Old Wine

Left Your 1st Love

In the second chapter of the book of Revelation John is being told to write letters to seven churches in Asia minor. The first of these letters is to the church in Ephesus. After commending the church for some things, John is told to rebuke the church because, “You have forsaken your first love… Repent and do the things you did at first.” (2:4-5) What was this “first love” that the church abandoned?

Since the teaching of Jesus was that the first and greatest commandment was to love God with all one’s being (Mark 12:28-30), it seems that the love of God is likely what is being referenced here. But the emphasis in the passage seems to be on doing particular deeds. As we examined last week, love of God seems to be connected with following his commandments throughout scripture. In light of this, the first love, that was abandoned, could have been God’s Torah.

The Psalmist certainly seems to consider God’s law as something to be loved. From the very first Psalm, the law of the Lord is to be delighted in and meditated on by the righteous person. (Psalm 1:2) But the Psalm that focuses the most on this issue is the longest Psalm, Psalm 119.

In the 176 verses of this Psalm, virtually every verse extols the virtues of God’s commandments. And loving them is the focus of many verses. “For I delight in your commands because I love them. I lift up my hands to your commands, which I love, and I meditate on your decrees.” (119:47-48) “Oh, how I love your law! I meditate on it all day long.” (119:97) “I hate double-minded men, but I love your law.” (119:113) “All the wicked of the earth you discard like dross; therefore I love your statutes.” (119:119) “Because I love your commands more than gold, more than pure gold, and because I consider all your precepts right, I hate every wrong path.” (119:127-128) “I hate and abhor falsehood but I love your law.” (119:163) “Great peace have they who love your law, and nothing can make them stumble.” (119:165) “I obey your statutes, for I love them greatly.” (119:167) and others. Truly this Psalm is a testimony of love for God’s law.

Incidentally, many of the verses of this Psalm also proclaim God’s law to be eternal. “Your word, O Lord, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens.” (119:89) “Your statutes are my heritage forever; they are the joy of my heart.” (119:111) “Long ago I learned from your statutes that you established them to last forever.” (119:152) “All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal.” (119:160)

A common interpretation of this part of the book of Revelation is to consider the letters to the seven churches to be dealing with chronological eras of church history. Thus the letter to the church at Ephesus would describe the first few centuries after the ministry of Jesus. This brings to mind one of the most significant events in church history, the Fiscus Judaicus.

As you will recall, the Fiscus Judaicus was an onerous tax levied by the Roman empire against Jews in the later part of the first century. The way that the tax collectors determined who were Jews was by their worship and lifestyle. At this time there were many Gentile believers in Jesus. They were not Jews and they didn’t see any reason to pay a lot of money on the supposition that they were. Certainly scripture had instructed them to live a life that was pleasing to God, as they had become part of covenant Israel. But it’s easy to understand the incentives to minimize or eliminate that connection with Israel in order to save a lot of money.

It appears that it was about this time and for this reason that Gentile believers began to distance themselves from Jews and Judaism and began to define their religion as “Christianity” in contrast to Judaism. In order to distinguish themselves from Jews, they chose a different day of worship, ignored the biblical festivals, and began to interpret some of Paul’s writings as teaching that God’s law had been abrogated and no longer needed to be followed. This was in spite of the fact that both Jesus (Matthew 5:17-18) and Paul (Romans 3:31) insisted that the law was not obsolete but that it continued to be in effect.

Because it was politically popular, the bulk of the church began to hate and persecute the Jews as a people, accusing them of being “Christ-killers”. Over the ensuing centuries much of the anti-Semitism came from the Christian community, who thought they had replaced the Jews as God’s favored people.

This wrong turn by the bulk of Christianity in the late first and second centuries certainly fits the description of “leaving their first love.” The effects of it have continued to affect the practices of Christianity to this very day.

If we are to right this grievous wrong, we need to do what John writes to the church at Ephesus, “Repent and do the things that you did at first.” (Rev. 2:5) This would be turning back to God’s law and doing the things he instructed his people to do, as the first-century believers did.

