Who is this Jesus?

[NickHassan]

duplicate post

[NickHassan]

Hi DVD,
This is the oneness view being espoused here.
Have you abandoned trinity theory now and adopted oneness doctrine?

[Anonymous]

Nick,
Incorrect. Trinitarians also (rightly) acknowledge Jesus is YHWH.

[NickHassan]

So DVD,
What is the difference between your view and Modalism?

[Anonymous]

Do you not understand the key differences between trinitarianism and modalism??!

[NickHassan]

Perhaps,DVD, I do not, and am ignorant if you seem to say they are the same. Or perhaps your view is different from the mainstream here?
Maybe you can enlighten us all?

[Anonymous]

In brief:
Modalism affirms that Father=Son=Holy Spirit

Trinitarianism affirms that God (YHWH) exists as three distinct persons.

If you dont understand the trinity then why is it that you condemn it?

[NickHassan]

So DVD,
Trinity does not espouse that equality? It espouses three separate beings then with no order of authority?

There seems to be some variation in opinion here and since it's inception it has continued to evolve.

My question is why was the theory ever necessary in the first place? Why not just speak of what is written and not add in this extra unwritten information? It distorts the simple understanding of God and His Word.

[Frank4YAHWEH]

The Two Jehovahs of the Psalms???

This study is a refutation to another study entitled, “The Two Jehovahs of the Psalms: The Scriptural Evidence of the Duality of God” by Carl Franklin. I consider the study in question to be extremely poor “scholarship” and full of assumptions and false statements. Franklin's study will be in bold print and my refutation in plain print.

The author's intent is seen in the following statement;

“This study presents irrefutable Scriptural evidence of the eternal existence of Jesus Christ and the co-equality that He shared with the Father as one of the two Jehovahs of the Old Testament.”

Irrefutable Scriptural evidence? Not only will this reply easily refute that supposed “evidence,” but it will also show how unscriptural the “evidence” is.

“The Jehovah who later became the Christ guided the Sopherim in their work on the Old Testament.”

This type of unsubstantiated statement is woven throughout the study as though it were fact. How does the author know it was not the “other” Jehovah who guided the Sopherim? He doesn't. This is just one of many statements based on wishful thinking.

“The priests had such little regard for God's name that they “snivelled” at the importance of God's altar. “But ye have profaned it [Me], in that ye say, 'The table [altar] of the LORD [Hebrew Jehovah] is polluted; and the fruit thereof, even His meat, is contemptible.' Ye said also, 'Behold, what a weariness is it!' and ye have snuffed [an archaism for sniffed or puffed, meaning to show disdain and scorn by snivelling or pooh-poohing] at it [God's altar], saith the LORD [Hebrew Jehovah] of hosts…” (Mal. 1:12-13).”

Throughout this study, Franklin claims “Jehovah” is Hebrew for “the LORD.” How can it be Hebrew if Hebrew does not have a letter “J” or the “J” sound as in “jet”?

The preface of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, pp. 7 says; “The word “Jehovah” does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew.”

The Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 12, says; “The pronunciation 'Jehovah' is an error resulting among Christians from combining the consonants YHWH with the vowels of 'adonay.' “

In other words, “Jehovah” is a linguistic impossibility. It is not Hebrew for “the LORD.”

It seems to me that Carl Franklin is the one who has “little regard for God's name.” This can readily be seen by several remarks he makes against the use of the Name. That, however, is another subject. I merely pointed this out to give an example of this author's poor scholarship and false statements. My refutation will use “Yahweh” in reference to “the LORD.”

The Jehovahs of Psalm 110

“Psalm 110 gives us undeniable Scriptural evidence that there were two divine Beings Who were both known as Jehovah in Old Testament times. In the first verse of Psalm 110, David was inspired to prophesy that a divine Being called Adon would be invited to sit at the right hand of a divine Being called Jehovah. In the original Hebrew text, the same divine Being Who is called Adon in Verse 1 is called Jehovah in Verse 5. Psalm 110 is actually describing one Jehovah sitting beside another Jehovah! The word Jehovah in Verse 5, however, was altered by the Levitical Massorites to read Adonay. The Levites were hiding the truth that the Adon of Verse 1 was a second Jehovah!”

First, where does it say the being addressed as “my Lord” is a divine being? This is an assumption. We know that “my Lord” refers to the Messiah who, after his resurrection, sat on the right hand of Yahweh. The Messiah is the Son of the only divine being that exists (Yahweh). Men can choose to call other beings divine, but that does not make them divine. My Thompson Chain Reference Bible uses the following title for the Book of Revelation; “The Revelation of Saint John the Divine.” Is John divine? To be divine, one must be “Elohim Almighty.” Since the Scriptures clearly teach there is only one Elohim (Monotheism) and that Messiah is that one Elohim's Son, then the Messiah cannot be divine. Also, capitalizing “Adon,” as this author does, only serves to mislead his readers into more readily accepting this being as divine.

Second, “adon” ( Nwwvda ) is not used in Psalm 110:1. A variation of it is used

(jnda – adonî ).

Third, the use of “adoni” does not necessarily imply divinity or identification as Yahweh. Below are many examples of the same Hebrew word (adoni) used for men (my master, my lord).

Ge 24:36 – “And Sarah my master's wife bare a son to my master when she was old: and unto him hath he given all that he hath.”

Ge 24:54 – “And they did eat and drink, he and the men that were with him, and tarried all night; and they rose up in the morning, and he said, Send me away unto my master.”

Ge 24:56 – “And he said unto them, Hinder me not, seeing Yahweh hath prospered my way; send me away that I may go to my master.”

Ge 32:4 – “And he commanded them, saying, Thus shall ye speak unto my lord Esau; Thy servant Jacob saith thus, I have sojourned with Laban, and stayed there until now:”

Ge 32:5 – “And I have oxen, and asses, flocks, and menservants, and womenservants: and I have sent to tell my lord, that I may find grace in thy sight.”

Ge 32:18 – “Then thou shalt say, They be thy servant Jacob's; it is a present sent unto my lord Esau: and, behold, also he is behind us.”

Ge 44:9 – “With whomsoever of thy servants it be found, both let him die, and we also will be my lord's bondmen.”

Ge 44:16 – “And Judah said, What shall we say unto my lord? what shall we speak? or how shall we clear ourselves? Elohim hath found out the iniquity of thy servants: behold, we are my lord's servants, both we, and he also with whom the cup is found.”

Ge 44:33 – “Now therefore, I pray thee, let thy servant abide instead of the lad a bondman to my lord; and let the lad go up with his brethren.”

1Sa 24:6 – “And he said unto his men, Yahweh forbid that I should do this thing unto my master, Yahweh's anointed, to stretch forth mine hand against him, seeing he is the anointed of Yahweh.”

1Sa 25:27 – “And now this blessing which thine handmaid hath brought unto my lord, let it even be given unto the young men that follow my lord.”

1Sa 25:28 – “I pray thee, forgive the trespass of thine handmaid: for Yahweh will certainly make my lord a sure house; because my lord fighteth the battles of Yahweh, and evil hath not been found in thee all thy days.”

1Sa 25:30 – “And it shall come to pass, when Yahweh shall have done to my lord according to all the good that he hath spoken concerning thee, and shall have appointed thee ruler over Israel;”

1Sa 25:31 – “That this shall be no grief unto thee, nor offense of heart unto my lord, either that thou hast shed blood causeless, or that my lord hath avenged himself: but when Yahweh shall have dealt well with my lord, then remember thine handmaid.”

2Sa 4:8 – “And they brought the head of Ishbosheth unto David to Hebron, and said to the king, Behold the head of Ishbosheth the son of Saul thine enemy, which sought thy life; and Yahweh hath avenged my lord the king this day of Saul, and of his seed.”

2Sa 19:28 – “For all of my father's house were but dead men before my lord the king: yet didst thou set thy servant among them that did eat at thine own table. What right therefore have I yet to cry any more unto the king?”

1Ki 1:2 – “Wherefore his servants said unto him, Let there be sought for my lord the king a young virgin: and let her stand before the king, and let her cherish him, and let her lie in thy bosom, that my lord the king may get heat.”

1Ki 18:13 – “Was it not told my lord what I did when Jezebel slew the prophets of Yahweh, how I hid an hundred men of Yahweh's prophets by fifty in a cave, and fed them with bread and water?”

1Ki 20:
9 – “Wherefore he said unto the messengers of Benhadad, Tell my lord the king, All that thou didst send for to thy servant at the first I will do: but this thing I may not do. And the messengers departed, and brought him word again.”

1Ch 21:3 – “And Joab answered, Yahweh make his people an hundred times so many more as they be: but, my lord the king, are they not all my lord's servants? why then doth my lord require this thing? why will he be a cause of trespass to Israel?”

Fourth, the statement, “In the original Hebrew text, the same divine Being Who is called Adon in Verse 1 is called Jehovah in Verse 5” is absolutely false! Here is how the author comes to that conclusion;

“The Lord [Hebrew Adonay, originally Jehovah, referring to the Messiah] at Thy [the first Jehovah's] right hand shall strike through kings in the day of His wrath. He [Jehovah, the Messiah] shall judge among the heathen, He shall fill the places with the dead bodies; He shall wound the heads over many countries. He shall drink of the brook in the way: therefore shall He lift up the head” (Psa. 110:5-7).”

Notice the grievous mistake he makes by reversing the identity of each being! This sets the stage for the rest of his false conclusions concerning two “Jehovahs” in the Psalms. In reality, “The Lord” (correctly “Yahweh”) refers to the Father and “thy” refers to the Messiah.

Note the context of verses 1-5.

1. “Yahweh said unto my [adoni], Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.”

“Thou,” “thy” and “thine” refer to “adoni” (Messiah).

2. “Yahweh shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.”

“Thy,” “thou” and “thine” refer to Messiah.

3. “Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.”

All three uses of “thy” and the word “thou” refer to Messiah

4. “Yahweh hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.”

“Thou” refers to Messiah.

5. “[Adonay] (correctly “Yahweh”) at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath.”

The Sopherim replaced “Yahweh” with “adonay” in this verse. Yet, here again, “thy” refers to Messiah, not Yahweh. The question is, how are we to understand this particular verse? If verse one teaches us that Messiah is to sit at Yahweh's right hand, does verse 5 teach the opposite, that Yahweh is at Messiah's right hand making Messiah at Yahweh's left hand? Absolutely not.

The phrase “at thy right hand” is a Hebrew idiom meaning source of strength. Below are a few examples of this idiom from the Psalms.

Ps 16:8 – “I have set Yahweh always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.”

The speaker will not be moved because Yahweh is his strength.

Ps 109:6 – “Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand.”

The wicked derive their strength from Satan.

Ps 109:30,31 – “I will greatly praise Yahweh with my mouth; yea, I will praise him among the multitude. For he shall stand at the right hand of the poor, to save him from those that condemn his soul.”

The poor have Yahweh as their strength, to aid and uphold them.

When Psalm 110:1-5 is rightly understood, we prophetically see only one Yahweh speaking to the future Messiah.

The author then attempts to find support for his view in the New Testament.

“In Christ's quotation of Psalm 110 in the Gospel of Matthew, we find the Greek word Kurios, or Lord, used in place of the Old Testament name Jehovah. The Greek word Kurios, the equivalent of Jehovah, is also used in place of the name Adon. Here is New Testament confirmation that the name Jehovah applies equally to the Adon in Verse 1 of Psalm 110!

While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose Son is He? They say unto Him, The son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in Spirit call Him Lord [Greek Kurios, equivalent to Hebrew Jehovah], saying, The Lord [Greek Kurios, or Jehovah the Father] said unto my Lord [Greek Kurios, or Jehovah the Son], Sit Thou [the Son] on My right hand, till I [the Father] make Thine enemies Thy footstool? If David then call Him Lord [Greek Kurios, or Jehovah], how is He [the Messiah] his Son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions” (Mat. 22:41-46).”

Here he makes two mistakes which are the fruit of his first mistake in Psalm 110. Since, in his view, there were two Jehovahs in Ps 110:1, and both are translated “Kurios” in Greek, he concludes “Adon” = “Jehovah.”

Mistake 1) The Greek of Mt.22:44 does not have “Kurios” for both beings. It has “Kurios” (kuriov ) for “Yahweh”, but it has “kurio” (kuriw ) for “adoni.”

Mistake 2) “kuriw” is also used for men throughout the Septuagint Greek. For example, Gen 32:4 says, “And he commanded them, saying, Thus shall ye speak unto my lord (kuriw) Esau; Thy servant Jacob saith thus, I have sojourned with Laban, and stayed there until now:”

Using this author's logic, Esau would have to be another “Jehovah” as well.

The word ” kuriw ” was also used in the Septuagint version of Ps 110:1 as a translation of the Hebrew “adoni.” The Hebrew makes a clear distinction between “Yahweh” and “adoni” by the words that were used. The Septuagint and the Greek of Mt 22:44 don't make that distinction as clear because men chose to transgress Yahweh's commandment found in Deut 4:2 which reads;

“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of Yahweh your Elohim which I command you.”

Had this commandment been obeyed by not removing the Name “Yahweh” from the text and replacing it with man made titles such as “Adonay,” “Kurios,” and “the LORD,” false doctrines like “two Jehovahs in the Psalms” wouldn't be possible.

The Jehovahs of Psalm 2

“I will declare the decree: the LORD [Hebrew Jehovah, the Father of the Messiah] hath said unto Me [the Messiah], Thou art My Son [quoted in Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5; 5:5]; this day have I begotten Thee. Ask of Me [the Father], and I shall give Thee [the Son] the heathen for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession. Thou [the Son] shalt break them with a rod of iron; Thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel [quoted by the resurrected Christ in Revelation 2:26-27]. Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the LORD [Hebrew Jehovah, the Son] with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and ye perish from the way, when His wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in Him [the Son]” (Psa. 2:7-12).

These verses in Psalm 2 clearly reveal that there were two Jehovahs in Old Testament times. When we examine the context in which the name Jehovah is used, it is evident that the Jehovah in Verse 7 is the divine Being Who would become the Father of the Messiah, and that the Jehovah in Verse 11 is the divine Being Who would become the Messiah, His Son. In Verses 7-9, we find the Jehovah Who would become the Son declaring what the first Jehovah, His future Father, had decreed.”

The author continues to build upon his previous mistakes. He is so certain that there are two Jehovahs in Psalm 110 that his preconceived erroneous idea influences his understanding of the Psalms. He now begins searching through all Psalms for possible places where two Jehovahs can fit into his theology. He chooses Psalm 2 because it contains a reference to Messiah (vs 12) that is adjacent to a verse referring to Yahweh (vs 11). It fits his theology to say verse 11 refers to “Jehovah, the Son” and so, “presto,” two Jehovahs!

Throughout Psalm 2, a distinction is
made between Yahweh and “Messiah. In verse 2, there is Yahweh and “his anointed.” In verse 6, there is Yahweh (“I”) and his “king.” In verse 7, there is Yahweh and his “Son.” Verses 11 and 12 simply continue that distinction. We are to serve Yahweh the Father and we are to “kiss” (pay homage to) his Son. There is nothing in Psalm 2 to suggest two “Jehovahs.”

The author goes on to “prove” his point by making the Apostle Paul say what he wants him to say.

“Jesus Christ is fully divine. The apostle Paul testifies that “in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9). He was not resurrected with a glorified body that transcends human flesh but is less than God. He is not a “new creature” in a mythical category between angels and human beings. He is God.”

