The "Messiah in the Room"
YHWHâs prophets say the two houses of Israel (Yehudah and Ephraim), separated since the generation after Solomonâs death, will again become one nation. And today, restoration of the ancient ways is occurring on both sides of the âfenceâ. The tribes who had let themselves become Gentiles are realizing who they really areâand are getting excited about what they are finding. And Jews, who, for understandable reasons have been wary and suspicious of them for centuries, are actually opening their hearts and hands to their long-lost brothers, and finding themselves not persecuted but actually put on a pedestal and honored.
This occurred once before in history, right around the time of the second Templeâs destruction. But then, as now, there was one big âelephant in the roomâ--one particular man, on which the two just could not agree. Some sidelined him because they thought another hero could prove to be a better Messiah, while others seemed to be making him larger than life.
As Richard Rubinstein notes, before the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E., when the Roman Emperor mandated that the Messiah must be regarded as deity, âJews and Christians could talk to each other and argue among themselves about crucial issuesâ¦They disagreed strongly about many things, but there was still a closeness between them. They participated in the same moral cultureâ¦When Jesus [originally known as Yeshua] became God, that closeness faded.â This idea that he was to be worshipped in the same way as YHWH was struck the Jewish contingent as idolatry--the worship of a different deity, one which neither they nor their fathers had previously known (Devarim/Deuteronomy 13:2).Â
But if this was the biggest setback in what was already starting to come back together again in the days of Peter, John, and Paul, then couldnât a right understanding of the issues here be the key to resolving the rest of our differences? Many observant Jews are again viewing Yeshua with respect and even admiration, when seen in his original contextâtheirs!âand are using their knowledge of the culture in which he was nurtured to add layers and texture to the meanings of what he said and did. Christians are showing an unprecedented willingness to root out many pagan accretions and take another look at what the original faith was really like. Â
No follower of Yeshua sees himself as an idolater, but do our definitions need some fine-tuning if that is how they come across? After all, we have already jettisoned Roman inventions like Sunday worship and holidays that have nothing to do with Scripture; could this be one more pagan addition that needs to go? Â
Creeds are meant to simplify the large volume of information culled from many, many Scriptures. But if a creed does not cover ALL that Scripture says, or turns out to say MORE than Scripture, arenât we responsible to reconsider whether it is worded in the best way possible? After all, no one has even a political obligation anymore to call things what the Romans called them, or see things the way they did. They have no authority to prohibit us from restructuring the way we arrange the available data. Fully half of even Yeshuaâs Gentile followers disagreed with the way the Nicene Creed finally came out. Might that not mean that it was an oversimplification, and thus, a doctrine of menâthe kind of thing that Yeshua himself opposed? (If he said even his fellow Jews were guilty of this, how much more likely is it for Gentiles, who were separated from the source for so long?) Are we sure we are reading even the New Testament the way it was meant to be read? Are we, two millennia removed, sure we understand the details of his message the same way his original hearers did?
They were Jewish, after all. Might there still be extant any vestiges of a better way to do justice to the data known among the Jews from before we started fighting over this issue? Might we be putting Yeshua into the wrong kind of categorization scheme?
We are called to be âstewards of the mysteries of Elohimâ (1 Cor. 4:1), and to be faithful to that calling, we cannot be inextricably tied to any party or denomination or serve any other agenda. We must be true to all of the information YHWH has given us. Â
Letâs examine the pertinent data and determine if âdeityâ is the only way it can be takenâor if there might be a more coherent way of taking it that does not run up against YHWHâs prior revelation of Himself, which the Jews are right to defend with everything they have. But many of those defenses do bear the clear marks of a desperate effort to wring out of the text what we want it to say, as surely as the offensive interpretations do.
Neither side should sacrifice truth for the sake of unity. We know Yeshua is the reason our lives have been changed at the core, and we could never imagine âthrowing him out with the bathwaterâ. But could there indeed be a "third way"--a description of Yeshua that fits neither of the polarized views but comes from a hermeneutic that we shared before we diverged, and one that is conducive to both houses of Israel choosing one and the same shepherd, as the prophets say we will? (Ezekiel 34:23; 37:24, alluded to in Yochanan/John 10:16) Â
We cannot leave out any of the data, and neither side will be able to hold completely to its long-cherished traditions once all the cards are on the table. But I think the difference Scripture actually says Yeshua makes turns out to have even better implications for us, and does justice, not violence, to the data. If we can get over this last big hurdle, we may again be able to reduce our polemics to an honest, shared quest for the whole truth.
Why Did this Idea Take Root?
We need to start by asking what made some people deduce that Yeshua was God. No idea emerges from a vacuum. This one, too, had to be based on something actually said or done, though we recognize that it could have been colored by the worldview of those who heard it. Â
For example, when Jews saw Yeshuaâs miracles, they "glorified Elohim, who had given such power to men". (Mat. 9:8) When Gentiles saw the same kind of miracles done by Yeshuaâs messengers, they considered the men themselves to be gods! (Acts 14:11-12) So it is no surprise that they thought the same about their leader. Their own myths of demigods like Hercules (undoubtedly rooted in the bizarre but actual events of Genesis 6:4) predisposed them to take what they heard about Yeshua in this direction. Elijah and Elisha did many of the same miracles Yeshua did (even raising the dead), but did anyone in Israel worship them?
