How is it that one genealogy has provoked over 1,900 years of discussion?  And yet Matthew began his gospel with an intended purpose: to not only defend Mary’s character and honor, but to set the record straight regarding the circumstances surrounding Jesus’ conception and birth.  Why was this necessary?  Because there were many rumors and “stories” circulating on what people thought happened.  And even today, when an unmarried woman becomes pregnant, there are rumors and “stories” about what had happened.

A HISTORICAL CONTROVERSY

Now before getting into the evidence, there’s been a long-standing argument between the Western and Eastern branches of Christianity.  The Western Branch, comprised of Roman Catholics and Protestant denominations, have traditionally argued that the New Testament was originally written in Greek; however, the Eastern Branch, comprised of the various Orthodox denominations (Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, etc.), have traditionally argued that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic.  And both sides claim to have the original New Testament – the West with the Greek New Testament and the East with the Aramaic New Testament, called the Peshitta, and both sides having evidence to support their position.  And as I will show, this controversy is an important foundation in exploring the evidence.

THE TESTIMONY OF THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS

However, when we look at the history and writings of the early Church Fathers, we discover that the testimony of FOUR of them is that the gospel of Matthew was, in fact, written in Hebrew and then later translated into Greek.  In Eusebius’ history, he quotes the writings of all four of them –

PAPIAS (60-163 C.E.)
Of Matthew he had stated as follows: “Matthew composed his history in the Hebrew dialect, and everyone translated it as he was able.” (Book 3, Chapter 39:16, page 106)

IRENAEUS (130-202 C.E.)
Matthew, indeed, produced his gospel written among the Hebrews in their own dialect.  (Book 5, Chapter 8:2, page 164)

CLEMENT (150-215 C.E.)
Matthew also having first proclaimed the gospel in Hebrew, when on the point of going also to other nations, committed it to writing in his native tongue and thus supplied the want of his presence to them by his writings. (Book 3, Chapter 24:6, page 89)

 ORIGEN (184-253 C.E.)
The first [gospel] us written according to Matthew, the same that was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who having published it for the Jewish converts, wrote it in the Hebrew.  (Book 6, Chapter 25:4, page 215)

Also, Irenaeus (130-202 C.E.) wrote in his writing Against Heresies,

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Book 3, Chapter 1:1).

But in spite of the clear testimony of these early Church Fathers, going back to Papias, who was a disciple of the Apostle John and lived about the time the synoptic gospels are believed to have been written, the dominant opinion of those in the Western branch of Christianity is that the Gospels, including Matthew, was originally written in Greek.

However, Papias would’ve known about the synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, because according to Eusebius, the Apostle John himself had read all three of these gospels and had given “his testimony to their truth,” but there were things which he said they had left out “of the things done by Christ among the first of his deeds and at the commencement of the gospel” (Book 3, Chapter 24:7, page 89), so he sought to “fill in the missing materials,” which is why John’s Gospel is different than the other three.

However, since Papias was alive during John’s time and his disciple, then he would’ve known of Matthew’s work as well, in both of the Hebrew and the Greek.  Consequently, it should be noted that the early date of 58-68 C.E. for Matthew’s Gospel is for the Greek version, which means the Hebrew original, if we accept the testimony of Papias, as well as the other early church fathers, would’ve been written years earlier.

ANOTHER CONTROVERSY – THE DATING OF MATTHEW

Although Christian scholars give the Gospel writings a much earlier date of when they were written, for example, Matthew (58-68 C.E.), Mark (67-68 C.E.), and Luke (58-60 C.E.), many modern scholars date Matthew much later (around 90 C.E.), since they believe the Gospel of Matthew had to have been written after the destruction of Jerusalem since in Matthew’s gospel Jesus prophecies of its destruction.  Obviously, since they do not believe in a God who objectively exists and has revealed Himself to us through His Word, and then in His Son, so then in their mind, since Jerusalem’s destruction was prophesied by Jesus, then they believe it had to have been written after the event had happened.

TWO ISSUES WITH THE GENEALOGY

Now that we’ve discussed some of the historical controversies with the book as a whole, there’s two historical controversies that deal specifically with Matthew’s genealogy.  First of all, it doesn’t match the genealogy with Luke’s (Luke 3: 23-38) and yet, in the Greek versions, both are said to belong to Joseph.  How can Joseph have two very different genealogies?  This discussion has been going on  since at least the early second century, C.E.

Another issue is the contradiction between the number of generations Matthew claims to be in the genealogy and what is given there in the Greek and English versions.  In Matthew 1:17, he writes,

So all the generations from Abraham to David are FOURTEEN generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are FOURTEEN generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are FOURTEEN generations. [Emphasis Mine]

But if we go through and count the generations, the numbers are correct, except for the generations from Babylon until Christ (Matthew 1:12-16):

And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechoniah begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; and Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Now if you count the generations here (not counting Jechoniah since he’s mentioned in the previous verse), then we end up with only 13 generations, not 14, as Matthew stated; however, my argument for why this is Mary’s genealogy, not Joseph’s, will correct both  discrepancies regarding this genealogy.

WHY DID MATTHEW BEGIN HIS GOSPEL WITH A GENEALOGY?

Now that we’ve looked at all the foundational historical controversies, let’s ask the important question: Why did Matthew begin his gospel with a genealogy?  I believe that one of the main reasons for this and with the account of Jesus’ conception and birth was to defend the character of Mary (as I will show), as well as set the account straight as to the events of the immaculate conception and Virgin birth.

MARY’S GALILEAN BACKGROUND

First of all, in looking at the character of Mary, we have to consider her Galilean upbringing in the 1st century, C.E.  The Galilee was a well-known “hotbed” of Zealot activity.  The Zealots were political activists that fought against Roman oppression and desired a “free Israel.”  In fact, there are numerous accounts of local Zealots, many of whom may have been family and friends of Mary and her family dying in battle or being crucified by Romans.  If anything, as I will show, Mary was an Orthodox Jewish woman, but the heart of a Zealot burned within her.  She was “a true daughter of David,” who was much more politically-oriented than Joseph.

THE NAMING OF MARY’S CHILDREN

One reason I believe that Mary was much more politically oriented than Joseph was the names chosen for her children.  Although two of them were named after the patriarchs, Jacob (“James” in the Greek) and Joseph (or “Joses” in the Greek), three of them were named after military war heroes: Joshua, Judah and Simon.

Joshua (or “Jesus” in the Greek), was not only the successor of Moses, but he was the greatest military leader Israel had up through the first century, C.E.   And considering he was conceived during Hanukkah (according to research), the celebration of a war victory against the Seleucid-Greek military, it’s no wonder why people had such military expectations of Him.  I believe He will, indeed, fulfill those military expectations in His Second Coming and during His Millennial reign.

Her other two sons, Judah and Simon, also were well renowned war heroes from the the war against the Seleucid-Greeks.  This war was held up as the ideal among the Zealots, who many of them lived and fought there in the Galilee against their Roman oppressors, just as Judah Maccabees and his brothers did against the Seleucid Greeks of their day.  And since Mary grew up in the Galilee, we can see from the naming of the children that her heart was very much like other Galileans of her time: one that desired freedom from their Roman oppressors.  And therefore, when the angel Gabriel came to her during Hanukkah to tell her about Jesus, I’m sure she probably saw this as an opportunity to contribute largely to the war effort and the freedom of her people.

TESTIMONY OF THE VILLAGERS

And I’m sure that when Mary ended up pregnant, there were many speculations about the identity of the father.   Some might think that they would suspect Joseph of not waiting the one-year betrothal period, but his reputation was such that he was not even suspected.  Instead, it was Mary was carried the weight and suspicion of wrong doing which is why Matthew begins his gospel the way that he does.  But even though there were “rumors” flying around about Mary, Jesus is still called “the carpenter’s son.” For example, in Matthew 13, when Jesus goes back to Nazareth and teaches in their synagogue, it’s significant what the village people ask:

Is not this the carpenter’s son?  Is not his mother called Mary?  and his brothers, James and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?  And his sisters, are they not all with us?  Where then has this man all these things? (Matthew 13:55)

There’s no indication here that they suspected any one specific of being Jesus’ biological father, but there’s a hint that they did suspect it to be someone else other than Joseph.  For example, in the Gospel of John, there’s a hinting of an off-cuff remark made to Jesus, which seems out of place:

Jesus says: “You do the deeds of your father.”
Then they say to Him: “We are NOT BORN OF FORNICATION; we have one Father, even God.”  (John 8:41; Emphasis Mine)

This comment seems like a back-handed insult to Jesus, alluding to the stories of His conception.

THE REPUTATION OF JAMES, BROTHER OF JESUS

Although there were stories circulated about Mary in quiet whispers, they apparently did not interfere with the reputation of the family overall.  For example, according to historical accounts, James was so ultra-Orthodox in his beliefs, practices and lifestyle, that he was called “the Just” or “the Righteous One,” by both followers of Jesus and non-followers alike, and as a result of his “extremely righteous lifestyle,” he was allowed to do what no other non-Levitical Jew was allowed:

He alone was allowed to enter the sanctuary [the Temple]…He was in the habit of entering the temple alone and was often found upon his bended knees, and interceding for the forgiveness of the people; so that his knees became as hard as camel’s, in consequence of his habitual supplication and kneeling before God.  (Eusebius, Book 2, Chapter 23:6, pp. 59-60)

If it was believed that Mary was a known adulteress, as well as a liar, I’m sure this would’ve never been allowed, even with his righteous lifestyle.  But it may have been the result of Joseph and his family living such an ultra-Orthodox Jewish lifestyle, even by the standards of their own day, which we know because Joseph and James are both called “Just” or “Righteous,” that perhaps, their status within the village was respected and this was not discussed, but it didn’t mean that there wasn’t “talk” about how Mary came up suddenly “pregnant” during their one-year betrothal.

However, based on my research, I believe, as I stated earlier, that one major reason for the inclusion of Matthew’s genealogy and the story of Jesus’ conception and birth right at the beginning of his gospel was to address these rumors and stories.  Consequently, once we examine all of the evidence available, it will demonstrate that Matthew was attempting to off-set the rumors in defense of Mary, as well as connect Jesus to the Davidic throne, but at the same time, this evidence also contradicts the traditional view that the Matthew’s genealogy was Joseph’s and the one in Luke 3 was Mary’s.  The evidence for this, I believe,  is the following.

1.  THE GREEK MATTHEW IS A TRANSLATION OF AN EARLIER HEBREW VERSION
   

   The overall evidence strongly supports the view that the Greek Gospel of Matthew is, in fact, a translation from an earlier Hebrew and Aramaic source.   It should be remembered that during their seventy years in Babylon, a lot of Aramaic words were adopted into the Hebrew language.  So actually all of the controversies and problems with the genealogies and the numerical contradiction can all be resolved if ONLY ONE WORD that was mistranslated from the Hebrew-Aramaic into the Greek is corrected.  This one word is found in Matthew 1:16,

   And Jacob begat Joseph the HUSBAND of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called the Christ.

And within this verse, the problem is the word “HUSBAND.”  You see, in Greek, there’s a clear distinction between the words “father” and “husband,” but this distinction is not clear in Aramaic.

2.  THE ARAMAIC WORD GOWRA

In the Aramaic New Testament, called the Peshitta (pron. “peh-shee-tuh“), the word translated as “husband” is the word gowra (pron. “gow-rah“).  According to several researchers, such as Paul Younan and Andrew Gabriel Roth, both part of the Peshitta translation team, among others online, the word “gowra” can be translated as “man” in the generic sense, or as “husband” or “father” depending upon the context.  For example, in Paul Younan’s article “Use of Orbg in Classical and Contemporary Aramaic Thought,” he writes that in the Aramaic New Testament,

Matthew 1:16 reads, “Jacob fathered Joseph, the hrbg of Maryam.”  The word used here, in verse 16, is Orbg with a 3rd person feminine pronominal possessive suffix or h (i.e., “her gowra“).  [Although] the word has traditionally been translated as “husband,” however, the main Semitic word for “Husband” is f9b (“Ba’la,” or, h19b for “her husband.”)

Examples of the word ba’la can be found in a number of New Testament references, for example: Matthew 1:19; Mark 10:12; Luke 2:36; John 4:16-18; Romans 7:2-3; I Corinthians 7:4, 10. 13, 16, 39; Ephesians 5:33; I Timothy 3:2; and Titus 1:6.

But after establishing this dominant pattern within the New Testament, Younan then asks an extremely interesting question: “Why would Matthew use two different terms, in such a short span of writing (3 verses – 1:16 to 1:19), to refer to Maryam’s ‘husband,’ Yoseph?”  And his answer, based on his research and study of the Aramaic, seems equally valid:

The fact is, he had to distinguish between two different people named Joseph – Matthew is not referring to Mary’s husband in verse 16 at all, but rather to her father!

