Restoring the Name Jehovah to the New Testament?

In the October 2018 episode of JW Broadcasting, governing body member Geoffrey Jackson gave the theme talk entitled: “Father Glorify Your Name”. During the talk he gave an illustration that explains the Watchtower society’s rationale behind inserting the name Jehovah in the Greek portion of the New World Translation:

“It’s important to note that the divine name is used consistently in fragments of the Septuagint that date from the first century BCE and the first century CE. This has led some scholars to acknowledge the possibility that Jesus and his disciples used the divine name when making these quotations. But we need to remember that Hebrew scripture quotations account for approximately one third of the 237 times the New World Translation restores the divine name in the Christian Greek Scriptures. So, what about the other two thirds of occurrences? Well this brings us to the part of our program that involves some detective work.

Imagine that you are a detective and you catch an art thief who has stolen over 200 original pieces of art from various museums and art galleries. This thief not only stole each piece of art but he also substituted it with a copy. So you need to start an investigation and follow the clues. First of all, you need to find out where each piece was located originally. Once you have verified that fakes were hanging in those locations you would be in a position to return the originals to their proper locations. In a similar way, we have solid evidence that a crime was committed in the second and third century CE. Apostate Christians removed God’s name from manuscripts of the Bible and replaced it with kurios, the Greek word for lord. There is much evidence for this conclusion. So they are like the art thief in our illustration. They stole something valuable when they removed Jehovah’s name from the Christian Greek scriptures. But we have a problem. There are no copies of the Christian Greek scriptures from the first century for us to examine. The earliest existing manuscripts that would have a bearing on this matter date from the late second century onward. A time when we know that the crime had already been committed. Jehovah’s name had already been removed. So how do we know where Jehovah’s name originally appeared in the Greek text before the apostates removed it? Well, just like the detective in our illustration, we need to start an investigation and follow the clues. To do our work properly we need to examine every time the word lord appears in the text and see if it refers to Jehovah, to Jesus or to some other person with the title lord. Basically there are five clues that will help us to find out where the original art work, that is Jehovah’s name, needs to be returned to. Let’s scrutinize these clues.[1]

This illustration rests upon the assumption that a crime has been committed and that the thief has already been caught. But has he? What is the solid evidence? Unlike the scenario of the art thief, none of the more than 5,000 early manuscripts of the Greek scriptures have been found containing the tetragrammaton so as to know that it was removed. That would be like going to a museum, examining a work of art and trying to determine it is fake without having the original to compare it to nor having any evidence that it had been replaced. Then launching an investigation of all the art, not only in this museum, but in all other museums and galleries as well, presuming there must fakes to be found and that an elaborate cover-up must have taken place in order to hide the evidence. Just how though, does one go about returning the originals to their proper locations prior to having found them? Does this not amount to accusing early Christian copyists of being thieves and apostates without any evidence of their having committed such a crime? Besides, how could they be apostates if they never abandoned Christianity? In any event, Geoffrey Jackson would have us believe that clues amount to evidence. The Watch Tower Society argues that the discovery of the Tetragrammaton in some of the most ancient copies (actually fragmentary copies) of the Septuagint Version is proof that it was originally copied into the Christian writings. But without the discovery of at least one particle of any Christian writing containing the tetragrammaton this must be relegated at best to only a theory.

As late as the fourth century C.E., Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate, says in his prologue to the books of Samuel and Kings: “And we find the name of God, the Tetragrammaton [i.e., יהוה], in certain Greek volumes even to this day expressed in ancient letters.”

Since Jerome is commenting on the Hebrew scriptures or Old Testament, the Greek volumes he is speaking about is the translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek known as the Septuagint. However, if the divine name originally occurred in the Christian scriptures it is indeed puzzling why neither Jerome nor any of the apostolic fathers mentions a surviving copy containing the divine name.

However, to be fair, let’s examine what Jackson considers clues:

1. Quotations From the Old Testament:

The first clue is, as we have already mentioned, the easiest clue where the title lord appears in quotations from the Hebrew scriptures that originally used the divine name.

