It is the greatest cover-up in all of human history. Many have lived their entire lives never realizing that their Father in heaven has a personal name that is a necessary part of proper worship. Some believe He answers to Jehovah. But that name has been soundly disproven. Today His true Name is being proclaimed and many are discovering it and realizing the necessity of calling on the only Name given to man for salvation. He Himself challenges us in Proverbs 30:4 by asking, “What is His Name and what is His Son’s Name if you can tell?” In this study we will show what the Heavenly Father’s actual name is, what His son’s Name is as well, and why knowing them by their revealed names is critically important for correct worship and … for salvation itself.
Do you want a personal relationship with the one you worship?” the evangelist bellowed to the crowd. “Do you want to know Him intimately and receive His blessings?” The crowd goes wild. “Then ask God to come into your heart.”
Hold on a minute. What’s wrong with this scene? How can you have a personal relationship with a generic label? Doesn’t closeness begin with a personal name? The Apostle Paul wrote, “For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth — as indeed there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’,” 1Corinthians 8:5 (ESV). Even Satan is referred to by the common term “god”! Paul wrote, “…in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving…” 2Corinthians 4:4.
Using the same designation for our Creator that is used for the evil one, as well for false deities of the pagans, presents serious issues. Replacing His Name with a common title is identity theft.
The Third Commandment is explicit about the necessity of His true Name in our worship. “Thou shalt not take the name of Yahweh your Elohim in vain; for Yahweh will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.” The word vain is the Hebrew shoaw and means emptiness, worthlessness, waste, ruin. Removal of His name brings it to a state of ruin and desolation.
To distinguish the Heavenly Father from other so-called deities, those who refuse to call on His Name are forced to add qualifying descriptions like “the great god,” and “the one and only true god.” By its very nature a title must be buttressed with many adjectives in order to nail down exactly who you mean. But a personal name easily solves this identity problem, and of course is entirely appropriate as well. He commands His people to call on His revealed, personal Name.
It should be obvious that the title “god” is a broad-spectrum, general term and is not capable of individual identification. Capitalizing it doesn’t change that.
We would have the same problem if every man in the world had his name replaced with the title “Mr.” Imagine this conversation: “Give this to Mr. for me, would you?”
“Uh, which Mr. do you mean? There are millions of them.”
“You know, the one true Mr., the only genuine Mr.”
Does this make sense?
The obvious purpose of a name is to distinguish one individual from another. That should go without saying, yet how many think about that simple fact when it comes to their Heavenly Father? They have been taught to call Him by a generic label, which He Himself says is unacceptable.
It is amazing that all religions are known by the name of the one worshiped … except Christianity. Anciently the god of the Akkadians was Marduk; the god of the Ammonites was Moloch; the god of the Greeks was Zeus; the god of the Romans was Jupiter; the god of the Moabites was Baal-peor; The god of the Muslims is Allah, and the god of the Christians is…God? Using a nondescript, indefinite, impersonal, nonidentifying title does not identify the One you worship! Capitalizing that title doesn’t turn it into a name, no more than capitalizing the title “mister” does.
By removing His Name from our Bibles and our worship we denigrate Him and bring Him down to the lowest common denominator. The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary explains: “[His] name reveals his character and salvation in which people may take refuge (Ps. 20:1; cf. Isa. 25:1, 56:6); to treat [His] name as empty is to despise his person (Ex. 20:7),” p. 747.
His One and Only Name
What then is the revealed, personal Name of the Creator of the universe as established in the Bible?
We’ll let Him tell us. In Isaiah 42:8 He said, “I am Yahweh: that is my name: and my honor will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.” He makes it crystal clear that He expects us to call on His personal Name Yahweh, which separates Him from the world of idols. He says that when you hear my Name that you will know it is I. When using His personal Name you don’t need to define who you mean. It is His personal identity. His Name tells it all. It also distinguishes His people when they call on Him in His Name.
In Isaiah 52:6 Yahweh thunders, “Therefore my people shall know my name: therefore they shall know in that day that I am he that doth speak: behold, it is I.”
The prophet said in Micah 4:5, “For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of Yahweh our Elohim for ever and ever.” In other words, all the other religions have a name for the one they worship, and so does the true one.
How important is His Name? Extremely. It is the ONLY name in the Bible that is called “holy” (see Lev. 20:3; Ps. 33:21; 103:1;105:3; 106:47; 145:21; Luke 11:2). Salvation comes only through His Name.
The Name “Yahweh” is becoming more widely known and acknowledged as His genuine Name. Theologians along with the general public are starting to catch up with Bible scholarship, textual proof, and historical fact, all of which reveal the truth of the Name Yahweh.
In this booklet we will show why His Name is Yahweh and His Son’s Name is Yahshua by using source manuscripts, scholarship, linguistics, etymology, and archaeology.
Coming to know His revealed, personal name is one of those gratifying “Ah-ha” moments that make you say, “Yes, of course, that makes perfect sense. Why wasn’t I told this before?” When He refers to His Name, He means His literal Name, not a common title or generic stamp. To those who say He has many names, Yahweh inspired this response, “That men may know that thou, whose name alone is YAHWEH, are the most high over all the earth,” Psalm 83:18.
Those other “names” that some may cite are just adjectives added to His Name to describe some aspect of Him, like Yahweh-Yireh (Yahweh will provide), Yahweh-Nissi (Yahweh my banner), Yahweh-Sabaoth (Yahweh of hosts), and Yahweh Zidkenu (Yahweh our righteousness). Other so-called “names” are just titles, like “Elohim,” “Lord,” and “Adonai.”
The Name Yahweh is from the Hebrew verb of existence hayah, meaning “I am.” Some scholars say it also means I will be whatever I want to be or need to be. He explained His Name and its significance in Exodus 3. In verse 15 He told Moses that His Name was a memorial to all generations. Memorial in Hebrew (zakar) means to mark, remember, mention.
Yahweh causes all things to exist, including us human beings, He is the self-existent One. He causes everything in the universe to be and He controls all of it. We exist because He exists. That is who “Yahweh” is.
Jehovah and the Letter J
His true Name Yahweh was cloaked through the centuries by the erroneous “Jehovah.” The name Jehovah is an impossibility because there was never a letter “J” or sound of a J in the Hebrew or Greek languages from which our Bible translations are derived. Not even the early 1611 King James English Bible used the letter J, but employed the letter “I” instead. In Psalm 68:4 it reads, “…extol him that rideth upon the heavens, by his Name IAH…” The letter J came into widespread use only 500 years ago, becoming the newest letter to join the English alphabet. Before its debut, the J had a Y sound and grew out of the vowel “i,” which is why the lower case “j” is dotted like the “i” and was given a hooked tail to distinguish it from the “i.”
The Encyclopedia Americana says, “The form of J was unknown in any alphabet until the 14th century.”
The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, agrees that the J is only a modification of the Latin I and dates back with a separate value only to the 15th century.
Funk and Wagnall’s Encyclopedia (1979 edition), volume 14, page 94 under “J,” states: “J, the tenth letter and seventh consonant in the English alphabet. It is the latest addition to the English script and has been inserted in the alphabet after I, from which it was developed…”
The Jewish Encyclopedia calls the word Jehovah “a philological impossibility.”
The Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology says that Jehovah is an erroneous transliteration of the Hebrew name YHWH, “often represented as Yahweh” (1995).
In the preface to the Revised Standard Version of the Bible is the following statement: “The form Jehovah is of late medieval origin; it is a combination of the consonants of the Divine Name [YHWH] and the vowels attached to it by the Masoretes but belonging to an entirely different word. The sound of Y is represented by J and the sound of W by V, as in Latin. The word ‘Jehovah’ does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew,” pp. 6-7.
The Moffatt Bible says in the preface about the Jehovah:
“Strictly speaking, this ought to be rendered ‘Yahweh,’ which is familiar to modern readers in the erroneous form of ‘Jehovah.’ Were this a version intended for students of the original, there would be no hesitation whatever in printing ‘Yahweh.’”
The name Jehovah is a synthetic blend. It even has a shocking aspect. The suffix hovah is No. 1943 in Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary and has the meaning of “ruin: mischief.” It is another form of No. 1942, havvah, which is translated “calamity, iniquity, mischief, mischievous (thing), naughtiness, naughty, noisome, perverse thing, substance, very wickedness.” Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius says of No. 1943, hovah: “ruin, disaster.” No wonder the Rotherham Bible refers to the name Jehovah as a monstrous hybrid!
Even the Jehovah’s Witnesses acknowledge that the name Jehovah falls short. Their book, “Let Your Name Be Sanctified” freely admits on pages 16 and 18 that Yahweh is the superior translation of the Tetragrammaton.
