Why Call Him Jesus?

People ask me from time to time why I use the name "Jesus" for the Lord and Savior of mankind instead of Yahshua or Yeshua (Hebrew and Aramaic equivalents of Joshua). Why call him "Jesus"? They find it inconsistent in view of my using "YHWH"* for the Creator, the only true, living God, in all my writings. They argue that Jesus was actually given one of those names and that, since there is no "J" in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek, "Jesus" could not be his name. To someone not familiar with the debate, it may seem a meaningless issue. But it's not, and I have several reasons for using the name "Jesus". But first I think it helpful to explore the historical background for those not familiar with the matter. For the sake of clarity, I will use the English versions of Biblical names, with the English character equivalents of their Hebrew and Greek versions in italics.

Background

The first mention of the name that would become "Jesus" appears in the Bible in Ex. 17:9, but its source is explained in Num. 13:16, which reports that Moses called Hoshea, the son of Nun, Joshua. Hoshea means deliverer (from Hb. yasha, a root meaning open, wide, free). Joshua is the English form of the Hebrew Yehoshuah, yeh-ho-shoo'-ah, or Yah-hoshua. Moses combined Yah, the short form of YHWH with Hoshea, resulting in a name meaning "Yah is salvation". Variants of that name appear throughout the Hebrew Bible, which Christians call the Old Testament. Among them Jehoshua and Jeshua, which appear in 1 Chr. 24:11 and 2 Chr. 31:15, but most prominently throughout Ezra and Nehemiah as the name of the priest who returned with Zerubbabel to rebuild the temple and Jerusalem. That same priest is identified as Joshua in most English translations of Hag. 1:1 and Zech. 3:1. In all of those instances, the English "J" would have been pronounced as "Y" in the Hebrew.

The Chaldean or Aramaic language also had the name Yeshua, corresponding to Jeshua, which could have been the name actually given to Jesus, based on the general belief among scholars that Aramaic was the common language before the Greek conquest of the Middle East by Alexander the Great. That rationale assumes, of course, that Aramaic was still commonly used by Jews when Jesus was born. I have seen the name spelled as Y'shua, Yahshua, Yeshua, Yah-hoshea, and Yah-hoshua as well as other variations. I have used Yeshua in prayer and conversation with the Father and in limited conversations with others. However, I have resisted the temptation to replace "Jesus" with the Hebrew or Aramaic version in my writings (so far, at least) and in most of my conversations, and even in ministry, as I explain below.

After Greek began to dominate communications in the Middle East, a group of Jewish scholars translated the Hebrew scriptures into Greek so that Jews who did not speak or read Hebrew could access those scriptures. Their translation is called the "Septuagint" (abbreviated LXX), based on the tradition that 70 scholars produced it. In the Septuagint, they translated Joshua and Jeshua (or Yeshua), for example, as Iesou (ee-ay-soo') or Iesoun, which is the English equivalent for the Greek and is identical to the name given Jesus in the New Testament, as discussed below.

Reasons

With that background, I will now explain why I still use the name "Jesus" rather than Yeshua, Yahshua, Yahoshua or some other Hebrew or Aramaic antecedent of that name:

• In my writings, I try to be as true to the Bible as I can be. The name "Jesus" is almost the same as the name that appears in the Greek manuscripts that make up the Christian New Testament. Matt. 1:21 informs us that the angel told Joseph to name Mary's child Iesoun, a variation of Iesous (ee-ay-sooce') or Iesou, the most common versions of his name in the Greek manuscripts. We can be fairly certain that Iesous conveys the same meaning as the Hebrew or Aramaic name, and when applied to Jesus, means "I am salvation": In Matt. 1:21, the angel told Joseph that Jesus would save his people from their sins. In addition, we have the Septuagint translation of Jeshua referred to above. The letter "J" evolved from the letter "I" and was introduced in the Latin translation of the Bible, along with a modified spelling of the rest of Jesus' name. For accuracy, I would have preferred that translations use Iesous, since that is the name given our Savior, but my experience and study satifies me that the slightly altered spelling and pronunciation does not make a substantive difference. Regardless of the way we pronounce his name, we are still talking about the savior of mankind.
• YHWH has not yet led me to try to change or correct the use of "Jesus", and my ministry is not to correct the Bible, which I regard as my authority. My insistence on using YHWH's name rather than "God" or "Lord" is explained in my lesson The Name of the One True, Living God. While people in our culture freely use "God" to refer to all kinds of human creations and risk creating real confusion about who or what is meant by such references, there's very little confusion about who's meant when we refer to Jesus the Christ. I still speak of "God" in conversations with close friends and people with a common understanding, but with others I want much more clarity to be sure we are talking about the same God. While there are many gods, there's only one Jesus Christ.
• To justify using one of the Hebrew or Aramaic versions, we have to infer that since Mary and Joseph, as well as Jesus' original disciples, were all Jews, the Bible would have reported that YHWH really gave the Hebrew or Aramaic name to him but that the recorders erroneously used the Greek name, even when reporting his disciples' and apostles' use of the name. While the Hebrew name that I (and many others) translate as YHWH appears in the Old Testament, and I have read that some of the ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament actually include the Hebrew name of YHWH, a Hebrew or Aramaic version of the Savior's name does not appear in the Greek manuscripts that we call the New Testament. Moreover, John 1:41 and other New Testament verses use Messias (mes-see'-as) for the Hebrew "Messiah" rather than the Greek Christos, both meaning anointed. If use of the Hebrew or Aramaic version of Jesus' name was important or even proper, it would have been recorded as such in the New Testament.
• By Jesus' time, Greek had become the common language of the world in which he lived. As mentioned above, Jewish scholars had even translated the Hebrew scriptures into Greek. It's entirely possible that YHWH actually intended to name the Savior Iesous rather than Yeshua, Yahshua, Yahoshua, or any of the other alternatives.
• Careful study reveals that in Bible times the original words translated "name" carried far more significance than merely identifying a person, place or thing. Using the name invokes that significance, calling upon the authority and power of the person named. The injunction not to take YHWH's name in vain (Ex. 20:7, Dt. 5:11) reveals that fact. Unless and until we can show that Paul's letters were originally in Hebrew or Aramaic, even when writing to Greeks, we must take seriously his declaration that Jesus (Iesous) is the name above all names, the name at which every knee will bow and the name that every tongue will confess as Lord (Phil. 2:9-11).
• Finally, numerous incidents in the Bible tell us that there is power in the name of Jesus (e.g., Acts 3:1-10). I have ministered in that name since 1983, using it to evangelize and prophesy, to minister numerous healings (spirit, soul and body, many of them immediate) and to perform several deliverances. I have also been present when others have ministered healing in that name, and I have seen the power it carries. I have read numerous biographies of saints who have ministered similarly in the name of Jesus. Healings and miracles follow. YHWH doesn't seem to care how we translate Jesus' name, as long as we receive-- and are born again through-- the person who bears that name, hence carrying his authority.

Final thought (my sermon)

Regardless of which name we use to identify Jesus, I believe it's vitally important to use his name when talking about him, and it's important to talk about him a lot. I hear too many people who should know better referring to him only as "Christ", without his personal name, even in sermons. "Christ" is not his name. It's a title and should be preceded by "the" when it's used without his name. On the other hand, when we use the name of Jesus, we invoke his authority and a power that cannot be measured. Years ago, when I went into a couple mental hospitals to talk with patients there, all I did was talk about Jesus, what he did during his mortal life and what he does now. I used his name, not his title. Every one of the patients that I visited was expecting a longer stay, hoping only for a brief visit to their homes within a couple weeks. However, each was restored and released after I'd visited them only once or twice.

When we talk about Jesus by his name, he's present in what we say, and his healing power works in a way we do not understand. But we can see the results. Jesus is indeed the same today as he was yesterday and will be in the future.