Gods of Power
“It will come about in that day,” declares the Lord, “That you will call Me Ishi and will no longer call Me Baali.” Hosea 2:16 NASB
Ishi – “For Hosea, at the core of Baal worship is the primitive idea that God rules the world by force, as husbands rule families in societies where power determines the structure of relationships. Against this, Hosea paints a quite different possibility, of a relationship between marriage partners built on love and mutual loyalty. God is not Baal, He-who-rules-by-force, but Ish, He-who-relates-in-love, the very word Adam used when he first saw Eve. The God to whom we speak in prayer is not the ultimate power but the ultimate person, the Other in whom I find myself.”[1]
Sacks’ pregnant insight is important on many levels. First, it corrects our mistaken idea that God dominates His creation as the ultimate moral policeman. The idea that God rules by power is almost pagan, especially when His Messiah deliberately changes the perceived hierarchy of master-slave to teacher-friend (John 15:15). Ish is a word of exclaimed joy in the presence of the other.
Secondly, Sacks reminds us that the biblical idea of marriage cannot be based on power. Ishi (my husband) depends entirely on the exuberance of finding myself in the other person. I am who I am because of who she is. My name for myself (Adam) is voluntarily changed in order for me to be who I am in relationship with her (ish and ishshah). Paul says virtually the same thing when he speaks of mutual submission (Ephesians 5:21) as the proper application for relationship between wives and husbands. There is no room for power plays! Domination is not love.
Finally, Sacks’ point that God is the ultimate person should erase, once and for all, the idea that we are isolated, alone and helpless. Certainly the world teaches us primal screams, island insulation and woods that are “dark and deep.” But come with me to the African savannah on a moonless night. Look up at the infinite care for His creation and we can weep together as we hear David’s poem:
What is man that You take thought of him,
And the son of man that You care for him?
Yet You have made him a little lower than God,
And You crown him with glory and majesty!
You make him to rule over the works of Your hands;
You have put all things under his feet, (Psalm 8:4-6)
The God of power is not the God I know in the depths of my soul. My God loves me and calls me by the name He has given to one He loves.
Topical Index: power, ba’al, ish, Hosea 2:16, Genesis 2:23, Ephesians 5:21, Psalm 8
[1] Jonathan Sacks, Radical Then, Radical Now, p. 84.
Dioses de Poder
Sucederá en aquel día–declara el SEÑOR– que me llamarás Ishí y no me llamarás más Baalí. Óseas 2:16 LBLA
Ishí “Para óseas, en el corazón de la adoración a Baal está la idea primitiva de que Dios gobierna el mundo por fuerza, tal y como los esposos gobiernan las familias en las sociedades donde el poder determina la estructura de las relaciones. En contra de esto óseas Presenta una posibilidad algo diferente, de una relación entre los cónyuges establecida en amor y lealtad mutua. Dios no es Baal, El que gobierna por la fuerza, sino Ish, El que se relaciona en amor, La misma palabra qué harán uso cuando vio a Eva por primera vez. El Dios a quien le hablamos en oración no es el poder supremo sino la persona suprema el otro en quién me puedo encontrar a mí mismo.” [1]
La idea significativa de Sack es importante en muchos niveles. Primero, corrige nuestra idea errónea de que Dios domina su creación como el policía moral supremo. La idea de que Dios gobierna por poder o fuerza es casi pagana, Especialmente cuando su Mesías Cambia adrede la jerarquía percibida de amo – esclavo a maestro – amigo (Juan 15:15) Ish es una palabra de gozo exclamado ante la presencia de otro.
Segundo, Sack nos recuerda la idea bíblica que el matrimonio no puede estar basado en poder. Ishi (mi esposo) depende completamente en la exuberancia de encontrarme a mí mismo en esa otra persona. Yo soy quien soy por quién ella es. Mi nombre para mí mismo (Adán) es cambiado voluntariamente para poder ser quien soy en relación a ella (Ish e Ishá). Pablo dice virtualmente lo mismo cuando habla de una sujeción mutua (Efesios 5:21) Como la dedicación correcta para la relación entre esposos y esposas. No hay lugar para movimientos de poder. Dominar no es amor.