Read One Way But Spoken Another
In an effort to protect the sacred Name from being pronounced and even profaned, ancient scribes added vowel points (code letters) from the title Adonai (“Lord” in English) to the four letters of His Name, YHWH, thereby prompting the reader to use the substitute term “Adonai” instead of “Yahweh.” Kohlenberger in his introduction to Hebrew-English explains this device as kethib-qere, meaning the name is written one way but is read or pronounced another way.
The Encyclopedia Judaica explains which vowels were used wrongly to transform Yahweh into Jehovah: “In the early Middle Ages, when the consonantal text of the Bible was supplied with vowel points to facilitate its correct traditional reading, the vowel points for Adonai with one variation—a sheva (short ‘e’) with the first yod [Y] of YHWH instead of the hataf-patah (short ‘a’) under the aleph of Adonai—was used for YHWH, thus producing the form YeHoWaH. When Christian scholars of Europe first began to study Hebrew they did not understand what this really meant, and they introduced the hybrid name ‘Jehovah’” (vol. 7, p. 680).
As the Judaica notes, by deliberately inserting the vowel sign for “e” into the first part of the Tetragrammaton, the short form of the Name “Yah” was rendered “Yeh.” Thus, the Jewish Masoretes effectively hid even the short form Yah of the sacred Name. It is this erroneous form “Yeh” that has survived to this day in “Jeh”ovah and most likely enters into the development of the erroneous form of the Son’s name, Je-sus, which we will see later.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica (Micropedia, vol. 10) corroborates. Under “Yahweh” we read, “The personal name of the [El] of the Israelites …The Masoretes, Jewish biblical scholars of the Middle Ages, replaced the vowel signs that had appeared above or beneath the consonants of YHWH with the vowel signs of Adonai or of Elohim. Thus the artificial name Jehovah (YeHoWaH) came into being.”
Another authority says this: “The pronunciation Jehovah was unknown until 1520 when it was introduced by [Petrus] Galatinus [Pope Leo X’s confessor] but was contested by Le Mercier, J. Drusius, and L. Capellus as against grammatical and historical propriety,”Emphasized Bible, Rotherham, p. 24.
(To learn more about the Hebrew alphabet and the practice of vowel pointing see “Hebrew Articulation” preceding Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary.)
The Reason for Hiding the Sacred Name
Why was His Name Yahweh avoided and hidden for millennia? Jewish religious leaders had an ultra-pious interpretation of Leviticus 24:16, which commanded that anyone who blasphemed Yahweh’s Name (did violence to it) should be stoned to death. They took that injunction and ramped it up, so that just pronouncing the Name constituted a serious offense. Ultimately, the Jews would not use the Name even in normal religious worship or exercises.
Another passage the Jews cite is Jeremiah 44:26, where Yahweh tells Judah not to use His Name in Egypt or foreign lands. Why did He say that? It was because they had worshiped the queen of heaven! It was a punishment for their sins. We have statements from Philo and Josephus around the time of Yahshua that this avoidance in uttering the name carried over into the New Testament as well.
What exactly happened in the New Testament and why aren’t most churches using the sacred Name today
Hiding the Name in the New Testament — Nomina Sacra
The Jewish belief that the name was not to be pronounced was picked up in the 2nd century C.E. by Greek translators and various Christian church leaders who continued the Jewish practice of Name substitution. They also adopted the notion that Adonai, translated Lord (kyrios in Greek), gave the Heavenly Father a universal character. Finally, the Jewish practice of avoiding the Name further evolved among Christians into the belief that the Name was no longer important and to use it was Judaizing.
The New Testament translators even mimicked the Hebrew scribal custom of adding vowel pointing to the Name to render it “Adonai” instead of Yahweh. This scribal practice carried over in the New Testament Greek and was known as nomina sacra (meaning “sacred names”). Specifically, the Greek letters kappa epsilon with a line above them were inserted for the sacred Name. Consequently, the reader would read “kurios” (Greek term for Lord) instead of the Name. All of the earliest Christian papyri exhibit the nomina sacra.
Bruce Metzger’s book, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible, lists 15 examples of these abbreviations from Greek papyri that were used for: God, Lord, Jesus, Christ, Son, Spirit, David, cross, Mother, Father, Israel, Savior, Man, Jerusalem, and Heaven (examples appear as found in KJV). Except for “mother,” which is not found until the 4th century CE, all other nomina sacra in Greek manuscripts from the first through third centuries CE. While scholars are still debating the purpose, some propose that this shortening of key words may have been used to replace the Tetragrammaton (see Ex. 3:15) with the common title Kurios (typically abreviated “KS” with a line above) in Greek Christian manuscripts.
This offers a likely explanation as to why Yahweh’s Name is missing from the Greek New Testament. In fact, in those places where the Tetragrammaton should appear, the definite article is missing in front of the nomina sacra. This conclusion is supported also by German scholar David Trobisch’s work, The First Edition of The New Testament. In the instance of a Hebrew or Aramaic NT original, this may also explain why the Greek title theos, typically (abbreviated “THS” with a line above), appears in place of the Hebrew [Elohim] (see Gen. 1:1).
Let’s now look at the oldest Bible manuscripts available to confirm that ‘the Heavenly Father’s Name was truly Yahweh.
‘Yahweh’ in the Original Text
In the Hebrew, which is the oldest text of your Bible, Yahweh’s Name is found in the form of the four letters (known as the Tetragrammaton) no fewer than 6,823 times. Those four letters are: yod, hay, waw, hay or YHWH in our alphabet. This four-lettered name is seen abundantly throughout the ancient Hebrew manuscripts, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest of the Bible manuscripts in existence.
Some believe that the correct pronunciation of Yahweh’s Name has been lost through the centuries. The Judaica says otherwise: “The true pronunciation of the name YHWH was never lost. Several early Greek writers of the Christian Church testify that the name was pronounced ‘Yahweh’” (Vol. 7, p. 680).
One of those was Clement of Alexandria, a Greek-speaking teacher in the early New Testament period (150-211 CE). He said, “The mystic name which is called the tetragrammaton … is pronounced Iaoue, which means, ‘who is, and who shall be’” (“How to pronounce ‘YHWH,’” Biblical Archaeology Review magazine, September/October 1994).
Already in the sixteenth century Mercerus suggested that the original pronunciation of the name was Yahwe (Anchor Bible note on Job).
The Schaff-Herzog 20th Century Encyclopedia says, “The pronunciation Yahweh of the Hebrew tetragrammaton need no longer be based on traditions preserved in late patristic sources. Both the vocalization yahwe and yahu (a shortened form used chiefly in personal names) are now confirmed by a variety of ancient Near Eastern inscriptional materials from the first and second millennia B.C,” pp. 1194-1195.
Others who confirm the correct rendition of the Tetragrammaton include Origen in his Hexapla (Greek revision of the Septuagint) and Jerome, who translated the Old Testament into Latin.
Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible says, “The true pronunciation seems to have been Yahwe (or Iahway, the initial I = y, as in Iachimo).” It notes that the e should be pronounced as the e in there, and the first h sounded as an aspirate (breathed letter).
For those who claim the Name should be Yahveh, the book, How the Hebrew Language Grew by Edward Horowitz, says, “The Yemenite Jews of Arabia who retain an ancient, correct and pure pronunciation of Hebrew still pronounce the (waw) as ‘w’ – as does Arabic, the close sister language of Hebrew.” The “v” developed much later through the Germanic, Yiddish influence in Europe.
The Missing Vowels Argument
Some misinformed individuals have claimed that the exact pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton is unknown because Hebrew lacks vowels. This is incorrect for several reasons. Hebrew indeed has vowels, but the vowels were just not written into the Hebrew text. If Hebrew had no vowels then the entire Old Testament could not be read out loud or spoken. The Hebrew speaker understood the correct pronunciation of each word because he knew the language and the sounds of the letters and their combinations.
Consider, we can decipher many English words through repeated usage, even with no vowels. For example, if we saw the letters “txt” we would read it “text” even without the vowel “e.” When it came to names, “Wllm” would be “William” and “Jhn” would signify “John.” As with Hebrew, we see the consonants and restore the proper vowels.
Later in the seventh century C.E. scribes called Masoretes added diacritical marks or vowel points to Hebrew words so that the correct pronunciation would be preserved. These scribes obviously knew how to pronounce Hebrew words! We have also seen how the wrong vowel points were purposely used to try to hide the name Yahweh.