So what was it that they were hearing? Things like, âI and the Father are oneâ (Yochanan 10:30) or âHe who has seen me has seen the Father.â (Yochanan 14:9) When doubting Thomas finally saw and touched the resurrected Yeshua, he exclaimed, âMy master and my Elohim!â (Yochanan 20:28) And, of course, Yochananâs account of Yeshuaâs life starts with, âIn the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Elohim, and the Word was elohim.â (1:1)Â
 Seems clear enough, doesnât it? Yet if the trinity is such a crucial doctrine, why is it never explicit in Scripture--even the New Testament? More importantly, the New Testament also refers to YHWH as "the Elohim and Father OF our master, Yeshua the Messiah." (Eph. 1:3, etc.) It says "the head of Messiah is Elohim." (1 Cor. 11:3) He is called "The Lamb OF Elohim" (John 1:29, 36) -- i.e., belonging to Elohim. We are told that "YHWH cannot be tempted by evil..." (James 1:13) Yet Yeshua was tempted even to the point of His smaller blood vessels bursting from the agony of the struggle to make the right choice (Mat. 4:1; Luke 22; Hebrews 4:15)âin another garden just east of Jerusalem, where Eden used to be.Â
How can these statements be reconciled? That was exactly what they were trying to do in the early fourth century, though this time the Jewish followers of Yeshua were excluded from the Church councils, meaning the expertise of those closest to the perspective the apostles had was not even utilized; how could they possibly think they were getting the whole story? Or were they left out because Constantine knew they would not capitulate? He did not do much theology himself. His primary goal was to have unity in his empire. It came down to two prevailing views: whether the best way to describe Yeshua was as either homo-ousias (of the same substance as YHWH) or homoi-ousias (of like or similar substance). Â
The view Constantine decided on was the one championed by a personal friend of his, not necessarily the one he thought agreed better with Scripture--and yet that is what successive generations were forced to inherit, even though the data they were working from could be interpreted differentlyâand, up to that point, had been. (As A.F. Segal writes in Two Powers in Heaven, âMost often what is now called heresy is simply an earlier form of a religion which has now been discredited by an important and powerful group of religious leaders.â)
The Eastern churches, closer in culture to the ancient Israelite and still somewhat familiar with Semitic logic, espoused the latter interpretation--that Yeshua was not deity, though affirming the other tenets that ended up in the creeds, because aside from a very few places where the text was provably tampered with, the New Testament should be included in the reliable data. As we will see, it actually does line up with ancient Jewish thought, if not always with modern Judaism; it is faulty interpretations that have done most to aggravate the rifts between these two peoples, both of whom show strong evidence of being personally involved with and blessed by YHWH. Â
Idiomatic Uses of âElohimâÂ
Each of our two eyes does not see exactly the same thing. (Try closing one eye at a time and alternating between them). But when both work together we see with depth perception as well. Likewise, YHWHâs two witnesses may be intended to focus on different things, but when we put both pieces together, the puzzles can be solved. Neitherâs perspective is dispensable, and in order to cover all of the facts, we have to phrase things in ways that on first glance seem to conflict, but when aligned with each other, a whole picture emerges to which neither, by itself, can do justice. To fully demonstrate both YHWHâs high standard and the fact that He can also be merciful without sacrificing justice, both perspectives might have had to be seen separately for a time, but now it is time for the two to be brought back together. Â
The Jews have preserved the Hebrew language and many of the practices ordered by the Torah, and thus can bring us a lot closer to the mindset through which Scriptural ideas were meant to be understood. They would point out that âSon of Elohimâ is not to be taken in the sense in which the Greco-Roman gods cohabited with women, but is a special title for the royal descendant of David, conferred on him at his accession to the throne. (Psalm 2) Since he did not have a literal throne at the time of the Romans, the earliest believers in Yeshua (carried on through the Netzorim and Ebionites) considered his âanointing with the holy spiritâ at his immersion by Yochanan (John) to be the time when this âadoptionâ took place in his case.
Yeshua was almost executed for "calling Elohim [his] Father, making [him]self equal with Elohim." (Yochanan 5:18) But this is how some interpreted it; did Yeshua ever said he WAS his Father? He worded things very carefully, so we have to listen to what he did say and what he did not. To be one (united) with Elohim (Yochanan 10:30) is not to BE Elohim, just as my wife and I can be seen as one entity, but not in every sense.
And I donât think we can build a theology on Thomasâ amazed exclamation of âMy Elohim!â when he realized that there had been a resurrection, because it was something obviously accomplished by YHWH. (See Romans 10:9) There are also other uses of the word âelohimâ which we must not confuse with the most commonly-used one. As Rashi points out, "...even a mortal man of flesh and blood can merit this divine title (elohim) if he seeks to administer God's justice on earth.â YHWH Himself told Moses, "I have made you (an) elohim to Pharaoh." (Exodus 7:1) Local judges in Israel are called elohim in Ex. 22:8; 24:6. So the word is clearly used in a variety of ways. Yeshua pointed out that human judges were called âelohimâ in Psalm 82 because of their high position and power that others did not wield (though emphasizing that they were still mortal), so saying he was the âson of Elohimâ was even less radical of a claim. (John 10:35-36) Â
A similar cause for confusion is that both âAdonaiâ (âMy master/sâ) and âYHWHâ were rendered as âKuriosâ in Greek, which then got translated into English as âLordâ, with no way to tell when it should have been âLORDâ (as YHWH is usually rendered from Hebrew) except by context, which then often got cast by the wayside, so that âYeshua is Lordâ (i.e., the one in charge over us) was interpreted as âYeshua is the LORDâ, even though the article was not there, tipping us off to the difference that was meant to be understood.
Getting in Context
The book of Yochanan (John) begins with a statement which, if taken outside the parameters of the rest of Scripture, can appear to lead to the idea that Yeshua is a deity. But the antidote is given right within the same chapter. In case âNo one can see Me [YHWH] and surviveâ (Exodus 33:20, etc.) is not clear enough to assume this precludes Yeshua (whom many saw) from being YHWH, right in the same context comes verse 18: "No one has seen Elohim at any time. The only-begotten Son++⦠has manifested Him (made Him known). " This succinct summary of how the Renewed Covenant portrays this unique man, Yeshua, is there in the same chapter to show us how NOT to interpret that verse! âThe Word was elohimâ canât be taken that far! Â
The Torah, the part of Scripture with the highest authority (Isaiah 8:20) and the key to interpreting the rest, says, "Elohim is not a man." (Numbers 23:19) No one is ever seen in Scripture to pray to Yeshua, but only to the Father in his nameâand we see precedents for that: Abrahamâs servant, for example, addresses YHWH as âElohim of my master Abrahamâ, who had more spiritual âcloutâ than he did. (Gen. 24:12) Similarly, "To the only wise Elohim be honor through Messiah Yeshua." (Romans 16:27) There are many more such examples.
In Genesis 16, an angel tells Sarah, âI will greatly increase your offspringâ¦â Is that something anyone but YHWHâeven an angelâhas the right or ability to do? When the prophets speak for YHWH, they do not always preface it with, âThus says YHWHâ either. So when Yeshua says something that YHWH applied only to Himself before (such as âI am the first and the lastâ), we need to remember that a prophet can speak for his master in such language. Â
The ancient Hebrew law of shlikhutâsending or agencyâspecifies that oneâs agent may speak for him and act âas himâ in any given situation where he represents âthe one who sent himââa phrase Yeshua applied to YHWH on so many occasions. His own synopsis was, âI can do nothing but what I see the Father doing.â (Yochanan 5:19, 30) He could not act independently, as if he had some innate power in himself; he had to be acting along with what YHWH was already doing (what he saw and heard) if anything he set out to do was to be effective. Â
Another AdamÂ
To understand how significant this is, we Yeshuaâs most frequent way of referring to himself was actually not âBen Elohimâ, but Ben Adam, and he bases it on Daniel 7:9-14:
â¦One like the Son of Adam approached the Ancient of Days and they brought him near⦠and there was GIVEN to him dominion, honor, and a kingdom, that every people, nation, and language should serve himâ¦an everlasting dominionâ¦
Note the contrast between YHWH and the Messiah, yet their complete cooperation. Â
He is called âBen Adamâ because he bore a special similarity to Adam (who is also called the son of Elohim in Luke 3:38). I have treated this subject in great detail elsewhere, but will reiterate the pertinent points here.
