Category Jesus the Jewish Messiah

The Genesis prophecy spoke of the coming of two seeds one of the Messiah, the Christ and the other the Antichrist.  In order for us to see how the enemy plans on raising up the Antichrist, we must first understand the genetics of the incarnation of the Lord Jesus (we will look at the genetics of the Antichrist in a later post).

The Virgin Will Conceive

Examining Scripture we see that there are many references to Jesus the Messiah as having been connected genetically (through the seed) to David. While it is true that the Bible records two genealogies of Jesus (Matthew’s account gives Jesus’ line through his adoptive father, Joseph) [i] we learn from the Lukan account, that Jesus is a blood descendant of David by way of Mary’s line.

Nevertheless, there are some commentators who suggest that Mary acted as an incubator and there was therefore no genetic connection between her and the Lord, or between Him and humanity.

To suggest that Jesus’ physical body was a completely unique and new creation and not connected to Mary and hence David, Abraham and Adam is to ignore the enormity of verses which attest to the contrary. Let’s first start with the announcement of the miraculous birth of Jesus made by the angel Gabriel in Luke 1:31-35.

And behold, you will conceive [sullepse συλληψη] in your womb [gastri γαστρι] and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS. […] and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David […]” Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?” And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon [epeleusetai επελευσεται] you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God, (emphasis mine).

While this passage is well known, there are several factors that we need to focus in on to see conclusively that Mary did not simply act as an incubator for the Lord, but that she was in fact his mother on the genetic level as well. Grasping this important point will give us clarity as we consider the implications of Genesis 3:15. First of all, we note that Mary was a virgin and had “not known a man”. The angel tells her that she will conceive and then give birth to a son. Notice that the angel does not merely say that she will give birth to a son, but that she will conceive (sullambano συλλαμβάνω). This is the same language that is used in the well-known verse of Isaiah 7:14 “[…] Behold, the virgin shall conceive [hara הָרָה֙] and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.” The Hebrew word hara הָרָה֙ is used 57 times in the Hebrew Bible and carries the normative meaning of the word. Basically stated, it is when a child is procreated from the sexual union of a man and woman – that is, it takes two to conceive. Let’s consider just a few examples:

• Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived [hara הָרָה֙] and bore Cain, (Genesis 4:1)
• And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived [hara הָרָה֙] and bore Enoch, (Genesis 4:17)
• So he went in to Hagar, and she conceived [hara הָרָה֙], (Genesis 16:4)
• For Sarah conceived [hara הָרָה֙] and bore Abraham a son, (Genesis 21:2)
• So the woman conceived [hara הָרָה֙] and bore a son, (Exodus 2:2)

The implantation of the man’s seed is not enough; the woman provides her genetic information (seed) as well. In modern terms this is referring to the reproductive cells, called gametes [iii] which are the seed of the man (sperm) and the seed of the woman (ovum). Today we understand that the mother’s ovum and father’s sperm each provide half of the information (each providing 23 individual [i.e. haploid] chromosomes) to the zygote (fertilized egg or child) for a total of 46 individual chromosomes. To speak of a woman’s seed is extremely precise language (which only serves to authenticate the Bible as being from God). Thus to speak of the virgin or Mary conceiving means that her ovum (egg) absolutely must account for half of the chromosomes which Jesus’ physical body was comprised of. That being the case then Jesus was genetically connected to his mother Mary and hence his ancestors David, Judah, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Shem, Noah, all the way back to Adam.

What is Biblical Seed?

We know for certain from other Scriptures that when the biblical authors talked about seed (Hebrew zera זֶרַע and Greek sperma σπερμα) they were clearly talking about gametes (the reproductive material). Two of the most prominent deserve our attention: After the destruction of Sodom and the loss of their mother, Lot’s two daughters saw the need to preserve their father’s seed. We read:

And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, [and] lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father, (Genesis 19:34 KJV).

The second of the two is perhaps as blatant as can be concerning just what is meant by seed: “And if any man’s seed [zara זֶרַע] of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even,” (Leviticus 15:16).

In summary, we note that the Scriptures are replete with statements that Jesus would come from the seed of Abraham and his descendants. If the Bible is this specific about the male seed, we ought not to question the Bible when it makes reference to the woman’s seed in Genesis 3:15. Therefore the incarnation of Jesus required that He be connected to humanity genetically yet without sin.

The Genetics of the The Word Becoming Flesh

The incarnation of Jesus was nothing less than the genetic combination of the celestial (Holy Spirit) and the terrestrial (Mary). We must stress, however, that Jesus as the second person of the Godhead existed from eternity past (Micah 5:2) and did not begin to exist at the Holy Spirit’s overshadowing of Mary – He is eternal and has always existed. Nevertheless, the incarnation (becoming flesh) was at the point of conception which was when the Holy Spirit mingled seed (DNA i.e. information) with humanity. After waiting four thousand years the promise of the seed of the woman would be fulfilled. From the point of the incarnation God would begin the process of redeeming mankind that so long ago had sinned and corrupted the image of God as well as losing the ability to commune with God. This pivotal moment would then find its fulfillment in the crucifixion and resurrection of this God-man thereby giving men the right to become children of God once more.

Just What Is a Seed?

Our understanding of genetics and information technology (IT) helps to better understand what it means that we were and are corrupted. The reality is that our DNA is in fact the source code of humanity and it is the essence of the “seed” that Scripture so often talks about. The term seed is in modern terms called a gamete which in the male is the sperm and in the female is the ovum. Thus when Mary conceived it meant that her ovum provided 23 chromosomes and hence the Holy Spirit provided the other gamete (23 chromosomes). While it is possible that the Holy Spirit provided actual “sperm”, it is unlikely. Sperm (from the male) would be likened to a missile which is carrying a warhead. The warhead is what causes the explosion and the missile simply gets it to the destination. It is not the carrying mechanism which is truly significant for conception, but the “payload” – that is the genetic material (information) that the sperm is carrying. Thus the Holy Spirit provided the 23 chromosomes without the carrying mechanism. Given that the Holy Spirit (the third person of the Godhead) came upon her, there could not have been any need for millions of seed. The Holy Spirit must have placed only one gamete (or set of 23 chromosomes) directly into Mary’s ovum, which necessarily resulted in the body for the Lord Jesus. [iv]