Paul leaves no room for doubt! When Paul quoted Psalm 2 in his epistle to the Hebrews as evidence that Jesus is the glorified Son, he also quoted Psalm 45 to show that the Son is God: “But unto the Son He saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Thy Kingdom” (Heb.1:8).”

First, if the Son is “God” and the Father is “God,” then we have two “Gods.” Yet, there are many Scriptures, both Old and New Testament, declaring there is only ONE “God” (Elohim). Here are just two of them;

“Ye are my witnesses, saith Yahweh, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.” Isa 43:10 KJV

“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Messiah Yahshua;” 1Tim 2:5 KJV

For further study on this, please read my study on Monotheism.

Second, if Paul wrote Hebrews, he is not saying Messiah is divine. He is simply saying the the fullness of the only divine being, Yahweh, dwells in him.

Third, in what sense does Psalm 45 show Messiah is “God,” or “elohim” as the Hebrew reads? It is a Scriptural fact that the word “elohim” was applied to men and angels as well as to Yahweh. A good example is found in Ps 82:6;

“I have said, Ye are gods [elohim]; and all of you are children of the most High.”

The Messiah quoted this verse in John 10:34. However, he followed it by saying in verse 35,

“If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;”

In other words, Elohim, Yahweh Himself, called the children of Israel “gods” (Hebrew – elohim). Yet, the children of Israel are not elohim as Yahweh is Elohim. Then there would be a plethora of elohim. Even two “Gods” is one too many since the Scriptures clearly declare there is only ONE “God.”

Yahshua the Messiah is a “god” or an elohim in that he is a mighty one among the nations, but he is not “Elohim” in the sense that Yahweh is. Even Yahshua himself declared there is only ONE true Elohim in John 17:3;

“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true Elohim, and Yahshua Messiah, whom thou hast sent.”

Since Heb 1:8 and Ps 45:6 are NOT declaring Messiah is Elohim in the sense that Yahweh is Elohim, there are no grounds to justify two Jehovahs in Psalm 2.

Before moving on to Psalm 16, notice something else about Psalm 45. Verse 7 says,

“Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore elohim, thy Elohim, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.”

This verse declares that Messiah has an Elohim when it says “thy Elohim.” The fact that Yahshua has an Elohim shows him to be inferior to the being who is his Elohim. If the two were dwelling throughout all eternity as “Jehovah” with co-equality, one could not be the Elohim of the other.

The Jehovahs of Psalm 16

“Psalm 16 begins with David's prayer to God. In Verse 2, David addresses his God both as “Lord” [Jehovah] and as “my Lord.” David is clearly speaking to the same divine Being Who is called “my Lord” in Verse 1 of Psalm 110.”

The author continues going through Psalms in search of “proof.” He comes across another Messianic Psalm and continues to rely on his erroneous conclusion in Psalm 110. Had this author built upon a firm foundation of truth (the truth that there is only one Yahweh in Ps 110 and one true “Elohim” in Scripture) he wouldn't end up with a theological position that is untenable.

“Preserve me, O God [Hebrew El, the future Messiah]: for in Thee do I put my trust. O my soul, thou hast said unto the LORD [Hebrew Jehovah, the future Messiah], Thou art my Lord [Hebrew Adonay, originally Jehovah]: my goodness extendeth not to [beyond] Thee; but to [concerning] the saints that are in the earth, and to the excellent, in whom [them] is all my delight. Their sorrows shall be multiplied that hasten after another god: their drink offerings of blood will I not offer, nor take up their names into my lips. The LORD [Hebrew Jehovah, the future Messiah] is the portion of mine inheritance and of my cup: Thou maintainest my lot. The lines are fallen unto me in pleasant places; yea, I have a goodly heritage. I will bless the LORD [Hebrew Jehovah, the future Messiah], who hath given me counsel: my reins also instruct me in the night seasons” (Psa. 16:1-7).”

At this point, the author says David stops speaking about the future Messiah. I do not see any reason to suggest the Yahweh of verses 1-7 is a different Yahweh than the one in verse 8. Do you? The author does because he has a preconceived idea in his mind that he is determined to prove true. He continues;

“I [the Messiah] have set the LORD [Hebrew Jehovah, the Father] always before Me: because He [the Father] is at My right hand, I [the Messiah] shall not be moved. Therefore My heart is glad, and My glory rejoiceth: My flesh also shall rest in hope [prophesying His death]. For Thou [the Father] wilt not leave My soul in hell [the grave]; neither wilt Thou [the Father] suffer Thine Holy One [the Messiah] to see corruption [prophesying His resurrection]. Thou [the Father] wilt show Me [the Messiah] the path of life [prophesying His ascension]: in Thy presence is fulness of joy; at Thy [the Father's] right hand [where the Messiah sits] there are pleasures for evermore” (Psa. 16:8-11).

“None can deny that these verses written by David are an inspired prophecy in which one Jehovah, the future Messiah, is speaking to another Jehovah, the future Father.”

I certainly can deny that. It is true that verses 8-11 are an inspired prophecy of the future Messiah speaking to the future Father, but to say the future Messiah is another “Jehovah” is pure assumption and wishful thinking.

The author then continues to provide “absolute Scriptural verification” of his belief.

“Any who doubt that these verses prophesy a future Father/Son relationship between two divine Beings need only turn to the New Testament to find absolute Scriptural verification. Inspired interpretations of Psalm 16 by both Peter and Paul have been preserved for us in the book of Acts. Let us first examine the testimony of the apostle Peter as recorded in Acts 2.

How Peter Interpreted Psalm 16

In Acts 2, we find Peter's inspired sermon on the day of Pentecost, in which he proclaimed Jesus Christ as the Jehovah/Messiah of Psalm 16, Who had been resurrected from the grave by Jehovah the Father.”

As you read Peter's testimony, see if you can find where he “proclaimed Jesus Christ as the Jehovah/Messiah of Psalm 16.”

“Here is Peter's testimony: “For David speaketh concerning Him [not about David], I [the Messiah] foresaw the Lord always before My face, for He is on My right hand, that I should not be moved: therefore did My heart rejoice, and My tongue was glad; moreover also My flesh shall rest in hope: because Thou wilt not leave My soul in hell [the grave], neither wilt Thou suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption….He [David] seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that His soul was not left in hell [the grave], neither His flesh did see corruption.
This Jesus hath God [Greek Theos, the Father] raised up, whereof we all are witnesses” (Acts 2:25- 27, 31-32).”

Did you find it? If you couldn't, you're not alone. Yes. Peter proclaims Ps 16:10 refers to Messiah, but he does NOT identify Messiah as “Jehovah.”

The Jehovahs of Psalm 22

The author contends that verses 1-25 are the future Messiah's words to his Father, but that verses 26-31 are the words of David concerning the Messiah. He writes;

“The meek shall eat and be satisfied: they shall praise the LORD [Hebrew Jehovah, referring to the Son] that seek Him: your heart shall live for ever. All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD [Hebrew Jehovah, the Son]: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before Thee [the Son]. For the kingdom is the LORD'S [Hebrew Jehovah's, referring to the Son]: and He [the Son] is the Governor among the nations. All they that be fat upon earth shall eat and worship: all they that go down to the dust shall bow before Him [the Son]: and none can keep alive his own soul. A seed shall serve Him [the Son]; it shall be accounted to the Lord [Hebrew Adonay, originally Jehovah, referring to the Son] for a generation. They shall come, and shall declare His righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that He [the Son] hath done this” (Psa. 22:26-31).

Go to your Bible and read Psalm 22 again in its entirety and decide for yourself if the Messiah suddenly stops speaking in verse 26 and David begins. The truth is that Messiah is speaking throughout this entire Psalm from verse 1 to verse 31 and everything that is said about the subject of verses 26-31 is true of Yahweh the Father. Only someone seeking to prove otherwise could come to a different conclusion. Again, his understanding is an assumption based on a desire to prove there are two “Jehovahs.”

The Jehovahs of Psalm 90

“LORD [Hebrew Adonay, originally Jehovah], Thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations. Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever Thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God [Hebrew El]. Thou turnest man to destruction; and sayest, Return, ye children of men. For a thousand years in Thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past [quoted in II Peter 3:8], and as a watch in the night” (Psa. 90:1-4).

In these verses, we do not find any direct statement to show us that the Jehovah and El Whom Moses is addressing is the future Messiah. In order to identify the divine Being of Moses' prayer, we must look to the New Testament. It is the apostle Peter who enables us to know that Moses was addressing the Jehovah Who would become the Messiah. When Peter quoted Verse 4 of Psalm 90, it was in reference to the second coming of Jesus Christ. Peter tells us that “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day,” and explains, “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise [to return]” (II Pet. 3:8-9).

Peter's interpretation of Moses' words clearly identifies the Jehovah and El of Psalm 90 as the divine Being Who became Jesus Christ, the promised Messiah.

“Thou carriest them away as with a flood; they are as a sleep: in the morning they are like grass which groweth up. In the morning it flourisheth, and groweth up; in the evening it is cut down, and withereth. For we are consumed by Thine anger, and by Thy wrath are we troubled. Thou hast set our iniquities before Thee, our secret sins in the light of Thy countenance. For all our days are passed away in Thy wrath: we spend our years as a tale that is told. The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away. Who knoweth the power of Thine anger? even according to Thy fear, so is Thy wrath. So teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom. Return, O LORD [Hebrew Jehovah, the future Son], how long? and let it repent Thee concerning Thy servants. O satisfy us early with Thy mercy; that we may rejoice and be glad all our days. Make us glad according to the days wherein Thou hast afflicted us, and the years wherein we have seen evil. Let Thy work appear unto Thy servants, and Thy glory unto their children. And let the beauty of the LORD [Hebrew Adonay, originally Jehovah] our God [Hebrew Elohim] be upon us: and establish Thou the work of our hands upon us; yea, the work of our hands establish Thou it” (Psa. 90:5-17).”

The following statement is the primary reason why this author believes Psalm 90 addresses “Jehovah, the future Son.”

“It is the apostle Peter who enables us to know that Moses was addressing the Jehovah Who would become the Messiah. When Peter quoted Verse 4 of Psalm 90, it was in reference to the second coming of Jesus Christ. Peter tells us that “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day,” and explains, “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise [to return]” (II Pet. 3:8-9).”

First, Peter was not “quoting” from Ps 90:4. Here is Ps 90:4 from the KJV followed by 2 Pe 3:8 from the KJV;

“For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.”

“But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”

The Septuagint reads almost the same as the KJV.

Peter may have had Ps 90:4 in mind when he wrote, but he did not “quote” that verse.

Second, once again the author is attempting to build upon his mistake in Ps 110 by forcing a second “Jehovah” to appear in Ps 90.

Third, the context of 2 Peter 3 does not make it clear who “the Lord” refers to since that title is used of both the Father and the Son. Verse 10 mentions “the day of the Lord.” This is undoubtedly a reference to the Day of Yahweh, not the day of Messiah. Verse 12 calls it “the day of God” thereby confirming the Father is the subject, not the Son.

Fourth, the author unjustly adds the words “[to return]” to 2 Pe 3:9a. The context suggests the promise of judgment is in mind. Yahweh (the Father) will also “come” at that time to judge the world as we see in the following verses;

Isa 40:10 – “Behold, the Lord Yahweh will come with strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him: behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him.”

The phrase “his arm” is a reference to Messiah (Jn 12:38), but “the Lord Yahweh” is a reference to the Father.

Isa 66:15 – “For, behold, Yahweh will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.”

This is the language of 2 Peter 3:10-13. Yahweh the Father will come bringing judgment upon the world. He will do so through His Son Yahshua. It is the Father who is longsuffering by waiting for all to come to repentance since the flood. It is the Father who is outside the realm of time and to whom one day is as a thousand years.

The Jehovahs of Psalm 118

“O give thanks unto the LORD [Hebrew Jehovah]; for He is good: because His mercy endureth for ever. Let Israel now say, that His mercy endureth for ever. Let the house of Aaron now say, that His mercy endureth for ever. Let them now that fear the LORD [Hebrew Jehovah] say, that His mercy endureth for ever. I called upon the LORD [Hebrew Jah] in distress: the LORD [Hebrew Jah] answered me, and set me in a large place. The LORD [Hebrew Jehovah] is on my side; I will not fear: what can man do unto me? [quoted in Hebrews 13:6]” (Psa.118:1-6.)”

“As noted above, Verse 6 is quoted by the apostle Paul in his epistle to the Hebrews. In this New Testament record, Paul clearly identifies the divine Being Who is called both Jehovah and Jah in the opening verse of Psalm 118. Here is Paul's inspired testimony: “…for He [Jesus] hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. So tha
t we may boldly say, The Lord is my Helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me” (Heb. 13:5-6).”

The author's main proof that the divine being of Ps 118 is “Jehovah, the Son” are two quotes from Heb 13:5,6. Notice how the author believes the “He” of Heb 13:5 is “[Jesus].” Where in the New Testament did Yahshua [Jesus] ever say that? Such a quote from Messiah cannot be found because he never said that. However, Yahweh the Father said that in several Old Testament verses (Deut 31:6,8; Josh 1:5; 1 Chr 28:20). The “He” of Heb 13:5 refers back to “God” (the Father) in verse 4.

The quote of Ps 118:6 in Heb 13:6 logically follows verse 5. Since Yahweh will never leave or forsake His people, He will always be there to help us. Therefore, we have no need to fear man.

“Paul's inspired words clearly identify the Jehovah and Jah of Psalm 118:5-6 as the divine Being Who became the Messiah and Son–Jesus Christ. This truth is made clear in the following verses in Psalm 118, where this Jehovah is prophesied to become the Way of salvation:”

Notice how the author tries to brainwash his readers by subtly adding his own thoughts to the text. The text has not “prophesied” about “Jehovah” becoming the Way of salvation in the future. The psalmist declares that Yahweh IS presently his salvation (verses 14 and 21).

Also, the text does not use the word “Way.” It simply says, “is become my salvation” and “art become my salvation.” Does this refer to Messiah simply because the word “salvation” is used? Is not the Father our Saviour as well?

Miriam cried out,

“And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior” (Luke 1:47 KJV)

The Father Himself says,

“Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I Yahweh? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me” (Isa 45:21 KJV).

The author continues quoting Ps 118 and slipping in “Jehovah, the Son” wherever it pleases him.

“The LORD [Hebrew Jehovah, the Son] taketh my part with them that help me: therefore shall I see my desire upon them that hate me. It is better to trust in the LORD [Hebrew Jehovah, the Son] than to put confidence in man. It is better to trust in the LORD [Hebrew Jehovah, the Son] than to put confidence in princes. All nations compassed me about: but in the name of the LORD [Hebrew Jehovah, the Son] will I destroy them. They compassed me about; yea, they compassed me about: but in the name of the LORD [Hebrew Jehovah, the Son] I will destroy them. They compassed me about like bees; they are quenched as the fire of thorns: for in the name of the LORD [Hebrew Jehovah, the Son] I will destroy them. Thou hast thrust sore at me that I might fall: but the LORD[Hebrew Jehovah, the Son] helped me. The LORD [Hebrew Jah, the Son] is my strength and song, and is become my salvation. The voice of rejoicing and salvation is in the tabernacles of the righteous: the right hand of the LORD [Hebrew Jehovah, the Son] doeth valiantly. The right hand of the LORD [Hebrew Jehovah, the Son] is exalted: the right hand of the LORD [Hebrew Jehovah, the Son] doeth valiantly. I shall not die, but live, and declare the works of the LORD [Hebrew Jah, the Son]. The LORD [Hebrew Jah, the Son] hath chastened me sore: but He hath not given me over unto death. Open to me the gates of righteousness: I will go into them, and I will praise the LORD [Hebrew Jah, the Son]: this gate of the LORD [Hebrew Jehovah, the Son], into which the righteous shall enter. I will praise Thee: for Thou hast heard me, and art become my salvation” (Psa. 118:1-21).