Adam was made in the image of Elohim. (Gen. 1:26) But after he and his wife ate the fruit from the forbidden tree, the children they begot were only in Adamâs image. (Gen. 5:3) That is a major change! Many aspects of what Adam had been before his disobedience were lost, and they recognized that something important was missing. (Gen. 3:7-11) It was as if he had come âunpluggedâ from his source, and was running on stored battery power, which would eventually run out. And this change was passed down to all his descendants. (Psalm 51:5) Â
Yeshua, on the other hand, could âseeâ what the Father was doing. He had a better connection to YHWH than any of us today has. He was not âunpluggedâ, as Adam was. Â
I work with people who are both mentally and physically handicapped. In them the results of Adamâs fall are more obvious than they are for most of us. Some of them have such slow physiological function that, I imagine, if they were to meet an Einstein, or possibly even a superb athlete, and especially if someone combined both of these attributes, they might be genuinely tempted to worship him as a being of a totally different nature than themselves. But if we had seen the unfallen Adam, we might think along the same lines, because corruption and decay eventually catch up with us all. We donât often realize just how far superior the original humanity was to what we consider ânormalâ today. Every man seen since Adam is in a sense sub-humanânot âmanâ in the fullest sense. Now multiply that by many times when Thomas sees the resurrected Yeshua come through a closed door! Is it an surprise that he would call him an elohim? Further along we will see why that was possible, but he did not have this explanation yet.
Adam no longer bore the complete image of Elohim, but the original pattern was held in reserve in the heavenly realm, beyond the reach of earthly corruption, until the day when another man could redeem (buy back) all that Adam had lost. Â
But if all of us were affected by Adamâs disobedience, how could any man ever be in a position to do that?  Psalm 49 tells us that the price of a human soul is too high for another man to pay for, so that he can live forever and not see destruction. Yet the psalmist is confident that Elohim will find a way to redeem his soul. Â
And Elohim did. Yeshua was ultimately not the savior, but was the means YHWH, the only One who can save (Isaiah 45:21), chose to useâand his blood in particular. He was a man, but not âjust a manâ in the same sense that you and I are. There is something different about him. Those are red-flag concepts indeed, but let us follow the logic step by step.
The serpent would be crushed by the âseedâ of the woman in particular. (Gen. 3:15) Eve thought the first son she bore would already be this solution (Gen. 4:1), but YHWH had much more groundwork to lay first. The stage was set through the creation of Israel, then the Torah, which gave us principles by which we could live out the remnants of good in us and limit the evil in the world. But it also formed the perfect environment for another human being âcoming forth from a woman⦠under the Torahâ (Galatians 4:4) to grow up and be able to give the fullest human expression to the attributes Adam had lost. The Torah gave him all the ammunition he needed to overcome the temptation Adam had succumbed to. (Mat. 4:4-10) But to start on the same footing, he had to be born of a virgin. Â
The term used in Isaiah 7:14 does not exclusively mean a virgin (but can mean any young woman of marriageable age up til the point of bearing her first child); in fact, in Isaiahâs immediate context, it was not referring to a virgin. But it can have that secondary meaning, and the Jewish men who translated Isaiah into Greek (the LXX) well before Yeshua came along did choose to render it that way in this particular case. Prof. Hananel Mak of the Talmud Department of the Israeli University of Bar Ilan, cites Rashiâs Rabbi, Rav Moshe HaDarshan--the mentor of one of the best-loved rabbinic scholarsâwho deduced from Scripture that the âthe redeemer whom I will raise up for you will not have a father of flesh and blood.â (Genesis Rabbah)
Why is that so important? Because it is what made him unique. Dr. M.R. DeHaan explains: âEve's sin does not affect us, although Eve sinned before Adam did. It was the SIN OF ADAM which brought death upon the whole race because it is ADAM'S SEED. Only [Yeshua] is called the Seed of the woman (Gen. 3:15), because he was born [only] of a woman and thus his blood was without the sin of Adamâ¦â
He thus became known as the âSecond manâ and the âlast Adamâ. (1 Corinthians 15:45-47) Dr. Custance, a physicist, showed scientifically that the female egg is "immortal" until fertilized by the male, and thus though all women are born affected by that inclination toward evil, they do not carry it per se:Â
âThe mortogenic poison which entered Adam's body and Eve's body had a similar effect on both of them in depriving them of their potential immortality. But [though] the corruption which finally overwhelms the bodies of men and women alike is introduced to the ovum via the male seedâ, it does not affect the eggs, which are all in the mother at the time of her birth. When the female ovum is treated suitably⦠it is capable⦠of replicating itself indefinitely, even in the absence of fusion with a spermatozoon⦠The mammalian ovum can ⦠divide and multiply and grow into a whole animal. ⦠If the seed of the woman could be activated without fertilization by the seed of man, ⦠the result would be the emergence of an individual escaping the mortogenic factor which Adam bequeathed via his seed to all subsequent generationsâ¦The seed of the woman is the only remnant that has retained the original immortality possessed by our first parents⦠Even the seed of the woman is fatally poisoned by fusion with the male seed. However, this poison affects only that portion of the woman's seed which will develop into body cells: the remainder of her seed continues to form the immortal stream of germ plasm.â I.e., the eggs she passes down to her daughters are not affected.
Thus the promised seed was conveyed down through the generations until, at the right time, someone could in fact be born of a virgin. We are not told the mechanics of howâor are we? Yeshuaâs mother was only told, âThe spirit of holiness will come over you, and the power of Elyon will overshadow you. Therefore that special entity that will be born from you will be called the Son of Elohim.â (Luke 1:35) This sounds very much like, âYHWH Elohimâ¦breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and Adam became a living soul.â (Gen. 2:7) Â
Such a person would not have to die (as would also have been the case for Adam if he had chosen differently), because he would not carry the physical effects of that forbidden fruit, but he could be capable of choosing to lay down his life. Why would he want to? Because this genetic defect that rendered the whole human race defiled went deeper than the compensation we each owe for individual sins. Â
YHWH told Israel, âI have given [blood] to you on the altar as a covering for your souls, because it is blood that makes a covering for the soul.â (Lev. 17:11) Only unblemished animals can be brought to YHWH as offerings, but one-time substitutions, especially from another species, did not eradicate the root problem. (Hebrews 9:23-26) A manâs blood was needed, but no man was in a position to offer blood that was really acceptable to YHWH, as his blood was really no better than that of the one whose sins he might try to substitute for. Moshe wanted to do this, for which he is commendable, but YHWH declined the offer. (Ex. 32:32) Not just any man can pay for another. Â
YHWH does not require one man to die for another personâs offense (Deut. 24:16; compare Ezekiel 18). Yet the debt of Adam remained and was only compounding with each new birth in this race of now-truncated men, and He promised that in one particular case, a manâs soul could be a voluntary offering for othersâ crookedness, and that, if he so chose, this oneâs soul could be âpoured out [thus exposed] unto deathâ in order to not just pay for sin but actually make many others righteous. (Yeshayahu/Isaiah 53:10-12)
Leviticus 17:14 literally says, "The soul of the flesh is [contained] in the blood." This way someoneâs soul could be "poured out" for others--by the shedding of his blood. But only someone with pure blood, untainted by the poison, could be in a position to buy back the deed to all that Adam lost:
âYou were not redeemed with corruptible things like silver and goldâ¦but with the precious blood of Messiah, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.â (1 Kefa/Peter 1:18-19).
