What was the real name of Jesus? Was it Yeshua?

A reader writes in: What really was Jesus’ name? Wasn’t it Yeshua? Is it an insult to him if we do not use his “real name” with the ancient pronunciation? Do we lose out on salvation if we call upon the wrong name?

First, it is highly probably that his given name was Yeshua, a Hebrew and also a Aramaic version of the Hebrew name Yehoshua o Hoshua (Joshua) in the Old Testament. We know that Jesus in general spoke and taught in Aramaic, so Yeshua (like Barnabas, Thomas) was probably meant to be an Aramaic name. Many people had names from different languages: Peter had a Greek name Petros, and an Aramaic one, Cephas bar-Jonas. Many had “rhyming” names in the second language: Paul was Sha’ul in Hebrew and also had a Latin name Paulus, similarly Silas/Silvanus; one Jewish co-worker of Paul had an Aramaic or Hebrew name Jesus, plus a Latin name Justus (Col 4:11); Joseph Barsabbas’ Aramaic name rhymed with his Latin one, Justus (Acts 1:23). Nowhere does the Bible indicate that the Greek or Latin names were “unclean” or wordly.

Jesus probably grew up with a knowledge of written Hebrew (the Bible). What’s more, it is very likely that he would have spoken in Greek from time to time, in order to speak with Gentiles (e.g., Matt 8:5-13, 15:21-28) or with Pontius Pilate. Two of his disciples had Greek names, Philip and Andrew. During his ministry, some may have addressed him using Greek form of his name, Iesous. After his resurrection and exaltation, the apostles went forth to proclaim his name, consistently using the Greek form Iesous. There is no reference to any other form of his personal name in the Greek New Testament. The Greek Testament was the original version, from which the Syriac, Latin and other versions were made. This means that when Luke wrote Acts 4:12, “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved,” he did not write the name Yeshua, but the Greek form Iesous. We are not saved by pronouncing his name with an “sh” rather than an “s”, but because it is the Savior himself who is being named.

For that reason, that is no special benefit to be gained in saying “Yeshua” in place of “Jesus”. The church used this form from the very beginning, from the Day of Pentecost when Peter preached in Greek to Hellenistic Jews (Acts 2:22). “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Acts 2:21).

It is by calling upon his name, no matter in what language, that one is saved. There is no special “magic” in removing the final “s” from his name. According to the apostles’ example, it is perfectly acceptable to say Yeshua, Iesous, Jesu, Jesús, Yasu (Cantonese), Иисус (Russian) or – in English – Jesus.

By Gary Shogren, Seminario ESEPA, San José, Costa Rica

Does God have “his man” to pastor a church?

A friend writes in to ask whether a church should have a pastor or multiple leaders. I respond:

As I read it, the NT teaches that the apostolic churches were led by a group of elder/overseers. (more…)

Can the use of Greek help the preacher? An example

Should a preacher refer to Hebrew or Greek from the pulpit? In all but a few instances, emphatically not. In a week or so I’ll be blogging on this very theme (see below, “I Love Greek but never use it from the Pulpit,” where I invite the readers’ input).

The study of original languages, like all study of technical background, is to inform the preacher, not to impress the audience. The preacher takes that material and puts it into plain English (or Spanish, in my case). Unless the audience can read the biblical languages, there is no reason to mention them, and plenty of reasons not to. (more…)

I love Greek, but never use it in the pulpit

Well, almost never anyway.

I have spent my adult life studying the New Testament in the original, and also have taught Greek and Greek exegesis on a seminary level for many years. When I prepare a sermon, I go immediately to the text in the original Greek or Hebrew, praying that the Spirit would use those tools to lead me to all truth.

Yet one of my pet peeves is people who keep making reference to Greek or Hebrew when they preach. I’m planning on posting a blog in this spot, something like “Ban Greek from your Pulpit”. Does anyone have anecdotes, arguments, etc.?

Whether it backs up my position or not, please give feedback, and maybe I’ll use your information in the post.