Finalmente la idea de Sack indica que Dios la persona suprema debería borrar, de una vez por todas, la idea que estamos aislados, solos e indefensos. Ciertamente el mundo nos enseña terapias primales, aislamiento de Islas, y bosques que son “oscuros y profundos.” Pero ven conmigo a la sabana africana en una noche sin luna. Contempla el infinito cuidado hacia su creación y podemos llorar juntos al escuchar el poema de David:
¿Qué es el hombre para que de él te acuerdes,
y el hijo del hombre para que lo cuides?
¡Sin embargo, lo has hecho un poco menor que Dios,
y lo coronas de gloria y majestad!
Tú le haces señorear sobre las obras de tus manos;
todo lo has puesto bajo sus pies. (Salmo 8:4-6)
El Dios de poder no es el Dios que yo conozco en las profundidades de mi alma. Mi Dios me ama y me llama por el nombre que Él le ha dado a los que Él ama.
At a very low point in my life I was reading hosea and YHVH spoke so completely to my heart that He was the one who would draw me back and that the names of all I looked to for substance would fall away and I would call Him ” my ishi” funny at the time I didn’t even have a clue about the way to walk before Him. I was so deep in church and unaware of the blinders which I wore.
That brings me to another point, I cried out in prayer for Him to never allow me to be deceived and to open my eyes to the truth of His word, for many years. When I began to see there was more than was I was being taught and told my world caved in on itself. Thankfully!
I kept seeing someone post things from this website and knew there was something different. Every time I would read it there was a pull of a layer until it fell from my eyes.
When I read Hosea now it speaks of something more than I could have imagined, He truly has brought me to a place from the darkest valley and spoken from His trustworthiness.
Babs, I experienced something similar one time when I was reading Hosea. I consider Hosea to have both lived and written the ultimate romantic love portrayal in the whole Book. I think it may have been men who determined that the Song of Songs accomplished that, and it may – for men, anyway – but for me, Hosea contains the story and the declaration that speaks best to a woman’s heart.
An interesting perspective. Song is about intimate joy. Hosea is about fidelity. Maybe that’s the important difference.
Absolutely awesome and spot on, brother Skip! Ever since Adam, [actually even before!] the Master’s Plan has been “restoration of (broken) relationship.”
Even our “Bible” word “righteous” may be understood as “right-relationship!”
And once again we return to the “big”question: How was the “mighty gulf” between holy God and sinful man spanned? – At Calvary.
At Calvary?
or from the foundations of the world? REV 13:8
Remember that it’s a renewed covenant, not a “new” one. So, there’s nothing “new” about the ministry of “Jesus”, or his calling. His name literally means, “YHVH saves”. “Yehoshuah” is the Hebrew word for Joshua which is the same name given to Joshua son of Nun who led the Israelites into the Promised Land. Adam and Eve, Noah’s family, Abraham, the Israelites, anyone in scripture, nor anyone today could be spared by God if not for the salvation of humanity from the foundations of the world.
Therefore, to say that restoration began at Calvary is to deny the effectiveness of God’s saving power throughout history. Christian doctrine is almost exclusively focused on man’s “sinfulness” when, in fact, God dealt with that from the foundations of the world. The HEATHEN – those who deny God and practice idolatry – are separated from God; not the RIGHTEOUS. The righteous, He calls to be Holy, as He is Holy (LEV 11:45). He calls the righteous “Kings and Priests; a Holy Nation” (EX 19:6), even today. (1PET2:9).
So, in essence, there never has been a “mighty gulf between God and sinful man”. All of creation is still “good” from the foundations of the world; otherwise, being Holy Himself, YHVH could never have dwelt among His people in ancient times, or in the time of Yehoshuah; nor could He be with us, now.
Your articulation of the illogical assertion that Calvary was the act of ultimate forgiveness echoes my book, Cross Word Puzzles. Just one correction, if you don’t mind. Yeshua is not the same as Yehoshuah. You are correct that Yehoshuah means “God saves,” but Yeshua means “salvation.” It is not the same Hebrew form as the name of the son of Nun.
Skip, I have been wanting to ask about salvation: is it from sin, or is it from death? From the cause or from the consequence?
Oh good… we should all get your book then because the implications of this paradigm shift are enormous.
Can you explain to me why Yehoshua is NOT the name of the son of nun, then? I make the correlation based upon scriptures like Numbers 13:16 and Joshua 1:1.