First it must be proven that the original writers quoted the Hebrew scriptures exactly as written. Otherwise, instead of a clue it is nothing more than speculation. In Watchtower articles dealing with this subject it is claimed that the gospel writers as well as Peter, Paul, James and Jude originally included the Hebrew tetragrammaton in their writings, even though they wrote in Greek[2]. But why write four Hebrew letters in a Greek document? If it was important that all people know the name of God why not translate the name into a Greek equivalent for the benefit of the Gentiles that could not read or understand Hebrew? Names of persons such as Cephas, Saul, Dorcas, even Jesus are translated, why not the most important one?

How can we be certain that they were not inspired by God to use the term Lord? Even the Watchtower admits the original writers did not always quote the Hebrew scriptures verbatim:

“At times, some object to the fact that Bible writers do not always seem to agree on matters relating to figures, order of events, wording of quotations, and so forth. But consider: If you were to ask several eyewitnesses of an event to write down what they saw, would all accounts coincide entirely in wording and detail? If they did, would you not be suspicious of collusion among the writers? So, too, Bible writers were allowed by God to retain their own particular style and language, while he saw to it that his ideas and pertinent facts were conveyed accurately.

Quotations from earlier writings might be altered slightly from the original statements to meet the needs and purpose of the new writer, while still retaining the basic sense and thought. [bold mine] The same could be said about groupings of events. One writer may follow a strict chronological order, while another may list the events according to their association with ideas. Omissions would likewise be according to the writer’s viewpoint and his condensation of the account. (The Watchtower February 1, 1988 pg. 5)

This would also have to apply to the next two supposed clues:

2. Hebrew Idiom:

The second clue is where the Greek text contains a Hebrew idiom that would normally contain the divine name. For example, if someone says in English: “He escaped by the skin of his…” what word do you expect? Teeth. Not eye. Yes, the expression is “skin of his teeth”. This is similar with Hebrew expressions. Some of these contain the divine name. For example the expression found at Matthew 1:20 is “the angel of Jehovah”. So whenever we find a Greek translation of a Hebrew idiom that uses the divine name this is another clue that Jehovah’s name should be there.

3. Old Testament Context:

The third clue is where the term lord appears in the context surrounding a quotation that is originally attributed to Jehovah. An example of this is Matthew 1:22. “All of this came about to fulfill what was spoken by Jehovah through his prophet, saying…” The quotation that immediately follows it, Matthew 1:23, is taken from Isaiah 7:14. This is a prophetic message spoken by Jehovah through Isaiah.

However, when discussing another New Testament quotation of the book of Isaiah, the book “Reasoning From the Scriptures stated:

Application to Jesus Christ by inspired Bible writers of passages from the Hebrew Scriptures that clearly apply to Jehovah

Why does John 1:23 quote Isaiah 40:3 and apply it to what John the Baptizer did in preparing the way for Jesus Christ, when Isaiah 40:3 is clearly discussing preparing the way before Jehovah? Because Jesus represented his Father. He came in his Father’s name and had the assurance that his Father was always with him because he did the things pleasing to his Father.—John 5:43; 8:29. (Reasoning From the Scriptures pg. 414)

Sometimes even though the original Old Testament context refers to someone other than Jesus the society recognizes that the Christian writer can make an application of the verse to Christ. The same section of Reasoning From the Scriptures states the following:

“Why does Hebrews 1:10-12 quote Psalm 102:25-27 and apply it to the Son, when the psalm says that it is addressed to God? Because the Son is the one through whom God performed the creative works there described by the psalmist. (See Colossians 1:15, 16; Proverbs 8:22, 27-30.) It should be observed in Hebrews 1:5b that a quotation is made from 2 Samuel 7:14 and applied to the Son of God. Although that text had its first application to Solomon, the later application of it to Jesus Christ does not mean that Solomon and Jesus are the same. Jesus is “greater than Solomon” and carries out a work foreshadowed by Solomon.—Luke 11:31.

“Sometimes a text in the Hebrew Scriptures refers to Jehovah, but by virtue of His delegation of power and authority, it is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Psalm 34:8, for example, invites us to “taste and see that Jehovah is good.” But Peter applies this to the Lord Jesus Christ when he says: “Provided you have tasted that the Lord is kind.” (1 Peter 2:3) Peter takes a principle and shows how it is true also of Jesus Christ. By taking in knowledge of both Jehovah God and Jesus Christ and acting upon it, Christians can enjoy rich blessings from both the Father and his Son. (John 17:3) Peter’s application does not make the Sovereign Lord Jehovah one person with the Lord Jesus Christ.—See footnote to 1 Peter 2:3. (The Watchtower June 1, 1994 pg. 30)

So to say that the Christian writers were obliged to write the tetragrammaton whenever it appears in a Hebrew quote is not entirely accurate.