Loving God

During Jesus’ ministry, a teacher of the law came to him and asked a question, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?” (Mark 12:28) Jesus replied with a citation from the book of Deuteronomy, from a speech of Moses to the people of Israel. “‘The most important one,’ answered Jesus, ‘is this: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.”‘” (Mark 12:29-30; Deut. 6:4-5)

Upon hearing this, the teacher agreed with Jesus. This was apparently the answer that he was looking for. Jesus went on to commend him for his wise answer. Both Jesus and the Jewish teachers of his day agreed that loving God was the greatest commandment in the Torah. But what does this command involve?

The passage in Deuteronomy 6 that Jesus quoted goes on to say, “These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.” (Deut. 6:6-9) This passage, known in Judaism as the “Sh’ma” for the Hebrew word for “Hear”, is one of the most-often repeated passages in synagogue worship to this day. After the command to love God with one’s whole being, the passage emphasizes learning and remembering the commands of God that Moses was relating to them in this long speech. There seems to be a distinct connection intended between loving God and keeping his commands.

This connection is made several more times throughout the book of Deuteronomy. In chapter 10 when Moses is summarizing what God wants from them, he says, “And now, O Israel, what does the LORD your God ask of you but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to observe the LORD’s commands and decrees that I am giving you today for your own good?” (10:12-13) Moses repeats this same theme a short time later in 11:1. “Love the LORD your God and keep his requirements, his decrees, his laws and his commands always.”

Later in the book Moses mentions this same connection when he talks about establishing cities of refuge. “If the LORD your God enlarges your territory, as he promised on oath to your forefathers, and gives you the whole land he promised them, because you carefully follow all these laws I command you today — to love the LORD your God and to walk always in his ways — then you are to set aside three more cities.” (19:8-9) He mentions it one more time as he’s winding up his speech and presenting the options of life or death. “See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. For I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.” (30:15-16) To Moses, the idea of loving God was closely tied to obeying his commandments.

But what about other parts of the Hebrew scriptures? Do other writers make this same connection? When Joshua is summoning the 2 1/2 tribes who decided to stay on the eastern side of the Jordan, he tells them, “Now that the LORD your God has given your brothers rest as he promised, return to your homes in the land that Moses the servant of the LORD gave you on the other side of the Jordan. But be very careful to keep the commandment and the law that Moses the servant of the LORD gave you: to love the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, to obey his commands, to hold fast to him and to serve him with all your heart and all your soul.” (Joshua 22:4-5)

Later in Israel’s history, after the exile, Nehemiah begins his prayer with “O LORD, God of heaven, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with those who love him and obey his commands,” (Nehemiah 1:5) The prophet Isaiah mentions this connection even involving Gentiles who turn to Israel’s God. “And foreigners who bind themselves to the LORD to serve him, to love the name of the LORD, and to worship him, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant — these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.” (Isaiah 56:6-8) This is a prophecy of the future time when Gentiles would be invited to join the people of God. Jesus mentions this in John 10 when he says, “I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.” (John 10:16)

We’ve seen that in the history of Israel the command to love God was connected with keeping his commandments. Is that still true in the time after the ministry of Jesus? We see in John 14 that Jesus tells his disciples that if they love him, they will do what he commands. “If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever.” (14:15-16) Are Jesus’ commands the same as God’s commands? It’s inconceivable that they be otherwise, given Jesus’ repeated self-identification with God. In case there is any doubt, Jesus assures us in Matthew 5:18 that God’s commands are eternal and immutable.

What about in the epistles? Is the connection made between loving God and obeying his commands? Probably the strongest such connection is made in I John 5. “This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome.” (I John 5:2-3) In this passage obeying God’s commands is connected not only with loving God, but also with loving his children.

It’s clear that throughout scripture the main way to exhibit loving God is to obey his commands. It’s a shame that so much of the church has cast aside the commands that God gave to his people, Israel. We need to focus our lives on returning to a stance of loving God with our entire being and learning and obeying his commands.

