The Divine Name Jehovah and Its Pronunciation

The English term “the LORD” follows the translation of the Septuagint Κυρίος (“Lord”) for the Hebrew tetragrammaton יְהֹוָה (“Jehovah”). The name יְהֹוָה is widely believed to be derived from the root הָיָה, a common Hebrew verb meaning “to be.” The most expressive definition of this name appears in the divine revelation to Moses in Exodus 3:14–15, with the well-known declaration: “I AM THAT I AM.”

Christ later appealed to the present tense of this declaration in order to argue that the patriarchs were presently alive, stating: “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” (Matthew 22:32; Mark 12:26; Luke 20:37–38). The timeless nature of this expression, which transcends temporal categories, is further reflected in Christ’s self-identification in John 8:58: “Before Abraham was, I am.”

This statement likely parallels Christ’s self-revelation in Revelation 1:8:

“I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.”

The identification of God as “Alpha and Omega” may allude to the Psalmist’s description of divine eternity, expressed in phrases such as “from everlasting to everlasting” (Psalms 41:13; 90:2; 103:17; 106:48). In its simplest sense, the name Jehovah refers to the eternally existing One who transcends the dimension of time.

Theologian John Gill described the significance of the divine name as referring to

“his necessary and self existence, for God naturally and necessarily exists; which cannot be said of any other[.]”¹⁾John Gill, Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divintiy: or A Sysem of Evangelical Truths, Deduced from the Sacred Scriptures, Baker Book House (Grand Rapids, MI: 1839, 1978), Vol. 1, p. 42

A similar concept appears in the writings of Philo, who observed in the first century that

“the living God is not of a nature to be described, but only to be.”²⁾Philo, On Dreams, 1. 230; in The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged New Updated Version (Trans. C. D. Yonge), (Peabody, MA: 1997), p. 385

Justin Martyr likewise articulated this idea:

On this account, then, as I before said, God did not, when He sent Moses to the Hebrews, mention any name, but by a participle He mystically teaches them that He is the one and only God. For, says He; I am the Being; manifestly contrasting Himself, the Being, with those who are not, that those who had hitherto been deceived might see that they were attaching themselves, not to beings, but to those who had no being…. On this account He said to Moses, I am the Being, that by the participle being He might teach the difference between God who is and those who are not. Men, therefore, having been duped by the deceiving demon, and having dared to disobey God, were cast out of Paradise, remembering the name of gods, but no longer being taught by God that there are no other god.³⁾Justin Martyr, Horatory Address to the Greeks, 21; in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson; 1885-1887, Hendrickson (Peabody, Massachusetts) 1994, fifth edition 2012, Vol. 1, p. 281

Thus, the divine name is unique and belongs exclusively to Jehovah (Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 42:8). The pseudepigraphal work The Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah expresses a similar idea:

“I praised the One who is not named and is unique[.]”⁴⁾The Ascension of Isaiah the Prophet, 7:37; in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Ed. James H. Charlesworth) Doubleday (New York, NY: 1985), Vol. 2, p. 168

The Question of Pronunciation

Considerable debate exists regarding the proper pronunciation of the divine name. As one reference work explains:

“The pronunciation of the tetragrammaton yhwh was lost when the Jews avoided its usage for fear of desecrating the holy name (cf. Exod. 20:7)…. The pronunciation fell into disuse after the Exile when the Jews began to pay careful attention to the practice of the law.”⁵⁾Willem A VanGemeren, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (ed. Walter A. Elwell), Baker Books (Grand Rapids, MI: 1984), p. 1080

However, the name itself continued to appear in post-exilic literature, as demonstrated by its frequent occurrence in the books of Ezra (37 times), Nehemiah (17 times), Haggai (35 times), Zechariah (133 times), and Malachi (46 times).

