Why Use "Yahshua"?

Manly Luscombe wrote:

Kent West,
I read your recent post and was just curious why you refer to Jesus as Yashua. (I assume that Jesus is who you refer to when you say Yahshua.) I am not a scholar in Hebrew but I believe that Yahshua is Hebrew. Why do you refer to a NT person by their Hebrew name?
If you believe we should use the Hebrew names for Jews - Why not do the same with Peter, Matthew, Luke, and others you mention in your email?
Just curious - not fussing - just wondering the reason for this usage.
Thanks, Manly

1) I'm not consistent about it.

2) I don't believe it makes any great difference.

3) But, to answer your question:

Primarily for six reasons:

A) To spur people to think. You never think about what the room looks like from a different angle until you stand on your desk and take a look-see. Therefore, you never see the nuances that have been right there before your eyes the whole time.

B) To remind myself and others that this Gentile, anti-Jew mentality most of us in the United States church have grown up with is a wrong mindset to have. ("The Jews were God's people, but not any more." "The Jews killed Jesus." "God doesn't care about Jerusalem or the Jewish race any more." etc.) The fact is, we, the Gentiles, have not replaced the Jewish nation, but have been grafted into it, into the covenant of Abraham, which has not been replaced by the New Covenant, but still stands as the foundation of the New Covenant (Gal 3, esp v. 29).

C) Jesus was not a New Testament person for about 99% of his earthly life. He was born a Hebrew, under the Old Testament, in a very Jewish town, in a very Jewish culture, and lived a very Jewish life. But we've subconsciously whitewashed that out of his life, and have made him, in our own minds, to be a good-looking middle-American white guy wearing a robe and sandals, forgetting that he wore tassels on his garment (Mark 6:56), the way good Jews did, and probably recited the Shema every morning (Mark 12:29-30), the way good Jews did, and cited the Ten Commandments as being the way to inherit eternal life (Mark 10:17ff), which good Jews knew.

D) That was his name. It was the name his mama used to call him to supper. If you moved to a country that mis-learned your name as "Mertinly", you'd eventually shrug your shoulders and quit trying to correct everyone who mispronounced your name, and learn to live with it. But you'd likely feel better when someone actually got it right and called you "Manly". I figure Jesus/Yahshua can handle our mangling of his name, but still, it's a small bit of at least lip-service I can offer. I'm quite inconsistent with this when it comes to other New Testament names, as you've pointed out - Peter, Luke, etc - mostly that's due to lack of consistency on my part, but it also has to do with the fact that many of them lived in either the Greek world, or in a mixed Hebrew-Grecian world. Take Peter for example; at his Jewish home, he was known as Cephas; but in the Greek world in which he spent much time, he was known as Peter (or more accurately, Petros). I would probably be more amenable to calling Yahshua "Yaesu" (or "Yaesus", depending on grammatical considerations), because that's at least Biblical (New Testament), but "Jesus" is that extra consonantal sound-step farther yet.

E) Because we don't know the Hebrew names, we don't see the nuances. Yahshua is Joshua is Hosea (more or less). The first Yahshua (Joshua) was reported in Jewish lore (not Biblical record) to have married Rahab the Harlot; the second Yahshua (Hosea) also married a harlot; the third Yahshua (Jesus), also is marrying a harlot, but one who has been washed clean due to his efforts, not our own. There's a lot of symbolism, etc, that we simply miss, by not knowing the words behind the text.

