The Continuing Saga

For those of us who came to faith in middle-age and missed-out on years of church indoctrination, it has been an easier road, I think.

Good analysis, Skip.. I also find no evidence in Scripture where Yeshua claims to be God the Son, nor where YHVH proclaims Yeshua to be God my Son. And there are numerous Scripture references that infer if not proclaim the opposite, including Phil. 2:6, Ps. 8:6 + 1Co. 15:27-28, Mt.26:39 and Jn. 6:38. My wife and I belong to a wonderful messianic synagogue with a gifted rabbi, complimented by a body of both Jewish and Gentile believers. Most of the Gentile believers have a New Testament background and some still embrace the triune theology. My wife and I (Gentiles), like the Jewish believers, do not. Praise YHVH, the differing positions have been a topic of discussion rather than a topic of division.

First off, let me state where I come from and how I view the “New Testament”, “ Apostolic text”. I see it as authoritative, and as such, just as much scripture as the Tanach is. Not only do I base that on the words from the Apostolic text but, if the very words of Yeshua and those whom He personally chose and taught don’t equate with those of the Tanach, then you might as well just rip them out and toss them, if that’s how you view them. So, if y’all that are reading this are ones that think the Apostolic text is nothing more than just “commentary”, then you might as well just stop now. Because let’s be honest, the Apostles themselves view Paul’s writings as “scripture”, therefore the others must be as well, so, why shouldn’t I?

I do in fact see the Apostolic text speaking in terms of Yeshua being God, ie., YHVH come in the flesh, to save His people and bring them to Himself. That no “man” and anything less than YHVH Himself, could even do such a thing. YHVH promised that He Himself would save His people and He has in fact shown that and proved that in Himself, Yeshua Messiah. My position is as I’ve stated above, and I don’t believe it’s really possible to convince someone of that by mere words. That is totally and completely done by the Ruach HaKodesh of YHVH, Himself.

I don’t think I need Mr. Buzzard, mystic writings, secret meanings in letters or words, hidden passages in the Bible, Jewish Rabbi’s or writings, so called Messianic Rabbi’s or Calvin and Luther to be able to read and see the plain reading and meaning of the text, using the languages it was wrote in, the historical evidence of its truth, the grammatical perspective it’s given in, the very words of Yeshua Himself and the ones He taught and the Holy writ of the Tanach, to be able to see that Yeshua is in fact the promised Messiah, the Salvation of YHVH, the words of YHVH made flesh, the way in which we’re made to be able to stand righteous before a Holy God, He is the Creator of heaven and earth whom nothing came into being without, the One that rules and reigns to whom every knee will bow and every lounge will confess that He is YHVH, He is God with us, YHVH. Let’s just put up and look at a few lines of scripture.

John, in the opening of his Gospel, writes that “In the beginning was Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God” (John 1:1). John is clearly mimicking the words of Gen 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” He intends us to know that in the same way that Moses begins the Torah with God but without any suggestion that God Himself had a beginning, so he begins his Gospel with “In the beginning was the Word,” implying that the Word also had no beginning. Moreover, the Greek literally says “and the Word was to God,” meaning that the Word had an intimate, face-to-face relationship with God, a relationship that bespeaks equality. Then John writes “and the Word was God.” After expressing relationship in the phrase “the Word was to God,” John makes the inexplicable statement that “the Word was God.” In these two statements John expresses both the Word’s distinctive individuality and His absolute oneness with the Father. Moreover, John leaves us no doubts as to Whom he refers as the Word. In v. 14 he gives a clear explanation: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” Much, of course, has been written on John’s Prologue to his Gospel, and many have tried to find other ways of explaining John’s words. Some have felt that his statement regarding Yeshua’s divine nature is far too bold to have been even thinkable in 1st Century Judaisms. But a study of other early Jewish literature, such as the Melchizedek text from Qumran (11Q13), shows that ascribing divine attributes to an exalted human figure is clearly not outside of the scope of early Judaism.