Our Genetic Code

When most of us come to a computer, we are interested in the applications that we can use to help us do our work, surf the internet, play games or watch movies. Underlying those processes is a code that is written with ones and zeros. All of the applications are reduced to a binary (base two) code which a machine can understand. Even the most sophisticated computer program is reduced to a series of ones and zeros. In every living creature there is a coded message that is not a base two but a base four code known as DNA. Dr. Gitt in his book In the Beginning Was Information describes how DNA is a store of information:

The storage medium is the DNA molecule (deoxyribonucleic acid) which resembles a double helix. A DNA fiber is only about two millionths of a millimeter thick, so that it is barely visible with an electron microscope. The chemical letters A, G, T, and C are located on this information tape, and the amount of information is so immense in the case of human DNA that it would stretch from the North Pole to the equator if it was typed on paper, using standard letter sizes. [v]

This storage medium is capable of copying itself with astounding precision as Dr. Gitt explains:

The DNA is structured in such a way that it can be replicated every time a cell divides in two. Both of the two daughter cells have to have identically the same genetic information after the division and copying processes. This replication is so precise that it can be compared to 280 clerks copying the entire Bible sequentially each one from the previous one with at most one single letter being transposed erroneously in the entire copying process.

When a DNA string is replicated, the double strand is unwound, and at the same time a complementary strand is constructed on each separate one, so that, eventually, there are two new double strands identical to the original one […] One cell division lasts from 20 to 80 minutes, and during this time the entire molecular library, equivalent to one thousand books, is copied correctly. [vi]

The Master Programmer endowed us with perfect code and only at the fall of man did it become corrupted. This chemical code, built on the A, G, T and C, becomes corrupted as a result of a shuffling of the order of those bits or a loss of one or more bits. Loss of data occurs through replication and through the decomposition of the medium (cf. CD ROM). Adam, as the father of the race and a direct creation of God, had a perfect code. There was no loss of data or corruption of the data in any way. Once he and Eve sinned, death (errors in the genetic code) entered our first parents and those errors have not only been passed to all of their descendants, but the loss of data has been increasing over time as would be consistent with data loss in the world of computers. John Sanford notes that this degradation of data is cumulative and will one day result in the extinction of the human race in his book Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome: “The extinction of the human genome appears to be just as certain and deterministic as the extinction of stars, the death of organisms, and the heat death of the universe.” [vii]

Information is Non-material

We must keep in mind that DNA is simply the medium which stores information. Information, however, is something distinct from the medium (or storage device). In his book, In the Beginning Was Information, Dr. Gitt explains the difference between the two:

Information requires a material medium for storage. If one writes some information with chalk on a blackboard, the chalk is the material carrier. If it is wiped off, the total quantity of chalk is still there, but the information has vanished. In this case the chalk was a suitable material medium, but the essential aspect was the actual arrangement of the particles of the chalk. And this arrangement was definitely not random, it had a mental origin. The same information that was written on the blackboard could also have been written on a magnetic diskette. Certain tracks of the diskette then became magnetized, and also in this case there is a carrier for the information. [viii]

An average blank CD ROM costs just pennies; it is the information on that disc which can cost hundreds, thousands or even millions of dollars. However, regardless of how much data is written on the disc, the disc does not change at all in how much it weighs. Thus information is separate from the device holding it. The loss of data by erasing chalk from a chalkboard is analogous to the loss of data in our DNA. Of course, not all of the data in our DNA has been lost but a significant part of the message has been compromised and now the errors are being compounded with every successive generation. Humanity is suffering from an information loss in our own source code.

The most amazing thing about the seed (DNA) is the information that it contains, which was placed there by our Maker (the Master Programmer). What the modern science of Information Technology is just now discovering is that information does not just happen (which incidentally, is an incredible proof for God and against evolution). Dr. Gitt explains that information is a fundamental entity and is therefore, not a property of matter. He formulates several theorems in order to describe information. In theorem 1 he states: “The fundamental quantity information is a nonmaterial (mental) entity. It is not a property of matter, so that purely material processes are fundamentally precluded as sources of information,” (emphasis mine). [ix] In theorem 3 he notes that it is information which “comprises the nonmaterial foundation for all technological systems and for all works of art.” [x]

If the information that we originally received from God is being compromised such that one day the entire human race will suffer the ultimate data corruption known as extinction then we clearly need the Master Programmer to fix the source code. Fortunately, our Maker has provided a way for our code to be corrected. However, it required that the Maker Himself take on our code, mix it with His own and then offer His blood. Through rebirth we are guaranteed a new body (eternal life) and we have been given the Holy Spirit as the down payment. Thus in the world to come our DNA (our code) will be restored and upgraded.

Normal Conception

Before we try to understand the genetics of the incarnation we need to have a grasp of what happens at the point of a normal conception. During the process of procreation approximately 250 million sperm swim toward the ovum. Both the ovum and the sperm are essentially very similar information. The sperm have a flagellum which propels them on their quest but the genetic information that they carry inside is what is truly significant.

Our body’s cells have forty-six individual chromosomes or twenty-three pairs (diploid). However, the egg and sperm cells have only twenty-three individual chromosomes such that when they combine (during fertilization) they will equal the forty-six individual (twenty-three diploid) chromosomes necessary for human life. The process by which the somatic (body) cells (forty-six chromosomes) are divided is called meiosis. The cells created, which are just the twenty-three individual chromosomes, are called haploid cells. During reproduction, the maternal and paternal gametes (haploid cells), “fuse at conception to produce a zygote, which will turn into a fetus and eventually into an adult human being” according Silke Schmidt writing in the Genetics Encyclopedia. [xi] The Encyclopedia Britannica summarizes the process: “When two gametes unite during fertilization, each contributes its haploid set of chromosomes to the new individual, restoring the diploid number.” [xii]

The Incarnation

As we stated before, we need to emphasize that Jesus did not begin to exist at the incarnation – He is eternal and has always existed. Yet, the incarnation was the point at which the Godhead mingled seed (DNA i.e. information) with humanity. Let’s consider the mechanics of the incarnation from what we have studied so far. Keep in mind that the following summary does not pretend to account for the entire mystery of what it is for God to take on flesh, nevertheless, we seek to embrace all of the information that God has revealed through His Word. Nor does this explanation account for all the potential reasons the incarnation was necessary. However, looking at the incarnation from a genetics perspective does demonstrate how Jesus could become one of us and yet remain free from sin.

