cmp.2007.03.07
ed.2008.08.30.11 (Public Review)
Pastor,
Greetings in the name of Jesus! I heard that there were some dissensions about the very extravagant gift you had recently received. Jesus gave very specific commandments regarding stewardship and giving, and I believe that we must remind the Church, even the leadership, that we have freely been given all things. And, as Jesus commanded, "Freely you received, freely give."
It is our willingness to accept that all good things come from God that brings us to acknowledge Him. And in our praise, God finds a dwelling place. It is our determination to be faithful and accountable with every gift that God has given us that lets us know that we should accept these gifts. Otherwise, if we are not faithful, we are more than guilty of those accusations that we are full of greed and selfishness.
It is written that seed is given to the sower. A sower by definition is someone who takes seed that they have and buries it into the ground. And through its death, new life is given. And we also understand that all seed is given to us to be planted.
It is also written that the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance. Even when God gives us more seed to be faithful with, we are not excused from being accountable for what He has given us before. Our responsibilities grow as we grow in favor. If those in the Kingdom are called to plant seed, the Word of God, then everything within our means is simply a tool for that purpose.
To clarify, Scripture speaks clearly concerning wealth and prosperity. Consider prosperity as the ability to make an increase with what we are given and alternatively, wealth as the act of storing that increase. It is certain that His desire for us is to prosper. So in this light, we can understand why Jesus spoke against those who stored up their wealth, but not against prosperity. "Bear one another's burdens, and in this, fulfill the law of Christ."
We will be held accountable for those gifts that we were given and their potential for increase. We have to let those things die to us by releasing our authority over them and placing them under the authority of God. Now, when I say that we must let those things die to us, I am referring to a common truth. When a man dies to the law, the law no longer has authority over him. If we have died to the law, the law has no right to reclaim us or enforce its constraints.
In the same way, if we let something die to us, and if we truly make an offering to God, we surrender our right to take it back or impose constraints on our offering. A sacrifice in every sense of the word implies that our offering literally leaves our possession and given to another.
What do we do then if we offer up our gifts and they return again? We believe that God is honoring His Word that just as our bread is cast upon the water, it has returned to us. Therefore, we continue in obedience and sow that seed again and again knowing that what He has given will always be ours. And, our faith in His Word is evidenced by us freely giving it away over and over.
We so often justify our income, our possessions, gifts and even our lives by claiming that a workman is worthy of his hire. If we negotiate a wage, then we are paid in obligation. Those who are paid through a wage have received their reward. If we are given more above that wage, then what we receive is an act of favor—grace. Therefore, as gifts given in favor there is no possible way to justify why we received them; only when there is a law, an agreement, can we justify why we should be given a wage. Otherwise, our only explanation is favor.
And so, we give again and again knowing that whatever gift that we give for God will be returned to us to give yet again. And in this, our actions are evidence that we truly believe that investments in this life, and rewards in this life, cannot compare to what we believe are in store for those who love God and are called according to Hs purpose. The gifts of God are without repentance, so they will always be ours to give. But, they will never be ours to keep to ourselves. Even concerning the rewards to come, we will lay them down at His feet.
I pray that you grow you favor and peace in God through Christ Jesus, amen.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Monday, August 4, 2008
Matt. 1:23 - Call His Name Immanuel
cmp.2008.08.04
ed.2008.08.08.011 (Public Draft II)
Note: You will need Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic fonts to view this article.
Organization
1. The Testimony
2. The Dilemma
3. An Argument From The Greek Old Testament
4. An Argument From The Aramaic And Greek New Testament
5. An Argument From Mishnaic Hebrew
6. What Did The Apostles Call Jesus?
7. What Did God Call Jesus?
8. Conclusion
1. The Testimony
Matt. 1:23 (NASB)
"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" —which means, "God with us."
Isaiah 7:14 (NASB)
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
2. The Dilemma
All over the world, people refer to the name of Jesus in many different ways.
However, many Messianic Jewish teachers are claiming that it is more correct and "spiritual" to call Jesus, "Yeshua", because Jesus was Jewish, and "Yeshua" is the Hebrew form of the English name, "Jesus". They also argue that when Jesus walked the streets of Israel, He was commonly known as "Yeshua".
So the question is, what are we really supposed to call "Jesus"?
3. An Argument From The Greek Old Testament
In the Old Testament, (1 Chron. 24:11), there was a Priest named "Jeshua", ("Yeshua", יֵשׁוּעַ in Hebrew which is argued to be a shortened form of "Joshua", יְהֹושֻׁע). Now, when the Old Testament was translated into Greek, the name "Jeshua" was consistently translated as "Jesus", (Iesous, Ἰησοῦς in Greek).