“The concluding verses in Psalm 118 are clearly prophetic. Some of these verses were quoted by Jesus Christ and His apostles, as recorded in a number of New Testament writings. These inspired records all testify that Jesus Christ was the divine Being of Psalm 118 Who was prophesied to become the Messiah.”

He mentions how the New Testament testifies that Messiah is the divine being of Ps 118, but he doesn't give any references as he did in the other Psalms. He undoubtedly neglected to provide this information because it is not true.

“When we read the concluding verses in Psalm 118, we find that they not only foretell the coming of the Messiah, but they also speak of the Jehovah Who will be His Father. It now becomes obvious that there are two Jehovahs in this psalm. Notice that in the following verses, the name Jehovah is no longer referring to the Son, as in the preceding verses:

“The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner. This is the LORD'S [Hebrew Jehovah's, referring to the Father] doing; it is marvellous in our eyes [quoted in Matthew 21:42, Mark 12:10-11, Luke 20:17, Acts 4:11, I Peter 2:4). This is the day which the LORD [Hebrew Jehovah, the Father] hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it. Save now, I beseech Thee, O LORD [Hebrew Jehovah, the Father]: O LORD [Hebrew Jehovah, the Father], I beseech Thee, send now prosperity. Blessed be He [the Messiah] that cometh in the name of the LORD [Hebrew Jehovah, the Father]: [quoted in Matthew 21:9; 23:39, Mark 11:9, Luke 13:35; 19:38, John 12:13] we have blessed You out of the house of the LORD [Hebrew Jehovah, the Father]. God [Hebrew El] is the LORD [Hebrew Jehovah, the Father], which hath showed us light: bind the sacrifice with cords, even unto the horns of the altar. Thou art my God [Hebrew El], and I will praise Thee: Thou art my God [Hebrew Elohim], I will exalt Thee. O give thanks unto the LORD [Hebrew Jehovah, the Father]; for He is good: for His mercy endureth for ever” (Psa. 118:22-29).

“As interpreted in the New Testament, the Jehovah in these final verses of Psalm 118 is the divine Being Who became the Father.”

Again, reference is made to the New Testament, but no evidence provided. A very convenient omission.

The author says verses 1-21 refer to the Son as “Jehovah,” but verses 22-29 refer to the Father as “Jehovah.” This is such an unnatural division and can only be suggested by a mind that is bent on proving its own preconceived idea.

Let's conclude this study by quoting Ps 83:18:

“That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Yahweh, art the most high over all the earth.”

There is only one being in this universe who is rightfully identified as Yahweh. There is no other.

[Frank4YAHWEH]

Yahweh Rained Fire From Yahweh
Genesis 19:24
Then Yahweh rained on Sodom and on Gomorrah sulfur and fire from Yahweh out of the sky.

World English Bible

This scripture is often cited as proof that Yahweh is more than one person. The claim by trinitarians is that there is one Yahweh on earth who supposed to be the prehuman Son of God, and another in heaven, the Father. While Yahweh is used twice here, one would have to read into this that there are two persons are being spoken of.

There is nothing here about two persons; one person in heaven and one person on earth, nor is there anything at all here about supposed plurality of persons in God. Such ideas would have to be read into what is said.

Several trinitarian authors proclaim that there are “two Jehovahs” or “two Yahwehs” spoken of here. One Yahweh on earth and another in heaven. If you wish to read into this that there are two Yahwehs here, then you would have two Yahwehs, not one Yahweh as Yahweh declares himself to be. (Deuteronomy 6:4) Nor would such an application call for two persons in one Yahweh, for you would have two different Yahwehs.

Actually all it is saying that the one Yahweh rained fire and sulphur out of the sky from this same Yahweh. It is a manner of speech that can be found several times in the Old Testament.

Similarly we read:

Genesis 37:28 – Then there passed by Midianites, merchants; and they drew and lifted Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty [pieces] of silver: and they brought Joseph into Egypt.

Three Josephs? No, just the same Joseph mentioned three times.

A further example of this usage:

“…when Rehoboam was come to Jerusalem, he assembled all the house of Judah, with the tribe of Benjamin… to bring the kingdom again to Rehoboam the son of Solomon.” (1 Kings 12:21)

Is it speaking of two Rehoboams? No, Rehoboam assembled the tribes to bring the tribes back to himself.

Another example is Genesis 4:23:

Lamech said to his wives, “Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice, You wives of Lamech, listen to my speech, For I have slain a man for wounding me, A young man for bruising me.”

Lamech is not speaking of another Lamech when he refers to his wives as the “wives of Lamech”.

David also said something similar as recorded at 1 Kings 1:33:

The king said to them, Take with you the servants of your lord, and cause Solomon my son to ride on my own mule, and bring him down to Gihon:

David refers to himself in the third person as “your lord” when said “servants of your lord”. He did not say “my servants”. He is not saying that there are two Davids, nor is he saying that there is another person in David.

Similar usages are seen in Genesis 17:23 (two Abrahams), Genesis 18:19 (Yahweh used twice, where a pronoun could have been used); Exodus 24:1 (Yahweh used as idiom for “me”), and 1 Kings 8:1 (two Solomons), Ezekiel 11:24 (two Spirits), Zechariah 10:12 (two Yahwehs).

It should be apparent that there is nothing in the terminology used in Genesis 19:24 that would lead one to believe two persons are being spoken of.

Related Links
Please note that we do not necessarily agree with all viewpoints presented by these authors.

Addendum One

One objects that this can not be a mention of the same “Jehovah” twice because Moses is contrasting heaven and earth in what is said. This seems to assume several things: (1) That Moses was the original author of this (see our study: The Tetragrammaton in Genesis); (2) that the author made a deliberate differentiation from earth and heaven (sky); (3) that this distinction is for some specific purpose other than just saying the the fire rained from the sky upon the earth; (4) and that this differentiation has some significance in proving that there are two persons being spoken of.

Actually, the verse does not even mention the earth, although it is evident that Yahweh did rain sulfur and fire on Sodom and on Gomorrah which are both on the earth. The actual contrast then, is not the earth and the sky, but rather the cities of “Sodom and Gomorrah” and the sky. The sulfur and fire rained from the sky on those two cities. It says nothing about one Yahweh on the earth, or in Sodom and Gomorrah, and another Yahweh in the sky — such ideas would have to be assumed and read into what is being said.

Addendum Two

One author states that there are no passages like this one in the Torah where the same name is mentioned twice in the same verse for emphasis, and that there is no evidence that Moses ever used that kind of literary style.

Again, the author referred to above assumes that Moses was the original author of Genesis 19:24. — See our study: The Tetragrammaton in Genesis.

We have already shown several examples, in the book of Genesis, of a name being repeated, or of the name being used where we would normally expect a pronoun, such as Genesis 4:23; 17:23; 18:10; 37:28. We also have examples in Exodus 3:12; 24:1; Numbers 19:1-2. So, in reality, there are some examples in the Torah of such usage. Further examples outside the Torah, but in the Old Testament, are: 1 Kings 1:33; 8:4; 12:21; Ezekiel 11:24; Zechariah 1:17; 10:12.

[Frank4YAHWEH]

Did Our Savior Pre-exist?

For thousands of years, from the days of ancient Babylon, men have believed in a triune god. This concept of a triad of deities is a universally recognized doctrine. Whether speaking of Hindooism, Taoism, Buddhism or Christianity, all believe in a trinity. The Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity states that all three gods are co-eternal. In order for Christianity to continue to support such a belief they had to show that the Messiah, who in their mind is the second god of the trinity, always existed. Since there could never be a time when one of the three gods existed without the other two, the doctrine of the savior's pre-existence came about.

Almighty Yahweh has been calling many people out of Babylon, out of false Babylonian teachings, into the true faith. Many of His people have started out the door, however their foot seems to be caught on the pre-existence doctrine. The purpose of this study is to open the door of truth wider by revealing the correct understanding and translation of those scriptures used to support the pre-existence.

Yahweh Sent His Son

The New Testament uses several phrases that would suggest that our Savior existed as a being in heaven prior to his earthly birth. Among those phrases are; “sent His Son,” “sent into the world,” “not of this world,” “came into the world,” and “came down from heaven.” Let's examine “sent His Son” and “sent into the world” first, since both phrases appear in 1 Jn.4:9,10; “In this was manifested the love of Yahweh toward us, because that Yahweh sent his only begotten Son into the world , that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved Yahweh, but that he loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” A superficial reading would lead one to believe that Yahshua was at Yahweh's side somewhere out of this world and eventually was commanded by Yahweh to come to our planet which he obediently did.

In Ps.78:45 it says Yahweh sent flies upon the Egyptians prior to the exodus of Israel. Are we to believe that these flies were living in heaven prior to their arrival in Egypt? Jn.1:6 tells us that John the Baptist was also “sent from Yahweh.” Surely none believe that John pre-existed at Yahweh's side. Notice this verse does not say “sent by Yahweh,” but “from Yahweh.” A word study of how “sent” was used in Scripture will reveal how Yahweh sent many earthly messengers and prophets to do His will. None of them, however, pre-existed in heaven.

Jn.17:18 helps us to understand the phrase “sent into the world.” It reads, “As thou hast sent me into the world , even so have I also sent them into the world. ” Obviously, the disciples were not living outside of this world prior to Yahshua sending them into the world. Neither should we believe that Yahshua existed in some other world before being sent by Yahweh into this world.

“Came into the world” is used in 1 Tim.1:15; “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Messiah Yahshua came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.” The same phrase is used of all men when they are born. Jn.1:9 reads, “That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. ” And again in 1 Tim.6:7; “For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.” So when Heb. 1:6 says, “And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of Yahweh worship him,” it is talking about the Messiah's earthly birth.

In Jn.8:23, Yahshua said, “Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.” This certainly seems to indicate an existence in another world before coming to this world. This verse is to be understood the same way we are to understand Jn.15:19; “If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world , but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.” Yahshua chose his disciples out of the world, therefore, they were not of this world. Yahshua said similar words in Jn.17:14; “I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world , even as I am not of the world.” Yahshua is not of this world because Yahweh chose Him out of the world.

Yahshua Came Down From Heaven

The phrase “came down from heaven” is difficult for many to understand. The Jews did not understand either as we read in Jn. 6:42; “And they said, Is not this Yahshua, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?” There is no doubt that Yahshua was emphasizing his heavenly and paternal origin, but in what sense was he declaring this? We have already seen that the phrase “sent from Yahweh” does not necessarily mean to exist side by side with and then leave Yahweh's presence. Neither does “came down from” mean something similar.

Was Yahshua a pre-existent spirit being living side by side with Yahweh that was transformed into an embryo placed in Miriam's womb or was he actually “inside” Yahweh? Jn.17:8 teaches the latter. It reads, “For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee , and they have believed that thou didst send me.” The Greek word “exerchomai” translated “came out” specifically means to go out of something that you were inside of. In this case, Yahshua existed “inside” of Yahweh in a similar sense that Levi existed inside the “loins of his father” before he was born (Heb. 7:5-10). In that passage, Levi was not born yet, nor was his father Jacob. Yet, Levi was said to be in Abraham's loins (in the sense of future lineage). (The lineage of Messiah is spoken of in Mic 5:2 and it traces all the way back to his Father Yahweh). While it is difficult to perceive of the Almighty having an “inside,” that is what the text is saying. Yet, this, too, is figurative and equates with the mind of Yahweh.

There will be those who will totally misunderstand my words, so let me clarify this. I am not suggesting the Almighty has “loins.” Nor am I suggesting Yahshua was conceived in any manner similar to the manner in which all men are conceived (through procreation/copulation). Yahweh is Spirit. His Holy Spirit “came upon” Miriam and miraculously caused her egg to receive the necessary DNA to create a 100% male child in her womb.

Lu 1:35 says, “And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”

Yahshua declared this truth in Jn.16:27-30 as well. “For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from Yahweh . I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father. His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb. Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from Yahweh.” Yahshua could not come from Yahweh's side and from inside of Yahweh at the same time. Only one can be true.

A verse that goes hand in hand with the phrase “came down from heaven” is Jn.6:62; “What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?” Yahshua's origin is not in question here. Those who reject the pre-existence doctrine should not reject Yahshua's heavenly origin or that his father was Yahweh. Yahshua was, at one time, in heaven. He existed in the loins of His Father Yahweh (in the sense of future lineage) until the appointed time of his earthly birth. Through Yahweh's miraculous Holy Spirit power He then created in Miriam's egg a 100% man. The belief that Yahshua was a spirit being that was miniaturized and placed directly into Miriam's womb without her egg being invol
ved is unscriptural. If that were true, Miriam would merely be a surrogate mother and Yahshua would not be from the blood line of David.

John's Predecessor?

Jn.1:15 certainly suggests a pre-existence as it appears in the KJV; “John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.” First, the idea of preference is not found in the Greek. The word translated “preferred” is the Greek “ginomai”. Of the 678 times it was used in the New Testament, it was translated “preferred” three times, once here and in verses 27 & 30 where the same verse is repeated. The word should have been translated “come to be”; “He that cometh after me has come to be before me.” As for the latter part of the verse, the word “before” is from the Greek “protos”. Of the 105 times this word was used, it was never translated “before”. The most common rendering is “first,” however, based on the context, it should be translated as the Emphatic Diaglott has it, “for he is my Superior.” “Protos” was also translated “chief” nine times in the New Testament.

Yahweh's Foreordained Plan

A favorite verse of pre-existence proponents is Jn.17:24. It reads, “Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world .” It would seem that the Father and the Son had a loving relationship before the earth was created. Understanding this verse in that way leads to complications in understanding Eph. 1:3,4. Paul says, “Blessed be the Mighty One and Father of our Master Yahshua Messiah, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Messiah: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world , that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:” Using the same line of thinking as in Jn.17:24 we would be led to believe that all believers were chosen back in the days when they pre-existed before the earth was created. Both of these verses pertain to Yahweh's foreordained plan, not to pre-existent beings. 1Pe.1:20 says, “Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world , but was manifest in these last times for you.” Why wasn't the “pre-existent Yahshua” made manifest back in Old Testament times? Because he didn't exist at that time except in the foreordained plans of Yahweh. Other references such as Rev.13:8 and 17:8 reveal Yahweh's plan as well.

Old Glory

One of the most often used proof verses for the pre-existence doctrine is Jn.17:5; “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” The KJV translation makes this a very convincing proof text. Unfortunately it, too, is questionably translated. Was Yahshua a glorified being before the earth was created? If that is true, then he is asking for his glory to be returned to him in verse 5. What glory, then, does he already have in verses 22 and 24? They read, “And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:” and “Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me : for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.” John 17 is one long prayer. How can Yahshua ask for glory that Yahweh had already given him? This is where our first error in translation appears. The word “had” is the imperfect tense of the Greek word “echo.” The following definition of the imperfect is given in Syntax and Synon. of the Greek Testament, pg.87; “The imperfect denotes an incomplete action, one that is in its course, and is not yet brought to its intended accomplishment. It implies that a certain thing was going on at a specified time, but excludes the assertion that the end of the action was attained.” In other words, Yahshua was in the process of being glorified. Instead of reading, “the glory which I had,” it should read, “the glory which I am having.” Yahshua was being glorified and showing forth his glory throughout his earthly ministry (Jn.1:14; 2:11; 11:4; 13:31; Heb.2:9). He was “having glory.”