Soccer to Football

I had a dream the other night that seemed highly significant to me. As background let me say that I played soccer in college and developed a love for the game. Recently I’ve tried to watch most of the games of the local university team.

In my dream I had gone back to my college to play in an alumni soccer game. But when the game got started, everybody started throwing the ball around and running with it. I was totally disgusted. That was not the game I came to play. It had somehow turned into rugby or American football.

When I woke up, it occurred to me that such a transformation was a good metaphor for the origination of what became known as Christianity. Now of course a game is not the same as religious faith, and it’s fine to play any variation of a game that you want to. But imagine that soccer had been divinely revealed at some point in the past and the rules for it had been personally given by God to his representatives.

Imagine further that a master teacher had come later and continued to teach the game of soccer as previously revealed, but with the additional detail that he was to be the ultimate goalkeeper (or something like that). Then, not long after the master teacher departed, the players started to reason that, since the goalkeeper could pick up the ball, take steps with it, and even throw it, other players should be able to pick up the ball and run with it or throw it. You ended up with a significantly different game.

In this metaphor, as you’ve probably figured out, soccer represents Judaism and American football represents Christianity. God gave a revelation to his people in the Hebrew scriptures that came to be known as Judaism. Jesus came and taught Judaism as revealed by the scriptures with the addition that he was the ultimate king in God’s promised kingdom. Since the kingdom was rejected by the authorities, as God knew would happen, Jesus also became the ultimate sacrifice for sin.

But in the centuries that followed, some of the rules of the game were thrown out and a lot of new ones were added. Since Jesus stayed in the tomb (resting) during the Sabbath and was resurrected on the first day of the week, it was decided that they would honor that day as their holy day and ignore the Sabbath that God had instituted. Since their focus was, they thought, to be exclusively on Jesus, they would make major celebrations of his birth and death/resurrection, and cast aside the festivals that God had instructed his people to observe. Since Jesus, at his last Passover celebration, extended the symbolism of Passover to include not only the redemption from Egypt, but also the spiritual redemption that was to be provided by his sacrifice, it became commonplace to observe a kind of mini-Passover every week or month, and totally divorce it from the Passover that was the basis for it. It became a whole new ball game.

Now just as with American football, Christianity has become more widespread than Judaism in certain contexts. But it’s not the “faith once delivered to the saints” as the third verse of the epistle to Jude puts it. There have been many reformations that have made gestures to getting back to the faith of Jesus and the apostles, but they’ve all failed because they haven’t realized that Jesus was teaching the same Judaism that God revealed to Moses and the prophets. We need to throw out all the new rules and get back to the game that God introduced in the first place.

False Prophet?

In Deuteronomy 13 we read about God’s warnings to his people regarding false prophets. “If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, ‘Let us follow other gods’ (gods you have not known) ‘and let us worship them,’ you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him.” (Deu. 13:1-4)

Even if the prophet performs miraculous signs, he could be a false prophet. The main test given in this passage is whether the prophet tries to lead people to follow other gods. But it seems also to emphasize obeying God and keeping his commandments. The implication is that any prophet who tries to lead away from keeping God’s commandments is a false prophet and should be rejected.

Unfortunately, the way Jesus is presented by most Christians, he appears to Jews to fit the characteristics of a false prophet in this passage. He and his followers are portrayed as leading people away from God’s commandments, claiming that the Torah has been done away. Jews who reject Jesus on this basis are doing it out of faithfulness to God and to scripture. They should be commended for this.

However, this is clearly not the way Jesus is portrayed in the New Testament. The Jesus of the New Testament held Torah in extremely high regard. He taught that not a letter, or even a piece of a letter would pass away from Torah until heaven and earth pass away, until all things happen (Matt. 5:18). I can’t imagine affirming Torah any more strongly than that.