4. No Greek Definite Article:

“The fourth clue is when we see in the Greek text where there is no definite article before kurios, the Greek word for lord in places where the Greek grammar would normally expect a definite article. This clue may indicate that a proper name, such as Jehovah, originally was there in the text and was removed from later manuscripts and replaced with kurios. To illustrate the importance of this clue, imagine that you are a newspaper reporter who is reporting on a car accident. You report that Joe Smith, the driver of the vehicle, was killed in the accident. But just before the story goes to press, your editor informs you that Joe Smith’s relatives have not yet been notified of his death. So you are told to remove his name from the report. You do that. But in doing so, you forget to add the word the, before the word driver. What would happen? Your report would say: “As a result of the accident driver was killed”. That sounds strange doesn’t it? It sounds like driver is the name of the person killed. That’s because you suppressed the name but forgot to add the appropriate article. That is similar to what our symbolic art thieves did when removing Jehovah’s name from the Bible. An example of this is found in the Greek text of Mark 13:20: “In fact, unless lord had cut short the days, no flesh would be saved,”. That sounds like lord is a name, and clearly it should be Jehovah’s name. That’s why the New World Translation restores the name Jehovah to this verse. However, even in cases where the definite article occurs before the word lord there might be other reasons for viewing lord as a substitute for the divine name. Like the ones we have already discussed.”

It would seem that in order for this to happen the copyists would have to have been ignorant of Greek grammar. Not only that but, if this is in fact similar to the English example given by Jackson, this oddity would have been noticed by Greek readers. Yet, is there any evidence of discussion among early Christians concerning this puzzling grammatical construction? How likely is it that in all history, those on the New World Translation committee are the only ones to discover that blunder?

Regarding the absence of the definite article, Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon writes:

“Since it is the business, not of the lexicographer, but of the grammarian, to exhibit the instances in which the article is omitted in the N.T. where according to the laws of our language it would have been expected, we refer those interested in this matter to the Grammars of Winer and Alex Buttmann^[3] and only add the following remarks:

1. More or less frequently the art[icle] is wanting before appellatives of persons or things of which only one of the kind exists, so that the art.[icle] Is not needed to distinguish the individual from others of the same kind, as helios, ge, theos, Kristos, pneuma hagion, zoe aionos, Thanatos, nekroi (of the whole assembly of the dead [see nekros, 1 b. p. 423b]) ; and also of those persons and things which the connection of discourse clearly shows to be well-defined, as nomos (the Mosaic law see nomos, 2 p. 428a]) , kurios, pater, huios, aner (husband), gune (wife), etc.

2. Prepositions which with their cases designate a state and condition, or a place, or a mode of acting, usually have an anarthrous noun after them; as, eis phulaken, en phulake, eis aera, ek pisteos, kata sarka, ep elpidi, par elpida, ap agoras, ap agrou, en agro, eis odon, en hemerais Herodou, eis hemeran apolutroseos, and numberless other examples.

(Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon pg. 437)

Thayer’s Lexicon begins by deferring to a grammarian. What does Winer have to say?

“Paul commonly uses Kurios to denote God, and ho Kurios, Christ; but there are examples in him of different usage, e.g. Kurios for Christ 1 Cor, 7:22; 10:21; 2 Cor 3:16; and so en Kurios frequently. So ho Kurios is used for God, 1 Cor. 3:5; 10:26. See Gabler New.theol. Journal, 4 B. p. 11-24.” (A Greek Grammar of the New Testament of George Benedict Winer pgs. 55,56)

How does the New World Translation render the verses in Winer’s list of examples?

Kurios for Christ:

For anyone who was called in [the] Lord when a slave is the Lord’s freedman; likewise anyone who was called when a freeman is a slave of Christ. (1 Corinthians 7:22)

Notice that the definite article is placed here in brackets because it does not occur in the Greek text. Why is the verse not translated “called in Jehovah”? Neither in the second instance does kurios have the definite article. But because it is possessive it is commonly translated in English with the definite article.

