What is the correct name of the Messiah? Several have brought this issue up, therefore I had done a brief study on the subject. I have friends who are educated in this, some by Hebrew scholars who have much insight on this, others by those who think they are Hebrew scholars. Does it matter? I have found yes and no.
There is a great deal of debate even amongst Hebrew scholars between the name of the Son of God being Yahshua, Yahusha, Yashua, or even Yehshua, Yeshua… etc. Some have studied the modern variations, others going back to the time of the Messiah’s life. And there are those claiming to now have access to ancient renderings believed to be much older. Between them all, every one of them claim to be experts in linguistics, ancient culture, archaeology, or in their own education of the topic. Some scholars say it is important to at least get the “Y” and “SH” sound since it has significant meaning to His name. Others say only the accepted variation is proper. Scholars argue in their defense over these variations.
What we can be sure of is that we know the name means “I Am who Saves/Delivers.” While there is modern Hebrew characters used, the original comes from the more ancient Aramaic Hebrew Paleo-Hebrew from the pictograph language.
How We Got the Name in English
The name Jesus we use today comes from an Anglicized form of the Latin name Iesus, which is in turn a Latinized form of the ancient Greek name Ἰησοῦς (Iēsoûs), which is comes from a Hellenized form of Jesus’s original name in ancient Palestinian Aramaic, which was Yēšūă‘, a shortened form of the earlier Hebrew name Yəhōšúaʿ, which means “YHWH (Yehauh) is Salvation.” In Chinese He is Yesu. All these have common sound and variation and related. You can clearly see the progression based on language.
Since the Greek language didn’t have letters representing the “Y” and “SH” sounds, the Greek language took Ye’sh’ua and replaced the “Y” with “I” and “SH” with “S” to represent the characters. It also ended it with a masculine ending -us in which transliterates to IESOUS. In that day, Greek was the universal language and was acceptable, even by Jesus. It was a letter to letter transliteration from the characters of one language to another. In Latin it becomes IESUS. Jesus in English is a rendering from the Latin IESUS, and was Iesus in the early versions of the KJV. However, in later revisions, it became proper to replace a pronoun beginning with an “I” to the acceptable “J” as the English language progressed to modern English. That’s about all the reason. However, the modernized Hebrew letters to English is also a transliteration of characters as it is, so one could argue it crosses boundaries of adopting some transliteration to argue against transliteration.
Error of the KJV Argument
Those who defend the English name from the KJV argument, who may be considered “KJV-Only” folks, make the case that the text says His name shall be “Jesus,” the only name in which we are saved. Because that it what the translation says, they argue that using ANY other variation is incorrect, and is changing the text of scripture, forbidden by the warning in Revelation. Even when bringing in the original Hebrew variation, they deny that the name of Hebrew is correct because it is not what that version says literally. Actually the original KJV rendered the Latin Iesus, before revisions used the modern “J” to begin a proper name, so even their defense has problems.
We could question why the variation of the transliteration was used anyway, since the English CAN reflect the original pronunciations and since it is so versatile. The Greek could not render it the same way with its character limitations. The English is a transliteration of a transliteration of a transliteration, etc. Why not just return to the original? Probably because the transliterated Greek to Latin had been acceptable in the English speaking language by that time, and at this point recognizable. While a bit distant from the Hebrew name in character to character across the linguistic crossover, we still know of whom we speak of, as it is merely linguistics and language variations of the SAME NAME. And is close if considering the transliteration process.
Sacred Name Arguments of Jesus as Pagan God
One ridiculous argument has been circulating, proposed by hyper-Sacred Namer Hebrew Root enthusiasts, who defend an argument that the name in English used is a reference to a pagan god, or is similar in sound as saying, “Hail Zeus.” Ever hear this false accusation? The reason they do so is to claim an exclusive right to knowing the Hebrew name of Jesus. And thinking they are more Pious and authentic for knowing it and uttering it correctly. But it is a method of works.
The Hebrew language had been lost for centuries, until about the 19th Century. When scholars revised Hebrew from Germanic tongue, it was a mixture of what they claim was authentic original language, and Yiddish, a modernized hybrid Hebrew form. And some are not certain even if the variation is exactly correct. That doesn’t stop the highly self-regarded scholars for continuing making it a major case. In modern days, it was an ex-Seventh Day Adventist named C.O. Dodd, who was inspired by the Jehovah Witness, to make the case of having the original Hebrew name to claim exclusivity in his authority, and started the Sacred Name movement in 1937.