He quoted the Torah often in his teaching. It was his go-to scripture. He cited Deuteronomy more than any other book. When he was confronted by the devil in the wilderness, he quoted Deuteronomy three times. (Matt. 4; Luke 4) His famous statement about the greatest commandment and the second greatest, summarizing the entire law, are from Deuteronomy and Leviticus (Deu. 6:5; Lev. 19:18) When he healed a man with leprosy, he ordered him to go and show himself to the priest and offer the sacrifices commanded in the Torah (Mark 1:44).

There are those who seem to think that Jesus disregarded the Sabbath laws. He certainly faced disagreement from some of the teachers about how they should be interpreted. A close examination of the texts reveals that Jesus never claims that the Sabbath laws have been abolished. He always defends his understanding as the original intent of the laws, sometimes quoting scripture to back it up.

There is one passage where some poor translations have led people into a misunderstanding about Jesus’ attitude toward the food laws. In Mark 7 Jesus has just accused some of the Pharisees of ignoring God’s law in favor of their traditions (7:8-13). Afterward he goes on to explain to the crowd and his disciples that what they eat has nothing to do with being clean or unclean. It’s a totally separate issue. He explains to his disciples that food that they eat doesn’t go into the heart, but into the stomach, and then out of the body into the sewage, purging all foods (from the body). Some translators with an agenda have translated the phrase “purging all foods”, which in the context is part of Jesus’ statement, to say something like, “In saying this Jesus declared all foods clean”. This is a real stretch grammatically, as you’d have to go back two or three verses to find an antecedent for the participle. Besides this, he had just finished standing up for the authority of God’s law; he wasn’t about to cancel it in the next few verses. And even if he had intended such a statement, the things that he and the Jews considered to be “food” would not include the things that were prohibited by God to his people and called “detestable” (Deu. 14:3ff).

Jesus clearly revered God’s law and did not try to change any of it. But most Christians after the second century have embraced “another Jesus” who they think changed the laws. This has been a stumbling block for Jews, preventing them from acknowledging the Torah-observant Jesus who identified himself as their promised Messiah, and will return to set up God’s promised kingdom where God’s law will be internalized into people’s hearts (Jer. 31:33) and will be the universal standard of behavior (Isaiah 2:3).

Hallelujah

“Hallelujah” is a word that has become common in English, although not many people are familiar with its derivation. It is a transliteration of a Hebrew word with two parts. “Hallelu” is a masculine plural imperative form of the verb that means “Praise”. It is telling a group of people to praise. The last part of the word is “Yah”, the short form of the name of God, the One who is to be praised.

The Hebrew word “Hallelujah” is used twenty-four times in the book of Psalms, mostly in the final psalms in the book. It both opens and closes a few of them. The KJV translation doesn’t transliterate the word. It translates it as “Praise ye the LORD”, which gets at the meaning very well.

This is a sacred word, the more so because it contains the name of God. It should not be tossed off flippantly as a synonym for “I’m happy”. This could be an example of using God’s name in vain. It seems like this is the major use of the word in our society.

Another way it should not be used (or sung) is to de-emphasize the last syllable to the point of almost eliminating it. The last syllable is God’s name, and it’s the whole point of the word.

Yet another mistaken use of the word is to imagine that by saying it (or its translation, “Praise God”), you are actually praising God. Praising God is recounting his works or his character and lauding him for that. Saying “Hallelujah” (or “Praise God”) is telling a group of people to praise God; it’s not actually doing it.

Because of this, it is not an appropriate thing to be saying to God. When you have songs to the effect of “Sing Hallelujah to the Lord”, you are telling God to praise himself, which makes no sense. When the psalmist says it, he is telling the congregation to praise God, and he goes on to elaborate how and why it should be done.

What about “Alleluia”, which we often find in our music and liturgy? This is a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew word, and it’s only found in Revelation 19, although it’s found four times in that chapter. This is the passage on which Handel’s “Hallelujah Chorus” is based. It tells of a multitude in heaven exhorting each other to praise God. It also makes clear that the language being spoken on this occasion is Hebrew.