The question would then be asked, how can Yahshua be having glory before the world was? This brings us to the second error in translation. The word “was” is the present infinitive of the Greek word “eimi.” The most common translation of this tense is “to be.” That is how it appears in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures and The Emphatic Diaglott. Jn.17:5 should read, “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I am having with thee before the world to be (or to come).” Yahshua was experiencing glory at the time of his prayer. He wanted to experience that glory side by side with his Father before the creation of the new heavens and the new earth.

Seeing The Father

Jn.6:46 states Yahshua saw his Father Yahweh. He said, “Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of Yahweh, he hath seen the Father .” Does this mean Yahshua physically saw Yahweh with his eyes or can it be understood a different way? Yahshua spoke the following words to two disciples, Thomas and Philip, in Jn.14:7-9; “If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him . Philip saith unto him, Master, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Yahshua saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father ; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?”

The disciples saw Father Yahweh because they saw Yahshua who is one with Yahweh (not a oneness of being, but a oneness of character, will, Spirit). They had only to look upon Yahshua and see his character to have it said of them, “he that hath seen me hath seen the Father.” Yahshua had only to look at himself, his character, his determination to carry out Yahweh's will, etc., to see his Father in himself. The disciples did not have to pre-exist in order to see the Father and neither did Yahshua.

The Greek word translated “seen” in Jn.6:46 is #3708 in Strong's Concordance, meaning “to discern clearly (physically or mentally ).” In both of these cases, it was not a physical sighting of the Father, but a mental perception of His character that they were seeing.

Several names and titles have been used in reference to the being that spoke to men in the Old Testament. Among them are Spokesman, Dabar, and Metatron. We are led to believe that they are all references to the pre-existent Son of Yahweh. This, of course, is only an assumption since the Scriptures only identify that being as “the Angel of Yahweh.” If the Angel of Yahweh was Yahshua, then Yahshua pre-existed as an angel. This would contradict Heb. 1:1,2,5,7,8,13. Heb.1:1,2 implies that the Son did not speak “in times past unto the fathers.” The remaining verses imply that none of the angels were exalted as Yahshua was. Verses 7 & 8 make a clear distinction between Yahshua and angels; the angels were made ministering spirits, but the Son was made King of Yahweh's Kingdom. It is interesting to note all the different ideas as to who Yahshua pre-existed as in times past. Pre-existence proponents have a hard time deciding between the Angel of Yahweh, the Captain of the Host, a second Yahweh, Michael, Melchizidek, and even the Heavenly Father Himself!

What about Daniel's account of the sighting of “the Son of God” in Dan.3:25 (KJV)? It reads, “He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.” The Revised Version rightfully translates the Hebrew “a son of the Gods.” The article “the” is not in the Hebrew. This was an angel sent by Yahweh as revealed in verse 28. What knowledge would this pagan king have of the “form” of Yahweh's Son even if he did pre-exist? In his min
d it could only be the form of any divine being.

The Wisdom of Yahweh

Prov.8:22-36 have been used quite often to prove the pre-existence. One need only read verses 1-12 to realize that a pre-existent Son is not speaking in verses 22-36. The Scriptures declare the speaker to be wisdom. The glorious wisdom Yahweh possessed before He created all things is personified in these verses. Notice, also, that wisdom is personified as a female, not a male. Pr.8:1 reads, “Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice?” And Pr.9:1 says, “Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars.” If Yahshua pre-existed as the epitomy of wisdom, why does Rev.5:12 say he is worthy to receive wisdom? Surely an all-wise pre-existent being has no need of further wisdom.

1 Cor.1:30 says, “But of him are ye in Messiah Yahshua, who of Yahweh is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:” This verse declares that Yahshua was “made unto us wisdom.” It does not say he existed as wisdom in the past. Ps.104:24 says, “O Yahweh, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches.” Yahweh used His great wisdom in the creation of all things. It was like a workman at His side.

Yahweh's Firstborn

Two scriptures are often used to show that Yahshua was the very first act of creation by Yahweh. Everything else is said to have been created by, or with the help of, Yahshua. Those scriptures are Col.1:15 and Rev.3:14. Let's look at Col.1:15 first. “Who is the image of the invisible Elohim, the firstborn of every creature :” What does the latter part of this verse mean? Does “every creature” include the angels that rejoiced at creation?

To understand this verse, you must first understand that Yahweh is in the process of creating a new world; “the world to come” as Heb.2:5 puts it. Is.65:17,18 speaks of “new heavens and a new earth.” Those that will rule in the new earth are those that will be resurrected or “born from above” (Jn.3:7). Ps.102:18-20 puts it very clearly; “This shall be written for the generation to come: and the people which shall be created shall praise Yahweh. For He hath looked down from the height of His sanctuary; from heaven did Yahweh behold the earth; To hear the groaning of the prisoner; to loose those that are appointed to death;” These people will be created , or born, at the resurrection.

To clarify even further, we read the following in Ps.104:29,30; “Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust. Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created : and thou renewest the face of the earth.” Yahweh will resurrect the dead through the power of His Holy Spirit. It is said of those that are resurrected that they are “created .”

The first person to be created, or born again from above, was Yahshua. Therefore, he is called the “firstborn.” Since there are many that will be born again at the resurrection, he is the “firstborn of every creature (that will be resurrected).” Col. 1:18 elaborates further by telling us what Yahshua is the firstborn of; the dead. This takes place at the resurrection. It is also said of Yahshua that he is “the beginning” (Col.1:18). This is the same term used in Rev.3:14 which reads, “And unto the angel of the assembly of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of Yahweh; ” Does this beginning refer to a time before the angels were created or does it refer to the new creation? Some would argue that the word “new” is not in the text. Yahweh has shown us, however, that He does not always use the word “new” in describing this new creation. Notice Is.65:17,18; “For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.” This is speaking of New Jerusalem, yet the word “New” is not used by Yahweh.

Continuing in Colossians to verse 17 we read, “And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” As a result of this translation, we are led to believe that Yahshua existed prior to anything else, including the angels. The same Greek phrase, “before all things,” is also found in Ja.5:12 and 1 Pe.4:8. Both of those texts read “above all things.” That is because the Greek word “pro,” translated “before,” also carries the meaning of superiority or pre-eminence. Since Col.1:15-18 proclaims the pre-eminence of Yahshua in all things (vs.18), translating verse 17 as “above all things” would fit the context.

It is said that the phrase “according to the flesh,” in Rom.1:3, proves Yahshua's pre-existence. It reads, “Concerning his Son Yahshua Messiah our Master, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;” It is implied from this that Yahshua existed as a spirit being before he was born according to the flesh, for why else would Paul say this? The simple reason is because Yahshua did not have an earthly father. Therefore, whether he was true flesh and blood and David's seed would come into question. Paul adds “according to the flesh” for the same reason he adds “was made of the seed of David.” Even though Yahshua did not have a flesh and blood father, he is still flesh through Miriam. He is not a spirit being or an angel that appeared in the flesh as did those who appeared to Abraham in Gen.18:2; 19:1.

Yahweh's Son

The Trinity doctrine states the Son is coeternal with the Father. Others believe the Son was the first being Yahweh created. Either view believes the “Son” pre-existed prior to his earthly birth. If that is true, how are we to understand the following words Yahweh commanded Nathan to give to David?

“When thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be My son.” (2 Sam. 7:12-14)

Although these words primarily applied to Solomon (1 Chr.28:6), ultimately the reference is to Yahshua the Messiah, the “Son of David” (Lu.1:32,33; Heb.1:5). Heb.1:5 reads, ” For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?”

Since the New Testament clearly links the words, “I will be his father, and he shall be My son” to Yahshua, note well the future tense used. If Yahshua pre-existed as Yahweh's coeternal Son or as Yahweh's first act of creation, the words “I am his Father,” and “he is my son,” should have been used. Therefore, this prophetic reference to Yahshua clearly teaches that he became Yahweh's Son at a specific time in history. He did not always exist as Yahweh's Son as the Trinity doctrine teaches. Nor could he have existed as the first act of creation since 2 Sam.7:14 places his becoming the Son at a time that was in David's future.

The Root of David

Rev 5:5 reads, “And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.” A brother recently asked me what “the root of David” meant. He believed Yahshua (the root) preceded David thereby confirming his preexistence. Rev 22:16 says something similar; “I Yahshua have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the assemblies. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.”

Isa 11:10 uses the concept of a root as follows “And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.” This is a messianic prophecy in which Yahshua is the “root of Jesse,” Jesse being David's father.

To understand how Yahshua can be the root of both these men and yet not preexist,
we need only to look at nature. What comes first, the seed or the root? Obviously the seed. Jesse is the seed out of which comes forth a root (or offspring). In this case it is David. David, then, is the seed out of which comes forth another root or offspring. In this case it is Messiah Yahshua.

When John calls Yahshua the “root and the offspring of David”, both terms mean the same thing, a root is an offspring. That is why Messiah is called “the Son of David” in such verses as Mt.1:1and 22:42. Mt 1:20 tells us that Joseph is also a “son of David”. Joseph is also a root of David and an offspring of David. The root always follows the seed in time and the seed always precedes the root. David preceded Messiah.

The Form of Elohim

This brings us to the most difficult passage of Scripture to understand. The key to understanding it lies in your stand concerning the pre-existence doctrine as a whole. If you reject what has been written up to this point and continue to hold unto a belief in the pre-existence, you will most likely fail to comprehend this last passage as well. Those that are not locked into a preconceived idea will grasp its meaning much easier.The passage in question, Ph.2:5-9, reads as follows; “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Messiah Yahshua: Who, being in the form of Elohim, thought it not robbery to be equal with Yahweh: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore Yahweh also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:” (KJV)

To begin with, what does verse 5 mean? Does it mean that we should have the same mind as Messiah Yahshua before or after his earthly birth? Paul is telling the Philippians to have the same mind as Messiah Yahshua . If Yahshua pre-existed, he certainly did not carry the name Messiah Yahshua. That name can only be applied to the historical Yahshua, not the being who supposedly pre-existed as “the Word.” Yahshua did not officially become “the Anointed” or “the Messiah” until he was baptized with the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:38).

As a child, Yahshua “waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of Yahweh was upon him” (Lu.2:40). Even at that time Yahshua knew who he was, knew who his Father was (Lu.2:49), and knew what he had to do. By the time of his baptism he was so filled with wisdom, knowledge, Spirit, and power that Paul says he was “in the form (or likeness) of Elohim.” It does not say he “was Elohim.” Yet, Yahshua did not allow that power and wisdom to corrupt him. Nor did he, for one moment, consider himself Yahweh's equal. He knew his Father was greater than himself (Jn.10:29; 13:16; 14:28). The RSV and many other versions correctly translate Ph.2:6 as follows; “Who, though he was in the form of [Elohim], did not count equality with [Yahweh] a thing to be grasped.”

Yahshua did not strip himself of any pre-existent power or glory. He simply humbled himself and made himself of no reputation even though he was far more knowledgeable and powerful than any of his contemporaries. Instead of glorifying himself and expecting others to serve him, he chose to become a servant. He became like most men, common and unassuming as compared to the politically powerful and famous.

In addition to not exalting himself in the eyes of man, he further humbled himself by becoming totally obedient to the laws and will of His Father Yahweh. As a reward for his obedience, Yahweh has highly exalted him. A future exaltation will be the reward of all true believers if they, too, will humble themselves as Yahshua did.

This study has only touched upon certain aspects of the pre-existence doctrine. For additional information, please see the study entitled “Yahshua the Messiah is not Almighty Yahweh.” That study will explain many other verses used to support the pre-existence. Among the verses discussed are; Ge.1:26; 19:24; Ps.110:5; Ze.12:10; Mi.5:2; Jn.1:1,10; 8:58; 12:37-41; Acts 20:28; 1 Cor.8:6; 10:4; Eph.3:9; Col.1:16; 1 Tim.3:16; and Heb.1:2. The study also explains such terms as elohim and echad.

[Frank4YAHWEH]

Yahshua the Messiah is Not Almighty Yahweh

Modern day Christians believe that Yahshua the Messiah pre-existed in some form or another. Some say he was Melchizedek, some say he was “the captain of the host of Yahweh” (Josh.5:14), some say he was the archangel Michael, others say he was the “angel of Yahweh”. Perhaps the most erroneous view is that Yahshua was the “Yahweh” (LORD) of the Old Testament. This study is written in the hopes that all who read it will finally understand that Yahweh is the Almighty Creator of the heavens and the earth, and that Yahshua the Messiah is His Son, as it is written.

For some reason people feel they have to magnify the Savior into the position of the Almighty when, in fact, scripture makes it quite clear that the Father is greatest of all and the “head of Messiah” (1 Cor.11:3). Consider Yahshua's own words in Jn. 14:28, “…for my Father is greater than I.”; Jn.10:29, “My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all…”; and Jn. 13:16, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant [Yahshua] is not greater than his lord [Yahweh]; neither he that is sent [Yahshua] greater than he that sent him [Yahweh].” These verses teach us Yahshua's view of his relationship to his Father. Notice he didn't claim to be the Father but instead, made a clear distinction between the two.

Who is Yahshua's Father?

Who does scripture say is the Father? Is.63:16 says, “Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O Yahweh, art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting.” Yahweh is the Father. Yet, some might claim that this scripture says Yahweh is the Father of Israel, not of Yahshua. In that case we need to note two other verses. The first is Heb.1:5; “For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?” Who said these things? All would agree that Yahshua's Father said them since He is referring to Yahshua as His Son. Heb.1:5 is a direct quote from Ps.2:7; “I will declare the decree: Yahweh hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.” The first “I” here refers to Yahshua speaking through prophecy in which he declares that Yahweh is his Father!

We also previously saw that Yahshua said, “My Father is greater than I.” In reality he was also saying, “Yahweh is greater than I”, thereby teaching us that he is not Yahweh. Anyone who believes Yahshua is Yahweh must also believe Yahshua is the Heavenly Father. That is even more absurd and more difficult to prove in the light of scripture.

Who is the Elohim of Israel?

Who does scripture say is the Elohim (God) of Israel? Is. 45:3 says, “And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, Yahweh, which call thee by thy name, am the Elohim of Israel.” Yahweh is the Elohim of Israel. Since we already learned that Yahshua is not Yahweh, Yahshua cannot be the Elohim of Israel. This is confirmed in Acts 3:13, “The Elohim of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the Elohim of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Yahshua;…” The Elohim of Jacob (Jacob being Israel) glorified His Son.

Since the scriptures reveal the Elohim of Israel and the Father are both called Yahweh, some will go so far as to teach that there are two separate beings called Yahweh in order to support their erroneous belief that Yahshua pre-existed as Yahweh, Elohim of Israel. They use Gen.19:24 as proof of this; “Then Yahweh rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Yahweh out of heaven;” At first glance there appear to be two Yahwehs, one in heaven and one somewhere near Sodom and Gomorrah. This is merely a figure of speech peculiar to the Hebrew language, an idiom. Similar idioms are seen in Eze.11:24 (two Spirits), Zech.10:12 ( two Yahwehs), Ex.24:1 (Yahweh used as idiom for “me”), Gen.17:23 (two Abrahams), and 1 Kgs.8:1 (two Solomons).

