Jesus or Yeshua: Which Should Christians Say?
By Kent Langham
“Yeshua” vs “Jesus” - is one more accurate or better than the other? Do we need to say the name of the Son of God in Hebrew? Should Christians say “Yeshua” instead of “Jesus”?
The Jewish Roots of Christianity
There is a growing interest in the Jewish “roots” of Christianity. One might expect Messianic Jewish communities to emphasize the Jewish culture, background, and foundation of the Christian religion; however, the last few years have seen a movement of Gentiles rise up and claim to rediscover the “Hebrew Roots” of Christianity, often claiming that the Christianity practiced today has been influenced and even perverted by pagan Greek and Roman culture.
While this space will not allow us to sift through many of these claims in their specific cases, what I have found fascinating (and somewhat alarming) is the growing evangelical emphasis on “Hebrew roots.”
Yes, I am talking about groups of gentile believers who affirm basic tenets of Christianity, gather together into churches, but yet emphasize specific dates of the Hebrew calendar, celebrate Jewish feasts, and prefer to refer to Jesus Christ as Yeshua, the Messiah.
This last issue is what I want to address in this article.
Yeshua & The Hebrew Roots Movement
With the growing influence of the Hebrew Roots Movement (although this “movement” has no formal doctrinal statement or unifying principles to show who’s in and who’s out) and the growing interest in Jewish culture and tradition among evangelicals (most heavily in charismatic churches), many Christians today are struggling with this question:
If the incarnate Son of God was Jewish, and his name was Yeshua, and he was known by and called Yeshua, then why would we not call him Yeshua?
Some have gone so far as to say that in order to be saved, we must call upon the name of Yeshua HaMashiach, and to call upon any other is to call upon a false god (though this extreme seems to be rare amongst the most influential proponents of these ideas on a broader scale).
So, this issue has the potential to be massively erroneous.
Yeshua vs Jesus: Which Should Christians Say?
Here is the underlying issue at stake that I think people are missing, and the question must be asked:
Who has the authority to decide this for us?
In other words,
How do we know what we should call the Son of God? What is our standard?
I submit that if we answer this main question, then we can most certainly answer the question at hand.
The Answer
I propose that the answer to these preceding questions and all questions relating to life and godliness is this:
The Bible.
Yes, the sixty-six book Protestant Bible gives us the answer, because it gives the answer to all matters pertaining to how to be saved and how to worship God (1 Peter 1:3; 2 Tim. 3:16).
So you better believe that if we are supposed to call God by a specific name, the Bible has revealed that to us, because again, the Bible has revealed clearly and plainly the way of salvation and the way of honoring God in our lives.
Knowing this, then, my answer to the question of whether we should call the Son of God by his Jewish name, Yeshua, is this:
If you’re speaking Hebrew, then yes, use his Jewish name. If you’re not speaking Hebrew, then, while it may not be sinful to use his Jewish name (but it very well could be depending on the motive), there is absolutely no legitimately good reason that you should.
The Name That Is Above Every Other Name
Remember, the answer to this question lies not upon man’s opinion or tradition or skepticism, but in the Word of God. So let us turn to the Scriptures.
In Philippians 2:6-11, we find what many conservative New Testament scholars call the “Carmen Christi” or “the hymn to Christ as to God.”
Many of these scholars are in agreement that Paul, in seeking to illustrate humility to his audience (the church at Philippi), cites this “hymn” or poem that has already been in circulation among the churches in Paul’s day, while others believe Paul himself wrote the hymn.
Either way, this passage has massive apologetic force because of the way in which it so clearly and demonstrably reveals Jesus Christ as being divine in nature and deserving of everlasting worship “to the glory of God the Father” (v. 11).
Not only does the content of this hymn radiate forth the deity and glory of the Son, but also it gives us a very early attestation that the church in Paul’s day worshiped Jesus as God.
If Paul wrote this letter in 62 AD, then the hymn most certainly would have been circulating around in the churches years prior to this in order for Paul to quote it as an illustration.
So, what does all this have to do with our question?
Well, I submit that this passage of Scripture answers our question and leaves absolutely no room to doubt.
Let me put the text before us and explain.
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
This hymn alludes to and draws its theology from Isaiah 45:23, which says, “By myself I have sworn; from my mouth has gone out in righteousness a word that shall not return: ‘To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.’”
The Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament), which Paul and the early churches would have been using in the first century, translates this last sentence in Isaiah 45:23 as “every tongue shall confess to God.”
Do you see what is happening here?
This passage of Scripture in Isaiah in which Yahweh is speaking and declaring that to him every knee shall bow and to him every tongue will pledge allegiance, Paul sees in light of the Lord Jesus.