F) It means something (as most Biblical names do). As you're probably aware, Bible translators have, for centuries, corrupted God's written word intentionally, changing the God-inspired name of YHWH (Yod - Hey - Wah - Hey; the "Tetragrammaton"; the "Four Letters"), which God said would be the name by which he would be remembered throughout the generations (Exodus 3:15) into the man-made alteration of "the LORD" (turn to almost any page in the Old Testament in a main-line version and you'll see this phrase). The name was likely pronounced "Yahweh". The short form of "Yah" is familiar to us in the phrase "Hallelujah", which means "Praise Yah". (The "j" for the "y" sound is a relic of Elizabethan English, and has since morphed into the "j" sound in most modern words.) The name "Jehovah" is a man-made mixing of the vowels from the Hebrew word for "Lord" and these four consonants (in Elizabethan English where "j" = "y" and "v" = "w") - JeHoVaH. Because we don't know this, we don't realize that "Yahshua" means "Yah saves", just as the angel predicted his name to mean (Matt 1:21). Because we don't know this, we don't realize why the Jewish political machinery was so upset about the sign which Pilate hung over Yahshua's head as he hung on the cross. Written in three languages, the sign included the Hebrew form of "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews", written as "Yahshua Hanatzoi, Wehemelech Hayuhadim". There it was in plain sight to those who noticed the first letters of the description, announced by the governing authority - YHWH. Pilate had just declared Jesus to be YHWH God, King of the Jews (John 19:19ff). I can just imagine Pilate smirking as he answered the trouble-makers' request for a different sign with, "What I have written, I have written". Because we don't know his name, we miss the pun he uses when he announces that Salvation ('Shua) has come to the house of Zacchaeus (Luke 19:9). (Zacchaeus' Hebrew name, Zakkai, also has meaning, which also colors the story, if you understand some of the background.)

Don't take any of this to mean that I hold the usage of "Yahshua" to be superior to the usage of "Jesus"; what's superior is to know the Man-God behind the name, and there are many who have a better relationship to him than do I, who have never even heard this Hebrew form of the name. But I offer these as my reasons for often using this form.

Binding and Loosing

Scott Wiley wrote:

was this during a temple worship? An equivalent of the synogogue?

This question asked by Scott draws my attention. If you think about it, you'll find there is no scriptural authority for the Synagogue (having developed probably during the Babylonian Captivity when observant Jews had no access to the Temple), but by the time the New Testament opens, the Son of God seems to accept it as a God-inspired worship format, even though he was unable to produce a Book/Chapter/Verse for its existence.

This ties in with the terms "binding" and "loosing", which we, not being part of the Rabbinical culture in which Yahshua lived and taught, don't quite "get".

In Yahshua's day, there were two main schools of Rabbinical thought, as founded by two great rabbis, Shammai and Hillel, who had been born just a generation or two before Yahshua. Much of the testing of Yahshua made by the religious authorities was not so much a challenge against Jesus as a simple inquiry into which school of thought his teachings fell (for example, see this entry on divorce, where we find that Jesus sides with Shammai rather than with Hillel).

Not just any Rabbi could "make the rules" as Shammai, and Hillel, and Yahshua himself, did. Only those who had "authority" could do so. So when Yahshua comes along and "teaches as one having authority" (Luke 4:32), he's challenged by the religious leaders who ask him where he got this authority. They understood that not just anyone could claim to be a Rabbi with authority, but that he must be given that authority by two other such authority-bearing Rabbis. Yahshua essentially said, "I got mine from John the Immerser, and God Himself when I was immersed. Do you accept their authority?" (although he does it in a Rabbinical questioning method which most of us Westerners don't quite comprehend - Luke 20:1-8))

Normal Rabbis could teach from the Torah and the Prophets and the Writings, but only those things which had been handed down from more authoritative Rabbis through the years. But authority-bearing Rabbis could interpret the scriptures afresh: we see Yahshua doing this in the Sermon on the Mount - "You have heard it said ..., but I say ...".

When a Rabbi enforces a particular teaching on a student, he is essentially binding that teaching, and when a Rabbis releases a student from a teaching, he is essentially loosing that teaching. The collection of bindings and loosings that a Rabbi teaches is called his "yoke". After fussing about the harsh religiosity of his culture, Yahshua said, "Come to me, all of you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. All of you, take up My yoke and learn from Me, because I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for yourselves. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light." (Matt 11:28-30).

Yahshua gave to the church this authority to bind and loose, the first time apparently to Peter:

And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the forces of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth is already bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is already loosed in heaven. (Matt 16:18-19)

... but the second time more generally to his followers:

If your brother sins against you, go and rebuke him in private. ... I assure you: Whatever you bind on earth is already bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is already loosed in heaven. Again, I assure you: If two of you on earth agree about any matter that you pray for, it will be done for you by My Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there among them. (Matt. 18:15a; 18-20).