Concern regarding the casual use of the divine name appears in the writings of Jesus ben Sirach around 250 B.C.:

“Accustom not thy mouth to swearing; neither use thyself to the naming of the Holy One. For as a servant that is continually beaten shall not be without a blue mark; so he that sweareth and nameth God continually shall not be faultless.” (Ecclesiasticus 23:9-10)⁶⁾The Apocrypha (ed. Manuel Komroff, Barnes & Noble Books (New York, NY: 1992), p. 188

An early section of The Ascension of Isaiah, likely dating to the second century B.C., similarly states:

“As the LORD lives whose name has not been transmitted to this world[.]”⁷⁾The Ascension of Isaiah the Prophet, 1:7; in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Ed. James H. Charlesworth) Doubleday (New York, NY: 1985), Vol. 2, p. 157

A later Christian interpolation adds a parallel statement concerning Christ:

“the Lord Christ, who is to be called in the world Jesus, but you cannot hear his name[.]”⁸⁾The Ascension of Isaiah the Prophet, 9:5; in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Ed. James H. Charlesworth) Doubleday (New York, NY: 1985), Vol. 2, p. 170

The Masoretic Vocalization and the “Yahweh” Hypothesis

The Masoretic Text consistently vocalizes the tetragrammaton as יְהֹוָה, corresponding to the transliteration Yehowah, traditionally rendered Jehovah. Modern scholarship, however, often favors the pronunciation יַהְוֶה (Yahweh). It is important to note that this proposed vocalization does not occur in any extant Hebrew manuscript.

Thomas Ross argues:

“For one who maintains Biblical presuppositions, it is inconceivable that God would allow the correct pronunciation of His Name to be lost (cf. Exodus 3:15; Psalm 9:10; Proverbs 18:10; Joel 2:32), so the pointing actually in the Hebrew text must represent the correct pronunciation, Yehowah or Jehovah.”⁹⁾Thomas Ross, Evidence for the Inspiration of the Hebrew Vowel Points, p. 47; available at https://faithsaves.net/inspiration-hebrew-vowel-points/

The widespread scholarly preference for Yahweh depends on the hypothesis that scribes intentionally modified the vowel points of the tetragrammaton to discourage pronunciation. According to this theory,

“The vowels of ’adōnāy (a-ō-ā) were placed under the tetragrammaton to remind the reader that he was not to pronounce yhwh but instead was to read the word as adōnāy.”¹⁰⁾Willem A VanGemeren, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (ed. Walter A. Elwell), Baker Books (Grand Rapids, MI: 1984), p. 1080

Yet this explanation does not adequately account for the actual vowels found in יְהֹוָה (Jehovah rather than Jahovah), requiring the additional assumption that the vowel a was reduced to e without clear justification.

A further grammatical objection concerns the Hebrew consonant ה (he). As a guttural consonant,

“gutturals are never followed immediately by ə.”¹¹⁾Thomas O. Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew, Darton, Longman and Todd Ltd (London: 1973), p. xx

In other words, the combination הְ (he with shewa) is considered grammatically irregular. This raises a significant question: could such a basic grammatical rule have been ignored 6,820 times across 1,001 verses in the Hebrew Scriptures?

This calculation is based on the tabulation provided by Ernst Jenni, although the precise total may vary depending on the manuscript tradition. Jenni’s distribution by book is as follows:

Genesis 165; Exodus 398; Leviticus 311; Numbers 396; Deuteronomy 550; Joshua 224; Judges 175; Ruth 18; 1 Samuel 320; 2 Samuel 153; 1 Kings 257; 2 Kings 277; 1 Chronicles 175; 2 Chronicles 384; Ezra 37; Nehemiah 17; Esther 0; Job 32; Psalms 695; Proverbs 87; Ecclesiastes 0; Song of Solomon 0; Isaiah 450; Jeremiah 726; Lamentations 32; Ezekiel 434; Daniel 8; Hosea 46; Joel 33; Amos 81; Obadiah 7; Jonah 26; Micah 40; Nahum 13; Habakkuk 13; Zephaniah 34; Haggai 35; Zechariah 133; Malachi 46¹²⁾Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, Theological Lexicon on the Old Testament, Hendrickson Publishers (Peabody, Mass.: 1997), p. 522

