instances where “who” involves more than mere knowledge of a person’s name, see Ex 5:2; 1Sa 25:10.)

So there is sound reason for viewing 1 Samuel 17:12-31, ; 1Sa 17:55–18:6a as part of the original text.

[Box on page 852]

HIGHLIGHTS OF FIRST SAMUEL

Record of the beginning of kingship in Israel, emphasizing obedience to Jehovah

Written by Samuel, Nathan, and Gad; First Samuel covers the time from the birth of Samuel to the death of Israel’s first king, Saul

Jehovah raises up Samuel as prophet in Israel (1Sa 1:1–7:17)

Samuel is born as an answer to his mother Hannah’s prayer; after he is weaned, he is presented for sanctuary service in fulfillment of Hannah’s vow

Jehovah speaks to Samuel, pronouncing judgment against Eli’s house because his sons Hophni and Phinehas act wickedly and Eli does not rebuke them

As Samuel grows up he is recognized as Jehovah’s prophet

Jehovah’s word against Eli begins to be fulfilled: Philistines capture the Ark and slay Eli’s sons; Eli dies on hearing the news

Years later, Samuel urges the Israelites to abandon idolatry and serve Jehovah alone; Jehovah gives them victory over the Philistines

Saul becomes Israel’s first king (8:1–15:35)

The Israelite elders approach aged Samuel, requesting a human king; Jehovah tells him to listen to their voice

Jehovah directs Samuel to anoint Saul, a Benjaminite, as king

Samuel presents Saul to an assembly of Israelites at Mizpah; not everyone accepts him

Saul defeats the Ammonites; his kingship is reconfirmed at Gilgal; Samuel admonishes the people to remain obedient to Jehovah

Faced with Philistine aggression, Saul fails to obey Jehovah and wait for Samuel’s arrival, offering sacrifices himself; Samuel tells him that because of this his kingdom will not last

Saul defeats the Amalekites, but he disobediently preserves alive King Agag and the best of the animals; Samuel tells Saul he is rejected by Jehovah as king and that obedience is more important than sacrifice

David comes to prominence, and this angers Saul (16:1–20:42)

Samuel anoints David, and Jehovah’s spirit leaves Saul; David becomes a harpist for Saul to soothe him when disturbed

David kills the Philistine champion Goliath, and a deep friendship develops between David and Saul’s son Jonathan

Placed over Saul’s warriors, David gains repeated victories and is celebrated in song more than Saul; Saul becomes jealous

Twice Saul’s attempts to kill David fail, as does his scheme to have David die at the hands of the Philistines while procuring the bride-price for Saul’s daughter Michal

Despite his promise to Jonathan, Saul for a third time tries to kill David, and David flees to Samuel at Ramah

Jonathan unsuccessfully tries to intercede for David with his father; he warns David, and he and David make a covenant

David’s life as a fugitive (21:1–27:12)

At Nob, High Priest Ahimelech gives David food and Goliath’s sword; David then flees to Gath, where he escapes harm by acting insane

He takes refuge in the cave of Adullam and then in the forest of Hereth; Saul has Ahimelech and everyone in Nob killed; Ahimelech’s son Abiathar survives and comes to David

David saves Keilah from Philistines, but afterward he leaves the city to avoid being surrendered to Saul

The men of Ziph reveal David’s whereabouts; he narrowly escapes capture

David has the opportunity to kill Saul but spares his life

Samuel dies

Abigail’s wise intervention prevents David from shedding blood in the heat of anger

David spares Saul’s life a second time and takes refuge in Philistine territory

The end of Saul’s reign (28:1–31:13)

Saul assembles an army against Philistine invaders

Jehovah will not answer Saul’s inquiries because of his disobedience, so Saul consults a spirit medium at En-dor

In battle with Philistines, Saul is severely wounded and commits suicide; his sons Jonathan, Abinadab, and Malchi-shua are slain

[Box on page 854]

HIGHLIGHTS OF SECOND SAMUEL

Record of David’s kingship—the blessings he experienced, as well as the discipline he received when he sinned

Originally part of one scroll with First Samuel; the portion in Second Samuel was completed by Gad and Nathan by the end of David’s life in about 1040 B.C.E.

David becomes king and rules from Hebron (2Sa 1:1–4:12)

David mourns the death of Saul and Jonathan; he takes up residence at Hebron and is anointed king by the men of Judah

Abner makes Saul’s son Ish-bosheth king over the rest of Israel; fighting breaks out between the rival kingdoms

Abner defects to David but is killed by Joab

Ish-bosheth is murdered; David orders the execution of the assassins

David rules as king over all the tribes of Israel (5:1–10:19)

David is anointed as king over all Israel; he captures the stronghold of Zion and makes Jerusalem his capital city

The Philistines invade twice but are defeated each time

David attempts to bring the Ark to Jerusalem; the attempt is abandoned when Uzzah dies trying to steady it from falling

His second attempt succeeds when the Ark is transported in the proper way

David expresses to Nathan his desire to build a temple for Jehovah; Jehovah concludes a covenant with him for a kingdom

David sins with Bath-sheba; calamity comes on him out of his own house (11:1–20:26)

The Israelites go to war against Ammon; David commits adultery with Bath-sheba, whose husband Uriah is serving in the army; when efforts to conceal his sin fail, David arranges for Uriah to die in battle and marries the widowed Bath-sheba

With skillful use of an illustration, Nathan reproves David for his sin and announces Jehovah’s judgment: Calamity will come out of his own house, his own wives will be violated, the son from Bath-sheba will die

The child dies; Bath-sheba, pregnant again, gives birth to Solomon

David’s son Amnon rapes his half sister Tamar; David’s son Absalom, Tamar’s full brother, avenges her by having Amnon killed; then he flees to Geshur

Absalom, having gained David’s full pardon, starts scheming against his father; finally he has himself proclaimed king at Hebron

David and his supporters flee Jerusalem to escape from Absalom and his partisans; in Jerusalem, Absalom has relations with ten of David’s concubines; Absalom’s forces pursue David and suffer defeat; Absalom himself is killed contrary to David’s specific orders

David is restored as king; the Benjaminite Sheba revolts, and David gives command of the army to Amasa to put down the rebellion; Joab kills Amasa and takes charge; Sheba is killed

Closing events of David’s reign (21:1–24:25)

David hands over seven sons of Saul to Gibeonites for execution so that the bloodguilt of Saul’s house toward them can be avenged

David composes songs of praise to Jehovah, acknowledging him as the source of inspiration

David sins in ordering a census, resulting in death for about 70,000 from pestilence

David buys the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite as the site of an altar for Jehovah

On axioms,theism and atheism

Find article here.