It is impossible to harmonize the two Yahweh doctrine with verses that teach there is only one Yahweh. Consider Nehemiah's prayer;

“Thou, even thou, art Yahweh alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.” Neh 9:6

Ps 83:18 says;

“That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Yahweh, art the most high over all the earth.”

Is 45:6 says;

“That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am Yahweh, and there is none else.”

Zech 14:9 reads;

“And Yahweh shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Yahweh, and his name one.”

A second God cannot be named “Yahweh.”

Is.42:1 teaches us that Yahshua is Yahweh's servant. “Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.” And again in Is.49:6, “And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.”

Ps.2:2 reads, “The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against Yahweh, and against his anointed.” His “anointed” is Yahshua, making a clear distinction between the two. Peter applied this prophecy to Yahshua in Acts 4:26; “The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against Yahweh, and against His Messiah.” Peter never claimed that the Messiah pre-existed as Yahweh.

Ps.110:1 also distinguishes the two; “Yahweh said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” In Mt.22:41-46, Yahshua reveals this “lord” to be himself, the Messiah. Is Yahweh talking to His Son the Messiah or is He talking to Himself?

Ps.110 makes another intersesting statement in verse 5. This is one of the verses in which the Sopherim removed Yahweh's name and replaced it with “Adonai”. The text would have originally read, “Yahweh at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of His wrath.” It is then wrongly deduced that since Yahshua was invited to sit on Yahweh's right hand (Heb.1:13), he, Yahshua, must also be called “Yahweh”. There is no doubt that Yahweh invited Yahshua to sit at His right hand. But what does verse 5 mean? It must be understood in the same way Ps.16:8 and Ps.109:6 are to be understood. When someone is “at thy right hand” it means their power and strength are derived from that source. David derived his power from Yahweh and so it is said that Yahweh is “at my right hand.” A wicked person would derive his power from Satan and so it is said, “Let Satan stand at his right hand.” When Yahshua comes to carry out Yahweh's wrath upon the wicked, Yahweh will be his strength. See, also, Mic.5:4.

Who is the Prophet like unto Moses?

In Acts 3:22,23 Peter quotes from Deut.18:15,19 proving that Yahshua is the “prophet like unto Moses.” Placing the name “Yahshua” in brackets clearly shows him not to be Yahweh. “Yahweh thy Elohim will raise up unto thee a Prophet [Yahshua] from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him [Yahshua] ye shall hearken.. . .I [Yahweh] will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my [Yahweh's] words in his [Yahshua's] mouth; and he [Yahshua] shall speak unto them all that I [Yahweh] shall command him [Yahshua]. . . . And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my [Yahweh's] words which he [Yahshua] shall speak in my [Yahweh's] name, I [Yahweh] will require it of him.” Jn.12:49 is a direct fulfillment of Deut.18:18; “For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father whic
h sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.”

Let's treat Is.53:6, 10 ,12 similarly; “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and Yahweh hath laid on him [Yahshua] the iniquity of us all. . . Yet it pleased Yahweh to bruise him [Yahshua]; he [Yahweh] hath put him [Yahshua] to grief: when thou [Yahweh] shalt make his [Yahshua's] soul an offering for sin, he [Yahshua] shall see his seed, he [Yahshua] shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of Yahweh shall prosper in his [Yahshua's] hand.”

Zech.12:10 is often misunderstood due to an apparent error in the text. It reads, “And I [Yahweh] will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.” The word “me” obviously does not harmonize with the pronouns “him” and “his” that follow. The same verse is quoted in Jn.19:37; “And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.” John gives us the correct understanding of this verse.

Another possible error occurs in Acts 20:28; “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Spirit hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood (KJV).” The great majority of Greek MSS have kurios (Lord) here instead of theos (God). In that case, Lord would refer to Yahshua whose blood was shed. Even if we were to accept the KJV rendering, it would have to be understood in the sense that parents often refer to their children as their “own flesh and blood.” In that sense the blood of Yahshua was the “blood of Yahweh's own.”

YAHWEH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS

Jer.23:6 is often used to prove Yahshua is Yahweh. “In his [Yahshua's] days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his [ Yahshua's] name whereby he [Yahshua] shall be called, YAHWEH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.” If this verse teaches that Yahshua is Yahweh because he is called “Yahweh Our Righteousness, then Jer.33:16 teaches that Jerusalem is also Yahweh. It reads, “In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, Yahweh our righteousness.” The translators did not use the same capitalization because they undoubtedly feared that it would suggest Jerusalem is Yahweh.

A difficult passage to understand is found in Jn.12:37-41. A superficial reading leads one to believe that the “his” and “him” of verse 41 refers to Yahshua and ties in with verse 37. For the sake of clarity these verses will be printed out with [brackets] designating the speaker. Jn.12:37,38, “But though he [Yahshua] had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him [Yahshua]: That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he [Isaiah] spake, Lord, 'who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Yahweh been revealed?' (The underlined is a quote from Is.53:1. The “arm of Yahweh” is Isaiah's reference to the Messiah). The passage continues with verses 39-41; “Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, 'He [Yahweh] hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I [Yahweh] should heal them.' These things said Esaias, when he [Isaiah] saw his [Yahweh's] glory, and spake of him [Yahweh].” Verse 40 (underlined) is a quote from Is.6:10. John is quoting a second passage from Isaiah to show why they could not believe on Yahshua; because Yahweh blinded them. Verse 41 therefore, is referring to Is.6:10, not Is.53:1. In Is.6:1-3 Yahweh is seen in all His glory. That is the glory referred to in verse 41. It was not Yahshua's glory.

Since John the Baptist preceeded Yahshua, Is.40:3 and Mt.3:3 are often used to prove Yahweh is Yahshua. Is.40:3 reads, “The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of Yahweh, make straight in the desert a highway for our Elohim.” Of all the N.T. verses that quote Isaiah, Lu.3:4-6 aids our understanding because it includes Is.40:4 & 5. It says, “As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of Yahweh, make his paths straight. Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways shall be made smooth; And all flesh shall see the salvation of Yahweh.” “Prepare ye the way of Yahweh” does not mean, “Move out of the way because Yahweh is coming.” And so when Yahshua comes they believe he is Yahweh.

How was “the way” to be prepared? By filling valleys, leveling mountains, straightening paths, etc. This work is not to be understood literally, but spiritually through the humbling of those in exalted positions and the restoration of truth. Who was to do that work? Jn.4:34 says, “Yahshua saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of Him that sent me, and to finish his work.” Almighty Yahweh appointed His Son Yahshua to finish His work. Yahshua was Yahweh's instrument in the accomplishment of His great plan. Yahshua is the “Messenger of the Covenant,” “the servant of Yahweh,” and “the salvation of Yahweh.” Jn.14:6 calls Yahshua “the way.” He is “the way of Yahweh;” the means through which Yahweh will finish His work.

Two Creators?

Gen.1:26 is often used to show Yahshua's hand in Creation. It reads, “And Elohim said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” They say the Father is talking to the Son in this verse based on the pronouns used. Notice, however, that verse 27 says, “So Elohim created man in his own image, . . .” Why isn't the phrase “in their own image” used? Again, in Gen.11:7,8, “us” is used and yet Yahweh alone scattered them abroad. According to Job 38:4-7, “the sons of Elohim shouted for joy” when Yahweh created the earth. This doubtless refers to the angels who were also present at the creation of man. Yahweh could be speaking to them, in Gen.1:26, using the plural of majesty. An example of this is found in Ezr. 4:18; “The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me.” In this case, a letter was written strictly to King Artaxerxes and no one else (vs. 11). Yet the King speaks as though it was written to others as well. Another example would be the Queen of England saying, “We, the Queen of England, . . .” It can also be understood in the sense of someone saying, “Let us drive to the lake for a picnic,” and yet, only the speaker does the driving. To believe Yahweh is talking to Yahshua is an assumption. It is reading into the text something that it does not say.

If we do not try to force the scriptures to conform to our own doctrines, they are so simple to understand. Instead men try to support “Holy Trinities”, “Incarnations”, “Transubstantiations”, and the like. The Bible does not use terms like “Father” and “Son” to try and trick us. They are used to express a relationship that we can relate to. If Yahshua is Father Yahweh, the scriptures would state it in plain language. Instead, it says that Yahshua is the Son of Father Yahweh.

An article in “Israel Today” tried to explain this relationship by saying Yahweh manifested himself in the fleshly form of Yahshua. The author calls this the incarnation. This same author rightfully puts down the trinity because the word is not found in the Bible and yet, he exalts another unscriptural term, “incarnation.” Perhaps he was misled by the erroneous translation of 1 Tim.3:16 in the KJV. It says, “God was manifest in the flesh.” A footnote in the Emphatic
Diaglott reads, “Nearly all ancient MSS., and all the versions have “He who,” instead of “God,” in this passage.” Even if the incarnation theory was true, would Yahweh continue to manifest himself as Yahshua even after the Millennium? 1 Cor.15:24-28 and Rev.22:1 show both as separate beings after the Millennium. The truth is, they are not parts of one being but two separate and distinct beings. That is why Yahshua could say what he did in Jn.8:17,18, “It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.” Yahweh and Yahshua are two separate beings, not two manifestations of one being.

When the scriptures are accepted at face value, without reading into the text more than it says, the relationship between the two becomes quite clear. In spite of this, many people are not satisfied with Yahshua's rank in the hierarchy of heaven. They feel a need to exalt him into the number one position, that of Yahweh Almighty, and they will twist scripture in a variety of ways to accomplish this.

Yahweh is One

Concerning the “Shema” (Deut.6:4) it reads, “Hear, O Israel: Yahweh our Elohim is one Yahweh:” or “Yahweh is one.” It is believed by many that the word “echad,” translated “one,” means “a united one” or a “compound unity,” not singularity. The scriptures prove this belief to be false. Note Nu.7:13-82 where “echad” is translated “one” 84 times and each time it means one as in the number one, singularity. Consider also Gen.2:1 – one rib and Dan.9:27 – one week.

Historic Judaism does not give echad the meaning of unity or plurality as is seen in the Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 14, p.1373: “Perhaps from earliest times, but certainly from later, the word echad (one) was understood also to mean unique. God is not only one and not many, but He is totally other than what paganism means by gods.” Note also The Jewish Commentary, Soncino Edition, p.770: “He is one because there is no other Elohim than He; but He is also one, because He is wholly unlike anything else in existence. He is therefore not only one, but the Sole and Unique, Elohim.”

Perhaps the most conclusive evidence that the word echad has the meaning of alone or unique comes to us from the Messiah himself in Mk.12:28-34. When asked which commandment was the most important, Yahshua responded by quoting the Shema. In response to his answer the teacher replied, “You are right in saying that Yahweh is one and there is no other but Him.” Although Yahshua did not specifically say “there is no other but Him” the teacher understood that meaning to be implied in the word echad or one. Yahshua acknowledged that the teacher answered wisely thereby confirming the teacher's correct understanding of the meaning of the Shema.

It is true that echad was used in verses such as Ge.2:24 and Ge.41:25. There we see two people becoming one flesh and two dreams having one meaning. The key here is that two become one. In the Shema, we only see one individual, Yahweh, proclaimed to be one! It doesn't say, “And the two Yahweh's became one.” In the two verses in Genesis, we don't see one becoming two. But that is what people are trying to do with the Shema. They say one means two and therefore, there must be two Yahweh's. What utter nonsense!

Yahshua said, “I and my Father are one.” (Jn.10:30). Does that mean they are the same being? Yahshua said something similar in Jn.17:22, “And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:”
Here again, Yahshua says he and the Father are one. But he also prays that his followers will be one in the same sense that he and Yahweh are one. That is a oneness of mind, purpose, and will, not a oneness of being. And it certainly does not mean there are two Yahweh's.

Elohim – Plural or singular?

The word “Elohim,” translated “God,” is often attacked as well. It is believed that it denotes a plurality or a god consisting of more than one being or more than one manifestation of a being. This, too, is a false concept based on the philosophy of men. Elohim is used in the Bible with a plural sense when it refers to several deities and in a singular sense when it refers to a singular deity. Its plural sense can be seen in Ex.12:12, “For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods (elohim) of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am Yahweh.” Its singular sense can be seen in 1 Sam.5:7, “. . . and upon Dagon our god (elohim)” and 2 Kgs.1:2, “. . . Go, enquire of Baal-zebub the god (elohim) of Ekron whether I shall recover of this disease.” Are we to believe that Dagon and Baal-zebub are also plural beings who can “incarnate” themselves as Yahweh “supposedly” did?

The word “God” (elohim) is properly applied to Yahshua in Heb.1:9 and Jn.20:28. Both words are from the Greek word “theos” which was also used in reference to Satan (2 Cor.4:4) and Herod (Acts 12:22). It has the same meaning as the Hebrew word “elohim” and can be applied to men, angels, and the Almighty. Ps.82:6 applies it to any child of the Most High; “I have said, Ye are gods [elohim]; and all of you are children of the most High.” It simply means “a mighty one among his people.” It is not wrong to call Yahshua an elohim or a god. The problem lies in believing he is the one true “God,” Yahweh Almighty. Yahshua made it clear that he was not, in Jn.17:3; “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee [Yahweh] the only true Elohim, and Yahshua Messiah, whom thou hast sent.” The Apostle Paul declared the same thing in 1 Cor.8:6; “But to us there is but one Elohim, the Father [Yahweh], of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Master Yahshua Messiah, by whom are all things, and we by him.”

Oneness proponents wrongly interpret 1 Jn.5:20 to mean that Yahshua is the one true “God.” It reads, “And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life” (KJV). When it says, “his Son Jesus Christ,” it means Yahweh's Son. That being the case, the previous use of the pronoun “him” in the two phrases “him that is true” must also refer to Yahweh. The “his” and “him” refer to the same person. To say that “This is the true God” refers to the Son is grammatically incorrect.

Not only is Yahweh the one true Elohim, but He is also Yahshua's Elohim. If Yahshua is an elohim or god and he himself has a god, then surely his god must be a greater god. This is what scripture teaches in Mt.27:46; Jn.17:3; 20:17; Eph.1:17; Heb. 1:9; and Rev.3:12. Rev.3:12 says, “Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my Elohim, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my Elohim [Yahweh], and the name of the city of my Elohim, New Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my Elohim: and I will write upon him my new name.” Yahshua is saying this after he ascended to heaven and sat down at the right hand of Yahweh (Heb 8:1). If he was the Yahweh Almighty of the Old Testament, who is his Elohim and who is he sitting next to? Two scriptures answer that question. The first is Ps.110:1; “Yahweh said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” The second is Mic.5:4; “And he [Yahshua] shall stand and feed in the strength of Yahweh, in the majesty of the name of Yahweh his Elohim; and they shall abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth.”

The Image of Yahweh

What about Jn.14:9? “Yahshua saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?” Is Yahshua declaring that he is Father Yahweh? Heb.1:3 and Col.1:15 both state that Yahshua is the “image” of Yahweh. An image is something that resembles some
thing else. Yahshua resembles Yahweh in that their characters are almost identical. “Not that any man has seen the Father” (Jn. 6:46) bodily, but we have seen His character through His Son.