Is there any reason to use “Alleluia” in our music or liturgy? Maybe if you’re speaking or singing in Greek, as it’s a Greek transliteration of a Hebrew word. But I see no reason to use “Alleluia” in English music or liturgy. It has no meaning in Greek, only as a transliteration of Hebrew. Thus, in English we should recognize the Hebrew origin of the word and use the English transliteration, “Hallelujah”. As a choir director, I’ve asked my choirs to change “Alleluia” to “Hallelujah” in songs that they sing.

In summary, recognize that “Hallelujah” is a sacred word and use it reverently. Don’t minimize the portion of it that is God’s name. Don’t use it as a synonym for “Yippee!” And don’t tell God to praise himself. But get in the habit of praising God yourself and encouraging others to do the same.

Am I a Christian?

Am I a Christian? This is a complex question to answer because the word “Christian” is not a simple word. If it means a follower of Jesus as the promised Messiah, then I am certainly a Christian. But the word has other levels of meaning. If it means an adherent of the religious system that has come to be known as Christianity, then I have some issues.

People tend to think of Christianity as a religion that is separate from and in opposition to Judaism. I am convinced that Jesus had no intention of starting a new religion, that he and all his immediate followers were self-consciously adherents and teachers of Judaism. Jesus was a Torah-observant Jew.

After the deviation in the second century brought about by the Fiscus Judaicus, of which we have spoken elsewhere, most of Christianity took on some positions which seem to me to be contrary to scripture. They cast aside their identification with God’s people, Israel, and considered themselves to have replaced Israel in God’s plan. They shrugged off God’s law as a standard of behavior. They dismissed the Sabbaths and holy days that God commanded and instituted replacements with no biblical warrant. Most of these deviations still affect the bulk of Christianity today.

The term “Christian” is used very rarely in the New Testament. It is never used by Jesus, or even by the apostle Paul. The first mention is in Acts 11:26 where it says that “the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch” following the ministry of Paul and Barnabas. It doesn’t say who was calling them this. It could easily have been their opponents, using it as a term of mockery — greasy ones. In any case, the passage doesn’t endorse this term; it only reports it.

There is an occasion a few years later that Paul has an opportunity to use the term, but chooses not to. In Acts 26 Paul is making an extended defense before King Agrippa, including the statement that he was saying nothing beyond what the prophets and and Moses said would happen (26:22). When he asks Agrippa if he believes the prophets, Agrippa responds, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?” (26:28). Paul replies, avoiding using the same term in response, “Short time or long– I pray God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am, except for these chains.” (26:29) It seems like Paul is not endorsing the use of that term to describe his faith.

There is only one other mention in the New Testament of the term “Christian” or any of its derivatives. It occurs in the first epistle of Peter, and it’s the only time that it’s used by a follower of Jesus. Peter is discussing the suffering that the disciples are experiencing. He says, “If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler. However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name.” (I Peter 4:15-16) The term could still be a term of mockery by those who are causing the suffering, but Peter exhorts them to be proud that they bear the name of Christ, even in suffering.

Many pastors and teachers talk as if the purpose of the New Testament is to teach us how to be good Christians. I think that is the wrong metric, as it never claims that. It teaches us to be followers of God and disciples of Jesus.

When I am asked for my religious preference, “Christian” is not a term that I choose to identify with. That makes it tricky when there is a list from which to choose. But when possible, I will use a description along the lines of: “Follower of Jesus the Jew”.

God’s Personal Name

God has a personal name. The terms “God” and “Lord” are simply descriptions. When I was growing up and mostly a reader of the King James Bible, I thought that this personal name was “Jehovah”. It wasn’t until I got to seminary that I discovered that this wasn’t even a word, much less a name. But more about that later.

In order to discuss this topic, we need to realize some things about the Hebrew language. The language has been around for about 4000 years, but until about a thousand years ago, it was written with only consonants. Each letter of the Hebrew alphabet is a consonant. When the language was spoken, you could hear the vowels, but only the consonants were written down. Native speakers understood what vowels were to be used in various words. In the middle ages a group of scholars, the Masoretes, developed a system for identifying vowels in and around the letters by using various dots and lines. This will be significant later.