3.  THERE WERE TWO JOSEPHS?

So there were two Josephs?  Actually, in the first century, C.E.,  there were many Josephs since the name “Joseph” was one of the most popular male names of the time, and therefore, the likelihood that Mary’s father and husband shared the same first name is quite feasible.  Younan, in fact, goes on to say that

Depending on context, it has been shown that Orgb [“gawra”] can mean “man, husband or father.”  The usage in verse 16 would demand that we translate Orgb as “father,” rather than “husband,” since the context is a genealogy.  Verses 18 & 19, however, would demand that we associate that Joseph with her “husband,” since the context is that of a marriage.

Those who are continuing to hold to their view that Matthew was originally written in Greek are dismissing this research as “inconclusive.”  They claim that if Mary was the intended focus of his genealogy, he would have done something unique to indicate that, and they claim that he didn’t.  However, I believe they are in error.  Matthew did do something unique, he added the names of four other women.

4.  THE INCLUSION OF THE FOUR WOMEN.

Although the names of women in a genealogy was not at all customary, if we compare Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies, we notice something unusual in Matthew’s that we do not see at all in Luke’s, the names of FOUR WOMEN, all with a questionable past.

THAMAR (Matthew 1:3).  In Genesis 38, Tamar, a Canaanite woman (a Gentile; non-Jew) Judah’s daughter-in-law dressed up as a Canaanite prostitute to attract Judah, her father-in-law, to have sex with her since he would not give her his third son, Shelah, to be her husband, as was custom, since her husband, Er, and his brother, Onan, had both died.

RACHAB (Matthew 1:5).  In Joshua 2, Rahab, a Canaanite woman (Gentile; non-Jewish) Jericho inn keeper and prostitute, hid and protected the two Israeli spies from capture by the authorities there, and as a result, she and her whole household were saved and became a part of the people of Israel. (Joshua 2:1-24)

RUTH (the book of Ruth).  Ruth was a Moabitess, a Gentile.  The people of Moab practiced child sacrifice as part of their worship to their god, Molech.  And yet somehow she had married one of Naomi’s sons, who then later died, leaving her a widow.  Ruth returns to the land of Israel with Naomi and cares for her.  Ultimately, she marries Boaz, the son of Salmon and Rahab, herself a Gentile convert.

BATHSHEBA, “The Wife of Uriah” (Matthew 1:6).  Although her name is not mentioned, Matthew does allude to her as “the wife of Uriah.”  David had committed adultery with her, and then when she ended up pregnant, he tried to get Uriah to sleep with Bathsheba to cover up what he had done.  When that didn’t work, he sent Uriah to the front of the battle to have him killed, and then he marries her.  Although their child dies as part of God’s judgment, she does become the mother of Solomon, who would succeed David on the throne.

When we consider who these women are and their “questionable past,” it is clear that Matthew has incorporated them into the genealogy as part of his argument that just because a woman has “a questionable past” does not mean that God cannot use her, nor does it mean that she should be excluded from God’s plan, since all four women make up Jesus’ genealogy.  Now this argument makes complete sense if the genealogy belongs to Mary, since she is the one who is facing the raised suspicions, but if this genealogy belongs to Joseph, then the inclusion of these four women make absolutely no sense at all, since he is NOT the one under suspicion of acting inappropriately.

5.  THE PROMISE GIVEN TO HER BY GABRIEL

Another reason I believe that this is Mary’s genealogy and not Joseph’s is the message given to Mary from the angel Gabriel in Luke’s Gospel,

Fear not, Mary: for you have found favor with God.  And, behold, you shall conceive in your womb, and bring forth a son, and shall call His name Jesus.  He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the LORD God shall give unto Him THE THRONE OF HIS FATHER DAVID: AND HE SHALL REIGN OVER THE HOUSE OF JACOB FOREVER; AND OF HIS KINGDOM THERE SHALL BE NO END. (Luke 1:30-33)

Now when Mary questions how could this happen since she was not married or been intimate with a man, Gabriel explains:

The Holy Ghost [Spirit] shall come upon you, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow you: therefore also that HOLY thing which be born of you shall be called THE SON OF GOD. (Luke 1:35; Emphasis Mine)

This explanation was not penned by Mary, but by a trained Greek medical physician.  If anyone would have been suspicious to an immaculate conception, he would’ve been.  But he was clear in the beginning that he had set these things down, so “you would know the certainty of those things, where you have been instructed” (Luke 1:4).  Obviously, he had done “his homework” to check the validity of these things before setting them down in writing.

JOSEPH – NOT OF THE ROYAL LINE?

Now compare what the angel told Mary with what the same angel told Joseph:

You Son of David, fear not to take unto you Mary your wife; for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost [Spirit].  And she shall bring forth a son, and you shall call His name Jesus: for He shall save His people from their sins. (Matthew 1:20-21)

There’s not one mention here of David’s throne, or the fact of Jesus ruling and reigning over the house of Jacob.  If the Matthew genealogy actually belonged to Joseph, as Christians have been traditionally taught, then wouldn’t it make sense for the angel to speak to Joseph about the throne, instead of Mary? But this isn’t what happened.  The angel Gabriel speaks to Joseph about the spiritual – “He shall save His people from their sins -” but to Mary, he speaks to her about the Davidic throne.

The very fact that Mary, who is the ONLY biological parent of Jesus, is spoken to about the Davidic throne and the Kingdom clearly demonstrate that it is she, and NOT JOSEPH, who is the actual true descendant of David and Solomon, NOT Joseph.  Reaffirming again, that the Matthew genealogy belongs to her and not Joseph, and that his genealogy is the one given in Luke 3.

6.  THE CROWNING OF KING SOLOMON

Although both genealogies trace the ancestry back to King David, only Matthew’s goes through the line of Solomon.  And according to the Scriptures, the royal lineage would be through David, and Solomon and his son, Rehoboam (Matthew 1:6-7), but not through David’s other son, Nathan, seen in Luke’s genealogy.  interestingly, when Solomon is born, the Scriptures tell us “and the LORD loved him” (2 Samuel 12:25), a statement that’s not made about any of David’s other sons, giving us an early indication of who would be chosen to succeed David as King.

And although in I Kings, Bathsheba reminds David that he had sworn by the LORD God that Solomon would succeed him (I Kings 1:17), a promise David reconfirms (I Kings 1:28-30), and then makes it happen (I Kings 1:32-53), in I Chronicles 28, we learn that it was God, in fact, who had chosen Solomon to succeed the throne (I Chronicles 28:5).  Therefore, the royal lineage has to go through Solomon, and not through any other of David’s sons.  And since Mary’s name actually appears in the Matthew lineage, and Mary is only human parent that Jesus has, it only makes sense that the genealogy in Matthew must belong to her.

7.  PAUL’S INTRODUCTION IN ROMANS

Another reason that the Matthew genealogy must belong to Mary since it traces her ancestry back to David and Solomon is the statement that Paul makes in his introduction to the church in Rome.

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (which he had promised afore by his prophets in the Holy Scriptures,) concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which WAS MADE OF THE SEED OF DAVID ACCORDING TO THE FLESH;….” (Romans 1:1-3)

This is Paul telling us that Jesus was, in fact, physically descended from David, Solomon, and Rehoboam.  Paul did not say that Jesus was descended from David through marriage or even adoption, but through “the flesh.”  He was a physical descendant and, therefore, He has every legal right to the throne.

7.  THE TEACHING OF GOD’S LAW.

Now Jews have traditionally argued that Jewish nationality and tribal identity come through the father, not the mother.  So since God was His father, and not Joseph, they have argued that Jesus does not have the right to be called “a Jew,” “a son of David,” much less “the lion of the tribe of Judah.”  However, it was Mary, not Joseph, who was Jesus’ ONLY physical human parent.  Therefore, the answer lies, not in adoption, but in God’s law given to Moses.

In the Inheritance Laws in Numbers 27, a case is brought before Moses.  The five daughters of Zelophehad, a descendant of Joseph’s, was dead, and their father had no sons, to continue the family line.  Therefore, their inheritance would’ve been lost; however, God tells Moses that their request that they be allowed to inherit along with the other males in the tribe was a legitimate request and was to be honored.

The daughters of Zelophehad speak right: you shall surely give them a possession of an inheritance among their father’s brethren; and you shall cause the inheritance of their father to pass unto them. (Numbers 27:7)

This, therefore, provides a legal precedence for Jesus, who does not have a human male parent to be able to inherit His nationality and His tribal identity. In addition, since it is His mother, Mary, who is the true descendant of David, Solomon and Rehoboam, then according to the precedence in God’s law as well, Jesus is the rightful, legal heir of the throne of David and the promised Kingdom, as Paul stated “through the flesh.”

CONCLUSION

There’s more to the genealogy at the beginning of Matthew than to give a list of the names of the family tree.  Matthew wrote it as part of his defense of Mary’s character and also to argue that in spite of a “woman’s questionable past,” God can still use her for His glory and she can even make up the royal family tree of David, Solomon, and ultimately, Messiah Himself.  And finally, Matthew wrote it to substantiate and prove Jesus’ physical legal right by birth to the Davidic throne and to the promised Kingdom of God.

 

Return to the top

In this part of this study, I’ll continue to look at the four common deceptions being preached in the church today.   In the first part, we looked at the deception that “all it takes to get saved is to pray the “sinner’s prayer,” and that “Jesus’ life and teachings are not required for Christians.”  But in this part, we will examine these last two deceptions:

(3) To be saved, we can accept Jesus as our Savior without accepting Him as “Lord”; and
(4) Salvation is an event, NOT a life-long process.

(3) THAT TO BE SAVED, WE JUST HAVE TO ACCEPT JESUS AS SAVIOR
WITHOUT MAKING HIM OUR LORD.

This third error taught by these NTO preachers and teachers is that to be saved, we can accept Jesus as our Savior, but we do not have to make Him our Lord since accepting Jesus as Lord is an additional step beyond salvation.  Why?  Because Jesus has standards that people have to meet to be a disciple of His, and from their perspective, to teach that one must meet these standards to be saved would be adding to “grace” and, therefore, to them, it’s unacceptable.

Many of these NTO pastors and teachers do not really biblically understand “grace,” because they’ve been taught to view it through the perspective of a religion, instead of a Kingdom.  You see, in a Kingdom, the King owns everything: the land, the grass, tress, plants, water, buildings, resources, and even the people.  And not just their bodies, but their dreams, plans, desires, jobs, and all that they produce. So obviously, there’s NOTHING that one can do to “EARN” anything to give to the King, because he already owns it all.  Therefore, if the King decides to do anything for you or me, then it is “unearned” or “unmerited favor,” that is, “grace.”

You see, in the Roman empire, one could pay for one’s citizenship; however, God is the ultimate King of all Kings, and He owns it all, so there’s nothing we can offer Him that He doesn’t already own.  And we can’t buy our citizenship, like in the Roman empire, so that His gift of “salvation” – making us citizens of His Kingdom – comes to us by “grace” [His unmerited favor towards us] through faith [our continuing trust in what Jesus did for us, as well as our continuing trust in God and Jesus as the dynasty of our Kingdom to lead us, care for us, and provide for us.]  Not at all a hard concept when you understand it within the context of Kingdom.

But once we understand “grace” from a Kingdom perspective, we can also understand “works” to be about gaining our citizenship [salvation], not about how we live as citizens.  For example, a person from France can come to the United States and obey all of our laws, but this does not make him a “citizen” of the U.S.  Instead, to become a citizen, he must go through the “naturalization process.”  The same is true of God’s Kingdom.  Obeying all of His laws will not make us citizens of His Kingdom; instead, we must go through His “naturalization process” of believing that Jesus is Lord and that He died for our sins on the cross, that He rose again, and then being baptized in water as part of our repentance for sin.  But once we are saved, God, like the U.S., expects His citizens to keep His laws.

In fact, did you know that nowhere in the Bible does God ever give the right to people to decide what’s required for people to go to heaven?  Nowhere at all.  The very fact that any religious leader thinks that he or she has the right to tell people what they need to be saved at all, based on what they think is right, only proves that they are viewing God and His Word in the context of religion and not in the context of Kingdom.  It is the KING (God) who sets down the requirements one must fulfill to gain entry into His own Kingdom – not anyone else, regardless of who they are.

And God has said in His word that part of the naturalization process to gain citizenship in His Kingdom is that you must “confess” (make a public stand swearing your allegiance and loyalty) that “Jesus is Lord.”  The word “Lord” means “master” or “owner,” and its another term for King.  Jesus is our King, and as our King, He is our Master and Owner.  We BELONG to Him because HE PURCHASED US (OR BOUGHT US) WITH HIS BLOOD, so as His people, He expects our continual love, allegiance and loyalty throughout our lives.

And since He is the KING and LORD, then His opinion, which He has given in His Word, is the ONLY opinion that matters.  He either owns you or He doesn’t.  Jesus doesn’t play this game where you belong to Him when it is convenient for you, but when it isn’t convenient because you want to do something you know He doesn’t approve of, then you are your own boss: “It’s my life, I’ll do what I want to do with it.”  Tell me, where’s Jesus’ ownership of your life in this statement?

(4)  SALVATION IS A LIFE-LONG PROCESS, NOT AN EVENT

The Bible is clear that you cannot be saved simply by saying the “sinner’s prayer.”  Why? Because salvation is a covenantal relationship between a person and God; therefore, as a covenant, it is not a one-time experience, but a life-long journey that BEGINS the moment we accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior, and then continues on UNTIL we come into the presence of the Lord, either at death or His return.