Another controversial verse in John’s Prologue is v. 18. Here, textual variants have given rise to various translations. For instance, the KJV has: “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” However, some of the older Greek manuscripts have “only begotten God” rather than “only begotten Son.” Indeed, the word translated “only begotten” does not speak so much to being born as to being unique. Thus, the same Greek word monogenes is used of Isaac in Gen 22:2, “take now your son, your only (monogenes) son….” Thus, the NIV translation of John 1:18 is on the mark: “No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.” The ESV, NRSV and the NASB also follow a similar rendering. The reason these translators opted for the reading “only begotten God” rather than “only begotten Son” is because the weight of manuscript evidence favors this reading. Here, as in the opening verse of the Prologue (and thus forming a literary inclusio) John, without further explanation, explicitly refers to Yeshua as God existing “in the bosom of the Father” (the literal translation of the Greek, corresponding to the NIV’s “at the Father’s side”).

John is not the only one to record such explicit statements about Yeshua’s divine nature. Paul also incorporates into his epistles two hymns that were apparently well known among the congregations of The Way: 1Tim 3:16 and Phil 2:6–11. The hymn in 1Tim 3:16 speaks of Yeshua as “revealed in the flesh,” meaning “revealed as a human being.” The fact that he speaks of Yeshua being “revealed” emphasizes the fact that Yeshua existed before He was born as a babe in Bethlehem. This corresponds to Yeshua’s own words when He said, “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58). He did not say “Before Abraham was, I was” but “I am.” The reaction of the people who took up stones to kill Yeshua at this point, makes it clear that His words of “I am” were well understood as an assertion of being eternal.

This is one of the clear points made in the second hymn Paul uses in his epistle to the Philippians. This hymns speaks of Yeshua pouring Himself out as a sacrifice. After establishing the fact that Yeshua existed in the “very nature of God” (Phil 2:6), the hymn goes on to speak of His incarnation as a true human being (not some super-human or some façade of humanity) Who became “obedient to death.” While truly human, Yeshua had a unique status in the sense that He could “become obedient to death.” No one who has inherited a fallen nature from Adam has the option of whether or not to submit to death. Death is inevitable for us all (Heb 9:27). But not so in the case of Yeshua. Death had no power over Him. For Him to die, therefore, was an act of His own sovereign and voluntary choice. Moreover, because He willingly submitted to death, even the worst sort of death by excruciating execution as a criminal punished by crucifixion, Yeshua was highly exalted and the “name above all names” was bestowed upon Him (Phil 2:9). Paul is careful in the choice of his words, for he does not write that a name was “given” to Yeshua, but “bestowed” (charizomai) upon Him, suggesting more the idea that the glory He had with the Father before the world began (cf. Jn 17:5) was restored. While Yeshua existed from all eternity, without a beginning, He was not fully known as He is now, having died, raised from the dead, and ascended to the right hand of the Father on high. It was through His humiliation that He would forever be known as the One possessing a “name above every name.” And what is that name? Phil 2:11 tells us: “every tongue will confess that Yeshua Messiah is Lord (kurios).” While the name kurios may be understood simply as “Master” or “Lord,” Jewish believers of the 1st Century could not have missed the fact that in the Lxx of the Tanach, kurios is the Greek word used most often used to translate the ineffable Name, the Tetragram (Y-H-V-H). Is this not the highest of all names? And it is this Name by which the risen, exalted Messiah is now known. For this reason, Paul tells us that “at the name of Yeshua every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth” (Phil. 2:10). Yes, indeed! Yeshua is worthy to be worshipped and as such, He is one with the Father, bearing the Name, by which we understand and confess that He fully participates in all the divine attributes revealed in the Name.

This core belief of the Apostles is found in other contexts as well. Paul writes to Titus regarding the hope of Yeshua’s return: looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Messiah Yeshua, who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds” (Tit 2:13–14). The Greek construction of this amazing statement emphasizes that fact that both “God” and “Savior” refer to “Messiah Yeshua” in the opening phrase of v. 13. Similarly, in Acts 20:28, in the oldest Greek manuscripts, Paul admonishes the elders of Ephesus to “shepherd the ekklesia of God which He purchased with His own blood.” Such language tells us that for Paul, the divine nature of Yeshua was a well-established fact in his own understanding and theology. Likewise, in Rom 9:5, the grammar of the Greek favors understanding Paul’s use of “God” (theos) to refer to Yeshua: “whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Messiah according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.”

