Articles
Was the New Testament
Originally Written in Hebrew?
By Jeff Huddleston
Originally Written in Hebrew?
By Jeff Huddleston
The Theory
During my time in the Messianic Movement one teaching that was absolutely necessary to prop up the Messianic interpretation of the New Testament (especially the writings of Paul) was that the NT (
Having spent some time in the Messianic/Hebrew Roots Movement I have a fairly good understanding of the Hebraic roots of our faith, and I recognize that studying and understanding our religion from a Hebraic perspective is vital to a fuller comprehension of Christian theology. However, I also recognize the dangers of the teachings of the Messianic Movement. In an attempt to return to the "roots" of the faith most (I will not say "all") of the adherents to this perspective tend to "depart from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ" for "another gospel" centered on the "Law of commandments contained in ordinances", and place themselves "back under the yoke of bondage" to the Old Covenant (Law of Moses), and rush headlong into traditional Judaism.
In this teaching the Jesus of the New Testament is quickly replaced by the Jewish rabbi named Yeshua, who was just a Jewish sage who happened to be the Messiah. The result is much like that of the so-called "Jesus Seminar" ("Will the real Jesus please stand up!"), just from a whole nother angle.
Not to be overly harsh or severely critical, I have found the Messianic Movement to be a heresy of the worst kind; for in following the core doctrines as set forth by its teachers (or rabbis as some prefer to be called) many are unwittingly duped and manipulated into embracing again the "yoke of bondage" of the old Mount Sinai covenant (commonly called "Torah"). They come to believe (with much sincerity) that God is somehow happier with them because they keep certain ceremonial aspects of the Law of Moses/Torah (i.e., the wearing of tzitzit, or tassels; and even being circumcised), all the while ignoring the plain and literal teachings of the New Testament: "Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace." (Gal_5:2-4; NASB)
Legalism?
The Judaizing Messianic teachers claim that they don't teach justification by works (legalism), but that is only half true (a half truth is still a lie). If you hang around long enough you will find that (according to them) keeping the Law of Moses (Torah) is the "proof" of genuine faith, and that not keeping the Law is a sure sign that one is not truly walking in the faith, and so, not truly saved.
In Galatians 4:7-11 Paul compares the keeping of the Law of Moses (while professing Christ under the New Covenant) to the same pagan traditions that his readers in Galatia had just come out of. He writes, "Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God. However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods. But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? You observe days and months and seasons and years. I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain." (NASB)
Keep in mind the context here, the believers in Galatia not turning back to paganism, they're being coerced by the Judaizers into turning back to the Law of Moses. Paul in essence is saying, "Observing special days, months, seasons, and years under the religious systems of the world had no power to make you right with God, and neither does observing Sabbaths, New Moons, Feasts, and Jubilees."
Subtle Substitutions
Convincing it's followers that the NT was originally written in Hebrew seems to be a focal point of many of the Judaizing Messianic teachers. At first glance the subtle substitutions of Hebrew for Greek words seems harmless enough: shalom for peace, Torah for Law (though not done uniformly), Yeshua for Jesus, etc. But in fact this is an outright attack on the reliability of the underlying Greek text of your Bible (NT).
One of the foundational elements that we must have in place is "the inherency of the scriptures in their original language". If the Greek text is unreliable and has been corrupted (as is charged by some) there is no longer a standard of truth. Once the New Testament itself is discredited our house as followers of Christ no longer stands as having been built upon solid rock, and so is easily toppled, being "tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting." "We must therefore pay even more attention to what we have heard, so that we will not drift away. For if the message spoken through angels was legally binding, and every transgression and disobedience received a just punishment, how will we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was first spoken by the Lord and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him." (Eph 4:14 NKJV; Heb_2:1 HCSB)
The Manuscript Evidence
As I have briefly stated before, the number one problem with the whole "Hebrew original New Testament" theory is that no ancient Hebrew manuscript of the New Testament has ever been found from the early centuries of Christianity. The oldest are Greek. One of the oldest papyrus fragment (a portion of the Gospel of John) dates back to the late second century; and recently (as of December, 1994) findings by German papyrus expert Carsten Thiede suggest that we may actually possess Greek copies of Matthew that date close to the very time of Jesus. So the manuscript evidence alone weighs heavily against the concept of Hebrew "originals".