You cannot be drinking the cup of Jehovah and the cup of demons; you cannot be partaking of “the table of Jehovah” and the table of demons. (1 Corinthians 10:21)

The reason kurios does not have the definite article in this verse is because it is in the possessive and should be properly rendered “of the lord”.

But when one turns to Jehovah, the veil is taken away. (2 Corinthians 3:16)

A careful consideration of the context of both 1 Corinthians 10:21 and 2 Corinthians 3:16 reveals that Lord refers to Christ although the New World Translation inserts Jehovah.[4]  The expression “in Lord” [en Kurios] without the article occurs 34 times in the New World Translation. In each case the English definite article [the] is inserted in brackets in the text as in 1 Corinthians 7:22 above. Not a single one inserts Jehovah.

Ho Kurios for God:

What, then, is A·polʹlos? Yes, what is Paul? Ministers through whom you became believers, just as the Lord granted each one. (1 Corinthians 3:5)

for “to Jehovah belong the earth and everything in it.” (1 Corinthians 10:26)

Although the Lord in both of these verses is ambiguous, in chapter 3 the context weighs more in favor of God according to verses 6-9. And yet it is puzzling why the New World Translation does not insert Jehovah here. 1 Corinthians 10:26 is an obvious quote from Psalm 24:1 referring to Jehovah.

A word about Mark 13:20:

In fact, unless Jehovah had cut short the days, no flesh would be saved. But on account of the chosen ones whom he has chosen, he has cut short the days. (Mark 13:20)

It is possible that Jesus is alluding to past judgments of his Father upon the nation in which a remnant were spared:

Unless Jehovah of armies had left us a few survivors, We should have become just like Sodʹom, And we should have resembled Go·morʹrah. (Isaiah 1:9)

“But there will still be a tenth in it, and it will again be burned, like a big tree and like an oak, which after they are cut down leave a stump; a holy seed will be its stump.” (Isaiah 6:13)

This is what Jehovah says: “Just as when new wine is found in a cluster of grapes And someone says, ‘Do not destroy it, for there is some good in it,’ So I will do for the sake of my servants; I will not destroy them all.  ⁹ I will bring out of Jacob an offspring And out of Judah the one to inherit my mountains; My chosen ones will take possession of it, And my servants will reside there. (Isaiah 65:8, 9)

“And in all the land,” declares Jehovah, “Two parts in it will be cut off and perish; And the third part will be left remaining in it.  ⁹ And I will bring the third part through the fire; And I will refine them as silver is refined, And test them as gold is tested. They will call on my name, And I will answer them. I will say, ‘They are my people,’ And they will say, ‘Jehovah is our God.’” (Zechariah 13:8, 9)

Thus there appears to be no need to appeal to a questionable rule of Greek grammar being violated by Kyrios appearing without the definite article. In fact, by their insertion, for other reasons, of the name Jehovah even in places where the definite article occurs with kurios it would seem the society negates its own argument. Additionally, even in English there are certain words that carry such significance we would consider them one of a kind words. To illustrate, what if Mark 13:20 originally said: ” In fact, unless God [Greek Theos without the definite article] had cut short the days, no flesh would be saved. The society would likely not have felt a need to insert Jehovah here even though God is not a name. Why? Because God in English is usually understood in the supreme sense even though there are many gods. For first century Christians a similar situation existed for kyrios in Greek. (1 Cor. 8:5,6)

Finally, if the absence of the definite article is an indication that a name was present what is to be said of cases where a name occurs in Greek with the definite article?

5. Added to Avoid Ambiguity:

“The final clue is where the divine name needs to be added to avoid ambiguity. An example of this is in Mark 5:19. There Jesus says to a man he has healed “Go home to your relatives, and report to them all the things Jehovah has done for you and the mercy he has shown you.” How do we know that lord here refers to Jehovah and not Jesus? Well, in recording the same event Luke 8:39 uses the Greek word theos, God, supporting the thought that kurios lord in Mark 5:19 is used with reference to Jehovah God.”

