THE NAME -- The Battle

Dan Baxley

www.yahshuaservant.com

    Most, I believe, that come to this site are convicted in their hearts (mind if you want) concerning the “Identity” of our Savior (Messiah, if you prefer).   For the benefit of those that have not yet made up their mind please consider what is written here and be encouraged to search this out for yourself with your own bible.  Those possessing this knowledge already may also find some interesting and thought provoking issues, especially concerning our Father’s Identity, as I see most of those in the Sacred Names Movement (as some call it) being misdirected in this area.  Certainly the Son came to reveal the Father, and He did, but many then, as now, did not pick up on it. 

While our Savior, YaHshua, was strolling about Jerusalem (HEB: Yerusalayim – according to Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible) near the Sheep Gate, by a pool they called Bethesda (John 5:1) and healing many, we discover that this was taking place on the Sabbath (John 5:10, 16). 

      John 5:16-18  So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him.  Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working."

For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. NIV

    In John's account it is interesting he makes a blanket statement concerning those “persecuting Yahshua” – "Jews," no mention Pharisees or any other religious group in particular, but "Jews" in general.  What are to we take from this?   From the context we see the man healed had been confronted by these "Jews" and unable at the time to identify the individual that had healed him he was allowed by these "Jews" to go on his way, but later he bumps into YaHshua and immediately runs back to these Jews and gives his report.  From this point we must assume that these "Jews" were not the general population but were men of standing, at the very minimum "Jews" that prided themselves as enforcers of the Law, pious Law keepers roaming around making sure no one broke the Sabbath -- working hard to keep everyone else from breaking the "no work" ruling.  These, of course, could have included Priests, but it is curious John refers to them only as "Jews" and suggests they operated as pious enforcers of the Law.  A modern example of this is in Saudia Arabia where Sharia Law enforcers roam the city streets accosting anyone they deem to be violating the Law (the torment of women mostly) and these good citizens of righteousness are not of any governmental body, they are not priests but self appointed "police of the Law".  This is what John, around two thousand years before is relating, I believe.

    The Gospel of John is written well after the other three Gospels.  John, last of the Apostles, witnessed the progression of believers from the purity in their belief and love to the breaking up into many factions.  Paul writes of this himself, and his disapointment with the Church is plainly seen in his point of view -- even disgust.

    John, the Apostle, composed his account, his Gospel, sometime around 85AD, just ten years before he would be banished to the Isle of Patmos, and nearly fifteen years after the collapse of Jerusalem (Heb: Yerusalayim, or perhaps more correctly, Yahushalyam – Hey, I’m just saying?).  So, John had seen it all and from his perspective there had been changes in the Church moving from the Jewish concept to the Gentile.  He argues neither case pro nor con but YaHshua only.  You will see in his Gospel it is truly about the Spirit.  Also it is interesting to note that in comparing the Gospels John stands alone in almost every case.  The other three Gospels parallel nicely each backing the other up in their testimony, sometimes adding details one or the other has left out.  It is by a parallel view that you get the whole story.  John’s account, while agreeing with the image and elements of the other three Gospels, has a viewpoint that is  focused on the “worship” of our revealed Heavenly Father and His Son, YaHshua, the Crator of all things.  Some have referred to the Gospel of John as being more “spiritual” and it is.  John sees what is about to be lost and what has been set aside, as he writes his account, agreeing with the others, but with the added emphasis on who YaHshua is and his mission of making the Heavenly Father known.  The lack of concern for the laws of "do and do not" is obvious.  Here we have the last Apostle, with full knowledge of the other Gospel writings and his emphasis is on our Lord, YaHshua and the revealing of the Father.  He writes his account sometime around 85Ad, a good fifteen years after the fall of Jerusalem to Titus.  He is witness, not only to the destruction of the Temple but also to the scattering of the Jewish Christians headquartered at Jerusalem.