It seems that one of the pivotal issues in reasoned thinking about design-related questions — and in general – is the question of self-evident first, certain truths that can serve as a plumb-line for testing other truth claims, and indeed for rationality. (Where, the laws of identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle are foremost among such first principles. And where also, some ID objectors profess to be “frightened” that some of us dare to hold that there are moral truths that are self evident.)

Where of course, self-evident does not merely mean perceived as obvious to oneself, which could indeed be a manifestation of a delusion. Nay, a self evident truth [SET] is best summarised as one known to be so and to be necessarily so without further proof from other things.

That is, a SET is:

a: actually true — it accurately reports some relevant feature of reality (e.g.: error exists)

b: immediately recognised as true once one actually understands what is being asserted, in light of our conscious experience of the world (as in, no reasonable person would but recognise the reality that error exists)

c: further seen as something that must be true, on pain of patent absurdity on attempted denial. (E.g. try denying “error exists” . . . the absurdity is rapidly, forcefully manifest)

I think Aquinas has a few helpful words for us:

Now a thing is said to be self-evident in two ways: first, in itself; secondly, in relation to us. Any proposition is said to be self-evident in itself, if its predicate is contained in the notion of the subject: although, to one who knows not the definition of the subject, it happens that such a proposition is not self-evident. For instance, this proposition, “Man is a rational being,” is, in its very nature, self-evident, since who says “man,” says “a rational being”: and yet to one who knows not what a man is, this proposition is not self-evident. Hence it is that, as Boethius says (De Hebdom.), certain axioms or propositions are universally self-evident to all; and such are those propositions whose terms are known to all, as, “Every whole is greater than its part,” and, “Things equal to one and the same are equal to one another.” But some propositions are self-evident only to the wise, who understand the meaning of the terms of such propositions . . . .

Now a certain order is to be found in those things that are apprehended universally. For that which, before aught else, falls under apprehension, is “being,” the notion of which is included in all things whatsoever a man apprehends. Wherefore the first indemonstrable principle is that “the same thing cannot be affirmed and denied at the same time,” which is based on the notion of “being” and “not-being”: and on this principle all others are based, as is stated in Metaph. iv, text. 9.

In short, we have two facets here, First, standing by itself a SET has an objective character and is a first principle, a point of certain knowledge. But, that brings up the second aspect: we need to understand it, that we may grasp it. And, that may well fail, primarily by way of ignorance, secondarily by way of commitment to a contrary ideology that makes it difficult or nearly impossible to acknowledge that which on the actual merits is self-evident.

How can we address the problem?

By understanding the significance of how rejecting a SET ends in absurdity. Which may be by outright obvious logical contradiction, or by undermining rationality or by being chaotically destructive and/or senseless. Moral SETs are usually seen as self evident in this latter sense.

For instance, by way of laying down a benchmark, let us take the SET that has been so often put here at UD, by way of underscoring vital moral hazards connected to evolutionary materialism (which entails that there are no objective foundations for morality, as many leading Darwinists have acknowledged on the record), to wit:

MORAL YARDSTICK 1: it is Self-Evidently True that it would be wrong to kidnap, torture, rape and murder a child. With corollary, that if such is in progress we are duty-bound to intervene to save the child from the monster.

It will be observed that essentially no-one dares to explicitly deny this, or its direct corollary. That is because such denial would put one in the category of supporting a blatant monster like Nero. Instead, the tendency is to try to push this into the world of tastes, preferences, feelings and community views. Such a view may indeed reflect such, but it is more, it asserts boldly that here is an OUGHT that one denies being bound by, on pain of absurdity. Which of course, further points to our world being a reality grounded in an IS adequate to sustain OUGHT, i.e. we are under moral government.

But, that is not all.

Let us again note Dr Richard Dawkins on the record, in Scientific American, August 1995:

Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This lesson is one of the hardest for humans to learn. We cannot accept that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous: indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose [--> It escapes Dr Dawkins that we may have good reason for refusing this implication of his favoured ideological evolutionary materialism] . . . .

In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference [--> As in open admission of utter amorality that opens the door to nihilism] . . . . DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. [“God’s Utility Function,” Sci. Am. Aug 1995, pp. 80 - 85.]

This is right in the heart of the science and society issues that rage over Darwinism and wider evolutionary materialist origins thought. Where, let us again remind ourselves, we must frankly and squarely face how Dr Richard Lewontin went on record also:

. . . the problem is to get [people] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth [[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists, it is self-evident [[--> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . ] that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality, and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [[--> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . .

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [[--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [[--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [From: “Billions and Billions of Demons,” NYRB, January 9, 1997. Bold emphasis and notes added. ]

These are smoking gun admissions as to the nature, prior commitments [viewed as self evident!] and consequences of evolutionary materialist ideology, regardless of whether or not it is dressed up in the proverbial lab coat.

And, just as it is legitimate to confront a priori materialist impositions on the methods and conclusions of origins science it is equally in order to raise serious questions on the moral implications of such ideologies and the way they irreconcilably conflict with yardstick cases of self evident moral truth.

Let us look back at that child.

S/he has no physical prowess to impose his or her will. S/he has no eloquence to persuade a demonic Nero-like monster to stop from brutally despoiling and destructive sick pleasures. S/he is essentially helpless. And yet, our consciences speak loud and clear, giving an insight that this ought not to be done, yea even, if we see such in progress we ought to intervene to rescue if we can, how we can.

Is that voice of conscience delusional, a mere survival trait that leads us to perceive an ought as a binding obligation where there is no such, or it is merely the threat of being caught by superior state power or the like?