Peter Underhill, in Encyclopedia.com writes concerning the uniqueness of the Y chromosome and how it is passed from generation to generation unchanged:

Since normally only one Y chromosome exists per cell, no pairing between X and Y occurs at meiosis, except at small regions. Normally, no crossing over occurs. Therefore, except for rare mutations that may occur during spermatogenesis, a son will inherit an identical copy of his father’s Y chromosome, and this copy is also essentially identical to the Y chromosomes carried by all his paternal forefathers, across the generations. This is in contrast to the rest of his chromosomal heritage, which will be a unique mosaic of contributions from multiple ancestors created by the reshuffling process of recombination, (emphasis mine). [xiii]

This means that of the twenty-three individual chromosomes (haploid) in the gamete, only one (1/23) could potentially be a Y chromosome. Thus the other twenty-two chromosomes provided by the father’s sperm will all be autosomes or non-sex chromosomes. If the twenty-third chromosome is an X, then the resulting person will be a girl. However, if the sperm is carrying that one Y chromosome then the baby will be a boy. Nevertheless, Peter Underhill has stated that there is essentially no change of the Y chromosome from father to son from generation to generation. The X’s in contrast will be a mosaic of his multiple ancestors. Learner.org’s online textbook states the peculiarity in another way: “The lack of recombination means that the entire non-recombining portion of the Y is passed intact from father to son. A male shares the same Y chromosome with his father, paternal grandfather, paternal great-grandfather, and so on,” (emphasis mine). [xiv] Neil Bradman and Mark Thomas state the significance of implications of this reality perhaps as clearly as possible in light of our study in their article Why Y? The Y Chromosome In The Study Of Human Evolution, Migration And Prehistory.

Genesis, chapter 5, records “the generations of Adam”: Adam begat Seth, Seth begat Enosh, Enosh begat Kenan… down to Noah of the flood. Translated into modern genetic terms, the account could read “Adam passed a copy of his Y chromosome to Seth, Seth passed a copy of his Y chromosome to Enosh, Enosh passed a copy of his Y chromosome to Kenan“… and so on until Noah was born carrying a copy of Adam’s Y chromosome. The Y chromosome is paternally inherited; human males have one while females have none. What is more, the Y chromosome a father passes to his son is, in large measure, an unchanged copy of his own, (emphasis mine). [xv]

This means that whatever information was encoded in Adam’s Y chromosome was passed on unchanged (virtually) to all of his descendants including all of us men alive today! However, if the information in the Y chromosome were faulty, then it would mean that all of his descendants (including us) would also have a faulty code. Discovering the exact make-up of the Y chromosome when Adam was first created is impossible for us to do, however, its current state may tell us something about the fall. The Y chromosome may in fact be a record of an event in the life of our original father. Bradman and Thomas suggest that the Y chromosome contains “a record of an event” [xvi] in the life the man who passed on the current Y chromosome. However, because Bradman and Thomas are committed to the evolutionary paradigm they believe the event “had no effect on the life of the man in whom the change occurred nor, indeed, on the life of his descendants,” (emphasis mine). [xvii] Is it possible that the recorded event is not something that had “little or no effect,” but is in some way the record of the genetic fall of our first father? Thus Adam not only died spiritually by virtue of losing the Holy Spirit, but his genetic information (as recorded specifically in the Y chromosome) was corrupted. God stated that in the day that Adam ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he would die (Genesis 2:17).

Death, it appears, entered into Adam’s Y chromosome (in some way unique and different than the X) that very moment causing him to go from being genetically perfect to having serious errors in his code that would eventually cause a “crash”. Occasionally people who use computers will experience a scenario where the operating system experiences a “fatal crash”. The crash occurs because there is some conflict in the code of the program. Though the program may be able to sustain data loss for a short period, if uncorrected, the program will eventually crash. In Adam’s case, that crash took 930 years, but he did eventually experience a complete shutdown.

If that is correct, then the Y chromosome (and all of his chromosomes) must have been complete and whole before Adam fell into sin. We know that he was free from all imperfections because God created him and declared him to be good and because death entered into the world via Adam’s sin. Yet, the Y chromosome seems to contain something so deleterious that our savior could not have shared it. After all, every copy of the Y chromosome (that is, every male descendant of Adam) would necessarily have the same genetic flaw that would also lead to the ultimate crash. In order to save mankind on a genetic level, a new Y chromosome would need to be provided. Furthermore, through the disobedience of Adam all of creation was made subject to corruption as Paul states in Romans 8.

For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body, (Romans 8:19-23).

In some way, Adam’s disobedience and subsequent corruption spread to all creation. It could be, though we cannot be sure, that Eve was included under the “creation”. In any event women are seemingly not excepted due to the fact that every daughter received twenty-three haploid chromosomes from her biological father who has a Y chromosome and therefore a man, carrying Adam’s faulty Y chromosome, was directly involved in her procreation.

The Original Data Loss A.K.A. “Original Sin”

Scripture testifies to the “blue screen of death” which we could argue has been historically known as original sin. Paul discusses at length that all face the effects of sin (corruption) even though one man was responsible for bringing it into the world. “For since through man is the death, also through man is a rising again of the dead, (1 Corinthians 15:21 Revised Young’s Literal Translation RYLT). [xviii] Paul then reiterates and summarizes by saying: “for even as in Adam all die, so also in the Christ all shall be made alive, and each in his proper order, a first-fruit Christ, afterwards those who are the Christ’s, in his presence,” (1 Corinthians 15:22-23 RYLT). Jesus not only rose from the dead, but also mixed with mankind. Thus our resurrection seems to also entail being mixed with the Lord. Bible commentator Thomas Constable notes that the death and resurrection are not just some kind of “spiritual” entities but are in fact physical and literal.

Adam derived life from another, God; but Christ is Himself the fountain of life. Adam was the first man in the old creation, and, like him, all of his sons die physically. Christ is the first man in the new creation, and, like Him, all of His sons will live physically (cf. Rom. 5:12-19). […] Both Adam and Jesus were men. Therefore our resurrection will be a human resurrection, not some “spiritual” type of resurrection. Physical resurrection is as inevitable for the son of Jesus Christ as physical death is for the son of Adam, (Constable Notes).

Paul has a longer discussion of how sin came into the world through one man (Adam) and how death, therefore, was passed or spread to all men.

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned – for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous, (Romans 5:12-19).

