THE SACRED NAME

 Vance Ferrell

6  WHEN A WORD BECOMES TOO SACRED

We are solemnly told that, according to the theory, Yahweh (or some other spelling of YHWH) is the Sacred Name, and that it alone is the term by which we are to speak of, or to, our Creator. (We are also told that the name for Jesus is Yeshua, Yehoshua, or some similar spelling.) According to this theory, anyone who uses another name is pronouncing the name of a heathen deity and thus worshiping the devil. The Sacred Name articles and papers tell us that all the devil-worshipers who make God and Christ their master, will die the second death unless they repent and begin using the right terms for the Godhead. (Little is said about the Holy Spirit, although He has been given the name, "Yahwenissi ")

We have here what appears to be a form of word-worship. A word has been deemed so holy that it is permitted to swallow up everything else.

In all of this, there is one aspect which disturbs me deeply: I have met sincere folk who cannot and will not speak of their Creator or Redeemer in the presence of "non-believers" Christians or worldlings, and they will not permit their children to do so. If they happen to be in a prayer session with "nonbelievers," they will not pray out loud. If you ask them, they will tell you that they are not "Christians," because "Christ" is an evil word, and the name of the Antichrist. If pressed, they will tell you that everyone in the whole world who worships "God" is worshiping a demon and will be damned to hellfire. Such people have changed a beautiful name of God into a nehushtan.

 7 CHARACTER IS THE ISSUE

It is character which is the basic issue in Christianity and salvation. It is the basic issue in the name of God. It is not the speaking of the name or phonics of the name, but the character expressed in that name reflected in us. Moses asked to see the divine glory, and he was told that that name would be proclaimed to him (Exodus 33:18-19). Then the Creator passed before Him and told Moses about His character:

"And the Lord descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the Lord.

"And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed, 'The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth. "'Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; "'Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation. '" -Exodus 34:5- 7.

It was not the name which was holy, it was the character, His innate qualities which were holy. By derivation, God's people render the name holy. In other words, it is the holiness of God which makes His name holy; there is nothing in the name itself. It is when we reflect that holiness-those pure characteristics-that we honor His name and do not take it in vain.

You and I are not made holy by mouthing His name, nor are we saved by it. It is by daily submission to Christ and obedience to His Inspired Word which is genuine Christianity. The name is nothing apart from the likeness of God, both in regard to Him and in regard to us also.

The objective is not to say a name, but to be like our Creator and Redeemer.

The law is a transcript of His character, the name is not. The name is only a symbol or label. (Yet, within the name is a brief one-sentence statement about the character of God. We will overview that later in this study.)

 8  THE UNKNOWN NAME

At the heart of the Sacred Name theory is the term, YHWH. .According to that theory, it is not a matter of knowing about the name; the crucial issue is pronouncing it! As one Sacred Name writer said in a 176-page book: "The issue has much, much to do with WORDS and SPEECH and SOUNDS" (full caps his). According to the theory, if we do not SAY the word when we speak of, or to, our Creator, we will erelong go into the lake of fire.

That is pretty strong language, especially when one stops to consider that no one on earth knows how to pronounce YHWH. How can you say a word you do not know how to say? How can our Lord and Saviour refuse us salvation when we do not know how to speak that special word which, by speaking, can insure for us eternal life?

(The spoken and fully written Hebrew language was lost to us for over a thousand years, and there is no way we can now recover it. How then can we now return to what we no longer have? More on this later in this study.) 

9  WHY SPEAK AN INEFFABLE NAME?

Before the pronunciation of YHWH was lost to the Jews, it was for several centuries hidden by some of their zealots. The advocates of the sacred Name theory tell us it is important to speak the name, yet Jews considered it too sacred to be pronounced. If it was thought that the name is not to be pronounced, why does the Sacred Name theory require that we today focus on pronouncing that name?

If we are to copy the non-Scriptural thinking of Jews in Old Testament times, and exalt the one name above all others, then why do we not do the same with the name as the YHWH theorists did back then, and not use it at all?

If the name, YHWH is THAT sacred-then why do believers in the Sacred Name theory not use the other beautiful Old Testament names of God, instead? It is God in His Word who has given us all those names.