Salvation happens in three interactive stages:
(1) REGENERATION (or “the New Birth”; “Born Again”; or Justification):  That initial stage when we are forgiven, given a new heart and a new spirit, and we are saved from the penalty of sin;
(2) SANCTIFICATION: The longest stage when we are “being saved” from the control and power of sin in our day-to-day life; and
(3) GLORIFICATION:  The final stage when we come into the Presence of God and Jesus Christ and receive our new bodies, either at death or at His return.

Notice that salvation in this journey incorporates all three of these stages.  It does not all happen in the first initial stage.  This is where it begins!  Just think about the Exodus.  If God told Israel, “I am giving you the Promised Land,” but they chose to remain in their homes where they celebrated Passover, never leaving Egypt, would they’ve ever entered the land and been able to enjoy what God had for them there?  No, because in order to actually acquire the land, they had to leave Egypt (our old lives of sin) and make their journey to the Promised Land.  We must do so, likewise, but our Promised Land is God’s Kingdom.

And what is the ASSURANCE or EVIDENCE that we are on this journey with Christ?  It is a “transformed life” and a lifestyle that is continually improving in living in obedience to God and to His commandments, not just going up front and saying “the sinner’s prayer.”  Nor is it just two commandments that we are to follow, but all of them that apply from Genesis to Revelation.

The two great commandments that Jesus quoted was a SUMMARY of the Ten Commandments, which in themselves, are a SUMMARY of the commandments found from Genesis to Deuteronomy.  A SUMMARY does not take the place of what it is summarizing; instead, it just gives a glimpse of how we are to view the material.  The two commandments given by Jesus reveals that Jesus viewed the commandments as expressions of love – NOT “legalism” or “bondage” or “the ministry of death” that you hear from pastors or ministers today.  The law that Paul called “the ministry of death” was NOT God’s law but “the law of sin” seen and manifested through the Oral tradition, a tradition that Jews to this day trace back to Mt. Sinai.  The first use of God’s law is not traced back to Sinai – but to Abraham (see Genesis 26:5).

Therefore, if we claim that we were “saved,” but we are not any different today than we were before we started 6 months ago, a year ago, two years ago, or even three years ago, then we need to question whether or not we were actually saved.  For example, in 2 Corinthians 13, Paul writes,  “Test yourselves to see IF YOU ARE IN THE FAITH; examine yourselves!” (13:5)  Now why do we have to TEST or EXAMINE ourselves on whether or not we are actually IN THE FAITH if all it takes to be saved is a simple prayer?

In John 8, Jesus is speaking to Jews who have put their faith and trust in Him (John 8:31).  By the standards of NTO preachers and teachers,  these Jews should be considered “saved,” and Jesus should be congratulating them for doing all that they needed to do to be saved and go to heaven.  But is this what Jesus did?  No, it isn’t.  Instead, Jesus tells them,

IF YOU CONTINUE IN MY WORD [TEACHINGS], THEN ARE YOU TRULY MY DISCIPLES INDEED,  and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you FREE” (John 8:31-32; Emphasis Mine).

Notice, these are “Jews which believed on Him,” yet Jesus is clearly telling them that believing on Him ONCE doesn’t make them His disciples, but only if they CONTINUE in His teachings, and only by CONTINUING in His teachings will they come to know the truth that will make FREE.  In fact, by the time Jesus continues speaking with them, these “new Jewish believers” are ready to stone Him!  And if this had been Gentile [non-Jewish] believers, they would have done the same!  They would have acted no differently.

So the question you need to ask yourself is NOT whether you went up to the altar and said the “sinner’s prayer,” that’s step #1, but “ARE YOU CONTINUING IN HIS TEACHINGS?”  Where are you today in comparison to where you began?  But throughout this article, what I’ve been trying to show you is the problem these NTO preachers and teachers have created through their doctrine:

• If Jesus’ life and teachings are NOT for Christians today, as many NTO preachers and teachers are saying, then how can we “CONTINUE” in them?
• Therefore, the very basis of what makes us Jesus’ “disciples,” according to Jesus, is NOT for Christians.
• Consequently, based on their NTO logic, a Christian can not become one of Jesus’ disciples since His teachings are not for them.

I hope you can see the fallacies of these men’s teachings since like the Pharisees in Jesus’ time, they have invalidated the word of God for the sake of their tradition.

Also,  in Paul’s second epistle to the church at Corinth, Paul is sarcastic, while yet seeking to correct them, for falling for those who are preaching to them “another Jesus” and “another gospel”:

But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled [deceived] Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.  For if he that comes preaching ANOTHER JESUS, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive ANOTHER SPIRIT, which ye have not received, or ANOTHER GOSPEL, which you have not accepted, you might well bear with him. (2 Corinthians 11:3-4; Emphasis Mine)

And just like at Corinth, the American Church has fallen for those who are preaching “ANOTHER JESUS” and “ANOTHER GOSPEL.” And what is sad is that the majority of people who are calling themselves “Christians” have fallen for these four deceptive errors I’ve discussed.

But if we are going to ignore the damage these NTO deceptions are doing to the Body of Christ, then hey, (sarcastically) let’s just open the doors wide for anyone who has anything to say about Jesus: the Mormons, the Jehovah Witnesses, the Hindus (who teach Jesus is the reincarnation of Lord Krishna) and the Buddhists (who teach Jesus was a reincarnation of the Buddha, who lived 500 years before Jesus), and anyone else we can include.  Because Christianity isn’t about truth but “love” and making people feel good, right?

Hopefully, you know I’m being sarcastic.  Such a move would not, in any way, be wise.  I mean,  just because someone says that they believe in JESUS CHRIST does NOT make them “saved.”  Jesus again taught this:

Not every one that says to Me, “Lord, Lord,” shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of My Father which is in heaven.  Many will say to Me in that day, “Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name?  And in Your name have cast out devils?  And in Your name done many wonderful works [or miracles]?  And then I will profess unto them, I NEVER KNEW YOU: depart from Me, you that work [or perform or practice] iniquity.  (Matthew 7:21-23)

Jesus makes it quite clear here that calling Him “Lord” is not enough to get into heaven.  There’s going to be MANY in that day of judgment who will do this, and they will even claim to have done things for Him by the power of the Holy Spirit.  But in spite of this, He will tell them to DEPART from Him.  Why?  Because they continued to live in “iniquity” or “lawlessness.”  This is the English translation of the Greek word ANOMIA (Strong’s #458).  ANOMIA means the following:

1.  Transgression of the law (used this way in I John 3:4; and
2.  Not having, knowing or acknowledging the law.

Therefore, for people to live their lives either directly transgressing God’s law or simply by not having, knowing or acknowledging the law in their life is ANOMIA, or INIQUITY or LAWLESSNESS.  And these are the people Jesus is going to say, “Depart from Me.”  These are people who lived their lives ignoring God’s commandments, or not doing “the will of the Father” [i.e., not obeying His commandments from the heart], and as a result, Jesus will let them know that He never truly knew them.  So what we can infer from this statement by Him is that Jesus knows those who live in obedience to His commandments, including the Old Testament commandments, by the power of His Spirit, but not those who claim to be His but continue to live their lives in sin.

In fact, right before this, Jesus gave this important teaching:

A good tree bears good fruit; but the bad tree bears bad fruit.  A good tree CANNOT produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.   Every tree that does NOT bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.  So then, you will know them by their fruits.  (Matthew 7:17-20, Emphasis Mine)

Jesus says here that “A GOOD TREE [a “saved person”] CANNOT produce bad fruit [continue in sin].”  So I can see why these NTO preachers and teachers want to eliminate the teachings of Christ from the life of Christians because His teachings contradict their views and ideas of “free grace.”  Therefore, they are willing to sacrifice anything to maintain their pet doctrine, even Jesus Himself.  In understanding this, I wonder in what way, they are any different from the Scribes and Pharisees of Jesus’ day?

Jesus says here that “obedience to God” is, in fact, a part of salvation.  Notice, He says here that “Every tree [person] that does NOT bear good fruit is cut down and THROWN INTO THE FIRE.”  Obviously, then, salvation involves more than just the “sinner’s prayer.”  So am I saying that Paul was wrong?  No, I am saying that our interpretation of Paul is wrong.  Although Paul continually taught that our obedience to God’s law does not JUSTIFY us (Stage 1 of salvation), there is no where in Paul’s writings where he teaches argues against the use of the law in our SANCTIFICATION (Stage 2 of our salvation).  In fact, the law’s presence in these teachings is strongly implied or alluded to.  In fact, Paul believed that we and the law has a combined role to play in our own sanctification process.  For example, consider what Paul teaches in 2 Corinthians:

And what agreement has the temple of God with idols?  For you are the temple of the living God; as God has said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.  (2 Corinthians 16:16)

In this verse, Paul is quoting from Exodus 29:45 and Leviticus 26:12, incorporating God’s law into his teaching here in this passage.  What would be the point of this if the law is no longer valid for the Christian experience?  He then goes on to say,  

Wherefore come out from among them, and be you separate, says the Lord, and touch NOT the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and you shall be My sons and daughters, says the LORD ALMIGHTY.  (2 Corinthians 6: 17-18)

In this case, Paul is quoting from Isaiah 52:11 and Jeremiah 31:1.  So again, if the Old Testament is NOT for Christians as the NTO pastors and teachers say, then what’s the point of quoting something that’s allegedly no longer valid?  Also, notice here that Paul is saying that in order for the Lord to receive us, we must “come out from among them [the world and its ways], and be separate,” to NOT engage in sinful behaviors and actions, by “touch[ing[ NOT the unclean thing” [which are those things God told us throughout the Scriptures NOT to get involved in], and God says, “and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and you shall be My sons and daughters.”  Just saying a prayer at the altar is NOT enough.  Again, the sinner’s prayer is where salvation BEGINS, Step #1, it is not ALL there is to it.

After quoting these references, Paul then says,

Having therefore THESE PROMISES, dearly beloved, LET US CLEANSE OURSELVES from ALL FILTHINESS of the FLESH AND SPIRIT, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.  (2 Corinthians 7:1; Emphasis Mine)

Notice that Paul clearly says that we are to “CLEANS OURSELVES FROM ALL FILTHINESS OF THE FLESH AND SPIRIT.”  Why would any of this be necessary for us to do if ONLY believing in Jesus’ death and resurrection was all there was for us to do?  Obviously, there’s more to this SALVATION JOURNEY than what many NTO preachers and teachers are saying.   And so let’s ask the question: Why is this process of “SANCTIFICATION” necessary?  Because in Hebrews 12:14, the Scriptures teach us that “without holiness, NO MAN [OR WOMAN] shall see the Lord.”  Explain to me how you plan to be in heaven and NOT SEE God?  You living a sinful life will keep you out of heaven; thus, the need for justification AND sanctification.

It’s funny how these NTO preachers and teachers, who don’t believe that ALL of the Bible for today and for everyone, choose those verses which support their doctrines while ignoring other passages like the one here in 2 Corinthians 16:16-17:1.  Paul makes it quite clear that we have a role to play in our own sanctification.  Yes, God does have a role to play, but so do we.  And although these NTO preachers and teachers talk about God’s role, they claim that if we do anything to assist in that work, then it becomes “works,” and it’s no longer “grace.”  But clearly since Paul is telling us that we are to “CLEANSE OURSELVES from ALL FILTHINESS of the FLESH AND SPIRIT,” then it’s not “works” at all, but part of the salvation process.

Let me add one more point.  These NTO preachers and teachers say that our obedience to the commandments is “works” and not “grace.”  Then, if that is true, then believing in Jesus is also a form of “works” and not “grace,” for John writes in His epistle,

And this is His commandment, That we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as He gave us commandment.  (I John 3:23)

Obviously, if obedience to any of God’s commandments is a form of “works righteousness,” as these NTO preachers and teachers say, then according to the Apostle John our believing in Jesus is also one of God’s commandments; therefore, according to the NTO preachers and teachers, it constitutes “works” and not “grace.”  Obviously, then, there’s a major problem in what these NTO preachers and teachers define as “works.”

 

Return to the Top

The Hebrew Scriptures (or the Old Testament) has been a mystery for Christians since the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 C.E.  The traditional Christian teaching has been that it ended at the cross, particularly the Old Testament Law given in the first five books.  However, there’s enough textual reasons and evidence given in the Bible to call that traditional teaching into question.

THE HEBREW BIBLE – IT’S THREE PART COMPOSITE

The Hebrew Bible, called in Hebrew the TANAKH is an acronym for the three parts that make it up: “T” for the Torah (trans. “Law”); “N” – Nevi’im (Prophets); and the “K” for the Ketuvim (Writings).  Even though the same books are present in both the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament, they are arranged differently.  For example, in the Hebrew Bible, the last book is 2 Chronicles, but in the Christian Old Testament, the last book is Malachi.

“TESTAMENT OR COVENANT”?