Though the sin of Adam was indeed moral in that he broke the command of God, the result was physical as well as spiritual. We have already discussed how his sinning resulted in immediate spiritual death – the loss of the Holy Spirit. However, it also appears from the two above passages that the concept of original sin – that is how we are born in sin – is due to the fact that every child of Adam is also a genetic copy of Adam and Eve (of course with genetic recombination). We might think of it like sour dough bread in which each time a new loaf of bread is made, a little bit of the starter dough is taken and thrown into the mix. In that way, the starter dough is in every new batch.

So it is with Adam’s genes: we are all copies of him and therefore whatever coding errors he had would be passed on to us from the very point of conception. The fact that sin is attributed to Adam and not to Eve, though she was the first to break God’s command seems readily explainable. When God formed Eve He took from his side which of course contains bone marrow. In bone marrow are the stem cells from which all other cells in the body can be replicated. Therefore, God merely borrowed some code from Adam (removed the Y chromosome and added a second X chromosome) and voila – a female clone of Adam. Upon seeing her, Adam even declared: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man,” (Genesis 2:23). Therefore we draw the conclusion that it was the master disc (Adam) that counts when making copies; Eve received her code from Adam. This understanding would certainly not detract from Adam acting as our federal head, but would serve to clarify how exactly that sin was passed and why we are “in sin” from conception.

The solution to the problem is analogous to the problem itself – also an idea that we have already examined in part; John states that “No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God,” (1 John 3:9). The new birth will not merely be a clearing of our debts (though thank the Lord it includes that!) but we will truly be reborn with new bodies. We get to take possession of our new bodies (with their correct DNA, i.e. information) in heaven. Until that time we have the Holy Spirit as a down payment (guarantee).

Conclusions of the Incarnation

As our understanding of genetics and specifically the Y chromosome stands right now, we are able to conclude that if Adam was corrupted genetically then his descendants would be too and something particular to the data errors in the Y chromosome was especially significant. That means that the data loss was extremely significant and as such crashes in the system will result in time. Since the Y chromosome is passed from father to son (identically), every son will experience the same data loss. Though women do not carry the Y chromosome, they are still under the curse (data loss) because every daughter has a father who is a son of Adam. Therefore, whether son or daughter, all have shared in the genetic loss that Adam first experienced. However in the conception of Jesus’ incarnation, the Y chromosome from Adam was not passed on. Therefore Jesus must have (in the flesh) had a perfect Y chromosome! Though while connected genetically to humanity by way of the X chromosomes, Jesus was not a carrier of the Y chromosome which Adam had passed to all subsequent generations. Jesus became the first fruits of the resurrection because one day, by way of the “seed of God” that we have received as believers, we will mingle with our Creator.

We can thus summarize the genetic events of the incarnation as such: Jesus, who, as eternal God, is spirit (John 4:24). As the “source code” [xix] of all living things, He is also the prime “data/information” which is/was non-material. His “information” was put into a medium. In order to encode the information in the physical medium (DNA) the Holy Spirit did apparently one of two options. He either: 1) made ex nihilo the DNA material (amino acids etc.) or 2) used the existing material in the egg, as the medium into which Jesus’ non-material spirit went into. The Holy Spirit then fused “the Jesus” gamete (spermatocyte) with Mary’s gamete (oocyte) (recall that a gamete contains DNA, which is stored information, which is a non-material entity). The fusion of the two gametes is when the incarnation (becoming flesh cf. John 1:14) occurred. The chromosomes from Mary and the Holy Spirit fused to make the (body of the) new Adam. Because Jesus is the second Adam, and because we are genetically connected with the first Adam, we must also be mingled with Jesus’ DNA (“He shall see His seed,” Isaiah 53:10, see also 1 John 3:9, 1 Peter 1:23).

From Discovering the Language of Jesus: Hebrew or Aramaic? Click here to listen: Discovering the Language of Jesus Douglas Hamp or El Lenguaje de Jesus

Discovering the Language of Jesus: Hebrew or Aramaic? Click to purchase

Mark 15:34 records some of the last words of Jesus as he was on the cross.  They have been used to support the claim that Jesus spoke Aramaic and not Hebrew.  “And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, ‘Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?’ which is translated, ‘My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?’” These words closely parallel the words in Psalm 22:1 in both the original Hebrew and in the Aramaic Targumim, though His words, as recorded in Mark 15:34 match neither exactly.  Many scholars have glossed over this utterance as Aramaic without even really taking the time to see if it indeed is.

The table below lists Jesus’ phrase according to Mark and Matthew and then gives the text from Psalm 22:1 in the Hebrew original, the Targum (Aramaic) and then the Christian Syriac version (Syriac and Aramaic are basically the same).  Notice that none of the aforementioned texts is exactly the same.  Matthew’s version is exactly the same for the first three words: Eli Eli, lama but then differs with sabachthani.  The Targum of Ps 22:1 has shabachtani like in Mark and Matthew but then differs on the following: Eli Elahi instead of Eli Eli, and metul ma instead of lama.  While these are similar in meaning, it must be conceded that they are significantly different to merit investigation.  The Syriac version is the closest but again, it is not an exact match since lama is written lamna.  It must not be overlooked, however, that the Syriac version was written as a translation to the New Testament and thus cannot be used conclusively to prove one way or the other the exact words of Jesus.  The rest of the table lists the different ways of saying God in Hebrew and Aramaic (Syriac).

Table 3 Eloi, Eloi Lama Sabaktani

Eloi

We have some interesting evidence in the New Testament given that the original words of Jesus have been recorded by two of his disciples – Matthew and Mark (according to early church tradition, Mark received his Gospel from the testimony of Peter).  It is interesting to note that Matthew’s version is slightly different from Mark’s.  Matthew records, in 27:46 that Jesus said Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? (resembling Psalm 22:1 in Hebrew eli, eli lama azavtani) while Mark’s account says Eloi Eloi.  I believe that we can safely assume that Jesus did not say it one way for Matthew and another for the writer of Mark while on the cross.  Matthew’s version – Eli Eli is what we would expect in Hebrew or even in Aramaic.  Eloi, however, is a mystery. Which way he said it has to do with the issue of transliteration and will be answered in the course of our search.