Theophoric Names and Linguistic Evidence

If the vocalization of the divine name had been corrupted, this would also affect the numerous theophoric names derived from it. Examples include: Jehoadah (1 Chronicles 8:36), Jehoaddan (2 Chronicle 25:1), Jehoahaz (2 Kings 10:35), Jehoash (2 Kings 11:21), Jehohanan (1 Chronicles 26:3), Jehoiachin (2 Kings 24:6), Jehoiada (2 Samuel 8:18), Jehoiakim (2 Kings 23:34), Jehoiarib (1 Chronicles 9:10), Jehonadab (2 Kings 10:15), Jehonathan (1 Chronicles 27:25), Jehoram (1 Kings 22:50), Jehoseph (Psalm 81:5 [Hebrew verse 6]), Jehoshabeath (2 Chronicles 22:11), Jehoshapht (2 Samuel 8:16), Jehosheba (2 Kings 11:2), Jehoshua (Numbers 13:16), Jehozabad (2 Kings 12:21), Jehozadak (1 Chronicles 6:14).¹³⁾Thomas Ross, Evidence for the Inspiration of the Hebrew Vowel Points, p. 49-50; available at https://faithsaves.net/inspiration-hebrew-vowel-points/

Similarly, names ending in -iah, such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Zechariah, reflect the shortened form יָהּ (Yah) (Psalm 68:4). Expressions such as הַֽלְלוּ־יָֽהּ (Hallelujah) (Psalms 104:35; 105:45; 106:1, 48) and its Greek equivalent Ἁλληλουϊά (Revelation 19:1, 3, 4, 6) further illustrate this abbreviated form.

Additional linguistic evidence appears in Greek fragments of Leviticus 4:27 discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls (4Q120), where the divine name is transliterated Iao.¹⁴⁾The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls In English (Trans. Geza Vermes), Penguin Classics (London, England: 1962, 2004, p. 472

This form is difficult to reconcile with Yahweh, whereas it can plausibly reflect aspects of the pronunciation Jehovah, particularly if the Hebrew shewa was represented phonetically by an α in Greek transliteration. These considerations challenge the claim that the pronunciation Jehovah arose only in the Middle Ages.¹⁵⁾Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, Theological Lexicon on the Old Testament, Hendrickson Publishers (Peabody, Mass.: 1997), p. 522

Later Speculation and Magical Traditions

By the time the Septuagint was translated, the divine name had largely ceased to be spoken, as indicated by the translators’ decision to render it as “the Lord” rather than transliterate it into Greek. This convention was subsequently followed by Jesus Christ and the New Testament writers.

One of the earliest references resembling the pronunciation Yahweh appears in Clement of Alexandria, who wrote in Greek rather than Hebrew:

“the mystic name of four letters which was affixed to those alone to whom he adytum was accessible, is called Jave, which is interpreted, ‘Who is and shall be.’”¹⁶⁾Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, or Miscellanice, book 5, chapt. 6; in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson; 1885-1887, Hendrickson (Peabody, Massachusetts) 1994, fifth edition 2012, Vol. 2, p. 452

Clement’s spelling appears as Iaouai/e in Greek manuscripts. Later manuscripts of Life of Adam and Eve contain the form IHU.¹⁷⁾Life of Adam and Eve, 14:2; in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Ed. James H. Charlesworth) Doubleday (New York, NY: 1985), Vol. 2, p. 262, see fn. 14b.