Although in the Christian Bible, the two parts of the Bible is called the “Old Testament” and the “New Testament” in English, the word “Testament” should have been translated as “Covenant.”  The word “Testament” comes from the Latin word Testamentum, which can mean “Covenant” or “Testament.”  It is the Latin equivalent of the Greek word Diatheke, which can also mean “Covenant” or “Testament,” but diatheke is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word B’rit, which means “Covenant,” but it does not have the meaning of “Testament” in it at all.

There’s a major difference between the words “Covenant” and “Testament.”  It is understood that a NEWER TESTAMENT (like in one’s “Last Will & Testament”) automatically replaces an AN OLDER TESTAMENT; however, this is absolutely NOT TRUE for a Covenant.  A “COVENANT,” on the other hand, can be explained, expounded upon, further developed, and even added to, but it CANNOT be replaced, pushed aside, done away with, or annulled.   Consequently, how one translates the Greek word diatheke has a great importance in how that word is understood.

And since the title “New Testament” actually comes from the prophecy for the “NEW COVENANT” (“Brit Chadasha“) in the book of Jeremiah and a COVENANT is definitely NOT the same thing as a TESTAMENT, our Bibles should have been translated to say “OLD COVENANT” and “NEW COVENANT.”

BUT HOW MANY COVENANTS ARE THERE?

However, even the correction of OLD COVENANT is misleading, because there’s not just one covenant in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament – BUT AT LEAST SEVEN DIVINE COVENANTS!  Some might even argue as many as TEN DIVINE COVENANTS!

All of these covenants are discussed in the Old Testament.  The New Testament only mentions the covenants with Abraham, Moses and the children of Israel, and some parts of the Levitic, but it does not go into the detail with these other covenants that the Old Testament does.  And just as the “New Testament” highlights certain aspects of the Old Testament, so the next covenant will highlight other aspects of it.

WHAT ABOUT THE ADAMIC COVENANT?

Should this be counted among the covenants?  There are many who claim that all of the elements of covenant are there in the Garden of Eden, but I excluded it from the minimum list because the word “covenant” is not used in the Eden account, and I believe it’s because God did not want the word “covenant” associated with Eden.

HOW CAN IT BE DONE WHEN IT’S NOT FINISHED?

So when we consider the fact that there’s another covenant coming, a final covenant, for the Millennial reign, and that God has NOT completely fulfilled all the previous covenants either, then how can we legitimately claim that the “Old Testament has been fulfilled” or that the “Old Testament is no longer relevant”?  Those who make either one of these claims has apparently not spent any time, or very little time, actually studying the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, because if they did, they would see, as I do, what a clearly unfounded claim that they are actually making.

“DIDN’T JESUS SAY ON THE CROSS, ‘IT IS FINISHED’?”

Yes, He did, but He wasn’t speaking about the Old Testament, or even the Law, being finished, but our slavery in sin.  We need to remember that Jesus died on Passover, an observance whose theme was “Freedom from Slavery.”  Although Christianity may consider the Law to be a form of slavery, Jesus did not.  There was only one thing that Jesus ever called “slavery,” and that was sin.  Jesus died to free us from the slavery of sin, and its control over our lives, and by Him dying on the cross, our time of slavery was finished.  (For more information, see my article “Did Christ Bring the Law to an End?”)

FUTURE UNFULFILLED PROPHECIES

Also, there are many future unfulfilled prophecies in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament.  In fact, there are 500 Messianic prophecies that Jesus will fulfill during His coming return, the battle of Armageddon, and during the Millennium. (I’ll show some sample examples in just a minute.)  So let’s consider this for a moment: If these prophecies are not yet fulfilled, then how can we go around and make such brash and unfounded claims as “The Old Testament has been fulfilled” or “it is no longer relevant”?

ARE WE FOLLOWING THE BIBLE OR THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH?

The traditional view of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament was formulated by the Roman Catholic Church.  Rather than taking a literal view of the Scriptures, it spiritualized everything and turned various teaching into analogies.  They taught that the Church was the “New Israel,” and that the Jewish people had been rejected by God and got all the curses, while the church got all the blessings.  In addition, to further illustrate this idea, they taught that the New Testament had REPLACED the Old Testament.  The teaching that the New Testament has REPLACED the Old Testament is still extremely dominant in the Christian faith today.

But this teaching is not based on a literal interpretation of the Scriptures, and for Christian denominations who claim to believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible, and yet still teach that “the Old Testament, or even the Law, has been replaced by the New Testament” is in contradiction with itself.  For example, according to Zechariah 14, after Jesus returns and sets up His Kingdom, God tells us,

And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of ALL THE NATIONS which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to WORSHIP THE KING, THE LORD OF HOSTS, and to KEEP THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES.  And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTH unto Jerusalem to WORSHIP THE KING, THE LORD OF HOSTS, even upon them shall be no rain.  (Zechariah 14:16-17; Emphasis Mine)

If the Feasts in the Old Testament ended at the cross, as Christianity teaches, then why is God going to require EVERY FAMILY from ALL THE NATIONS to come to Jerusalem during the FEAST OF TABERNACLES to worship the King, Jesus Christ?  And not only the Feast of Tabernacles, but we will be required to worship God on the biblical SABBATH, not Sunday, and on the New Moon feasts:

For as the New heavens and the New Earth, which I will make, shall remain before Me, says the LORD, so shall your [Israel’s] seed and your name remain before Me.  And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall ALL FLESH come to worship before Me, says the LORD.  (Isaiah 66:22-23; Emphasis Mine)

Again, if the Sabbath and New Moon feasts ended at the cross, as Christianity teaches, then why is God going to require ALL FLESH to come and worship before Him during those times?  Notice, it does NOT say “all Israel” or “all Jews,” but “ALL FLESH.”  Jew and Gentile alike.  So if the commandments given to Moses was ONLY for the Jews, as Christianity teaches, then why is God going to require “ALL THE NATIONS,” “ALL FAMILIES” and “ALL FLESH” to observe them?

GENTILES ARE GOING TO SEEK TO BE WITH JEWS?

During the Millennium, people from the nations (Gentiles; non-Jews) are going to seek to be around and travel with Jews.  For example,

So many peoples and mighty nations will come to seek the LORD of hosts in Jerusalem and to entreat the favor of the LORD.  Thus says the LORD of hosts, “In those days ten men from all the nations will grasp [the corner of] the garment of a Jew saying, ‘Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.'” (Zechariah 8:22-23)

At what point in Jewish history has this ever happened?  It hasn’t, at least, not yet, but it will when Jesus returns and sets up His Kingdom in Jerusalem.  So how can the Old Testament be “fulfilled,” if this prophecy has not happened yet?

GOD’S COVENANTS WITH DAVID AND THE LEVITES?

Did you know in the book of Jeremiah, God has promised that as long as there’s day and night, God’s covenants with David and with the Levites shall stand.

For thus says the LORD; DAVID shall never want (or lack) a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel; neither shall THE PRIESTS want (or lack) a man before Me to OFFER BURNT OFFERINGS, and to KINDLE MEAT OFFERINGS, and to DO SACRIFICE CONTINUALLY. 

How can the Church have replaced the Levitical Priesthood when God clearly promises them that they will always have the position He gave to them as His ministers within the Temple and to offer Him these various animal sacrifices?  If you accept traditional Christian doctrine, then you’d also have to come to the conclusion that God lied to the Levites here.  Either they have the position before God that He says for as long as there’s “daylight” and “night time,” or they don’t?  Yes, the Temple has been destroyed, but it will soon be rebuilt.  And when it is, this promise will again be active.  He goes on to say,

Thus says the LORD, If you can break My covenant of the day, and My covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season; then may also My covenant be broken with David My servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites My priests, My ministers. As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David My servant, and the Levites that minister unto Me.  (Jeremiah 33:20-22)

This prophecy is only two chapters after the prophecy of the “New Covenant.”  Again, how can the New Testament replace or do away with the Law or the Old Testament as a whole when God has promised the Levites and David that His covenant with them would endure until the time period when there would not be any “day time” or “night time” (the time period of the New heavens and the New Earth?)

JESUS COULD NOT BE A PRIEST?

Now Jesus does fulfill the promise to David since Jesus is “the son of David” (or descendant of David); however, Jesus does not fulfill the promise to the Levites since Jesus is not of the tribe of Levi, but of the tribe of Judah.  Even the book of Hebrews acknowledges that Jesus is not of Levitical descent:

FOR IF HE WERE ON EARTH, HE SHOULD NOT BE A PRIEST, seeing that there are priests that [continue to] offer gifts according to the Law: who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, says He, that you make all things according to the pattern shown to you in the Mount.  (Hebrews 8:4-5; Emphasis Mine)

The book of Hebrews must have been written BEFORE 70 C.E., because according to this passage, the Temple was still in operation in the city of Jerusalem, Israel.  But also notice that the passage clearly says that if Jesus had remained on earth and not ascended into heaven, “HE SHOULD NOT BE A PRIEST.”  Ask yourself the logical question, if the Law ended at the cross, as Christianity teaches, then why couldn’t Jesus have been a priest?  The only logical answer is that the Law did not end at the cross at all, including the Levitical Priesthood and the Temple system.  And because of that, according to the Levitical covenant and laws, since Jesus was a Judean, He was not qualified to function as a priest.

This is the whole reason for the argument in Hebrews for Him being a priest according to Melchizedek priesthood.  If the law was no longer valid, there would not be any need for this argument.  The fact that there was a need for the argument proves that the Law did not, in fact, end at the cross, as Christianity teaches.  Therefore, it was NOT God who brought the Temple system to an end, but the Roman army under the General Titus in 70 C.E.

THE BUILDING OF THE THIRD TEMPLE

The Jews are working on rebuilding the Third Temple, and when they do, they will have God’s full support, because as He promised the Levitical Priesthood, they will always a man before Him to offer the sacrifices unto Him, as long as there’s “daylight and night time.”  Also, in contrast to traditional Christian teaching, the tearing of the Temple Veil when Jesus died had absolutely NOTHING to do with bringing the Temple System to an end either, but was an act of God mourning for the death of His dearly, beloved Son, the same thing we see Jewish men and fathers doing throughout the Hebrew Bible, throughout Jewish history, and among Jews today.  It was the same thing any loving Jewish father would’ve also done in that same position.  (See my article, “Why Did God Tear the Temple Veil in Half? Not the Reason You Think”)

ANOTHER PARADIGM FOR VIEWING THE TWO TESTAMENTS

Rather than viewing the New Testament as a replacement of the Old Testament, which obviously violates Scripture, a better alternative would be to view the Old Testament like the original computer program, and the New Testament as it’s most recent update.  And yes, when Jesus returns, there’s another update coming!  So obviously, if you continue to just run the original program, without the update, you are missing out on the new features that the Creator had intended for you to have.  On the other hand, you cannot just run the update.  It will not run properly, and the result will not be what the Creator intended.  Consequently, in order to get the intended, desired effect by the Creator, we need to run both the original program (“the Old Testament”) and the update (“the New Testament”) together as one new program.

We Need Them Both

There are many places in Paul’s writings, for example, where he teaches us that the Old Testament (or the Hebrew Bible) and the New Testament is an important part of the education and training of the believer (including us today).  for example, in Ephesians 2, Paul writes to the Gentile believers,

So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together is growing into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are being fitted together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit. (Ephesians 2:19-22, NASB)

Notice in this passage, that as believers in Christ [Messiah], our faith is “built upon the foundation of the apostles [i.e., New Testament] and the prophets [i.e., Old Testament]” with “Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,” or the connecting stone.  So if the foundation upon which our lives as believers consists of both Old and New Testaments, then we will need to be taught and trained in both in order for us to gain the foundation, framework and context that God says He desires for us to have to understand and live in obedience to His Word.

Another scripture where Paul indicates we need both the Old and New Testaments is in 2 Timothy, which is an extremely important epistle for believers today to consider when reading and studying Paul’s writings.  The reason this epistle is so important is because it’s the last epistle that Paul wrote before he was sentenced by the Roman Emperor Nero to be beheaded. This is evident in this epistle, for Paul writes,

For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come.  I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith. (2 Timothy 4:6-7, NASB)

Consequently, then, Paul is fully aware that this is his last opportunity to give Timothy (and us) instruction in regard to the Scriptures; therefore, Paul’s epistle here would have been written after much thought and prayer.  As a result, when we read this epistle and examine what he has to say here, it should be paramount to us in keeping what he says about the Scriptures continually in mind in how we view and understand his previous writings.  For example, Paul writes in 2 Timothy 3:16-17,

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Notice that Paul points out several important things here.

The topic of his statement here is on “All Scripture.”  This includes, of course, the Old Testament and the New Testament (even though, at this point, not all of the New Testament has been written).  The word translated “All” is the Greek word pas, which can be translated as either “all,” “each,” or “every.”  Therefore, by using this word, Paul is not referring to “All Scripture” in a generic sense, but he is literally referring to “All, Each, and Every Scripture.”