Thus, while YHWH is the actual Redeemer (Isaiah 44:6), Yeshua was the means by which He bought us back. Yeshua didnât have to be âGodâ to be the solution to our problem; he only had to be fully human in the original sense--born without inheriting the effects of Adamâs sin. He is not an ordinary man, but he is a normal manâthe first one seen since Adam before he fell. He is what we all should have been. Now, for the first time since Adam, there was a real man on earth again.
Paulâs synopsis is, "There is one Elohim, and one mediator between Elohim and men, the man Yeshua the Messiah." (1 Timothy 2:5, emphasis mine) For the first time since Adam, a man had both feet on solid ground, and could therefore rescue all of us who were unable to get back to the path Adam left. This gives a new depth of meaning to what YHWH said at that first Passover in Egypt:
âWhen I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the blow [of death] shall not strike you to destroy youâ¦â (Ex. 12:13)
Thus the virgin birth, original sin, and blood atonement are not concepts added later by Gentiles like the trinity was; they are really Hebraic ideas to the core, dating from before, not after the time of Yeshua, and, of course, so is the resurrection of the dead, which is reaffirmed in every synagogue each Sabbath. Â
Per Dr. DeHaan, âBecause he was sinless they could not put him to death [legally execute him] but instead he laid down his life voluntarily⦠Death had no claim on him except the claim of others' sinâ; when that was paid and those beneficiaries were reconciled to YHWH (Colossians 1:22), he could come back to life. But even this he did not do on his own; rather, YHWH accomplished it. (Acts 2:24) If even his sinlessness and ability to take up his life again after death do not imply that he must be deity, what other doctrine does? Why is it a necessity if he has done his job properly, sacrificing himself so our sin could be not just covered up but âput awayâ? (Hebrews 9:26) He is worthy enough of honor for that reason.
But there is something else that makes many think he is Elohim. Micah described the ruler of Israel who would be born in Beyth Lehem as one âwhose goings forth have been from antiquity, from days hidden [far in the past].â (5:2; 5:1 in Hebrew texts) Yochanan the Immerser told those to whom he introduced Yeshua that, although he was the older of the two men, Yeshua âcame before meâ. (Yochanan 1:15) Wouldnât that mean he had to be âGodâ?
An Older Judaism
There is another explanation. Sometimes we have to look back to more ancient Jewish interpretations, because later Judaism downplayed some of the data in overreaction to the abuses of its co-opted brother faith. That is understandable, but it also obscures the very thing that could solve the dilemma! Both Christianity (institutionalized Ephraim) and Judaism (institutionalized Judah), as they now stand, have ignored or at least underemphasized some parts of the âwhole counsel of Elohimâ, so we need correctives in both directions. Â
Much of the New Testament (better rendered âRenewed Covenantâ) is written in genres common to Jewish writings of the dayâmystical, apocalyptic, and wisdom literature. It must therefore be interpreted in light of similar writings from Yeshuaâs contemporaries that show how certain terms were used at that time. Â
One very ancient Jewish form of mysticism is known as Kabbalah (literally, âreceptionâ). Is this some kind of âGnosticâ revelation that those who read the Scripture at face value donât have? No, kabbalah has been co-opted in a surface, cultic way by modern New Agers, and some aspects of it must lead us to conclude that it was corrupted, but there appears to be an older version of which the extant version retains many vestiges and from which the writers of the New Testament drewâor at least agreed with, having had the same Hebraic literary heritage as it did. So it can help us see how these ideas expressed also in the Renewed Covenant were understood by the original hearers, before they were wrested from their original context by those who had not grown up in a Hebraic context and therefore did not know the idiomatic use of these terms.Â
This concept states that the Creator, when He was the only one in existence, wanted to share Himself with others. So He created a womb-like vacuum within Himself in which for the first time there was something that was not Him, so He could communicate what He is to someone else. The problem was that He is so infinite and so beyond our comprehension that He had to scale Himself down (or, if you wish, power Himself down several levels as with an electric transformer) to a level that would not destroy everything in which He wanted to initiate contact. Starting with a simple beam of light, He injected a sampling of His characteristics into our finite world so He could be known to some degree. Â
That first âstepdownâ is called, in Jewish wisdom literature, the logos (âWordâ)âthe beginning of creation. Logos can be further defined as âthe substantive idea behind all particulars, which gives the universe coherence; a precise thought ready to be expressed; a speaker's self-revelation and what lies behind his words.â Through this consistent, all-encompassing logic everything else was created. Â
In Dell Griffinâs words, "God and God's Word were inseparable before creation... This is also mystic Hebraism... [From the light], the rest of creation followed... Modern quantum physicists have discovered that all created particles contain photons or light energy in some state." (I.e., everything comes from light.)Â
Then the creation began to expand so we could see more clearly what He was like. His self-revelation to His creation is depicted in ten aspects (based partly on 1 Chron. 29:11) called sefirot (emanations or spheres): crown (mind/will), wisdom, understanding, lovingkindness, strength (severity), beauty (honor), endurance (victory), splendor, foundation (bonding), and kingship (dignity).**
The resulting representation of Himself is arranged in the form of a body known as the Adam Qadmonâthe ancient or primeval human beingâessentially a prototype on which the creation of our ancestor Adam was patterned. One kabbalistic book, the Bahir (p. 95) says:Â
âThe form (image) of G d in which He created man is actually G dâs blueprint form for man. This âformâ or âblueprintâ consisted of G dâs first thought in creation, and hence the highest level of creation.âÂ
Epstein writes, âHis body (Adamâs) is a copy of the Adam Qadmon which represents the Sefirot (attributes of G d) in their totality and unity.â (Jewish Mysticism: The Kabbalah)
Since the image of YHWH includes both masculine and feminine aspects (Gen. 1:27; 5:2), some of these characteristics were placed in each of these categories (âfatherâ and âmotherâ), then a third category described the result of that union, being labeled âthe sonâ or even more strikingly, âThe Son of Yahâ. These three categories together were described as the âpillars of the godheadâ. (This was the basis for that term as used in the New Testament.) Thus there are indeed elements in Judaism in which you can mystically say there are different "persons" within YHWH's nature, but not literally; they are understood according to a different form of logic than Greek or Western. Â
Misunderstanding this very Jewish concept, Gentiles heard âthreeâ and reinterpreted it based on existing pagan ideas about trinities. But we could just as well say that the ten sefirot means there are ten "persons" in YHWH. Do the "seven spirits of Elohim" (Isaiah 11:2) mean YHWH is a âseptinityâ? These are just ways to get our minds to understand a little bit of what is infinite. So when we read of Yeshua, âIn him the fullness of the godhead dwells in bodily formâ (Colossians 2:9), we must understand it in Hebrew, not Gentile, terms! Â
What does not come through clearly in translations of John 1:1, which many take as a quintessential proof-text for the deity doctrine, is that when it says âthe Word was with Elohimâ, the definite article is present (literally, âthe Elohimâ), denoting a proper title of YHWH; but when it says âthe Word was elohimâ, the definite article is not there, and so it must denote âsomething of Elohimâs natureâ. (Some render it âdivineâ.*) It was, in a sense, from within YHWH, yet distinguishable from Him. Dell Griffin adds, âJohnâ¦refers to Yâshua not as the Word (if you read the Greek carefully), but as the Light or Manifestation of the Word.âÂ
I think that is what he meant when he said, âHe who has seen me has seen the Father.â (Yochanan 14:9) As the book of Hebrews opens, âHe is the exact representation of His essenceâ. A representation is not the thing it represents, but he gave a faithful depiction of the One Whom he was representing. Yeshua, we could say, is the interface by which YHWH chose to communicate Himself to the world without destroying those with whom He wanted to communicate since we could not stand His unbuffered presence.