The Internal Evidence
Not to be deterred by the obvious, the proponents of the Hebrew New Testament theory claim that internal evidence suggests the original language of the text was "Hebrew." Actually, the "Hebrew" of the Torah was not widely spoken at the time of Christ. So then, the teaching of the Messianic Movement, that the true "Hebrew" of the Torah is even a possible candidate for the original documents of the New Testament, is not only based on complete ignorance of the NT Greek, but also on the pompous arrogance of the movements teachers who confidently proclaim the Greek New Testament to be a corrupt Hellenized text.
"Hellenized" simply means influenced by Greek culture and thought. This theory leads to the conclusion that the Greek New Testament, from which we get our English New Testament, is unreliable, and we are subject to errors of "Hellenism" when we read it. The "real" message of Jesus was allegedly lost in the "Hellenized" and "embellished" documents we call the New Testament. Friends, this teaching is not of God. It is exactly the same tactic used by every cult from Jehovah's Witnesses to Mormons. They all claim that the "true" religion was lost, and they alone have been chosen to "recover" the true message of Jesus and the Apostles. It is also the same message Islam teaches, that over the centuries Christians have corrupted the Scriptures. Another thing these Messianic folks have in common with both cult groups and Islam is their absolute disdain for the Church, Christians, and Christianity. Most Messianic teaching is short on facts but long on conspiracy theories, snide remarks, and general Christian bashing. "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." (Joh_13:35; ASV)
Straighten This Tangled Mess Out!
Of course, with no reliable text of the NT, adherents to the Messianic Movement are forced to depend upon their teachers to "fix" these faulty Scriptures, by relying on their supposed "knowledge" (falsely so-called) of Jewish customs and idioms; drawing heavily from the teachings of the Jewish sages. In short, we need to sit at the feet of the rabbis who missed Messiah in order to understand what was written about Messiah. Hello?
God promised to preserve His Word for every generation (Psa_12:6-7; Mat_24:35). The Judaizing teachers would have you believe that God somehow dropped the ball with the NT--"But thanks be to God we (the Messianic teachers) have come to straighten this tangled mess out!"
Brothers and sisters, God has indeed kept His word! The Traditional Greek text of the New Testament is reliable. Any changes (regardless of motive) of what has been preserved by God is a blatant violation of the commandment found in the last chapter of Revelation: "I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto them, God shall add unto him the plagues which are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book." (Rev_22:18-19; ASV) Those who remove words that God has preserved in His word, will have his part taken away from the "tree of life", and out of the "holy city"; and those who add to His words, to them will God add the "plagues" written therein.
Transcending Cultures
The message of the New Testament transcends both the Jewish and the Greek cultures: "Is God the God of Jews only? is he not the God of Gentiles also?" (Rom_3:29; ASV)
No doubt most of the writers of the New Testament were Jewish. But they used language and explanations understood by the common people, in the common language of the Roman Empire specifically called Koine (Common) Greek.
There are indeed uniquely "Jewish" expressions and ideas found in the words of Jesus. After all, He was a Jew speaking to Jews familiar with Jewish culture. But, Aramaic was not the only language spoken in Israel. The common language of commerce was Greek, as it was all over the eastern Roman Empire. Jews spoke Greek in their daily trade. Being bilingual was very common all over the Roman Empire. And this is particularly true of the Jews, especially of those living in "Galilee of the Gentiles" where Jesus and his disciples lived and ministered. (Mat_4:15)
The New Testament writers adapted the Gospel message to the thinking of the ones they were addressing! This is seen clearly by comparing two passages from Acts where Paul addressed two different groups from two different cultures.
