YESHUA
THE RICHES WE LEARN FROM THE HEBREW NAME YESHUA CALLS HIMSELF
In Acts 26:14-15 in the context of Paul recounting for Jewish officials his Damascus Road experience (Acts 9), when Yeshua calls him, we learn the following.
Paul says that he heard speaking literally “towards me, in the Hebrew dialect..”. Luke of course has to render the words in KG because Luke writes for a KG-speaking audience. (Though Luke addresses Theophilus Acts 1:1, it is clear this is not an account written solely for Theophilus).
Also in fact in Acts 1: Luke says nothing whatsoever about theological or doctrinal or theory or philosophy or speculation about, Yeshua.
In fact Luke opens Acts with a very specific “therefore firstly – first importance word (that had) done concerning of all”… (KG “tov mev prwtu logov epoiesamen”). In other words, Luke opens Acts emphasizing that the “firstly-first importance word” i.e., was his Gospel about Yeshua.
In the middle of Acts 1:1 in KG we find the emotionally vocative particle “W” (“Oh!”) Theophilus (KG Theophile)”. Luke addresses Theophilus with real emotional emphasis. Luke uses a KG form (called the vocative) which is the rarest of the 5 KG forms known as “cases”. (Which is generally, no pun intended, the standard case. There are 5 KG cases though some want to subdivide these into an 8-case system).
The vocative is defined-explained by various KG grammars as being used for very direct address. Though attention needs to be called to it because it is rarely used and thus significant, it’s position in Acts 1:1 is not one designed to emphasize it.
KG puts things first or last in a sentence to emphasize something.
In short Luke’s emphasis in Acts 1:1 is that in his “firstly word” i.e. his Gospel, “wv erzato O Iesus poieviv te kai didaskein” “…as (at the) beginning the specific subject named, Yeshua, both did and – in connection – connectedness, taught”.
In short; Luke’s KG is specific about it being “the Yeshua” and what Yeshua “did both and taught”. In other words, though Luke’s construction is very KG it is Hebraic in the sense that what Yeshua “did and taught” are connected. They are not seen as separate.
More importantly, Luke set out that his word focused on what Yeshua did and what Yeshua taught. Luke writes no systematic theology – a totally post-Biblical Western invention. Nor, does Luke highlight or emphasize signs and wonders as an emphasis and an end unto themselves.
What has this to do with the name Yeshua? In short even secular scholars concede that the good doctor Luke is very highly historically accurate.
Acts is no apologetic for a Torah-Hebrew-Hebrew Scripture-Jewish-Pharisee based Mashiach.
In a sentence, Acts answers a very “key” 1st century question; “Is this for the Gentiles?” If the LORD through Yeshua is utilizing the Jewish brothers that Yeshua personally calls to reach out to the Gentiles also, then, “now what”? What does this mean? What stays the same for us as the Jewish brothers? What accommodations have to be made for Gentiles as Gentiles being included? However – and this is very key – in light of post-Biblical history the Gentiles are not replacing the Jewish People and Jewish brothers?
In short; the “key” question is if Acts is not an apologetic addressed for the Jewish brothers, then why does Paul mention in Acts 26:14-15 that Yeshua calls to him in Hebrew?
What does it mean, what is the significance for followers of Yeshua? Especially for those who believe Luke writes under the inspiration of the Ruach Hakodesh? If followers of Yeshua (rightly!) believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, then why does the Ruach inspire Luke to include in Acts 26:14-15 that Yeshua calls to Paul in Hebrew?
If God forbid (!!) Hebrew is largely irrelevant or very secondary to Greek then why doesn’t Yeshua call to Paul “en Ellene” “in Greek”? Why Hebrew?
Why even mention the language if it is unnecessary or superfluous? Here is the very “key” question about Yeshua when it comes to his name – and beyond.
If Yeshua after his Ascension sees himself no longer as a Jew and Hebrew oriented and rooted, but rather now Latin, Greek, or English oriented, why not call to Paul accordingly?
If Yeshua understands and sees himself as “Jesus” or “Iesous”(Greek) why not call to Paul accordingly? Even if Paul knew little or no Latin his letters show at least a solid middle level of KG. True, as even evangelical scholars point out, Paul’s letters abound with Hebraisms and Jewish thought expressed in KG. Paul though, has a very clear command of KG. Thus why doesn’t Yeshua if he sees himself as “Jesus”, call to Paul in KG?