When God appeared to Moses in the burning bush in Exodus 3, he told him to tell the Israelites that his name was “Ehyeh”, which translates as “I am” or “I will be”. In the next sentence God gave Moses a different name, that he said would be his name forever. That name is the one that is most commonly recorded throughout the Hebrew Bible.

This name that God gave Moses is composed of four letters in Hebrew. It is sometimes referred to as the tetragrammaton (four letters). The first letter is the “yodh”, which is equivalent to the ‘Y’ sound in English (not a ‘J’) as we saw in last week’s post. The second and fourth letters are both a “hey”, which sounds like the English letter ‘H’. The third letter is one that has varied in sound over the years. In older times it was apparently pronounced as a “W”, but in more recent times and in modern Hebrew is usually pronounced as a ‘V’. So putting them all together, we get a series of consonants: YHWH or YHVH.

Sometime before the second temple period, the time of Jesus, Jewish tradition had decided that, based on the command not to take God’s name in vain (Exodus 20:7), it would be better not to speak this name at all. The custom became that when reading the biblical text in Hebrew, when you encountered the divine name, you would say “Adonai”, the Hebrew word for “Lord”. In order to remind readers of this, when the Masoretes added vowels to the text, they used the vowels of “Adonai” inserted into the tetragrammaton. This isn’t really pronounceable, but if you try, it comes out something like “Yehovah”. That’s how we get that word, the consonants of one word with the vowels of another.

This is well-known in Jewish circles, but there is another strong piece of evidence for it. When the divine name occurs in the Hebrew text alongside the actual word “Adonai”, then the divine name is to be pronounced “Elohim”, the Hebrew word for “God”. In these cases the Masoretes put the vowels for “Elohim” around the tetragrammaton. Trying to pronounce it as written would come out something like “Yehovee”.

When referring to the divine name in English, Jews will typically use an “evasive synonym”. Sometimes it will be “HaShem”, which is Hebrew for “the name”. Sometimes they will say “Almighty” or “heaven” or something else. It’s interesting that in the New Testament gospels where Luke refers to the “kingdom of God”, Matthew refers to the “kingdom of heaven”. This may be a similar evasive synonym.

In most of our English translations, when the divine name occurs, it is rendered as “LORD” in all capital letters. This is to represent the Hebrew pronunciation of “Adonai”. In the rare places where the divine name occurs alongside the real Hebrew word “Adonai”, the name will be rendered as “GOD” in all capitals. This is to represent the Hebrew pronunciation of “Elohim”. This is what happens in the King James translation. Others may represent it in other ways, such as “Sovereign LORD”. This particular structure happens a lot in Ezekiel (e.g. Ezekiel 3:11; 4:14).

Some scholars have decided that they know how the name was pronounced, and they write it out and encourage people to say it. As far as I am concerned, any pronunciation is only a guess. We can be pretty sure that the first part is pronounced “Yah”, as that word occurs alone as a short form of the name (e.g. Psalm 122:4), as well as in names of individuals (e.g. Abijah, Adonijah, Elijah) and the compound word “Hallelujah” (Hebrew for “Praise Yah”). But any vowels that might be included in the remainder of the name are totally unknown.

Should we try to pronounce the name? As I see it, our best example in this regard is Jesus, and there is no indication in the gospels that he ever pronounced the name. It would have been unacceptable in his Jewish context, but if the name was intended to be pronounced, it seems that he would have taught regarding that. And the example of Jesus is good enough for me.

Bible J-Names

There are many names of individuals and places that that begin with the letter ‘J’ in our English Bible translations. We can all think of a bunch of them: Jerusalem, Judah, Jeremiah, Jonathan, Jacob, Joshua, Jeroboam, and Jesus for starters.