Evidence in Acts
First, when Paul was arrested at the Temple he was immediately brought before the Roman guard:
Act_21:36 - Act_22:3 - for the multitude of the people followed after, crying out, Away with him. 37 And as Paul was about to be brought into the castle, he saith unto the chief captain, May I say something unto thee? And he said, Dost thou know Greek? 38 Art thou not then the Egyptian, who before these days stirred up to sedition and led out into the wilderness the four thousand men of the Assassins? 39 But Paul said, I am a Jew, of Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and I beseech thee, give me leave to speak unto the people. 40 And when he had given him leave, Paul, standing on the stairs, beckoned with the hand unto the people; and when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in *the HebrewG1446 language (Aramaic, see note), saying, 22:1 Brethren and fathers, hear ye the defense which I now make unto you. 2 And when they heard that he spake unto them in the HebrewG1446 language, they were the more quiet: and he saith, 3 I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city, at the feet of Gamaliel, instructed according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers, being zealous for God, even as ye all are this day: (ASV)
*the HebrewG1446 language - Hebrew, the Hebrew language, not that however in which the OT was written but the Chaldee (Aramaic), which at the time of Jesus and the apostles had long superseded it in Palestine.--(Thayer's Greek Definitions)
Here we have recorded that Paul addressed the Jews on the Temple Mount in Aramaic. Why? Because He was being accused of bringing a Gentile into the Temple. He wanted to make an impression that He was indeed a Jew, as he clearly stated in his opening statement. He proceeded to give a long discourse in the language of the Jews.
Secondly, compare this to Acts 17:
Act_17:22-24, Act_17:28-29
22 And Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus, and said, Ye men of Athens, in all things, I perceive that ye are very religious. 23 For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. What therefore ye worship in ignorance, this I set forth unto you. 24 The God that made the world and all things therein, he, being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
29 for in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain even of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. 29 Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and device of man. (ASV)
Paul here addresses the men of Athens in their native tongue, Greek. In support of His preaching Paul even quotes a line from Aratus, a Greek philosopher, a poet of Paul's own province of Cilicia. The same sentiment, in almost the same words, occurs in the fine hymn of Cleanthes to Jove. Hence the words, "certain even of your own poets." Oops! talk about "Hellenism!" It is easy to see that Paul adapted the message of the Gospel to the language and culture of his hearers.
Based on these two quotes, what can we conclude about the language in which Acts was written? Acts contains no statement that Paul addressed the men of Athens in Greek, yet we know they spoke Greek. In Acts 21, when Paul addressed the Jews on the Temple Mount, a point is made by Luke of the fact that he spoke Aramaic. The logical conclusion is that Luke wrote Acts in Greek, and explained the translations of Aramaic to Greek himself.
Not only is it obvious that Acts was originally written in Greek, it is further demonstrated that the Gospel of Luke was as well, set forth by the fact that both were addressed to a Greek man named Theophilus: "The former treatise I made, O Theophilus." (Act_1:1; ASV)
Evidence in Mark and John
Mark and John were both written to Greek speaking Gentiles. Mark makes it a point to explain some of the Jewish customs to His Greek speaking audience. This would have been unnecessary if they had been Jewish. Note:
Mar_7:2-4
2 and (the Pharisees and scribes) had seen that some of his disciples ate their bread with defiled, that is, unwashen, hands.
3 (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands diligently, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders;
4 and when they come from the market-place, except they bathe themselves, they eat not; and many other things there are, which they have received to hold, washings of cups, and pots, and brasen vessels.) (ASV)
Mark was a companion of Paul and Barnabas on their missionary journey to the Gentiles. Mark was clearly not written to an audience well acquainted with Jewish customs.
The Gospel of John shows thoroughly Roman thinking by the Apostle himself. One piece of evidence from John indicates that by the time he wrote his Gospel, he had adopted Roman methods of time-keeping. That is, midnight to midnight, rather than sunset to sunset, as was the practice of the Jews. And he wrote his gospel in such a way that Gentiles would understand the hours correctly. Compare the following, where the synoptic Gospels use the Jewish reckoning of time, but John uses the Roman:
Mat_27:45
45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. (ASV)
Here, the time of Jesus' crucifixion is given according to Jewish reckoning. The Jews reckon the days from sunset to sunset. And the daytime hours were counted beginning at sunrise. So, the sixth hour would be around noon, and the ninth hour was 3:00 pm. Now, compare the reckoning of time in the Gospel of John:
Joh_19:14
14 Now it was the Preparation of the Passover: it was about the sixth hour. And he saith unto the Jews, Behold, your King!
