There are some in the religious world who are quite adamant about biblical names and their pronunciation…or at least a couple of them anyways.
They contend that Jesus isn’t Jesus – it’s Yeshua! They also follow suit with the name YHWH or even Jehovah when it comes to making references about God.
I understand some of the underlying points made by the proponents of the thought, but to me consistency is the key.
Why must the “original” be used with Jesus but not with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua (which is the same as Yeshua), Samuel, David, Solomon, Hezekiah, Nehemiah, and on and on I could go up through the biblical names that we find in the New Testament?
If one can understand who is being talked about when other names are being used that have made their way through Hebrew, Greek, Latin and English (etc.) translations then why can’t the same translations be satisfactory when referencing Jesus and the God of Heaven and Earth?
And if one contends that the original name pronunciation must be used then how can one be confident that they are saying the name correctly when past Jewish cultures (according to my understanding) refused to even pronounce such names as YHWH? And what if your English tongue can’t get rid of the accent that you can’t even hear?! If the name is going to be said, isn’t it supposed to said correctly?
Just wondering out loud here.
Don’t create a spiritual impediment by getting hung up on the pronunciation of a name – instead, focus on the person being talked about. For calling on the name of the Lord has more to do with seeking God than it does with saying the name correctly (Acts 22:16, Romans 10:12-13).
Here’s an article from the church in Wise, VA that I put in the bulletin at Keltonburg several years ago. I thought some of you might find it useful, specifically during this time of “conclave”:
Does the church produce the Bible…Or does the Bible produce thechurch?
Perhaps one of the biggest misconceptions regarding the Bible is that it is a product of the church. Many reject the Bible as our sole source of religious authority and instruction and belittle us for believing in the “Bible alone theory”. Thus, there is a great need to discuss the relationship between the Bible and the church. As always, we will appeal to the scriptures as our only source of authority and not our own wisdom (1 Corinthians 2:6-7).
For one to understand that the Bible is our only standard for all religious faith and practice, one must understand the church is the result of the Bible and depends on it for everything it preaches and practices. In other words, the Bible produces the church, not the other way around. We are told by some that since the “church is the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15), the church itself establishes what truth is. On the contrary, truth emanates only from God (Psalm 86:11; John 1:17; 17:17). Or as Paul put it in Ephesians 3:10, “To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in the heavenly places might be made known by the church the manifold wisdom of God.” The church, just like individuals, must appeal to the Bible as the only source of authority for it alone contains the manifold wisdom of God (1 Corinthians 2:9-13; Ephesians 3:3-5). Just as Moses was admonished to “make all things according to the pattern” (Hebrews 8:5); we must use the Bible alone to ensure we are following God’s revealed pattern for His church. Thus, we must speak where the Bible speaks, remain silent where the Bible is silent, do Bible things in Bible ways, and call Bible things by Bible names (1 Peter 4:11).
We read in Acts 16:5 that the “churches were established in the faith.” We would like to emphasize very kindly, yet very firmly, that the one true church is established in the faith; it does not establish the faith. The faith which is spoken of in Acts 16:5 is simply the revealed truth of the gospel which was “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) by the end of the first century. As beings created with rights of freedom and choice, why would anyone bind themselves to decrees, councils and conventions of men? “God forbid; yea let God be true and every man a liar” (Romans 3:4). – Ryan Thomas
Sometimes people use words and phrases that are not in the Bible, but are consistent with Bible truth. For example, “Trinity” never appears in Scripture, but when used to describe “the three Personalities that share the Divine Nature,” it is consistent with the Bible’s presentation of God.
Sometimes people use words and phrases that are not in the Bible, but are not consistent with Bible truth. One example of this is the common phrase, “Get saved and baptized.” This phrase is not consistent with God’s Word concerning either salvation or baptism.
The implication is that someone is “saved,” and then, at some later hour or day, they are baptized, separate from the “getting saved” part. This phrase misrepresents the Bible doctrine of salvation, as baptism is a requisite part of “getting saved,” not something done afterward (cf. 1 Pet. 3:21).
Consider Jesus’ words: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” (Mark 16:16). Notice that salvation follows baptism (as so in every case). Not only is the phrase “get saved and baptized” not in the Bible, but it doesn’t accurately represent anything in the Bible either.
Such empty phrases betray God’s Word, and condemn those who accept them blindly. This phrase should be put to death. Compare all things – even common and seemingly innocent phrases – with God’s Word.