As an argument contrary to using the Hebrew rendition of the Savior's name, some scholars imply that Yahushua generally spoke Aramaic citing that Hebrew was only spoken by scholars, however, this view is pure conjecture. Remember that if in fact Yahushua did not speak Hebrew, which was spoken by the scholars, one should find it curious that Yahushua confounded the scholars (Luke 2:46-50). It does not say here that he spoke Hebrew, but it cannot be excluded since he certainly impressed the doctors with his thoughts, content of answers, and most likely Yahushua's command of Hebrew. There are a number of other scriptural reasons (at least ten) why it is likely that Yahushua did in fact speak mainly Hebrew (and less often, Aramaic).
Remember when Yahushua said, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani, (Mark 15:34)? This was a Hebrew quote from Psalms 22 and is given as an Aramaic translation versus a Hebrew translation (אלי אלי למה עזבתני [ēlî ēlî lamâ azvatanî](Hebrew)); within a Greek text. Quite curious that this would be distinct, if in fact Yahushua only spoke Aramaic or Greek, as some venture. Therefore, this is doubtful since even here the implication was that Yahushua said it in Hebrew, the reason why the commoners (Romans, skeptics, etc.), misunderstood his words or thought he sought "Elias". This is just one of many examples that could be pointed out, but this one is quite obvious. Furthermore, scriptural texts were sacred and were maintained in Hebrew (and some in Greek so foreigners who spoke Greek could read the scriptures as well) and Yahushua had no problem reading from them (Luke 4:16-20), i.e., the Hebrew texts, and then expounding on the scriptures to the people from them (even if he expounded in Aramaic), showing his bilingual (or more) ability (one more of many examples).
Another strong scriptural implication of mutli-lingual use in Israel, including Hebrew, is found in Luke 23:38. Here is found that the inscription placed on the cross above Yahushua was tri-lingual, i.e., Hebrew, Latin and Greek. Aramaic was NOT included. Hebrew was for the Jews, Latin was for the Romans and Greek was for any Greek speakers (foreigners, etc.). Yet another strong implication is the fact that Yahushua had close priestly ties (John the Baptist, a relative, in line for priestly duties, etc.) it would only make sense that both families (Mashiyach’s and John’s) spoke Hebrew, the sacred religious language of the priesthood (click here for more information), no matter how popular other languages may have become. And remember, Mary and Elizabeth spent a great deal of time together (Luke 1: 36-56).
Therefore, for any Bible scholar to make an assumptive quantum leap from surrounding cultural possibilities to an absolute “truth” relative to Yahushua’s name, language, spelling, etc. is pure conjecture at best, but closer to fraud, especially in light of the proof that Hebrew was very much alive and spoken during the times of Yahushua as proved by the "Dead Sea Scrolls". And even though there have undoubtedly been many mutations to most languages, what is being sought here is the purest possible form, not the furthest possible and allowable mutation. Seeking justification to mutate transliterations runs contrary to good manners, common sense and the purity of one's search for truth.
There is another good resource to direct the reader to (www.eliyah.com/yahushua.html) that provides good information, relative to this specific question. Click on the hyperlink above. This is not to say that WCMA endorses this site and its content, but it does provide good research information on this specific topic. History shows that early believers placed high emphasis on pronouncing the name correctly.
A common question asked is, “What is the point of such seeking?” Is the speaking/writing of the Lord's name ineffective in other languages? If not, then what is the point?
The point here is about a “transliteration” issue versus a “translation” issue. For example, if one translates Mr. Leblanc to Mr. White, one may get the meaning correct (translation), but not the transliteration. When it come to names, transliteration is just as important as any applicable translation. And if a word meaning of a name is important, then a parenthetic translation may follow the transliteration. A proper transliteration method is applicable to all languages relative to a person’s name, even though each language may use a different letter/vowel combination to get the same transliteration (phonetic sound) result. This method preserves the origins of the pure name, as it was originally intended. For example, one should find it quite curious that the transliteration of most other Hebrew names in the Greek New Testament texts, are quite remarkably preserved, as compared to what seems to be a lack of similar effort for the Savior’s name? Yet, this point alone is often overlooked. It should not be.