Man (specifically Adam) was made in the “image of Elohim” (Gen 1:26,27; 5:3; 9:6). Messiah Yahshua is also in the “image of Elohim” (2 Co 4:4; Col 1:15). “Elohim” in these verses, when understood in the context of pure monotheism, is a reference to Yahweh the Creator. Adam's inner man resembled Elohim, but he himself is not Elohim. Yahshua's inner man resembles Yahweh, but he himself is not Elohim.

Col 3:10 tells us that after a person's conversion, after he has put on the new man, he is “renewed in knowledge after the image of Him [Yahweh] that created him.” Rom 8:29, 30 echoes this in that those that have been justified (through conversion unto Messiah) have been predestined to be “conformed to the image of His [Yahweh's] Son.” Since the Son is in the image of Elohim, to be conformed to the image of the Son is to be conformed to the image of Elohim or Yahweh the Creator. 2 Co 3:18 says that we “are changed into the same image” as the Master. This also happens upon conversion.

From this info, I deduce the following;

Adam was made in the image of Yahweh. Upon his fall, that image was lost. It can only be restored through conversion unto the Master Yahshua. Yahshua, being sinless, never lost the image of Yahweh. The image of Yahweh has nothing to do with the physical appearance as far as the above references are concerned. It has to do with the inner man.

Look at Ps 73:20. Yahweh despises the image of the wicked. Why? Because they have put off Yahweh's image through sin and have created their own new image. The same is true of all men for all have sinned. We all have fallen away from the image of Yahweh and need to have that image restored through the indwelling Spirit of Messiah.

When Yahweh looks upon a believer, He sees the righteousness of His Son clothing us. He also sees the image of His Son clothing us. Our physical appearance has not changed, but our inner man has.

Yahshua is from everlasting?

What about Mic.5:2; “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” This is undoubtedly a Messianic prophecy. The question is, what does “goings forth” mean? Does it mean Yahshua has existed as long as Yahweh? Some say yes thereby giving more weight to their argument that Yahshua is Yahweh. According to Strong's Concordance, “Goings forth” comes from one Hebrew word, “mowtsaah”. It means, “a family descent.” Since Yahweh is Yahshua's Father, Yahshua's family descent would go back as far as Yahweh's existence. Since Yahweh has always existed, Yahshua's family descent or goings forth must be from everlasting. The New English Bible, the Phillips translation, and Todays English Bible render it similarly. Yahshua himself is not from everlasting. His family descent, or his family tree, is.

There are those who believe that Yahshua was not only Yahweh, but Melchizedek as well. They site Heb.7:4 to prove this. In Gen.14:18 we read that Melchizedek, king of Salem, “was the priest of the most high God.” The “most high God” is shown to be Yahweh three verses later; “…I have lift up mine hand unto Yahweh, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth.” Therefore, Melchizedek is the priest of Yahweh, not Yahweh Himself. If Yahshua is Melchizedek, he cannot be Yahweh. If Yahshua is Yahweh, he cannot be Melchizedek. The fact is, Yahshua is neither one of these beings. He is Yahweh's Son and Yahweh made him a priest “after the order of Melchizedek” (Ps.110:4, Heb. 7:21).

Receiving Worship and Forgiving Sins

Many people believe that only Almighty Yahweh can forgive sins and receive worship. Since Yahshua did both they believe he must be the Almighty. Yahshua indeed is worthy of our worship and honor, but only as Yahweh's representative, not as Yahweh Himself. Yahweh commanded even the angels of heaven to worship Yahshua (Heb.1:6). Rev.5:12 ,13 show both Yahweh and the Lamb [Yahshua] receiving worship. Eventually, those believers comprising the Philadelphia assembly will receive worship as well (Rev. 3:9). The worship they receive however, is not directed at them as though they were Yahweh.

A study of the Hebrew and Greek words that were translated “worship” will show that the Almighty is not always the recipient. Of the 170 occurrences only about half refer to the worship of Yahweh. This is hidden from the reader of scripture because half of those occurrences were translated 'to bow, bow down, do reverence, do obeisance,' as can be seen in the following verses: Gen.18:2; 19:1: 23:7,12; 27:29; 1 Sam.24:8; 25:23,41; 2 Sam.9:6; 14:4,22.

Yahshua said to a man with palsy, “thy sins be forgiven thee” (Mt.9:2). The account continues, “But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house. And he arose, and departed to his house. But when the multitudes saw it, they marveled, and glorified Yahweh, which had given such power unto men.” Were they correct? Had Yahweh given Yahshua the power to forgive sins? Yahshua said, “I can of my own self do nothing,” “I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things,” “the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works” (Jn.5:30a; 8:28b; 14:10b). Yahweh gave Yahshua the authority to forgive sins, judge men, heal the sick, raise the dead, etc. He is Yahweh's Representative with the power to act in His name. The word “power” in Mt.9:2 is from the same Greek word that was translated “authority” in Jn.5:27 and throughout the New Testament. This same power was given to the Angel of Yahweh in Ex.23:20-21, “Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.”

While we are on the subject of sin, many believe Yahshua was the one true “God” because “only the death of God could atone for man's sins. The death of a man wouldn't suffice.” This is another example of the philosophy of men contrary to scripture. Heb.9:22 says, “And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission (of sins).” One requirement was shed blood. The other requirement was that the sacrifice had to be “without blemish” which, regarding Messiah, meant sinless. Yahweh Almighty did not have to die. Only the blood of a sinless man was required. Yahshua was that only sinless man (1 Jn.3:5).

The Attributes of Yahweh

The terms “omniscient” (all knowing), and “omnipotent” (all powerful) are often applied to Yahshua to prove he is the Almighty. In Jn.5:30 Yahshua said, “I can of mine own self do nothing” therefore, he cannot be omnipotent as Yahweh is. Mt. 24:36 proves Yahshua is not omniscient; “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but my Father.” In order to explain such verses “Oneness” proponents must turn Yahshua into the “God-Man.” This unscriptural idea claims that Yahshua's divine half is omniscient and omnipotent but that he suppressed his powers during his life in the flesh. Nowhere in scripture is the Messiah called a God-Man or shown to have two such natures at the same time. He is repeatedly referred to as a man in such verses as 1 Tim.2:5. When he is called “God” it is in the sense of a mighty one among his people as was shown earlier. This is not to say that Yahshua was a mere man. Scripture is clear that Yahshua's birth was a miracle in that he was not made from the seed or sperm of man. He is Yahweh's only be
gotten Son; the only being ever to be “Fathered” by Yahweh.

Titles in Common

Should we refer to Yahshua as the Almighty, a title only applied to Yahweh? Nowhere in scripture is this ever the case. One scripture that seemingly supports such an application is Rev. 1:8; “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith [the Lord]*, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” (KJV). *The Greek has “kurios o theos” (“the Lord the God” or “Yahweh Elohim”). The phrase “Lord God” is never used of Yahshua in the New Testament. Aside from that, John is giving a greeting starting in verse four and ending in verse seven. Verse four is a greeting from the Father “which is, and which was, and which is to come.” Verse five is a greeting from Yahshua the Messiah. Verse eight is spoken by the Father which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” Scripture makes a clear distinction between the Almighty and Yahshua in Rev.21:22; “And I saw no temple therein: for Yahweh Elohim Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.” Yahshua is not Yahweh Almighty.

This misapplication of titles is often the cause of making these two beings into one. For example, Acts 3:14 reads, “But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;” Here the title “Holy One” is applied to Yahshua the Messiah. In Is.43:3 it says, “For I am Yahweh thy Elohim, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour:. . . ” Here the title “Holy One” is applied to Yahweh. Without further study one would conclude these two references are to the same person. However, we are not to study scripture superficially. In what way is Yahshua the Holy One? The answer is found in Mk.1:24; “Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Yahshua of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of Yahweh.” Yahweh is the Holy One of Israel and Yahshua is the Holy One of Yahweh, not of Israel. Ps.16:10 confirms this understanding; “For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.” This is a Messianic prophecy. “My soul” refers to Yahshua's soul and “thine Holy One” refers to Yahweh's Holy One. Scripture reveals two Holy ones that are separate beings.

Another shared title is “Savior.” Is.43:11 says, “I, even I, am Yahweh; and beside me there is no saviour.” That seems quite clear. Since Yahweh is the only Savior and Yahshua is called our Savior, the two must be one and the same being. This is true only in the minds of men who do not study deeply. Is.19:20b reads, “for they shall cry unto Yahweh because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and he shall deliver them.” It was prophesied that Yahweh would send someone other than Himself to be a savior to Egypt. Yahweh is the one true Savior who works through Yahshua the Messiah, His appointed Savior.

A few other shared titles, all basically equal in meaning, are “Alpha and Omega,” “the first and the last,” and “the beginning and the end.” Each of these titles are applied to both Yahweh and Yahshua (Is.41:4;44:6;48:12; Rev.1:8,17;2:8;22:13) and have the meaning of uniqueness. Each is the first and last of his peculiar, unique kind. Yahweh is unique in that He is the only being that was not created and Yahshua is unique in that he is the only being ever to be directly begotten by Yahweh the Father (Jn.1:14). (Adam was created, all others were begotten by men).Titles that Yahweh and Yahshua have in common do not supply a firm foundation for a “Oneness” doctrine. If that were true, Cyrus, the king of Persia, would have been the pre-existent Yahshua since both are called “Messiah.” In Is.45:1a it reads, “Thus saith Yahweh to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him;” The Hebrew for “anointed” is the same word that was translated “Messiah” in Dan. 9:25,26 and “anointed” in Ps.2:2.

The scriptures tell us Yahshua would also be called Emmanuel, meaning “God with us,” or more correctly, “El with us.” As a result, people teach that Yahshua is “God.” This name is to be understood in the light of Acts 10:38; “How Yahweh anointed Yahshua of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for Yahweh (El) was with him.” Not that Yahshua was El, but that El was with and in Yahshua. If you choose to use the logic of those in error, then consider the name Jehu. In Hebrew, this name means “He is Yah” or “Yah is He.” Does that mean the man Jehu is, in reality, Yahweh?

Is.9:6 reads, “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” Is this prophecy declaring Yahshua the Messiah to be the Heavenly Father? There are at least 27 names in the Bible with the same Hebrew construction as in this verse. Each one means the “father of (something).” For example, Abishua means “father of plenty.” Instead of translating the phrase in Is.9:6 as “Father of eternity,” the KJV reversed the sequence making the true meaning harder to discern. Several newer versions correct this mistake such as The Emphasized Bible, The Bible in Basic English, The New American Bible, The Holy Bible; A Translation From the Latin Vulgate in the Light of the Hebrew and Greek Originals, and The New English Bible, just to name a few. Yahshua is the Father of Eternity because eternal life comes to us through him. And so it is written in Heb.5:9, “And being made perfect, he became the author (or father) of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;”

One last title that confuses people is “Rock.” 1 Cor.10:4 says, “And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Messiah.” Since Yahweh is called a “Rock” in several Old Testament verses, the two beings are made into one. This verse must be understood with Ex.17:6 in mind; “Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.” 1 Cor. 10:4 is figuratively making reference to Ex.17:6 which is a shadow of Messiah. To “smite the rock” is to kill the Messiah. The rock could not yield water until it was smitten. Similarly, the Messiah Yahshua could not give forth “rivers of living water” until he was put to death and then resurrected unto eternal life (glorified). Jn.7:39 shows this “living water” to be the Holy Spirit. Yahshua was not physically present with them in the wilderness. Spiritually speaking he was. That is why the verse says “spiritual drink” and “spiritual Rock.” The word “them” in the phrase “that followed them” is not in the Greek. Reading the verse without that misleading word gives the meaning that Yahshua followed in time as in 1 Pe.1:11, “Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Messiah which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Messiah, and the glory that should follow.” Even if one were to believe Yahshua physically followed Israel, that would not prove he was Yahweh since Yahweh was not personally leading or following Israel in the wilderness. Scriptures reveal that the Angel of Yahweh, Yahweh's representative, followed them (Ex.14:19).

I AM

“Before Abraham was, I am.” These words, spoken by our Savior in Jn.8:58, have led to much controversy and confusion. Some use this verse to prove the Messiah's pre-existence. Others use it to prove the trinity doctrine. And then there are those who use it to prove Yahshua is the great “I AM” of Ex.3:14.

The phrase “I am” is “ego eimi” in Greek. Since the Greek New Testament records Yahshua using “ego eimi” many times, Christian theologians term these sayings, “The I Am's of Jesus.” It is believed that each of these occurrences implies Yahshua's identity as the “I AM” of Ex.3:14
. Can this be true? Can our Savior, the Son of Yahweh, actually be the “I AM”?

Ex.3:14-15 reads, “And Elohim said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and He said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. And Elohim said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Yahweh, Elohim of your fathers, the Elohim of Abraham, the Elohim of Isaac, and the Elohim of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.” Therefore, the “I AM” is identified as “Yahweh.”

And what does Yahweh say in Ps.2:7? “I will declare the decree: Yahweh hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.” Yahweh is the Father of Yahshua. Yahshua is the Son of Yahweh. Yahshua is not Yahweh and the Son is not the Father. Therefore, Yahshua (the Son of Yahweh) cannot be the I AM (Yahweh). That alone should be sufficient to discredit the belief that Yahshua was claiming to be the “I AM.” But let's look into the matter a little farther.

In the Greek Septuagint (LXX), Ex 3:14 reads,

In Septuagint English it reads, “And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am THE BEING; and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, THE BEING has sent me to you.”

In KJV English it reads, “And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.”

In John 8:58, “I am” is “” in Greek. As you can see, “” in Ex 3:14 is just the prelude to what the Almighty really wanted the Israelites to know, that is, that He was the “” or “the Being” or “the Existing One”.

If Yahshua truly wanted to tell the Jews he was the great “I am” of Ex 3:14, he would have said, “Before Abraham was I am the Being” or “I am the Existing One”.

It is believed that Jn.8:59 further supports the position that Yahshua is the “I AM.” Why else would the Jews try to stone him? He obviously blasphemed in the eyes of the Jews, a stoneable offense. Or did he? Is the mere utterance of “ego eimi” a blasphemy? Does the use of “ego eimi” automatically identify the speaker as Yahweh, the I AM?

Several individuals aside from Yahshua used “ego eimi” as well. In Lu.1:19, the angel Gabriel said, “Ego eimi Gabriel.” In Jn.9:9, the blind man whose sight was restored by Yahshua said, “Ego eimi.” In Acts 10:21, Peter said, “Behold, ego eimi (I am) he whom ye seek.” Obviously, the mere use of “ego eimi” does not equate one to the “I Am” of Ex.3:14. But perhaps the Saviors use of it was somehow different. After all, he came down from heaven.

If, in fact, Yahshua spoke Greek to the Jews (which I doubt), he used the phrase “ego eimi” at least twenty times and yet, in only one instance did the Jews seek to stone him (Jn.8:58). Yahshua said, “I am the bread of life” to a large crowd, in Jn.6:35 & 48, yet no one opposed him. In verse 41, the Jews murmured because he said, “I am (ego eimi) the bread which came down from heaven.” But in verse 42, the Jews questioned only the phrase, “I came down from heaven” and ignored “ego eimi.” The same is true of verses 51 & 52.

In Jn.8:12, 18, 24, & 28, Yahshua used “ego eimi” with Pharisees present (vs.13) and yet, no stoning. He, again, used it four times in Jn.10:7, 9, 11, & 14 with no stoning. Yahshua said to his disciples, “…that…ye may believe that I am (ego eimi)” in Jn.13:19 without them batting an eye.