Both the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy tell us to hallow the name of the Lord. We are told not to use the name any more than necessary. In order to help us do this, we have been given a variety of terms by which to address Him or speak about Him. But to take the one name upon our lips, which the theory says is the most sacred of all, instead of any of the other Old Testament names, is to render it less sacred than all the others!

We have a friend who independently identified that one point clearly and, seeing it, abandoned the Sacred Name theory entirely.

10  BELIEVING THE BIBLE AND SPIRIT OF PROPHECY

It is dangerous to leave God's Word. Our only safety is in knowing and obeying it. Our protection is in studying the writings of the prophets. We dare not go beyond Scripture.

Neither the Bible nor Spirit of Prophecy presents us with a pattern of only saying YHWH when speaking to, or about, the Creator. Turn to any book of the Bible, or to any book of the Spirit of Prophecy and you will not find such a pattern. Never do we find a pattern of only using the word YHWH, the word YHS, or any variation of those two words. When we leave the Scriptural pattern, we, in effect. throw our charts and compass overboard. Erelong we may fully shipwreck.

But, before then, we are likely to wander into many more notions which people present to us. No longer protected by an encircling wall of trust in the clear statements of the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy, we are open for deception. That is so because we have trained ourselves to believe that there is light outside of Scripture, and new, advanced truth can be found in the writings of uninspired men.

Our only safety is in remaining with the revealed will of God.

"Can you refute by sound reasons the (Protestant] Confession made by the elector and his allies?' asked another of Dr. Eck. 'With the writings of the apostles and prophets no!' was the reply. . 'I understand,' responded the questioner. 'The Lutherans, according to you are in Scripture. and we are outside:" -Great Controversy. 208.

"Unhappily,' said a Catholic writer, 'Luther had persuaded his followers to put no faith in any other oracle than the Holy Scriptures." Great Controversy. 195.

A good persuasion. Stay with God's Books; there is no other sure guide to heaven. Speculation may be enjoyable; but, in regard to the pathway to heaven, certainty is much better. Certainty is found in the words of Scripture, not in one or two words found in it.

And Scripture includes both the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy. They are equally inspired, equally invaluable, equally vital to your protection and guidance. It was in the late 1970s that our family first met Fred, He was trying hard to be a Christian. Earlier in life he had become addicted to tobacco, and he was still trying to overcome it. But he loved Desire of Ages, and he continually read in the Spirit of Prophecy. Day by day those books helped him in his search for Christ and a better way of life. But cigarettes remained a real problem. Fred did whatever he could to help others.

One day Fred stopped by and said, "Vance, I am giving up the Spirit of Prophecy. " Startled, I replied, "Fred, why?" "It is simple," he responded in his very logical manner. "Last week I read papers from Oregon which said that the wicked will not be punished by God, and this week someone handed me a pamphlet about the Sacred Name. Because I like both ideas, and know that neither one is in the Spirit of Prophecy, I am giving up the Spirit of Prophecy." .

Fred was honest in his deception; he knew it was not in the Spirit of Prophecy. But his mind was made up and nothing we could do could change his thinking. Shortly afterward, he announced an auction and sold off his entire set of Spirit of Prophecy books. Refusing to talk with me further, he moved away. At first his wife was happy With his decision, for she was not interested in religion anyway. But gradually Fred changed. His inner peace and strength was gone and before long his wife and children left him and moved to Indiana. About a year later, we learned that, alone in a house somewhere in central Illinois, Fred shut the doors in the garage, turned on the engine and gassed himself to death. I think of Fred when I hear about the "God will never kill the incorrigibly wicked" theory (totally refuted in our tract-book, The Terrible Storm), or the Sacred Name theory.

Some speculations may sound glorious, but that does not make them right. The terrible danger in accepting them is that, in doing so, we are emboldened to make still more ventures into ideas which are clearly not in God's Word. Pretty soon we are into "God will never kill the wicked," pendulums, or [something else] other deception. 

11  WHY NOT USE ALTERNATE NAMES?

According to the Sacred Name theory, of all the Old Testament names for God it is YHWH which should be used. But if YHWH is so sacred, why speak that name at all? Why not use the alternate names in place of itsimply because it is so sacred?