No language can be spoken without vowels. Vowels are vocalized with the open mouth. It would be virtually impossible to pronounce words without vowels; all you could do with just consonants alone is make incomprehensible sounds (try pronouncing those last two words with their vowels removed: ncmprhnsbl snds). Acting as a built-in safeguard to preserve the correct pronunciation, the three letters of the Tetragrammaton (the H is repeated) are also used as vowel-consonants in Hebrew, much as our letter “Y” can be used as either a vowel or a consonant. The writings of Qumran show that in the first century that “Y” used as a vowel made the sounds I and E. In Hebrew the consonants Y, W, H, can serve as vowels, being called ‘mothers of reading’ (matres lectionis). When these consonants do double-duty as vowels they help in the pronunciation of many Hebrew words.
But there is yet more confirmation that Yahweh is the correct Name.
The Jewish priest and historian Josephus, who lived in the first century of the New Testament era, attests that the Tetragrammaton is made up of vowels. In writing of the Temple, he said about the high priest, “A mitre also of fine linen encompassed his head, which was tied by a blue ribbon, about which there was another golden crown, in which was engraven the sacred name [of Yahweh]; it consists of four vowels,” Wars of the Jews, Book 5, Chapter 5, section 7.
Being vowels, the letters of the Tetragrammaton spoken together are pronounced: EE-AH-OO-EH. Say them rapidly and you get “Yahweh.”
The personal, revealed Name Yahweh is attested in the prefaces of some Bibles. For example, the New Revised Standard Version says, “While it is almost, if not quite certain that the Name was originally pronounced ‘Yahweh’…’ Greek versions corroborate “Yahweh.”
Importance of His Name
In an effort to explain why a particular Bible version doesn’t use the Name Yahweh, some editors will waffle with a statement like, we use the substitute names and titles that readers are more familiar with—as if it didn’t matter to Yahweh Himself what we call Him.
Yahweh has a much different attitude about His personal Name, however. He told Moses to tell Israel in Exodus 3:15, “Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Yahweh Elohim of your fathers, the Elohim of Abraham, the Elohim of Isaac, and the Elohim of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.”
Repeatedly He emphasizes the necessity of His Name. He said His Name alone is Yahweh forever, and it is not subject to alterations. He gives the command to “call on my name” in Psalm 99:6; we are told to declare His Name in Romans 9:17 andHebrews 2:2; to exalt His Name in Psalm 34:3 and Isaiah 2:4; to honor his name in Psalm 66:2, 4; to praise his Name in2Samuel 22:50; to remember His Name in Exodus 3:15; to sing to His Name in Psalm 9:1-2; to think on His Name in Malachi 3:16.; and in Deuteronomy 32:3 to publish His Name. In a critical passage He declares that there is salvation in no other name. Acts 4:12reads: “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” Yahshua the Savior carries His father’s Name in His own, and therefore has the only Name that offers salvation. After reading what He Himself says, who can argue that substitute names and titles are just as acceptable to Him?
You can find the name Yahweh verified in nearly any common encyclopedia, in most dictionaries and in a host of Bible study references (look under “Yahweh,” “Lord” or “God”). It is restored in the modern text of some Bible versions, including the Jerusalem and New Jerusalem Bibles, The Anchor Bible, Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible, World English Bible, Holman Christian Standard Bible (50 times) and eight times in the New Living Translation and the Bible in Basic English. It is completely restored in our own Restoration Study Bible.
The Scriptures Confirm His Name Yahweh
Abundant evidence of the true Name exists within the Bible itself. Nicknames, which are often just shortened versions of the longer name, were used anciently as well as today. Abram was a shortened version of Abraham.
Yahweh also has a short form of His name, which is spelled by the first two letters of the Tetragrammaton, YH. The name “Yah” is found abundantly in the Hebrew manuscript sources of our Bible translations. It is even found in the King James Version inPsalm 68:4: “Sing unto Elohim, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name JAH, and rejoice before him.” The “J” was originally a “Y,” as corrected in Psalm 68:4 by the New King James Version.
Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance Hebrew dictionary No. 3050 has the entry Yahh, a contraction for 3068 [the Tetragrammaton, the Sacred Name].
The short form of Yahweh’s Name exists in many names of key Bible personalities. For example, it is found at the end of such names as Isaiah (IsaYah), Jeremiah (YeremYah), Hosea (HoseYah), Nehemiah (NehemiYah) and Hezekiah (HezekYah). The Anglicized “i-a-h” in these names is Y-a-h in the Hebrew. You can hear the “Yah” clearly when the name is spoken. But Yah also appears at the beginning of many names, as in Joel (Yah-el); Joash (Yah-awsh); Jonadab (Yah-nadab), Jochebed (Yah-chebed, mother of Moses), and Joanna (Yah-anna). This “Yah” or shortened form of Yahweh’s Name is also found in the common word of praise, halleluYah, a purely Hebrew term that
means “praise Yah.” Spelled hallelujah, it is still pronounced with the original Y sound—halleluyah—thus preserving the short form of His Name in a very well-established word.
Having His Name encoded in the names of notable Bible personalities is known as theophany. And there is one individual’s name in which assimilating the Father’s Name is absolutely critical — it is the Name of His Son the Messiah, the Savior of men
Our Savior’s True Name
In Exodus 23:21 we see a prophecy that the one sent to rescue Israel, and all of mankind as well, carries the Father’s Name within his own name. “Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name [is] in him.” This is a reference to the Savior Yahshua because only He is given the authority to pardon transgressions.
The last six words plainly state that the Father’s Name exists in the Son’s – “for my name [is] in him.” The Son affirmed that He literally bore His Father’s Name. “I am come in my Father’s name, and you receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive,” John 5:43.
Some contend that this just means that He came in the authority of the Father. That is true, too. Yet, as we have seen with many noteworthy patriarchs and prophets, the short form of Yahweh’s Name, Yah, is literally found in their names. This is common in the Hebrew Scriptures. Should it not be even more essential that the Son would carry his Father’s name in His own, especially since He Himself said so and because they are Father and Son? Every son today inherits his father’s surname. If the father’s last name is Smith, so is the son’s. The Heavenly Father and Son also share the family Name, Yah, in their own names.
Virtually every name in Hebrew has a meaning. Our Savior’s earthly father Joseph was told by the angel to give His Son a name that signified salvation.
Notice, “But while he (Joseph) thought on these things, behold, the angel of Yahweh appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she shall bring forth a son, and you shall call his name Yahshua: for he shall save his people from their sins,” Matthew 1:20-21.
The angel Gabriel also spoke to Mary regarding the name of her unborn son. Since Mary, or more correctly Miriam, was a Hebrew of the tribe of Judah (see Luke 1:27), Gabriel had to communicate to her in the Hebrew tongue, her native language. Had he spoken to her in Latin or Greek she would not have understood him. Whenever angels spoke to mankind in Scripture it was always in the Hebrew tongue.
“And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favor with Elohim. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Yahshua” (Luke 1:30-31).
The Messiah’s purpose was to save His people from the death penalty resulting from their sinful behavior IF they would turn to Him in repentance. The angel tied the son’s Name directly to salvation. You shall call Him this Name because He shall save His people. It can’t get any clearer! In Hebrew the word for salvation is hoshua. Because the Father’s Name is in the Savior’s Name, and knowing that His purpose was to bring salvation, we combine these two essential facts and the result is a name that means “Yahweh (Yah) is salvation” or “Yahshua.”
Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary shows how erroneous vowel pointing changes YAH to give YEH. You can see this by scanning through the entire column starting with “Yehovah.” In every name in this column, a shewa (:) appears under the Hebrew letter yod (y), and thereby the pronunciation in the prefix of all those names is changed to “YEH.” The proper vowel point should have been the hataf-patah (short ‘a’) to yield “YAH,” as the Judaica has explained.
Using the “e” instead of the proper “a” changes the critical family Name YAH, the first syllable of both Yahweh’s and Yahshua’s Names. This also explains how the “e” likely came about in the transformed name that became Jesus. The next letter in Jesus, “s,” results from the fact that Greek has no letter “h” and therefore no “sh” sound, only the hard “s” sound of the sigma. This was incorporated into the Latin text.
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology explains, “Iesous is the Greek form of the Old Testament Jewish name Yesua [Yahshua], arrived at by transcribing the Hebrew and adding an “s” to the nominative to facilitate declension.”
The final “us” in “Jesus” is the Greek nominative masculine singular ending. Matthew 1:8-11 contains the genealogy of Joseph’s line, where we can find similar examples of “s” added to produce Greek-inflected Hebrew names: Uzziah becomes Ozias; Hezekiah becomes Ezekias; Jonah becomes Jonas, etc. Ending a name with an “a” in Greek makes it feminine, so the Greek translators gave it a masculine “us” ending. Such errors among names in most versions can be traced to translators who failed to transliterate those names properly to bring the name sound for sound into the next language. Jesus is the English rendering of the Latin transliteration of the Greek word “Iesous” (pronounced ee-ay-sooce’). As we look into the origin and meaning of the Savior’s name we learn that the Latinized Greek name Jesus has no connection to His true Hebrew name.