A Coptic Gnostic text likewise presents a sequence of vowels:

I I I I I I I I I I I I
Ē Ē Ē Ē Ē Ē Ē Ē Ē Ē Ē Ē
O O O O O O O O O O O O
U U U U U U U U U U U U
E E E E E E E E E E E E
A A A A A A A A A A A A A
Ō Ō Ō Ō Ō Ō Ō Ō Ō Ō Ō Ō¹⁸⁾The Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit, in The Nag Hammadi Scriptures: The International Edition (ed. Marvin Meyer), HarperOne (New York, NY: 2007), p. 255

Some scholars suggest this forms an acrostic IĒOUEAŌ, representing a symbolic expression of the divine name.

it spells out IEOU Ē A (alpha) Ō (omega). The word IEOU is actually the name for God in some third-century sources (such as the Books of Jeu, where the name Jeu = Ieou). The letter E (epsilon) may stand here for the number five (epsilon, the fifth letter of the Greek alphabet and used to represent numbers). Five, in turn, was a symbol of wholeness and may represent the original Pentad of beings in the highest aeon. Finally, the letters A(alpha) and Ō (omega) are the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet and also symbolize the wholeness of God; in the New Testament’s book of Revelation, Jesus states that he is the “Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end” (Rev 22:13). To put this all together, the string of vowels represent not a meaningless chant, but a condensed symbol for God, or God’s ineffable name.¹⁹⁾Nicola Denzey Lewis, Introduction to “Gnosticism,” Oxford University Press (Oxford N.Y.: 2013), p. 171

Such examples reflect the ancient belief that divine names could function in magical formulas (voces magicae). However, these late sources—produced in foreign languages by writers far removed from Hebrew culture—provide little reliable evidence concerning the original pronunciation of the tetragrammaton.

Indeed, Philo suggested that the prohibition against pronouncing the divine name originated with Moses:

“You have seen that it was worse to name God than even to curse him; for you would never have treated lightly a man who had committed the heaviest of all impieties, and inflicted the heaviest punishment possible on those who committed the slightest faults; but you fixed death, which is the very greatest punishment imaginable, as the penalty for the man who appeared to have committed the heaviest crime.”²⁰⁾On the Life of Moses, 2.204; in The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged New Updated Version (Trans. C. D. Yonge), (Peabody, MA: 1997), p. 509

If even an educated Greek-speaking Jew such as Philo acknowledged that the sacred name had long ceased to be spoken, it follows that later Greek or Coptic writers would have had little reliable knowledge of its original pronunciation.

The Decalogue in Philo

The ancient Greek version of Exodus contains a fascinating alteration within the Ten Commandments which is further developed by Philo. Likely influenced by the Greek interest in rhetorical structure, the Ten Commandments as discussed by Philo reveal a chiastic arrangement that is not evident in the Masoretic Hebrew text. With the Ten Commandments divided into two tables of stone (Exodus 31:18; Deuteronomy 4:13; 9:10–11; 1 Kings 8:9), it has historically been assumed that

“there is an equal division into two numbers of five; the first of which contains the principles of justice relating to God, and the second those relating to man.”²¹⁾Philo, Who is the Heir of Divine Things, 168; in The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged New Updated Version (Trans. C. D. Yonge), (Peabody, MA: 1997), p. 290

The first table may be outlined as follows:

1. Thou shall have no other gods

2. Thou shall make no graven images

3. Thou shall not take the LORD’s name in vain

4. Remember the Sabbath day

5. Honour thy parents

Within this arrangement a chiastic relationship can be observed. The prohibition against having other gods corresponds conceptually with the command to honour one’s parents, while the prohibition against graven images parallels the sanctification of the Sabbath. At the center stands the prohibition against taking the name of the LORD in vain.

The second table, however, appears differently in the Septuagint. In the Greek version of Exodus the prohibition of murder appears after the commands against adultery and stealing (Exodus 20:13–15 [LXX]). Philo follows this ordering in The Decalogue 36,²²⁾Philo, The Decalogue, 36; in The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged New Updated Version (Trans. C. D. Yonge), (Peabody, MA: 1997), p. 521 yet elsewhere he expounds upon the commandments while only exchanging the sixth and seventh commandments. This arrangement produces a chiastic structure that is not present in the Hebrew text:

6. Thou shall not commit adultery

7. Thou shall not kill

8. Thou shall not steal

9. Thou shall not bear false witness

10. Thou shall not covet²³⁾Philo, The Decalogue, 168-174; in The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged New Updated Version (Trans. C. D. Yonge), (Peabody, MA: 1997), p. 532-533