The obvious forerunners of the Sacred Name adherents were the Jews in Old Testament times who decided that YHWH was more sacred than any other name of God. They were the Sacred Name theorists of earlier history. But their theory was more consistent. Since they considered YHWH to be more sacred, they decided they would never speak itand only use a variant name in its place.

They called YHWH the "ineffable name," that is, the "unspeakable name" the name that must not be spoken.

The contrast is striking. Why do those today who believe it is so very hallowed, take it so frequently upon their lips, to the exclusion of almost any other of the names of Deity?

 12  SOME QUESTIONS DISCUSSED

The following questions come directly from several studies prepared by Sacred Name advocates; some rather lengthy:

"It is blasphemous to call our Maker 'Lord,' since that name meant 'Baal' in the Hebrew."

 We are to adhere to Scripture and the pattern it uses. We are not to divert from that pattern and consider our own logic sufficient to guide us aright. The word "lord" ("master") in the Old Testament translates several different words. but the most frequent was YHWH, not "Baal." The word "Baal" was a generic term, meaning someone's master. Jesus is our Lord and Master. It is true that the spiritists call Satan their master. But that does not mean we cannot use the term in its proper sense.

Protestants and Catholics call Sunday the "sabbath," but that does not mean we should no longer use the term in its true setting. The word "Lord" is applied to the true God over 5,000 times in the King James Version. The Spirit of Prophecy repeatedly calls Him by the same name. By the way, checking on this we find that the word "Lord" is applied to Christ 57,914 times in the Spirit of Prophecy, as recorded in CD-ROM. The word YHWH is not applied to a member of the Godhead even once in the Spirit of Prophecy.

In the New Testament, Jesus was often called "Lord" by the Inspired writers. It is also a generic term for one's master, and, in the New Testament, is applied to Jesus about 600 times.

Perhaps some may feel secure in going beyond Scripture in the search for a "purer religion." But God's faithful ones will stay with the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy. The question is this: Are Jesus and His Scriptures sufficient to get a repentant, humble, believing, obedient person to heaven? Yes, they are. So remain with them. Will a name get him there? No, it will not.

This charge (that we dare not use the word "Lord" applied to our Maker) has many implications. Here is just one of them: The Sabbath is not the "Lord's day" as John said (Revelation 1:10), and Ellen White agreed (GC 447; SL 74; 6T 128: DA 203, 206, 288; 6T 356).

"There are false 'gods' and there is a true 'God.' But there is only one YHWH. Therefore we should use that name, instead of 'God'."

That is what we should do, IF God tells us to. But, instead, we find that the most frequent name for our heavenly Father in the Spirit of Prophecy is "God." We do best to stay with Scripture, and not try to venture out into the darkness of other ideas and ways of doing things.

In the Bible times, there were many "lords." Some of them referred to false gods, such as Baal. But the true God was also called "Lord." So we have the same pattern in the Old Testament that we have in the Spirit of Prophecy, Today, we also have "landlords." Throughout the middle ages, the lord was the owner of the property, on which the tenant farmers lived. There are lords many and gods many. But, in the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy, we are told that, in spite of the fact there are false ones, there is also a true Lord and God-and that is His name.

"I believe that Ellen White knew about 'Yashua' in her time. That should prove that it is the word we should use instead of 'Jesus'".

If that were true, it would only strengthen the fact that we may "call His name Jesus" (Matthew 1 :21). If Ellen White knew about the controversy over Yashua and still used Jesus throughout her writings (including her very earliest ones), then that would provide additional evidence against using Yashua now. If she did not consider that to be "new light," then we may safely do the same.

"Yes, it is true that the King James Version uses the words, 'God,' and 'Lord.' and 'Jesus,' and 'Christ.' But that is no reason why we should do the same."

The King James Version was the translation especially used by Ellen White. In addition, she herself used those four words more than any others in describing the Father and the Son. When we ask our heavenly Father for a fish, He will not give us a stone. We must have divine guidance in order to get to heaven, and He has given it through the writings of His Inspired prophets, If the Spirit of Prophecy tells us those four words are all right, then they are.

"But there is more light to come. Ellen White did not have it all. We must search for more light outside of the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy."