It is reasonable to believe that "Yeshua" in Hebrew is the etymological source of the Greek name "Iesous", (which is where we get the name "Jesus").
However, if the translators of the Old Testament and the Apostles had intended to preserve original pronunciations, then the Greek form of "Yeshua" may have been more phonetically accurate and look more like "Ἰησῦα", rather than "Ἰησοῦς".
Therefore, it is reasonable to accept that any concern over the proper phonetic pronunciation of the name, "Jesus" was most probably not that big of an issue for the Jewish scholars in the second and third centuries B.C.
4. An Argument From The Aramaic And Greek New Testament
When we consider Aramaic New Testament manuscripts, we find that the Aramaic version of Jesus' name is a direct letter to letter transliteration from Hebrew into Aramaic. But, the Aramaic name in practice was most probably pronounced differently from Ancient Hebrew, "Isho'", (with a hard gutteral stop at the end), instead of "Yeshua".
In addition, all of the Greek and Aramaic texts of the New Testament make every effort to make sure that "Immanuel" is preserved phonetically as "Ἐμμανουήλ" and "ܥܡܢܘܐܝܠ". Why would the Apostles phonetically preserve the Hebrew name "Immanuel", but never preserve the phonetic pronunciation of "Yeshua"?
The only reasonable conclusion is that the preservation of the prophetic name "Immanuel" was far more important to the Apostolic Church than any of the Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic expressions of the name, "Jesus".
5. An Argument From Mishnaic Hebrew
Which form of Hebrew should we transliterate Jesus' name into? Early Mosaic Hebrew? Pre/Post Babylonian? Mishnaic Hebrew? Modern Hebrew?
If we are trying to determine the most accurate pronunciation of Jesus' name during the age He lived in, it would be more accurate to consult Mishnaic Hebrew instead of Post Babylonian Hebrew because this was the form of Hebrew being used by the religious scholars of that period.
Although I cannot make a sound argument that the "Jesus" referred to in the Talmud actually refers to "Jesus the Nazarene", what we can at the very least determine is how they wrote this very commonly used name as, "Yeshu", ("ישו", A reference can be found in Sanhedrin 107b as well as many other places). So, we can see a change of this name over time, from Yehoshua, to Yeshua, to Yeshu. Even in Israel today, it is a very common practice to shorten Biblical Hebrew names.
So, it is evident that the "Hebrew" form of Jesus' name during and after His life, "Yeshu", is confirmed in both the Aramaic and Greek languages. "Yeshu" in Hebrew, "Isho'" in Aramaic, and "Iesous" in Greek. The third syllable in every ancient representation of Jesus' name is consistently dropped. This is further evidence that Jesus was not referred to as "Yeshua" in ancient times.
6. What Did The Apostles Call Jesus?
An obvious resolution to this issue could be found by deferring to the Apostles since they were given authority over the Church; specifically, they were given twelve thrones to judge the tribes of Israel, which Gentile believers are grafted into.
The Apostles clearly called Jesus, "Ἰησοῦς" in Greek. We can make this conclusion because of Luke's writings and Paul's letters to the Greeks, such as his letter to the Romans. It is certainly not reasonable to believe that Paul proclaimed the Gospel to the Greeks in Aramaic, and certainly not in ancient Biblical Hebrew.
Romans 1:4-6 (NASB)
... Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name's sake, among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ ...
And, if the Apostles wrote in Aramaic (the dialect of the Hebrews, "τῇ Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ", Acts 26:14), then it is reasonable to believe that the Apostles also called Jesus, "ܝܫܘܥ", or "Isho'" in Aramaic.
If Paul introduced himself as "Paul", would we consider it reasonable to disrespect him and call him by his Hebrew name, "Sha'ul"? If the Apostles of Jesus Christ were given authority to establish the Church, and they consistently introduced Jesus to the nations as "Iesous" and "Isho'", could it be considered reasonable to claim that people all over the world called Jesus, "Yeshua" instead?
Since the Apostles used Aramaic and Greek names for Jesus, then it is reasonable for us to express the name of Jesus in different dialects as well. Also, because Hebrew was not widely known in Israel except among scholars, and because there are no ancient Hebrew texts that refer to Jesus as "Yeshua", it is reasonable to conclude that few people, if any, ever referred to Jesus as "Yeshua" as people do today 2000 years later.
7. What Did God Call Jesus?
Matt. 1:23 (NASB)
"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" —which means, "God with us."