    When you see the historical John, the lone surviving Apostle, banished to the Isle of Patmos, as John says in his own words, “because of the Word of God and the testimony of YaHshua” (Rev 1:9), around the year 95AD, a date most scholars agree with.  This puts John at his writing table composing the book of Revelation twenty-five years after the fall of Jerusalem and the Temple and ten years after his Gospel writing, plenty of time to make any corrections. 

    His people, the people of Jerusalem, of Judah, have been take into slavery, dispersed throughout the Roman Empire and beyond, sold off to other countries and John has almost nothing to say about this – instead, he writes about the Followers of Yahshua in this book of Revealing.   The personal identity of this Church, this body of believers, seemingly about to disappear from view, is discribed in the first three chapters of Revelation as seven types, or personalities – the seven churches of Asian Minor giving the standard of the seven Churches or bodies to follow.  Not long after the death of John these literal seven Churches are to endure the persecutions of the Roman Empire, themselves being dispersed and nearly lost form historical view (Rev 12).  During this period of hiding, or being hidden (scattered throughout the Earth), a strange thing happens, Constantine becomes Emperor of the Roman Empire, East and West – he gives Christians religious freedom, no long the objects of ridicule.  By the end of the 4th century Constantine had embedded the Christian religion into the government -- state approved, Authorized Government Religion -- and they called it Christian.  Suddenly, on an historical scale, a new brand of Christianity is born, an all powerful religion destined to rule over Kings and Queens alike for the next 1800 years, give or take a few.  

    What has all this got to do with “Sacred Names”?  Well, everything, you see it is from that period to now that the true identity of our Heavenly Father and of His Son has been polluted to the point of not being recognizable.  I have said it before and I’ll say it again, If any of the Apostles were to rise up out of the grave and you were to start telling them about his man "Jesus" they would think you're crazy.  They might even ask you, "Jesus, who is this Jesus you are talking about".  Most likely they would correct you or just walk off shaking their heads.  Another reason for this mini background on John and the Church in his day is because it is John that makes the “NAME” a big deal.  Certainly many other scriptures do also, and we will get to them, but it is in John’s Gospel we see this emphasis on identity.

    It is in John that we find a verse that is quoted over and over again, it is seen on signs at ball games and if you look in the background, televised golf tournaments, you will see sign a sign with John 3:16.  Ask virtually any preacher what John 3:16 says and they will immediately quote it. 

       John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

This is a wonderful verse but I wonder how many bother to look this verse up and read the rest of what is written?  You should read what our Savior had to say in full context.  Read John 3:10-21 and you will see what I mean.  For my purpose here I will quote verse 18, just two verses below the famous 3:16.

       John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

Interesting how believing or not believing is tied in with the name of our Savior.  Some pretty strong wording here, “condemned”, “believed”, “name of God’s one and only Son”, -- wow!  John wrote it but who said it?  YaHshua, of course.  Consider another verse –

      John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." NIV

 John 6:29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has   sent."

Can you believe in the Son of the Living God, our Heavenly Father, and not know His Name?  If we can prove, and we can, that the name “Jesus” is a bogus name then what is His name?  (Of course you probably have already satisfied yourself with this and there are other areas of this site dealing with the topic of His true identity.  The purpose here is to establish the importance of “names”, especially of our Savior)

I am going to present some sources here, with quotes, before going on to the Scriptures, just to make sure we all understand that there is something to a name, to possessing a name, or being named something.  Certainly we see the value of our own names --  our birth certificate for one, bank accounts, home deeds, and credit cards.  If the Messiah were here in the flesh today he would not get very far with a credit card issued with the name "Jesus" on it – you can bet the banks would do the research, they would know to whom they are going to issue a credit line.

New Bible Dictionary (Second Edition) Name. I. Significant naming:  The general evidence dispersed throughout the Bible would insist that it is no coincidence that the great prophet of salvation is called by a theophoric (a visible appearance of God) name on the salvation theme.  It would see the directive providence of God determining beforehand the whole course of the life; it would probably more typically see the name as embodying a word of God which would henceforth mould its recipient into the man whose life would express what the word declared.  This, at any rate, is the dynamic view of names and naming which runs throughout Scripture and which differs so dramatically from our static view of a name as a differentiating label.