That viewpoint is a dangerous one. And, if you want to know the truth, it is papal. The Roman Catholic Church is founded on the policy that we must accept the words of man in addition to Scripture in order to have the true religion.

Over a period of time, those additional suppositions, accepted by the professed people of God, become the body of Tradition. And, once entrenched, woe be to him who did not obey it all. That is how Sunday sacredness, holy water, beads, candles, tonsures, Easter and all the rest came-into the church. That is how the Inquisition arrived. Read Great Controversy, chapters 2, 3, and 37.

The Jews did the same thing. They had theologians eager to come up with something new, just as we do. Over the years, they jotted comments in the margins of Hebrew Bibles. Gradually a grotesque collection of all kinds of peculiar ideas was collected in what they called, the Talmud. This was a vast junk heap of sayings and oral tradition, culled from the wonderings of uninspired men. As with Roman Catholic tradition, the Talmud was accepted as superior to Scripture because it was said to "interpret it" to the people and their religious leaders. In order to eliminate the writings of Moses, the Mishna, containing still more speculations, was added to the front of the Talmud.

If you plan to search for "more light" outside the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy, where do you intend to find it? In your own thinking? In musings propounded by some passing preacher who holds meetings in your area? From someone's newsletter? "To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in them. " (Isaiah 8:20).

If you plan to search for "new light" outside of God's Books, then how will you know when you find it? You have no way to verify that it is truth, simply because it is, as you say, "light from outside Scripture." If it was light in Scripture, you would not have to go outside to find it. Unless it totally agrees with all of God's Word, then you can know it contains error.

Is eternal life worth the gamble of trusting in your own sparks or those of someone else? Be honest with yourself, or someone may steal your crown under the guise of giving you "new light."

"It is idol worship and the worship of false gods to even speak the names 'God,' 'Jesus,' or 'Christ. '"

In that case, all the prophets of the Bible were engaged in false worship, and so was Ellen White. Not being smart enough myself to unravel all the subtle arguments these theorists come up with I, for one, will take my stand with the Inspired writers of Scripture. I consider that far safer than throwing out all the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy in order to sit at the feet of an uninspired man and slavishly follow his theories.

A friend of ours studied deeply into the Sacred Name theory and then, after deciding it was a mass of contradictions, discarded it. For example, he discovered: If the theory be true, then when the wicked swear, they are hot really swearing at all: but if God's professed people speak one of those names, even reverently, they are Wicked and in danger of hellfire.

The Sacred Name theory turns right into wrong and theory into truth. It begins by offering to improve our understanding of the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy and ends by changing words in the Spirit of Prophecy when it quotes it: and rewriting and then printing a new Bible. It declares that all the world will die the second death because they are not speaking a name no one knows how to speak.

"Whoever does not exclusively name the name of YHWH should be put to death, and YHWH will do this after He has marked those people with the mark of the beast. Disobedience to the third commandment not the fourth, is the test in these last days; it will be the test in the final crisis before probation closes. "

Your theory stands totally in opposition to the plain statements of the Spirit of Prophecy as to the nature of the present and final test before probation closes. Read Great Controversy, chapters 25-29, and 35-39. The Bible Sabbath is the test.

According to the King James Version, which Ellen White used all her life, the third commandment calls Him "the Lord thy God"

(Exodus 20:7). See also the introduction (20:1-2), and the second, fourth, and fifth commandments (20:5,10-12), where that double title is again used. Not once did she tell us that YHWH was the final test-or any test to the people of God or to anyone else. 

"Since we today know the exact way in which YHWH should be pronounced Yahweh, we must use that word exclusively. "

 But we do not now know how YHWH should be spelled or pronounced. The pronunciation of that word has been lost to mankind for about 2,400 years. More on this later in this study.

Apparently, our heavenly Father hid both its true spelling and pronunciation, so that we would not be tempted to worship that word as the Israelites later did with the brazen serpent. Even the Sacred Name advocates argue among themselves as to the spelling and pronunciation of the two words. For example, at a recent Sacred Name meeting in the central states, a Sacred Name scholar stood up and told the audience that they should say "Yahuah" for YHWH, and "Hahuahshuah" for Jesus. According to his particular Sacred Name theory, we should take the modern Hebrew spelling of "Judah" (Yehudah), knock out the "d" and call the name of God "Yehuah." After the meeting, Sacred Name followers crowded around, discussed it, and concluded that the spelling and pronunciation really did not matter that much anyway. But they had a good point: why keep revising their sacred name, when new variations keep being suggested.