We already know from great reformers that the state can be in the wrong, though often that was taught at fearsome cost. (Nero’s vicious persecutions being themselves evidence in point.)

And, if one is imagining that a major aspect of mindedness is delusional, where does that stop? In short, once the premise of general delusion of our key mental faculties is introduced we are in an infinite regress of Plato’s cave worlds. if we say we identify delusion A, who is to say but this is delusion B, thence C, D, E and so forth?

Plato’s Cave of shadow shows projected before life-long prisoners and confused for reality. Once the concept of general delusion is introduced, it raises the question of an infinite regress of delusions. The sensible response is to see that this should lead us to doubt the doubter and insist that our senses be viewed as generally reliable unless they are specifically shown defective. (Source: University of Fort Hare, SA, Phil. Dept.)

So, we see the cogency of UD’s own WJM as he has argued:

If you do not [acknowledge] the law of non-contradiction, you have nothing to argue about. If you do not [admit] the principles of sound reason, you have nothing to argue with. If you do not [recognise] libertarian free will, you have no one to argue against. If you do not [accept] morality to be an objective commodity, you have no reason to argue in the first place.

In short, resort to dismissing key mental capacities as general delusion is a morass, a self-refuting fallacy. (Which is different from, whether one may be in specific error and even a great many may be in specific error. Indeed, if we look at the original Plato’s Cave parable, it side-steps that by pointing to the one man who is set free and recognises the apparatus of manipulation for what it is, then, having been led to see more widely, returns to try to help, only to face the power of a mass delusion rooted in an evident error that is clung to.)

Instead, we should respect the general capacity of our mental faculties, recognising their strengths as well as limitations, and how playing the general delusion card is self referentially incoherent and absurd.

There is absolutely no good reason to assume or brazenly assert or insinuate that our insight on moral yardstick 1, is delusional. We have instead every good reason to hold that we are morally governed, with conscience as a faculty of mind that serves that government, though it may be dulled or become defective or may be in error on specific . (Much as is so for vision and hearing, etc.)

So, let us follow up:

1 –> Per MY # 1 etc., we see — on pain of absurdity if we try to deny — that there are self-evident moral truths, entailing that we are under the moral government of OUGHT.

2 –> Where by MY # 1, the little child has moral equality, quasi-infinite worth and equal dignity with us as fellow human beings, a status that immediately is inextricably entangled with that s/he has core rights that we OUGHT to respect: her or his life, liberty, personhood, etc.

3 –> So, we are under moral government, which requires a world in which OUGHT rests on a foundational IS that can bear its weight.

4 –> And, I am very aware of the dismissals of “foundationalism” out there, on closer inspection we can readily see that our worldviews and arguments are invariably dependent on finitely distant start points on which the systems of thought or reasoning must stand:

A summary of why we end up with foundations for our worldviews, whether or not we would phrase the matter that way}

5 –> So, also, we confront the challenge that - there is just one serious candidate for such a reality-foundational IS that can bear the weight of OUGHT: the inherently good eternal Creator God, whose precepts and principles will be evidently sound from . . . moral yardstick self evident truths.

6 –> Where also we can highlight the framework of such truths in the context of civil society and government, by citing a pivotal historical case or two. First, that when he set out to ground the principles of what would become modern liberty and democracy, John Locke cited “the judicious [anglican canon Richard] Hooker” in Ch 2 Sect 5 of his second essay on civil government, thusly:

. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man’s hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [[Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [[Eccl. Polity,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.]

7 –> Less than a hundred years later, this was powerfully echoed in the appeal to self evident moral truths in the US Declaration of Independence of 1776:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, [cf Rom 1:18 - 21, 2:14 - 15], that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That [--> still, held self-evident!] to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government [--> right of judicious reformation and innovation, if necessary backed by the right of just revolution in the face of unyielding tyranny when remonstrance fails and threats or actual violence manifest in "a long train of abuses and usurpations" indicates an intent of unlimited despotism . . . ], laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security . . .

8 –> Those who would therefore seek to poison the well and the atmosphere for discussion on such matters, need to first pause and soberly address these historically decisive cases.

_______________

Therefore, the amorality of evolutionary materialist ideology stands exposed as absurd in the face of self-evident moral truths. Where, such moral yardsticks imply that we are under government of OUGHT, leading onward to the issue that there is only one serious explanation for our finding ourselves living in such a world — a theistic one. END

collateral damage III

Fear the creator not the creature.

A reproduction of the Watchtower Society's article

Five Reasons to Fear God and Not Man

THE young man was pleasantly surprised. What had just happened was totally unexpected. His discussion with two of Jehovah’s Witnesses had been an eye-opener. The question of why God permits suffering had bothered him for years, but now it had been clearly answered from the Bible. He had no idea that the Bible contains so much valuable and heartwarming information.

A few minutes after the visitors left, his landlady stormed into his room and asked angrily, “Who were those people?”

Taken by surprise, the young man could offer no answer.

“I know who they are,” she yelled, “and if you receive them again, you can move out and look for a room elsewhere!”

She slammed the door and left.

Christ’s True Followers Expect Opposition

What this young man experienced is not unusual. God’s Word, the Bible, explains: “All those desiring to live with godly devotion in association with Christ Jesus will also be persecuted.” (2 Timothy 3:12) True Christians generally are not popular and never have been. Why not? The apostle John told his fellow Christians: “We know we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.” Satan the Devil is also portrayed as “a roaring lion, seeking to devour someone.” (1 John 5:19; 1 Peter 5:8) Fear of man is one of Satan’s most effective weapons.

Even Jesus Christ, who did so much good and committed no sin, was ridiculed and persecuted. He observed: “They hated me without cause.” (John 15:25) On the night before his death, he prepared his followers with these words: “If the world hates you, you know that it has hated me before it hated you. Bear in mind the word I said to you, A slave is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will persecute you also.”—John 15:18, 20.

On this account, many hesitated to take a stand for true worship. Of those who were looking for Jesus on one occasion, the Bible says: “No one, of course, would speak about him publicly because of the fear of the Jews.” (John 7:13; 12:42) The religious leaders of the day threatened to ostracize any who put faith in Christ. Thus, fear of man prevented many from becoming Christians.—Acts 5:13.