It is in this context that we must read things about Yeshua like "Without him was not anything made that was made" (John 1:3) or, ââ¦things in heaven and things on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or powers or authoritiesâall things have been created by means of him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.â (Colossians 1:16-17) Â
The Firstborn Â
In the Aramaic targums (translations), whenever Hebrew Scripture says YHWH appeared to someone, it says His Memra appeared, to explain that it was not YHWH Himself, who could never be seen. The initial m (a personifying prefix) combined with the root e-m-r (âto sayâ) suggests the idea of a âliving wordâ suggesting that somehow the message âcame to lifeâ as a messenger in itself. This communicative aspect of YHWHâs nature âwas given a life of its ownâ as the mediator whenever YHWH needed to appear to men, so that they would not be destroyed by exposure to His full force. (Compare âNo one comes to the Father except through me.â John 14:6) When we look at the moonlight, we are really seeing the light of the sun, which is too bright to look at directly. (âHe who has seen me has seen the Fatherââindirectly.) âThe Fatherâ--who is too pure and intense--has âentrusted all judgment to the Son⦠since he is a son of Adamâ (and thus able to understand directly how the forces operating in the physical realm affect us and our decisions,--John 5:24, 27; Hebrews 4:15).
Kabbalah says âthe word Torah refers to the entire spiritual blueprint of creationâ. So then the Adam Qadmon and Torah are described in the same way. The Torah is YHWHâs Word, of course, so Logos is the term Philo used to describe the âstepped-downâ Elohim with which finite men could actually interact. Yochanan (John) 1:2 says the Word (which he later says was fleshed out) was with YHWH at the beginning.
Midrash says âElohim sought advice from the Torah before He created the universeâ (Pirkei Rabbi Eliezer). The Torah is the Word. This may explain why Elohim said "Let us make mankind in our image and after our likeness." (Gen. 1:26) Adam was patterned after this limited (yet extensive) combination of those of YHWHâs attributes which could actually be portrayed in physical form.
Proverbs 8:22 says, âYHWH brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old; I was appointed from eternity, before the world began.â
The Bahir says, âIn Proverbs 8, it is Wisdom who speaks... The Torah is Wisdom and is therefore the âheadâ of creation... The Torah was the blueprint of creation and therefore preceded it.â The head is normally the part of a body that is born first. Â
A 19th-century dictionary by W. Wheeler notes, âThe first form to emanate from the Infinite One, was the body of Adam Qadmon. He is the first production of divine energy, or Son of G-d.â Â
So in solid, traditional Jewish understanding, the image of Elohim (Adam Qadmon), Torah, the Word, the Son of Elohim, and Wisdom are all ways of describing the same thing. Â
One particular angel, called Metatron in Jewish literature, appears to be so high-ranking, and so holy, that he is authorized to go by YHWH's name and to be treated, regarded, received, and bowed to, as if he were YHWH Himself. The demarcation between YHWH and His messenger (whose name is as his Master) is so fine that the two often appear to be one and the same. The Zohar (another major kabbalistic work) says that when YHWH told Moshe and the elders, "Come up to YHWH" and they âsaw the Elohimâ yet survived (Ex. 24:1, 11), the rabbis say, He meant "Come up to Metatron, whose name is YHWH" (yet who can, unlike YHWH, be seen). So according to rabbinical interpretation, when people meet Metatron, they are meeting with YHWH; He needs a proxy to accommodate our weakened state. Metatron is thus called both âMasterâ and âEmissaryâ and even âthe smaller YHWHâ! The Zohar also identifies Metatron with the âmiddle column of the godheadâ known as âthe Son of Yahâ, âwho has accomplished peace aboveâ. (Vol. 3., p. 227, Amsterdam Edition)
Doesnât all of this sound suspiciously similar to the New Testament? When Yeshua said, âI and the Father are oneâ, he was speaking in the same vein as the Tanya (a kabbalistic work), which says, âThe Torah and the Holy One, blessed is He, are entirely one.â (p. 525) Â
YHWH says He Himself will go out as a shepherd looking for His lost sheep. (Ezekiel 34:11) Yet he speaks of a particular man as being âMy shepherdâ (Zkh. 13:7) who would do the same. Thus Yeshua said his job was âto search for and rescue what was lostâ. (Luke 19:10; cf. John 10:11) Thus the Messiah is given titles like âthe arm of YHWHâ (Yesh. 53:1). His connection to YHWH is unbroken and complete, but the arm cannot act on its own, but carries out the directives of the Head. This is why the juxtaposition is âYHWH and His Messiah [Anointed]â (Psalm 2:2)âthey operate together constantly, and so are âoneâ, though distinct.
