4 Evangelism Ideas for Halloween

5 Simple Ways to Head into the Holidays with Gratitude

One of my favorite seminary classes to teach is a survey of the four Gospels, where we work through Christ’s life from birth to resurrection. While students have several aha moments, none is bigger than when I broach the topic of the name Jesus. I explain to them that Jesus’s name is actually Joshua. The Hebrew name Joshua means “Yahweh is salvation.” Recall what the angel famously tells Joseph in Matthew 1:21: “[Mary] will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” The angel explains to Joseph that the name Jesus (or Joshua) functions as a summary statement for his whole ministry. While this is a complex issue and this topic deserves more analysis and reflection, the task before us in this article is to examine the name Jesus and explain why our English translations read “Jesus” and not the preferred “Joshua.” From Joshua to Jesus The English name Jesus is a transliteration from the Greek word Iēsous. Transliteration refers to converting a word from one alphabet to another. It’s the same word but in a different language or script. To use a biblical example, the Aramaic word ʾabbāʾ is transliterated into English as “Abba” (see Mark 14:36; Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). That word means “father” in Aramaic, and English translations could render it as “father,” but they choose to preserve the precise word. When it comes to the name Jesus, the New Testament authors substituted the Greek letters for the Hebrew letters for the name Jeshua, resulting in Iēsous. This process is different from translation, whereby the meaning of the source word is conveyed in the target language. Why did the New Testament writers spell Jeshua as Iēsous? The Greek translation of the Old Testament, a body of literature known as the Septuagint, appears to transliterate a contracted form of the Hebrew name Joshua as Iēsous or (“Jesus”). For example, if you look up the Greek translation of Joshua 1:1, you’ll read, “It came to pass, after the death of Moses, the Lord spoke to Iēsous [Jesus]” (my translation). This transliteration of Joshua into Iēsous first occurred around 200 years before the New Testament. King James Version’s Influence The New Testament was written in Greek and completed at the end of the first century. Around a hundred later, it was translated into Latin. These Latin manuscripts (and the later Vulgate) transliterate the Greek name Iēsous as Iesus. The first complete English translation of the Bible, Wycliffe’s Bible (1382), was a translation of the Vulgate and likewise transliterates the name as Ihesus. The Tyndale Bible (1534) and the Geneva Bible (1560), though, depend on the Greek New Testament and both read Iesus. Published less than a century later, the original 1611 King James Version (KJV) also employs the name Iesus. Stated simply, the English name Jesus is a transliteration of a transliteration. The English name Jesus is a transliteration of a transliteration. The Old Testament figure Joshua surfaces two times in the New Testament: Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8. The KJV also translates the Greek word Iēsous in both passages as Jesus. For example, Hebrews 4:8 reads, “For if Jesus [Iēsous] had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.” Clearly, this is a reference to the Old Testament figure Joshua (see Josh. 22:4). So why do our modern English translations refer to Jesus as Jesus and not as Joshua? This is odd because contemporary translations rightly translate Iēsous in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 as Joshua (e.g., NIV, CSB, ESV, RSV, NLT). The answer probably lies in the indelible mark that the KJV made on Western religion, culture, and theology. Because the KJV is, without a doubt, the most influential Bible translation in history, English translations dare not change the “Jesus.” Who would buy a Bible that substituted every occurrence of Jesus with Joshua? Imagine reading the famous words of Paul in Philippians 2:10–11: “At the name of Joshua every knee should bow . . . and every tongue confess that Joshua Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” It’s hard to even read! Other New Testament names, too, suffer the same fate. For example, James (Greek Iakōbos) should be rendered Jacob throughout the New Testament (e.g., Matt. 4:21; James 1:1; Jude 1). Better Joshua and Better Conquest Though I understand why modern translations preserve the name Jesus, I fear they’ve obscured an important dimension to Jesus’s identity. We noted above that Joshua means “the Lord saves,” and it appears to be the sixth most popular name in Palestine during the first century. This name is pregnant with meaning for at least two reasons. First, “the Lord saves” encapsulates the whole of Jesus’s ministry, because, as the angel proclaims, “he will save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). The apostles never lose sight of this meaning when they invoke the name Joshua/Jesus. When modern translations preserve the name Jesus, I fear they’ve obscured an important dimension to Jesus’s identity. Second, the name Joshua also evokes Moses’s successor, the one who led Israel into the promised land (Josh. 1:1–5:12). Joshua’s entrance into the land and his partial victory over the Canaanites prophetically foreshadow Jesus’s entrance into the new creational promised land and complete victory over the spiritual Canaanites. In bearing the name Jesus/Joshua, Jesus of Nazareth will exterminate Israel’s longtime foes—sin, death, and Satan—and bring about an unparalleled act of redemption: the salvation of individuals from sin’s bondage. At the end of the day, Christians should remain confident in their translations and be thankful for a plethora of resources that aid us in understanding difficult subjects like this one. Regardless of whether we translate the Greek name Iēsous as Jesus or Joshua, he remains the One who fulfilled the angel’s prediction by “saving us” from our sins.