Later, after Christianity had been established, we read of “great persecution” against the congregation in Jerusalem. (Acts 8:1) In fact, throughout the Roman Empire, the Christians faced adversity. Prominent men in Rome told the apostle Paul: “As regards this sect it is known to us that everywhere it is spoken against.” (Acts 28:22) Yes, genuine Christians were widely opposed.

Even today, Satan still uses the fear of man as a weapon to hinder many from becoming Christ’s genuine followers. Sincere people who are studying the Bible with Jehovah’s Witnesses face opposition or ridicule in school, at work, in the neighborhood, or in social circles. They may fear losing respect, friends, or material support. In some rural areas, farmers fear that neighbors might refuse to help with the harvest or to protect their livestock. Despite such fears, however, millions have resolved to trust in God and to live according to God’s Word, in imitation of Jesus Christ. Jehovah has blessed them for doing so.

Why Fear God, Not Man

The Bible urges us to fear God, not man. It says: “The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of wisdom.” (Psalm 111:10) This fear is, not a morbid dread, but a healthy concern over displeasing our Life-Giver. It is a term that is closely related to love. Why, though, should we fear God and not man? Let us consider five reasons.

1 Jehovah is the Supreme One. Jehovah is far more powerful than any human. By fearing God, we take a stand on the side of the Almighty, to whom “the nations are as a drop from a bucket.” (Isaiah 40:15) Because God is almighty, he has the power to defeat “any weapon whatever that will be formed against” those who are loyal to him. (Isaiah 54:17) And since he will determine who is worthy to receive everlasting life, we are wise to let nothing stop us from learning about him and doing his will.—Revelation 14:6, 7.

2 God will help and protect us. “Trembling at men is what lays a snare, but he that is trusting in Jehovah will be protected,” says the Bible at Proverbs 29:25. The fear of man is a snare because it can cause us to shrink back from professing faith in God. God assures us of his saving power: “Do not be afraid, for I am with you. Do not gaze about, for I am your God. I will fortify you. I will really help you. I will really keep fast hold of you with my right hand of righteousness.”—Isaiah 41:10.

3 God loves those who draw close to him. The apostle Paul wrote these touching words: “I am convinced that neither death nor life nor angels nor governments nor things now here nor things to come nor powers nor height nor depth nor any other creation will be able to separate us from God’s love that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 8:37-39) If we learn to trust in and obey God, we can enjoy the unbreakable love of the Universal Sovereign. What a privilege!

4 We appreciate all that God has done for us. Jehovah is our Creator, the one who has made life possible. In addition, he has provided not just the necessities of life but also the things that make life enjoyable and interesting. Indeed, he is the Source of every good gift. (James 1:17) David, a faithful man who appreciated God’s loving-kindness, wrote: “Many things you yourself have done, O Jehovah my God, even your wonderful works and your thoughts toward us . . . They have become more numerous than I can recount.”—Psalm 40:5.

5 Some who oppose us may change. You can help those who oppose you by not compromising but holding fast to your fear of God and love for him. Consider Jesus’ relatives. At first, they did not put faith in him, but they said: “He has gone out of his mind.” (Mark 3:21; John 7:5) Later, after Jesus’ death and resurrection, many of them became believers. Jesus’ half brothers James and Jude even shared in the writing of the Scriptures. There was also the fanatic persecutor Saul, who became the apostle Paul. Some who now cause us trouble may come to see that we have the truth from the Bible because of our courageous stand.—1 Timothy 1:13.

For example, Aberash, a woman in Africa, had been praying to find the truth. After she began studying the Bible with Jehovah’s Witnesses, she faced fierce opposition from her family members and religious leaders. Some of her relatives, who had also begun studying, gave in to the fear of man. But she implored God for strength and courage and was baptized as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The result? Eight of her relatives took courage, resumed their Bible studies, and are making good spiritual progress.

You Can Conquer the Fear of Man

To avoid falling prey to the fear of man, do all you can to strengthen your love for God. You can do this by studying the Bible and meditating on such texts as Hebrews 13:6, which says: “Jehovah is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?” Do not forget the reasons why fearing God rather than man is the right and wise thing to do.

Keep in mind, too, the many blessings that result from applying what you learn from the Bible. You can find satisfying answers to life’s important questions. You can gain practical wisdom to deal with life’s challenges. You can enjoy a wonderful hope despite today’s perplexing conditions. And you can approach the almighty God at any time in prayer.

The apostle John wrote: “The world is passing away and so is its desire, but he that does the will of God remains forever.” (1 John 2:17) Now is the time to stand firm and walk in the fear of God. Rather than caving in to the fear of man, you can choose to respond to God’s exhortation: “Be wise, my son, and make my heart rejoice, that I may make a reply to him that is taunting me.” (Proverbs 27:11) What a grand privilege that is!

Remember, no human can give you what God will give to those who fear him: “The result of humility and the fear of Jehovah is riches and glory and life.”—Proverbs 22:4.

Some musings on blogdom.

Examining the priests of the new gods.

Arguing with yourself

Belief/non-belief.

Irreconcilable differences.

A reproduction of the Watchtower Society's article

Did God Use Evolution to Create Life?

“You are worthy, Jehovah, even our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they existed and were created.”—REVELATION 4:11.

SHORTLY after Charles Darwin made the theory of evolution popular, many so-called Christian denominations started looking for ways to marry their belief in God to their acceptance of the theory of evolution.

Today, most prominent “Christian” religious groups seem willing to accept that God must have used evolution in some way to create life. Some teach that God preprogrammed the universe to develop in such a way that living things inevitably evolved from lifeless chemicals and eventually produced mankind. Those who subscribe to this teaching, known as theistic evolution, do not feel that God interfered with the process once it started. Others think that, in general, God allowed evolution to produce most families of plants and animals but occasionally stepped in to move the process along.

The Marriage of Teachings—Does It Work?