The unavoidable truth that Yeshua called to Paul in Hebrew; this thus tells us where both are fundamentally and foundationally rooted and oriented!
It means then, that Yeshua did not say to Paul in Acts 26:14-15 “I am Jesus” but in fact had to have said in Hebrew “Ani Yeshua” “I (am) Yeshua”.
Thus the “key” for our answer to Yeshua’s question of who do you – plural – say I am must be “you are Yeshua”. Mt. 16:14-15
We explained in short for here in our opening up of Mt. 16:15-16 that Peter of course could not have possibly actually said “you are the Christ”. There is absolutely nothing anywhere that would indicate that a Galilean Jewish fisherman would possibly answer a fellow Galilean Jew most of all, in Latin.
As shocking as it may seem Peter could not possibly have answered Yeshua with KJV or NIV English either! That again, as pointed out elsewhere, is as ludicrous as claiming William Shakespeare was an Orthodox rabbi from Jerusalem writing Hamlet in the European Jewish language of Yiddish!
The “key” question regarding the name of Yeshua then is; what is the richness, depth, and truth about Yeshua that we very uniquely learn only from his Hebrew name?
What does the name Yeshua mean and what is its significance for all of our understanding, thinking, will, and action and application as followers? What does it mean for the World?
How might we be instructed and encouraged and perhaps enabled to draw even closer to him? To honor him more fully Yochanon 5:22-23 – so that we honor the Father even more so? What might we learn about being and doing as he did?
What Bigger Picture might we learn of salvation, redemption and victory and spiritual prosperity?
Would not a more accurate – and authentic – understanding of who Yeshua sees himself as (!) – and how he actually was understood and applied by the Jewish brothers he personally – personally – called, not benefit Yeshua’s followers?
Before we give what we hope will be a much deeper definition-meaning of Yeshua’s name, we must first point out the following.
In Hebrew – which in fact is the real language of the Mashiach (anointed, see separately) – Acts 26:14-15, etc., virtually all nouns (things) are derived from a verb (action).
Why is this so extremely significant? It is a matter of whether Yeshua’s name is either a way to refer to him or a designation, or, whether it tells us fundamentally and foundationally who he “be”. We said “be” because Hebrew, unlike KG and English, has no word “is”.
The “key” is; is Yeshua understood and applied based upon who he “be” – and what his actions are related to his name? Or, is his name seen primarily as a title? Is Yeshua seen as a noun, a “thing” so to speak in which he is seen and applied as primarily an object of faith?
Another extremely, in fact we believe very extremely significant question is, is Yeshua, as is his Father, seen according to his own words; or, the Traditions of Men? (Cf. Mk. 7:5-13; different context; cf. especially what Paul warned the Colossians about Col. 2:8-9 and the larger context of Col. 1-2)?
The “key” question – in order for us to most accurately understand – and thus think, will, and act accordingly, is: do we see Yeshua according to the actual name he was known by and what he actually says? Is it by what he gives his emphasis to? Or, is it according to the post-Biblical Traditions of Men, anachronistically revising and “recasting” who he “be”?
We must also, lest we forget, ask ourselves “Which name tells us the most about him? Which name tells us more deeply and richly, about his mission-function-purpose? Is it a name derived from Latin? If in fact so, if in fact Yeshua’s name really is from Latin, then we need not go further!”
If Yeshua is merely a “culturally Jewish” way to refer to “Jesus”, then minimal time need be spent looking at the name Yeshua. In that case then we must turn to Latin to look for the deeper meaning, significance, and mission-function-purpose of “Jesus”.
Is Yeshua really in fact based and rooted in KG? If so then we must look at KG and Greek sources for a deeper and more accurate understanding of who he in KG “estin” “is”.
Let us please hasten to add lest we forget, that we wish to be sensitive to our dear brethren especially (cf. Yochanon 13:13, 1 Cor. 12:12-27; 1 Pet. 2:17 “…tnv adelphotnta agapate” very very specifically the brotherhood, love – it’s imperative!”). (Note – we rendered Peter’s KG articular accusative by very very to bring out the specific limiting aspect of the KG form. We rendered “love – it’s imperative!” because the KG form of “agapeo” (the verbal form of which “agape” is a noun) is an imperative).
For the record: as we have stated elsewhere people are free to call Yeshua by whatever name they desire. We do not throw stones nor condemn anyone for the name they call him. I however, Jacob 3:1, will be judged more harshly for my teaching.