(ASV)
Here, we find Jesus before Pilate at the "sixth hour" prior to the crucifixion. Yet, Matthew has Jesus on the cross at the "sixth hour." The apparent discrepancy is because John used Roman time. Hours were counted from midnight. So, the "sixth hour" was 6:00 am. Three hours later he was crucified at 9:00 am. And at noon the sun turned dark, until 3:00 pm.
The question then arises; Why would John, a Jewish Apostle, use Gentile methods of reckoning time? Because he wrote to Gentiles after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 c.e., while Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written before. Since the Jews had been dispersed from Jerusalem, Jewish time-keeping was no longer being practiced on a large scale, even in Israel. And John’s Gentile audience might not understand the hours properly had he used Jewish reckoning. The fact that the New Testament writers made allowances through explanatory notes or by using time-keeping familiar to the Greeks, shows that the New Testament was not only written in the language of the Roman Empire, Greek, but was already adapted to Gentile thinking by the original writers. It needs no further tampering by the Messianic Movement: "If it's not broke..."
The Multilingual Nature of the Jewish Culture
The Jews also spoke Greek, not just Aramaic. Greek was necessary for trade, and because the Roman Empire was governing Israel at the time. In order to interact with the authorities, primarily Greek and even Latin were necessary. The multilingual nature of the Jewish culture at the time of Christ is clearly seen in the inscription hung on the top of the cross.
Joh_19:19-20
19 And Pilate wrote a title also, and put it on the cross. And there was written, JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS.
20 This title therefore read many of the Jews, for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city; and it was written in Hebrew, and in Latin, and in Greek. (ASV)
Notice in Acts chapter two that the Jews in Jerusalem for the Feast of Pentecost were from many different places, and their native languages were those of the lands in which they lived. Also, notice they expected the disciples of Jesus, who were "Galileans" (Act_2:7 "are not all these that speak Galileans?"), to be speaking in the language common to Galilee (of the Gentiles; Mat_4:15). Yet, to their surprise, the 120 disciples were speaking "the mighty works of God" in their own tongues. Now, pay particular attention to the fact that the language of Judea (Act_2:9) is listed among these languages in contrast to the language of the Galileans! The language of the Jews in Judea was "Aramaic" (or what the New Testament calls "Hebrew.") So, since this crowd was amazed that the Galilean believers were speaking the Hebrew (Aramaic) of Judea (as well as the other languages of Jews of the Dispersion), we must conclude that Aramaic was not the normally spoken language of Galilee! Jesus and the Disciples were from Galilee, with the exception of Judas Iscariot, who was from Judea. This is strong evidence that Jesus and the disciples normally spoke Greek, common to Galilee, rather than Aramaic, which was primarily spoken in Judea.
Jesus Was Bilingual
That Jesus was bilingual, and spoke both Greek and Aramaic, is indicated by Mark. He made special note of the fact that Jesus uttered some words in Aramaic. These special notations by Mark would indicate that Aramaic was not Jesus' normally spoken language. In other words, Mark records these Aramaic comments of Jesus as unusual.
Mar_5:41
41 And taking the child by the hand, he saith unto her, "Talitha cumi;" which is, being interpreted, "Damsel, I say unto thee, Arise."
(ASV)
Mar_15:34-35
34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" which is, being interpreted, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
35 And some of them that stood by, when they heard it, said, Behold, he calleth Elijah. (ASV)
Some might argue that Jesus always spoke in Aramaic, and the Gospel writers simply translated His words themselves into Greek. But, notice in the above passage, those standing around the cross did not understand these Aramaic words. They thought Jesus was calling for Elijah. This is because the majority of Jews spoke Greek.
The late Alfred Edersheim is considered one of the greatest Messianic Jewish scholars of the 19th century. In his book, "The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah," he wrote the following about the languages spoken in Israel during Jesus' ministry.
Pg. 17. "When we turn from the Jewish 'dispersion' in the East to that in the West, we seem to breathe quite a different atmosphere... These Jews of the West are known by the term "Hellenists" from ellhniqein, to conform to the language and manners of the Greeks." Pg. 22 "Why, this sway extended even into Palestine itself, and was felt in the innermost circle of the most exclusive Rabbinism. We are not here referring to the fact that the very language spoken in Palestine came to be very largely charged with Greek, and even Latin, words Hebraized, since this is easily accounted for by the new circumstances, and the necessities of intercourse with the dominant or resident foreigners."