Is the theory of evolution really compatible with the teachings of the Bible? If evolution were true, then the Bible’s account of the creation of the first man, Adam, would be, at best, a story meant to teach a moral lesson but not intended to be taken literally. (Genesis 1:26, 27; 2:18-24) Is that how Jesus viewed this Bible account? “Did you not read,” said Jesus, “that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together let no man put apart.”—Matthew 19:4-6.

Jesus was here quoting from the creation account recorded in Genesis chapter 2. If Jesus believed the first marriage to be a fictional story, would he have made reference to it to support his teaching on the sanctity of marriage? No. Jesus pointed to the Genesis account because he knew it to be true history.—John 17:17.

Jesus’ disciples likewise believed the Genesis account of creation. For example, Luke’s Gospel account traces Jesus’ genealogy all the way back to Adam. (Luke 3:23-38) If Adam were a fictional character, at what point would this genealogical list have turned from fact to myth? If the rootstock of this family tree were mythological, how firm would that have made Jesus’ claim that he was the Messiah, born in the line of David? (Matthew 1:1) The Gospel writer Luke said that he had “traced all things from the start with accuracy.” Clearly, he believed the creation account in Genesis.—Luke 1:3.

The apostle Paul’s faith in Jesus was linked to Paul’s trust in the Genesis account. He wrote: “Since death is through a man, resurrection of the dead is also through a man. For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive.” (1 Corinthians 15:21, 22) If Adam were not literally the forefather of all mankind, the one through whom “sin entered into the world and death through sin,” why would Jesus have needed to die to undo the effects of inherited sin?—Romans 5:12; 6:23.

To undermine belief in the creation account in Genesis is to undermine the very foundations of the Christian faith. Evolutionary theory and the teachings of Christ are incompatible. Any attempt to marry these beliefs can only give birth to a weak faith that is prone to being “tossed about as by waves and carried hither and thither by every wind of teaching.”—Ephesians 4:14.

Faith Based on a Solid Foundation

For centuries the Bible has endured criticism and attack. Time and again the Bible text has been vindicated. When the Bible touches on history, health, and science, its accounts have repeatedly been proved reliable. Its advice regarding human relations is trustworthy and timeless. Human philosophies and theories, like so much green grass, sprout and then wither over time, but the Word of God “will last to time indefinite.”—Isaiah 40:8.

The teaching of evolution is not limited to the realm of scientific theory. It is a human philosophy that blossomed and then flourished for decades. In recent years, however, the traditional evolutionary teaching of Darwin has itself evolved—in fact, mutated—as efforts have been made to explain away the increasing evidence for design in the natural world. We invite you to examine this topic further. You can do so by reviewing the other articles in this issue. In addition, you may also want to read the publications shown on this page and page 32.

You will likely find that after researching this subject, your trust in what the Bible says about the past will be bolstered. More important, your faith in the Bible’s promises for the future will be strengthened. (Hebrews 11:1) You may also find yourself moved to praise Jehovah, “the Maker of heaven and earth.”—Psalm 146:6.

True science is referee not player.

A reproduction of the Watchtower Society's article

 

 

Has Science Done Away With God?

 

FOR 50 years, British philosopher Antony Flew was highly respected as an atheist by his peers. “Theology and Falsification,” his 1950 paper, “became the most widely reprinted philosophical publication of the [20th] century.” In 1986 Flew was called “the most profound of the contemporary critics of theism” (the belief in God or gods). So it came as a great shock to many when, in 2004, Flew announced that he had changed his viewpoint.

What made Flew change his mind? In a word, science. He became convinced that the universe, the laws of nature, and life itself could not have arisen merely by chance. Is that a reasonable conclusion?

How Did the Laws of Nature Arise?

Physicist and author Paul Davies points out that science does a wonderful job of explaining physical phenomena such as rain. But he says: “When it comes to . . . questions such as ‘Why are there laws of nature?’ the situation is less clear. These sorts of questions are not much affected by specific scientific discoveries: many of the really big questions have remained unchanged since the birth of civilization and still vex us today.”

“The important point is not merely that there are regularities in nature,” wrote Flew in 2007, “but that these regularities are mathematically precise, universal, and ‘tied together.’ Einstein spoke of them as ‘reason incarnate.’ The question we should ask is how nature came packaged in this fashion. This is certainly the question that scientists from Newton to Einstein to Heisenberg have asked—and answered. Their answer was the Mind of God.”

Indeed, many highly respected scientists do not consider it unscientific to believe in an intelligent First Cause. On the other hand, to say that the universe, its laws, and life just happened is intellectually unsatisfying. Everyday experience tells us that design—especially highly sophisticated design—calls for a designer.

Which Faith Will You Choose?

Although the new atheists like to wave the banner of science over their camp, the fact is that neither atheism nor theism rest purely on science. Both involve faith—atheism in purposeless blind chance; theism in an intelligent First Cause. The new atheists promote the notion that “all religious faith is blind faith,” writes John Lennox, professor of mathematics at the University of Oxford, England. He adds: “We need to emphasize strongly that they are wrong.” The question, therefore, is this: Which faith stands up under test—that of the atheist or that of the religious believer? Consider, for example, the origin of life.

Evolutionists readily acknowledge that the origin of life remains a mystery—although there are many conflicting theories. A leading new atheist, Richard Dawkins, claims that by virtue of the vast number of planets that must exist in the universe, life was bound to appear somewhere. But many reputable scientists are not so sure. Cambridge Professor John Barrow says that the belief in “the evolution of life and mind” hits “dead-ends at every stage. There are just so many ways in which life can fail to evolve in a complex and hostile environment that it would be sheer hubris to suppose that, simply given enough carbon and enough time, anything is possible.”

Keep in mind, too, that life is not just an assortment of chemical elements. Rather, it is based on an extremely sophisticated form of information, which is encoded in DNA. Hence, when we talk about the origin of life, we are also talking about the origin of biological information. What is the only source of information that we know of? In a word, intelligence. Would chance accidents produce complex information, such as a computer program, an algebraic formula, an encyclopedia, or even a recipe for a cake? Of course not. Yet, when it comes to sophistication and efficiency, none of these even begin to compare with the information stored in the genetic code of living organisms.

Luck as the First Cause—Good Science?