You misunderstood. Yehoshua IS the name of the son of Nun, but it is not the name of the son of Mary (Miriam). Yehoshua means “God is salvation” or “God saves.” But Yeshua means “salvation.” Yes, I know the ENGLISH translation does not make this distinction, but in Hebrew the two names are not the same, as you can tell by the missing consonant. Consider the following:
From Rabbi Robert Gorelik
Yeshua—masculine form of the Hebrew word “salvation.” Yeshua is the proper Hebrew name of Jesus. “Jesus” is derived from the Greek Iêsous. Iêsous is a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name Y’ho-shua or Joshua and means “the Lord is salvation.”
According to Mathew 1:21, Yeshua was named Salvation (not “the Lord is salvation”), because he would “save his people from their sins.” The “word-play” employed, i.e., between the name Yeshua and the Hebrew word for “save” exists only in Hebrew—it does not exist in Greek—and, it does not exist in English:
—v’ka-ra-tah et sh’mo yeshua ki hu yo-shi-ah et amo me-avono-tei-hem.
In my opinion, the name Yeshua also implies the deity of the Messiah, since the text in Matthew says that “Yeshua will save … from sins”—a statement that can only be true if Yeshua is the very “form of God” (Philippians 2:6-7). See also Exodus 15:2; Psalm 27:1; 37:39; 74:12; John 10:28; Acts 4:12)
Ironically, even though the name Jesus is the name by which Yeshua is known in English—in the First-century, he was never called by that name.
I talk about this frequently, because saying Yeshua’s name as Yah-shua is not only incorrect – it; 1) betrays an ignorance of Hebrew and 2) is an agenda-driven attempt (on the part of some) to insert God’s “Sacred Name” into the name of the Messiah, and 3) is not even the proper pronunciation of “YHVH saves” or “YHVH is salvation”.
With all due respect, I don’t understand where Bob finds the “word play” between the Greek word “Jesus” and the Hebrew word “Yehoshua” since:
Strong’s Concordance clearly states that the English word, Jesus, is being used in place of the Greek word Iesous (G2424) which is the same as the Hebrew word Yehoshua (H3091) meaning “YHVH saves”.
Therefore, in Matthew 1:21, a messenger of YHVH instructs Joseph to name his son “YHVH saves” since YHVH will save His people from their sins. Here is a link to the words to this verse in The Blue Letter Bible:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=H3091&t=KJV
The same word Iesous/Yehoshua is used in Matthew 1:16,18 to describe the son of Miryam. So, for this reason, I am not clear how you come to the conclusion that the son of Mary was NOT named “YHVH saves”.
With all due respect, neither Strong’s nor Blue Letter Bible is correct. Both are heavily Christian, not Hebraic. And Bob isn’t saying that Iesous is the word play. The word play is in Hebrew, not Greek. Here’s the exercise. Put aside all the Christian interpretation of the text and read it like a Hebrew. I agree that “Jesus” is not even close to the original, but you apparently didn’t get what Bob was saying about the original Hebrew name. I have written a lot about this throughout the Today’s Word editions. You could search them on the web site.
Okay, I will… I’ll do some more research, thanks.
I realize that Strong’s Concordance and Blue Letter Bible are Christian-based. (That’s why I recommended before to you http://www.sefaria.org as an additional resource since its Hebrew-based, by the way.) Still, overall I think that they are good reference tool, are they not? I mean, with the exception of just a few things, I have always been able to “back-up” what you and Bob, and other Jewish Rabbis say by using it. So, I’ve personally found it to be very useful, and credible, in spite of their Christian authorship. In fact, my own bible uses the actual word Yehoshua in Matthew 1:21; so, there was consistency in meaning there, too.
Your alternative perspective is appreciated, however, since I’ve now recommended the use of these two resources to so many people on this website.
P.S. Are you still considering my thoughts in the other post I wrote? or does my misunderstanding of Bob’s explanation of Matthew 1:21 negate to you my conclusions?
Thank you for opportunity to study more the name of the Jewish Messiah, Skip, in order to prove that what I know is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
I read thoroughly the TWs which applied to this topic as you suggested. I noted that you only provided a translation of the Messiah’s name without providing the hebrew word, itself. So, I was left to discover for myself the actual hebrew word used to name the son of Joseph in Matthew 1:21 in order to verify the validity of “Yeshua” (meaning: salvation) as you translated it.