Yahweh has bestowed on His Son the family Name, as we see in Philippians 2:9, “Wherefore Yahweh also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Yahshua every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Yahshua Messiah is Master, to the glory of Yahweh the Father.”
Our Savior’s Family Was Not Greek
A fundamental question about the Messiah’s Name is, why would His Hebrew parents Mary and Joseph call their child a Latinized Greek name, which also lacks any connotation of salvation? To do so would also violate what the angel told them to call their Son. Would an American couple living in Iowa give their child a Chinese name? Of course not. Chinese is not their race or culture. Neither would a Hebrew couple living in the heart of Israel name their child a Greek name like “Jesus.”
The Greek culture and language were foreign to the Jews in Israel. The invading Greeks were gentiles and were despised by most Hebrews living in the environs of Jerusalem at the time. There was no love between Jews and the pagan, Zeus-worshiping Helenists. The Greek ruler Antiochus IV Epiphanes had grotesquely defiled the Hebrew’s temple by having a hog slaughtered on its altar and then dedicating the Temple to Zeus. This madman’s monstrous act was so egregious that it would parallel what the man of sin will one day do to devastate true worship prior to Yahshua’s return, Matthew 24:15.
The acts of Antiochus in forcing the worship of the Greek god Zeus on the Jews and killing tens of thousands of Hebrews incited the Maccabbean revolt. In Acts 21:26-29 Paul had upset the Jews by bringing Greeks into the temple, proving that Jews had no love for the heathen Greeks. It was for the Greek-speaking Jews outside of Israel in Gentile nations, mostly in Egypt, that the Septuagint Greek Scriptures were translated.
Was the New Testament Originally Greek?
Many believe that the apostles originally wrote the New Testament in Greek simply because Greek manuscripts are the oldest available. Internal and external testimony explodes the common myth of a Greek original. Consider that the Savior’s earthly parents were Jews, Semitic people in the Hebrew nation of Israel. The Savior’s avowed purpose was to take the truth of the Word to the house of Israel. He chose Hebrew apostles to help in His ministry. He taught and worked almost exclusively in the central region of Israel, mostly around Galilee. He spoke Hebrew or the close sister tongue Aramaic as did everyone else in Galilee. Everything about Him exhibited the Semitic tongue Hebrew, including His Name.
The reason so much of worship — even today— reflects a Grecianized, Romanized flavor is that these cultures transformed the early New Testament faith when they absorbed the Hebrews into their western society. Because of this, many key New Testament teachings today do not reflect what they were in the year 30 CE. (Request the booklet, Astonishing Bible Truths That Your Church Never Taught.)
Joshua and Yahshua Share Virtually the Same Name
Another eye-opening link to the actual name of our Savior is the Old Testament name Joshua. If you replace the more recent letter “J” in Joshua’s name with the original “Y,” you have the pronunciation “Yahshua” (try it—say Joshua out loud, now say it again using the proper Y instead of J). There is an equivalency between the Savior’s name and the Old Testament name Joshua, as indicated in several Scriptures.
The first of these is Jeremiah 23:5, which prophesies, “Behold, the days come, saith Yahweh, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.”
This “Branch” with a capital “B” in the KJV is a clear reference to Yahshua the Messiah, who came from King David’s line. Note that this Branch is called righteous, that He shall reign as king, and that he will judge the earth. That can only point directly to the returning Messiah.
But now let’s see how truly illuminating this Branch metaphor is. Who else is associated with this designation “Branch”?
The prophet Zechariah in 6:11-12 wrote: “Then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set [them] upon the head of Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest; And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh Yahweh of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name [is] The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of Yahweh.” It is the name Joshua that is associated with “the Branch.” Through this Branch epithet we see that both the high priest Joshua and the Messiah share the same Name.
But there is still more confirmation connecting the name Joshua to the Savior’s name.
When Bible translators brought the New Testament Greek translation over into the English, they substituted the sacred Names rather than transliterated them as they should have done. Two examples are Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8.
Acts 7:45 reads, “Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom Elohim drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David.”
Hebrews 4:8 reads, “For if Jesus had given them rest then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.”
Both verses refer to Joshua, the leader of Israel in the Old Testament who succeeded Moses and led Israel into the promised land. Yet, here He is called “Jesus”! Clearly this was a mistake by translators, and a very revealing error at that.
It demonstrates that when translators came across the name Yahshua in the New Testament, that they automatically changed it to the Latinized Greek substitute, Jesus. The Bible itself warns against adding to or taking from the Word. In Deuteronomy 4:2 we hear Yahweh’s warning about changing the text in any manner:
Explicit Meaning in the Name
We read in Acts 4:12, “There is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” Changing His Name is serious business and even impacts salvation. Names in Hebrew are tightly wrapped in their own meanings. Changing Yahshua’s name is not only identity theft, but it also alters His purpose for coming. He has gone from “Yahweh’s Salvation” to a name void of any innate meaning, showing again that Jesus is not Hebraic because Hebrew names have meaning.
The Savior Yahshua came to offer salvation. That is what Yah-shua means in the Hebrew. Act 4:12 tells us there is salvation in no other name. No Latinized-Grecian name or substitute title has that significance.
In his book, The God of Two Testaments, author Robert Brent Graves writes, “…the rendering of ‘Savior’ only gives part of the Hebrew meaning. In the original Hebrew, ‘Joshua’ literally means ‘Yahweh saves’ or ‘Yahweh-Savior’! For the first syllable of ‘Joshua’ in the Hebrew is Yah, an abbreviated form of Yahweh…” Graves further observes that Yahweh “has literally stamped upon the Messiah’s Name (1) His own name—Yahweh and (2) His own title—Savior.”
The Anchor Bible note on Matthew 1:1 reads: “Jesus. The word is the Greek rendering of a well-known Hebrew name. It was Yahoshu first, then by inner Hebrew phonetic change it became Yoshua, and by a still northern dialectal shift, Yeshua.” This reference goes on to say that the first part of the name, Yahu equals Yahweh, while the second comes from shua, “to help, save.”
Kittle’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament reveals through the Hebrew that the name Yahoshua was shortened after the exile. The shortened form Yahshua was in vogue at the time of His birth.
Benjamin Wilson’s Emphatic Diaglott says in the appendix under “Jesus”—”This name is composed of YAH, or JAH, I shall be and SHUA, Powerful;–“I shall be the Powerful.” Hence he is “mighty to save, and strong to deliver,” and will “save his people from their sins.
Eusebius, third-century scholar of the Biblical canon, noted that the Son’s name means the salvation of Elohim. “For Isoua among the Hebrews is salvation, and among them the son of Nun is called Joshua; and Iasoue is the salvation of JAH,” Ibid.
The Apostle Paul wrote in Philippians 2:10-11: “That at the name of Yahshua every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Yahshua Messiah is Sovereign, to the glory of Yahweh the Father.”
Man Decides Instead of Yahweh
Ancient Bible manuscripts from which your Bible was translated show the sacred names, but translators failed to carry them over and instead replaced them. Remarkably, they left many other Hebrew names virtually unchanged, such as: Satan, David, Abraham, Eleazar, Immanuel, Rachel, Joseph, Barabbas, Martha, and Tabitha.
It is fundamental to understand that names are not translated. Nor are specific names changed in going from language to language. Instead, the sound of a name is brought over from one language to another. William Smith is William Smith no matter where he goes in the world. His name isn’t translated or changed. He signs his credit card “William Smith” in every foreign country he is in. He answers to the name William Smith whether in France, Russia or Zimbabwe. When a dignitary from Russia or China visits the U.S., American newscasts pronounce his name the same as in his native language. Who would ever ask for the English equivalent of Vladimir Putin or the English version of Chinese leader Hu Jintao? Clearly, no one, because there is no English version. The same goes for the Father’s Name. It is the same worldwide in every language.
The Lord God?
The shocking negligence in the way the sacred Name was handled through the centuries was even prophesied in such passages asJeremiah 23:27, saying, “Their fathers have forgotten my name for Baal.” Baal equals “Lord” according to the Hebrew lexicon. Jones’ Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names confirms that Baal is used in the Bible as “L-o-r-d.” The Companion Bible’s note onIsaiah 46:1 says of Bel: “Abbreviation of Baal=lord” (see note on Num. 25:3). You have forgotten my name for Lord, Yahweh foretold through the prophet.
Besides its connection to Ba’al, our English word “Lord” itself is a contraction of two words meaning “keeper of the loaf” (bread). It is from the Old English hlaford (hlaf=bread and weard=guardian (American Heritage Dictionary). Is it proper to use such a term for the Mighty One of the universe?