What comes before the Day of the Lord: the final “apostasy” or the “departure” of the church?

According to 2 Thessalonians, Timothy brought Paul a question from a panicky church: Has the Day of the Lord come? Paul ties together language of the return of Christ from his own oral teaching, the Matthean tradition, Daniel and 1 Thessalonians. No indeed! he says, and I can prove it. Has the Man of Lawlessness appeared? Then no, the Day of the Lord has not come (2 Thess 2:3).

The other marker is more controversial: an “apostasy” or “falling away” (apostasia, ἀποστασία). The word might denote a political rebellion. Nevertheless, “falling away” in Judeo-Christian contexts usually refers to a spiritual apostasy. In the Apocrypha, many Jews apostatized from Yahweh in 1 Macc 2:15 (NRSV) – “The king’s officers who were enforcing the apostasy came to the town of Modein to make them offer sacrifice” to Greek gods. Paul himself was accused of teaching Diaspora Jews “apostasy from Moses” (Acts 21:21). The verb form also appears in a warning against apostasy in Heb 3:12 and in the Lukan version of the Parable of the Sower to speak of those who fall away because of persecution (Luke 8:13). Paul uses the verb (aphistemi, ἀφίστημι) of the end-time falling away once in 1 Tim 4:1; he uses the noun form (apostasia, ἀποστασία) only here in 2 Thess 2:3.[2] Most Bible versions render the term correctly: “falling away” (ASV, KJV, NKJV); rebel, rebellion (CEV, ESV, GNB, NIV, NLT, NRSV, RSV), revolt (GW, NJB), apostasy (HCSB, NASB).

But wait! A few Bible students have suggested that 2 Thess 2:3 should be translated not as the “apostasy” but as a “removal” or “departure.” That is, the church is taken away from the earth, with the rest of the population “left behind” for the tribulation.[3]

Can this interpretation hold up? (more…)

1 Thess 4:17 – “meet the Lord in the air” in the original Greek

Since the Rapture has made headlines lately, here are some observations.

The New Testament was written in Greek. Some argue that it was originally done in Hebrew, but they cannot provide ancient Hebrew (or Aramaic or Syriac) manuscripts to back that up. All of Paul’s churches used Greek as their principal language. Paul himself had grown up speaking a dialect of Greek known as koine. It is for this reason that many serious students of the Scriptures decide to study that language, just as many others study Hebrew.

Unfortunately, much of what we hear about Greek in books or from the pulpit is false or misleading. For example, some preach that the word agape means “divine love,” whereas phile means “human love or affection.” This is simply not the case, and the words are often interchangeable in the New Testament. I shudder every time I hear the words “I know that it says thus-and-such in your Bibles, but the Greek really says, etc.” Listen: English Bible versions – with a few exceptions – were carried out by leading experts in the field of the original languages, who have gone to great lengths to express the meaning of the original in English. You can trust your English Bible.

Yet, every once in a while there is a gem in the original Greek that is difficult to communicate in English. For example, the NIV of 1 Thess 4:17 has, “After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.” The other versions are similar and equally reliable. In my forthcoming commentary on 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Zondervan) I opted to translate verse 17 as: “we who still live and remain will be taken up together with [those who were dead] in the clouds to welcome the Lord in the air.” “To meet,” a verb in most versions, represents a Greek preposition and noun, “for a meeting” (eis apantesin). Nevertheless, a verb in English captures the original Greek equally well.

But one might ask, what happens after the Christians meet the Lord in the air? Where do they go? (more…)

Rediscovering God in the Age of Therapy, Part II

II. COUNSELORS AND THE LANGUAGE OF HEALING

We will now turn our attention to the second question: how do our contemporary counselors use healing nomenclature? The answer is not a simple one, but a survey of two influential “disease” models may help us to find the roots of the therapeutic culture. We begin with the classic formulation of Alcoholics Anonymous.