As we have repeatedly repeated: we are on the hook – as are all teachers – for what we put forth. Thus we spent over 23 years or so of study and ministry, and thousands of dollars building a small library of technical language, technical commentary and historical-cultural resources. My long-suffering wife (bless her heart) can all too readily testify to the many thousands of hours of study and preparation – and the time I have taken away from her to do this.
In a sentence as we have stated elsewhere, as in our Welcome to the Website: we are on the hook for the accuracy and authenticity of that we put forth. What you do – or not do with it – is up to and on you.
Thus again while people are free if they so choose, to refer to Yeshua by whatever name they like, we must refer to him in the most accurate and authentic way as possible!
In short we would very much encourage anyone to please listen to our teaching on “Who Do You – Plural – Say I Am” Mt. 16:14-20. It is not so much to listen to our teaching but rather what the Text – the Text, not a translation – says.
In short we hope we opened up what Peter actually said in response to Yeshua, Mt. 16:15-16, v. 15.
Why is how Peter actually answered Yeshua so “key”? The very “key” question is that however we begin to see the LORD, and here the Mashiach, determines everything going forward.
Meaning – are God and the Messiah seen from a Biblical perspective; the overwhelming language and ethos (ironically a non-Hebrew word!) of which is Hebrew? Or, are God, the Messiah, and the Bible understood and applied from Greek, Latin, or English?
Did Yeshua actually speak KJV English? Do the Hebrew Prophets actually think and express in KJV or Contemporary English? Does Moshe speak to the Israelites in Latin?
When the Jewish brothers and Paul met in Jerusalem in Acts 15 to address the Gentile question did they really think and express in KG?
When Paul went to the Temple in Jerusalem Acts 24:17-18 etc., did he go there to sing “Onward Christian Soldiers” after studying Calvin’s Institutes Of The Christian Religion in Geneva?
As we have mentioned the name of Yeshua is from a verb; just as the Personal Name of the LORD is also a verb. Hebrew uniquely tells us who they “Be” and “be” as we explained Hebrew has no word “is”). That they are active, that there is ever active action, movement, active involvement and engagement in Creation.
Luke begins his Ruach Hakodesh inspired Book of Acts saying to Theophilus that his “firstly-of first importance word” i.e., his Gospel, was about what Yeshua had done, “both and–in connection connectedness (had) taught” Acts. 1:1.
We have mentioned in our teaching repeatedly that our KG concordance lists 669 uses of forms of ginomai “be” “become-became” and 568 (technically 583) uses of “poio” “do”, “make”. Over 60% of the uses of these two words are found in the Gospel.
This is a disproportionate use; meaning that Yeshua and the Gospel writers must have put a particular emphasis on them. The Gospel comprises about a third of the RCS; but “be” and “do” are found, again, over 60% of the time in the Gospel.
The significance regarding the Name of the LORD, and the name of Yeshua as rooted from verbs, from action, is a sea change from seeing them in terms of a “thing” so to speak. Neither the LORD or His Son Yeshua are objects.
While steadfastness – rather than faith – as we have explained in our teaching, is very much required it is not about faith in Yeshua as though he were an object of faith.
The pagans very much believed in objects. They made statues large and small out of stone or wood, and later out of various types of metals. Some pagans worshiped trees, or nature, or a mountain, or the sun, moon, or stars. These are basically objects though clearly the sun and nature are active.
In some instances these things of nature were merely objects of faith. In other instances Man ascribed power to them – and then sought to bribe or manipulate or placate their idol. The pagans created from their own imagination, mystical gods that they could not actually see. Sometimes a statue or image was made in order to give some sort of concrete representation to the god or deities of their own imagination.
As we have repeatedly repeated Yeshua cannot – in any way – in any way – be seen along the lines of the pagan religions before, and the pagan mystery cults after, Yeshua’s time on Earth.
In short for here as we have repeatedly repeated the post-Biblical Gentile Fathers deliberately rejected Jerusalem for Athens. Greek – not Hebrew – was their language. It was the language and philosophy through which they saw God and Yeshua. Greek-Athens by the 4th century was replaced with Latin-Rome.
That Yeshua’s mother Mir’yam, Miriam, became “Mary” and recast as a divine Matrix, is all that need be said about pagan influences infused and inculcated about Yeshua post-Biblically!