But what they were actually doing was admitting that they had little idea how the words should be sounded (or written): so, in order to avoid even more confusion, they were willing to remain with whatever pronunciations each one of them already had. But is that not CONFUSION?

Some say Yahuah: others say Yehwah or Yahweh. Still others claim it should be Yehveh or Yayvah. Take your pick. As one Sacred Name writer wrote:

"The issue has much, much to do with WORDS and SPEECH and SOUNDS, obviously." Elijah. Introduction (full caps his].

"My research indicates that the word 'Jesus' comes from the name of a pagan god. So it is wicked to use that name; whoever does so is worshiping a heathen god.'

Your research may not be accurate. Just because "Jesus" sounds like some other ancient word is no proof of etymological derivation. The study of word origins frequently involves look-alike guesswork. "This word looks like that word, so they must be related." Research can be in error, but Scripture is certain, and Scripture uses the word "Jesus."

The God of heaven gave us all the information we needed for service and salvation in the writings of the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy. In the Bible, He gave us the name "Jesus." The New Testament was written in Greek, and then translated over later centuries into other languages. In all European translations, the original Greek for "Jesus" was used or roughly transliterated. Yet our Maker permitted it to happen. Then He gave us a last-day prophet who consistently used the names "Jesus" and "Christ." You may feel secure in declaring that everyone is wrong, but our safety is in staying close to Scripture and the providences of God in transmitting it to us.

"HALLELUYAH: The names of Babylon [are] Lord, LORD, God, Jehovah, Jesus, Christ. The names of Phlladelph[ia] -Brotherhood- Assembly {are] Yahweh-Father. Yahshua-Son. Yahwenissi-Holy Spirit, Messiah-Anointed One. There really aren't many ALTERNATIVES"

That quotation, taken from near the end of a lengthy Sacred Name publication, sizes up the situation quite well. If this individual had remained with the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy he would not now have this viewpoint. As it is, he can only have close fellowship with Sacred Name adherents (the ones, that is, who agree with his particular Divine title spellings.) Although he did not include "Holy Spirit" in the evil category of those beings on the side of Babylon, the Third Person of the Godhead would obviously be there, along with God and Jesus Christ, since he placed its "Sacred Name" counterpart in the other side.

Frankly, such a doctrine is a tragedy. Many of us have acquaintances who have taken such positions. It makes me weep to know that I have close friends who have done so.

"We should use the name of God given in the original Bibles, the first ones. That name is YHWH."

That reason is the best one for accepting the Sacred Name theory. Why use a translated or non-Hebrew name for God, when we can use the original name? But the answer is twofold and strikingly simple: First, God did not want us to use that original word, lest we make a nehushtan out of it. It is clear that He purposely did this, for He permitted the Hebrew language to entirely go out of spoken usage for nearly a millennium and a half. He carefully preserved the original Sabbath of the fourth commandment, but He did not preserve the original name in the third. He chose to make the original Sabbath. the test, not the original name.

If you truly reverenced the sacred name, you would reverence the One who owns it and obey His Word as He has given it to you. You would bow in submission to His inscrutable will instead of trying to change it. The Spirit of Prophecy has clearly shown us what are the issues and tests in these last days and the ineffable name is not one of them. Because there were no vowels in the written Hebrew language before it went out of usage about the year 445 B.C., there was no way that later generations could reconstruct the correct spelling or pronunciation of Hebrew words, when they tried to do this centuries after the time of Christ. It was gone forever. All we have today are consonants, and even they can vary somewhat with the passing of centuries. In His infinite wisdom, our kind heavenly Father kept us back from making a fetish of a name.

This situation applies not only to YHWH, but also to YHS,' Thus, both the name of God and the name of Joshua, in the original Hebrew, are today unspellable and unpronounceable.