In addition to Strong’s Concordance and http://www.theblueletterbible.com the following credible references ALL identify the name given to Joseph’s son in Matthew 1:21 as יהושוע, Yehoshua (H3091), describing it as a compound word (i.e. what you and Bob Gorelik refer to as “wordplay” in the Hebrew language) – combining “Yeho” as short for YHVH with “Shua” as short for salvation – and meaning “YHVH Saves”.
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yehoshua
Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon
http://biblehub.com/bdb/3091.htm
The Orthodox Jewish Bible
http://www.biblestudytools.com/ojb/mattityahu/1.html
Names; by Todd D. Bennett, pages 64-66
“… the Name of the Father is יהוה. The Hebrew word for ‘salvation’ is ישוע and the Hebrew word for “will save” is יושיע. These three provide the basic roots for the Name of the Messiah which is spelled יהושוע. It is interesting to note that both the Name of the Father and the Name of the Son start with the same three root letters yud (י), hey (ה), and vav (ו). This is significant because in the Hebrew language when words share a root it signifies a connection between them”…
“Currently, a very popular spelling in the Messianic Community is Yeshua. They do this because they transliterate the Hebrew word for salvation, ישוע, as yeshua. This usage also derives from the fact that the short form of Yahushua is ישוע after the time of the Babylonian captivity (see Nehemyah 8:17). This short form spelling removed the ה and the ו which were a significant part of the Name of YHWH. Regardless, the short form name should still have the Yah sound at the beginning.”
“Thus, יש וע should be pronounced Yahshua. I see no reason for spelling it or pronouncing it as Yeshua, especially when it comes from the root ישע which is yasha and means “deliver.” It is perfectly acceptable to pronounce the Hebrew word ישוע as yashua and the short form of Yahushua is more accurately rendered as Yahshua. This is important because however you are going to refer to the Father, you should be consistent in how you refer to the Son, because the Son’s Name comes from the Father’s.”
“Messiah Yahushua specifically said: ‘I have come in My Father’s Name and with His power.” John (Yahanan) 5:43. The Greek word for “in” is en which according to Thayer’s Greek Lexicon can mean “in, on, at, with, by, among. Therefore, Yahushua could have been saying that He came with His Father’s Name. All evidence certainly points to the Messiah having the Name of the Father. (Exodus 23:20-21; 32:34 and 33:14; Jeremiah 63:9). As a result, by spelling the Messiah’s Name with “yeh” rather than “Yah” you may be suppressing the Name of YHWH which is intended to be revealed through the Name of the Messiah.”
Additionally,
Messianic Jewish commentator Dr. David H. Stern says in reference to Matthew 1:21:
This verse is an example of a “semitism” (an allusion to Hebrew or Aramaic) brought over literally into the Greek text. It provides strong evidence in favor of the theory that there was a Hebrew or Aramaic oral or written tradition behind the extant Greek manuscripts, for only in Hebrew or Aramaic does the explanation here of Yeshua’s name make any sense; in Greek (or English) it explains nothing.
The Hebrew word for “he will save” is “yoshia‘,” which has the same Hebrew root (yud-shin-‘ayin) as the name Yeshua (yud-shin-vav-‘ayin). Thus the Messiah’s name is explained on the basis of what he will do. Etymologically the name Yeshua is a contraction of the Hebrew name Y’hoshua (English “Joshua”), which means “YHVH saves.” It is also the masculine form of the Hebrew word “yeshu‘ah,” which means “salvation.” …
According to Professors David Flusser and Shmuel Safrai, Orthodox Jews, “Yeshu” was how the name “Yeshua” was pronounced by Galilean Jews in the first century. We know from 26:73 below that Jews of Galil had a different dialect than those of Judea. According to Flusser (Jewish Sources in Early Christianity, p. 15) Galileans did not pronounce the Hebrew letter ‘ayin at the end of a word, much as Cockneys drop “h” at the beginning. That is, instead of saying “Ye-shoo-ah” they said “Yeh-shoo.” Undoubtedly some people began spelling the name according to this pronunciation.