Now beyond doubt, this is most arguably the Hebrew name of Jesus. God said it and Gabriel confirmed it. And even both Matthew the Apostle, and Isaiah the Prophet wrote it.
What is really awesome about this is that even though this is not an "Imperative Command", and Scripture does not directly command anyone to call Jesus "Immanuel", (עִמָּנוּ אֵל), it is a "Testimony" of God, something that God has witnessed of the future. Therefore, if God said that Jesus' Hebrew name was Immanuel, we can assume that we know what Jesus' real Hebrew name was.
It was very common for people to have different names in different languages: Peter's name was Simon in Hebrew, Cephas in Aramaic, and Petros in Greek. The list goes on. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that Jesus had an Aramaic name, "Isho'", a Greek name, "Iesous", and a Hebrew name, "Immanuel".
8. Conclusion
It is clear that the Apostles accepted and even encouraged the transliteration of the name of Jesus into other languages.
However, claiming that the Apostles, the people of Israel, or the rest of the world knew of Jesus as "Yeshua" in Hebrew during the period of the Apostolic Church is not supported at all historically.
And, if the Apostles did not consider proclaiming the name of Jesus in Hebrew as necessary, then it is well beyond the intellectualism of anyone today to suggest that the Church should use this name outside of Hebrew speaking communities.
Finally, because we know that faith must be preceded by what God has said and not our own intellectualism, it is not reasonable to ask others to simply believe that Jesus was originally called "Yeshua" in Hebrew. Rather, we can say with certainty that the Apostles, the Apostolic Church, and Scripture, all spoke of Jesus as, "Immanuel", "Isho'", and "Iesous".
ed.2008.08.08.011 (Public Draft II)
Note: You will need Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic fonts to view this article.
Organization
1. The Testimony
2. The Dilemma
3. An Argument From The Greek Old Testament
4. An Argument From The Aramaic And Greek New Testament
5. An Argument From Mishnaic Hebrew
6. What Did The Apostles Call Jesus?
7. What Did God Call Jesus?
8. Conclusion
1. The Testimony
Matt. 1:23 (NASB)
"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" —which means, "God with us."
Isaiah 7:14 (NASB)
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
2. The Dilemma
All over the world, people refer to the name of Jesus in many different ways.
However, many Messianic Jewish teachers are claiming that it is more correct and "spiritual" to call Jesus, "Yeshua", because Jesus was Jewish, and "Yeshua" is the Hebrew form of the English name, "Jesus". They also argue that when Jesus walked the streets of Israel, He was commonly known as "Yeshua".
So the question is, what are we really supposed to call "Jesus"?
3. An Argument From The Greek Old Testament
In the Old Testament, (1 Chron. 24:11), there was a Priest named "Jeshua", ("Yeshua", יֵשׁוּעַ in Hebrew which is argued to be a shortened form of "Joshua", יְהֹושֻׁע). Now, when the Old Testament was translated into Greek, the name "Jeshua" was consistently translated as "Jesus", (Iesous, Ἰησοῦς in Greek).
It is reasonable to believe that "Yeshua" in Hebrew is the etymological source of the Greek name "Iesous", (which is where we get the name "Jesus").
However, if the translators of the Old Testament and the Apostles had intended to preserve original pronunciations, then the Greek form of "Yeshua" may have been more phonetically accurate and look more like "Ἰησῦα", rather than "Ἰησοῦς".
Therefore, it is reasonable to accept that any concern over the proper phonetic pronunciation of the name, "Jesus" was most probably not that big of an issue for the Jewish scholars in the second and third centuries B.C.
4. An Argument From The Aramaic And Greek New Testament
When we consider Aramaic New Testament manuscripts, we find that the Aramaic version of Jesus' name is a direct letter to letter transliteration from Hebrew into Aramaic. But, the Aramaic name in practice was most probably pronounced differently from Ancient Hebrew, "Isho'", (with a hard gutteral stop at the end), instead of "Yeshua".
In addition, all of the Greek and Aramaic texts of the New Testament make every effort to make sure that "Immanuel" is preserved phonetically as "Ἐμμανουήλ" and "ܥܡܢܘܐܝܠ". Why would the Apostles phonetically preserve the Hebrew name "Immanuel", but never preserve the phonetic pronunciation of "Yeshua"?
The only reasonable conclusion is that the preservation of the prophetic name "Immanuel" was far more important to the Apostolic Church than any of the Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic expressions of the name, "Jesus".
