The following is from pages 12-15 of the February 2007 Pentecostal Herald.
Loving the Right Name
by Daniel Segraves
Because Oneness Pentecostals love the name of our Lord intensely, we may be intrigued when we hear of teachings that supposedly present the Messiah’s name even more accurately. We should be careful of such claims, however, for they can lead the unwary away from the Lord rather than closer to Him.
One example is the notion that the Messiah’s true name is not Jesus, but Yahshua. This claim may be presented with a show of knowledge of the Hebrew language, with the claim that the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew, and with the assertion that the name “Jesus” is a corruption connected with the ancient Greek god Zeus. These claims are not true, and those who make them do not demonstrate an accurate knowledge of the Hebrew language.
The name “Jesus” is the English rendering of the Greek Iesous, which is used throughout the inspired Greek New Testament as the Messiah’s name, beginning in Matthew 1:1. Iesous is the Greek rendering from the Hebrew Yeshua’, which is an abbreviated form of the Hebrew Yehoshua’. Both names, abbreviated or not, mean “Yahweh is Savior.” “Yahweh-Savior,” or “Yahweh will save.” This is why the angel told Joseph, “And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21, NKJV).
If a person is not familiar with the Hebrew language, it may seem that Yahshua and Yeshua’ are the same. They are not. Yahshua is an invented non-word., without meaning. It never appears in the inspired Hebrew text of the Old Testament. Yeshua’ and Yehoshua’ both appear in the Old Testament. The name of Moses’ successor was originally Hoshea’, the Hiphil infinitive form of yasha’ which means “salvation.” But Moses changed his name to Yehoshua’. (See Numbers 13:16.) During the exile, Yehoshua’ was shortened to Yeshua’. (See Ezra 3:2). The translation of Yeshua’ in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures quoted most frequently in the New Testament, is identical to the spelling in the New Testament. (See Revelation 22:16).
The reason the name of our Lord is so significant is due to something identified by scholars as the Hebrew “theology of name.” In many cases, the names found in Scripture were much more significant than names are in today’s Western culture. Often, in the Bible, a person’s name was virtually equivalent to the person. Bible names have meaning; many of them are complete sentences, including subjects, verbs, and even direct objects.
Biblical names could represent a person’s identity, character, reputation, works, and worth. The name Adam, for instance, means “earthling.” Eve means “life.” One well-known example is Nabal, whose name means “fool.” Satan means “adversary.”
There were occasions in the Old Testament when God changed the names of people to indicate a change of destiny. For example, God renamed Abram as “Abraham.” The name Abram means “high father.” But since Abram had no children, some scholars think this name “was only a sour joke.” *1 If so, the joke was turned around when God named him “Abraham” to identify him as the “father of many.”
On another occasion, God renamed Jacob as “Israel.” Jacob means “heel grabber,” “supplanter,” or “deceiver.” His new name was intended to indicate that he had power with God.
Even in the New Testament we can see the significance of names. Jesus changed Simon’s name, which means “to hear,” to Peter, which means “a rock.” To this day, devout Jews may change a person’s name when death draws near, on the theory that a name change may prolong life.
In today’s Western world, when parents are choosing names for their children, they often give no thought to the meaning of the name. Their attitude is perhaps like that expressed in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet: “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” But Lucy Maud Montgomery’s Anne Shirley disagreed: “I read in a book once that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but I’ve never been able to believe it. I don’t believe a rose would be as nice if it was called a thistle or a skunk cabbage.” *2 I agree with Anne. Names are important, and, ideally, they should describe as closely as possible the thing named.
It is not uncommon for parents to name their children after ancestors, political figures, sports heroes, famous singers, or even actors or actresses. Some parents even make up names that never before existed, naming their children because of the pleasant sound made by certain syllables when strung together. We saw an example of the modern approach to naming some years ago at Christian Life college when the student body included, at the same time, Nathaniel Urshan, Elvis Presley and Tony Curtis. This made for some interesting responses when we were calling the class roll!