Second, the usage of the divine names in the Spirit of Prophecy clearly is that of translated names (generally those given in the King James Version) rather than the Hebrew ones. Third, we are nowhere told in the Spirit of Prophecy that we need to discover the original Hebrew of those names or that the final test, or any test-will be over those words in these last days.

"Even if we are not told to do so, what can be wrong with trying to relocate the original names so we can use them in worship to share them with others?"

It may sound harmless, but it gets us off the track of what we are supposed to be doing, teaching, and preaching. One of the great dangers to which God's faithful ones in these last days are succumbing to is the Athenian plague:

"And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is?

"For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean.

"(For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.)" Acts 17:19-21.

Instead of going out to every man's door and telling him about the law, the Bible Sabbath, and the enabling grace of Jesus to put away sin and prepare for the Final Crisis,far too many spend their time hearing some new teaching.

Yet all those new teachings and time settings fill the attention, and keep God's people from doing the work they need to do in order to get themselves and others ready for heaven. How can we solve the problem?

The solution is, first, to focus on the messages God has given us for these last days in the Spirit of Prophecy. We there find a distillation of exactly how we need to live, and what we need to do in order to prepare for the Final Crisis, the close of probation, the Second Advent, and eternity beyond.

The solution is, second, to do what God has told us to do in these last days. There are standards to be kept, things to be put away, others things to be done.

The Spirit of Prophecy was specifically given to instruct us in the final truths and protect us from last-day errors. To try to go beyond it, into other theories for our time, is an activity fraught with great danger.

"Even if we cannot know what the Hebrew vowels were anciently, we can know what the consonants in YHWH were. They were 'Y,' 'H, ' 'W,' and 'H.'"

It is very true (as we will discuss below) that we have no idea what the vowels were in ancient Hebrew words. But it is also true that we do not know how the consonants were sounded. Going back, even to the time of the Romans, several centuries after Christ, consonants were different than they are now. The Romans had no "J." Neither did they have a "u" or a "W." That will give you an idea of the drastic changes which have occurred in consonants over the centuries.

Someone will state, "Well, the consonants may have changed their written form, but the sounds didn't."

Not only the written form but the verbal sounds of written consonants have changed down through the centuries. Men have highly inventive minds, and they are constantly changing things, An excellent example of this is the large number of language scripts in the world, Chinese, Arabic, English, and Hindi, for example. Although each is very different, yet they all developed since about 2348 B.C. Someone will reply, "God changed them at the Tower of Babel." He changed some of the languages at that time, but men later made the great variety of scripts.

The sounds of the vowels and consonants in these languages have changed also. An example of this would be Latin, compared with three of its descendants: modern French, Spanish, and Italian. Vowels and consonants in French and Spanish-as pronounced by natives of each nation, are quite different from each other!

But we are here specifically asked about "YHWH." Consider this:

The letter "J" did not come into existence until comparatively recent times (the 17th century). Prior to that, for a number of centuries, it was the script letter "I." Then, gradually, an initial "I' came to be sounded as a consonant, and written with an extra bottom left pen stroke. Thus the "J" came into being. Going back still further, the 'I' had a "Y" or soft "a" sound; sometimes one, and sometimes the other. In the Spanish language, the sound became "whuah," as in 'Juanita," or "H," as in "La Jolla." Sometimes the ancient 'I' was sounded as a vowel (most frequently as a long "E" or long "I.)" In later times, the two ran together for a time as "IE" (or "eye," the sound of our present long "I"). Sometimes the 'I' was sounded as a consonant ("H," "Y," etc.). So what did the "J" sound like in ancient times? Take your choice. These words continue changing. Consider the varied sounds of "I" today in "fir," "emir," "receive," "tide," "pique," and "eider."

Someone will say, "But we are not concerned with how "J" sounded in Graeco, Roman, or Medieval times; we want to know how it sounded in ancient Hebrew."

The answer to that is quite simple: We do not know what vowels and consonants sounded like in ancient Hebrew. We can only get an idea by figuring out how similar vowels and consonants may have sounded in other languages contemporary to ancient Hebrew, but these languages died out or changed down through the centuries also. Which raises the question, "But why cannot we not know how ancient Hebrew was pronounced?" The answer is again simple enough: Because ancient Hebrew died out as a spoken language over 450 years before the time of Christ. We can only ascertain its pronunciation indirectly.