According to atheists, “the universe is as it is, mysteriously, and it just happens to permit life,” explains Paul Davies. “Had it been different,” say atheists, “we would not be here to argue about it. The universe may or may not have a deep underlying unity, but there is no design, purpose, or point to it all—at least none that would make sense to us.” “The advantage of this position,” notes Davies, “is that it is easy to hold—easy to the point of being a cop-out,” that is, a convenient way to avoid facing the issue.

In his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, molecular biologist Michael Denton concluded that the theory of evolution “is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious . . . scientific theory.” He also referred to Darwinian evolution as one of the greatest myths of our time.

To be sure, the appeal to luck as the first cause does smack of myth. Imagine this: An archaeologist sees a rough stone that is more or less square. He may attribute that shape to chance, which would be reasonable. But later he finds a stone that is perfectly formed in the shape of a human bust, down to the finest details. Does he attribute this item to chance? No. His logical mind says, ‘Someone made this.’ Using similar reasoning, the Bible states: “Every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God.” (Hebrews 3:4) Do you agree with that statement?

“The more we get to know about our universe,” writes Lennox, “the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator God, who designed the universe for a purpose, gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”

Regrettably, among the things that undermine belief in God is evil perpetrated in his name. As a result, some have concluded that mankind would be better off without religion. What do you think?

Defenders of religious liberty II

Caveat emptor.

No end in sight VI

On the Master of the universe.

A reproduction of the Watchtower Society's article

 

 

JEHOVAH

(Je·ho′vah) [the causative form, the imperfect state, of the Heb. verb ha·wah′ (become); meaning “He Causes to Become”].

The personal name of God. (Isa 42:8; 54:5) Though Scripturally designated by such descriptive titles as “God,” “Sovereign Lord,” “Creator,” “Father,” “the Almighty,” and “the Most High,” his personality and attributes—who and what he is—are fully summed up and expressed only in this personal name.—Ps 83:18.

Correct Pronunciation of the Divine Name. “Jehovah” is the best known English pronunciation of the divine name, although “Yahweh” is favored by most Hebrew scholars. The oldest Hebrew manuscripts present the name in the form of four consonants, commonly called the Tetragrammaton (from Greek te·tra-, meaning “four,” and gram′ma, “letter”). These four letters (written from right to left) are יהוה and may be transliterated into English as YHWH (or, JHVH).

The Hebrew consonants of the name are therefore known. The question is, Which vowels are to be combined with those consonants? Vowel points did not come into use in Hebrew until the second half of the first millennium C.E. (See HEBREW, II [Hebrew Alphabet and Script].) Furthermore, because of a religious superstition that had begun centuries earlier, the vowel pointing found in Hebrew manuscripts does not provide the key for determining which vowels should appear in the divine name.

Superstition hides the name. At some point a superstitious idea arose among the Jews that it was wrong even to pronounce the divine name (represented by the Tetragrammaton). Just what basis was originally assigned for discontinuing the use of the name is not definitely known. Some hold that the name was viewed as being too sacred for imperfect lips to speak. Yet the Hebrew Scriptures themselves give no evidence that any of God’s true servants ever felt any hesitancy about pronouncing his name. Non-Biblical Hebrew documents, such as the so-called Lachish Letters, show the name was used in regular correspondence in Palestine during the latter part of the seventh century B.C.E.

Another view is that the intent was to keep non-Jewish peoples from knowing the name and possibly misusing it. However, Jehovah himself said that he would ‘have his name declared in all the earth’ (Ex 9:16; compare 1Ch 16:23, 24; Ps 113:3; Mal 1:11, 14), to be known even by his adversaries. (Isa 64:2) The name was in fact known and used by pagan nations both in pre-Common Era times and in the early centuries of the Common Era. (The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1976, Vol. XII, p. 119) Another claim is that the purpose was to protect the name from use in magical rites. If so, this was poor reasoning, as it is obvious that the more mysterious the name became through disuse the more it would suit the purposes of practicers of magic.

When did the superstition take hold? Just as the reason or reasons originally advanced for discontinuing the use of the divine name are uncertain, so, too, there is much uncertainty as to when this superstitious view really took hold. Some claim that it began following the Babylonian exile (607-537 B.C.E.). This theory, however, is based on a supposed reduction in the use of the name by the later writers of the Hebrew Scriptures, a view that does not hold up under examination. Malachi, for example, was evidently one of the last books of the Hebrew Scriptures written (in the latter half of the fifth century B.C.E.), and it gives great prominence to the divine name.

Many reference works have suggested that the name ceased to be used by about 300 B.C.E. Evidence for this date supposedly was found in the absence of the Tetragrammaton (or a transliteration of it) in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, begun about 280 B.C.E. It is true that the most complete manuscript copies of the Septuagint now known do consistently follow the practice of substituting the Greek words Ky′ri·os (Lord) or The·os′ (God) for the Tetragrammaton. But these major manuscripts date back only as far as the fourth and fifth centuries C.E. More ancient copies, though in fragmentary form, have been discovered that prove that the earliest copies of the Septuagint did contain the divine name.

One of these is the fragmentary remains of a papyrus roll of a portion of Deuteronomy, listed as P. Fouad Inventory No. 266. (PICTURE, Vol. 1, p. 326) It regularly presents the Tetragrammaton, written in square Hebrew characters, in each case of its appearance in the Hebrew text being translated. This papyrus is dated by scholars as being from the first century B.C.E., and thus it was written four or five centuries earlier than the manuscripts mentioned previously.—See NW appendix, pp. 1562-1564.

When did the Jews in general actually stop pronouncing the personal name of God?

So, at least in written form, there is no sound evidence of any disappearance or disuse of the divine name in the B.C.E. period. In the first century C.E., there first appears some evidence of a superstitious attitude toward the name. Josephus, a Jewish historian from a priestly family, when recounting God’s revelation to Moses at the site of the burning bush, says: “Then God revealed to him His name, which ere then had not come to men’s ears, and of which I am forbidden to speak.” (Jewish Antiquities, II, 276 [xii, 4]) Josephus’ statement, however, besides being inaccurate as to knowledge of the divine name prior to Moses, is vague and does not clearly reveal just what the general attitude current in the first century was as to pronouncing or using the divine name.