We see this authority being exercised in the church about 14 years after its inauguration, when the previously Jew-only church starts being opened to non-Jews. Many staunch Pharisees and other "conservative" Jewish believers insisted that these new Gentile converts be converted to Judaism in order to participate fully in the Jewish church. But a council was called at Jerusalem, and it was decided, via the Holy Spirit, that they would heed Peter's voice, which stated:

Why, then, are you now testing God by putting on the disciples' necks a yoke that neither our forefathers nor we have been able to bear? (Acts 15:10)

And from that time on, a new term arose, "Christian", which seemed to better fit this new school of thought that followed Rabbi Yahshua but which included decidedly unJewish Gentiles as full disciples.

Now, having laid all that background, I'm drawn back to Scott's question, or more accurately, to the underlying issue of authority for what we do as the church. Can we "invent" a synagogue if we can't make it to Temple? Can we bind a law on the believers that "Christians don't drink"? Can we loose a law on women that says they can't speak in 21st century Western mixed assemblies? Do we have that authority to "tie up heavy loads that are hard to carry and put them on people's shoulders", and to "lift a finger to move them"?

I honestly don't know. I've believed all my life that church doctrine was established in the first century, and anyone who teaches a different doctrine is accursed (as per Gal. 1:6-9). But looking at all this background, I'm left wondering if the church does have the right to modify the specifics of how that doctrine is implemented.

I think it would be a stretch to say the church can loose something that is fundamental to first century doctrine (such as the physical, bodily resurrection of Yahshua); but perhaps it can ease up on other issues, such as women remaining silent in a mixed assembly.

I really hate to even bring this up, because of its incredible potential for abuse, and because it's so far outside the boundaries of orthodoxy for most of us, but it's a question that nags at me.

Did Yahshua give us, the church, the authority to mold our own form/practices, or are we limited to restoring the first century church in all its particulars (except for those we deem not applicable - *cough*) as those of us raised in the Restoration Movement have been trained to believe?

I don't know, but I find it an interesting and uncomfortable question.

The Earliest (Jewish) Church

I've written elsewhere about the first century church really being two churches: in the early years, the church was exclusively Jewish, strictly observing the Law of Moses, and only later accepting Gentiles, who did not observe the Law of Moses, as Christian brothers. For a few decades, it appears that these two groups existed side-by-side, having a very different look-and-feel, such that were we to find these two groups on opposite street corners today on Main Street, USA, we'd refer to at least one of them as a "denomination".

I was just made aware of another piece of evidence that demonstrates that the earliest church was Jewish to the core.

We generally consider the apostle Paul to be the author of 1 Corinthians, and whereas that is partly true, we tend to forget that this book was co-authored by another Christian brother, Sosthenes.

Paul, called as an apostle of Christ Jesus by God's will, and our brother Sosthenes: To God's church at Corinth.... (1 Cor 1:1-2a)

What makes this significant to the discussion is that Sosthenes was not only a Christian, he was the ruler of a synagogue, beaten by the anti-Christian mob at Corinth:

Then they all seized Sosthenes, the leader of the synagogue, and beat him in front of the judge's bench. (Acts 18:17)

It's also interesting to note that the apparently previous ruler of the Corinthian synagogue, Crispus, also became a Christian:

Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed the Lord, along with his whole household; and many of the Corinthians, when they heard, believed and were baptized. (Acts 18:8)

Our modern day Gentile-ized church often condemns any hint of Jewish worship as being anti-Christian; this view is unBiblical. Being a leader of an exclusively Jewish synagogue, participating in exclusively Jewish worship, was not at all incompatible with being a Christian. It was just such a leader of Jewish worship who gave us part of our New Testament under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Anointing With Oil

James 5:14ff

Is anyone among you sick? He should call for the elders of the church, and they should pray over him after anointing him with olive oil in the name of the Lord. The prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.

It seems to me that our cultural baggage has caused us to see something in this text that is not in it, and to miss something that is.

We tend to see the anointing with oil as integral to the healing. I don't believe that is in the text.