Regarding the name the angel says to Miriam that she will call her son in Mt. 1:21; we should notice that the angel does not say “name him”, but rather “…call the name of him Yeshua”. Unfortunately, some translations miss these “key” words by the angel in the original (NIV “give him the name”).
Matthew’s KG rendering very much reflects the Hebraic original; “…kai kaleseis to ovama auton Insouv” “..and – in connection (i.e. that Miriam will bear a son, which she was just told) you will call the name of him Yeshua”.
The angel does not say, notice, “his name will be” or “you will name him”; but rather “and call the name of him Yeshua”. What is the significance of the difference? Translators, frankly too often either unaware, uniformed, or insensitive to the deeper meaning of Hebraic originals, miss the significance of “call” in Hebrew, as well as missing the great meaning and import of Hebrew names.
The angel is not telling Miriam how to refer to Yeshua nor giving him a “designation”. Name in Hebrew as LORD willing we will explain about the word name, has the deeper meaning in Hebrew as follows.
Name refers to the spiritual and intellectual activity of someone, as one of the great 19th century Torah teachers astutely and correctly point out. Name in Hebrew says something about the individual. It speaks of in a sense one’s mission-function-purpose. Name in Hebrew is not merely a way to distinguish one person from another.
Call in Hebrew of course has the sense of something of importance or significance in that there is a greater urgency to say or speak to someone.
Leviticus is almost completely misunderstood in Western Tradition because it is seen from its later Greek name, pertaining to the Levites. Western Tradition sees Leviticus basically as “laws pertaining to the priests”.
However, in Hebrew, “Leviticus” opens with “And”. Thus, it is connected with the end of Exodus (“Exodus” is from the Greek “ek odos” “way out”; literally “out from within way”).
“Leviticus” opens in Hebrew with “And called”. The LORD, in short, in connectedness with the events at the end of “Exodus”, called to Moshe.
In short; the LORD did not call to Moshe just to get Moshe’s attention; but rather, because the LORD had more than “laws pertaining to the priests” to give to Moshe.
The LORD had additional revelation for Moshe. Call in Hebrew has the deeper meaning “invite”. It is very organically related in Hebrew to the word “to tear away”. In short the LORD in connection with the fact that Moshe could not enter the Tent of Meeting at the end of Exodus invites him – to “tear yourself away” from where he was.
In Hebrew, “the weightiness of the glory of the LORD” filled the Appointed Tent of Meeting. The Tent has been completed. Since the weightiness of the glory of the LORD filled it, Moshe could not enter. It must be remembered that in the LORD’s giving of the Torah to Moshe, He called Moshe to ascend Mt. Sinai. The LORD told Moshe “be there” Ex. 24:12.
The LORD said, in Hebrew, “…with movement toward Moshe in an encompassing way, ascend up to Me (on) the mountain and, be there…”.
The Torah tells us in Hebrew in Ex. 24:16 “And dwelt like a neighbor (the) weightiness (of the) glory in an encompassing way (of the) Lord upon in an encompassing way, Mt. Sinai…”.
(We rendered “dwelt like a neighbor” because the Hebrew word is a form of “dwell” and “dwell in Hebrew has the deeper meaning “to dwell like a neighbor”).
Ex. 24:16 goes on to tell us that after six days – and of course a cloud covered the LORD – that the LORD called to Moshe on the seventh day.
We must stop right here to ask an extremely significant question when it comes to understanding the LORD, Yeshua, the Ruach Hakodesh, and the Bible.
Which Early Gentile Fathers had the Sinai experience with the LORD? Did the Council of Nicaea in 325 that came up with a “definition” of God? Did the LORD call them to a mountain top and give them a revelation of what He wanted?
Does Augustine claim such an experience of hearing directly from the LORD? How about Aquinas? Does Anselm claim his massive theological exposition Summa Theologie was given to him on a mountain top?
Does John Calvin claim his Institutes of the Christian Religion were “writings by the finger of God” – as was given to Moshe (Ex. 31:18, 34:1-2, etc.)?
Does Martin Luther claim his Treatise on Christian Liberty was given to him after spending 40 days on a mountain top with the LORD?
Which denominational Board of Directors can claim they accompanied the director to a mountain top where they received the Scriptural verses of that denomination?
In Lk. 9:28-36 the Mt. of Transfiguration, who is with Yeshua? Is there anyone other than his half-brother Jacob, Yochanon, and Peter – all fellow Galilean Jews?