The Jewish Mishnah, a collection of rabbinic teachings and traditions, is somewhat more explicit. Its compilation is credited to a rabbi known as Judah the Prince, who lived in the second and third centuries C.E. Some of the Mishnaic material clearly relates to circumstances prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 70 C.E. Of the Mishnah, however, one scholar says: “It is a matter of extreme difficulty to decide what historical value we should attach to any tradition recorded in the Mishnah. The lapse of time which may have served to obscure or distort memories of times so different; the political upheavals, changes, and confusions brought about by two rebellions and two Roman conquests; the standards esteemed by the Pharisean party (whose opinions the Mishnah records) which were not those of the Sadducean party . . .—these are factors which need to be given due weight in estimating the character of the Mishnah’s statements. Moreover there is much in the contents of the Mishnah that moves in an atmosphere of academic discussion pursued for its own sake, with (so it would appear) little pretence at recording historical usage.” (The Mishnah, translated by H. Danby, London, 1954, pp. xiv, xv) Some of the Mishnaic traditions concerning the pronouncing of the divine name are as follows:

In connection with the annual Day of Atonement, Danby’s translation of the Mishnah states: “And when the priests and the people which stood in the Temple Court heard the Expressed Name come forth from the mouth of the High Priest, they used to kneel and bow themselves and fall down on their faces and say, ‘Blessed be the name of the glory of his kingdom for ever and ever!’” (Yoma 6:2) Of the daily priestly blessings, Sotah 7:6 says: “In the Temple they pronounced the Name as it was written, but in the provinces by a substituted word.” Sanhedrin 7:5 states that a blasphemer was not guilty ‘unless he pronounced the Name,’ and that in a trial involving a charge of blasphemy a substitute name was used until all the evidence had been heard; then the chief witness was asked privately to ‘say expressly what he had heard,’ presumably employing the divine name. Sanhedrin 10:1, in listing those “that have no share in the world to come,” states: “Abba Saul says: Also he that pronounces the Name with its proper letters.” Yet, despite these negative views, one also finds in the first section of the Mishnah the positive injunction that “a man should salute his fellow with [the use of] the Name [of God],” the example of Boaz (Ru 2:4) then being cited.—Berakhot 9:5.

Taken for what they are worth, these traditional views may reveal a superstitious tendency to avoid using the divine name sometime before Jerusalem’s temple was destroyed in 70 C.E. Even then, it is primarily the priests who are explicitly said to have used a substitute name in place of the divine name, and that only in the provinces. Additionally the historical value of the Mishnaic traditions is questionable, as we have seen.

There is, therefore, no genuine basis for assigning any time earlier than the first and second centuries C.E. for the development of the superstitious view calling for discontinuance of the use of the divine name. The time did come, however, when in reading the Hebrew Scriptures in the original language, the Jewish reader substituted either ʼAdho·nai′ (Sovereign Lord) or ʼElo·him′ (God) rather than pronounce the divine name represented by the Tetragrammaton. This is seen from the fact that when vowel pointing came into use in the second half of the first millennium C.E., the Jewish copyists inserted the vowel points for either ʼAdho·nai′ or ʼElo·him′ into the Tetragrammaton, evidently to warn the reader to say those words in place of pronouncing the divine name. If using the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures in later copies, the reader, of course, found the Tetragrammaton completely replaced by Ky′ri·os and The·os′.—See LORD.

Translations into other languages, such as the Latin Vulgate, followed the example of these later copies of the Greek Septuagint. The Catholic Douay Version (of 1609-1610) in English, based on the Latin Vulgate, therefore does not contain the divine name, while the King James Version (1611) uses LORD or GOD (in capital and small capitals) to represent the Tetragrammaton in the Hebrew Scriptures, except in four cases.

What is the proper pronunciation of God’s name?

In the second half of the first millennium C.E., Jewish scholars introduced a system of points to represent the missing vowels in the consonantal Hebrew text. When it came to God’s name, instead of inserting the proper vowel signs for it, they put other vowel signs to remind the reader that he should say ʼAdho·nai′ (meaning “Sovereign Lord”) or ʼElo·him′ (meaning “God”).

The Codex Leningrad B 19^A, of the 11th century C.E., vowel points the Tetragrammaton to read Yehwah′, Yehwih′, and Yeho·wah′. Ginsburg’s edition of the Masoretic text vowel points the divine name to read Yeho·wah′. (Ge 3:14, ftn) Hebrew scholars generally favor “Yahweh” as the most likely pronunciation. They point out that the abbreviated form of the name is Yah (Jah in the Latinized form), as at Psalm 89:8 and in the expression Ha·lelu-Yah′ (meaning “Praise Jah, you people!”). (Ps 104:35; 150:1, 6) Also, the forms Yehoh′, Yoh, Yah, and Ya′hu, found in the Hebrew spelling of the names Jehoshaphat, Joshaphat, Shephatiah, and others, can all be derived from Yahweh. Greek transliterations of the name by early Christian writers point in a somewhat similar direction with spellings such as I·a·be′ and I·a·ou·e′, which, as pronounced in Greek, resemble Yahweh. Still, there is by no means unanimity among scholars on the subject, some favoring yet other pronunciations, such as “Yahuwa,” “Yahuah,” or “Yehuah.”

Since certainty of pronunciation is not now attainable, there seems to be no reason for abandoning in English the well-known form “Jehovah” in favor of some other suggested pronunciation. If such a change were made, then, to be consistent, changes should be made in the spelling and pronunciation of a host of other names found in the Scriptures: Jeremiah would be changed to Yir·meyah′, Isaiah would become Yeshaʽ·ya′hu, and Jesus would be either Yehoh·shu′aʽ (as in Hebrew) or I·e·sous′ (as in Greek). The purpose of words is to transmit thoughts; in English the name Jehovah identifies the true God, transmitting this thought more satisfactorily today than any of the suggested substitutes.