1 Corinthians 1:30 says that âYeshuaâ¦is, by Elohim, made wisdomâ¦for us.â (The âbyâ here is apo in Greek, which means âthe separating off of a part from a whole or coming from a greater sourceâ. Thus the Word came forth from the Father in a unique way, before all else, and participated in creation of everything else, yet was still itself created.) âMadeâ implies the Father's agency and that he had a beginning, though it was before anyone or anything elseâs. Â
So letâs go back to Micah 5. Where it says, âwhose goings forth have been from antiquityâ, the last phrase, in Hebrew, is âmi-qedemâ, which is also used to describe the Garden of Eden. (Gen. 2:8) As is so often the case, when we see it in Hebrew, we can begin to connect the dots.  Qedem is related to the Adam Qadmon (the most ancient manâor the original pattern of humanity). This is why Yeshua could call himself both âthe root and offspring of Davidâ. (Rev. 22:16)
His statement, "Before Abraham was, I am" (John 8:58) is also explained in Jewish mysticism, which says that the very first point of light that revealed anything about YHWH (i.e., His "Word" or âExpressionâ, as we saw above) was entitled "I am". The Zohar says, âThe âspirit of God which hovered over the face of the watersâ is the spirit of the Messiah.â (Soncino Zohar, Bereshith, Section 1, Page 240a) So Yeshua is later described as
âthe image of the invisible Elohim, the firstborn of everything that was created.â (Col. 1:15) Â
The Book of Hanoch (Enoch), very widely-read by first-century Jews, explains in more detail: âThis Ben Adamâ¦Before the sun and the signs were created, before the stars of heaven were formed, his name was invoked in the presence of YHWH of Hosts. A support shall he be and he shall be the light of the nations. He shall be the hope of all whose hearts are troubled. All who dwell on earth shall fall down and prostrate themselves before himâ¦The Elect and Concealed One existed in His (YHWHâs) presence before the world was created.â (1 Hanokh 48:2-5) âThe Elect One stands before YHWH of Hosts, and his importance is eternal, and his power from generation to generation. With him dwells the spirit of wisdom, the spirit of instruction and of power, and the spirit of those who sleep in righteousness; he shall judge secret things.â (48:12-13) [Thus] says Elohim YHWH of Hosts: â¦you shall behold My Elect One, sitting upon the throne of My authority, and he shall judgeâ¦in the Name of YHWH.â (54:5) Â
Thus a very ancient form of âJudaismâ (if we can call it that so early) held that this âone like a Son of Adamâ, YHWHâs chosen one, is distinct from YHWH but in full accord with Him and more ancient than humanity. Although Yeshua has thus not existed as long as YHWH has, he, as the Word later embodied in his particular personality (Yoch. 1:14), did come âbefore all [other] things.â (Col. 1:17) So even before âhumbling himself to be a servantâ and submitting to a death he did not owe, he had already âstepped downâ several notches. He could remember a time when he had possessed a special position with YHWH before the world began. (Yoch. 17:5) Yet when he said this, he was prayingâwhich, if he was YHWH, he would not need to do! Â
Thus, while Adam was made in Elohimâs image; Yeshua IS that image! Is he, then, actually not a second âcopyâ of Adam, but the Adam Qadmon itself? This may be another reason we are not to make an image for ourselves, because one legitimate image has already been made the only way YHWH ever wants one made. But no image is to be worshippedâalthough a medieval Rosh haShanah prayer+ speaks of prayers to YHWH being accepted âthrough Yeshua the Prince of the Face [or Presence].â (Is this the âmessenger of His presenceâ mentioned in Isaiah 63:9?) Zâkharyah 6:11-12 suggests that âthe Branchâ would have the same name as Yâhoshua the High Priest (written as the Aramaic form, Yeshua, in Ezra 3:2, etc.). Â
This brings us full circle to the Talmudâs statement, based on Psalm 72:17, that the Messiahâs name was created before the creation of the world (Nedarim 39b; Pesachim 54a) It even seems that he was that âMemraââliving wordâthat relayed YHWHâs messages to the prophets so that we have juxtapositions like âThey shall look to Me whom they have pierced, and mourn for him as for an only son.â (Zkh. 12:10, emphasis mine)
So when we look back far enough, Jews and believers in Yeshua have much more in common than one would expect. These are only a sampling of many Jewish references to the Messiah's existence before the creation of everything else, as a mediator embodying all of YHWH's nature (revealing exactly what He is like, being the exact representation of His likeness, and in total union with Him as His appointed and authorized agent). Â
I have to wonder if access to Kabbalah was restricted to only the most mature in Judaism because there are elements in it that sound so much like the New Testament that they were not considered fit for general consumption. But why would Judaism give up such a large part of its heritage, if it were not for the fact that Yeshua came to be worshipped (just like the bronze snake Moshe was commanded to make), and the way he was wrongly portrayed as anti-Semitic and anti-Torah? (Where those ideas came from is for another day, but suffice it to say they were how non-Jewish readers, not knowing their original context, interpreted these Jewish writings.) Thank YHWH, that day is ending, so it is time for both Houses of Israel to leave behind our reactionary doctrines and come all the way back to the heritage that we both share.
Raised to the Highest Place
Another reason Yeshua could not be YHWH Himself is that after succeeding where Adam had failed, he was raised even higher than he had been before. Interestingly, it was accomplished by ânot considering equality with Elohim a thing to grasp forâ (Philippians 2:6)âthe very test Adam did not pass! (Compare Isa. 53:10-12.) If he were Elohim and unable to sin, how could he be truly tested? It would be no great feat for a deity to pass a test, but for a man, it was a great accomplishment--a very difficult choice, which is why he was rewarded; why would YHWH deserve a reward if He could do everything? Â
In Psalm 45:7, YHWH (Who is called the Elohim of another also, one verse earlier, referred to as âelohimâ) is said to have anointed him with the oil of joy above his fellows. YHWH has no peers, but as a man, Yeshua did, and could still be promoted to a higher level than other men because he earned it. Yet this honor is "bestowed on himâ. That requires there to be Someone else higher than he. The Son is given an inheritance when he is so exalted and crowned (Psalm 2). Â
Yet now, when someone bows before Yeshua as king, YHWH takes it as glorifying Himself, because He is the One who installed him as king. (Psalm 2:6; Philippians 2:9-11) Remember that âworshipâ used to be a term that applied to earthly kings in an earlier version of English, so in this sense, to âworship Yeshuaâ is not idolatry. But to equate him exactly with the Father in the much narrower way we use âworshipâ today would be.