Who is seen speaking with Yeshua? Augustine and Jerome? Anselm and Aquinas? Calvin and Luther? The Boards of Directors of the Southern Baptists and the Assemblies of God? The founder of the two largest Christian TV networks? No! No!
Two Hebrews speak with Yeshua; Moshe and Eli-yahu (“Elijah”).
What has this to do with the name Yeshua? Everything! One of the great Jewish teachers of the 20th century points out the following. How strange of God not to have deposited the cradle of the Messiah, if not in Athens, then at the Oracle of Delphi.
In other words, if Yeshua is really “JC”, a Messiah of Greek origin and rooted accordingly, then why isn’t he born in Greece? Why are the ones he personally calls all Galilean Jews (Judas was from Judea)? Why doesn’t “JC” call Athenians; or Romans?
If the name Yeshua is merely as some think just “culturally Jewish”, why call Paul? Why call a highly trained Pharisee – who remains a Pharisee according to his own words Acts 23:6 etc. – to go to Gentiles? Why call Paul in Hebrew – and in answer to Paul’s question of who is calling him, why answer Paul in Hebrew? Why say in Acts 26:14-15 “…I (am) Yeshua…” if Yeshua sees himself as “JC”?
As we said above, “Leviticus” is not as seen typically by Western Tradition. Again; Western Tradition looks at things through a Greek mind. Western Tradition does not look at even the Hebrew Bible with a Hebrew heart.
Tragically, Hebrew is viewed from a very Western perspective, meaning; it sees Hebrew as no different than any other language. Unfortunately, and tragically, very tragically, it misses both the depth and even more so, the “soul” of Hebrew.
As we will see ahead this applies to and affects how Yeshua is seen and presented! Only a basic meaning of Yeshua’s name is looked at and opened up.
Unfortunately, as we have repeatedly repeated; Yeshua is seen only as “JC”, seen without any explanation or revealing the deeper, wider meaning of his real name.
If you are a follower of Yeshua, have you ever been taught what the name “JC” more deeply means? What did you learn about him from that name?
Or, is everything about “JC” read back into him from a post-Bible de-Hebraicized de-Judaized perspective?
Would Yeshua have thought of “Leviticus” as separate from “Exodus”? Wouldn’t he have known of them in Hebrew; rather than the Greek Septuagint translation? In short as we pointed out elsewhere, in Lk 24:44 after his Ascension, Yeshua teaches about himself in the following way.
Yeshua teaches the Taught Ones about himself from the Jewish order of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Torah, the Prophets, and the Psalms. If you have any Christian translation you will notice the order in your Bible is the Torah, the Psalms, then the Prophets.
That is the Greek order. Further and very significantly as we pointed out, the good doctor Luke writes his Ruach Hakodesh inspired Gospel originally for a Greek audience.
In short, Luke’s Greek audience would be unaware of the Jewish order of the Hebrew Scriptures. Thus, clearly Luke has no incentive to give the Hebrew Scriptures in the Jewish order – except for his responsibility to give an accurate and authentic account.
Thus, teaching of himself from the Hebrew Bible, would Yeshua think of it as “OT” or in Greek terms? Obviously not!
The “key” then is that Yeshua would have seen “Leviticus” from Hebrew. In short, that the LORD called, He invited Moshe to tear himself away, and receive, further revelation of the LORD’s very own Word.
In the wider context and Hebrew’s connectedness between the end of Exodus and the beginning of Leviticus we glean the following.
As above, when the LORD’s glory “filled full” the Appointed Tent of Meeting Moshe could not enter. The LORD had additional revelatory teaching, law, and guidance and instruction to give to Moshe.
In Hebrew, the LORD did not merely face toward Moshe and call him to get Moshe’s attention. In Hebrew there was movement toward Moshe, and, in an encompassing way.
At that time Moshe could not enter, in Hebrew, “the Source Place of the Presence that dwells like a neighbor” (Christians know it as the “Tabernacle”). Moshe then, could not draw near to the LORD. Now though, the LORD calls to Moshe; the LORD in a a sense “invites” and wants Moshe to “tear away” from where Moshe was.
The LORD moves toward Moshe to both speak and also to say to him. Lev. 1:1-5, is not about “offerings”, but about what to do when one desires of their heart to draw near to the LORD!
The Hebrew translated “offering” in Lev. 1:1-5 is in fact literally “draw near”. It is not about an “offering” the LORD does not need. It is about what the Israelites should do when they desire of their heart, to draw near to the LORD.
More to follow