We know what Eloi means, due to the convenient translation in the text, that is my God.  The question of course, is whether it is Hebrew or Aramaic.  The truth is, as such, it is neither Hebrew nor Aramaic.  While it is close to the Hebrew form of אלהים elohim, it falls short.  Its form is not found even once in the Hebrew Bible and since elohim is such a common word, not finding it there forces us to conclude that it is not Hebrew. However, it is not Aramaic either.  If Eloi were Aramaic, as is assumed, then why don’t we see at least one example of its use in the OT since in both Daniel 4:5, and 6:22, which were plainly written in Aramaic, the words “my God” are not Eloi but אלהי elahi.  The form spoken by Jesus as recorded in Mark is conspicuously absent!  Furthermore, the Targumim translate my God as elahi just as the Aramaic does from the time of Daniel.  Targum Psalm 22:1, has אלי אלהי eli elahi (Targum Psalms). Moreover, the Syriac (Aramaic) version of the New Testament (written about 200 AD) actually translates the Greek text of Mark 15:34 (my God) ὁ Θεός μου  (ho Theos mou) as elahi and not Eloi!  Apparently the Aramaic speakers didn’t consider it to be Aramaic either since they wrote Elahi.  Considering that this text was written after the time of Jesus just further serves to demonstrate that Eloi is not Aramaic.

If Eloi is neither Hebrew nor Aramaic, then what is it?  There are three ways to say God in Hebrew:אלהים  Elohim (2605 times) only in Hebrew, used most often to refer to the God of Israel,  אל El (242 times), both Hebrew and Aramaic, more often used of foreign gods, though nevertheless, used in reference to the true God of Israel, and אלוה Eloah (56 times) used only in Hebrew texts (primarily in Job).  All of them have a general meaning of mighty one – really just a title, which can theoretically, be applied to any one who “is mighty”. [1] Elohim, unlike el and Eloah, is the plural form meaning gods.  Whenever used of the one true God of Israel, however, the verb related to it is always singular. [2] To say my God with el simply requires that one add the letter yud to the end of the word.  Thus, El becomes Eli.  To add my to plural masculine nouns like Elohim, however, basically requires adding the vowel a and dropping the mem (mem makes a masculine noun plural).  Elohim therefore, becomes Elohai.  To make the first person possessive of Eloah is similar, though, unfortunately, the first person singular my is not found in the pages of the Bible.  There is, however, one passage in Habbakuk 1:11 which does have the possessive pronoun suffix his אלהו – Eloho.  Thus, according to the conventions of Hebrew grammar, the way to say my God would be Elohi.  (Gallagher, personal correspondence)   Aramaic has two ways to say God, El, which is exactly the same as the Hebrew counterpart and the other way is אלה Elah. To say my God is Eli and Elahi similar to the Hebrew forms.

Thus in either Hebrew or Aramaic, we should see one of four forms: Elohai or Elohi (only Hebrew), Eli (both Hebrew and Aramaic) or Elahi (only Aramaic).  There are no other possibilities and Eloi is simply not one of the options.  In order to discover which language Jesus spoke, we will limit our discussion to Mark’s Eloi since Eli could be either Hebrew or Aramaic.  We will essentially address two questions:

1. What happened to the letter he in the middle of the word (equivalent to the letter H)?
2. Are there any occurrences of Eloi in the Septuagint?

Without Eli we have limited our focus to three candidates for the mysterious Eloi, the two Hebrew words Elohai, Elohi and the Aramaic Elahi.  We don’t have the actual Hebrew or Aramaic word written in the Hebrew/Aramaic [3] script but the Greek transliteration, which can sometimes be tricky.  Some languages don’t have the rough breathing sound that the letter H makes.  English, for example, can make the sound at the beginning and middle of words but not at the end (this seems normal to us; however, Hebrew can do all three!).  Greek is able to produce the H sound at the beginning of words, but not in the middle or end. [4] So, how would one transliterate any of the three from either Hebrew or Aramaic to Greek?  There is, in fact, no way to transliterate the words other than by transliterating them without the rough breathing sound, which would yield three different options: Eloai, Eloi and Elai.

To prove the theory, we will select words which we know have the letter ה (letter H) in the middle and then compare them to the Greek transliterations (in the Septuagint) where, if the theory is correct, there should be the absence of a rough breathing mark (like the letter H).  For example, Abraham in the Septuagint is Αβραάμ (Abraam).

Table 4 Loss of the ה(H) Sound in Greek

Notice from the table that the Hebrew words lose the H in the Greek (and English transliteration).  As expected, the Greek version cannot reproduce the H and so it was left out in the transliteration.  Therefore, the word Eloi is not necessarily Aramaic simply based on the lack of the letter H. However it is too early to conclude that it is Hebrew.  Clearly, the Hebrew letter he or H was lost due to transliteration, but was the original Hebrew or Aramaic?  The loss of the letter he in the Greek transliteration leaves us with the following three possibilities: Eloai, Eloi, and Elai.

Clearly Eloi fits perfectly what Mark recorded and fortunately we have an example of this in the Septuagint.  Judges 5:5 “The mountains gushed before the LORD, this Sinai before the LORD God of Israel” κυρίου Ελωι, τοῦτο Σινα ἀπὸ προσώπου κυρίου θεοῦ Ισραηλ (kuriou Eloi touto Sina apo prosopou kuriou theou Israel).  Notice that they translated the word LORD (YHWH in Hebrew) into Greek as kuriou (Lord) and then added the word Eloi (my God), which is not in the Hebrew text.  There are two things that must not be missed here.  First of all, the mysterious word in Mark is attested in the Septuagint with exactly the same spelling.  Secondly, the Septuagint was translated into Greek from Hebrew and not Aramaic.  Thus when looking at Mark 15:34 we have solid evidence of how Elohi was transliterated from Hebrew (not Aramaic!) in to Greek.  If Mark had been transliterating from Aramaic, he would probably not have written Eloi ᾿Ελωΐ [5] with the letter omega (ω) since the Aramaic is distinctly elahi and would have better transliterated it as ᾿Ελaΐ with the letter alpha.

In summary, we see that there is no way to actually write the Hebrew Elohai, Elohi, or the Aramaic Elahi except by dropping the letter he.  Of the three, Elohi fits perfectly and is attested once in the Septuagint – ᾿Ελωΐ Eloi – the exact same spelling and meaning as what is in Mark 15:34.  Furthermore, if Mark had been transliterating Aramaic, it most likely would have appeared as Elai and not Eloi. Our findings may explain the difference between Matthew and Mark since Matthew records Eli, Eli – which has the same meaning but does not present any problems of transliteration. Perhaps knowing this, we might conclude that Matthew simply wrote Eli Eli and not Eloi knowing that Greek letters could not reproduce the word Elohi and since Eli, Eli is how the Hebrew text of Psalm 22:1 reads. And it would seem that Mark opted to write the specific literal words, even though they could not be written exactly in Greek.