The more I study Scripture, the more deeply aware I become of the dependence of the New Testament on the Old Testament. Beyond the quotes, which most of our modern translations identify for us, there are so many thematic and textual connections, which are hard to find unless you know your Bible really well. When in seminary, my friends and I used to talk about how useful a study Bible that connected the Old and New Testaments would be. That’s why the publication of the Connecting Scripture New Testament (CSNT) is so exciting. This is the type of resource I’ve wanted for more than a decade. It has the potential to enrich many people’s understanding of the whole counsel of God. The CSNT was coordinated by general editors G. K. Beale (professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary, Dallas) and Benjamin Gladd (executive director of The Carson Center for Theological Renewal), with over a dozen contributors. I had the opportunity to interview Gladd to learn more about this project. You’ve been studying the Bible for decades now in your academic work. How has this project changed the way you read Scripture? The idea for the Connecting Scripture New Testament has been in the back of my mind for a decade. English translations often flag Old Testament quotations by using quotation marks or bolding the font, but they don’t mark allusions. That frustrated me. So, I wanted to produce a Bible that drew the readers’ attention to allusions, but I couldn’t figure out how to make that happen. Then, it occurred to me: What if I underlined the text in the body and added the Old Testament reference in italics to the margins? Is that possible? Yes. That realization set the project in motion. Then, when I started working with the publisher, we decided to put direct quotes of the Old Testament in blue and allusions in green fonts to make these connections stand out without disrupting the reading experience. That was a breakthrough. With the colors embedded within the text itself, it’s helped me read the New Testament with a far deeper appreciation of the presence of the Old Testament. The result is absolutely striking—and I’m the guy who pieced this project together! When I read the CSNT, I’m blown away at how the apostles reference the Old Testament. What constitutes an allusion? What basic process did you use to identify those references? The apostles quote the Old Testament about 350 times but allude to it about 3,000 times. An allusion is an indirect reference to the Old Testament that employs unique wording that thematically connects to the earlier passage and its surrounding context. The apostles quote the Old Testament about 350 times but allude to it about 3,000 times. Sometimes the allusions are so strong that the shared wording could be considered a borderline quotation. On the other hand, a single word can faintly allude to an Old Testament passage. For example, many commentators contend that the Greek word mogilalōn (translated “had a speech impediment”) in Mark 7:32 alludes to Isaiah 35:6, where the speech of “stammerers” (mogilalōn in the LXX) will be clear. This word only occurs in these two texts. But not only is there textual agreement between the two passages, there are numerous thematic parallels. How would you envision someone using the CSNT in sermon preparation or devotional study? Most of the Old Testament connections we identified in the CSNT can be found in various commentaries and scholarly books. But the CSNT is, I think, the easiest way to discover the presence of the Old Testament in the New Testament. This volume shows pastors and teachers what Old Testament passages they probably should mention while teaching through a text. But every Christian will likely be surprised by how much the apostles depend on the Old Testament. As we read the blue and green words in the CSNT, the connections jump off the page. We’ve also included ample study notes that serve as a running commentary on these connections, which can be helpful in sermon prep or personal study. I frequently use the Dictionary of the New Testament Use of the Old Testament as I prepare to teach. How is this project different from that earlier volume? My hope is that Christians will use the CSNT on a regular basis as they are reading the Bible. It’s designed to be a readable, standalone text rather than a reference. In contrast, the Dictionary of the New Testament Use of the Old Testament project is just that—an alphabetically sorted reference on the mechanics of how the New Testament authors employ the Old Testament. My hope is that before someone turns to the Dictionary, they can examine the CSNT to get their key questions answered. Is there a plan to produce a similar resource for the Old Testament? Yes! Michael Morales and I are now set to produce the Old Testament counterpart to Connecting Scripture. As you can imagine, this is a tall task. And while exceedingly complex, it must be done. For too long, many within the church have read their Bibles piecemeal. That is, believers often fail to notice the connections that run from book to book. The time has come to make explicit what the church has confessed for thousands of years: Scripture interprets Scripture. In your mind, 20 years from now, how will you know this project was a success? The most difficult part of writing books, at least for me, is knowing if the book has succeeded. It’s not primarily about the number of sales. When more people recognize the apostles’ deep knowledge of the Old Testament and how they weave it into their writings, they’ll walk away with a robust view of the doctrine of Scripture. That’s what I’m hoping for. If people reach out to me and tell me that they now read the New Testament in light of the Old, then the book is a success.

Maybe no other movement in church history has spoken with greater spiritual insight on suffering than the Puritans. In this message recorded at TGC25, Ligon Duncan mines Puritan and Scottish Presbyterian writers for rare jewels of theology we can apply not only in our personal suffering but also in our ministry to others. Recommended Resources: The Mystery of Providence by John Flavel The Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment by Jeremiah Burroughs All Things for Good by Thomas Watson The Bruised Reed by Richard Sibbes Precious Remedies Against Satan’s Devices by Thomas Brooks The Crook in the Lot by Thomas Boston Grace in Winter by Faith Cook (based on Samuel Rutherford’s letters)