Why This Follow-Up Matters
In our earlier article, Zephaniah 3:9 Refuted: Does the Bible Predict Islam, Arabic, or Muslim Prayer?, we demonstrated from the Hebrew text and full context of Zephaniah that the verse has nothing to do with Arabic as a “pure language,” calling on “Allah,” or Islamic salah practices. It instead prophesies the purification of speech from idolatry so that peoples (including Gentiles) will call on the name of YHWH (the LORD) and serve Him in unity.
The author of the original post, Ijaz Ahmad of Calling Christians, responded in the comment section by engaging Rev. Samuel Green. Later, he directed readers to an older article titled ‘We Lost the Name of God’ – Christians & Jews (posted September 7, 2012). In that piece, he uses a quotation from the 19th-century Methodist commentator Adam Clarke to argue that Jews lost the pronunciation of the divine name, implying Christians cannot reliably call on the true God either.
This exchange highlights a common tactic: when the textual and contextual evidence is challenged, the discussion shifts to accusations of textual corruption or “lost” revelation. In this post, we walk through the entire engagement case by case, clarify the issues raised, correct the misuse of sources, and reaffirm what Zephaniah 3:9 actually teaches.
The Debate with Rev. Samuel Green: Point-by-Point
Samuel Green’s First Response (July 19, 2019):
Samuel pointed out two key problems:
1. Zephaniah 3:9 resolves the issue of corrupted speech and idolatry mentioned earlier in the book (e.g., Zephaniah 1:5, where people swear by both the LORD and Molech). The “pure speech” is confession of YHWH alone, not Arabic.
2. The verse explicitly says people will call on the name of Yahweh, not Allah. These are distinct names, just as Yahweh and Molech are distinct.
Ijaz Ahmad’s Reply:
Ijaz dismissed the idolatry context, claimed the verse means God will convert believers to a “pure tongue” (Arabic), and suggested that the presence of YHWH in the Hebrew text is a “later reintroduction” and “anachronistic.”
Samuel Green’s Follow-Up:
Samuel reiterated the book-level context (idolatry → pure confession of YHWH) and asked for evidence that the Hebrew does not say Yahweh.
Ijaz Ahmad’s Final Reply (July 26, 2019):
Ijaz linked to his 2012 article and questioned the reliability of the Hebrew text regarding YHWH, implying Jews altered or lost the name.
This exchange ends without further reply from Samuel, leaving Ijaz’s claims unchallenged in that thread. Let’s address them directly.
Examining the Core Issues Raised
1. Context of Zephaniah 3:9
As detailed in our previous post and Samuel Green’s comments, the verse directly answers the problem of syncretism and false worship throughout Zephaniah. Chapter 1 condemns calling on other gods alongside the LORD. Chapter 3 promises purification so that all peoples call sincerely on YHWH alone. This has nothing to do with adopting a new liturgical language (Arabic) centuries later. The “pure lips/speech” (saphah berurah) refers to cleansed, truthful worship free from idolatrous oaths — a moral and spiritual purification, not a linguistic one.
2. The Name in Zephaniah 3:9
The Hebrew text of Zephaniah 3:9 explicitly reads beshem YHWH (“in the name of YHWH”). This is not a “later reintroduction.” Ancient manuscripts, including the Masoretic Text and earlier witnesses, consistently contain the Tetragrammaton here. Suggesting it was anachronistically added ignores the textual evidence and the prophetic emphasis on the covenant name of Israel’s God.
3. “Pure Language” and Arabic
Arabic is a Semitic language, but so are Hebrew, Aramaic, and others. The prophecy does not specify or require any particular human language for worship. The New Testament shows the gospel spreading in multiple languages (Acts 2), with people calling on the Lord in their own tongues. Requiring Arabic for valid worship contradicts the universal scope of the prophecy.
Addressing Ijaz’s 2012 Article: “We Lost the Name of God”
Ijaz quotes Adam Clarke’s commentary on 2 Corinthians 12:4 (“things that cannot be told, which man may not utter”):
“The Jews thought that the Divine name, the Tetragrammaton Yehovah, should not be uttered, and that it is absolutely unlawful to pronounce it; indeed they say that the true pronunciation is utterly lost…”
He then concludes that Jews lost God’s name, Christians inherited this loss, and therefore cannot reliably call on the true God.
This is a significant misrepresentation of Clarke and of Jewish practice.
What Adam Clarke Actually Meant:
Clarke is describing a well-known Jewish reverential custom — not a literal loss of the name or textual corruption. By the late Second Temple period, many Jews avoided pronouncing the Tetragrammaton aloud out of deep reverence (to avoid misusing it per the Third Commandment). When reading Scripture, they substituted Adonai (“Lord”). The Masoretes later added the vowels of Adonai to the consonants YHWH as a reminder to readers. This is a reading tradition, not evidence that the name itself was lost or that the Hebrew Bible was altered
You can read the entire commentary here for context
Clarke is making a devotional point about reverence for God’s majesty — he is not arguing that the divine name is unknowable or that revelation failed. Jewish scholars and Christian Hebraists have long known the likely pronunciation as Yahweh (based on ancient inscriptions, theophoric names, and early Christian and Greek sources). The name was never “lost” in the text; it appears over 6,800 times in the Hebrew Bible.
Jewish Practice Is Not Textual Corruption:
The Hebrew manuscripts (including those from Qumran/Dead Sea Scrolls) preserve YHWH consistently. Substituting Adonai in reading is a liturgical custom born of reverence, not an attempt to hide or change the name.
Christians translate it as “LORD” (following the Septuagint’s Kyrios) while recognizing the underlying name is YHWH. This does not mean we don’t know or call on the God of the Bible.
Ijaz’s leap from this custom to “Jews lost the name… Christians don’t know whose name they are calling” is unwarranted. The God revealed in the Old Testament — the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob — is the same God Christians worship through Jesus Christ, who bears the divine name (John 17:11-12; Philippians 2:9-11).
Answering Key Questions Raised by Ijaz
Did Jews replace YHWH in the text?
No. The written text preserved YHWH. The substitution was oral during public reading.
Is the presence of YHWH in Zephaniah 3:9 “anachronistic”?
No. It fits the prophetic context perfectly and is attested in the earliest manuscripts.
Can Christians call on God’s name?
Yes. We call on the name of the LORD (YHWH) who revealed Himself fully in Jesus Christ — the name above every name.
Does this prove the Bible is unreliable?
No. The reverential tradition demonstrates the high view of God’s holiness held by Jews, not corruption.
Conclusion
The debate over Zephaniah 3:9 ultimately returns to the same issues: proper context, respect for the Hebrew text, and fidelity to what the prophet actually wrote. Rev. Samuel Green correctly highlighted the book’s internal logic — purification from idolatry leading to exclusive confession of YHWH. Attempts to insert Arabic, Islamic practices, or accusations of a “lost name” require reading foreign ideas into the text while sidelining its plain meaning.
Far from being lost, the name of the covenant God stands firm in Scripture. Christians do not worship an unknown or altered deity; we worship the living God who calls all peoples to pure speech and unified service — fulfilled ultimately in the gospel of Jesus Christ, where people from every nation call on the name of the Lord and are saved (Romans 10:13).
When engaging such claims, we should return to the text, its context, and sound exegesis. The God of Zephaniah is the same God who invites us today: “Call upon me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you, and you shall glorify me” (Psalm 50:15).
Leave a Reply