Lama

Lama למה, meaning why, is an extremely common word and is used least 145 times in the Hebrew OT in almost every book. It is seen in every phase in Hebrew – from proto Hebrew to Standard Biblical Hebrew to Late Biblical Hebrew and numerous times in the Mishnah.  So, we should not be surprised to see it here in Jesus’ day as well.  The root letters lamed, mem and he are also found in Aramaic, though it should be noted that the vocalization (the vowels) are slightly different than what is recorded in Mark 15:34.  The Aramaic word is lema. [6] It is possible that Mark was transliterating the Aramaic lema as λαμα (lama) – although we cannot be dogmatic about the issue, he could have more accurately written it with the Greek letter epsilon (λεμα) if that were the case. [7] However, as the historical sources indicate, it would seem that Mark was simply writing in Hebrew. Moreover, the word lama does not appear in the (Aramaic) Targum of Psalm 22:1.  Even though lema exists in Aramaic, the translators of this Targum used two words metul ma, also meaning why.  Thus, not only does the Hebrew lama fit better than the Aramaic lema but even the Targum doesn’t use the word.  Only the Hebrew text has the word that Jesus used while enduring our sins on the cross.

Shabachtani

Shabachtani[8] שׁבקתני appears to be a word of Aramaic origin.  It means to leave, leave alone, entrust, bequeath, divorce, permit, forgive, abandon and forsake.  It is used a total of five times in the Old Testament, all of which are found in the Aramaic portions of Daniel and Ezra.  However, given that there was a limited amount of Aramaic influence exerted on the Hebrew language after the return from the Babylonian captivity, we later see the root shabak [9] שׁבק attested in Jewish writings such as the Jerusalem Talmud, which is where the Mishna is found.

Of the seven occurrences of shabak in the Mishnah, four are clearly couched in Hebrew prose.  A passage from the Jerusalem Talmud (31:5:1), is an especially good example of the words surrounding shabak. The text contains certain grammatical structures and vocabulary which occur only in Hebrew and not Aramaic.  A few examples are the use of the letter ה he found at the beginning of words which means the (Aramaic has א – aleph at the end of words).  Also the word שׁ Shay, that, (used only Hebrew) versus די di [10] (used only in Aramaic).  Thus the word shabak, which Jesus spoke on the cross, we find situated in the midst of Mishnaic Hebrew words and grammar, and therefore, we can safely conclude that while this was originally a loan word from Aramaic, by Jesus’ day, it had become common place in the Hebrew language.  We should actually expect there to be some loan words in the language.

Consider for example, if you live in France and you hear someone say that he intends to do “le jogging” you should not conclude that he is actually speaking English!  Likewise, consider the dramatic influence French had on English – we use without any thought words such as pork and beef not knowing that these words are not originally English.  This does not lead us to the conclusion that Americans are speaking French, though it does imply that there was some French influence upon the English language.  In fact, pork and beef have become so common that we are often surprised to learn that they are French.  Nevertheless, though pork and beef are clearly French, the way they are spelled (vs. porc and boeuf) shows that they have been completely assimilated into the English language. [11] And so it is with Shabaktani – the word seems to have come originally from Aramaic but was completely assimilated into (Mishnaic) Hebrew as attested by its usage in the writings of the Mishnah, which as pointed out already, was the final stage of ancient Hebrew before its demise around 200 AD [12].  Also, the ending of the word “ta+ni” is exactly what we would expect in Biblical Hebrew [13] viz. shabakta=you forsook +ni=me.

[1] Jesus makes reference to this word in John 10:34 of the leaders and judges of Israel.

[2] A beautiful example of the Trinity in the Old Testament (first occurring in Genesis 1:26).

[3] Both Hebrew and Aramaic were written in what was known as Aramaic script just like how English is written using Latin letters.

[4] My lovely wife, Anna, pointed this out to me!

[5] Mark includes the breathing marks and accents making it even clearer that it is to be pronounced Elo-i demonstrating that the Hebrew letter he has been dropped.

[6] The e is written with a shewa which is a very short sound.

[7] Some manuscripts do contain the variants λεμα lema, λιμα lima, –  see The Robinson/Pierpont Byzantine Greek New Testament.  However, the Textus Receptus and the Vulgate have λαμμα lamma or λαμα lama respectively.

[8] The Aramaic word is actually Shabachtani – Greek does not have the “sh” sound which is why the NT text has transliterated it as Sabachtani.

[9] The last root letter is like the letter K as in kite.  Again this is a matter of transliteration.

[10] The other uses are: זאת zot, בן ben, אני ani, את et – these words are specifically Hebrew.  The Aramaic counterpart is different enough so that we can conclude that these words are Hebrew and not Aramaic.  Ben and bar (in a later chapter), however, are often interchangeable.

[11] Perhaps even more surprising is discovering that the word sack is in fact a Hebrew word – it is found 17 times in the Old Testament.  It has been so completely assimilated that few people ever give it a second thought.  It is indeed English, but was originally (and still is!) Hebrew.

[12] Hebrew essentially died as a spoken language but was still in use in Jewish life up until the establishment of Modern Hebrew.

[13] The form, though, is the same in Aramaic.

Discovering the Language of Jesus: Hebrew or Aramaic?