Now let us consider the "H" sound: In ancient times, one of the soundings of "H" was a soft "CH" as in "chief." It was also sounded with a hard "CH," or "K" sound. Elsewhere it may have been something similar to an "H" sound. It also had other sounds: The Eastern Ionic Greeks used it with a long "E" sound. The Western Greeks used it as an "H." The Romans gave it a related "E" sound. They were the first to write it as "H." The "H" sound largely disappeared from the later Latin languages. Today the changes continue: Consider the variations in sounding between "harbor," "behind," "hat," "ahead," "hour," and "honest," and "heir." In the case of "humble" and "humor," they eventually lost their initial "H" sound, but, in later centuries, regained it!

Then there is the "W': By the time of the Romans, the "W' sound had a "wh" or "w" sound. They took it from the Greeks and wrote it as "V." Earlier still, it was found in Egyptian hieroglyphics, but its sound cannot be ascertained. We do know that, in the few hundred years they were in power, the Romans changed the pronunciation of this consonant from "W' to "v." Hundreds of years later, French scribes wanted to sound the German "W' sound, and did it by placing two "Vs" ("VV') together; which, of course, is the shape of our modern "W." Because it was at times written as two "Us" ("UU"), it came to be known as the "double U."

It is quite obvious that there are few things as unstable as the languages of mankind. But one thing which is even more changeable is how they are pronounced! Just look at how Americans in various parts of the nation pronounce the same words (New York, Boston, South, Midwest, etc.) Yet our nation is relatively young. Chaucerian English would today be hardly readable, because of spelling changes; but it would be totally undecipherable in pronunciation. Yet it is English, and has remained a spoken language from then to now.

In the case of ancient Hebrew, it is a different story. As we will discuss shortly, ancient Hebrew ceased to be a spoken language over 400 years before the birth of Christ; and no attempt was made to determine how that lost language was to be pronounced until nearly a thousand years after the Incarnation. Let us hang our salvation upon acceptance and obedience to the certainties given us in Scripture, not on the pronunciation of words which we no longer can know.

"But the Spirit of Prophecy told us to use ancient Hebrew in praying to God." 

Now, it did not. Instead, we are told:

"Lessons must be given to humanity in the languages of humanity." -Prophets and Kings, 700. 

That is the way our kind Father has done it down through the ages. He communicates with us through OUR language, not in some unknown one. Keep in mind that it was a doctrine of Rome that "it pleased God to give men His Word in a foreign language, "therefore the Church decreed that the Bible could only be in Latin and must be studied only in that language (if. GC 51). But it was Heaven's plan that the people have and read God's Word in their own language, not in some foreign one! God speaks to man in his own language (PP 106; 38 G 75) so that man may better understand Him (SR 71).

The Scriptures were not given to mankind in some superhuman language that men could not know (ISM 20), but in their own, everyday language. We should present the truth to others in simple language (CT261; 15M 157), and our prayers to God should be presented in simple language (GW 177). You do not need to be a Hebrew scholar to pray to God or talk to others about Him.

It is clear that the Spirit of Prophecy emphasis is on knowing and properly using our own language. We should improve our ability to write and speak our own language. That is far more important than foreign languages (Ed 234). .

"We can communicate with God better in an unknown language, using words not our own. It draws us closer to Him when we use the ancient language of the Hebrews. This leads to deeper holiness and dedication."

The tongues movement is based on the idea that an unknown tongue that is, a language not our own, should be the language in which our religious worship and prayers should be expressed. For you and me, the living language is the one we use daily to communicate with those around us. It is far better than the study and use of dead languages (MH 444). 

A knowledge of your native language is essential in studying and helping others (CT 215). Of greatest importance is knowing your own language and how to use it correctly (CT 207-208,215-216,219). 

The Spirit of Prophecy emphasis is on using our language to win souls to Christ; no mention is ever made about using the Hebrew language to pray, preach, or work for the lost. Her only statements about the Hebrew language concern Jews in ancient times. Nowhere does the Spirit of Prophecy tell us we should be using it today.

CONTINUE