“God” comes from Old English gheu(d), “to pour” (American Heritage Dictionary). The Oxford English Dictionary adds that god also means to “pour as in a molten image.” Paul says there are many lords and many gods. We reduce Yahweh to just another common deity when we replace His Name with their titles. Doing so also changes His identity. He thunders in Isaiah 42:8, “I am Yahweh: that is my name: and my honour will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.”
When you reduce Yahweh to a simple title—one that makes Him into a broad-spectrum, ambiguous and impersonal persona, you also water down his worship by the same measure. A one-size-fits-all belief goes along with a generic deity. Nothing specific is required when you worship a no-named mighty one. That’s modern worship in a nutshell, honoring a generic title with general worship and nonspecific behavior.
When you worship “Yahweh,” however, your worship takes on an identity as it comes under the mandates of the Creator Himself. It is to be conducted in very specific ways. His people adhere to the requirements of the covenant promise He made through His personal Name. That is why He established His Name in the very first of the Ten Commandments, so that Israel would understand that they were worshiping only Him exclusively; specifics of His unique worship will now be required of them. Exclusive worship in His one and only Name extends all the way to the end of the Bible. Concerning the 144,000, Revelation 14:1 says: “Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads.”
The Price of Concealment
The one who owns the Name repeatedly commands that He be called by His Name and worshiped in that name.
Is it just a coincidence that the distinguished Philadelphia congregation, the most faithful end-time assembly, has not denied His Name? (Rev. 3:10).
Although Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament show His Name correctly, most Christian Bibles substitute “the LORD,” “the Lord GOD,” or “LORD of hosts.” (The Tanak uses the word “HASHEM” or the phrase “the Lord HASHEM/Elohim” instead of the Name “Yahweh.”)
This is by far the greatest cover-up in all of history by those who know better. It explains why so few Bible students know Yahweh’s Name today—as well as the True Worship that goes along with His covenant Name.
Most churchgoers have never heard Yahweh’s Name mentioned from the pulpit. A reasonable person would think that at some point most ministers would have turned on to the host of commands in the Bible associated with Yahweh’s Name and would have shown the truth about it to their congregations. Any sincere minister would teach this truth they learned in seminary, especially in light of the 7,000 times His Name appears in the Old Testament manuscripts. But it has yet to happen on a large scale. The age-old suppression of the Name has latent power. Tradition is a powerful force to reckon with.
What more does it take for Yahweh to prove to man that He has a personal Name by which He expects to be called and worshiped? Does He need to reveal His Name 7,000 more times before people begin to see its importance? He says over and over again how critical His true Name is to proper worship.
He Commands His Name Be Honored
Yahweh tied His promises, His covenant, and salvation to His Name. He commands His people to call on His true Name as part of His worship. “That men may know that thou, whose name alone is YAHWEH, art the most high over all the earth,” Psalm 83:18. It is nothing short of stunning that so few clergy are willing to teach this key salvation truth!
But some might ask, when it all comes down to it, does it really matter? Doesn’t He know who I mean anyway?
We’ll let Yahweh Himself answer that.
He says in Malachi 2:1-2: “And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you. If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith Yahweh of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings: yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart.” Refusal to call on His true name is a condition of the heart. It says to Him you have no real desire to honor Him in all things. He says you are not completely true to Me if you can’t even honor me by my Name.
The issue is, does He “know who you mean” when your worship also fails to live up to what He expects? Both His worship and His people are tied to Him through His Name. It is not just a matter of knowing or even just using His Name. It is also about aligning your worship and your life with all that His Name signifies, because His Name defines Him. This is clear in Exodus 6:3: “And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of El Shaddai, but by my name Yahweh was I not known to them.” This is a Hebrew idiomatic expression that means Yahweh’s Name was not yet revealed in its fullness through the sustaining and saving acts that He would eventually perform for Israel.
According to the Apostle Peter, our very salvation is through the Name Yahshua. Consider what he tells us in Acts 2:37-38. “When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, ‘Brothers, what shall we do?’ Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Yahshua Messiah for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’”
Yahshua warned in Matthew 7:22, “Many will say to me in that day, Sovereign, Sovereign, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”
Iniquity is sin. Sin is defined as lawbreaking, 1John 3:4. Along with knowing and using His name is the obedience that goes with it. Living a unique life of obedience is what He means by giving glory to His Name.
Those who honor His name will receive the blessings of life everlasting as they call on the only name that offers salvation. Acts 4:12says, “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”
What about you? Will you honor the One you worship by honoring His personal name? Will you be among the select ones who eagerly embrace what they have learned and submit to His Name in worship? That is what He expects of His followers. The first commandment says, I am Yahweh, you shall have none other mighty ones before me. If you honor Him by His personal, revealed Name, He will bless you as well.
Some will say: He has many names; He knows who you mean anyway; one name is as good as another; I speak English not Hebrew; His name just means his authority, and the pronunciation of His Name was lost. Each of these is soundly and decisively refuted by Yahweh Himself as well as by linguistic fact.
The Name Before Moses
Some believe that Yahweh’s Name was not known before He revealed it to Moses in Exodus, and therefore it cannot apply to all people. The following verses from Genesis reveal the error of this argument and show that Yahweh’s Name was indeed known by the patriarchs and used long before Moses:
The most important building block of any society is the family. The family is the foundation, the cornerstone, of civilization. Within the family one of the most important roles is the father. Today the father’s significance has largely been diminished. One area in which this is painfully evident is with his authority. Paul addresses the family structure in his epistle to the Ephesians.
“Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Master. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Messiah is head of the Assembly; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the Assembly is subject to Messiah, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Messiah also loved the assembly and gave Himself for her” (Eph 5:22-25).
In today’s politically-correct-driven climate, most individuals simply refuse to accept that the husband is the authority within the family. However, this is what our Father in Heaven says in his Word. Paul says that the wife is to submit to her husband as to the Messiah. He went on to explain that as the assembly is to obey the Messiah, the wife likewise should also obey her husband. According to Scripture, the father is the final authority within the scriptural family.
Paul also said that the husband is to love his wife as the Messiah loved the assembly. It is important to note that our Savior, Yahshua the Messiah, never abused his authority over the assembly. In the same way the husband should never use his given authority to abuse his wife or family. The husband is to love his wife.
Over the years there have been many published studies on the importance of fathers. Without a father a child is much more likely to engage in activities that are abusive or harmful. In an article entitled The Plight of Fatherless Children from Gazette.net the following discoveries were noted with children without fathers:
Sixty-three percent of young people who commit suicide are from fatherless homes.
Eighty-five percent of children who exhibit behavioral disorders are from fatherless homes.
Eighty percent of rapists are from fatherless homes.
Seventy-one percent of high school dropouts are from fatherless homes.
Seventy-five percent of all adolescent patients in chemical-abuse centers are from fatherless homes.
Seventy percent of juveniles in state operated institutions come from fatherless homes.
Eighty-five percent of youth in prison are from fatherless homes.
Seventy percent of pregnant teens are from fatherless homes.
In the majority of studies documenting the impact of fatherless homes, there is one recurring theme —without strong fathers at home children suffer in many profound ways. Yahweh knew what he was doing when He created man and woman and brought them together as a family. Without this core unit that our Father in Heaven established, no culture has a chance for long-term survival.
What does it mean scripturally to be a father? What responsibilities do we find within Yahweh’s Word for the father? Perhaps the most basic role of a father is the provider.
The Family Provider
“But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1Tim 5:8). For a father there is no greater basic responsibility than to provide for the necessities of his family. Besides obeying our Father in heaven, there is no obligation more important for a father.
As fathers we can be the best Bible students, but if we lose sight of our basic obligation to our families then all our efforts are for naught. As fathers we must always provide for our families. Yahweh has no patience for fathers who are lazy or refuse to provide for their immediate household. The only obligation more important than reading the Word is living the Word. If we read the Word without putting that knowledge into action then that knowledge is worthless.
Another duty of a father is the responsibility of disciplinarian. It is clear from scripture that this is primarily a father’s role, which explains why children require a father’s influence.
Head Disciplinarian
An amazing fact of Scripture is that many characteristics of the father are the same as our Heavenly Father. According to the author of Hebrews, His discipline is one of them.
“And you have forgotten the exhortation which speaks to you as to sons: “My son, do not despise the chastening of Yahweh, nor be discouraged when you are rebuked by Him; for whom Yahweh loves He chastens, and scourges every son whom He receives.” If you endure chastening, Elohim deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not chasten? But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons” (Hebrews 12:5-8).