He was "raised to the Father's right hand" (Acts 5:30) This implies being the subject of the Father's action, not something he already had an innate right to. The "right hand of Elohim" is a place of delegated authority, though it is the highest place to which anyone but the Father can be given. Paul clarifies that when it is said that âall things are put under [Yeshuaâs] feetâ (Psalm 8:6), the One who puts them under his feet (YHWH) is an obvious exception to that! And his supremacy over everyone else is only until that is fully accomplished. Then, as the stretched-out creation reaches its limit and contracts again, he will again be subordinated, so that YHWH will be the only focus. (1 Cor. 15:24-28; cf. Zech. 14:9)
He is called âthe man who is my associateâ or âpartnerâ (Zkh. 13:7), for he accomplished the human part of the task exactly as YHWH envisioned it. Every aspect of the Father's nature was present in him, expressed perfectly insofar as it was needed, yet as the Word He was not the Father, but the expression and manifestation of the Father. A bucket full of water taken from the ocean has exactly the same components as the ocean, yet it is not an ocean!
So is Yeshua elohim or isnât he? So much of this may seem like semantics. But maybe it seems ambiguous because it was not the issue YHWH wanted us to focus on. The point is that Yeshua retained the connection to YHWH that Adam cut off, and thus was able to bring what he saw in the heavenly realms to bear on the earthly scene, and also carry the spiritual significance of his physical actions back up into the heavenly realms to accomplish something truly permanent, because he never came âunpluggedâ from his Source as the first Adam did.
The Restored Image of Elohim
Though he did not begin a new religion, as many teach, Yeshua did nonetheless bring something truly newâand because he got past the point Adam did, he can indeed bring about an outcome for the world that Adam never got to see the first time around. What he did made it possible for other human beings to get off the trajectory Adam launched, and onto a completely different path.
How the seed of the woman came to fruition is hard to wrap our minds around, but rest assured, it was not by YHWH committing adultery with someone elseâs wife! That is the way of the Roman gods. The explanation in Scripture tells us also how additional members of this ârestored speciesâ can also be âprocreatedââso that the Servant âcut offâ without an heir can nonetheless âsee his seed and be satisfied.â (Isaiah 53:10) Â
After his resurrection, Yeshua âbreathed onâ his followers and said, âReceive the spirit of holiness.â (John/Yochanan 20:22) He had become a âlife-giving spiritâ (1 Cor. 15:45), able to share his soul with the first Adamâs spiritually-dead descendants, animating them in a new wayâa firstfruit of the promise through Ezekiel (11:19-20) that YHWH would put a new spirit within us, enabling us to walk in all His ways.
He also intends to be âthe firstborn among MANY brothers.â (Heb. 12:23) Though he was unique as the only fully-human being since Adam, he did not intend to remain the only one of his kind, but the first among many who would later be resurrected like him (Hebrews 12:23; Rom. 8:29) and made it possible for them to have the same relationship to Elohim that he has. (John 20:17) âWe all⦠behold the magnificence of YHWH as in a mirror, and we are being changed into that likeness from one degree of glory to another, as by the Spirit of YHWH.â (2 Cor. 3:18) The likeness we reflect now has more to do with characteristics, attributes, or traits that emulate His than a physical appearance. âThat which is born of spirit is spirit.â (Yochanan 3:6) James said that when we look into the Torah, it is that mirror that shows us who we really are, because it is the description of what the image of YHWH looks like when fleshed out, as Yeshua did.
So all this is said not to disprove a doctrine or prove another, but to open a window on just what is available to us. We now have the option at each crossroads to âput off the old man, with its ways of doing things, and put on the new [man], which is renewed by knowledge, according to the image of his Creator.â (Colossians 3:9, 10) What we lost through Adam is again available to us!Â
One of the names by which Messiah is called is âFather of continuityâ. (Isaiah 9:6) Because the Second Adam again bore the complete image of YHWH (Colossians 1:15), true humanity can continue rather than being forever lost while YHWH goes on calling, âAdam, where are you?â Instead, a human being is now again the heir to the earth, and he has won back the rule of earth for humankind (to be implemented when all is ready). In the Kingdom, Messiahâand other humans with him, even children--will be the masters over the animal realm just as Adam was supposed to. (Isaiah 11:6) Â
In this day when parts of truth that were suppressed so that we could maintain a rivalry are coming back to light, we are finding that things that were thought to be Christian inventions are actually very Jewish after all. As the roots of many celebrations now associated with the Church are shown to actually have no relation to Yeshua but the New Testament actually turns out to show the Hebrew festivals as the very framework of his life, it is becoming clear that originally, our outlooks were not so radically different as they seem today. Â
Daniel Boyarin+++ defines the name Metatron as coming from the Greek words meta-thronosâthe Ì£ âOne Beside the Throne,â or the âThe One on the Throne Beside.â As Lieberman points out, in 3 Enoch itself, YHWH says, âI made him a throne next to my throneâ. Boyarin shows that this concept of a âsecond power in heavenâ was very widespread across nearly the entire gamut of ancient Judaism, especially based on Daniel 7:9 in which âOne Like the Son of Manâ is given a throne by the Ancient of Days (YHWH the Father). They were only careful to emphasize (to the point of eventually suppressing the concept altogether within normative rabbinic Judaism) that the two powers were not equal, but that the lesser/âyoungerâ was entirely subject to the Elder and took the throne only at His behest and on His behalfâthe very things Yeshua emphasized. âJ. Fr. von Meyer, ⦠writing in 1823, âthinks that the Jewish conception of MetatÌ£ron forms an exact counterpart of the Christian conception of the Son of God, [and] hence points to Rev. 3:21 as a parallel.ââ (Odeberg on 3 Enoch)
Arius, suppressed by Constantine for the opposite reason and ousted at the Council of Nicea, held that âGod the Father is a Deity and is divine, whereas the Son of God is not a Deity but divineâ, being begotten at a point before the rest of Creation (but instrumental in the creation of all else) and therefore, âthe Son has a beginning but ⦠God is without beginning.â (âI, YHWH, am Deity alone.â Isaiah 46:9) This is much closer to what the Bible asserts than the opinion of the âwinners who rewrote historyâ; John 1:1 makes the very same distinction.
In the age to come, Jewish tradition even says this one will be called by YHWHâs name. (Is there any surprise there was confusion among Gentiles without the firm foundation?) In the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 38b, we read: âA certain min (dissident) said to Rav Idi: âIt is written, âAnd to Moses he said, come up unto the YHWH [Exod 24:1].â It should have said, âCome up to meâ!â He [Rav Idi] said to him: âThis was MetatÌ£ron, whose name is like the name of his master, as it is written, âfor My name is in himâ [Exod 23:21].ââ
Sometimes the middle column of that Adam Qadmon is even called âElohimâ and âYHWHâ, but this should be taken in the sense that Jeremiah says, âHe shall be called âYHWH is our righteousnessâ.â (23:6) How do we know? Because he says the same thing about Jerusalem (25:29; 33:16)âand do we worship the city? Jeremiah also refers to the Temple (32:34) as âcalled by My Nameâ. Â
But YHWH also refers to His people (the dwelling-place He is really after) as âcalled by My Nameâ (2 Chron. 7:14), because that is the intended result of Yeshuaâs being called by His Name. Yeshuaâs goal is to multiply himself. After his resurrection, he announced, âI am going to My Father and your Father, to My Elohim and your Elohim.â (John 20:17) He was a forerunner (another meaning of the Greek term Metatron, which is used for the âvoice of Elohimâ and âembodiment of the Shâkinahâ, the word of Elohim.) The âAdam Qadmonâ way of viewing Yeshua fits beautifully with Paul's teachings about us being Messiah's "body" (Colossians 1:18; Ephesians 1:23; 5:30) with him as its âHeadâ (the part born first and the leader and trailblazer for the restâHebrews 12:1-2). We are assigned and empowered to finish the work that he started. (Col. 1:24) Yeshua said he was the light of the world, but then said the very same thing about those who follow him. (Mat. 5:14; John 8:12).
