Jehovah's Witnesses and the Divine Name
by Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
Do Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs) understand the Bible rightly? In the previous
installments of this series I have argued that JWs systematically distort the
teachings of the Bible by viewing the Watchtower organization as sole interpreter
of the Bible and by mistranslating and misinterpreting specific texts of the Bible. This
fourth and concluding article will show that JWs likewise distort the Bible in their
handling of its major doctrinal themes. As a case study in point I will discuss the
JWs' teaching on the divine name.
THE MEANING OF "JEHOVAH"
There is no consensus among Bible scholars as to the meaning of "Jehovah."
According to the JWs, the divine name "actually signifies 'He Causes to Become.'
Thus, God's name identifies Him as the One who progressively fulfills his promises
and unfailingly realizes his purposes."[1] Similarly, the phrase in Exodus 3:14,
usually translated "I AM WHO I AM" ('ehyeh asher 'ehyeh), is in the NWT
rendered "I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE."[2]
Other Bible expositors have argued for a similar interpretation of the divine name,
though the details of the argument differ.[3] The exact interpretation of the name,
however, is still a matter of debate, and we need not be concerned here to settle
on the one right view. Instead, I wish to make a simple point that can be seen
apart from an accurate analysis of the Hebrew form of the divine name. The fact is
that most of the interpretations under serious consideration, if related properly to
the biblical view of God, actually imply one another.
Let us consider these views briefly. One view holds that "Jehovah" means "He is,"
conveying that God simply is who He is and cannot be defined because He is
greater than the human mind can completely comprehend. Another view also holds
that "Jehovah" means "He is," but understands this to mean that God is the One
who is self-existent; that is, eternal and dependent on no one and nothing else for
His existence. A third view takes "Jehovah" to mean "He causes to be" and
interprets this to mean that God is the Creator: everything that exists besides God
Himself was created by God. A fourth view renders "Jehovah" as "He will become"
and takes this to imply that God will do whatever is needed to fulfill His promises;
this is essentially the JWs' view, and that of others as well.
Whichever of these views is right, the truths about God which they understand the
divine name to be expressing all necessarily imply one another. In order for God to
be able to fulfill His incredible promises to His people, He must be in complete
control of human history and indeed of the whole universe; but this implies that He
is the Creator and Sustainer of the world. That God is the Creator of the world and
the One who can guarantee such amazing promises about matters thousands of
years in the future implies that He is not bound by time but is eternal; which in turn
implies that He is self-existent. Such an amazing God, who is the Creator and
Sustainer of all things, who is beyond the restrictions of time, is certainly beyond
man's ability to comprehend completely or exhaustively; which implies that He
cannot be simply and neatly defined as the pagans labeled their many imaginary
gods.
The essence of God's name "Jehovah," then, regardless of the precise original
meaning of the Hebrew form, is that He is absolutely supreme and in control of
everything. In short, the name "Jehovah" reveals God as Lord -- as the all-sovereign Lord of creation, of history, and of His people. It would appear to be no
accident, then, and no mistake, that "Lord" has come to take the place of
"Jehovah" both in the New Testament and in most translations of the Old
Testament. That this conclusion is in fact biblically sound shall be further
demonstrated as we consider the biblical teaching about the divine name.
One more point should be noted: the JWs do not really believe in this Lord whose
absolute sovereignty is revealed in the name "Jehovah." JWs deny that God is
incomprehensible except in the same sense that the wonders of the universe are
incomprehensible.[4] Strictly speaking, they deny that God is eternal (that is,
transcendent over time), maintaining rather that God simply has always existed
and will continue always to exist.[5] Thus they deny His perfect foreknowledge of
the future. The JWs' God is also not omnipresent, but has a body of spirit located
at some fixed point in space.[6] Thus, their "God" is not the absolute Creator of
space and time, but is a relative entity locked into the universe of space and time
along with the rest of us. Ironically, then, the very name about which JWs make
such a fuss reveals God as being infinitely greater than their doctrine of Him
admits.
THE NECESSITY OF THE NAME
According to JWs, it is essential that God's people use God's name "Jehovah"
regularly when praying to Him and talking to others about Him. Only the name
"Jehovah," they argue, applies uniquely to the true God and to no other god. False
gods are called "God," "Lord," and even "Father"; such titles, then, are not
"distinctive" designations of the true God.[7]
These arguments, though they seem reasonable to JWs, are not biblical. For one
thing, it is not true that only the name "Jehovah" applies uniquely to the true God.
For example, the expression "the God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of
Jacob" serves to identify the true God as well as does the name "Jehovah." More
importantly, the New Testament does not use "Jehovah" once, but instead
regularly uses "God" or "Lord" ("Lord" being the normal usage in quotations from
the Old Testament). Thus the New Testament, at least as it stands, testifies by its
lack of the name "Jehovah" that it is not essential to use it.
Because the evidence of the New Testament is obviously at odds with the JWs'
teaching on the divine name, they have inserted the name Jehovah 237 times in
their NWT New Testament. We need, then, to consider the arguments used by the
JWs in defense of "restoring" the name Jehovah to the New Testament.
THE DIVINE NAME IN THE SEPTUAGINT
The "Septuagint" (for which the abbreviation "LXX" is standard) was a translation
of the Old Testament ("OT") from Hebrew into Greek that was produced in the
third century B.C., and from which the New Testament ("NT") frequently quotes. In
most versions of the LXX (which have come down to us through ancient
manuscript copies), the word "Lord" (Greek kurios) is used in place of the divine
name, and this practice is also followed in all the thousands of ancient NT Greek
manuscripts that have survived.
In order to counter this evidence, JWs argue that "Jehovah" was used in the
original LXX and NT manuscripts, and that the versions which used kurios were
produced after the first century by apostate scribes. They base this claim on some
pre-NT manuscripts of the LXX containing the divine name which have been
discovered in this century.
It is unnecessary here to discuss all the pros and cons of this theory. Several
recent studies have been done which show that there is insufficient evidence to
prove that the divine name was used in the original LXX, though everyone admits
that some (not many) copies of the LXX did use it. These studies point out that
the manuscripts on which the theory is based all contain signs that they were not
typical examples of the LXX. Furthermore, internal evidence from the LXX itself
shows that from the beginning it must have used kurios in place of the divine
name.[8]
Even if it should turn out that the original LXX did use the divine name, that would
not necessitate that the NT writers used it when quoting from the OT, since they
did not always follow the LXX exactly even when quoting from it.[9] The only way
we can know what the NT writers did is by examining the NT itself.
THE NEW TESTAMENT AND THE DIVINE NAME
Thousands of NT manuscripts (in either portions or its entirety) written in Greek, its
original language, have been found. So far, none of these manuscripts, which date
from the second century and later, have contained the divine name. This the JWs
admit.[10] All the manuscripts have regularly used kurios in places where the NT
quotes from or alludes to an OT passage which in the original Hebrew used the
divine name. Thus the NT, as it has actually been preserved in the manuscripts
which have come down to us, definitely does not contain the divine name.
Despite this evidence, JWs argue that, like the Septuagint, the NT must have
originally contained the divine name. They contend, for example, that Matthew
wrote his gospel originally in Hebrew and would therefore have naturally employed
the Hebrew name "Jehovah."[11] Although it is possible that Matthew wrote an
earlier version of his gospel in Hebrew, this is not a certain fact; no copy of it has
survived. Moreover, even if Matthew had used the divine name in a now-lost
Hebrew gospel, this in no way proves that the rest of the NT writers did the same
in their original Greek writings.
JWs also appeal to a large number of medieval translations of the NT into H