According to scripture, those whom Yahweh loves he rebukes and chastens. If we are not being rebuked, we are not considered legitimate sons of Yahweh. Why is this? Through discipline Yahweh shows his concern for those whom He loves.
Correction or admonition should not to be considered bad. Correction is often the catalyst to change. A person who receives no admonition is a person who often does not change. Scripture is clear that is it Yahweh’s will that all of mankind would be saved (Ezek. 18:23, 1Tim. 2:4); however, it is written that salvation is given to those who obey (Heb. 5:9). Obedience is not the means of salvation but is the responsibility of a believer (Rom. 7:1, Acts 5:32).
As Yahweh’s correction is advantageous to those whom He calls, a father’s correction is also beneficial to his children. In the Book of Proverbs, Solomon speaks of the benefits of a father’s admonition. For instance, in Proverbs 3:12, Solomon compares the discipline of Yahweh to the discipline of a father. “For whom Yahweh loves He corrects, Just as a father the son in whom he delights.”
Solomon in his wisdom wrote that as Yahweh corrects those whom he loves, a father does the same. If as parents desire our children to be well behaved and sons and daughters of the Most High then correction is crucial. Those who receive no admonition are those who often leave the path of righteousness. As a parent we should discipline with a desire to see our children succeed morally. Again, correction or admonition should not be viewed negatively. There is more hope for a child who receives correction than for one who is spoiled and does not know correction.
Correction is becoming increasingly taboo today, but not in Yahweh’s Word. Solomon in Proverbs 23:13-14, wrote, “Do not withhold correction from a child, for if you beat him with a rod, he will not die. You shall beat him with a rod, and deliver his soul from [the grave].”
Yahweh’s Word specifically says that a parent is not to withhold correction. Matter of fact, it says that if a parent uses a rod of correction that he or she would save the child from the grave. The word for “beat” in the above passage is derived from the Hebrewnakah, which is a primitive root meaning to strike. To be clear, the Hebrew word nakah does not promote the idea of physical abuse.
As with all things within the Word, there is a balance in discipline. This passage is not to be used to justify physical abuse that causes harm to a child. Nothing good comes from child abuse. Studies have shown that when a child is abused he will often later in life rebel and go the opposite way from the parents’ admonition. Moderation and discretion must be the corner of all actions, including with admonition and discipline.
Even more important is the good example of a parent. As we find in this passage, to spank a child is scriptural; to abuse or to cause harm, however, is not to be tolerated. As parents we need to remember that our correction of our children is a reflection of how Yahweh rebukes us. While Yahweh shows correction or admonition, he never shows abuse.
Spiritual Guidance from the Father
Solomon in Proverbs 22:6 offers a nugget of truth that if followed will benefit a child for all of his or her life. “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.” How is this accomplished? Besides correction and admonition, a parent must be willing to spend time with his or her child. Nothing is more important in this life than our families. Many fathers do not realize the impact that they have on their families. As a father there is nothing more important than spending time with your child. It is truly sad to find fathers ignoring and not fulfilling this fatherly role.
And no more important time is there than that spent in Yahweh’s Word and especially doing so with a son or daughter.
Our Father in Heaven commands that we teach our children of Him throughout each day of our lives. “You shall love Yahweh your Elohim with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up” (Deuteronomy 6:5-7).
As we find within this passage, before we can train our children we must first have Yahweh’s words within our own hearts. There is nothing worse than a hypocritical parent who does not live what he himself is teaching.
In this passage we find that we are to teach these words diligently to our children. The word diligently comes from the Hebrew word shanan, which is a primitive root meaning, “to point (transitive or intransitive); intensively, to pierce; figuratively, to inculcate” (New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance).
To accomplish this goal, we find that we are to teach our child Yahweh’s Word when we sit in our house, when we walk by the way, when we lie down, and when we rise up. In other words, we not only teach our children Yahweh’s Word every day, but we also live its precepts ourselves
A Father Nurtures
Along with the duty of being chief provider, disciplinarian, and instructor in the family, the father shares the task of nurturing. While this responsibility seems to be dominated by the mother, the father also plays a significant part in the nurturing of his children. In doing sohe must be cautious not to discourage his children. “And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of Yahweh” (Ephesians 6:4).
Paul refers to punishment that is excessive and unwarranted, which will ultimately provoke a child to harbor resentment and anger.
“That is, by unreasonable commands; by needless severity; by the manifestation of anger. So govern them, and so punish them — if punishment is necessary — that they shall not lose their confidence in you, but shall love you. The apostle here has hit on the very danger to which parents are most exposed in the government of their children. It is that of souring their temper; of making them feel that the parent is under the influence of anger, and that it is right for them to be so too.” (Barnes’ Notes, note on Ephesians 6:4).
As with all things in life, there is moderation in discipline. Is it a known fact that many children who live in abusive homes frequently do the opposite of what the parent attempted to reinforce through punishment. Remember that our Father in Heaven never promotes the abuse of a child, which as we find in this passage will only kindle enduring anger and animosity. If we are harsh in our correction, we may defeat the very purpose for that correction. It is important for a father to remember that when discipline is required that the result of that discipline is to nurture and not to create enduring anger or animosity.
Along with the role of nurturing, a father must show kindness and compassion to his child. There are many examples where Yahweh’s love for His people is compared to the love found between a father and son. One such passage is found in the Book of Psalms: “Yahweh is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in mercy. He will not always strive with us, nor will He keep His anger forever. He has not dealt with us according to our sins, nor punished us according to our iniquities. For as the heavens are high above the earth, So great is His mercy toward those who fear Him; As far as the east is from the west, So far has He removed our transgressions from us. 13 As a father pities his children, so Yahweh pities those who fear Him” (Psalm 103:8-13).
Through this Psalm we find Yahweh is full of mercy and compassion. We also find that as a father pities his children, Yahweh pities those who fear him. The word “pity” comes from the Hebrew word racham, which means, “to love or to have compassion.” Solomon wrote that there was a time for every season. As there is a time for correction, there is also a time to show lovingkindness. Often the show of compassion will impact a child more than correction. If Yahweh only showed correction and admonition and disregarded mercy and compassion, where would his people be today?
In one final passage, Paul sets an example that is relevant to all generations. “You are witnesses, and Elohim also, how devoutly and justly and blamelessly we behaved ourselves among you who believe; as you know how we exhorted, and comforted, and charged every one of you, as a father does his own children” (1Thessalonians 2:10-11).
Paul said that he exhorted and comforted those in Thessalonica as a father would his own children. Following in this example, a father should also encourage and comfort his children. Children require their father’s approval and encouragement for a well-balanced emotional state. A son and daughter look to their father for encouragement and guidance as they mature to adulthood.
In summation, a father’s role is vital to the physical and emotional needs of the family. Without a father, a child often suffers from emotional problems, which in some cases leads to crime, immorality, and other forms of sin. Yahweh established the family unit with one father and one mother. When this is tampered with, confusion is frequently the result. However, when we live within the confines that Almighty Yahweh established we experience peace and blessings that can only be found with His Word.
This study will show the permanence of marriage as Yahweh designed it, with the hope of breaking today’s cycle of broken homes. Our purpose is not to vilify those who are divorced, but to uphold the sanctity of marriage. Yahweh Himself ordained marriage and family as the fundamental social institution.
While some consider it a secular institution, Scripture teaches that marriage is a sacred union that Yahweh himself ordained at the very creation of man and woman. This fundamental institution has served society well for thousands of years.
But since the 1970s marriage has come under attack like nothing in history. As it functions today, the family institution is weak and no longer provides stability and a sense of well-being to millions of children. The undermining of the moral framework sustaining marriage and family has teamed up with an assault on Biblical faith, leading to even shakier marital unions and assisting in their unprecedented failure.
The root problem is that human wants and priorities have usurped Biblical standards in a majority of homes. True fear and respect of Yahweh are rare. An honest and zealous pursuit of His will is even more rare.
A growing number of disillusioned ministers are refusing to perform weddings out of sheer frustration with the brevity of today’s marriage unions. “I marry them one week and the next week they want a divorce,” a pastor lamented.
While the phrase “until death do you part” and Yahshua’s words, “let no man put asunder” are repeated in wedding after wedding, the reality is that these words are considered mostly ritualistic and have little holding power today when marriage-threatening problems arise between couples. Rather than remembering their solemn vows and working through the difficulty, couples at risk are much more willing to follow the advice of a marriage counselor suggesting they just call it quits.
One major cause of broken unions is that many modern marriages are preceded by cohabitation, which statistics reveal increases the likelihood of a future breakup by 50 percent. Getting married today is more like going steady: if it isn’t working, give it up and try again with someone else.