As the reader should know, when thousands and thousands of immigrants came to the USA, Immigration Staff, who spoke English, did their best to spell the names in English as the names sounded, not as they were actually natively written. For this reason, some true names and spellings may be lost, and some forever. This is always a problem with transliterations/translations. However, thank YHVH for a written record that precedes English to help later readers to get it more accurate. And why not, if Immigration tried in their feeble way get the transliteration as accurate as possible out of simple respect for all peoples, then why should not believers, who put such emphasis on the NAME of their Savior, especially as it relates to water baptism, expend the same effort. After all, that is what Apostle Paul tried to do, to lead people more perfectly in the way--his life-long pursuit.
So, what is the point of such seeking? Out of pure respect, equal to or greater than the respect a believer (or sinner) would show/give to any human being on the planet from any language different from their own, how much more their Savior. That is why believers should try to get the name correct…out of respect. This in itself brings greater effectiveness, not less. To NOT do so, seems to imply either pride or ignorance, what Americans are often accused of being from the view of many foreigners, as if Americans thought they were gods and all others were mere mortals.
And, it seems that Apostle Paul did place greater worth and precedence for Israel (the Jews) (Romans 1:16; 2:9-10; 3:1-2, etc., etc.) and their language over the Gentiles since Yahushua said that salvation does come from the Jews (John 4:22). So, if there is any language and/or culture with any axiomatic precedence, it is Israel/Hebrew, not Greece/Greek, India/Urdu or USA/English (etc., etc.).
Being multi-lingual is certainly a method by which one can more effectively reach the masses with a message, but is not permission to diluted the message (the changing of the Savior’s name), no more than any Apostolic Pentecostal minister would compromise baptizing an individual in India or Africa by invoking any other name other than the name they speak/spell as “Jesus”. Why would they use it if it was not important in a place that speaks a different language than the baptizer, since, as they propose, English is no purer than Urdu? Why not use titles instead, since that brings more of a “translation” issue to the table versus a transliteration, if “Jesus” is supposed to be a “transliteration” not a translation? But, to promote such an idea is flawed if extrapolated.
In other words, one should do the best they can to pronounce Yahushua Mashiyach during water baptism, when invoking his name over a candidate, or at any other time for that matter. So, when one baptizes, they should say, "I baptize you in the name of Yahushua Mashiyach." And when immersing the candidate under water invoke his name again, "Yahushua Mashiyach", (baptizing them into/with Mashiyach Galatians 3:27; Romans 6:3). When the Savior's name is written as "Jesus", and pronounced the way Americans do, it does not come very close to the true Hebrew transliterated name. So, yes, one should try to pronounce his name during baptism as accurately as possible. And, with the heart being right and the mind being right, YHVH is well pleased.
So then, some may ask, “Is this a heaven or hell issue?” Ministers often quotes James 4:15-17 relative to questions like this. Note the context, James said, "Instead, you ought to say, 'If it is the Lord's will, we will live and do this or that.'" (NIV) and concludes that "Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins." (NIV) James proposed that even making a forward proclamation of what one will do without a proper preface is sin, especially for the person that knows what he ought to do.
Since water baptism is a "doing", rather than an "abstinence" then it seems that James 4:15-17 applies. Furthermore, since unforgiven and repetitive sin does prevent an individual from entering into the eternal with YHVH, it seems logical to say that this very well could (eventually) become a heaven or hell issue. "Could become" is proffered because of this one scriptural disclosure/disclaimer (1 John 5:16-21). How these verses are interpreted may make impact on how one views this issue. John does not clearly identify what the sin unto death is, but most conclude that it is blaspheme against the Holy Ghost (Mark 3:28-29). All other wrongdoing is sin, but not unto death and can be forgiven.
Given the nature of this "doing", the act of water baptizing, it seems, would be sin for anyone that knows what they ought to do and then does not "do" what they know they ought to do. For those that do not know, that needs to be left in the hands of YHVH, let YHVH decide. The hope is that there may be mercy for those with their hearts and minds in the right place. Conversely, intent does not provide a secure covering for sin relative to salvation, especially from an Apostolic Pentecostal perspective. Think of this in the context of the Apostolic Pentecostal movement proclaiming more truth beyond baptizing in titles. Such church leaders proclaim getting it right is absolutely necessary (heaven or hell), even though the title baptizers may have had their heart and mind in the right place. Does this apply to getting the savior’s name correct? It seems to become more important for those who know and do it not, than for those who know it not and do it not. But only YHVH can say that ignorance is a covering for sin. Nonetheless, it is equally important here is to avoid legalism and focus more on learning, teaching and guiding others in the spirit of LOVE revealing a hopeful and brighter future.