The fact that the Messiah was named “Jesus” is significant for His identity. Although this was not a new name never held by anyone before, the Messiah was the first person ever to receive this name by divine appointment. When God names someone, it is intentional and informative. There is a reason God directed the angel of the Lord to tell Joseph to name Mary’s baby “Jesus.” It is because “He will save His people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21 NKJV). The first two letters of the Messiah’s name (Je) represent the Hebrew Yah, the abbreviation for Yahweh. (See Psalm 68:4)
to be continued in part 2
__________________
Sam also known as Jim Ellis
Apostolic in doctrine
Pentecostal in experience
Charismatic in practice
Non-denominational in affiliation
Inter-denominational in fellowship
The reason the name of our Lord is so significant is due to something identified by scholars as the Hebrew “theology of name.” In many cases, the names found in Scripture were much more significant than names are in today’s Western culture. Often, in the Bible, a person’s name was virtually equivalent to the person. Bible names have meaning; many of them are complete sentences, including subjects, verbs, and even direct objects.
Biblical names could represent a person’s identity, character, reputation, works, and worth. The name Adam, for instance, means “earthling.” Eve means “life.” One well-known example is Nabal, whose name means “fool.” Satan means “adversary.”
There were occasions in the Old Testament when God changed the names of people to indicate a change of destiny. For example, God renamed Abram as “Abraham.” The name Abram means “high father.” But since Abram had no children, some scholars think this name “was only a sour joke.” *1 If so, the joke was turned around when God named him “Abraham” to identify him as the “father of many.”
On another occasion, God renamed Jacob as “Israel.” Jacob means “heel grabber,” “supplanter,” or “deceiver.” His new name was intended to indicate that he had power with God.
Even in the New Testament we can see the significance of names. Jesus changed Simon’s name, which means “to hear,” to Peter, which means “a rock.” To this day, devout Jews may change a person’s name when death draws near, on the theory that a name change may prolong life.
In today’s Western world, when parents are choosing names for their children, they often give no thought to the meaning of the name. Their attitude is perhaps like that expressed in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet: “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” But Lucy Maud Montgomery’s Anne Shirley disagreed: “I read in a book once that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but I’ve never been able to believe it. I don’t believe a rose would be as nice if it was called a thistle or a skunk cabbage.” *2 I agree with Anne. Names are important, and, ideally, they should describe as closely as possible the thing named.
It is not uncommon for parents to name their children after ancestors, political figures, sports heroes, famous singers, or even actors or actresses. Some parents even make up names that never before existed, naming their children because of the pleasant sound made by certain syllables when strung together. We saw an example of the modern approach to naming some years ago at Christian Life college when the student body included, at the same time, Nathaniel Urshan, Elvis Presley and Tony Curtis. This made for some interesting responses when we were calling the class roll!
The fact that the Messiah was named “Jesus” is significant for His identity. Although this was not a new name never held by anyone before, the Messiah was the first person ever to receive this name by divine appointment. When God names someone, it is intentional and informative. There is a reason God directed the angel of the Lord to tell Joseph to name Mary’s baby “Jesus.” It is because “He will save His people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21 NKJV). The first two letters of the Messiah’s name (Je) represent the Hebrew Yah, the abbreviation for Yahweh. (See Psalm 68:4)
When Moses asked God what he should say when the Israelites asked the name of the God who sent him, God said, “I AM WHO I AM...Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I Am has sent me to you’’” (Exodus 3:14, NKJV). “I AM” is translated from the first person singular form of the Hebrew “to be” verb, hayah.
Later, God said to Moses, “I am the LORD, I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name LORD I was not known to them” (Exodus 6:2-3, NKJV). It is interesting and revelatory that the Hebrew word translated “LORD” is Yahweh, the third person singular form of the same verb translated “I AM.” this, when God described Himself to Moses, He used the first person singular form of the verb; when we describe Him, we use the third person singular form of the same verb.
When Moses renamed Hoshea’, it was a prophetic choice, for Joshua was in a very real sense a type of the coming Messiah. Then, Zechariah tells us of another Joshua, a high priest, who, in a symbolic act of great significance, is crowned. Under the Law of Moses, the priesthood and royalty were kept strictly separated. But his priest would be a king. The old categories would be overcome in the one Joshua prefigured. “Take the silver and gold, make an elaborate crown, and set it on the head of Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest. Then speak to him, saying, “Thus says the LORD of hosts, saying, ‘Behold, the Man who is the BRANCH! From His place He shall branch out, and He shall build the temple of the LORD; Yes, He shall build the temple of the LORD. He shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule on His throne; so He shall be a priest on His throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them both’” (Zechariah 6:11-13, NKJV).