An interesting account occurs in Jn.18 when the Jews came to arrest Yahshua in the Garden of Gethsemane. When the chief priests and Pharisees said they were seeking Yahshua of Nazareth, Yahshua said to them, “Ego eimi.” At that they fell backward to the ground. It is not made clear why they fell to the ground, but what followed will make it clear that Yahshua was not claiming to be the “I AM.”

After Yahshua's arrest, the Jews took him to Annas first (vs.13). Then they took him to Caiaphas (vs.24) and eventually to Pilate (vss.28,29). A parallel account is found in Mt.26:57-68. Notice, in particular, verse 59. The same men that had fallen backward to the ground were in attendance when the council sought false witnesses against Yahshua to put him to death. Verse 60 says they couldn't find any. Eventually two came forward. Interestingly, they didn't bear false witness about what Yahshua said in Jn.8:58, but about his reference to destroying the temple and building it again in three days. Where were all those witnesses from Jn.8:58?

The point about Mt.26 is, why would false witnesses be sought if they had true witnesses in attendance? The arresting officers heard Yahshua say “Ego eimi.” They could have stoned him right there in the garden for blasphemy, but they didn't. They could have reported the supposed blasphemy to the council, but they didn't. Why not? Because it wasn't blasphemy, nor was it a stoneable offense. He was merely identifying himself as Yahshua of Nazareth.

This brings us back to Jn.8:58. Why did the Jews seek to stone him on that occasion? The context of Jn.8 shows that Yahshua;

1) accused the Jews of “judging after the flesh” (vs.15).
2) said they would die in their sins (vss.21,24).
3) implied they were in bondage (vss.32,33).
4) said they were servants of sin (vs.34).
5) said they were out to kill him (vss. 37,40).
6) implied they were spiritually deaf (vs.43,47).
7) said their father was the devil (vs.44).
8) said they were not of Elohim (vs.47).
9) accused them of dishonoring him (vs.49).
10) accused them of not knowing Yahweh (vs.55).
11) accused them of lying (vs.55).

Aside from that, the Jews misunderstood Yahshua's words leading them to believe;

1) that he accused them of being born of fornication (vs.41).
2) Yahshua had a devil (vs.52).
3) that he was exalting himself above Abraham (vs.53).
4) that he saw Abraham (vs.56).

Yahshua's words in verse 58 were the culmination of an encounter that was so offensive to the Jews that they couldn't restrain themselves anymore. They simply couldn't take it anymore so they sought to stone him, not because of two simple words, “ego eimi,” but because he was making himself out to be greater than their beloved father Abraham. They sought to stone him illegally.

So what does Jn.8:58 really mean? Although I do not believe we can be certain what Yahshua meant due to a variety of reasons, I offer the following explanation.

Let's look at the context of Yahshua's statement. It begins in verse 51 with the thought of eternal life; “If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.” The Jews thought since Abraham and the prophets were dead, Yahshua must have a devil. The context is eternal life. Then in verse 56 Yahshua says Abraham “rejoiced to see my day.” He did not say he saw Abraham as the Jews misunderstood. How did Abraham see Yahshua's day? Heb.11:13 says, “These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.” He saw Yahshua's day by faith.

Yahshua then resumed the context of his initial conversation by saying, “Before Abraham was, I am.” “Was” is from the Greek “ginomai” meaning, “to come into being, … to arise.” What Yahshua actually meant was, “Before Abraham comes into being (at his resurrection unto eternal life), I will.” Confirmation of this understanding comes to us from Figures of Speech Used in the Bible by E.W. Bullinger, pgs. 521,522. Under the heading “Heterosis (Of Tenses),” subheading “The Present for the Future,” he writes, “This is put when the design is to show that some thing will certainly come to pass, and is spoken of as though it were already present.” He then lists some examples such as Mt.3:10b, “therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is [shall be] hewn down;” and Mk.9:31a, “For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is [shall be] delivered into the hands of men, and they sh
all kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.” Included among this list of examples of Heterosis is Jn.8:58. In other words, although properly written, “Before Abraham comes to be, I am,” with “I am” in the simple present tense, the meaning points to the future, “Before Abraham comes to be, I will.”

Yahshua was telling them that Abraham will be one of those people who will be granted eternal life, but before that takes place, Yahshua will receive that same eternal life. This statement of fact must be since Yahshua is to have the preeminence in all things. He must be the firstborn from the dead, the first to receive eternal life.

Some people believe this verse should be translated, “Before Abraham existed, I existed.” However, neither Greek verb is in the perfect tense (past tense). “Was” is in the aorist tense and “am” is in the present tense. Let's look a little closer at “was.” Concerning the aorist tense, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey says, “It has time relations only in the indicative, where it is past and hence augmented.” The verb ginomai (was) is in the infinitive, not the indicative. Therefore it should not be translated in the past tense. This same reference says of the infinitive, “The aorist infinitive denotes that which is eventual or particular, …” Abraham will eventually resurrect which is why the Greek uses the aorist infinitive. The meaning is, “Before Abraham comes to be” not “Before Abraham was (or existed).”

Yahshua was not declaring that he is the great “I AM” of Ex.3:14. Yahshua was not declaring himself to be Yahweh. And Yahshua was not declaring his pre-existence. He is the Son of Yahweh and the Son of the great “I Am.”

The Word was God?

In Jn.1:1-3 we read, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made” (KJV). As mentioned previously, it is not wrong to address Yahshua as god or elohim as long as we don't address him as the “one true Elohim.” According to the common understanding of verse 1, there are two beings, the Word and God, Yahshua and Yahweh. Therefore, the phrase “the Word was God” would lead one to believe that Yahshua (the Word) was Yahweh (God). However, if we know that Yahweh called Yahshua “God” or “elohim” in Heb.1:9 and Ps.45:7, there is no problem with the phrase “the Word was God.” Yahshua is obviously an elohim in Hebrew or a god in English. This, of course, is based on the common understanding of the “Word” being Yahshua. That, however, is not what John intended when he wrote these verses.

Nor did John intend to teach us that the Son preexisted “with” God from the very beginning of creation. De 32:39 says, “See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.” Yahweh the Father is speaking here. He is saying there is no other “elohim” or no other God with Him. John 1:1 says, ” . . .and the Word was WITH God, and the Word was God.” If the “Word” is the Son and the Son was WITH God and was God, how does that harmonize with the above verse? In De 32:39, since Yahweh was speaking, then there was no other God with Him, not even the Son.

Since Yahshua is called “The Word of God” in Rev.19:13, the translators of the KJV assumed the “Word” of Jn.1:1 was also Yahshua and therefore, capitalized the word “word” and used the pronoun “him” in reference to the “word.” The Greek for “Word” is “logos.” It appears in the text written with a small letter l. Logos means “the spoken word” or “something said (including the thought).” In that sense the word is an “it,” not a person but a thing. The great English translator William Tyndale renders it that way in his 1525 version as does the Matthew's Bible of 1537, the Great Bible of 1539, the Geneva Bible of 1560, and the Bishop's Bible of 1568. (Click here for more info.) Verse 3 should read, “All things were made through it; and without it was not anything made that was made.” In other words, Yahweh spoke creation into existence. This understanding agrees perfectly with passages such as Gen.1:3,6,9,11,14, 20, and 24 all of which begin, “And Elohim said.” Yahweh spoke and it was done. Ps.33:6,9 says, “By the word of Yahweh were the heavens made; and all the host by the breath of his mouth. . . For He spoke and it was; He commanded, and it stood fast.” Not only did Yahweh speak creation into existence, but He also spoke His Son Yahshua into existence; “And the word (Yahweh's spoken word) was made flesh” (Jn.1:14). Yahshua did not become the “Word of Yahweh” until his birth as a flesh and blood male child.

How then should we translate verse 1? “In the beginning was the word; and the word was with Yahweh, and the word was Yahweh's” is one suggestion. The Greek word translated “God” is “theos.” The Greek does not have a different word to show possession. Therefore, theos can be translated “Yahweh” or “Yahweh's.” The possessive form makes this verse so clear and in harmony with the phrase “the word was with Yahweh.”

A second possible translation would be, “and the word was mighty.” Theos is equivalent to the Hebrew word elohim. Elohim has the meaning of great or mighty in such verses as Gen.30:8, “And Rachel said, With great [elohim] wrestlings have I wrestled with my sister, and I have prevailed: and she called his name Naphtali” and 1 Sam 14:15, “And there was trembling in the host, in the field, and among all the people: the garrison, and the spoilers, they also trembled, and the earth quaked: so it was a very great [elohim] trembling.” Since the word theos in the phrase “the Word was God [theos]” is not preceded by the article “ho” (the God), as are the other two uses of theos in verses 1 & 2, it can be understood as an adjective rather than a noun.

Who is the Creator?

Getting back to the issue of creation, many believe Yahshua created all things. A thorough study of the Old Testament scriptures shows Yahweh to be the Creator and that He acted alone to accomplish this. Note Is.44:24; “Thus saith Yahweh, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am Yahweh that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;” Where is Yahshua in this verse? It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Yahshua is not Yahweh, therefore, Yahshua did not have a hand in creation. This is confirmed in Job 9:8; “Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea.” Consider also Prov.30:4; “Who hath ascended up into heaven? who hath gathered the wind in His fists? Who hath bound the waters in a garment? Who hath established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is His son's name, if thou canst tell?” This verse teaches us that the Creator, whoever He is, has a Son. Does Yahshua have a son? No. Father Yahweh is the Creator and He has a Son who is not given credit for creation in this verse.

There are several New Testament scriptures used to prove he did create all things. They are Jn 1:3, which we already looked at; Jn.1:10; 1 Cor.8:6; Eph.3:9; Col.1:16; and Heb.1:2. All these verses use the same basic phrase, “by him” or “by Yahshua Messiah.” The phrase “by Yahshua Messiah” in Eph.3:9 is not found in any Greek MSS. Without the added words this verse teaches us that Yahweh is the Creator. The remaining four verses imply that Yahshua is the Creator. Thus far, it has been conclusively proven that Yahshua is not Yahweh. Since the scriptures emphatically state over 100 times that Yahweh is the Creator (Ex.20:11) and that He acted alone (Is.44:24), should we discard that wealth of evidence and accept Yahshua as the Creator without question? A careful examination of the Greek of those four verses will yield a different picture.

The Greek word for “by” is “di.” It can be translated “by,” “through,” “on accoun
t of,” “for,” etc., based on the context or message of the sentence. These four verses in question will not allow the translation “by” because it does not agree or harmonize with over 100 other verses stating that Yahweh is the Creator. An example of the importance of context is Mk.2:27; “And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.” Both words “for” in this verse are from the Greek word “dia.” It would be incorrect to translate “dia” as “by” in this verse: The Sabbath was made by man. If you will notice the Greek of Jn.1:10 you will see it is the exact same construction as Mk.2:27 yet one verse says “for” and the other says “by.” Also, in the case of Heb 1:2, it is revealed that Yahshua is the heir of all things that have been created by Yahweh. He is not the Creator Himself.

1 Pe.1:20 says, “Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.” Before creation, Yahshua existed in the foreordained plans of Yahweh. He was “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev.13:8). Even before creation Yahweh knew that Yahshua had to be slain. Even before creation Yahweh knew that He would create all things on account of and for His Son. And so it is written and correctly translated in Col.1:16, “For in him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created on account of him, and for him:” Without Yahshua in Yahweh's plan, creation would never have occurred. The remaining three scriptures using “by” should be translated similarly.

One other Scripture often used to prove Yahshua's hand in creation is Heb.1:10-12. These verses are indeed very difficult to understand. It appears as though the writer of Hebrews is including verses 10-12 as additional statements that Yahweh has made to His Son. The use of “And” in verse 10 and “but” in verse 13 suggest this. But if we look a little deeper we will find several discrepancies. Verses 10-12 are direct quotes from Ps.102:25-27. They are not a quote from the Hebrew Text, however, but from the Septuagint (LXX). The Hebrew Text does not have “Lord” in it. Therefore, to say that “Lord” in Heb.1:10 proves that Yahshua is Yahweh is unscriptural. The LXX has “Kurie” in Ps.102:25, but that is an addition since it is not found in the Hebrew Text. The LXX also omits “O my el” in verse 24.

In reading the Hebrew of Ps.102, it is clear the subject is Yahweh. They are the words of an afflicted man as he cries out to Yahweh. They are not the words of Yahweh as He speaks to His Son.

Notice each of the other Old Testament quotes in Hebrew 1;

Ps.2:7 – “…Thou art my Son; this day I (Yahweh) have begotten thee.”

2 Sam.7:14 – “I (Yahweh) will be to him a Father…”

Deut.32:43 (LXX) – “And let all the angels of God (Yahweh) worship him.”

Ps.45:6,7 – “Thy throne O elohim…therefore elohim, thy Elohim (Yahweh) hath anointed thee.”

Ps.110:1 – “Sit on my right hand, until I (Yahweh) make thine enemies thy footstool.”

In each of these quotes it can be seen that either Yahweh is talking to His Son or about His Son. Yet, in Ps.102:25-27 it is the Psalmist talking to Yahweh. Therefore, to include Heb.1:10-12 among those things that Yahweh said to or about His Son is incorrect.

The writer of Hebrews had written verses 1-9 to show how Yahweh exalted His Son, even above the angels. It appears as though the writer was then moved to exalt Yahweh as well by including verses 10-12 as a parenthesis. He then resumes by showing Yahshua's exaltation in verse 13 which is a continuation of verse 9. There are an abundance of Scriptures proving that Yahshua is not Yahweh. To make that assumption here is to reject the weightier evidence.

Know the Scriptures

There has been a very sharp attack centered on using Old Testament quotes found in the New Testament that are applied to both Yahweh and Yahshua to prove the two are one and the same. It is important to fully understand these verses correctly.

The first is found in Rom.14:10,11. It reads, “But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God” (KJV). Paul was quoting Is.45:23 in which the speaker is Yahweh. So when verse 23 says, “That unto me,” “me” refers to Yahweh. Every knee will bow and every tongue will swear to Yahweh. Therefore, in Rom.14:11, “Lord” must mean Yahweh, as does “me” and “God”. There is no mention of Messiah in this verse; not even in verse 10. Concerning the phrase “judgment seat of Christ,” the Jamieson, Faussett, Brown Commentary says, “All the most ancient and best MSS. read here, “judgment seat of God.”

Paul does, however, apply portions of Is.45:23 to Yahshua in Ph.2:10,11. That does not mean he is also applying the Name “Yahweh” to him as well. Jn.5:23 helps us to understand this. If you don't honor the Son, by extension, you don't honor the Father. And Jn.15:23; if you hate the Son, by extension, you hate the Father. If you bow your knees to the Son, by extension, you bow your knees to the Father. Notice Is.45:23 does not say what will be sworn; Ph.2:11 does – every tongue shall confess or swear that Yahshua is “Lord,” “kurios”. That same word was applied to men in several other verses such as Jn.12:21. It is only a reference to Yahweh when it is a direct quote of an Old Testament verse containing the Tetragrammaton which Is.45:23 does not.