Secondly, Paul points out four facts about “All Scripture”:

“All Scripture is inspired by God.”  The word translated “inspired” is the Greek compound word θεόπνευστος  (theopneustos, Strongs #2315).  It’s comprised of the Greek words, theos meaning “God” and pneo meaning “breathed out,” so it literally means “God-breathed out,” or we could literally translate this as, “All Scripture is breathed out by God.” And according to the text, Introduction to Theology, the Scriptures being “God-breathed” means,

by divine “breath,” or power, the Holy Spirit moved the human authors with such purpose that the final product accurately reflected the intention of God Himself (18).

“All Scripture is…profitable”  The word translated as “profitable” is the Greek word  ὠφέλιμος (ophelimos, Strong’s #5624), and this word also means “helpful, serviceable, or advantageous.” Notice that Paul does not say, “All Scripture used to be profitable and advantageous to us, but now that Christ has died on the cross and rose again, only the New Testament is profitable.”  This is NOT what Paul says here, but this is what many ministers teach.  Another variation of this is the teaching that “the Law (of God) is not for today.”  But “the Law” is part of “All Scripture,” and, therefore, profitable and advantageous for the believer. To teach anything else would be a contradiction of Paul’s statement here. Therefore, those who deny that the Old Testament or even God’s Law is “profitable” to the believer today is in direct contradiction to Paul’s statement here.

Also notice that there are four areas, Paul writes, that “All Scripture is profitable” or advantageous or helpful for us as believers:

• “for teaching,” or for instruction and doctrine;
• “for reproof,” or for proof, evidence, conviction (or in being fully convinced);
• “for correction,” or for helping one to “straighten up again”; and
• “for training in righteousness,” or for the education and training, and when needed, the disciplinary correction of believers in righteousness, or in knowing and living the standard of life God expects of us as His people.

And why, does Paul conclude, are these four areas important or needed?  So “that the man [or woman] of God may be adequate [or complete], equipped [or equipped fully or thoroughly furnished] for every good work.”  Consequently, if believers are not being educated and trained in both Testaments or “All Scripture,” then, according to Paul, that individual is not being “fully equipped” or “thoroughly furnished” to do the “good works,” or live the life, that God expects of us.

Therefore, we must conclude that both the Old and New Testaments are important for the education, training and development of all believers today.  However, I am frequently saddened when I hear ministers, evangelists and writers denounce or criticize the writings and ideas in the Old Testament.  They are only hurting people by their comments since they are denouncing the very Scriptures that God says we need for our education, training,  development and growth.  In fact, just prior to Paul’s statement in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, Paul advises Timothy,

You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. (2 Timothy 3:14-15)

What were the “sacred writings” that Timothy had learned as a child which gave him “the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith”?  Was it the New Testament?  No, it did not exist then.  Paul, here, is specifically referring to the Old Testament.  It was the “sacred writings” of the Old Testament that gave Timothy the wisdom, education and training, he needed to lead him “to salvation through faith.”  And finally, in another passage regarding the Old Testament, Paul writes,

For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, so that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope. (Romans 15:4, NASB)

I hope you can see now that by not reading and studying  “All Scripture,” both the Old Testament and the New Testament, that we are, in fact,  harming ourselves, and maybe others,  by not getting what we need (or providing what others need) to be “equipped fully” or “thoroughly furnished” “for every good work” that God has called us to do from before the beginning of the world.

TWO REVELATIONS COMBINED

And even in the book of Revelations, we can see evidence that God intended the Old Testament and the New Testament to be seen as a unified whole.  For example, in Revelations 15, John sees a vision of a mass of people who had come through the tribulation period:

And I saw, as it were, a sea of glassed mixed with fire, and those who had come off victorious from the Beast and from his image and from the number of his name, standing on the sea of glass, holding harps of God.  And they sang THE SONG OF MOSES, the bond-servant of God AND THE SONG OF THE LAMB, saying,... (Revelation 15:2-3)

I  have heard many ministers erroneously teach that this song is being sung to the Lamb, Jesus Christ, but this is not what this says.  Just as THE SONG OF MOSES was a song sung by Moses to God the Father, so THE SONG OF THE LAMB is a song sung to God the Father as well.  And as we can see here, these two songs are being joined together into ONE SONG.  “THE SONG OF MOSES” (representing the Old Testament) and “THE SONG OF THE LAMB” (representing the New Testament and the coming Covenant of Peace”).

SO HAS THE OLD TESTAMENT BEEN REPLACED?

Absolutely NOT!  There’s still many prophecies and teachings that need to be learned from the Old Testament.  Obviously, those who continue to discard it do not understand how much beneficial instruction they are simply “tossing into the trash.”  Those who teach this false doctrine that “the Old Testament has been done away” or “it is no longer valid,” only demonstrate how much of the Bible they truly do not understand or, perhaps, have never taken the time to read or study.   We need to begin teaching a WHOLE BIBLE PERSPECTIVE within the Church, so that we can prepare them for the coming of the Lord and to the establishment of His coming kingdom.   May we all be found prepared and ready at His coming!

Return to the top

And He said, It is a light thing that You should be My Servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give You for a light to the Gentiles, that You may be My salvation unto the end of the earth.  (Isaiah 49:6)

AN INTRODUCTION

What is the “Messianic Movement”?  The Messianic Movement is NOT a RELIGION, nor is it a DENOMINATION.  It is an INTERNATIONAL INTER-RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT comprised of both CHRISTIANS and JEWS.

However, the beliefs and practices of this International Inter-Religious Movement can not be easily defined or described, because it is so diverse with so many people from so many different backgrounds, views, beliefs, and perspectives that comprise it.

THE MESSIANIC MOVEMENT – A BRIDGE?

The best way to describe the Messianic Movement is as a ideological bridge that spans across two interrelated, yet distinct religions: Christianity and Judaism. It is a bridge because you can get on it from both directions, not just one.  And the intersection of these two religions are the following shared beliefs:

• Both religions believe that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the One True, Living God;
• Both religions believe in the Hebrew Scriptures (or what Christians call “the Old Testament”);
• Both religions believe in an afterlife;
• Both religions believe in angels; and
• Both religions have replaced the Hebrew Scriptures with another writing and their traditions (Rabbinic Judaism with the Talmud and rabbinic traditions; and Christianity with the New Testament, Church Councils, and their denominational beliefs and traditions).

THE MESSIANIC MOVEMENT – AN EXTREMELY DIVERSE MOVEMENT?

Because the Messianic Movement does span two inter-related, yet distinct religions, it cannot be easily defined or described, because it is so diverse with so many people from so many different backgrounds and belief systems that comprise it.  In fact, on this bridge, you have everything from non-Jewish Christians who have an interest in the Jewish background of their faith on the one side of the bridge to Orthodox, Chasidic Jews who believe in Yeshua (Jesus) as the Promised Messiah on the other side, and everything in between those two extremes.  Consequently, then, to say that one is “Messianic” is merely to denote that one is somewhere on this bridge, but nothing else beyond that.

As a result, what one point on the bridge may constitute “Messianic” for one person may be an entirely different position for another person.  Therefore, what’s considered “Messianic” all depends on who you ask.

As I’m going to show in the rest of this four-part series, the Messianic Movement has grown way beyond its present definition and view of itself, because it only defines one side of the bridge, the Jewish side. Since it’s definition is incomplete, then it’s description of itself is not helpful for those in the movement and those outside of the movement.  As I am going to show, I believe that both the definition and understanding of the movement has to be greatly broadened, and maybe even re-contextualized, in order to prepare people for what God is leading His people towards:  the return of the Messiah Yeshua (Jesus) and the establishment of His Kingdom here on earth.

MY OWN INTRODUCTION

I was first introduced to the “Messianic Movement” in 1982 through a band called Lamb, although at that time, I did not know the name of this movement, nor did I realize there was a connection between it and the band.  My wife had gone to the Bible bookstore in the area where we lived, and they had several Lamb albums on sale.  My wife bought them all.  What motivated her to do this, my wife still isn’t sure even to this day.  But she brought them home and I put one of the albums on the record player, and I so enjoyed the music and lyrics that I listened to them over and over again (Much to the dismay of my wife at the time).

Shortly after this, due to things going on in my own life and what I was seeing in the American church, I believed that something had changed from the way the church was in the book of Acts to the way it was today, so I spent better than six months researching everything that I could find on the time period from 200 B.C.E. to 1,000 C.E.   The more I research, the more convinced I was that something had occurred to transform the early Jewish sect of Yeshua/Jesus and His early disciples into what evolved into Christianity.  I just wasn’t sure what had happened.  After completing my research, I came to my own conclusions, independent of any Messianic writer or teacher.  At that time, I did not even know there was a movement called the “Messianic movement” nor did I realize that there were others who had drawn similar conclusions.

It wasn’t until after I received my Master of Arts degree in English, and I moved my family down to the Phoenix area, that I came across a book by Dr. David Stern, called Restoring the Jewishness of the Gospels: A Message to Christians while visiting a local library.  It was in his book that I discovered that Dr. Stern and I had drawn many similar conclusions, but quite independent of one another, and it was through his book that I learned about the Messianic movement.   In fact, after reading his book, my wife still remembers me running through our apartment yelling, “I’m not crazy!  I’m not crazy!”  So after calming down from the excitement of discovering I was not alone in my thoughts, we became part of the movement for the next eight years because of the similar viewpoints and ideas that I shared with them.

During that time (1992 – 2000),  the groups we were a part of were either extremely small or were not well established.  A couple of them were home groups; consequently, we ended up going from group-to-group because the groups would either collapse or disperse.  Eventually, we did find a group large enough to have children in attendance, but unfortunately, none of them were my own childrens’ ages, so they did not have anyone their own age to play with.  But we hung in there until I needed to move due to work, and the new location did not have a Messianic congregation, so we went back to attending a local church.

I realize not everyone’s experience was like mine; however, it was my experience.  At this time, the Messianic movement was not well known or popular, so as a result, the groups were extremely small.  Most of the people in the groups I attended were non-Jewish like me, but the one large group I eventually did find did had a few Jews attending. Unfortunately, the larger Messianic organizations at that time did not give non-Jews the same voting rights or decision-making power as those who were Jewish.  As a result, there were many non-Jews, like me, who wanted to be a part of the movement, but we were not given the same voice as the Jews who were in the movement.

From 2000 – 2015, we were out of the movement.   However, in the Fall 2015, God spoke to my wife and I, and He told us that it was time again for us to again obey His Torah, to remember His Sabbaths and feasts, as well as to keep His commandments; in addition, He also directed us to a local Messianic body, Rosh Pinah, in Oklahoma City, which we attended until the end of July 2016.  On August 1, 2016, we left the country for three months to live in Jerusalem, Israel.  We met many people over there, and we learned quite a bit.

When we came back, the Lord led us to a small Assemblies of God church on the Cocopah East reservation, where we pastored for almost two years.  Then near the end of the two years, the Lord again moved us to Phoenix, where I am working on a book and we have again started attending a Messianic congregation here in town,

The last four years has been quite a ride for us with the Lord, but our present participation in the Messianic movement and our learning to be more Torah-observant than what we had been previously is due to us striving to be obedient to the will of God for our lives.   In other words, this time we are part of the movement and are being Torah-observant simply because God told us to do it.

PART 2:  WHAT IS “MESSIANIC JUDAISM”?

PART 3:  WHAT IS “MESSIANIC CHRISTIANITY”?

PART 4:  THE MESSIANIC KINGDOM MOVEMENT: A BETTER ALTERNATIVE

 

Return to the top

WHAT IS THE NAME OF MESSIAH?  It seems like a rather simple question, doesn’t it? The answer to this question is seen throughout the whole Bible, Old and New Testaments.  Now many may not be aware that the Messiah’s name is seen throughout the Bible, but it is true.  In fact, as I will show you in the Bible itself, it appears in three forms, but two of the forms are just alternate versions of the name “Joshua.”

Now I should say up front here that I am NOT arguing that we all need to use the name “JOSHUA” rather than “JESUS,” instead I want to broaden your understanding of the Lord’s name.  I want you to realize that there are FOUR FORMS of His name, THREE FORMS are used in the Bible, and the fourth is alluded to.  I also want you to know why these different forms are used.

A WORD OF WARNING:

I also want to protect you from the deceptions, half-truths, and innuendos that are being used by those in the “SACRED NAME MOVEMENT” and others who are deceiving people away from the Bible to believe in one of their man-made names, like I mentioned in the last post “What’s God’s Name?” that they are doing to the Father.  And just as the Father has more than one name, so does the Son.  They always try to catch you by telling you that there is “no letter J” in the Hebrew.  This is true, there’s not, as I will explain, but after this then is where they begin leading you down the road of deception.

Here are just a few of the false man-made names these groups are using:

For God:  Yahuwah, Yahuweh, Yahua
For His Son:  Yahshua, Yahusha, Yahushua, Yashua, Yahawashi, Yehushua, Yehowshuwa

If you read an article on the Internet or someone is speaking to you in person, and they present one of these names to you, please understand that they are presenting you with a name or names that DO NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE IN THE BIBLE.   I believe it is absolutely essential that we stay true to what we can see and find in the Bible.  A man-made name for God and Messiah (Christ) means that it’s a “false god” and a “false Messiah” or “false Christ,” and you do not want to get attached to any of these “false deities” being followed by these groups or individuals.