âBen Elohimâ is a title conferred upon Yeshua because he had pleased the Father. (Mat. 3:17) But it is also a title that will be conferred on others who overcome in a similar way. (Mat. 5:9; Rev. 21:7) Â
Yeshua maximized what one body could hold, because his capacity was not diminished by sinfulness as ours was. But we, too, can be âpartakers of the divine natureâ. (2 Peter 1:4) In other words, when the job is complete, we are meant to become just what he is! If he was actually YHWH, there is no way we could aspire to that. But as the restored prototype of a restored humanity, we most certainly can: âWhen he appears we will be like him, because we will see him as he isâ! (1 Yochanan 3:2) Clearly we will not be YHWH; when we put it in those terms, the audacity of the doctrine of his being deity shows up for what it is. Still, He can live in us and through us as He did through Yeshua as the Holy Spirit enables us to live out YHWH's characteristics. (Galatians 5:22-23) The Word is meant to be fleshed out in us as well. The Torah tells us how.
So the conclusion of our investigation brings challenges to those on both sides of the question. It is not what either Jews or Christians expected, but this is good news--too good to NOT be true! Â
And, though the Northern Kingdom probably needed it more, all of this was offered âto the Jew firstâ (Romans 1:16). We who did run with it, though long estranged from the Torah, also have something to add, though we are really only offering back to the Jews things that were once theirs as well. Adam Eliyahu Berkowitz says, âJudaismâs fear of blending into Christianity has stolen the Messiah from the Jews.â When understood properly, Yeshua is the glory of Judah, Davidâs most-favored son (Zekh. 12:10), the âlight to the Gentilesâ par excellence.
Both sides went to extremes to avoid being confused with the other, but such a polarized approach is no longer necessary, and it is becoming more and more apparent that it is not realistic. If both head toward the center we can not only find the more balanced truth, but also truly meet and embrace one anotherâa moment Paul described as no less than âlife from the deadâ! (Romans 11:15) Â
And none too soon, for a âstrong delusionâ is not far from being unleashed. The Christ as defined by Christianity rather than by Hebraically-understood Scripture is a perfect setup for the Counterfeit Messiah who will âoppose and exalt himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he âas Godâ sits in the temple of God, declaring himself to be God.â (2 Thess. 2:4; compare Daniel 7:24-25) Yeshua would not do that, but told the one who was tempting him to take more than he had been given, âIt is written, âYou must worship YHWH your Elohim , and serve Him alone.ââ (Mat. 4:10) Never has this distinction been more crucial for the very survival of the truth, as the blurred version, which places increasingly less value on âIt is writtenâ, leaves ample room for one who claims to be the Messiah and does miracles to âdeceive manyâ (Mark 13:6, 22; 2 Thess. 2:11) by demanding to be worshipped as if he were YHWH Himself.
None of us has the complete picture as we will when the king himself comes back and explains what is still unclear. Yeshuaâs unique nature, probably called into being mainly because of our need for a solution to the gordian knot of sin, remains a âmysteryâ to which the only proper response at some point, in Michael Cardâs words, is to âgive up on your pondering and fall down on your kneesâ. Â
But do you see now why Yeshua cannot be sidelinedâwhy he is not dispensable in restored Israel? Â
____________________________________________
*Like Philo, the Alexandrian Jew who wrote a generation earlier, John distinguishes between "ho Theos" (the Elohim) Who has no beginning and Who "no man has ever seen" (1.18) and "Theos" (Elohim) whom "the Elohim " brought forth âin beginningâ and who later became visible human flesh. [cf Fug. 97; Sacr. AC.9; Som. 1:229-30; Leg. All., II, 86] Dr. Phillip B. Harner of Heidelberg College put it this way: "The verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the LOGOS was 'a god' or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of THEOS but as a distinct being from HO THEOS ["THE Elohim"]. In the form John actually uses, the word "THEOS" is placed at the beginning for emphasis." Angels are often called "sons of Elohim", and demons are even called "the gods". The Logos could in that sense be called "a created Elohim". This may be exemplified most clearly in Psalm 45: "Of the Son He says, âYour throne, O Elohim, is forever...You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness [being without Torah]. Therefore Elohim--YOUR ELOHIM--has anointed you ["made you Messiah"] with the oil of joy more than your fellows." This shows that although Yeshua is an " elohim " or "judge" to his fellows (us humans), he himself has an Elohim or judge to which he must answer, and who gives him the position that he holds--like Joseph under Pharaoh, who was still authorized to act as Pharaoh in nearly every way. Â
+Machzor Rosh Hashanah vâYom Kippurim kâMinhag Sefarad (New York: Hebrew Publishing Company), prayer translated by Rachmiel Frydland.
++ "Only [begotten] son" [yakhid] is also a term that was used of Isaac, although Abraham did indeed have other sons. And the book of Hebrews (as well as I John and other books) specifically speaks of Elohim through Yeshua "bringing many sons unto glory" and of us as foreordained to become sons of Elohim as well. But the firstborn received a double portion of the inheritance of any other sons, though they were loved equally. Yeshua is "unique" and "special" as the term "only-begotten" also implies, and this verse in Psalm 45 highlights this way in which Yeshua is exalted beyond what any of us will ever be--yet, through him, we will also "be like him" at the resurrection, of which he was the firstfruits (incidentally, the same Hebrew term as "firstborn"). Â
** One of these attributes, "wisdom", is itself personified in the book of Proverbs in much the same way that the Holy Spirit (presented in the Hebrew Scriptures as YHWH's power in an individual to accomplish a certain task) is also personified as in Acts 5:3, 9, 32; Rev. 2:7, etc. If we call the Holy Spirit âthe third person of the Trinityâ, then (because the Father is the first) kabbalistically it must be the âMotherâ, but then how did Miryam conceive through âthe Motherâ rather than âthe Fatherâ?
+++Boyarin, Beyond Judaisms: Metaṭron and the Divine ̣Polymorphy of Ancient Judaism