What we miss is that the anointing with oil is a consecrating of the individual to God.

The first time the Bible mentions an anointing with oil is when Jacob sleeps and dreams at Beth-El ("House of God"), and anoints the rock with oil, consecrating the place as God's House. Note that the rock was not sick, and the anointing with oil did not make the rock well. The place was God's.

Later, the utensils in the Temple are anointed with oil. Note that the utensils were not sick and made well by this anointing, but that they were consecrated as being special, chosen, belonging to God. They were God's utensils.

Still later, young shepherd David was anointed with oil by Samuel. David was not sick, and this anointing did not make him well. What it did was consecrate David as being chosen, special, belonging to God. David was God's friend.

The terms "messiah" and "christ" mean "anointed one". Jesus the Messiah was not made well by his anointing; he was made the chosen one by his anointing. His anointing made him consecrated to God. The Messiah was God's presence on Earth.

When someone in the church is sick, he should call for the elders, who will consecrate him to God by the anointing with oil, and who will pray for him, that he might get well. The sick person belongs to God.

Anointing with oil has nothing to do with miraculous gifts, and everything to do with consecrating the anointed one for God's possession.

Accordingly, it might still serve a purpose in the post-miraculous age of Christianity.

The Church's Finances

Every week, the plate is passed around the congregation.

Every week, the funds so collected are doled out according to the budget plan, paying salaries, electric bills, mortgages, TV show expenses, and if anything is left over, maybe an orphan's home or a few dollars into a local person's overdue medical bills.

That's the modern way of handling the church's money.

What was it like in the first century church?

The very first time a collection of money is mentioned in the church is Acts 2:44-45, which says:

And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need.

Notice what is done with the money: it is shared with anyone having need. (I believe the context limits that "anyone" to "anyone within the group", but I could be wrong.)

And what of the very next example? It's in Acts 4:23ff:

Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of his possessions was his own, but instead they held everything in common. And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was on all of them. For there was not a needy person among them, because all those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles' feet. This was then distributed to each person as anyone had a need.

Notice again what the Scriptures teach: money given to the church is to be distributed to those who have a need.

What about other examples?

The next example is in Acts 6, where we find that the distribution to the needy has become such a pressing matter that a special group of ministers ("deacons") are appointed to handle the day-to-day details, freeing the apostles (who had previously been responsible for the task) to do their job of preaching. The apostles were doing the preaching; the deacons were distributing the incoming funds to the needy, not to paying the church's bills.

1 Timothy 5 lays out some guidelines for this distributive effort, and in the process makes it clear that paying the bills of your own family takes precedence over other expenditures, but if you can't, then the church should kick in. Someone who doesn't provide for his own family is worse than an infidel according to this passage. And those who receive funds from the church should be known for good works.

2 Thessalonians 3:10 reiterates this last point:

If anyone isn't willing to work, he should not eat.

Titus 3:14 indicates that a main thrust of our efforts is to meet the cases of urgent need. As The Message puts it:

Our people have to learn to be diligent in their work so that all necessities are met (especially among the needy) and they don't end up with nothing to show for their lives.

The very purpose of having a job is not to give to the church to build a nicer building, but to give something to the needy, according to Ephesians 4:28:

... [H]e must do honest work with his own hands, so that he has something to share with anyone in need.

And again, Paul reminds the church in Romans 12:13:

Share with God's people who are in need.

Even that well-known passage from 1 Corinthians 16, read so often from the pulpit to persuade Christians to give to the work of the church, is ALL about giving to the needy, and not at all about paying church bills. This is clear from verse 1:

Now about the collection for God's people ....

Any other use of this passage for justification of doing anything except collecting for God's people, no matter how good those tasks may be, is a twisting of the scripture.

Now, let me make it clear that the church does have a responsibility to pay its bills, including the salaries of its staff. But I believe we've turned the pyramid upside down; the base of the pyramid, the bulk of church finances, should be going toward helping Christians meet their financial needs, with the tip, the small portion, going toward church bills. We've inverted that pyramid, and have done so at the risk of hearing these words from Jesus (Matt 25):

Then he will say to those on his left, "Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me."