(David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary [Clarksville, Maryland; Jewish New Testament Publications, 1996], pp. 4-5)
Dr. James Price, Professor of Hebrew and the Old Testament; Temple Baptist Seminary in Chattanooga, TN:
“From this evidence it can be concluded that in post-exilic Bible times the names Yehoshua and Yeshua were regarded as equivalent names of the same person. Also the Talmudic evidence indicates that historically the Jews regarded the name of Jesus as Yeshua, perhaps omitting the *hey* as their sign of divine disapproval, and then subsequently omitting the *ayin* as further disapproval.” Read Price’s full description of the name of Messiah here: http://www.essene.com/Yeshua/yehoshua.htm
To me, according to how YHVH named him, Yehoshua can’t be deity since by no other name are we saved (i.e. YHVH) states Acts 4:1;, and YHVH is One, and we are to worship no other being as divine according to the first and second commandments.
And related to verses like Phil 2:6-7 whereby Yehoshua took on the form of YHVH, The Blue Letter Bible defines “form” as G3444 which is derived from the word G3313, meaning part. Therefore, Yehoshua represented on the earth the salvific part of YHVH which has existed from the foundations of the world.
In the same way, we can understand Philippians 4:12 to say: There is salvation through none other than YHVH, for neither is there any other name under heaven that is given among men by which we must be saved.
Philippians 4:12 leads me back to my original commentary about salvation/redemption existing from the foundations of the world (and not from Calvary/Jesus) — it is very profound to me that a messenger of YHVH instructs Joseph to call his son Yehoshua (H3091) in Matthew 1:21 because, using the exact same words:
Moses specifically RENAMES Hosea (meaning – meaning “salvation”), son of nun, to Yehoshua (H3091) in Exodus and YHVH instructs Yehoshua, son of nun, to lead His people into His promised land, and he did based upon the instructions of YHVH in Joshua 1; similarly,
In Zechariah 3:6-10, a messenger of YHVH witnesses that YHVH of hosts says to Yehoshua, the high priest, “If you walk in My ways, and if you guard My duty, then you shall also rule My house, and also guard My courts. And I shall give you access among these standing here… you and your companions who sit before you, for they are men of symbol. For look, I am bringing forth My Servant – the Branch. See the stone which I have put before Yehoshua: on one stone are seven eyes. See, I am engraving its inscription… and I shall remove the guilt of that land in one day.”
In Zechariah 6, the Word of YHVH came to Zechariah instructing him to anoint the high priest Yehoshua (H3091), son of Jehozodak, for the purpose of (re-)building the (first) temple of YHVH, and he did. Furthermore,
2) Paul says in Romans 3:21-31 that the righteousness of YHVH has been made manifest by the Torah (i.e. Joshua), by the Prophets (i.e. Zechariah) AND through belief in Yehoshua Anointed (i.e. Jesus Christ in English); there is no difference for all are declared righteous through their belief that YHVH alone saves.
We find this same pattern throughout scripture whereby YHVH anoints His people to fulfill a specific part of his nature on the earth which He, Himself, has already done for us:
Aaron, and his descendants, are instructed by YHVH to redeem all the firstborn sons of Israel (Exodus 13:15); in the same way that YHVH’s delivered the firstborn sons of Israel from Egypt (Exodus 4:22; Exodus 11:5; Numbers 3:13); AND
As YHVH commands, the Israelites all bring their firstborn sons to Aaron to be redeemed because it was the firstborn sons who were considered priests of the family, as Aaron was the High Priest over Israel (Numbers 3:50).
Later, YHVH anoints the Levites (as High Priests) as the redeemers of Israel as a nation (Numbers 8:18) and once a year are commanded by YHVH to go into the Holy of Holies to make atonement for the cumulative sins of the nation of Israel. This relates to –
The Jewish understanding of the messiah is that he will be anointed by YHVH to bring about the restoration of national Israel, including the rebuilding of the third temple, and final judgement of the world.
So, it’s a true injustice of YHVH’s word, in my opinion, to use the name “Jesus” (or even Yeshua, meaning “salvation”) in the place of Yehoshua because the continuity of scripture is totally lost then, Jesus is worshipped instead of YHVH, and “the work of Calvary” and “Jesus” replaces in our minds YHVH’s saving power over all the world from its foundations until it passes away. The “name of Jesus” has also caused us as individuals to think that we’re all “sinners”, thereby becoming obsessly pre-occupied with our faults. In contrast, YHVH says that HIs righteous ones, who “hear and obey” His Voice, are called saints, kings, and priest, anointed of YHVH to do His good works on the earth.