The stigma surrounding divorce is mostly gone. A century ago only 7 percent of Americans were divorced; today a staggering 60 percent of marriages fail, triple the rate of 1960. Half of all weddings now involve the remarriage of at least one spouse.
According to 2000 census data, since 1950 the rate of married couples in households has declined by nearly 30 percent.. Married couples now make up only half of all households. Meanwhile, the number of unmarried partners living together has risen from 523,000 in 1970 to approximately 4.9 million in 2000.
Suffer the Children
The epidemic of fractured families is a strong contributing factor to the failure of our society to produce well-adjusted and balanced children. That consequence, more than any other, will impact future of society itself. The children of broken families suffer the most, thrown into an emotional free-fall when dad and mom call it quits. Consider for a moment the cost paid by these innocents:
Nearly one-third of all children today are born out of wedlock, and more than half of U.S. children will spend all or part of their childhood in a broken family. The number of children living with mothers who have never married increased to 36 percent in 1996, up from 7 percent in 1970, according to the Center for Law and Social Policy. A child raised by a single mother is seven times more likely to live in poverty than a child raised by both biological parents. Over 1 million children each year experience their parents’ divorce; a total of 15.8 million children are now living with a single parent. The consequences are staggering:
25% of those children will be high school drop-outs.
40% need psychological help.
65% never build a good post-divorce relationship with their fathers.
30% never build a good post-divorce relationship with their mothers.
Compared to those who have grown up with both parents in the home, adult children of divorce are 60 percent more likely to have problems in their own marriage. This last fact is the cycle that must be broken if there is going to be any hope for the family and society itself.
They Shall Become One
The “lock” is missing in wedlock and it is time to put it back in. Almighty Yahweh takes vows very seriously, and the vow joining husband and wife in marriage lies at the very core of the family as Yahweh designed it. To violate this contract is called in Scripture a sin against Yahweh the Creator Himself.
Ultimate success in marriage hinges on the proper attitude and understanding that couples share going into it. Few couples are given marriage counseling before they go to the altar. If both spouses fail to grasp the gravity of their commitment and don’t enter it with full resolve to make it work – whatever may come – then the probability is high that their marriage will eventually implode from the inevitable strains that test every marriage (Matt. 12:25).
From the beginning Yahweh created marriage between one man and one woman (Gen. 2:22). This union of male and female is the only institution that Yahweh’s Word allows. At the creation of Adam and Eve the concept of one flesh was established. “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh…” (Gen. 2:23).
From the beginning Yahweh made one man and one woman who complement each other perfectly in marriage. From the start Yahweh excluded same-sex unions. Activists pushing for homosexual marriage seek to revolutionize our entire culture by breaking the backbone of society itself – the traditional man-woman family. The family should be where moral values are taught and engendered, but if the family can be redefined to include same-sex couples, then its values can be redefined and altered as well. Moral restraints lose their impact when the forbidden is being openly practiced daily.
When two people commit to marriage they are no longer two but one. The greatest unifying force between a husband and wife is in their faith. Since Yahweh commands loyalty to Him above all (Acts 5:29), both people considering marriage are to be believers. If after marriage Yahweh calls only one spouse into His Truth then the believing mate should place Yahweh first while secondarily striving to please his or her spouse, 1Corinthians 7:12-14.
All Unions Need a Leader
An important key for a successful marriage is the understanding of the spousal roles: “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Messiah; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of the Messiah is Elohim” (1Cor. 11:3). The same hierarchy that exists between Father and Son also exists between husband and wife. From the beginning Yahweh established this relationship when He told Eve: “…and your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Gen. 3:16). According to theKJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon the word “rule” found in Genesis 3:16 implies to “have dominion or to reign over.” The Apostle Paul also confirms this relationship, “Wives submit yourselves unto your husbands, as unto the Master. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Messiah is the head of the assembly” (Eph. 5:22).
The husband’s authority is no license to abuse or exploit his wife. Because marriage between a man and a woman mirrors the unique relationship between Yahshua and the assembly, it should be apparent that Yahweh wants the relationship based on mutual love and honor.
Love Makes a Strong Union
The Apostle Paul compares Yahshua’s love for the assembly to the husband’s love for his wife. “Husbands love your wives, even as Messiah loved the assembly, and gave himself for it” (Eph. 5:25). Yahshua through his death and atonement demonstrated the greatest love known to man for the assembly (John 15:13). This is the same love that a husband is to have for his wife. As the Messiah died and gave all for the assembly, the husband should be willing to do the same for his wife. Once again this type of supernal love precludes the sin of spousal abuse. Yahweh’s Word gives no justification for abusing one’s spouse. Yahshua never abused or mistreated the assembly but cherished and valued it. In like manner, the husband should cherish and love his wife.
Paul in Titus 2:4 commands older women to teach the younger women to “love their husbands.” Love in a marriage cannot be a one-way street, but must be shared by both spouses. As Yahshua loved the assembly, the assembly loved Yahshua. A marriage will not be blessed with strength and happiness if sincere love is not at the center for both spouses.
Yahweh’s Standards Ignored
Today’s high divorce rates are a result in large part to a rejection of Yahweh’s Word as the ultimate, moral authority. Yahweh from the beginning established marriage between one man and one woman as a lifelong union. When Yahweh created the first man and first woman he gave no provision for divorce or remarriage.
One common error among professed Bible believers is thinking that Yahweh built divorce into Old Testament regulations. There is no Old Testament statute in which Yahweh provided for divorce between two individuals lawfully united by vow.
Yahweh addresses the divorce issue in Deuteronomy 24:1-4: “When a man has taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he has found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and gives it in her hand, and sends her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before Yahweh: and you shall not cause the land to sin, which Yahweh your Elohim gives you for an inheritance.”
In this passage Yahweh is speaking about a specific circumstance. Yahweh is addressing the condition where a spouse marries another after she has been sent out or divorced by her first husband because of uncleanness. Again, it is important to understand that Yahweh is not giving justification for divorce, but is focusing on a specific situation that He tolerated because of the hardness of man’s heart. The statement “…she had been defiled” in verse 4 shows that even in the Old Testament divorce and remarriage was an adulteration, even after the second spouse had died. Notice that it occurred with the second marriage while her first husband was yet alive. This understanding is no different from what Yahshua and Paul taught in the New Testament.
The Commentary on the Torah discusses Deuteronomy 24:1: “This law (vv. 1-4) has been taken as the biblical law of divorce, but it is not. It is the law governing a specific instance in which a couple might want to return to each other after they were divorced and she was remarried and then was divorced again or widowed. Divorce law in general has been derived in part from this case because of the curious fact that there is no law in the Torah telling how to get married and no law telling how to get divorced” (Richard Elliott Friedman, p. 639).
If Yahweh did command divorce in the Old Testament, why then did Yahweh command in Deuteronomy 22:19, 29 that if a husband had dishonored his wife in some fashion that he was not to “put her away all his days”? The examples in Deuteronomy 22 and 24show without question that divorce and remarriage was not Yahweh’s will in the Old Testament. Malachi 2:16 reads, “For Yahweh, the Elohim of Israel, says that he hates putting away…” A unique situation is in Ezra 10, where the prophet tells Judah to straighten out their sin of marrying strange wives by separating from them, which they did.
Moses’ Toleration of the People’s Hard Hearts
Most who advocate Yahweh’s allowance for divorce will say that Moses had the authority to grant divorce in the Old Testament. From the New Testament it is evident that while Moses tolerated or allowed divorce, he never gave commandment from Yahweh for or against divorce.
“They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your heart suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so” (Matt. 19:7-8).
According to Yahshua, Moses only “suffered” divorce because of the hardness of man’s heart. This word “suffered” is far from a command in the Greek. It is from the word epitrepo, which according to the KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon means, “to permit or allow.” Scholars speculate that the reason for Moses’ toleration or allowance for divorce in the Old Testament was partly to protect the safety of wives. To this point Matthew Henry adds, “[Messiah] rectifies their mistake concerning the law of Moses; they called it a command, [Messiah] called it but permission, a toleration. [Messiah] tells them there was a reason for this toleration, not at all to their credit. If they had not been allowed to put away their wives, when they had conceived a dislike of them, they would have used them cruelly, would have beaten and abused them, and perhaps have murdered them” (Matthew Henry Study Bible, study note onMatthew 19:8).
The New Testament ‘Exception Clause’
Those who believe that the new Testament allows divorce and remarriage will point to Matthew 5:32: “But I say unto you, that whoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced commits adultery.” Here some will point to the word “fornication” and maintain that the grounds for divorce is adultery.
The word fornication is from the Greek word porneia, and is defined by the New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible as, “harlotry, adultery, incest, idolatry, or fornication.” From this definition the word porneia has numerous meanings. Since this is the case, this word must be interpreted in accordance with the overall context of the passage.