The proponents of the Sacred Name claim have accused the rendering of “Jesus” is a mockery. There is a fallacy that the name “Jesus” is somehow connected to the Greek pagan god Zeus because in English it is similar in appearance and sound. However, there is no conclusive evidence of this. Their claim is that JeSUS is similar sounding as “Hail Zeus” or “Hey Zeus” in English. But that is not even close to the Greek, which is χαλάζι Δίας (pronounced “chaîre Dzeùs” to be precise”) in transliteration. Nothing like what they claim. They are FALSE. It is only a linguistic twist on the English rendering and pronunciation.
Just as some claim JeSUS sounds like the Hebrew for “horse,” which is pronounced “soos,” therefore is using JESUS is saying, “Hey Horse.” Others claim it means “Earth Pig” in Hebrew, and that by pronouncing it as such is calling our Savior a horse or an earth pig, which is a linguistic play on the Hebrew pronunciation. They are using the forms of language to cross barriers of the claim in other languages and pronunciations and making up fabrications to falsely defend an false argument. That is in error and unfair, not adding credibility to the argument.
Others yet claim “Jesus” is a Mexican god, which is also a fable. That claim of Jesus being a pagan name is the greatest fabrication in recent history. No validity to the claims, except the enthusiastic fable tellers to diminish the recognizable name we have been using through several millenniums that was acceptable only until their highly self-righteous claim in the modern era came by their presence to correct all of us. If they insist on getting it EXACT, and rely on the correct pronunciation in order to call on the only one who can save, then their scholars likewise better agree which rendition of Hebrew is proper, or they will not be saved until they do.
Is the Hebrew Name Important to Know?
Does it matter to Jesus/Yeshua/Yahusha/Yahshua which He is called? The name does have significance in Hebrew to what it means “I Am who Saves.” And it is important to know that this person is the one whom God sent to redeem us of our sin and save us.
However, the “Sacred Name” groups claim that He won’t even acknowledge us if we don’t call Him properly by name. That is ridiculous to consider since the accepted rendition of the name has been used for millenniums. He knows we are speaking to Him. It is the only one whom we could be referring to for the way of salvation. We are calling him by a name recognized according to variations of language differences, not totally different names altogether. It is a variation of the same name. In any event, He surely would have grace on us for that. Besides, it is by the authority of the name in which stands for His character and Person that we stand behind. We know whom it is referred, despite the cultural linguistic changes. The Sacred Name claim would make it impossible for anyone from Jesus’ time to the 20th century to have come to know God through the Savior during that era.
The scriptures use other names also to describe Jesus.. Have the defenders of Sacred Name considered that the name Immanuel was also given to represent His identity. He would be “God with Us.” And in Isaiah He is called “wonderful, counselor.” And is known as The Comforter elsewhere. But we know whom we refer because it is to the one who is Savior. The name is referring to the one in whom is the Authority behind the name. And represents the active power behind His name. Name can mean “reputation” and “authority,” or also the “character” of a person.
There may be another reason why the specific name might be important to some in Sacred Name circles. In Kabbalah, the characters in Hebrew are divine. The letters refer to numbers and codes, called Gematria. In order for their formula of calculations to work, they require the correct characters used. Kabbalah is esoteric coding that is decoding God’s message. They have a code that points to Jesus as the Morning Star, represented by the hexagram, which makes it important. The hexagram is falsely called the “Star of David.” But they refer to it as the “Star of Messiah.” Refer to my articles on Kabbalah and the hexagram to see how the hexagram was used as a Satanic symbol as early as Babylon (and adopted by Zionist Kabbalists). See Amos 5:26 and acts 7:43 for the references in the Bible.
Final Argument
So the bottom line is perhaps using the name you are accustomed, but knowing whom it is referring and keeping in mind it is not original language. It is the authority behind the representation of that name, which is the “ben of the living Yah.” But also having knowledge what His name represents, the one who is Savior and Deliverer.
The transliterations are basically close, just according to languages may have variations. From Yahshua to Yeshua, to Yesu, to Iesous, Iesus, Jesus, Jesu, see how it isn’t THAT different. All the variations have similar context in pronunciation and characters. Not like we are calling our savior “Bob.” So it isn’t as much of a hangup as some are concerned with because the variation of the name referring to the same One still has power in His name that we know it represent the “I Am who Saves,” the Savior of the world. It isn’t a matter of if you pronounce his name properly as much as it is if you trust in him for the remission of sin. Have you done that? Or are you still debating over the proper pronunciation and variation of language in which to call him?