A case can be made that these are very poor transliterations for these names. There is no letter in Hebrew that remotely resembles the ‘J’ sound in English. Nor is there in Greek, nor even Latin. Where, then, do we get all these names that start with, or even include, a ‘J’?

It’s interesting that in the 1611 version of the King James Bible, these names all had an ‘I’ instead of a ‘J’. The ‘J’ was first introduced later. It seems to be the result of the familiarity of the early translations into German.

These names in their original Hebrew form invariably begin with the Hebrew letter “yodh”. It is the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet, the “jot” of Matthew 5:18, and it looks something like an apostrophe. It is often used to designate a vowel, like a long ‘i’ or ‘e’, but when it begins a word, it is pronounced as a consonental ‘y’. When it’s transliterated into Greek, a “iota” is usually used to replace it.

Based on that background, you would think that it would be transliterated into English with a ‘Y’, or at least an ‘I’. In German the ‘y’ sound is represented by the letter ‘j’, but even in German there is nothing like the English ‘j’ sound. Apparently these names became so well-known with the ‘J’ spelling in German that English translators kept the ‘J’ when recording them in English, at least after a certain point in time.

Let’s consider for a moment the name of the person most of us know as “Jesus”. There is no chance that he was addressed this way by his contemporaries. In the Greek of the New Testament his name is rendered something like “Iesous”. The culture in which he lived was more likely Hebrew or Aramaic. In that culture his name would have been “Yeshua”, or perhaps “Yehoshua”.

The person whom we know as “Joshua”, the successor of Moses, is recorded in the Hebrew Bible as “Yehoshua”, a word that means “the LORD saves”. His name was originally “Hoshea”, but was changed by Moses (Numbers 13:16). Interestingly, in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, he is transliterated as “Iesous”, the same Greek word as “Jesus”. This accounts for the confusion often accompanying the King James reading of Hebrews 4:8, “For if Jesus had given them rest…”, when it’s actually referring to Joshua. The names are the same in the Greek.

Why then was “Yehoshua” transliterated as “Iesous” in Greek? It seems that in later Jewish history the name was typically shortened to “Yeshua”. We have it occurring in that form a number of times in Ezra and Nehemiah (e.g. Ezra 2:2; Nehemiah 3:19). It’s easier to conceptualize “Iesous” as a transliteration of “Yeshua”. There was no letter in Greek representing the “sh” sound, so they used a sigma. Greek masculine names typically ended in “-us”, so they tacked that on.

It makes more sense for the man from Nazareth to be named Yeshua rather than Jesus in at least one other passage. The word “yeshua” by itself in Hebrew means “salvation”. In Matthew 1:21 Joseph is told by the angel that “you are to give him the name Yeshua, because he will save his people from their sins.” The word “Iesous” has no such meaning in Greek; it’s simply a transliteration of the Hebrew name. The more we thnk of Jesus as Yeshua, the more likely we are to place him in his correct cultural context with the correct meaning for his name.

Saul as Church

King Saul, the first king of Israel, is an interesting character. Even more interesting are the parallels that his life has with the Christian church throughout its history.

There was a man in the first century who was named after King Saul, and was of the same tribe, Benjamin. He was called “Paul” when among Greek-speaking people, but among Hebrews he continued to be called “Saul” (Shaul). We probably know him as the apostle Paul. His teaching is what the church relies on for most of its doctrine, and he is often thought of as the father of the church.

In the beginning, Saul, son of Kish, was God’s choice for king of Israel. Samuel had been the leader of Israel as a judge and prophet, but his sons were not good men. So the people demanded a king. At some level God was displeased with this, since the people were rejecting his leadership in raising up judges. But the kingship had been predicted way back in Deuteronomy 17, so it seems to have been God’s ultimate plan for the nation.

God specifically told Samuel to anoint Saul as king over Israel. At that time Saul was humble and not eager to accept the kingship. When the Urim and Thummim were used to narrow down the proposed king to only Saul, he was hiding because he didn’t want the role. The Spirit of God had come on him and he prophesied with a procession of prophets.