There are also cases in the New Testament where Aramaic names are used, but are identified as "Hebrew" [Aramaic]. There would be no reason to make such distinctions had the original documents been written in Aramaic to begin with. If the Greek manuscripts had been translated from Aramaic originals, the translators would not have left these words in Aramaic, but would have used Greek equivalents as they do with all other words or names. Here are some examples;
Joh_5:2
2 Now there is in Jerusalem by the sheep gate a pool, which is called in Hebrew Bethesda, having five porches.
(ASV)
Joh_19:13
13 When Pilate therefore heard these words, he brought Jesus out, and sat down on the judgment-seat at a place called The Pavement, but in Hebrew, Gabbatha.
(ASV)
Act_26:14
14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice saying unto me in the Hebrew language, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the goad.
(ASV)
Rev_16:16
16 And they gathered them together into the place which is called in Hebrew Har-Magedon.
(ASV)
In each instance, if the written word had been originally recorded in "Hebrew" (Aramaic), what reason would there have been to add the comment about the Aramaic pronunciation?
Gentiles Did Not Speak Aramaic
Actually, the very notion that the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew is all so much nonsense, for with the exceptions of Matthew, Hebrews, and James, all the NT was written primarily to Gentiles. And Gentiles certainly did not speak Aramaic.
The simple fact that several Jewish expressions and idioms are used does not show that the originals were written in Aramaic or Hebrew. The "Jewishness" of these writings is easily explained by the understanding that the New Testament writers were bilingual, Jewish men. However this says nothing about the language in which they wrote, or even the language they spoke. In the same way that the disciples spoke of the "mighty works of God" to men from "every nation under heaven," using all of the languages listed, so they also wrote the New Testament books to Gentiles using the methods necessary to convey Jewish concepts in the Greek language.
Evidence From the Septuagint
Another fact that argues against a Hebrew New Testament is the Septuagint (LXX). The different spellings of names in the New Testament like "Esaias" instead of "Isaiah," "Jesus" instead of "Joshua," etc., are from the LXX. It was the Jews, who translated the LXX before Christ, that transliterated these names. By the time of Christ this was how these names were pronounced by Greek speaking Jews. Paul and the other New Testament writers had no problem using these Greek transliterated names. And so it is no wonder that Jesus is not once referred to as "Yeshua" in the New Testament. We saw earlier that in some cases writers would give Aramaic names of places, and make a comment about the Hebrew (Aramaic) pronunciation. Yet not once is this done with the name of Jesus, God, the names of the OT saints, etc. The common Greek pronunciation is always used. When Paul preached the Gospel, he preached "Iesous Christos" not "Yeshua HaMashiach".
The idea that the OT Hebrew language was fixed and names remained the same is a myth. The Hebrew language underwent many changes. Over time the language of Moses and the Torah gave way to these changes. This can best be illustrated by a comparison of the name of Joshua (which, by the way, is exactly the same name as "Jesus") in the Old Testament from the time of Moses, and the mention of the same name after the Babylonian captivity.
Exo_33:11
11 And Jehovah spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his minister Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the Tent. (ASV)
Here the name of Joshua in the Hebrew Text is "Yehoshua`" (Strong’s H3091). This is the pronunciation in the Torah (the 5 books of Moses). But, at the time of the closing of the OT cannon, after the Babylonian captivity, the name "Joshua" (which is also the name of our Savior) had changed rather dramatically.
Neh_8:17
17 And all the assembly of them that were come again out of the captivity made booths, and dwelt in the booths; for since the days of Jeshua the son of Nun unto that day had not the children of Israel done so. And there was very great gladness. (ASV)
Here the Hebrew text has "Yeshua`" (Strong’s H3442). If the goal of the Hebrew Roots Movement is a return to the Torah as the truest expression of the faith, why do most Messianic people use this post-Babylonian pronunciation of the name of our Lord rather than the Torah pronunciation of Yehoshua`?