As far as being removed from the Kingdom, the past cannot always be undone. For example, when Mashiyach told the adulteress to go and sin no more, he did not say that what was already done could be undone, but it could be forgiven. The hopeful part of Mashiyach's message to her was not just being forgiven (the past), but the bright future of a second chance to get it right. So in this discussion, the past is history and can be forgiven, but more importantly, it is the joy of the future, part of a believer’s hope, the chance (the privilege) to do it more perfectly.
Yes, it may mean adjusting held traditions, but should not this be willingly done for the savior’s name sake? This adjustment/correction can/should be done wisely, but wisdom does not give a license to neglect or avoid the issue either. It would be little different than what one expects from potential new converts who come from less enlightened faiths to a higher plateau. Study, learn and when challenged, listen carefully and learn some more. Pastors and ministers are often challenged by "saints", scholars, etc. to which a humble investigation of the matter, in hopes to learn more, should follow. All humans certainly still have much more they can learn, and yes, even from the "laity" and from the mouths of “babes”.
Mashiyach clearly showed that legalism is not the best path. He did not encourage wrong living (behavior) rather the chance for right living. But in this pursuit of right living, one should be sure to not neglect the weightier matters of the law, as illustrated in these two verses below, while trying to get it right:
Matthew 23:23 (Luke 11:42)--Judgment, Mercy, Faith, Love of God was opted for legalism. Mashiyach taught balance, that we should embrace both. He demonstrated this by the following verse:
John 8:10-11--Certainly we see the mercy of YHVH here, but neither did Mashiyach condone a continuance in sin. Life (rather than being stoned to death) gave adulteress the opportunity to get it right.
So Mashiyach wants believers to foster this love and mercy (faith, righteous judgment) style of living within applied faith and within the body of Mashiyach. Then if/when such an issue, such as this, arises, their reactions (etc.) will be more graceful, more like the fruit of the Spirit. And, as believers are given grace and enlightenment, YHVH does expect believers to do their best to get things right. And a Pastor is faced with many challenges and ask, “How do I react, with two-way dialogue?”, “Do I have it right?”, “In what way will I be held accountable for this I am about to teach?”, “How do I deliver truth as it is gained?”, “Do I do so in a large setting or in smaller groups?”, or “Do I take the prideful approach or the humble approach?” (etc.) Obviously, the humble approach usually works best while keeping in mind that ministers are certainly not gods per se, they are fallible and imperfect. Mashiyach certainly did not mind his disciples seeing his humanness. How could it not have been seen living so close together day in and day out?
Remember, interactive relationships are superior to one-way dialogue when it comes to discipling, etc. Mashiyach used this method with his disciples, for they were the key to advancing the Kingdom as are all subsequent generations of disciples (our main ministerial responsibility is to make disciples, not saints, per se). Curious (and challenging) minds should be nurtured, cultivated, discipled, embraced, etc., an opportunity for greater growth for both teacher and disciple. Investigate the Elders (council) concept employed by the early church, modeled after the Jewish Elders. It is a very interesting approach, always in flux, ever reaching for higher and greater understanding, so long as scholastic theological methods are not employed.
And educating the body of Mashiyach is a vital component of pasturing and more than finding new ways to "tickle" the ears of the saints to keep them coming back another week. Unfortunately, large group psychology actual cripples, even prevents significant long-term changes, relative to life-style, human behavior, etc. Psychologists using group therapy never work with groups larger than 12 (a scientific standard in group psychology technique) since it is counter productive. Through intense guided interaction significant results occur that is less likely (even non-existent) to occur in a large setting. And it is relatively easy to maintain 100% attendance, even when patients often pay money to attend. This small group approach can be used relative to teaching Biblical groups and will produce exceptional results.
Granted, there are a lot of traditions (many unspoken) people (and ministers) embrace, but it does not always mean they are right or the best. Of course, it is human nature to want to be right in the eyes of others and people will often go to great lengths to alter the thinking of those around them to be and look right in the eyes of others. But more importantly is to be and look right in YHVH's eyes. Of course this is like "preaching to the choir", but it applies here and is always more difficult when leaders are challenged to do what they regularly expect from their YHVH’s) parishioners (even if not usually achieved).
See Hebrew New Testament for expanded information.