THE REASON FOR MY WARNING:

A lady who follows my posts asked why I was “bashing the Sacred Name Movement,” and so if she had a question about this, I imagine others do as well.  So I’ve included this to the original post. This was my response to her question:  A number of years ago, my brother-in-law got involved in that group, and he began using “Yahuah” for God and “Yahushua” for the Lord’s name. He taught his four daughters that it was okay to curse and swear using the words “God” and “Jesus” because it wasn’t their names anyway. He would always argue with us about these names and why we should not use the words “God” or “Jesus.” As a result, we had to limit our interactions with him; we just got tired of all the fighting.

Then a few years later, he had a heart attack which led to a triple-bypass, but then his kidneys and liver started shutting down, and he had problems with his lungs filling up with fluid. We discovered through his daughters that he had been hospitalized, and he wasn’t going to live much longer. My wife started talking to him more. Before he died, the Lord spoke to my wife and told her that her brother had once been close to him, but he had gotten confused, started using these other names, and wandered away from Him. So the Lord gave my wife a letter to read to her brother. My wife expected a lot of complaints and fighting because it had the name “Jesus” used throughout it. But when she finished it, he responded by saying, “What’s wrong with that? I believe all of that. Jesus is my Lord and my Savior.” And then he started using the name “Jesus” as if it was the most normal thing for him to do.

Not only was my wife shocked, but so were his daughters who were there in the room with him. All of this was on the speaker phone, so they all could hear one another. So my attitude towards the names promoted by the “Sacred Name Movement” is based on this experience, and what the Lord told my wife about their “man-made false names” for Him and His Son. I am not arbitrarily against them for no reason, nor is it based on some theological differences. A man’s life hung in the balance between heaven and hell because of what he took from their teachings about these names, and I do think that is reason enough to oppose their false names.

I should also say that I do make a clear distinction between “the Messianic Movement” and “the Sacred Name Movement.”  These two movements are not the same.  Although those from the “Sacred Name Movement” does tend to attend Messianic Movement, their goals and agendas are NOT the same as I will also explain later in this post.  Now let’s begin this study.

JESUS – THE GREEK FORM OF JOSHUA

First of all, “JESUS” (Gk. Iesous) is the Greek form of the name “JOSHUA” (Heb. Y’hoshua). This was a complete shock to me when I first found this out because I had never heard anyone point this out to me, so when I started researching this topic, I thought I had stumbled across some great new truth, only to discover that it was already well known.

MODERN TRANSLATORS KNOW THIS

For example, in the introduction of the book of Joshua, in my Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, it says,

This book describes the conquest of the land of Canaan under the leadership of JOSHUA, the successor of Moses.  His name means “Jehovah saves” or “Jehovah is salvation.”  The Greek transliteration of his name is “JESUS“ (Heb. 4:8′ Emphasis Mine).  (294)

Is there any biblical support for this?  Actually, there is, if we compare Acts 7:44-45 in the King James Version with more modern translations.

ACTS 7:44-45 (KJV)	ACTS 7:44-45 (NASB)
Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen.  Which also our fathers that came after brought in with JESUS [Gk. Ιησους] into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drove out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;	Our fathers had the tabernacle of testimony in the wilderness, just as He who spoke to Moses directed him to make it according to the pattern which he had seen.  And having received it in their turn, our fathers brought it in with JOSHUA [Gk. Ιησους] upon dispossessing the nations whom God drove out before our fathers, until the time of David.

In both versions, the same Greek form of His name is used, but in the King James Version, the Greek form is transliterated into English as “JESUS,” and in this same passage in the modern translations, the name “JOSHUA” is used.  Why?  Because in this passage, JOSHUA SON OF NUN is the one being referenced, but the Greek form of his name is IESOUS, or in English “JESUS.”  We can also see this in Hebrews 4:8.

HEBREWS 4:8 (KJV)	HEBREWS 4:8 (NASB)
For if JESUS [Gk. Iesous] had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day	For if JOSHUA [Gk Iesous] had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that

Again, we can see the same Greek form of the name is used, but in the King James Version, the Greek form is transliterated into English as “JESUS” and in the NASB, and other modern translations, it is “JOSHUA.”  And again, the person being referenced here is, in fact, JOSHUA SON OF NUN.  And this is not a different Greek spelling than the name of the Messiah (Christ), but the same exact spelling!

EVEN HISTORIANS KNOW THIS?

Not only do modern translators know that the name “Jesus” is the Greek form of the name “Joshua,” but so do historians.  For example, in Paul Johnson, a Christian, wrote a book called A HISTORY OF THE JEWS (1987), and in it he writes, “Jesus was the Greek form of the Hebrew Joshua” (126).  Also, Chaim Potok, a well-known Jewish author of THE CHOSEN, THE PROMISE, MY NAME IS ASHER LEV, and IN THE BEGINNING, has also wrote a historical book on his own people, called WANDERINGS: CHAIM POTOK’S HISTORY OF THE JEWS (1978), and he, like Johnson, confirms that the name “Jesus” is the Greek form of the name “Joshua”:

The name of the founder of Christianity was JOSHUA son of Joseph.  In the Galilean Hebrew dialect of that day his name was probably pronounced Jeshua.  JESUS IS THE ORDINARY GREEK FORM OF THE HEBREW NAME JOSHUA. (371)

I brought in these two outside sources to show that I am not making this up.  It is well known and established by both historians, scholars and translators.  Of course, my question is that, “If this is so well known that the name ‘JESUS‘ is, in fact, the Greek form of the name ‘JOSHUA,’ then why not translate every occurrence of ‘JESUS‘ as ‘JOSHUA’?”  Of course, if translators did that, even though it would be correct translation of the Greek form of His name that’s seen used throughout the New Testament, it would cause an avalanche of complaints from people, businesses, card companies, song companies, movie companies, etc.

EVEN ANCIENT GREEK SPEAKERS KNEW

Nor is this a recent revelation.  Instead, I discovered that the awareness that “JOSHUA” and “JESUS” were, in fact, equivalent forms of the same name goes back to when Greek was still the common parlance of the Roman Empire.  For example, this was also discussed in the book Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History: Complete and Unabridged, translated by C.F. Cruse (1998).   Eusebius, who lived from 264-340 C.E., is known as “the Father of Church History,” and he wrote in his first book of Church History (or Ecclesiastical History),

The same Moses, under the divine Spirit, foreseeing the epithet JESUS, likewise dignified this with a certain distinguishable privilege.  This name, which had never been uttered among men before Moses, he applied first to him alone who, by a type and sign, he knew would be his successor after his death in the government of the nation.  His successor, therefore, who had not assumed the appellation JESUS (JOSHUA) before this period, being called by his other name OSHEA [Heb. HOSHEA], which his parents had given, was called by Moses JESUS (JEHOSHUA, JOSHUA) (Num. 13:16). (Book 1, Chapter 3, page 10).

The name “JOSHUA” was NOT given him by his parents, but instead the name they gave him was HOSHEA, or the Greek form OSHEA, but it was Moses who changed HOSHEA’S name into “JOSHUA.”  The Greek language does not have a “H” or “huh” sound, which is why in our English Bibles, the Hebrew name HOSHEA is written as OSHEA.

But being a Greek-speaker, Eusebius here clearly identifies the name “JOSHUA” (Heb. “YEHOSHUA“) and the name “JESUS,” derived from the Greek and Latin, as the same name.   Also, he believed that the reason Moses changed HOSHEA (JOSHUA’S name originally; Numbers 13:16) to “JOSHUA” was because he would be “a type and sign” of the future Messianic “JOSHUA,” “JESUS CHRIST.”  In his book, Eusebius goes on to say,

This name, as an honorable distinction far superior to any royal diadem, was conferred on JOSHUA, because JOSHUA the son of Nun bore a resemblance to our Savior as the only one after Moses and the completion of that symbolical worship given through him that should succeed him in a government of pure and undefiled religion. (Book 1, Chapter 3, page 10)

Consequently, the name “JOSHUA” in the Old Testament is the same name as “JESUS” in the New Testament, one from the Hebrew and other from the Greek, respectively.  And up until the Babylonian Exile, the name “JOSHUA” had only one basic form.  It isn’t until after the Babylonian exile where we see two biblical writers maintain the same name and spelling of “Joshua” and two others who present a different alternative form.

HAGGAI AND ZECHARIAH

Some of the Jews were allowed to leave Babylon in 536 B.C.E. (about 50 years after the Exile) when Cyrus the Great issued the Edict of Cyrus, and with that edict, the first group of Jews was allowed to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple.  In this first group were the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, who were very young when they had been taken from Israel to Babylon in 586 B.C.E., but are now fifty years older when they are now returning to the land of Israel.

In both the prophetic books of Haggai and Zechariah, the High Priest at the time was named JOSHUA SON OF JOSEDECH.

HAGGAI 1:1	Zechariah 6:11-12
In the second year of Darius the king, in the sixth month, came the word of the LORD by Haggai the prophet unto Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to JOSHUA THE SON OF JOSEDECH, the High Priest.	Then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the head of JOSHUA THE SON OF JOSEDECH, the High Priest; and speak unto him, saying, Thus speaks the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is the BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD.

Even though both Haggai and Zechariah were both young teens when they were taken into captivity and are now fifty years older, they still remember the original Hebrew form and pronunciation of the name “Joshua” (or Heb. Yehoshua).  However, years later, when Ezra and Nehemiah come back to the land, they, unlike Haggai and Zechariah, use a different form of the name.

YESHUA – THE ARAMAIC FORM OF JOSHUA

Ezra and Nehemiah were both born and grew up in Babylon.  Ezra was sent to the land of Israel in 457 B.C.E. to teach people the Law of God (Heb. Torah), 129 years after the Babylonian Exile in 586 B.C.E.  Nehemiah, on the other hand, was the cup bearer of the King and was not sent to the land of Israel until 445/444 B.C.E. (or 142 years after the Babylonian Exile).  Obviously, these men would have been born in Babylon as stated and grown up reading, writing, and speaking both Aramaic and Hebrew.  It is in their writings, as well as the books of I Chronicles and II Chronicles, which according to tradition, were written by Ezra after the Babylonian Exile, that we find the Aramaic form of “YESHUA” being used, rather than the traditional Hebrew form of “JOSHUA” (Heb. Yehoshua). An example of this can be seen in Nehemiah 8:17,

And all the congregation of them that were come again out of the captivity made booths, and sat under the booths: for since the days of JESHUA the son of Nun unto that day had not the children of Israel done so.  And there was very great gladness. (Emphasis Mine)

Although the name “JESHUA” begins with the letter “J” in our English translations, when I looked in a Hebrew Bible, I discovered that the first letter is actually a yodh (or “Y”), and so the name here is really “YESHUA.”  But then when I looked at this same verse in my New American Standard Bible (as well as all other more modern versions), the name “YESHUA” (or “JESHUA“) was replaced with the name “JOSHUA.”

The entire assembly of those who had returned from the captivity made booths and lived in them.  The sons of Israel had indeed not done so from the days of JOSHUA the son of Nun to that day.  And there was great rejoicing.  (NASB, Nehemiah 8:17; Emphasis Mine)

Consequently, then, the names “JOSHUA” and “YESHUA” (or “JESHUA“) are synonymous and interchangeable, one coming from the Hebrew and one coming from the Aramaic.

YESHUA – HEBREW OR ARAMAIC?

There’s a debate right now as to how the name “YESHUA” originated.  Modern day Messianic Jews argue that the name “YESHUA” is a shortened, abbreviated form of the name “JOSHUA” (Heb. “YEHOSHUA“; the “HO” being removed) and, therefore, it is Hebrew.  I have two reasons for calling this into question:

• The name “YESHUA” does not show up in any of the biblical writings prior to the Babylonian exile; and
• The name “YESHUA” is used throughout the Aramaic New Testament for the name of Messiah (or Christ).

If the name “YESHUA” is originally Hebrew, then why is it used throughout the Aramaic New Testament (called the Peshitta).  For example, here is Matthew 1:21 from the English translation of the Aramaic NT,

And she will bear a son and she will call his name YESHUA for he will save his people from their sins. (Peshitta Aramaic/English Interlinear New Testament, found at http://www.peshitta.org)

So when a pastor says that the name “YESHUA” is NOT used in the New Testament, that all depends on what language you are looking at.   For example, the Western branches of Christianity argue that the New Testament was originally written in Greek, so if you look in the Greek New Testament, then no, it is not there.  However, the Eastern branches of Christianity argue that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic, and so if you look in the Aramaic New Testament, then yes, it is there.  (This is one of the many differences between the Western and Eastern branches of Christianity.) It just depends on whether you look into the Greek or to the Aramaic.

But again, if the name “YESHUA” is HEBREW in origin, then why didn’t it show up prior to the Babylonian exile and why is it used in an ARAMAIC version of the New Testament?  I have a couple of ideas about this:

• The name “YESHUA” is an Aramaic form of the name “JOSHUA” that was adopted into the Hebrew language during the Babylonian captivity, and so by the time of the New Testament and onward, it was considered Hebrew; OR
• The name Yeshua is the transliteration of the Hebrew name “JOSHUA” into Aramaic.