5. An Argument From Mishnaic Hebrew
Which form of Hebrew should we transliterate Jesus' name into? Early Mosaic Hebrew? Pre/Post Babylonian? Mishnaic Hebrew? Modern Hebrew?
If we are trying to determine the most accurate pronunciation of Jesus' name during the age He lived in, it would be more accurate to consult Mishnaic Hebrew instead of Post Babylonian Hebrew because this was the form of Hebrew being used by the religious scholars of that period.
Although I cannot make a sound argument that the "Jesus" referred to in the Talmud actually refers to "Jesus the Nazarene", what we can at the very least determine is how they wrote this very commonly used name as, "Yeshu", ("ישו", A reference can be found in Sanhedrin 107b as well as many other places). So, we can see a change of this name over time, from Yehoshua, to Yeshua, to Yeshu. Even in Israel today, it is a very common practice to shorten Biblical Hebrew names.
So, it is evident that the "Hebrew" form of Jesus' name during and after His life, "Yeshu", is confirmed in both the Aramaic and Greek languages. "Yeshu" in Hebrew, "Isho'" in Aramaic, and "Iesous" in Greek. The third syllable in every ancient representation of Jesus' name is consistently dropped. This is further evidence that Jesus was not referred to as "Yeshua" in ancient times.
6. What Did The Apostles Call Jesus?
An obvious resolution to this issue could be found by deferring to the Apostles since they were given authority over the Church; specifically, they were given twelve thrones to judge the tribes of Israel, which Gentile believers are grafted into.
The Apostles clearly called Jesus, "Ἰησοῦς" in Greek. We can make this conclusion because of Luke's writings and Paul's letters to the Greeks, such as his letter to the Romans. It is certainly not reasonable to believe that Paul proclaimed the Gospel to the Greeks in Aramaic, and certainly not in ancient Biblical Hebrew.
Romans 1:4-6 (NASB)
... Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name's sake, among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ ...
And, if the Apostles wrote in Aramaic (the dialect of the Hebrews, "τῇ Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ", Acts 26:14), then it is reasonable to believe that the Apostles also called Jesus, "ܝܫܘܥ", or "Isho'" in Aramaic.
If Paul introduced himself as "Paul", would we consider it reasonable to disrespect him and call him by his Hebrew name, "Sha'ul"? If the Apostles of Jesus Christ were given authority to establish the Church, and they consistently introduced Jesus to the nations as "Iesous" and "Isho'", could it be considered reasonable to claim that people all over the world called Jesus, "Yeshua" instead?
Since the Apostles used Aramaic and Greek names for Jesus, then it is reasonable for us to express the name of Jesus in different dialects as well. Also, because Hebrew was not widely known in Israel except among scholars, and because there are no ancient Hebrew texts that refer to Jesus as "Yeshua", it is reasonable to conclude that few people, if any, ever referred to Jesus as "Yeshua" as people do today 2000 years later.
7. What Did God Call Jesus?
Matt. 1:23 (NASB)
"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" —which means, "God with us."
Now beyond doubt, this is most arguably the Hebrew name of Jesus. God said it and Gabriel confirmed it. And even both Matthew the Apostle, and Isaiah the Prophet wrote it.
What is really awesome about this is that even though this is not an "Imperative Command", and Scripture does not directly command anyone to call Jesus "Immanuel", (עִמָּנוּ אֵל), it is a "Testimony" of God, something that God has witnessed of the future. Therefore, if God said that Jesus' Hebrew name was Immanuel, we can assume that we know what Jesus' real Hebrew name was.
It was very common for people to have different names in different languages: Peter's name was Simon in Hebrew, Cephas in Aramaic, and Petros in Greek. The list goes on. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that Jesus had an Aramaic name, "Isho'", a Greek name, "Iesous", and a Hebrew name, "Immanuel".
8. Conclusion
It is clear that the Apostles accepted and even encouraged the transliteration of the name of Jesus into other languages.
However, claiming that the Apostles, the people of Israel, or the rest of the world knew of Jesus as "Yeshua" in Hebrew during the period of the Apostolic Church is not supported at all historically.
And, if the Apostles did not consider proclaiming the name of Jesus in Hebrew as necessary, then it is well beyond the intellectualism of anyone today to suggest that the Church should use this name outside of Hebrew speaking communities.
Finally, because we know that faith must be preceded by what God has said and not our own intellectualism, it is not reasonable to ask others to simply believe that Jesus was originally called "Yeshua" in Hebrew. Rather, we can say with certainty that the Apostles, the Apostolic Church, and Scripture, all spoke of Jesus as, "Immanuel", "Isho'", and "Iesous".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