Saul’s first actions as king seemed to be righteous ones as well. He summoned the people to help rescue the city of Jabesh Gilead from the Ammonites. God blessed him and his people with victory.

But Saul’s righteous standing didn’t last long. After just a short period of time he decided to go against the God-ordained process of worship by offering up burnt offerings that only the priests were authorized to do. As a result, God rejected him from passing the kingship to his heirs and sent Samuel to anoint another person, David, to be the king whose dynasty would last forever.

In a similar way, the followers of Jesus, the church, in the first century were chosen by God and faithful to him. They worshiped in the temple and attended synagogues on the Sabbath. When Gentiles turned to God, they became identified with covenant Israel (Rom. 11:17) and began living the lifestyle that God had instructed his people (I Cor. 7:19).

But in the late first and early second centuries that changed. The Roman empire instituted an onerous tax on Jews, the Fiscus Judaicus. The way people were identified as Jews was by their lifestyle; did they live like Jews?

The Gentile followers of Jesus knew that they were not Jews and didn’t see any reason to pay the tax. So they distanced themselves from Judaism as much as possible. They started defining their religion in opposition to Judaism. They established new days of worship (Sunday) and rejected the Sabbaths and festivals commanded in scripture.

They even rejected the law of God as given through Moses and claimed that it was obsolete, despite both Jesus (Matt. 5:17) and Paul (Rom. 3:31) insisting that was not the case. Over time they established a theology in opposition to God’s law, basing it on misunderstood portions of Paul’s epistles.

They also set themselves in opposition to God’s people Israel, despite Paul’s warning in Romans 11 not to do so. By the time of the church councils in the fourth century, they were saying terrible things about Jews. And it’s common knowledge that much of the anti-Semitism throughout history has come from Christians.

In the same way that Saul hounded David, God’s anointed, for the rest of his life and tried to destroy him, the church has hounded Jews, the people of David’s greater son, the Messiah, and tried to destroy them. Eventually Saul was killed and David became king, even as the Son of David will become king of the Jews in God’s kingdom at the end of the age.

Saul’s misunderstanding, and that of the church, has been tragic. We need to repent, as Jesus preached, and embrace the people of Israel and the faith of Israel, even as we claim to embrace the Messiah of Israel.

Treasures New and Old

We have seen in a previous post how the primary message of Jesus during the time of his teaching on earth was the topic of the prophesied kingdom of God, referred to in Matthew as the kingdom of heaven. The Jews were expecting this kingdom, and Jesus’ message was that the kingdom was being offered, and he was the anointed king (Messiah) to reign over it. The idea of the Kingdom was not new; the prophets talked about it extensively. But the revelation of Jesus as the king was new.

In Matthew 13 Jesus gives a lot of parables, similes, about the kingdom of heaven. Near the end of the long chapter, he says this: “Therefore every teacher of the law who has been instructed about the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old” (Matt. 13:52). New treasures as well as old. Both the old and the new are considered treasures. The new treasure is the teaching about the kingdom, specifically the identity of the king. The old treasure seems to be something that was already in the possession of the teachers of the law, namely Judaism and the law itself.

We saw in our inaugural post how Jesus denied that his message was mostly new. He pointed out that you don’t fix an old coat with a new patch because that would tear the coat. He also used the metaphor of wineskins and wine, something that was universally acknowledged as being better when it’s old. (Luke 5:36-39)

Jesus’ teaching was Judaism, according to the Hebrew scriptures. But a part of his message was new, the fact that he was the culmination of the prophecies and hopes of Israel.

It’s a shame that most of the self-identified believers in Jesus in our day have discarded the old treasures that he was talking about, the Law of God. A read-through of Psalm 1, 19, or 119 will show how much of a treasure the psalmist considered God’s law to be. The church today, like the church in Ephesus in Revelation 2:4, has forsaken its first love, God’s law. When we regain that love and also understand the teaching about the end-time kingdom of God, ruled by Jesus, we will again be the church that God intended, with both new and old treasures in our possession.