Theologically, it is significant that both men named Joshua are found at the “seams” of the Hebrew Bible. The idea of “seams” refers to the locations where the sections of the Hebrew Scriptures meet. There are three sections, as Jesus indicated in Luke 24:44: Law, Prophets, and Psalms. In the Hebrew text, the books are arranged differently than they are in English translations, which follow the order of books in the Septuagint. The arrangement in the Hebrew Bible seems intentional and interpretive. In other words, the very order of the books helps with the interpretation of the books. In this case, the first Joshua is found with the first book in the prophets section bearing his name. The second Joshua is found in what we call the Minor Prophets, but to the Hebrews the Minor Prophets was a single volume, the Book of the Twelve. This is the final book in the prophets, just preceding the psalms section. So at the end of the law and the beginning of the prophets, we find Joshua. And at the end of the prophets and the beginning of the psalms, we find Joshua. In this final case, Joshua definitely prefigures the Messiah, who would be both High Priest and King.
When our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ came on the scene He came in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. And He came bearing the name which identified Him as Yahweh Himself, who would save His people from their sins. We must hold the name of Jesus dear, for it is the only saving name, the name upon which we call for salvation. (See Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21, 38; 4:12; 22:16; Romans 10:13).
*1. J.A. Motyer in New Bible Dictionary, 3rd ed. (eds. 1. Howard Marshal, et al.; Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 800
Daniel L. Segraves is the dean of theology and president of Christian Life College. He also serves as an adjunct professor at the Urshan Graduate School of Theology. Daniel earned the MA in Exegetical Theology and the ThM from Western Seminary. He is currently completing the PhD in Renewal Studies with a Concentration in Biblical Theology at Regent University.
__________________
Sam also known as Jim Ellis
Apostolic in doctrine
Pentecostal in experience
Charismatic in practice
Non-denominational in affiliation
Inter-denominational in fellowship
The following is from pages 4 and 5 of “The Jewish New Testament Commentary” by David H. Stern, copyright 1992
These are comments on Matthew 1:20 and 21 from The Jewish New Testament which read as follows:
But while he was thinking about this, an angel from ADONAI appeared to him in a dream and said, “Yosef, son of David, do not be afraid to take Miryam home with you as your wife; for what has been conceived in her is from the Ruach HaKodesh. She will give birth to a son, and you are to name him Yeshua [which means ‘ADONAI saves,’] because he will save his people from their sins.
20 Adonai, literally, “my lords”; but grammarians consider it the “plural of majesty”; so a slightly less literal translation would be “my Lord.” Long before Yeshua’s day. however, the word “Adonai” had, out of respect been substituted in speaking and reading aloud for God’s personal name, the four Hebrew letters yud-heh-vav-heh, variously written in English as “YHVH,” “Yahweh” and “Jehovah.” The Talmud (Pesachim 50a) made it a requirement not to pronounce the tetragrammaton (the word means the “four-letter name” of God), and this remains the rule in most modern Jewish settings. In deference to this tradition (which, in my view, is unnecessary but harmless) the JNT uses “Adonai” where “YHVH “ is meant. (Incidentally, the name “Jehovah” is a modern invention, an English hybrid based on the four Hebrew letters as transliterated into German, J-H-V-H, with the individually transliterated Hebrew vowel-points of “Adonai,” e-o-a.)
The Greek word here is “kurios,” which can mean (1) “sir,” (2) “lord” in the human sense, as in “lord of the manor,” (3) “Lord” in the divine sense, or (4) God’s personal name YHVH. The JNT uses “Adonai” only when one can be certain that “YHVH” is meant; it is not used if there is doubt. So far, editions of the JNT are conservative on this score; there are probably additional places in the text where “Adonai” could safely be substituted for “Lord.”
21 This verse is an example of a “semitism” (an allusion to Hebrew or Aramaic) brought over literally into the Greek text. It provides strong evidence in favor of the theory that there was a Hebrew or Aramaic oral or written tradition behind the extant Greek manuscripts, for only in Hebrew or Aramaic does the explanation here of Yeshua’s name make any sense; in Greek (or English) it explains nothing.