Importance of the Name. Many modern scholars and Bible translators advocate following the tradition of eliminating the distinctive name of God. They not only claim that its uncertain pronunciation justifies such a course but also hold that the supremacy and uniqueness of the true God make unnecessary his having a particular name. Such a view receives no support from the inspired Scriptures, either those of pre-Christian times or those of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

The Tetragrammaton occurs 6,828 times in the Hebrew text printed in Biblia Hebraica and Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. In the Hebrew Scriptures the New World Translation contains the divine name 6,973 times, because the translators took into account, among other things, the fact that in some places the scribes had replaced the divine name with ʼAdho·nai′ or ʼElo·him′. (See NW appendix, pp. 1561, 1562.) The very frequency of the appearance of the name attests to its importance to the Bible’s Author, whose name it is. Its use throughout the Scriptures far outnumbers that of any of the titles, such as “Sovereign Lord” or “God,” applied to him.

Noteworthy, also, is the importance given to names themselves in the Hebrew Scriptures and among Semitic peoples. Professor G. T. Manley points out: “A study of the word ‘name’ in the O[ld] T[estament] reveals how much it means in Hebrew. The name is no mere label, but is significant of the real personality of him to whom it belongs. . . . When a person puts his ‘name’ upon a thing or another person the latter comes under his influence and protection.”—New Bible Dictionary, edited by J. D. Douglas, 1985, p. 430; compare Everyman’s Talmud, by A. Cohen, 1949, p. 24; Ge 27:36; 1Sa 25:25; Ps 20:1; Pr 22:1; see NAME.

“God” and “Father” not distinctive. The title “God” is neither personal nor distinctive (one can even make a god of his belly; Php 3:19). In the Hebrew Scriptures the same word (ʼElo·him′) is applied to Jehovah, the true God, and also to false gods, such as the Philistine god Dagon (Jg 16:23, 24; 1Sa 5:7) and the Assyrian god Nisroch. (2Ki 19:37) For a Hebrew to tell a Philistine or an Assyrian that he worshiped “God [ʼElo·him′]” would obviously not have sufficed to identify the Person to whom his worship went.

In its articles on Jehovah, The Imperial Bible-Dictionary nicely illustrates the difference between ʼElo·him′ (God) and Jehovah. Of the name Jehovah, it says: “It is everywhere a proper name, denoting the personal God and him only; whereas Elohim partakes more of the character of a common noun, denoting usually, indeed, but not necessarily nor uniformly, the Supreme. . . . The Hebrew may say the Elohim, the true God, in opposition to all false gods; but he never says the Jehovah, for Jehovah is the name of the true God only. He says again and again my God . . . ; but never my Jehovah, for when he says my God, he means Jehovah. He speaks of the God of Israel, but never of the Jehovah of Israel, for there is no other Jehovah. He speaks of the living God, but never of the living Jehovah, for he cannot conceive of Jehovah as other than living.”—Edited by P. Fairbairn, London, 1874, Vol. I, p. 856.

The same is true of the Greek term for God, The·os′. It was applied alike to the true God and to such pagan gods as Zeus and Hermes (Roman Jupiter and Mercury). (Compare Ac 14:11-15.) Presenting the true situation are Paul’s words at 1 Corinthians 8:4-6: “For even though there are those who are called ‘gods,’ whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords,’ there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him.” The belief in numerous gods, which makes essential that the true God be distinguished from such, has continued even into this 20th century.

Paul’s reference to “God the Father” does not mean that the true God’s name is “Father,” for the designation “father” applies as well to every human male parent and describes men in other relationships. (Ro 4:11, 16; 1Co 4:15) The Messiah is given the title “Eternal Father.” (Isa 9:6) Jesus called Satan the “father” of certain murderous opposers. (Joh 8:44) The term was also applied to gods of the nations, the Greek god Zeus being represented as the great father god in Homeric poetry. That “God the Father” has a name, one that is distinct from his Son’s name, is shown in numerous texts. (Mt 28:19; Re 3:12; 14:1) Paul knew the personal name of God, Jehovah, as found in the creation account in Genesis, from which Paul quoted in his writings. That name, Jehovah, distinguishes “God the Father” (compare Isa 64:8), thereby blocking any attempt at merging or blending his identity and person with that of any other to whom the title “god” or “father” may be applied.

Not a tribal god. Jehovah is called “the God of Israel” and ‘the God of their forefathers.’ (1Ch 17:24; Ex 3:16) Yet this intimate association with the Hebrews and with the Israelite nation gives no reason for limiting the name to that of a tribal god, as some have done. The Christian apostle Paul wrote: “Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of people of the nations? Yes, of people of the nations also.” (Ro 3:29) Jehovah is not only “the God of the whole earth” (Isa 54:5) but also the God of the universe, “the Maker of heaven and earth.” (Ps 124:8) Jehovah’s covenant with Abraham, nearly 2,000 years earlier than Paul’s day, had promised blessings for people of all nations, showing God’s interest in all mankind.—Ge 12:1-3; compare Ac 10:34, 35; 11:18.

Jehovah God eventually rejected the unfaithful nation of fleshly Israel. But his name was to continue among the new nation of spiritual Israel, the Christian congregation, even when that new nation began to embrace non-Jewish persons in its membership. Presiding at a Christian assembly in Jerusalem, the disciple James therefore spoke of God as having “turned his attention to the [non-Jewish] nations to take out of them a people for his name.” As proof that this had been foretold, James then quoted a prophecy in the book of Amos in which Jehovah’s name appears twice.—Ac 15:2, 12-14; Am 9:11, 12.

In the Christian Greek Scriptures. In view of this evidence it seems most unusual to find that the extant manuscript copies of the original text of the Christian Greek Scriptures do not contain the divine name in its full form. The name therefore is also absent from most translations of the so-called New Testament. Yet the name does appear in these sources in its abbreviated form at Revelation 19:1, 3, 4, 6, in the expression “Alleluia” or “Hallelujah” (KJ, Dy, JB, AS, RS). The call there recorded as spoken by spirit sons of God to “Praise Jah, you people!” (NW) makes clear that the divine name was not obsolete; it was as vital and pertinent as it had been in the pre-Christian period. Why, then, the absence of its full form from the Christian Greek Scriptures?