Eerdman’s Dictionary of the Bible. Names and Naming:  When Shakespeare asserted that “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet” (Romeo and Juliet II.ii.43) he was emphatically not expressing an idea that had any warrant in the biblical world – or anywhere else in the ancient Near East.  In the ancient world generally, name was not merely a convenient collocation of sounds by with a person, place, or this could be identified; rather , a name expressed something of the very essence of that which was being named.  Hence, to know the name was to know something of the fundamental traits, nature, or destiny of that to which the name belonged.

Wycliffe Bible Dictionary.  Name(s). In Scripture a name is often an expression of the nature of its bearer, describing his character, position, function, some circumstance affecting him, or some hope or sorrow concerning him.

Name. Heb. Names may be composed of one element, such as Jacob (“supplanter”) and Nabal (“fool”); several elements such as Penuel (“face of God) and Emmanuel (”God with us”); or even a whole sentence, as Jehoshua (“Yahweh is salvation”) … 

my note: "Jehoshusa" is another form of "Yahushua" or "Yahshua".  This is also seen in the name, "Joshua", found in the Old Testament writings.

    Notice in the Wycliffe definition the use of the name, “Jehoshua”, turning to that name in the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary – “A peculiar spelling sometimes given to Joshua the son of Num )Num 13:16).  Another spelling adds the final “h” (1 Chr 7:27).  See Joshua”

Okay, let’s to the page concerning “Joshua” – “The leader of the Israelites in their conquest of the Promised Land.  His full name Jehoshua (Num 13:16) means “Yahweh is salvation,” and is the same as the Hellenized form of the name Jesus (Acts 7:45; Heb 4:8).  His name is spelled “Jeshua” in Neh 8:17.  His original name was Oshea (RVS, Hoshea, Num 13:8)”

    The one slight error (slight?) in the above definition is the use of the name “Jesus”.  After leading us around acknowledging that the name “Joshua” means something pretty important, the name is dropped when being applied to our Savior and a bohus name is put in its place.  The Name "Jesus" did not exist until around the 17th century.  The letter "J" came from the Greek "I" and the Greek "I" is supposed to reperesent the Hebrew "Y".  The name of our Savior was never pronounced JESUS until these modern times.  

    So, what do some of these Bible Dictionaries have to say about the name, Jesus?  Some don’t even try to reflect the true name insisting “Jesus” is the Greek form or that it is the “Hellenized” form, or such nonsense, as it is easily provable that the name Jesus did not come form the Greek, and it is not an “Hellenized” form (whatever that is supposed to mean).  No, some just ignore the Hebrew/Aramaic roots of the Savior’s birth Name.  Let’s take a look at some definitions given by these authorities when it comes to the name, Jesus.

The Global Concise Bible Dictionary. Jesus Christ – “The central figure of the NT, and focus of Christian faith.  The name indicates his role; Jesus, from the Hebrew word Yeshua, meaning “savior” or “Yahweh saves; and Christ, from the Greek word for Messiah, meaning “anointed one”.

If the name of our Savior can be produced into a pronounceable English form then why is anyone using the name “Jesus”?  Doesn’t it only make sense to use Yeshua, or Yahshua, or even Joshua, all three of which would be more correct than “Jesus”?  Also, note, the NAME "Yeshusa" is called a "word" it is not even given the dignity of being called a name.  Oh yes, "Jesus" is a name but "Yeshua" is a word -- right -- and we are all but a dream.  Let us move on and consider more authorities on the subject.

Illustrated Davis Dictionary of the Bible.  Jesus, and imitation of the Greek form of Jeshua, which in turn is a late form of Jehoshua, or Joshua (Jehovah is salvation)

Eerdman’s Dictionary of the Bible.  Jesus – (GK. Iesous)  Greek form of the name Joshua (Heb. Yehosua; “Yahweh will save”)

Holman Bible Dictionary. Jesus Christ (je'sus Christ) Greek form of Joshua and the title meaning, “Yahweh is salvation” and “the anointed one” or Messiah.  Proper name for the Savior of the world.