This follows the pattern of a paraphrase version of the Bible where the translators allow themselves to make interpretive decisions for the reader. Interestingly, kurios appears in this verse with the definite article so a different reason has to be appealed to in order to insert Jehovah in the verse. However, if the decision is mistaken would not the reader be misled? For example:

Then they prayed and said: “You, O Jehovah, who know the hearts of all, designate which one of these two men you have chosen (Acts 1:24 NWT)

On this verse, The New International Commentary of the New Testament states:

The question whether the “Lord” to whom it is addressed is God the Father or the Lord Jesus is probably settled by the fact that the same verb is used in verse Act_1:24 (“thou hast chosen”) as in verse Act_1:2 (“the apostles whom he [Jesus] had chosen”). [Gk. ἐκλέγομαι.] The same Lord who had chosen the apostles at the beginning of his ministry would choose this replacement for Judas. (NICNT)

The first account, O The·ophʹi·lus, I composed about all the things Jesus started to do and to teach ² until the day that he was taken up, after he had given instructions through holy spirit to the apostles he had chosen. (Acts 1:1, 2)

Rather than by adding to or changing God’s inspired word, why not just cross reference Mark 5:19 with Luke 8:39? That would certainly relieve the ambiguity while at the same time prevent the translator from going beyond the things that have been written. On the other hand, since Jehovah chose to accomplish many things by means of his Son why is avoiding ambiguity even necessary? Should it really matter whether God did it or Jesus did it with God’s power?

“Do you not believe that I am in union with the Father and the Father is in union with me? The things I say to you I do not speak of my own originality, but the Father who remains in union with me is doing his works. (John 14:10)

Jackson concludes:

“So, these five clues help the New World Translation Committee to ascertain where the name Jehovah should be restored to the biblical text. In this way they were able to right the wrong that was committed by apostate Christians in the second and third centuries. Or in other words, they were able to return the figurative pieces of stolen art work to their proper places.”  (Geoffrey Jackson JW Broadcasting October 2018)

Think for a moment of a museum responsible for safeguarding priceless works of art. Would they not take care to have installed the most elaborate advanced security measures in order to prevent theft? If it were reported that thousands, perhaps millions of dollars worth of art were stolen and replaced with couterfeits what would that say about the reliability of that museum? In the same way, instead of magnifying God, Jackson’s illustration actually discredits God’s ability to be the chief curator and preserver of his own word.

At this point I think it is appropriate to consider the observations of former member of the governing body Raymond Franz:

“The Watch Tower Society’s position is remarkably inconsistent.

On the one hand, the Society argues that the writers of the Christian Scriptures originally included some form of the Tetragrammaton in their writings. On the other hand, the Society makes the repeated acknowledgment that those Christian Scriptures were preserved with remarkable accuracy. Its publication Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2, page 314, quotes Professor Kurt Aland as stating:

“The text of the New Testament has been excellently transmitted, better than any other writing from ancient times; the possibility that manuscripts might yet be found that would change its text decisively is zero.”

In the April 1, 1977, issue of the Watchtower, after quoting world-renowned Greek text scholar F. J. A. Hort as saying,

 “the amount of what can in any sense be called substantial variation [in the ancient copies of the Christian Scriptures] can hardly form more than a thousandth part of the entire text,”

the Watchtower itself went on to say (page 219):

“Whatever version of the Christian Scriptures you possess, there is no reason to doubt that the Greek text upon which it is based represents with considerable fidelity what the inspired authors of these Bible books originally wrote. Though now nearly 2,000 years removed from the time of their original composition, the Greek text of the Christian Scriptures is a marvel of accurate transmission.”

Numerous articles stressing the purity and accuracy of the Bible text credit such preservation to the deep respect for the divine record and intense concern for fidelity of transmission on the part of the copyists, and to the influence of the “Divine Author of the Bible.” Thus, an article in the Awake! magazine of May 8, 1985 (page 14) says that, since God inspired the original writings, “It is logical that he would oversee a faithful transmittal of his Word down to our present day.”

The problem here is that the organization denies its own position in its claims with regard—not to some trivial omission or variation—but with regard to something they view as one of the most important of all the features of the Scriptures, the name represented by the Tetragrammaton. For they, in effect, are saying that God, who exercised his divine influence to preserve the Greek text of the Christian Scriptures so that it is “a marvel of accurate transmission,” at the same time failed to see to it that some form of the name “Jehovah” was preserved in even so much as a single one of the approximately 5,000 ancient manuscript copies of those Christian Scriptures.