Simply put, if we accept the Apostolic Scriptures as God’s inspired word, then we also accept without reservation the full and complete deity of the Messiah, Yeshua. This does not mean we can explain how this is possible, or describe the ontological realities that such a confession entails. I do not seek to answer the mystery of how God could take on the form of a human being, or how, in pouring Himself out as a sacrifice, the unchangeable God could suffer at the hands of mutable, sinful, and mortal mankind.

From a Hebraic perspective, I hold this mystery and the tension it creates as an inexplicable truth. What we cannot fully explain, we yet fully confess to be true.

In the midst of the Christological controversies that have arisen within the Torah movement, I want everyone to know exactly where I stand on this most vital issue. I fully affirm the deity of Yeshua as well as His complete humanity. I believe He existed from all eternity, without beginning and without end, and that He is not the product of creation but is Himself the Creator (Jn 1:3; Col 1:16-17). I believe that at the time determined by the Father, Yeshua was conceived by the miraculous power of the Spirit within Miriam (Mary), a virgin betrothed to Joseph. That He was born as the Gospels record and that He lived, suffered, and died as man, as the Gospel writers tell us. I believe that, just as He said, He arose on the third day, and that having showed Himself to many people during the time of counting the omer, He ascended into heaven where He now resides at the right hand of the Father, interceding for all who are His. As the exalted Son of God, He is that Son of Man spoken of by Daniel (7:13f) Who reigns in glory, and Who is therefore worthy of our worship and adoration, and that as we render our worship to Him, in doing so we give glory to the Father (Phil 2:11). I also believe that Yeshua will return to this earth according to the sovereign providence of God, and that He will gather all who are truly His and will reign in Jerusalem as the Davidic King in accordance with the words of the Prophets and Apostles. As such, I believe that Yeshua is the only way of salvation for any who would be saved (Acts 4:12), and that apart from Him, no eternal salvation or place in the world to come is possible.

Shabbat Shalom!

Mark, I want to thank you for your witness. It takes knowing Whom you have believed to be able to show where you are coming from. I also want to thank Skip for the same. I think honesty is the only way to be able to interact with each other, not to mention looking out for each other.

R.e. the catholic trinity (which is by no means their invention; why trinities are everywhere!): I just wanted to say that I think I have observed something when it comes to error, and that is that the greatest errors will always be found paralleling the truth the most closely. What that means to me is a couple of things. First, the devil cannot create, which is to say, he can only mimic, pervert, steal or destroy. When I see error, then, I have been learning to go looking for what it is trying to mimic, pervert, steal or destroy. This has led me down some very interesting bunny trails, and actually to some jackpots at the ends of rainbows, too. Because error has to start with some truth in it to even classify as a lie, I have been learning to go looking for the truth first. The subject of the trinity is no exception. There is truth in it, but I think it has been twisted and laid upon another foundation. It is never just as simple and black and white as to say that because one thing is wrong, all we have to do is to just throw everything out. I think somebody on this forum referred to that as “throwing out the Hebrew baby with the Greek bath water”. If we truly want to address the issue of the Godhead and of the Trinity, then perhaps – when we have gotten tired of throwing anathemas at each other, that is – we could possibly sit down and sort through ALL the trinity stuff out there, and ALL the understanding of the One true God, too, and come to our own conclusions.

I sense a false dialectic; somehow something got separated that should have stayed joined together on this issue, and that is what has actually been generating all the confusion. I do know that when somebody comes along and offers to split a baby so that I can pick which piece I want I may want to back up at that point and go looking for the real mother of the situation. What if we figured out how to resist the dialectic in the first place? What if we got brave enough to go examine WHY the problem exists at all? What if we have been traveling on perverted answers to polluted questions that are not defining the problem, but instead are serving to make it worse? Could we figure out how to start over?