This second table appears in the New Testament in the same order Philo presented it (Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20; Romans 13:9), though Matthew 19:18 follows the Masoretic order. This sequence forms a conceptual chiasm linking the prohibition of adultery with the prohibition of coveting. The command not to covet explicitly includes “thy neighbour’s wife” (Exodus 20:17). The command not to kill parallels the prohibition against bearing false witness, since such perjury in a court case could potentially lead to a death sentence (1 Kings 21:10; Proverbs 25:18). The command not to steal therefore occupies the central position and functions as the pivot of the second table.

The first table remains consistent in order across textual traditions and reveals an emphasis on the prohibition against taking the LORD’s name in vain as the central command. The first commandment against having other gods is connected conceptually with the honour due to one’s parents. This association was common in ancient Jewish literature. Philo states,

“Therefore the law says, ‘Honour thy father and thy other next after God;’ assigning to them the second place in honour, on the same principle as nature herself has ranked them in her decision of their proper place and duties.”²⁴⁾Philo, The Special Laws, 2. 235; in The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged New Updated Version (Trans. C. D. Yonge), (Peabody, MA: 1997), p. 590

JJosephus similarly affirms:

“The law ordains also, that parents should be honoured immediately after God himself, and delivers that son who does not repay them for the benefit he has received from them, but is deficient on any such occasion, to be stones.”²⁵⁾Josephus, Against Apion, 2.206; in The New Complete Works of Josephus (Revised and Expanded) (Trans. William Whiston, Introduction and Commentary by Paul L. Maier), Kregel Publications (Grand Rapids, MI: 1999), p. 973

The same relationship appears in other Jewish writings. The book of Jubilees states:

“And in the twenty-eighth jubilee Noah began to command his grandsons with ordinances and commandments and all of the judgments which he knew. And he bore witness to his sons so that they might do justice and cover the shame of their flesh and bless the one who created them and honor father and mother[.]”²⁶⁾Jubilees, 7:20; in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Ed. James H. Charlesworth) Doubleday (New York, NY: 1985), Vol. 2, p. 69-70

Pseudo-Phocylides likewise declares:

“Honor God foremost, and afterward your parents.”²⁷⁾The Sentence of Pseudo-Phocylides, 8; in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Ed. James H. Charlesworth) Doubleday (New York, NY: 1985), Vol. 2, p. 574

Similarly, the Sibylline Oracles describes the Jews as those who

“honor only the Immortal who always rules, and then their parents.”²⁸⁾The Sibylline Oracles, 3.593; in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Ed. James H. Charlesworth) Doubleday (New York, NY: 1983), Vol. 1, p. 375

These sources demonstrate that the relationship between honoring God and honoring parents was widely recognized in ancient Jewish thought.

The second and fourth commandments further associate the concepts of idolatry and Sabbath violation. This arrangement leaves the prohibition against taking the name of the LORD in vain as the central emphasis of the first table. This command does not merely forbid the use of God’s name as a curse, but rather prohibits any irreverent or casual use of the divine name without the reverence it deserves.

Understanding this command as the central command of the first table helps explain why Philo attributed to Moses the original prohibition against speaking the divine name.²⁹⁾Philo, On the Life of Moses, 2.204; in The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged New Updated Version (Trans. C. D. Yonge), (Peabody, MA: 1997), p. 509 Although the Masoretic Hebrew text does not contain the chiastic arrangement of the second table—confirmed by the order of the commandments cited in Matthew—it nevertheless preserves the chiastic structure evident in the first table.

The Septuagint, however, likely reflects ancient textual traditions in which the second table also followed a chiastic arrangement. This order is supported by independent witnesses such as Philo, Mark, Luke, and Paul, suggesting that the rhetorical structure recognized in the Greek tradition may preserve an early interpretive tradition concerning the arrangement of the commandments.