The Hebrew word for “he will save” is “yoshia’,” which has the same Hebrew root (yud-’shin-’ayin) as the name Yeshua (yud-shin-vav-’ayin). This the Messiah’s name is explained on the basis of what he will do. Etymologically the name Yeshua’ is a contraction of the Hebrew name Y’hoshua’ (English “Joshua”), which means “YHVH saves.” it is also the masculine form of the Hebrew word “yeshu’ah,” which means “salvation.”
The KJV renders this verse, “and thou shalt call his name Jesus; for he shall save his people from their sins.” But in English, saving people from sins is no more reason for calling someone Jesus than for calling him Bill or Frank. The Greek is no better; only in Hebrew or Aramaic does the explanation explain.
In modern Hebrew Yeshua is usually called Yeshu (yud-shin-vav, without an ‘ayin) by nonbelievers. This verse also shows why the name “Yeshu” cannot possibly be correct --it does not include all three letters of the Hebrew root of yoshia’. However, the matter bears further scrutiny.
According to Professors David Flusser and Shmuel Safrai, Orthodox Jews, “Yeshu” was how the name “Yeshua” was pronounced by Galilean Jews in the first century. We know from 26:73 below that Jews of the Galil had a different dialect than those of Judea. According to Flusser (Jewish Sources in Early Christianity, p. 15) Galileans did not pronounce the Hebrew letter ‘ayin at the end of a word, much as Cockneys drop the “h” at the beginning. That is, instead of saying “Ye-SHOO-ah” they said “YEH-shoo.” Undoubtedly some people began spelling he name according to this pronunciation.
However, that is not the end of the story. In Jewish anti-Christian polemic it became customary not to use Yeshua’s correct name but intentionally and consciously to use the distortion “Yeshu,” because at some point someone realized that “Yeshu” is also an acronym consisting of the first letters of the Hebrew insult, “Yimach sh’mo v’zikhro” (“May his name and memory be blotted out”; the words adapt and expand the last phrase of Psalm 109:13). Thus “Yeshu” was a kind of coded incantation against Christian evangelism. Moreover,since Yeshua came to be regarded in non-Messianic Judaism as a false prophet, blasphemer and idolater wrongly being worshipped as God, and since the Torah says, “You shall not even pronounce the names of their gods” (Exodus 3:13), the Messiah’s name was purposely mispronounced. Today most Israelis saying “Yeshu” suppose this is the man’s correct name and intend no disparagement. The JNT avoids “Yeshu” because of its history and also because in Hebrew it, like “Jesus” in English, carries the valence of “the god the Gentiles worship.”
But Yosef Vaktor reinterprets the acronym to praise Yeshua, “Yitgadal sh’mo umalhuto!!” (May his name and kingdom be magnified!”)
__________________
Sam also known as Jim Ellis
Apostolic in doctrine
Pentecostal in experience
Charismatic in practice
Non-denominational in affiliation
Inter-denominational in fellowship
Since the discussion has been brought over here I will also bring my comments here:
Bro Seagraves:
Because Oneness Pentecostals love the name of our Lord intensely, we may be intrigued when we hear of teachings that supposedly present the Messiah’s name even more accurately. We should be careful of such claims, however, for they can lead the unwary away from the Lord rather than closer to Him.
One example is the notion that the Messiah’s true name is not Jesus, but Yahshua. This claim may be presented with a show of knowledge of the Hebrew language, with the claim that the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew, and with the assertion that the name “Jesus” is a corruption connected with the ancient Greek god Zeus. These claims are not true, and those who make them do not demonstrate an accurate knowledge of the Hebrew language.
The name “Jesus” is the English rendering of the Greek Iesous, which is used throughout the inspired Greek New Testament as the Messiah’s name, beginning in Matthew 1:1. Iesous is the Greek rendering from the Hebrew Yeshua’, which is an abbreviated form of the Hebrew Yehoshua’. Both names, abbreviated or not, mean “Yahweh is Savior.” “Yahweh-Savior,” or “Yahweh will save.” This is why the angel told Joseph, “And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21, NKJV).