So for Paul and the early church, if Yahweh declares you’re going to bow the knee to him, then that means you're going to bow the knee to Jesus.
Names & The Name
Now, what does all this have to do with names?
Well, again, the Septuagint, which is what the early New Testament church would have been using, translates God’s personal name, YHWH, as Kyrios, or ‘Lord,” just as our English translations of the Old Testament translate God’s personal name, YHWH, as LORD (in small caps).
So, when Paul says in Philippians 2:11 that “every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,” he is identifying Jesus Christ with Yahweh.
However, Paul and all of the New Testament authors wrote Scripture in Koine Greek, the common language of the Eastern Mediterranean world at that time.
(Important note: there is absolutely no evidence that the NT was originally written in Hebrew. That idea is sheer conspiracy and has absolutely no historical legitimacy.)
So the phrase Paul actually penned when writing to the church at Philippi is “every tongue shall confess that Iēsous Christos Kyrios” (Jesus Christ is Lord).
Did you see that?
Paul, Christ’s apostle, who wrote two-thirds of our New Testament, DOES NOT say Yeshua HaMashiach is YHWH, but he transliterates this name from Hebrew into Greek.
He does not make an effort to keep the Hebrew origin and insert it into his letter written in Greek.
Evidently, for Paul, saying the Son of God’s name in its Greek form was sufficient in identifying him with the God of Israel and calling him “Lord.”
So, on this basis, I submit to you that saying “Jesus Christ is Lord,” or “Jesucristo” or whatever a specific language uses to identify the eternal Son of God as revealed in Scripture is sufficient.
No Other Name Under Heaven
Some may oppose calling the Son by any name other than his Hebrew name and appeal to Acts 4:12, which says, “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
But this line of reasoning is just horribly flawed.
Again, in what language did Luke originally write this quotation of Peter’s proclamation? He wrote it in Koine Greek, not Hebrew!
And just before, in verse 10, Peter testifies, “let it be known to you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth (Iēsous Christos Nazōraios), whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by him this man is standing before you well.”
Again, to say it one more time for emphasis, Luke records Peter’s testifying not in Hebrew, but in Greek.
So, actually, if one really wanted to be consistent in saying that we must say the name correctly in order to be saved, then we must call upon Yeshua’s name in Greek, right? Because that’s what this text was originally written in.
Or you’d have to argue that Luke originally wrote this text in Hebrew and that by way of some evil conspiracy it was copied in Greek and passed off as original.
But, again, this type of argument is utter nonsense. To get wrapped up in all this I think is majorly missing the point of the text.
Peter is not concerned with differences over language; he is concerned with the Jews (and all people) believing in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, and no other, repenting from sin, and receiving his salvific work and worshiping him.
Refusing to believe in the person and work of Jesus Christ as he is revealed in Scripture is to reject the way of salvation; in no other is there a way to be saved.
The name itself does not save, but the person the name identifies.
Do you see the glory of the Son of God? Do you see your sin, your insurmountable debt to God, and that your only hope is to place your faith in his Christ?
Then whatever language you speak, call upon him and be saved, “For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Romans 10:12-13).
Going Forward
Let me layout my line of reasoning in one sentence to hopefully make things clear:
I do not believe non-Hebrew speaking people should be concerned with saying “Yeshua” instead of “Jesus” (or whatever name a particular language uses as its transliteration) because the Apostles were not concerned with it, and since the Apostles were Jesus’ hand-selected “sent ones” to preach the gospel, establish churches, write Scripture, and establish the doctrine of the church until Jesus comes back, we should view them as our final authority on all matters concerning how to be saved and how to honor God in our lives.
To say it plainly,
I appeal to the Apostolic witness as revealed in Scripture as my basis for calling the Eternal Word by the name of “Jesus Christ.”
To be clear, I see no need to be interested in “rediscovering” the Hebrew Roots of Christianity because the Apostles did not seem interested in spreading their Hebrew roots and culture.
For them, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).
For them, Christ has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility” (Ephesians 2:14).
They were not concerned in spreading Jewish heritage or culture; they were concerned with saving souls, as the Apostle says,
For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.
At minimum, these types of issues expose poor hermeneutics, misguided zeal and interests, and an inability to look to the Scriptures as our final authority.
But more severely, I fear that these ideas I have sought to dismiss in this article are not for the sake of the gospel, but are rather “foolish controversies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law,” and “are unprofitable and worthless” (Titus 3:9).
May we be concerned with that which God is concerned: his majesty being displayed as the peoples of the world come to see the glory of his Son and his gospel, turn to him in belief, and enjoy him forever.