The next reference is 1 Pe.2:8, “And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.” Peter is here applying Is.8:14 to Messiah. It is to be understood in the sense that, since Yahshua is Yahweh's representative or agent, whatever Yahshua does is credited to Yahweh or is as though Yahweh did it. Isayah says Yahweh will be a stumbling stone. Yahweh then causes Israel to stumble over Yahshua which makes them both stumbling stones. “The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner. This is Yahweh's doing; it is marvelous in our eyes” (Ps.118:22,23).

Consider Ex.7:17 when understanding this verse.

“Thus saith Yahweh, In this thou shalt know that I am Yahweh: behold, I will smite with the rod that is in mine hand upon the waters which are in the river, and they shall be turned to blood. And the fish that is in the river shall die, and the river shall stink; and the Egyptians shall lothe to drink of the water of the river. And Yahweh spake unto Moses, Say unto Aaron, Take thy rod, and stretch out thine hand upon the waters of Egypt, upon their streams, upon their rivers, and upon their ponds, and upon all their pools of water, that they may become blood; and that there may be blood throughout all the land of Egypt, both in vessels of wood, and in vessels of stone. And Moses and Aaron did so, as Yahweh commanded; and he lifted up the rod, and smote the waters that were in the river, in the sight of Pharaoh, and in the sight of his servants; and all the waters that were in the river were turned to blood.”

Yahweh says He Himself will smite the waters with the rod in His own hand. Yet, it was Aaron that held the rod (Ex.7:19,20). Are we to believe that Aaron is also Yahweh? Neither should we believe that Yahshua is Yahweh in this verse.

Consider Zech 14:4 in this light as well.

“And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.”

Most people believe “his feet” refers to Yahweh's feet. Yet, they realize that it is Yahshua who is returni
ng to set up the Kingdom on earth. S

[Anonymous]

Oneness believes there is only one person who is deity and in prayer the humanity is communicating to God in himself, as the humanness prays to the Father. There are two different views in Oneness one is that deity left his body while on the cross, the other is a deity that stands by completely uninvolved with Christ’s suffering.

If there is no eternal Son or Father relationship then numerous statements in the New Testament, not only make no sense, but they becomes a farce. When we come to the Lord's statement's from the cross this becomes most obvious. “Jesus (humanity) cried out on the cross, My God, My God why have you forsaken me, thereby proving that the spirit (God) that dwelt in Jesus had to leave that human body before it could have even died because God cannot die.” (Debate on the Godhead, p.110, Hutchinson) I have not found this to be the view of the majority. This affects the very reason God came. When he says “My God, my God why have you forsaken me, who is the me? Did the Father leave his body? If God forsook his humanness, than Jesus is no longer the God/man dying for our sins, and he died before he stated “it is finished”! Nowhere do we find the Father dying for our sins, nor his vacating before the task was done. James says, “the body without the Spirit is dead. For one to die, their spirit must have a permanent separation from their body, exactly what is proposed.

Bernard’s view is the Father is in Christ but instead ” the Spirit did not depart but that there was no help from the spirit.”(p.178) The Scripture says the Spirit was involved, not standing by idly. How could Christ have been persevered through the atonement by only his humanity. Heb.9:14 “How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God.” 2 Cor.5:19 says “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself,” this took place on the cross. What it does not say is the Father was in Christ which is there own insertion. Col.1:19-20 “For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.” God was involved in the sufferings on the cross. Bernard states “the divine spirit could not be separated from the human nature.” “And then says that the divine nature could not participate in the suffering. Which is it?

Bernard also tries to address Patripassionism of which he states Sabellius denied. While he does affirm the Spirit inside Jesus must have been affected and participated in the suffering there is an element missing. For even before his death their was suffering and what the body went through in some way the inner man did also. He quotes Tertullian as misunderstanding the modalists. They were not saying the Father is the Son but ” As Commodian said, “The Father went into the Son, one God everywhere . Similarly, Sabellius explained that the Logos was not the Son but was clothed by the Son”. …”accordingly, Zephyrinus said, “I know only one God, Christ Jesus, and apart from him no other who was born or could suffer…It was not the Father who died but the Son.” (Oneness of God p.251) Here we have their own definition that the Son was humanity and the Father was the deity. So the Father who is God did not die. We agree with this to the extent that deity did not die.

Yet from the writings of Tertullian which are extensive on the debates of God’s nature he wrote, “the devil has striven against the truth in manifold ways. He has sometimes endeavored to destroy it by defending it. He champions the unity of God, the omnipotent creator of the world , only to make out of that unity a heresy.” (Tertullian Adv, Praxean, I) He further stated that Praxeas believed ” that the Father Himself came down into the virgin, was Himself born of her, Himself suffered, indeed was Himself Jesus Christ”. (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. III, Tertullian “Against Praxeas”, p. 597.) As was previously quoted their is no contradiction Of Tertullians statements and their own quotes.

Heb.2:18, “he also suffered once for sins…that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the Spirit.” However if there is no organic connection of Spirit to man then it is all accomplished by only a human. Hardly a reasonable position to take since this was the reason he became a man, for reconciliation.

Bernard writes that it was the humanity of Jesus which suffered for our sins and that the nature of God cannot suffer (Oneness of God, p.178-180, 291). He holds to the position the deity cannot and did not suffer for our sins. Yet he states “this death was more than physical death; it involved spiritual death.” “It was the Father who was manifest to take away our sins.” If deity who is the Father cannot suffer for our sins and the Father was manifested to take away our sins, doesn't this make the Father the humanity? How can he take away our sins when he stood by uninvolved? The whole concept of the atonement is the God/man, one person paying the price for sin. While we agree saying that God cannot actually die, we need to clear up confusion by defining what death actually is.

What is death? The Bible says clearly Jesus died for our sins, death involves the whole person not just his flesh. Certainly the spirit lives on, however it becomes separated at the point of death. If it was only the flesh involved in the redemption what eternal value is that? The concept of the crucifixion is not that God actually died, but that God as Jesus was separated spiritually, and died in the flesh. In Gethsamane it was this cup that Jesus asked to be removed. If he was praying that he would not have to experience physical death, he would be rejecting the very reason he came. His obedience is shown as in Phil.2 says even to the death on the cross. He would not be praying that the very purpose of his coming be removed.

When we look at the symbolic usage of cups, we find it can represent Gods wrath poured out as punishment. This is cup that he had asked to be removed, the wrath of God that would result in separation he would experience on the cross. This is the baptism he said he had to experience. While we are all born in a sinful state, and have by nature the consequences of spiritual death separation from God. Jesus never knew of this, he was always in perfect fellowship with the Father and the Spirit from eternity. He knew something would take place he never experienced before. As soon as the sins of the world were placed on him he was in contact with the effects of sin which is separation from God. As our substitute he was separated, suffering the wrath of God for us, he cried out to the Father “my God, my God why have you forsaken me?” His eternal fellowship was broken as he experienced the punishment for sin. He now understood its affect on the human condition, body and soul. While no one knows what exactly transpired in this separation which lasted an agonizing 3 hours, we do know fellowship was fully restored before he died.

If what God did not experience is the same as what Jesus experienced, this event would be meaningless. The two natures are united organically in one person. As he cried out it is finished the debt for sin was paid. He cried out Father once again saying, “into your hands I commit my Spirit” and then breathed his last and died. Notice he did not say I commend your spirit, separating Gods spirit from himself, his spirit was deity. He determined the moment his own Spirit would be dismissed. (You try doing that, it won't happen) No mere man can control his own Spirit and the time of his death by speaking. Only God has this ability, as he said in Jn.I0 “I have the power to lay it down and take it up.” His pleas “Father forgive them…”and “Father into your hands I commit my Spirit” would be fraudulent, if there is no other genuine person he is speaking to. Then he has his human nature that is not a person, speaking to his
divine nature which is a role. According to the Oneness view, the Father is the Spirit. Who is he entrusting his Spirit to? Is not his Spirit the Father according to Oneness? Bernard states it was the divine spirit that left at this point. He's not saying he's entrusting his body but his inner man (Spirit) over to another. If the Father is in him, is he entrusting the Father over to the Father? Is the Spirit in Christ less then God? This poses a huge problem for the Oneness view but not for Trinitarians. Another problem is that if the Father forsook him and the Father is the deity in Christ, then doesn’t this make him dead before his atonement was finished. Separation of the spirit from the body means physical death, the very life that animated him was God, if he left, he is no longer the God/ man, and is not alive. If he only stood by then Christ is doing it all from his humanity which means he is a separate person from deity.

In Jn.10:18 Jesus said “no one takes my life from me, but I lay it down of myself I have the power to take it again.” (Jn. 2:19) This commandment have I received from my Father.” Here Jesus states he has the power to give his life and to revive it, this command comes from another, the Father. One does not receive instruction from himself as one person. If Jesus is to raise himself from the dead obviously he is referring to his body. Only his God self is capable of doing this, so this is the one who receives the instruction, which clearly indicates communion between two different persons both who are deity. In other words only what will survive death can raise his dead body which means that something is deity.

Heb 2:17, “that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people”. Propitiation, sacrifices are always Godward, he did not sacrifice himself to himself as one person. He as God gave his life (his body) as a sacrifice to the Father. Heb. 9:14 “he offered himself without spot to God, we know from the scriptures that it was the Son who was on the cross and the Father who accepted his atonement. Yet we must not put aside that he was on the cross as God or we have only a human atoning for sins that would amount to of no effect. God is then reduced to a nature and not a person if his deity did not suffer along with the humanity.

Bernard insists that it was only the humanity of Jesus that suffered for our sins, and that the nature of God cannot suffer. If we look at the Biblical record the evidence speaks otherwise. God is described as having emotions such as, love, joy, pleasure, gladness, kindness and mercy, he is long suffering. On the other hand he is also described as being grieved, having hate and anger. We need to also understand that he does not feel these in the exact same way we do as humans, but he is communicating that he is possessing emotion, not that he does not. Since man was made in his image, not the other way around, we must reflect in some limited fashion his capacity to feel. God is not impassive, which would make him not only incapable of suffering, but unable to have all the other feelings that are previously mentioned. Then his love, mercy, compassion are all done away with as well. Take away this ability to feel and we are left with a personality of a lifeless rock, a human puppet. Without the organic union of the humanity with the Spirit in man there are no feelings or emotions. If the Spirit does not feel the pain of the body, it is dead. We can feel anguish and hurt in our spirit without our body necessarily being affected, but hardly the other way around.

Christ experienced things that the Father and the Spirit could not because of his incarnation. He alone experienced temptation and the functions of the human body. While they could not experience these things first hand they did understand them by Christ doing it. There is nothing that none cannot understand of the other, but their is a difference in their experiencing it. For this reason he prayed to the Father expressing his feelings. He learned by obedience Rom.5:19, Heb.5:8. He learned by suffering as in Heb.2:18, and in 1 Peter 3 parallels our suffering with Christ’s in vs.14 and in vs.18 in that “he also suffered once for sins…that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the Spirit.”

If there is only one person who is God and Christ cried out on the cross that God had forsaken him (left him) then this means we have only a man dying for the sins of the world. This becomes a difficulty that can hardly be explained from a biblical perspective.

[NickHassan]

Hi,
If a lamb was sacrificed for the sins of Man how much more effective the Lamb of God. Where is it written it needs a God to die for the sin of mankind? The divine staus of Jesus Christ did not equal that of the God he was begotten from.

God is God and Jesus Christ is the Son of that God. Scripture says in Rom 8.3
” For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did, SENDING HIS OWN SON IN THE LIKENESS OF SINFUL FLESH and as an offering for sin. He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirements of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit”. God sent his divine Son to partake of flesh like us. He lived in flesh and was for a little while less than the ngels like us in every way but sin.

There is confusion in the post from FYI between the spirit of Jesus and the Spirit within him. They are different and represent his own nature and that of his Father.

Rom 8.16 applied to Jesus as well as us
” The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God”
and Phil 2.13
” for it is God who is at work in you to will and to work for his good pleasure”
and Col 1.19
“For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in him and through him to reconcile all things to Himself”

This is the same Father God in heaven that he prayed to who dwelled in him by His Spirit.

Jesus Christ had his own spirit and was filled with the Spirit of God just as we can be. We do not lose our own spirit when we are filled with the Spirit of God. The Spirit of God is never separate from God as the Son of God is as the only begotten Son.

The Son of God showed he had a will of his own in Gethsemene but continued to choose to submit to the will of the Father. God is in heaven and His Spirit imbues all His creation and fulfills His purposes. It never had a will of it's own or a name of it's own because it is of the Father.

When Jesus died it was the fulfillment of his choice to obey the Father-that is why he said he had the power to lay down his life and the power to take it up again, after he had been raised by the Father. He was commanded to do so by the Father [Jn 10.18]and chose to fully obey.

He commended his own spirit into the hands of his Father before he yielded up his spirit and the Father took that spirit, and he died.

The Spirit of the Father continued to dwell in him after death just as it does in us when our own spirit leaves as shown in Romans 8.10f. It was by His Spirit in him that the Father raised him again as it will also be for us.

He suffered as a man and died as a man to redeem man. God [as Spirit]was in Christ [as a vessel] reconciling the world to Himself. A trinity was not in Christ, and Christ was not in Christ but God was in Christ by His Spirit.

[NickHassan]

Hi F4Y,
I thank you for your careful exegesis of scripture.

I would like to challenge you on one matter at this stage.

You quoted a scripture about the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world and I believe you have misconstrued it by taking it out of context.

Rev13.8 [KJV]
“All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world”
compare
Rev 17.8[KJV]
” “…And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world when they see the beast that was,and is not, and yet is”

These are very similar scriptures and the vital difference is to which does the phrase “from the foundation of the world” belong?

It seems logical by comparing them that the names were written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world. The part “of the Lamb slain” is surely descriptive here.

The NASB is better in this way.

Rev 13.8[NASB]
“All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain”
compare
Rev 17.8[NASB]
“…And all who dwell on the earth whose name has not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world will wonder when they see the beast, that he was and is not and will come”

[NickHassan]

Hi F4Y,
In your view to start with:

Was Satan created before the Son of God?
Were the other sons of God shown in Job 1,2 and 38 created before the Son of God?
Was Adam and the animals created before the son of God?
Were these others made in God's image before The Image of God?
When was the Son of God sent into the world?

[Anonymous]

Was Satan created before the Son of God?

No! Nothing existed before YHWH.

Were the other sons of God shown in Job 1,2 and 38 created before the Son of God?

No! Nothing existed before YHWH.

Was Adam and the animals created before the son of God?

No! Nothing existed before YHWH.

Were these others made in God's image before The Image of God?

No! Nothing existed before YHWH.

When was the Son of God sent into the world?

From the Foundation of the World the plan was for God (YHWH) the Word to take on Flesh and bring salvation to to all mankind.

You see Nick, God is omniscient, knowing the end from the beginning. And in His infinite wisdom and love had already planned within himself to redeem us from our own rebellion and subsequent slavery to sin. Yet I suspect you already know these things, that is unless you twist the truth of God (YHWH) for a lie, then the entire plan and predestination has no continuity.

[NickHassan]

Hi FYI,
Prov 30.4
“….What is His name or His son's name”
I think we need to look at basics about God here FYI. The bible seems to say God has a son and they have different names. Could your God be a different one to ours?

[Anonymous]

Nick, your quote:

Quote

Does it not say in Ex 4.22 “Israel is My son, My firstborn”?

[liljon]

THE TRINITY IS NOT THREE GODS! Stop repeated that lie that every other anti trin says. Frank I Suggest you see

http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-proof-texts.htm

[Author]

Posts