    I would like to point out something many miss when consulting these definitions.  I realize some make the argument that by definition, from the Biblical scholars that have produced these resources for us, we can see that the name “Jesus” is but a Greek form of His real Name.  I have to smile at that reasoning, but nonetheless let’s accept the argument it is a Greek form.  We have a problem right off, by their definition alone we are told that it is a Greek form of the original, Joshua (Yashsua, Yeshua) and that it is the name “Yoshua” that means, “Yahweh is salvation”.  Can you see it?  Also, back to reality, “Jesus” is not the “Greek form”.  In the definition given by Eerdman’s you will notice that the Greek form is given and it is not “Jesus” but “Iesous” and I challenge you to try and make “Iesous” sound anything like “Jesus”.  But wait, isn’t “Iesous” and “Jesus” supposed to be “Joshua”?  I challenge you to try and make Iesous sound anything like Yehusha, or Yahshua.  Ever wonder what you name would be if rendered into Greek?  Let's see, my name is Dan -- yes, it would still be Dan.

New Bible Dictionary.  The name Jesus is not strictly a title for the person who bore it.  It is however, a name with a meaning, being the Greek form of “Joshua”, i.e. ‘Yahweh is salvation’.

    Some Bible dictionaries just ignore the whole thing.  You look up the name “Jesus Christ” and you get nothing concerning the history or the connection with the birth name “Yahshua”, seen as “Joshua” in the English bibles.  Here is something else, in giving the erroneous misinformation about the name “Jesus” being a form of Greek they all seem to agree that the meaning is “Yahweh is salvation” and they all present the English form, Joshua, even Yeshua as the correct pronounciation and all say it is connected with the name "Yahweh".  So, why doesn't the different Bible translations use this name “Yahweh”, or, for tha tmatter, the name (not the word) Yeshua, or Yahshua, or even, Joshua -- all a better choice than the invented name "Jesus"?  The scholars know the name, the name for the God of Israel, they even have a name for this name, the Tetragrammaton.  Now this is a Greek --  and it means, “four (tetra) letters (gramma) in reference to the Hebrew God YHWH, pronounced, as the Bible dictionaries do – YaHWeH.  So, it isn’t just the name of our Savior that is being ignore or worse, substituted for a different name altogether, but the name of the God of Israel, YHWH, a name that is part of our Savior's name and defines the very purpose of our Savior. 

Is it important?  Is this merely an exercise in futility?  Who cares anyway?  A rose by any other name, as Eerdman's Bible Dictionary points out, has no relevance when it comes to names of the Middle East or of the Ancient world.  Today we may not see the importance of names in daily life (actually we do, we just choose to ignore the importance of our own identity) but in the acnient world names were given for a reason, a meaning.  Our Savior was given a birthname of greatest importance.  Let’s have a look and see just who cares and who should care.

       John 5:43 I have come in my Father's name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him.

The Christ (Messiah if you prefer) tells us he came in the “Father’s name”.  Some try to say this means he came as a representative, not actually in His name.  The problem with that argument has to do with what the Messiah says immediately after, “someone else comes in his own name”, do you see, He is talking about His name or else the comment makes no sense.  Besides, everyone seems to know that His name means, “Yahweh is salvation”, or “Yahweh is salvation”.  If this is the meaning of His name, as we have seen some of the Bible Dictionaries acknowledge, then it seems He is named after His father. 

              John 17:11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to   you.   Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name--the name you gave me--so that they may be one as we are one.

“The name you gave me”, and we ask, what is the name He was given?  I think we know that answer.  So, is it important, after all, why should it matter?

       Isa 42:8 I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols.