“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.” (Matthew 6:24 see also Luke 16:9,11,13)

The word mammon[1] has long been assumed to be Aramaic.  In fact, every Greek lexicon I checked said unambiguously that it is of Aramaic origin.[2] Many lexicons simply relegate the word to Aramaic a priori based on the fact that it is not Greek.  The word, in fact, comes from an old Hebrew root המון hamon meaning a number of different things making it somewhat difficult to translate.  But essentially, it means many, a lot.  Among the meanings [3] are riches and abundance.  It might seem to be somewhat of a stretch to say that hamon could become mammon.  However, considering that it was quite common for the letter mem to be added to the front of words to make them into other classes of words, it is not a stretch at all.  Consider the following examples:

• targum (translation), becomes translator by adding the letter mem to the front of the word – meturgeman
• melech (king), becomes kingdom by adding a mem to the beginning – mamlacha,
• zamar (to sing) becomes melody, psalm – mizmor
• yesha (salvation) – (from which comes the name Yeshua – Jesus) becomes with the mem – savior moshia
• hamon (a lot) becomes (money) mammon

Equally important is the fact that the word mammon is actually attested outside of the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament.  We find it nine times in the Mishna.  The passages in which mammon is found are in Hebrew (not Aramaic!) and are in reference to money and terms of payment.  One says, “If they give you a lot of money [mammon], you will enter…” Seder Nizikin 3:4 [4].  Another says, that if certain services are not performed, then a fine of money [mammon] will be paid (Seder Nizikin 4:8 [5]. And lastly, Seder Nashim Ktuvot 3:2 says in unambiguous terms that if so and so undertakes or commits to do something and then doesn’t pay then he will be fined as it says in Exodus 21:22:

• (Mishna Nashim Ktuvot 3:2)וכל המתחייב בנפשו–אינו משלם ממון, שנאמר “ולא יהיה, אסון–ענוש ייענש (שמות כא,כב) …Vkol hamitchayev benafsho – eino meshalem mammon, sheneamar velo yihiye, ason – yenosh yeanash (shmot 21:22).
• (Hebrew Bible, Exodus 21:22) – וכי־ינצו אנשׁים ונגפו אשׁה הרה ויצאו ילדיה ולא יהיה אסון ענושׁ יענשׁ כאשׁר ישׁית עליו בעל האשׁה ונתן בפללים) – …he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

There are two things in this text that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that mamon is a Hebrew word for money.  First of all, the Hebrew word “pay” (meshalem) appears before mammon (money) and secondly is the reference given to Exodus 21:22b which says “yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay (natan, literally give) as the judges determine.”  We see that the Mishnaic text actually uses some of the same words but updates pay (natan in Exodus 21:22b) with the up-to-date term pay money (meshalem mammon).  Since they use it in conjunction with that verse, which we know means pay and then update it with meshalem mammon, which, by the way, are in a 100% Hebrew context, we can definitively conclude that mammon was Hebrew.  While we cannot say that this was not an Aramaic word, it is worth noting that Targum Onkelos translates the word in the Exodus passage, which is related to the above Mishnaic passage, as natan – give. Moreover in places where the Hebrew Bible writes money as kesef (literally silver), Targum Onkelos follows suite with כַספָא kaspa.  If mammon were such a common Aramaic word then why is it not used in this of all verses when the Mishna does use it?

[1] The Textus Receptus has the spelling mamon, which agrees with Luke in every manuscript.  However, for sake of the accepted convention mammon will be used in this book.

[2] See in situ Thayers Greek Lexicon, Strong’s Greek and Hebrew Lexicon, Friberg Green Lexicon, UBS Greek Dictionary and Louw-Nida Lexicon

[3] The meaning of hamon: cry aloud, mourn, rage, roar, sound; make noise, tumult; be clamorous, disquieted, loud, moved, troubled, in an uproar.  Abundance, company, many, multitude, noise, riches, rumbling, sounding, store, tumult.  (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament hamon entry).

[4] Seder Nizikin 3:4 (im notnin lecha mammon harbe, ata niknas) אם נותנין לך ממון הרבה, אתה נכנס

[5] Seder Nizikin 4:8 (she-ein chayavin ela al tviat mammon kfiqudin)שאין חייבין אלא על תביעת ממון כפיקדון

Discovering the Language of Jesus: Hebrew or Aramaic? Click to purchase

What was the language that Jesus communicated in as he taught and interacted with the people of Israel?  Some say it was Greek since that is the language of the New Testament.  Some say Aramaic, picked up by the children of Israel during their seventy-year captivity in Babylon, since they suppose that Hebrew was a dead language at the time of Jesus. Finally, the minority view holds that Jesus spoke Hebrew, the language of his people, of Moses, David and the prophets.  Nevertheless, Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew, couldn’t he have spoken all three?  While it is entirely possible that he spoke all three, the issue that our discussion will focus on is what language he most often communicated in.  After all, the creator of the universe would obviously be able to speak whatever language he desired, but of course speaking a language is only useful if those around you can understand what you are saying.  So our question quickly becomes limited to what language the disciples and followers of Jesus spoke.  That is not to say what they were capable of speaking, but rather, what language they spoke in the markets, their homes and in their inner circles when sharing their thoughts.

Click here to listen: Discovering the Language of Jesus Douglas Hamp or El Lenguaje de Jesus

Even if we can determine what language Jesus most often communicated in, does it really matter?  Yes, it does matter!  The language of Jesus is important to our understanding of the Jewish culture and world in which Jesus lived, taught and interacted.  So much of a culture is wrapped up in its language that it is often difficult to separate the two.  Knowing what language Jesus and the Jewish people living in Israel [1] in his day spoke, helps us better understand the words, phrases and teachings that were used in the New Testament

Perhaps even more significant to why this is important is that the Bible says that he spoke Hebrew!  The idea that Jesus spoke only Aramaic and not Hebrew is neither historical nor Biblical.  The New Testament clearly and unambiguously says that Jesus spoke Hebrew and that Hebrew was used in his day; it never refers to Aramaic.  In spite of this, most Biblical scholars have taught that Hebrew was a dead language at the time of Jesus.  They claim that when the New Testament says Hebrew, it really means Aramaic; in other words, they say that the phrase Hebrew language really means Aramaic. Just as the phrase American language means English, so they say that the Hebrew language in the New Testament actually means Aramaic.

Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew

Perhaps Greek?

We see evidence in the New Testament that Greek was indeed spoken in first century Israel.  A number of Greek inscriptions have also been found in the land from this period (a result of the conquests of Alexander the Great in the fourth century BC).  Greek for centuries had been the international language of the Ancient Near East including Israel.  Moreover, Josephus reports that there were signs in the Jerusalem Temple “…declaring the law of purity, some in Greek, and some in Roman letters, that ‘no foreigner should go within that sanctuary’ for that second [court of the] temple was called ‘the Sanctuary,’…” (Wars 5,5,2) Also one of the languages of the sign on Jesus’ cross [2] was Greek (John 19:20) – thus there can be no doubt that Greek was used in Jesus’ day.  In fact, this is an issue which hardly needs to be mentioned.  After all, the entire New Testament has come down to us in Koine Greek, a dialect of Jesus’ day. However, almost all scholars agree that the mother tongue of the Jews in Israel was not Greek.  As we will see, the New Testament records various words written in the spoken language and then transliterated and translated into Greek.