I personally tend to favor the second option, because according to some research sources,  there was a law passed in Babylon requiring the use of the official language, Aramaic.  So what if the traditional form of the name “JOSHUA” was transliterated into the Aramaic to form the name “YESHUA” in order to comply with this mandate?  This would support the name originating in the Hebrew, as well as explain why we do not see the name being used in Scripture until after the Babylonian Exile.

Not only did Nehemiah use the alternate form “YESHUA” for JOSHUA SON OF NUN, but Ezra uses “YESHUA” in place of the name “Joshua” for JOSHUA SON OF JOSEDECH the High Priest.

HAGAGAI 1:1	EZRA 3:2
In the second year of Darius the king, in the sixth month, came the word of the LORD by Haggai the prophet unto Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to JOSHUA the son of Josedech, the High Priest.	Then rose up Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and JESHUA (or Yeshua) the son of Jozadak, and began to build the house of God which is at Jerusalem: and with them were the prophets of God helping them.

Just as Nehemiah did with JOSHUA SON OF NUN, so Ezra has done with JOSHUA SON OF JOSEDECH, the High Priest.  Not only did he use YESHUA (instead of JOSHUA) in both cases (as we will see), but in writing the name of JOSHUA‘s father, Ezra again took the shortened Aramaic form, from JOSEDECH to JOZADAK.  He does the same here as well.

ZECHARIAH 6:11-12	EZRA 5:1-2
Then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the head of JOSHUA the son of JOSEDECH, the High Priest; and speak unto him, saying, Thus speaks the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is the BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD.	Then the prophets, Haggai the prophet, and Zechariah the son of Iddo, prophesied unto the Jews that were in Judah and Jerusalem in the name of God of Israel, even unto them.  Then rose of Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and JESHUA the son of Jozadak, and began to build the house of God which is at Jerusalem: and with them were the prophets of God helping them.

Again, as we saw before, Zechariah, like Haggai, uses the original Hebrew form for the name of “JOSHUA” and for the name of his father “JOSEDECH.”  However, Ezra uses the shortened Aramaic form for both names: JESHUA (Heb. YESHUA) and JOZADAK.

Therefore, Haggai and Zechariah, as well as Ezra and Nehemiah, all mention the High Priest; however, Haggai and Zechariah call him by the original Hebrew form of His name, “JOSHUA” (Heb. YEHOSHUA); whereas, Ezra and Nehemiah call him the shortened Aramaic form, “JESHUA” (Heb. YESHUA).  Just as the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) call “JOSHUA” by the original Hebrew form given to him by Moses, but Nehemiah, instead, uses the shortened Aramaic form of his name, “JESHUA” (Heb.  YESHUA.

Therefore, we have two biblical examples, Joshua son of Nun and Joshua the High Priest.  “Joshua son of Nun” is called “JOSHUA” by Moses and Joshua Himself; however, after the Babylonian exile, Nehemiah calls him “YESHUA” (or “JESHUA” in our English translations).  Also, two biblical writers, Haggai and Zechariah, call Joshua the High Priest the name “JOSHUA” and Ezra calls him “YESHUA.”

So as a result, the names “JOSHUA” and “YESHUA” can be seen in the Bible to be two forms of the same name, and which one is used is really just a matter of preference.  The Bible supports the usage of both. And just as “JOSHUA” and “YESHUA” are interchangeable, so are “JOSHUA” and “JESUS;” consequently, “YESHUA” and “JESUS” must be seen as biblical equivalent forms of the name “JOSHUA.”

I point this out because there are those who try to argue online and in various places as I mentioned at the beginning that the Messiah only has ONE form of His name (and it usually involves some Hebrew form that begins with “YAH“), and they say that this ONE FORM is “the ONLY CORRECT FORM” and all others are false.  But as we can see here from the Scriptures, the Bible does not support this position since both the names “JOSHUA” (Heb. YEHOSHUA) AND YESHUA are used for “the son of Nun” and for the “son of Josedech the High Priest.”  Therefore, which form of the name that’s used in the Hebrew text, Yehoshua (“Joshua”) or Yeshua, is merely a matter of personal preference.  There is NO SUCH THING as ONLY ONE CORRECT FORM.

FROM HEBREW & ARAMAIC INTO GREEK

Now there are numerous articles online, written by those in the Messianic Jewish Movement, showing how the name “YESHUA” was transliterated to form the Messiah’s name in Greek.   However, what you will not find mentioned in ANY of these same articles is that the name “JOSHUA” (Heb. Yehoshua) was also transliterated into the same Greek form of His name.  In fact, when I asked a Messianic Jewish rabbi about this connection to “JOSHUA,” he had no idea what I was saying.  He said that he had never heard anyone connect “YESHUA” with the name “JOSHUA,” and yet here the connections are within our own Bible.  And what I found surprising is that there’s a clear lack of teaching in Messianic Judaism regarding the connection between the names YESHUA and JOSHUA.

Therefore, both forms – “JOSHUA” and “YESHUA“-  were transliterated into the Greek form, Ιησους (Iesous; pron. “Yay-soos” or “ee-ay-soos“) by Jewish scholars 250 years before JOSHUA (YESHUA/JESUS) was ever conceived.   Consequently, the accusation that this Greek form was the creation of the early Christians is FALSE.  The Hebrew Scriptures had already been translated into Greek before JOSHUA (YESHUA/JESUS) was ever conceived or born, so when it came time to write the New Testament, the disciples just made use of the Greek names and words that were already in use.

Now I understand why many Messianic Jews prefer the use of the name “YESHUA” to “JESUS” because they want to restore to Him His Jewish ethnicity and culture.  However, the name “JOSHUA” is also a very Hebrew name, it has a long Jewish tradition and history, and I’m wondering why “JOSHUA” couldn’t likewise be seen as a valid alternative since like YESHUA, it was also transliterated into the same Greek form, Ιησους, the same exact form used for our Lord and Savior throughout the Greek New Testament, and since, as Eusebius pointed out, when the ancient Greek readers read His name in Greek, they connected it to the name “JOSHUA” as opposed to the name “YESHUA“?  And from what I’ve studied, this has never been a discussion point among Messianic believers.

ARAMAIC ADOPTION INTO HEBREW

In ending this study,  we need to realize that just as words from other countries and languages have been brought into the ENGLISH language, like the word “captain,” which is originally FRENCH, but is now seen as being ENGLISH, so ARAMAIC words were brought into the HEBREW language when the Jews were taken captive and lived in Babylon for 70 years.  And by the time of the New Testament and Jesus’ ministry, these ARAMAIC words and names were then considered to be HEBREW.

CONCLUSION

So is there ONLY ONE CORRECT FORM of the Messiah’s name found within the Bible?  No, there’s not.  There’s actually the following biblical forms: “JOSHUA” (Heb. Yehoshua); “JESHUA” (Aramaic; Post-Babylonian Heb. Yeshua); and the Greek form IESOUS and the Early Latin form, IESVS, which is the fourth form that’s alluded to within the Gospels.

Now according to research, the Aramaic and post-Babylonian Hebrew form, YESHUA was much more popular than YEHOSHUA (“Joshua”); in fact, they say that 20%, or one out of every five, males at the time, all had the name YESHUA, which, of course, means that the Lord was NOT the only one who possessed His same name.

In fact, all THREE of these forms – the Hebrew, Greek and Latin, (probably) YESHUA, IESOUS, and IESVS (Early Latin form) – were written on the sign that was nailed above His head on the cross (John 19:19-20).  Later, the Latin form IESVS became IESUS (Late Latin), which is the form that was written and used in the original King James Version in 1611.

At this time, the letter “J” had not yet developed into a letter of its own right, this came after the 1611 publication.  The letter “J” was, in fact, the last letter to become a part of our English alphabet.  However, in 1629, eighteen years later, Cambridge University gained the right to publish the Bible on their presses, and so for the King James Bible’s first revision, called the “1629 Cambridge King James Authorized Bible,” we find the first time that the letter J is used in the Bible, for names like “Jacob,” “Jerusalem,” and, of course, the name “Jesus Christ.”  And this is the way it has been printed in our English Bibles ever since.

In conclusion, then, is it wrong to use any of the biblical forms of His name?  Absolutely not!  Again, any of the three biblical forms are valid, and no, I am not saying that we need to change or stop using the name “JESUS,” since it is a modern English form of the Late Latin form, IESUS, that was used in all previous biblical publications from the Latin Vulgate of the 4th century, C.E. to the King James Version of 1611.  And of course, the Latin Late form is a variation of the Early Latin form, IESVS, which was one of the three languages written on the sign that was nailed above Jesus’ head as He was hanging on the cross and dying for our sins.   We serve an awesome God, who has given to us His Scriptures, from Genesis to Revelation, and how He’s revealed to us the name of His Son from Exodus to Revelation!!  Praise His name!!

 

Return to the top

WHAT’S GOD’S NAME?  Have you ever asked yourself that question.  There are so many who are going around arguing this question, such as “the Sacred Name Movement” or “the Assembly of Yahweh,” and there are some within these groups and others who have made it into a salvation issue.  Although I don’t God’s Word presents the exact spelling and pronunciation of God’s name as a salvation issue, but because of the teachings of these cults who are creating names that are NOT in the Bible and, therefore, are creating false names (i.e., “false gods”) in place of the God of the Bible, it has become a salvation issue.  But not only is it now a salvation issue, but it’s also an educational issue, and since they are attempting to divide the body through their teaching, it’s also become a unity issue.

But let me say up front that the “Messianic Jewish Movement” and the “Sacred Name Movement” are TWO DIFFERENT MOVEMENTS; they are not the same.  They have two different beliefs and agendas.  However, those who are in the “Sacred Name Movement” tend to hang out or attend Messianic groups.  So although they may appear together, they are really not.  And since most mainstream pastors, teachers and evangelists aren’t that familiar with either group, they really don’t know the difference between the two groups.

Again, I believe what is more important than the exact spelling and pronunciation of the name is the God behind the name.  What we should be seeking to know is the character and nature of God.  What is He like?  What are His values? His beliefs? What does He like and what doesn’t He like?  What kind of things does He think about?  Have you ever tried to view and understand God as an individual? What is His heart like?  In essence, this is what Moses is trying to understand when he meets God at the burning bush.  So rather than focus on all the false names that are out there, let’s see what the Bible actually teaches since it’s supposed to be our standard of truth.

MOSES AT THE BURNING BUSH

In Exodus 3, Moses (Heb. Mosheh) discovers a bush that appears to be burning, but there’s something odd about this one.  It’s burning, but it’s not being consumed.  So he goes to investigate this odd sight.  As he approaches the bush, God begins to speak to him from the midst of the bush:

Moses, Moses…take off your shoes from off your feet, for the place whereon you stand is holy ground…I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.  (Exodus 3:4-5)

Moses discovers that God has used the burning bush to gain his attention, and unlike the gods of Egypt, this God actually speaks.  And He identifies Himself as “the God of your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”  During this conversation, God has told him that He was going to send him back to the land of Egypt to lead His people, Israel, out of bondage back to this mountain.  After several failed attempts to get out of this, Moses then says to God,

Behold, I am going to the sons of Israel, and I shall say to them, “The God of your fathers has sent me to you.” Now they may say to me, “What is His name?” What shall I say to them?  (Exodus 3:13)

It seems like a simple question, doesn’t it?  However, the word translated “name” doesn’t really focus so much on what to call Him, but its focus is more on learning about His character, His nature.

ABOUT THE MEANING OF THE WORD “NAME”

In addition, according to the ancient Hebrew mindset, only what we can experience has a name; therefore, in asking this question, Moses is really saying here that since the Israelites have not experienced God for 215 years, they no longer know or understand who He is, or what His character or nature is like.  Consequently, Moses is wondering what do I tell them?

THE FIRST NAME OF GOD

God then gives Him the following response:

“I AM WHO I AM.”  And He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, “I AM has sent me to you.” (Exodus 3:14)

In this verse, the phrase “I AM WHO I AM” is the English translation of the Hebrew ‘Ehyeh asher ‘Ehyeh.  And then He says, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, “I AM (or ‘Ehyeh) has sent me to you.”  Consequently, the first name that God gives to Moses in response to his question, is the name ‘Ehyeh (“I AM” or Aleph-Hey-Yodh-Hey).

Many people assume or mistakenly think that when God said, “I AM,” that it is the name YHVH (Heb. “yodh=hey-vahv-hey”), but it’s not.  “I AM” is the Hebrew name ‘EHYEH. And in the Gospels, this is the name that Jesus used to identify Himself.  For example, in John 8:58, Jesus (Heb. Yeshua) says, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM.”  In Hebrew, He was identifying Himself as ‘Ehyeh (“I AM“).  The same ‘ehyeh (“I AM“) that spoke to Moses out of the burning bush.