Remembering in the English Bible the word LORD in capital letters is a substitute for YHWH (Yahweh) this verse packs a punch.  But this is not the end of it, even though it should be.  That verse alone should be enough to set everyone on the right track, but some will say it is only the Old Testament and it doesn’t count.  Of course it counts it’s just ignored.  The tetragrammaton, YHWH, as expressed falsely as LORD is found in the Old Testament around 6,800 times, not counting all of the times it is mention in the New Testament.  Of course this is a point by which we are able to see the translators of the Bible have not remained consistent, for as we read the Apostle’s writings we see how they quote from the Old Testament constanly, yet when it comes to  using the Olt Testament's method of LORD in capital letters  signifing the tetragrammaton (remember that's when God’s name is being used) we see this method dropped.  Nearly all of the translators of the New Testament do not even try to follow the example used in tranlating the Old Testament -- they drop the pratcie of using "LORD" to signify the "substitution" of His Name for a title.  No, they don't even bother -- they use some other method, they use another's name but not the Name of our Creator, of our Savior, shame on them.  With that aside and with the understanding, at this point, of the Savior’s identity being tied with that of His Father’s what has the New Testament to say?

       Philippians 2:9-11 Therefore God (the Father) exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Yahshua every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Yahshua the Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. NIV (my note: I took the liberty to restore the birthname of our Savior)

See how the meaning changes by restoring the “birth name” of our Savior, a Name that means “YaH’s Savior”.  There is no mistaking the meaning of these verses.  Want more? 

      1John 5:1 Everyone who believes that Yahshua is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.

       1John 4:15 If anyone acknowledges that Yahshua is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God.

       2Jn 1:7 Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Yahshua the Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

       1Jn 3:23 And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Yahshua the Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us.

       Romans 10:12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile--the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,

       Romans 10:13 for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."  (my note: Calls on, not a just mentioning, or just  happens to know -- the act of "calling" is the act of addmission, of acceptance, of addressing that particular individual)

      Act 4:12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

      Act 2:21 And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. (my note: That, my freinds, is better than a cell phone connected to the president of the united states)

     Joel 2:31-32 The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD (YHWH). And everyone who calls on the name of the LORD (YHWH) will be saved; for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be deliverance, as the LORD (YHWH) has said, among the survivors whom the LORD (YHWH) calls. (see also Revelation 6:12 -- this time is coming)

       Revelation 3:8 … I know that you have little strength, yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name.

       Revelation 3:12  Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God (my Father). Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my Father and the name of the city of my Father, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my Father; and I will also write on him my new name.

There is a name we should all avoid at all cost and that would be the name of the Beast, but it is more than that, it is also a number.  We are told in Revelation 13: 17-18 you will not be able to buy or sell unless you have the name of the beast or His number, one or the other.  There is some debate concerning the number, the majority say it is 666 but there is an argument for 616 – apparently some older manuscript, giving the number 616, has been discovered but it is in a minority as the number 666 is found in the majority, still it leaves the door open for a number Satan may be concealing. 

       Revelation 14:11 … There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name." (my note: Interesting, "no night" -- 24 hour society? No rest? No Sabbath? Working around the clock?)

       Revelation 20:4 … And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Yahshua and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (my note: "they came to life" not "the came from heaven")

It is a battle of names, make no mistake, there will not be some other name by which we must be saved.  Yet today we see just that, a name that did not exist prior to the 16^th century, a name that is neither Greek nor Hebrew -- accepted by the vast majority in the Christian community -- neither Greek nor Hebrew, nor Aramaic, it isn't even Latin. 

     John 1:12   Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—

John 10:3   The watchman opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice.  He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.

John 16:25-27 Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this  kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father. In that day you will ask in my name. I am not saying that I will ask the Father on your behalf. No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God (the Father).  (my note: HalleluYaH)

John 17:12 While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.

John 20:31 But these are written that you may believe that Yahshua is the Christ, the Son of God (the Father), and that by believing you may have life in His name.

email: servant@yahshuaservant.com                                      Your servant in YaHshua, Dan

  See also -- Jesus is Not His Name

                    Shouting His Name

                    Willingly Ignorant

                    My Holy Name