If the tremendous importance that the organization attaches to the Tetragrammaton is soundly based, how could this possibly be so? Why, too, is it the case that quotations can be made of Jerome, Origen and others of times as late as the fourth century A.D. that the Tetragrammaton was still to be found in copies of the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, yet not a single statement can be produced from any early Christian writer saying that it ever appeared in any of the copies of the Christian Scriptures or New Testament?

If the Tetragrammaton could be found in a Greek translation of the pre-Christian Old Testament, why should it not logically be found either in some actual copy of the original Greek text of the Christian Scriptures or at least in one of the ancient translations thereof? If it had ever been there in the original writings, certainly God, who is credited with assuring the fidelity of its transmission to our present time, would have made certain that it was preserved—at least He would have if he attached to it the supreme importance that the Watch Tower Society attaches to it. The fact that it was not preserved in any ancient text of the Christian Scriptures or even in any of the earliest translations thereof weighs heavily against its ever having been there in the first place. (Raymond V. Franz “In Search of Christian Freedom” pgs. 503-504)

Jason David Beduhn associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University, in Flagstaff wrote a letter to the NWT publishers that was reported on in the Watchtower magazine in an article entitled: “A Remarkably Good Translation”:

“While critical of some of its translation choices, BeDuhn called the New World Translation a “remarkably good” translation, “better by far” and “consistently better” than some of the others considered. Overall, concluded BeDuhn, the New World Translation “is one of the most accurate English translations of the New Testament currently available” and “the most accurate of the translations compared.”—Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament. (The Watchtower December 1, 2004 pg. 30)

 In classic Watchtower fashion however, only the praise is reported. Why not present the other side of the coin? What were some of his criticisms of its translation choices? On the insertion of the name Jehovah in the New Testament portion BeDuhn, commented:

“The main problem, as the editors of the NW see it, is the ambiguity surrounding the use of “lord” in the New Testament. This rather generic title is used not only of God, but also of Jesus and other figures in the books of the New Testament. The editors of the NW point out that the ambiguity leads to confusion between God and Jesus and leaves the reader uncertain as to whom a passage refers. Carefully distinguishing God from Jesus by using the name Jehovah for the former, the NW resolves ambiguity in a way that keeps these two personages distinct and aids in the formulation of theology and Christology by showing which entity is responsible for which activities in the thinking of the biblical authors.

These are reasonable points, but fundamentally matters of interpretation rather than translation. The clarification that the NW editors seek to bring to the Bible can only be a matter of translation if it is based upon something in the original Greek text. Since there is nothing in that original Greek text as it is known to us in the surviving manuscripts to provide the basis for the desired clarification, it cannot legitimately be made in the English translation itself.”

“It may be that someday a Greek manuscript of some portion of the New Testament will be found, let’s say a particularly early one, that has the Hebrew letters YHWH in some of the verses listed above. When that happens, when evidence is at hand, biblical researchers will have to give due consideration to the views held by the NW editors. Until that day, translators must follow the manuscript tradition as it is currently known, even if some of its characteristics appear to us puzzling, perhaps even inconsistent with what we believe. Anything translators want to add to clarify the meaning of ambiguous passages, such as those where “Lord” might refer to either God or to the Son of God, can and should be put into footnotes, while keeping the Bible itself in the words given to us.” (Jason BeDuhn Truth In Translation pg. 176-178)

But if the name was not originally included by the New Testament writers how does one account for the apparent inconsistency between the Old Testament which contains the divine name nearly 7,000 times and it’s virtual disappearance in the New Testament?

The answer to this question will be considered in a future article.

---

[1] These 5 reasons are also presented in appendix c of the 2019 New World Translation Study Edition

[2] See Insight on the Scriptures vol. 2 pg. 10

[3] cf. also Green; Middleton, The Doctrine of the Greek Article and particularly with reference to Granville Sharpe’s doctrine (Remarks on the uses of the Def. Art. In the Grk. Text of the N.T.), a tract by C. Winstanley (A Vindication etc.)

[4] See 1 Cor. 10:14-17 where it is clear the subject is partaking of the body and blood of Christ. Also 2 Cor. 3:14 where it is clearly stated that the veil is done away with by means of Christ.