They also will answer, "Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?"

He will reply, "I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.

Birds Not Evolved From Dinos

From EvolutionNews.org:

Archaeopteryx isn’t the only evolutionary icon losing its claim as the ancestor of birds. In recent months we’ve seen paleontologists increasingly arguing that the entire clade of dinosaurs should no longer be considered ancestral to birds. As the WSJ article states:

There are lingering doubts that birds today are descendants of dinosaurs. Researchers at Oregon State University recently argued that the distinctive anatomy that gives birds the lung capacity needed for flight means it is unlikely that birds descended from dinosaurs like archaeopteryx and its kin. Their findings were published in June in the Journal of Morphology.

As paleontologist John Ruben of Oregon State was quoted saying when his article was published:

But old theories die hard, Ruben said, especially when it comes to some of the most distinctive and romanticized animal species in world history.

"Frankly, there's a lot of museum politics involved in this, a lot of careers committed to a particular point of view even if new scientific evidence raises questions," Ruben said. In some museum displays, he said, the birds-descended-from-dinosaurs evolutionary theory has been portrayed as a largely accepted fact, with an asterisk pointing out in small type that "some scientists disagree."

Why Live Through Suffering?

JOHN_A_DESIGNER writes at Telic Thoughts:

The idea of heaven is actually a later development in Jewish and Christian theology. Read the book of Job. The closest that Job gets to the idea of an after life is the question: “If a man dies, will he live again?” So then, what is the book of Job really about? It is about a man confronted with severe suffering who is struggling to find the meaning in the midst of his suffering. It is a struggle between two choices: “curse God and die” or “though He slay me I will trust him.” Faith is not about the after life. Faith is about this world. What faith will I need in heaven where there is no suffering or challenges?

On the other hand, heaven is always presented in the Bible as a reward. How can it be a reward if it is not preceded by challenges?

Interesting thoughts....

Should Christians Sneak Candy Into Movie Theaters?

The following was written by Sam Stinson on the Church_Of_Christ Yahoo!Groups list.


"You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another."
(Leviticus, 19:11, NASB)

Long before I became a Christian, I remember my family taking me to movies when I was a young child. We hardly ever bought popcorn, soft drinks, or candy at the movie theater--in fact I can't remember a single time when we did. When I became a teenager I remedied this by going to dollars stores and purchasing cheap boxes of candy and hiding them in the pockets of my pants, my coat, or on one of my friends. I justified this behavior to myself by saying, "I have a right to eat whatever I want and to buy it from whomever I choose." I also remember thinking, "The cost of food in movie theaters is six times what it is in other stores! Why should I not try to save money?"

Years later, after becoming a Christian, I realized that this behavior was not in keeping for a Christian. Here are thoughts along this line for your consideration.

1. Sneaking candy into movie theaters is a violation of a posted theater policy. I've never encountered a movie theater which permitted its patrons to bring in food or drinks from home. Most of us would never knowingly bring a video camera into a theater and tape the movie we're watching in order to distribute it illegally on the Internet. But sneaking candy into the movies is equally dishonest. Why is that? Because knowingly acting in violation of any business's policy and pretending that I'm not is intentionally dealing falsely with others, a clear violation of scripture as noted above.

2. Sneaking candy into movie theaters destroys the theater's ability to make a profit. Have you ever heard someone say, "The concessions is where theaters make their money!" In many cases this is true. If I am truly eating something I am not authorized to bring, based on my acceptance of the agreement to not bring outside food into a theater, I have deprived the theater of its profit. If this is indeed stealing, Christians should cease from this practice. (Eph. 4:28)

3. Sneaking candy into movie theaters creates a bad example for others. Christians and non-Christians, especially children, can be influenced by the behavior of others. If others see us doing this practice, they will likely imitate it. If it is something that causes us to sin, it may cause them to sin when they do as we do.

4. It is often the "little things" that make Christians look like hypocrites to the world. A Christian might say, "I've never murdered, or committed adultery, or cheated on my taxes." Very well indeed. But one who stumbles in one point of honesty has violated the truth. "He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much." (Luk. 16:10)