I hope I explained that well and succinctly enough. What do you think of my analysis?
OK, I will try to respond a bit. First, “deity” isn’t a biblical word. You can check the etymology on this. The idea in the Bible is to show proper reverence toward the status one holds, i.e., to treat the person as “divine.” (also not a biblical word). We see this with kings, etc. and, of course, with God. But the fact that this reverence is shown toward human beings in particular roles should indicate the “deity” and “divine” have different meanings in Scripture than they do today. Furthermore, the cultural context of Scripture always included polytheism, so there were always competing “gods” around. I concur that Yehoshua is not a “divine” name.
However, the fact that Hosea is derived from the same root verb as Yeshua does not make the two names identical. Nor does it mean that Hosea means “salvation.”
Your explanation of Paul’s statement in Romans 3:21-23 is self-serving since there is no necessity of translating the passage with Yehoshua rather than Yeshua. The idea of the anointing is correct, but the name depends on your prior exegesis.
As I mentioned before, “Jesus” is certainly NOT the proper name and certainly NOT the same as YHVH.
This prophecy HAS NOT BEEN fulfilled, yet… Throughout the New Testament, people are worshiping Baal, and casting out demons in his name – Matthew 10:25, 12:24; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15,18.
Baal worship is still “alive and well” today in the practice of Easter and Christmas, among other pagan practices done in the name of YHVH. (Google search “Easter Baal Worship” and “Christmas Baal Worship”) Even the name “Jesus” has its roots in Baal worship.
Paul states in Romans 11:4 that there is a remnant of Israel who HAS NOT bowed the knee to Baal. There’s a great book by Todd D. Bennett entitled “Restoration” in which these, and other perversions of faith, are explained. In it, Bennett encourages readers to return to the One True God, YHVH. (This book is included in Skip’s Recommended Reading List. Buy this book on Amazon through Skip’s website.)
Before we all start calling God, “Ishi”, let’s first destroy all our personal altars to Baal (and Ashtorah, and Zeus, and…), eh?
“In my opinion, the name Yeshua also implies the deity of the Messiah, since the text in Matthew says that “Yeshua will save … from sins”—a statement that can only be true if Yeshua is the very “form of God” (Philippians 2:6-7). See also Exodus 15:2; Psalm 27:1; 37:39; 74:12; John 10:28; Acts 4:12)”
Skip, so, if the the above statement is from Bob, I am thinking he holds to some form of the trinity doctrine? Or am I misunderstanding his words. I’ve read and re-read what he you/he said and it almost sounds contradictory to the rest of what is said…..
Bob and I might differ a bit on this, but Bob is NOT a Trinitarian (listen to the lectures we gave on this in Israel). The issue is still the meaning of “divine” and the meaning of the Greek in the Philippians passage. Bob believes that Yeshua is a “manifestation” of the divine. Exactly what that entails is an interesting and long discussion. But it will have to be deferred until we are all in Israel again. (So you better come along :))
Ok, thanks for clearing that up. I will certainly download the lectures! And oh, how I wish Israel was in our future plans!!
Skip – Thank you for clarifyig that Yeshua means salvation. Salvation is a concept that I understand to imply in both the Hebrew thought and Christian theology to mean something experienced NOW. And not something still to be reached or attained upon death.
With this in mind and hopefully not a sinful deduction… Would the implications and teachings in the New Testament then not refer to achieving the understanding that by following the spiritual guidelines of purification, sanctification and covenant lifestyle we are guided by the spirit of Yeshua (His Rabbanic teachings manifested in our way of doing things) to find peace in our current life experience so that we can promote the peace and permit it to escalate through our interaction with others… The covenant of love.
As for YHVH in our lives I read throughout the Old Testament that when led and guided by the spirit of YHVH the power and intent of YHVH is reached and this is the wisdom and power of YHVH that Paul refered to as Christ or the manifestation of salvation in our lives…
As Annemarie suggested the process for every soul to repetance and salvation was not yet fulfilled in the evangelistic books of the New Testament as Yeshua introduced this lifestyle as an ensample for us to follow.
With this in mind Bob may have a point when he claims Yeshua is the manifestation of Yahweh. Would this be way Paul says 1Cor 1: 21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
“God, grant me the serenity to except the people I cannot change, the courage to change the one I can, and the wisdom to know it’s me.”