If a person is not familiar with the Hebrew language, it may seem that Yahshua and Yeshua’ are the same. They are not. Yahshua is an invented non-word., without meaning. It never appears in the inspired Hebrew text of the Old Testament. Yeshua’ and Yehoshua’ both appear in the Old Testament. The name of Moses’ successor was originally Hoshea’, the Hiphil infinitive form of yasha’ which means “salvation.” But Moses changed his name to Yehoshua’. (See Numbers 13:16.) During the exile, Yehoshua’ was shortened to Yeshua’. (See Ezra 3:2). The translation of Yeshua’ in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures quoted most frequently in the New Testament, is identical to the spelling in the New Testament. (See Revelation 22:16).
Me:
This seems like a straw man argument. He rightly points out that Oneness people are intense over the love of the name of the Lord. Then he rightly points out that many are today using Yeshua or Yahshua. Though I would say that does NOT include many Apostolics.
He then discredits the name Yahshua as a made up word and then goes on to say how Yeshua is the original. He speaks of name theology and how important it is to use the English name Jesus.
But wait a second. What happened to Yeshua? If he knows IT is the ORIGINAL and we are people who love the name why do we (Oneness) not use it more?
Having said that no one should assume I am against the name of Jesus or connect it with Zeus period. My point is if we know the original name and we have the sounds in our language what is wrong with using it? It seems very right to me.
Do we want the faith once delivered to the Saints? What name did Gabriel say the Son of God should be called? What did his mother call him? What did the Apostles call him?
If a person is not familiar with the Hebrew language, it may seem that Yahshua and Yeshua’ are the same. They are not. Yahshua is an invented non-word., without meaning. It never appears in the inspired Hebrew text of the Old Testament. Yeshua’ and Yehoshua’ both appear in the Old Testament. The name of Moses’ successor was originally Hoshea’, the Hiphil infinitive form of yasha’ which means “salvation.” But Moses changed his name to Yehoshua’. (See Numbers 13:16.) During the exile, Yehoshua’ was shortened to Yeshua’. (See Ezra 3:2). The translation of Yeshua’ in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures quoted most frequently in the New Testament, is identical to the spelling in the New Testament. (See Revelation 22:16).
Me:
Yes I agree Yeshua is the accurate name. But which sounds closer to Yeshua? Yahshua or Jesus? The only difference in PRONOUNCIATION between Yeshua and Yahshua is between an "eh" sound and an "ah" sound. Very little difference. Much closer than Jesus.
Also Seagraves says Yahshua is a MADE UP word. So thats the end of the story right?
Actually the name we are using TODAY in English for Jesus is NOT the same word English people used for him up till after 1611. I own a 1611 English Bible and Jesus does not appear in it one time! For a longer period of time than we have been using Jesus our English forefathers were using Iesus.
I ask which one was/is right? If one of them is right then one of them must be MADE UP in Seagraves way of thinking.
Which is the true English name?
Again I am not trying to speak against using the name of Jesus. I have used it more on these boards than I use Yeshua. I honor it the highest name in the English language.
Im just pointing out some of the double standard some are promoting in the issue.
The fact that the Messiah was named “Jesus” is significant for His identity. Although this was not a new name never held by anyone before, the Messiah was the first person ever to receive this name by divine appointment. When God names someone, it is intentional and informative. There is a reason God directed the angel of the Lord to tell Joseph to name Mary’s baby “Jesus.” It is because “He will save His people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21 NKJV). The first two letters of the Messiah’s name (Je) represent the Hebrew Yah, the abbreviation for Yahweh. (See Psalm 68:4)
Me:
The fact is the Angel did NOT tell Mary to name her child Jesus. He spoke to her in the language SHE SPOKE not in English. The Angel did command name him YESHUA.
After the original name came the Greek. From the Greek comes the English.
Why do I point this out? Because the name of this thread is "Loving The Right Name".
If there is only one "right name" it would be YESHUA.
Obviously the name would need to be transliterated into languages if they did not have the same sounds as the original. It just so happens that English unlike Greek does have the same sounds.
At any rate what Im getting at is why would people come out against using the original name if it can be acertained? I would not want to see anyone led astray to think that the English Jesus is THE ONLY NAME that is right.
I would say Jesus is the proper transliteration of the original Hebrew/Aramaic name. But if one is making a doctrine that Jesus must be used to the exclusion of the original name Yeshua as in "loving the RIGHT name" I call it error.
Linear Mode