Since this was God’s first response to the question, this seems to imply that this is how God views Himself.  It is His character and nature.  He is ‘Ehyeh (“I AM“), the Eternal One who is ever present. To help to understand this, I often think of those display boards kids buy for school for their presentations that have three sides: the left, the middle and the right.  Think of the left side of the board as eternity past, the middle as the present, and the right as eternity future.  God is standing outside of Time, Space and Matter, also represented by this board, and He is able to see the past, present, and future all at the same time, so as a result, He is the eternal “I AM” (or ‘Ehyeh).

Interestingly, to also help to understand His initial response, many times, when people ask me my name, I will respond with my nickname “Chris,” rather than with my proper or legal name “Christopher.”  Why?  I simply prefer the name “Chris.”  And in the past three years, when the Lord has spoken to my wife or I, He uses the name “I AM.”  Perhaps, like many of us, God has a “nickname” that He prefers and uses with His friends, just a thought.

THE SECOND NAME OF GOD

The name that many people tend to think about, YHWH (Heb. “yodh-hey-vahv-hey”), doesn’t actually appear until the next verse, verse 15, and I believe that in the same verse, there’s perhaps a third name given as well.

And God, furthermore, said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.”  This is My name forever, and this is My memorial-name to all generations.  (Exodus 3:15)

In this verse, the English phrase “The LORD” in all capitals is the Hebrew YHWH (Heb. Yodh-Hey-Vahv-Hey or “Y^eh-wah”) .  I transliterated the Hebrew as Y^ehwah, rather than Yahweh, which is how it is usually transliterated into English, for the following reasons:

• The consonant letters are the same in both, my transliteration and the traditional transliteration: YHWH.  But the real difference is in the two vowels.
• In the Hebrew text, there is a vocal shewa (it looks like a small colon) under the first letter yodh (“Y”; the letter yodh in Hebrew looks like an apostrophe in English, and it’s the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet).  According to Gary D. Pratico and Miles V. Van Pelt’s Basics of Biblical Hebrew Grammar,

The Vocal Shewa maintains a hurried pronunciation and sounds like the a in amuse.  It is transliterated either as an upside down e (bǝ) or as a superscript e (b^e ). (11)

In either case, the vowel sound is an “uh” sound.  In my English classes, I use to explain to my students that the English schewa, just like the Hebrew vocal schewa, makes the “uh” sound.  I told them, “It’s the sound you make when you don’t know what to say. Uhhh.”  Consequently, I’ve chosen to use the superscript e since that transliteration format is used in many Jewish publications.

• The other vowel in question is the qamats (it looks like a small capital T in English) located under the vahv (the “w”) in the original Hebrew text.  According to the same Hebrew grammar book, it is pronounced like the “a as in father” (Pratico and Van Pelt 10).  I have not found anything that explains why it is often transliterated with an “e,” when the letter there is clearly a qamats (or “a”).

Therefore, based on the Hebrew text there in Exodus 3:15, it should be transliterated as Y^ehwah (pron. “Yuh-wah”).  There are some who argue that the vahv should be seen as a vowel rather than a consonant, and should be transliterated as Yahuah.  However, this violates one of the basic syllabication rules in Hebrew.  The rule states, “Every syllable must begin with one consonant and have only one vowel” (Pratico and Van Pelt 17).  In the word “Yahuah,” there are three syllables: “Ya-hu-ah.”   The last syllable does not begin with a consonant; therefore, this transliteration and pronunciation must be wrong.

Consequently, then, we see that in His response to Moses’s question, God here has given to Moses two inter=related names: ‘Ehyeh and YHWH, and both names are derived from the infinitive verb, “To be.”  And what the exact relationship is between these two names is the great theological mystery of the ages.   KJ Cronin, in his website, “The Name of God as Revealed in Exodus 3:14: An Explanation of Its Meaning,”  does a really good job in diving into this complex topic and trying to explore it.

So let’s think about this, if God Himself has given to Moses two interrelated names for Himself in response to Moses’ one question, then how could He only have “ONE CORRECT FORM” of His name, as some people try to argue?  Also, the one form they try to argue, I can’t find in the biblical text, so how can it be correct?  But it just doesn’t stop there.

A MEMORIAL NAME?

In addition to these two names, I believe that there’s also a third name given here: “The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.”   I do not believe that this series of phrases is just an added identifier.  When my wife and I got married (a type of covenant), she took my last name to be her’s.  And in the biblical period, when God entered into covenant with Abram (Actually “Avram” in Hebrew), Abram and Sarai each got an “H” from God’s name, changing their names to Abraham (lit. Avraham) and Sarah.  But God got also got a name change, Abraham’s name became a part of His name forever: “the God of Abraham.”

THE PARITY COVENANT

This covenant that God made with Abraham is called a PARITY COVENANT: “A covenant made between two equal parties.” Now sometimes the word “friend” in the Bible has the meaning that we give to it today, and there’s other times when it’s being used for one’s covenant partner.  For example, both of these uses is seen in Proverbs 18:24,

A man that has FRIENDS must show himself friendly: and there is a FRIEND that sticks closer than a brother.

Even though the word “FRIENDS” and “FRIEND” appear to be the same in English, in Hebrew they are actually two very different words that are being used.   The word “FRIENDS” is the English translation of rea or reya (Strong’s #7453),  and it has the meaning of “friend” like we typically use it today.  But the second word “FRIEND” is the English translation of the word ‘ahav (Strong’s #157), and it’s the term that’s used for one’s covenant partner, or “one who sticks closer than a brother.”

Throughout the Scriptures, Abraham is called “the FRIEND of God,” because God entered into a parity covenant with him.  For example, in Isaiah 41:8, we read,

But you, Israel, are My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham MY FRIEND.

We can also see this in 2 Chronicles 20,

Are not You our God, who did drive out the inhabitants of this land before Your people Israel, and He’s given it to Abraham Your FRIEND forever. (2 Chronicles 20:7)

Again, the word “friend” in each of these passages is the Hebrew word ‘ahav, the parity covenant term for one’s covenant partner.  And this identification as Abraham being “the friend [or parity covenant partner] of God” is also seen in the New Testament.  For example,

And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the FRIEND of God. (James 2:23; Emphasis Mine)

Another type of parity covenant is marriage.  For example, in Song of Solomon, the Shulamite woman says about her husband:

His mouth is most sweet: yes, he is altogether lovely.  This is MY BELOVED, and is MY FRIEND, O daughters of Jerusalem.  (Song of Solomon 5:16; Emphasis Mine)

He is her “friend” because he’s her marriage or parity covenant partner.   Most parity covenants were non-sexual, but marriage is the one exception to this.

This same parity covenant was then passed down to Isaac and then Jacob, so that God became the “God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” or sometimes it’s expressed as the “God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.”  This is His “memorial name,” because it recounts the original relationship covenant (or PARITY COVENANT) that God established with Abraham, and then it was passed down to his son, Isaac, and then his grandson, Jacob.

THE SUZZERAIN OR VASSAL COVENANT

However, the Mosaic covenant (Exodus 19 – Deuteronomy 34) is not a PARITY COVENANT, but a SUZZERAIN OR VASSAL COVENANT: “a one-sided disposition imposed by a superior party upon an inferior party.”  This type of covenant was used when a King would conquer a nation of people or would rescue them from trouble.  This type of covenant would benefit the nation, but it’s NOT a relationship covenant, not like the PARITY COVENANT.  And the covenant terms for the Suzzerain or Vassal covenant is “Lord/Master” for the King and “slave/servant” for those in the nation.

Did you know, for instance, that God is never called in the Bible “the God of Moses”?  Nor is Moses ever referred to in the Bible as “the FRIEND of God”, not even once?  Abraham, on the other hand, is called “the friend of God,” but not Moses.  Instead, Moses is called “the servant of God,” as is appropriate for the type of Suzzerain or vassal covenant that God entered into with the people of Israel at Mt. Sinai.

And because most Christians don’t know the difference in the four types of covenants that are used in the Bible (yes, we’ve just discussed two of them here), they have traditionally misidentified the correct relationship covenant.  For centuries, they have identified the Mosaic Covenant as the relationship covenant when, in truth, the great relationship covenant of the Old Testament is the Abrahamic Covenant.

THE NAMES OF THE PATRIARCHS – A PART OF GOD’S CHARACTER AND NATURE?

By saying that names “Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” are an intricate part of His “memorial-name,” I believe God is saying that a central part of who He is, His character and nature, is that He is a God who remembers His Covenants, not just the parity covenant, but all covenants that God has made.  This is so much the case, that He made their names a part of His name: “The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”

But He also remembers all His covenants, since He specifically says in Deuteronomy that He KEEPS HIS COVENANT AND HIS LOVINGKINDNESS to a THOUSAND generations.

Know therefore that the LORD your God, He is God, the faithful God, WHO KEEPS HIS COVENANT and His lovingkindness to a thousand generations with those who love Him and keep His commandments. (Deuteronomy 7:9; Emphasis Mine)

A generation is about 40-45 years, so a “THOUSAND generations” would be 40,000 – 45, 000 years.  Obviously, since it’s only been more than 3, 500 years, it’s not even been 10% of the time God says He keeps His covenants.  In fact, God has not only promised to keep His covenants to them, the Jews and non-Jews who were standing there at Mt. Sinai, but He also states that His covenant to them is so He can keep His covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob:

that you may enter into the covenant with the LORD your God, and into His oath which the LORD your God is making with you today, in order that He may establish you today as His people and that He may be your God, just as He spoke to you and as He swore to your fathers, to ABRAHAM, ISAAC, AND JACOB. (Deuteronomy 29:12-13; Emphasis Mine)

God here clearly connects His covenant with Moses, the children of Israel, and the “mixed multitude” of Gentiles (non-Jews; see Exodus 12:38) as a fulfillment of the promise of what He swore to the fathers: ABRAHAM, ISAAC, and JACOB.  But His promise to them that day at Mt. Sinai, as well as the connection to the fathers, was not just for those who were there, but also for all those who were not there:

Now not with you alone am I making this covenant and this oath, but both with those who stand here with us today in the presence of the LORD our God and with THOSE WHO ARE NOT WITH US HERE TODAY.  (Deuteronomy 29:14-15; Emphasis Mine)

Moses is saying here that this covenant was being made with not only the people who were there (Jews and non-Jews alike), but it was also being made for all people (Jew and non-Jew alike) who were not there at that time.  This would be for all people from that time forward, including people today.  In other words, the Mosaic Covenant is the result of the Abrahamic Covenant (or the relationship covenant).

This promise, then, would not only include all future Jewish people into the promise, but it would also include all non-Jews as well:

For this reason it is by faith, that it might be in accordance with grace, in order that the promise may be certain to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all.  (Romans 4:16, NASB)

And if you belong to Christ [Messiah], then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.  (Galatians 3:29)

Note in the Galatians passage, Paul did not say “if you are in Christ [Messiah], then you are heirs according to the promise.” Instead, by us “belonging to Christ [Messiah],” then we are “Abraham’s seed,” and then, therefore, “heirs according to the promise.”  But why did God set this up this way?  Why is it important that we are to be a part of “Abraham’s seed”?  Why couldn’t we just “belong to Christ [Messiah]?”  Why is it necessary to connect the two?  He did it this way, so that He could open the way for all people of all nations to become a part of His promise to Abraham: “And in you shall all the families of the earth be blessed” (Genesis 12:3c).

So if we are in Messiah, we are part of Abraham’s seed, and therefore, a part of Abraham and Abraham’s family, so that we, together with the Jewish people, can enjoy not only the promises of the Abrahamic covenant but also get to experience the blessings and the responsibilities of Mt. Sinai as well.  One God, One Call, One Family, One Mission, and One Destiny for all.

THE GOD WHO IS MORE THAN ENOUGH

But not only did God share these three names with Moses, but He shared a fourth name with Him as well, the name ‘El Shaddai.

God spoke further to Moses and said to him, I am the LORD; and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty [Heb. ‘El Shaddai], but by My name, LORD [YHVH], I did not make myself known to them.  And I also established My covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land in which they sojourned. (Exodus 6:2-4)

In this verse, God makes it quite clear that even though He did enter into covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, He did not reveal His name YHVH or Y^ehwah to them; instead, they knew Him by the name of ‘El Shaddai.  By revealing Himself to Moses and the children of Israel as ‘Ehyeh and YHVH at Mt. Sinai, He was revealing something new about Himself to them that the Patriarchs never got to experience.

So why do we see the name “YHWH” (“LORD”) in the book of Genesis, if the patriarchs did not know Him by that name?  Because Moses wrote the book of Genesis, and God had revealed to Him the name YHWH to him at the burning bush.  Therefore, Moses used the name that God revealed to him when writing the events of the book of Genesis.  It doesn’t mean that the people at that time knew this name, since God Himself said that they didn’t.  Moses wanted to merely identify which God was at work during creation and during the lives of all those mentioned in this first book of the Bible.  It’s not that hard to understand.

CONCLUSION

Obviously, if God has these four names that He gave to Moses in the Scriptures, then how could He have only ONE CORRECT FORM?  But I am praying that by reading this article, you will realize that there are deeper truths and realities than what we read in the English translations of our Bible, and why it is important to study the Scriptures, so that we can discern the truth from deception, half-truths, and lies, as well as discern the different covenants that we see at work within the Bible.

 

Return to the top