Paul and Saul
Also worth noting, there are three names used for Paul in the book of Acts. PaulG3972 from Paulos, which is actually of Latin origin, SaulG4569 from Saulos which is a very Greek transliteration of the Hebrew Sha'ulH7586, and the more Hebrew sounding transliteration of Saul from the Greek, SaoulG4549. If the book of Acts was first written in Hebrew and then translated into Greek why use 2 different spellings for Saul? Saulos is the more common spelling throughout the book of Acts but when Paul is being addressed by someone speaking Hebrew (or more likely Aramaic from Act_26:14) the name Saoul is used (Act_9:4; Act_9:17; Act_13:21; Act_22:7; Act_22:13; Act_26:14) "I heard a voice saying unto me in the HebrewG1446 language, 'Saoul, SaoulG4549, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the goad.' " (Act_26:14; ASV)
More From the LXX
Also, over 80% of all NT quotes of the OT are from the LXX (the Greek Septuagint), not the Hebrew.
One example of this is Mat_4:4: But he answered and said, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.' " (ASV)
God is the reading found in the LXX: "man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." (Deu_8:3; Brenton's English translation of the LXX); whereas the Hebrew reads, "man doth not live by bread only, but by everything that proceedeth out of the mouth of Jehovah." (ASV)
Let Us Reason Together
Come now, let's reason together, one or two LXX quotes would probably be no slam dunk indicator that the NT was originally written in Greek, but how about over eighty percent? What sort of logic would support the notion, let alone the teaching, that the NT was originally written in Hebrew using Greek, Latin and Aramaic spellings for names; translating the LXX from Greek into Hebrew (then back again) instead of simply using the Hebrew OT; and offer numerous explanations for Hebrew terms, in Hebrew no less? Duh?
Make no mistake brethren, the Greek language was in place at precisely the right time for the Gospel to be proclaimed to all nations. The Apostle Paul wrote, "when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son…" (Gal_4:4; ASV) The circumstances were such that the Gospel could travel along the Roman trade routes, and could be carried in a language common to all the then known world, Koine Greek.
In conclusion, all of the manuscript evidence supports a Greek New Testament. All of the internal evidence supports a Greek original as well. The uniquely Jewish expressions and idioms can easily be explained by bilingual authors who were Jewish, but conveyed their words in the common Greek language. The fact that the New Testament makes a point of identifying unique Aramaic names as "Hebrew," and tells us when someone spoke Aramaic, illustrates that the original documents were not Aramaic nor were they Hebrew. The fact that the intended audience for the vast majority of the New Testament was Greek-speaking Gentiles, also argues against this theory. Only Matthew, Hebrews, and James (written primarily to Jews) have any real shot at having been written in Aramaic or Hebrew. Of these, a few claims of Hebrew originals circulated in the early Church for Matthew and Hebrews. But, none of these claims provide any credible evidence to support them. Nor is there any examples of manuscripts or fragments of such hypothetical Hebrew originals. And with the recent evidences of Greek copies of Matthew dating to near the time of Jesus, Matthew is also out of the running. The practice of New Testament writers quoting from the Greek LXX is further evidence that the New Testament was given by God in the Greek tongue, the one language that was spoken by both Jew and Gentile alike over almost all the then known world at the time the Gospel was sent forth from Judea.
Blasphemy Against
the Holy Spirit:
What is it? And, can a born again Christian
commit this "unpardonable" sin?
By Jeff Huddleston
This week we are going to be looking at another one of those difficult passages of scripture that has no doubt kept many a Christian awake at night wondering, "Did I blaspheme the Holy Spirit when I…"
We will be using Mark 3:22-30 as our text to examine exactly what it was that the scribes from Jerusalem did that brought on this severe warning from Jesus.
To get us up to speed on what is going on here: Jesus has been casting out demons and as usual the religious leaders of His day are hanging around looking for anything they can do or say to undermine the ministry of Jesus. Their actions and words should give you a little bit of a clue as to what "the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" is all about, and why it is unpardonable (unforgiven).
We will be using Mark 3:22-30 as our text to examine exactly what it was that the scribes from Jerusalem did that brought on this severe warning from Jesus.
To get us up to speed on what is going on here: Jesus has been casting out demons and as usual the religious leaders of His day are hanging around looking for anything they can do or say to undermine the ministry of Jesus. Their actions and words should give you a little bit of a clue as to what "the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" is all about, and why it is unpardonable (unforgiven).
Mark 3:22-30
22 And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, "He is possessed by Beelzebul," and "He casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons."