In the 1930’s, Dr. William D. Silkworth (regarded as one of the ideological co-founders of A. A.) contributed the medical model of alcoholism to the emerging movement: certain individuals are physically/psychologically unable to handle even moderate alcohol use. The alcoholic has a disease of the mind and body – a mind obsessed with alcohol and with taking the first drink, and a body that cannot handle any alcohol without a severe reaction that triggers further compulsive drinking. Alcoholics manifest their disease on three levels: spiritually they are estranged from their Creator through self-centeredness, emotionally they are cut off from human society, and physically they suffer brain damage and ill health. In traditional A. A. teaching, the alcoholic may be out of control, but he is accountable before God and responsible to pursue recovery. While never healed of his alcoholism, he is restored to wellness, one day at a time, through surrender to a Higher Power. [8]

Who, then, is sick? A. A. preaches that a substantial minority of the population has the disease of alcoholism, and that it entails defiance against God. The disease is not universal, nor is it coterminous with what theologians call “depravity.” (more…)

Rediscovering God in the Age of Therapy, Part I

This article was originally published as “Recovering God in the Age of Therapy” by Gary Steven Shogren, in Journal of Biblical Counseling 12, No. 1 (Fall 1993): 14-19.

Note: I wrote this as a lecture in 1992, to comment upon Christian literature of the 80s-90s. I have not attempted to update the examples, since they have retained most of their relevance after nearly decades.

To get a quick scan of our civilization, look no further than the nearest mall bookstore. Naturally, it will carry the standards – Bibles, dictionaries, paperback classics, Cliff Notes. But since its manager has stocked it full of the ideas that consumers are buying this season, it serves as a handy display panel for the collective mind. Without doubt you will notice that merchandise is moving briskly from “Psychology/Self-Help”; a glance at the titles will reveal what’s selling:

Peace, Love & Healing – Bodymind communication and the path to self-healing: an exploration

Forgive & Forget: Healing the hurts we don’t deserve

Healing the Shame that Binds You

People of the Lie: the hope for human healing evil

May it also be said that Christian bookstores are the mirrors of our subculture? Run through the titles on whatever shelf corresponds to Self-Help and try to get a feel for what Christians want to hear:

Healing for Damaged Emotions (text and workbook)

Changes that Heal – How to Understand your past to ensure a healthier future

Restoring the Christian Soul through Healing Prayer

Faith that Hurts – Faith that Heals, and so forth; all by evangelical authors, put out by Christian publishers.

Is it a fluke, or do we really yearn for the same higher good – for want of a better term, Inner Healing – as the world at large? We dig deeper, and the likelihood of mere coincidence fades away.

Not only do the covers sound remarkably similar, but the contents read alike. At times the same title (in my case, Forgive & Forget) is found in both stores. And if you are surprised to find “secular” books on a religious bookseller’s Psychology shelf, then you may be even more puzzled to find books from evangelical publishers in the shopping mall. (more…)

Is sin “missing the mark”?

Have you been told that the word for “sin” literally means “missing the mark” in the original Greek? In fact, it does not.

The verb “hamartano” (αμαρτανω) was sometimes used in pre-Classical and Classical Greek to refer to missing a target. (more…)

Bible Commentaries and Dictionaries, a word of advice from Logos and myself

Kyle Anderson from Logos software just published a fine article on how to use Bible dictionaries (http://blog.logos.com/archives/2010/10/improving_your_bible_study_with_dictionaries.html). He warns against simply reaching for a commentary when we are studying the Bible. I heartily applaud this basic sentiment. As Christians, we are supposed to be enjoying the Bible, not reading the tale of how some other person enjoyed it. It is refreshing to read the following from Gordon Fee, in his NICNT commentary on First and Second Thessalonians (p. x): “…as has been my lifelong habit, I write the commentary first and then consult the secondary literature, making any necessary adjustments and adding the proper footnotes.” Of course, this is Gordon Fee, who is able to write a basic commentary on the text without any secondary literature, a feat far beyond what most of us can handle. Still, the ideal is the same.

How sad to realize that many commentary writers are spending much more time in the secondary literature than they are in the text of Scripture. (more…)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 68 other followers