Aramaic or Hebrew

So, if not Greek, then we are left with two options: Aramaic or Hebrew.  This is truly where opinions differ.  Admittedly, nearly all scholars have argued and still maintain the position that the common language of Jesus’ day was Aramaic.  The theory is so prevalent that it is taught in seminaries as fact that Hebrew was a dead language by the time of Jesus.

Barbara Grimes, in her book, Language Choice in First Century Christianity, unambiguously declares, “In the homeland of the Jewish people in the first Century AD, Aramaic was the mother tongue and principal language of most of the people, including virtually all of the women.” (Grimes 1987:20-21)  Alfred Edersheim, an expert on the life of Jesus, suggests that Hebrew was nothing more than a language used in the Temple and synagogues and the messages had to be translated into Aramaic for the commoners (Edersheim 1993:91). Edersheim and Grimes are not alone; perhaps the majority of scholars have had a mistaken view of Mishnaic Hebrew, the Hebrew of Jesus’ day.  Probably typical of the prevailing opinion was Abraham Geiger’s suggestion, given in 1845, that Mishnaic Hebrew was an artificial creation of Rabbis whose native tongue was Aramaic (Buth 1987:25). One of the most frequently cited scholars is Matthew Black, an expert of Aramaic and proponent of the idea that Hebrew was a dead language in the time of Jesus.  He says

…the Aramaic speaking masses…could no longer understand Hebrew.  The use of the term ‘Hebrew’ to refer to Aramaic is readily explicable, since it described the peculiar dialect of Aramaic which had grown up in Palestine since the days of Nehemiah and which was distinctively Jewish … (Black 1967:48)

This belief became so commonplace that the New International Version (NIV) translation of the Bible followed suit with the assumption by systematically translating the words ῾Εβραΐδι Hebraidi and ῾Εβραϊστὶ Hebraisti (both mean Hebrew) as Aramaic.  For example in John 5:2 the NIV translates “…near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda…” instead of the literal translation Hebrew (though “or Hebrew” is in the footnotes).  Obviously, the rationale for doing so stems from the belief that Aramaic had replaced Hebrew.  Is this justifiable when the word is clearly Hebrew?  When Paul, in Philippians 3:5, describes himself as a “Hebrew of Hebrews,” the NIV correctly retains Hebrew instead of Aramaic or Aramean.  They translate the same word ῾Εβραῖος (Hebraios – related to the two variations above) as Hebrew in Philippians; why not retain the translation in the other passages which are talking about the language?  It is unfortunate that the belief that Aramaic had replaced Hebrew is so strong that Bible translators feel justified in changing the text of the New Testament instead of simply faithfully translating what it says even if it is in contradiction to current scholarship.

Though the prevalent theory of Aramaic as the mother tongue of Jesus is overwhelming, the view is in need of a revision that more accurately represents the language situation in Jesus’ day. Once we begin investigating, we discover that there is a great deal of evidence from the New Testament, as well as a plethora of external evidence showing that Jesus spoke Hebrew (not Aramaic) as his mother tongue and in his daily life and ministry.

This is not to say that Aramaic was not spoken.  The amount of evidence is irrefutable that Aramaic was one of the languages of his day.  However, the historical and biblical evidence attests to the fact that he was speaking Hebrew.  Again, this is important since to say otherwise does not accurately represent Jesus.  Also, recognizing his language as Hebrew demonstrates the reliability of the Bible as the Word of God, and provides a continuum of teaching from the Old Testament up to and through the life and ministry of the Messiah.

A Road Map

In order to resolve the question of just what Jesus was speaking as his day-to-day language of communication, we will first of all look at the historical evidence coupled with the testimony of the New Testament in order to see what ancient authors had to say about the language of the day.  After reviewing what history has to tell us, we will then examine, from a linguistic point of view, the actual words of Jesus (plus a few others), as recorded in the New Testament.  This is necessary since words and phrases, such as talitha kumi have so often been used to “prove” that he really spoke Aramaic.  Our linguistic examination will reveal that he was speaking Hebrew, just like the New Testament says.

[1] Israel at the time of Jesus refers generally to the areas of Judea, Galilee and perhaps Samaria as well.

[2] See appendix for the discussion of the supposed hidden message on the sign on the cross.

• Introduction
• A Brief History of Hebrew
• Eloi, Eloi, Lama Sabachtani
• Mammon
• Appendix: Sign on the Cross of Jesus
• Request a Presentation
• Descubriendo El Lenguaje de Jesús ¿Hebreo o Arameo? (Spanish)

For the last 150 years, both popular and academic views have asserted that Jesus spoke Aramaic as his primary language of communication since supposedly Hebrew died out after the children of Israel were taken into Babylonian captivity. This view, however, is not based on the testimony of the Old Testament, the New Testament, historical sources, or Jesus’ actual words. Just which language did Jesus and his disciples speak?

As a Bible student, you have probably noticed that in some translations in Acts Paul is said to have spoken Hebrew while speaking to the crowd in the Temple and later Jesus is recorded as speaking Hebrew to Paul. However, in other translations the word Aramaic appears. Which version is correct, why the discrepancies and most importantly, which language did Jesus and his disciples speak?

 Pastor and teacher Douglas Hamp takes you on a journey through history, Scripture and linguistics to solve the puzzle. By Discovering the Language of Jesus, you will gain a deeper understanding of Jesus’ words and culture and will be fully convinced that every detail in God’s Word is accurate, reliable and worthy of your trust.”

Calvary Chapel Magazine Book Review Fall 2005

A persuasive book that presents compelling evidence that Hebrew, not Aramaic, was the primary language of Jesus and the disciples. In light of the inerrancy of the Scriptures, this is an issue that every Bible student should consider.”

Chuck Smith, Senior Pastor Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa

I am convinced that the language of Jesus and the apostles was indeed Hebrew rather than Aramaic.”

Brian Brodersen, Associate Pastor Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa

A mind-changing book. The serious Bible student, wanting to teach accurately, should weigh Doug Hamp’s evidence, rather than parroting tradition.”

Carl Westerlund, Th.M, Director Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa School of Ministry and Graduate School

…this is a great work that challenges many incorrect assumptions about the use of Hebrew in the time of Yeshua. Definitely check it out.”

Albert Cerussi, Congregational Coleader of Ben David Messianic Congregation