23 And He called them to Himself and began speaking to them in parables, "How can Satan cast out Satan?
24 "And if a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
25 "And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.
26 "And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but he is finished!
27 "But no one can enter the strong man's house and plunder his property unless he first binds the strong man, and then he will plunder his house.
28 "Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter;
29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"--
30 because they were saying, "He has an unclean spirit." (NASB)
Now let’s take a close look at the last two verses:
"but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin."-- because they were saying, "He has an unclean spirit." (hoti elegonG3004 pneuma akatharton echei). A very literal reading is, "who but ever blasphemes against the Spirit Holy never has forgiveness to the age (fig. forever) but liable is to eternal judgment because they kept sayingG3004 a spirit unclean He has."
To understand this difficult passage we must understand the full implication of the word elegonG3004, "kept saying".
The word is the imperfect tense of the greek word "lego" which originally meant: to lay or let lie down for sleep, to lay together, i.e., to collect. Finally to lay before, i.e., to relate, recount; and hence the prevailing Attic Greek and later meaning of; to say, speak, i.e., to utter definite words, connected and significant speech equal to discourse. (The Complete Word Study Dictionary)
Simply put, "lego" means - to say, to speak; affirm over, maintain. (Thayer's Greek Definitions)
"Lego" in it's imperfect tense "elegon" means "kept saying", or "persisted in saying".
Now we can use this understanding of "elegon" to get to the heart of what exactly these scribes from Jerusalem were truly guilty of that Jesus declared to be "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit", and that such a person as doing this "never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin".
First of all the scribes are not condemned so much in what they said, but in the fact that they kept saying it, indicating a hardness of heart and spiritual darkness characteristic of the unregenerate. It is the unrepentant sinner that never has forgiveness. By his words, actions, and both active and passive participation in sin, he approves of what is opposed to the working of the Holy Spirit.
In John 3:5, 7 Jesus declares, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God!" "Ye must be born anew (again)." (ASV)
"Water and the Spirit, action and attitude; fruits worthy of repentance; and, the thoughts and intents of the heart."
Baptism is our declaration of repentance, the fruit of the Sprit is the proof of genuine repentance. We are not Christians because we act like Christians, we act like Christians because we are, and the Spirit is witness with our spirit that we truly are born again children of God. "No one comes to salvation except the Spirit draws him." Convicting the unrepentant sinner of his sin and convincing him of the need of salvation and a savior is the work of the Holy Spirit.
In rejecting the work of the Holy Spirit the sinner is in a constant state of rebellion. All other blasphemy (evil speaking) is forgiven, but speaking evil of the prompting of the Spirit reviles the offer of the free gift of salvation. Hebrews 6:6 says, "they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame." (NASB)
Hebrews 10:29 amplifies this point, "How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified (set apart), and has insulted the Spirit of grace?" (NASB)
The cold hard fact of the matter is that God has sanctified (set apart) all peoples to the work of the Holy Spirit, to draw men to the knowledge of salvation through the blood of Jesus Christ. It is by rejecting the work of Christ (via the Holy Spirit) that the unrepentant sinner places Jesus back on the cross, thus they crucify Him again as though He never truly rose from the dead. They blaspheme (speak evil) of the Holy Spirit who resurrected Jesus by refusing to believe, and thereby call Him a liar and hold Jesus up to contempt, they regard as insignificant the blood of the covenant, by which they were set apart, and are actively insulting the Spirit of grace. This is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
John 3:16-21 sums up the matter perfectly: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God sent not the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through him. He that believeth on him is not judged: he that believeth not hath been judged already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, lest his works should be reproved. But he that doeth the truth cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, that they have been wrought in God." John 3:16-22 (ASV)
So as a truly born again child of God who practices the truth you cannot truly blaspheme the Holy Spirit. The very fact that you can say "Jesus is Lord", and mean it, declares you "not guilty".
So to those who have ever wondered about "losing their salvation", in this or in any other way, just remember what Jesus Himself said:
"All that which the Father giveth me shall come unto me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I am come down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the will of him that sent me, that of all that which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that every one that beholdeth the Son, and believeth on him, should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."
"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who hath given them unto me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one."
John 6:37-40; 10:27-30 (ASV)