One point of interest for those who believe that the word porneia implies adultery instead of fornication is the fact that Yahshua used a different word in this same verse to denote adultery: “…whosoever shall marry her that is divorced commits adultery.” The word “adultery” in this passage is from the Greek word moichao, which according to the New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of theBible means only “adultery.” Question: If Yahshua meant adultery in the place of fornication in Matthew 5:32 (KJV), why did He not use the Greek word moichao or its Hebrew equivalent? Why did Yahshua use two different words to express the same thing? This passage clearly shows that he was expressing two different acts – fornication, which applies to the premarital state of engagement – and adultery, respectively.
The Significance of Engagement
To understand what Yahshua meant by the use of the word porneia in Matthew 5:32, a grasp of scriptural engagement is necessary. Scriptural engagement was seen much differently than it is today. In the Bible betrothal was understood as a binding relationship, the entering into of marriage. Nave’s Topical Bible under “Marriage” says, “Betrothal, a quasi-marriage, Matt. 1:18; Luke 1:27.”
The KJV Study Bible verifies this, “There was no sexual relations during a Jewish betrothal period, but it was a much more binding relationship than a modern engagement and could be broken only by divorce (v. 19). In Deut. 22:24 a betrothed woman is called a ‘wife,’ though the preceding verse speaks of her as being ‘betrothed unto a husband’” (study note at Matthew 1:18).
Through the example of Joseph, Yahshua’s use of “fornication” in Matthew 5:32 is now clear. Joseph’s contemplating divorcing Mary is the only account of a divorce in the New Testament, which occurred while Joseph and Mary were engaged but the marriage was yet to be finalized, Matthew 1:19.
Let Not Man Put Asunder
If any doubt existed in the minds of the Pharisees who approached Yahshua in Matthew 19, Yahshua emphatically put those doubts to rest by his statement: “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore Elohim has joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matt. 19:6). Yahshua categorically states in this passage that once two people have made the commitment and consummated a marriage that they are no longer two, but one. He also verifies that once this happens that no man can separate that which Yahweh has joined.
Just as it is today, Yahshua’s teaching was hard for many to accept. This is obvious in His statement in verse 11: “…All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.” Yahshua’s teachings on divorce and remarriage were not for the lukewarm, but for those sincerely seeking Yahweh and His will in their lives. Yahshua was reaffirming what his Father had established from the beginning:. For those who would point to the Old Testament as justification to break wedding vows, Yahshua explained, “Moses…suffered you to put away your wives…but from the beginning it was not so” (Matt. 19:8). At the beginning in Genesis it is clear that Yahweh made marriage between one man and one woman for life.
Till Death Do Us Part
In accordance with what Yahshua said in Matthew 19, the Apostle Paul reiterates the message in Romans 7:2-3: “For the woman which has a husband is bound by the law to her husband so long that he lives; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband lives, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she is married to another man.” The concept that marriage is a lifelong union might seem strange in a day of runaway divorce rates. Apathetic attitudes of marriage notwithstanding, it is clear from Paul’s statement that the permanence of marriage still stands.
Paul, under the inspiration of Yahshua the Messiah, taught that marriage was a lifelong institution that was broken or dissolved only by the physical death of a spouse. Paul said that if a spouse remarried while the other spouse was yet alive that the spouse who remarried would commit adultery. This is the same thing that Yahshua taught during his ministry and the same doctrine that Yahshua was referring to when he said that not all men could receive this saying.
Not Under Bondage
The last passage to consider is 1Corinthians 7:15: “But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage is such cases…” Those who maintain that Yahshua and Paul permitted divorce in the New Testament claim that the word “bondage” in the above passage suggests that the believing mate is no longer obligated to his or her first spouse and is therefore free to remarry.
The first contradiction to this interpretation is found in verses 10-11: “And unto the married I command, yet not I, but Yahweh, let not the wife depart from her husband: But if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.” According to Yahweh’s command, not Paul’s, if a husband and wife separated they were either to stay unmarried or be reconciled. Notice that divorce was not an option.
The other point to consider in this passage is the meaning of the word “bondage.” The word bondage is from the Greek word douloo, which according to the KJV New testament Greek Lexicon means, “to make a slave of or to reduce to bondage.” The “bondage” that this word is referring to means the marital responsibilities that one is subservient to that Paul speaks of in verses 3-6. This word, however, is not speaking of the dissolving of the martial vow or covenant.
Yahweh Judges on the Basis of Understanding
We must follow every word that proceeds out of the mouth of Yahweh, and Yahweh makes it clear that He hates divorce. Yahshua never taught divorce. Rather, He raised the bar and restored marriage to the position it was originally meant to have before the hardness of man’s heart took over. Yahshua said, “What Yahweh has joined together, let no man put asunder.” How then can man separate what Yahweh has joined?
When we consider Matthew 5:32, addressing those that are engaged rather than married, the pieces of the puzzle fit perfectly. This understanding ties together all the loose ends that other arguments leave hanging. The only example in the New Testament of a man considering divorce was Joseph, who was not married but engaged. Romans 7 says that a marriage covenant can only be terminated upon death. Man cannot terminate a marriage covenant through divorce.
What does this mean, then, for those who were divorced and remarried before coming into the knowledge of the Truth? Does this place them in a constant state of adultery or sin? While there is no passage in Scripture where Yahweh says specifically that divorce and remarriage in ignorance before baptism is forgiven and washed away, what the Bible does say is that Yahweh winks at our ignorance, but commands that we repent after coming to the knowledge of His truth, Acts 17:30.
It is our understanding that Yahweh will acknowledge repentance that takes place at baptism, and consider the present situation. If this situation could not be forgiven then He would never call the divorced person into His Truth in the first place. His grace and mercy extend to all who repent of past mistakes and who now go on to live for Him.
Yahweh’s Restoration Ministry acknowledges Yahweh’s standards as they are. We don’t accept excuses for an individual’s personal situation. Once immersed into Yahshua’s Name, couples must not seek divorce or remarriage, having a much better understanding of the marital vow and how inviolate Yahweh considers it.
Marriage is a sacred covenant. Yahweh’s marriage laws are designed to form a stable family environment that will produce happy, well-adjusted children reared by both a loving father and mother. Children must be taught the permanence of marriage and toward that end to choose their future mates wisely from among believers, 1Corinthians 7:39.
The cycle of broken homes must end, and it starts with knowing your future spouse very well before you recite your vows, realizing that marriage is for life.
(The Biblical issue of divorce and remarriage is as divisive as it is misunderstood. Many today are seeking to water down the institution of marriage by writing studies that accomplish little more than do damage to the sanctity of the marriage union and further weaken the general perception of the marital vow. We have been asked to comment on one such study found on a Sacred Name website. The following constitutes our analysis right from the Bible. The study is called, “Divorce and Remarriage is NOT Adultery.”)
Looking for Truth in All the Wrong Places
The author of the study, Stephen Jones (not a Sacred Name believer), makes this statement at the start: “Many people today who are divorced and remarried are being expelled from their churches.” If Jones were writing in 1930, that statement may have validity, but few churches today will speak out against the decline of marriage in society, let alone disfellowship anyone because of it. In an era when homosexuals are becoming accepted at the pulpit, the church is nearly nonexistent that has the courage to speak out against a trend where 60 percent of all marriages end in divorce. Doing so would mean a sure loss of membership and income.
Jones focuses 25 percent of his study on the Code of Hammurabi, a non-Biblical set of ancient laws. This approach should immediately send up a warning flare to any person sincerely seeking Truth. The Truth Seeker should be very careful about going outside the Scriptures in attempting to explain the Scriptures. Often those lacking understanding will seek answers in church fathers, historians, seminary professors, contemporary religion writers, ancient prophecies—anyone and anything but the Bible.
The Bible interprets itself, 2Timothy 3:16, and the Bible is the only authority one needs for Truth. Going outside of the Bible to analyze finer points of doctrine is irrelevant as well as dangerous. Does it matter what code of laws ancient pagans followed, or does Yahweh’s Word itself constitute the true guide for True Worshipers? The reason for discussing Hammurabi’s Law finally becomes clear when the author attempts to justify his own private interpretation of Yahshua’s words in Matthew 5:32. We will get to that later.
As we start reading the study, we immediately come across the first of many contradictory statements. In one breath the writer says that Yahweh gave His laws to correct the Code of Hammurabi, and in the next breath he twice states that Yahweh’s laws are older than Hammurabi’s. So which is it? And where in the Bible does he derive his evidence that Yahweh was correcting these pagan sets of laws when He gave His laws to mankind? Nothing in the 66 books of the Bible ever states such a thing. Yahweh’s laws, which were in effect since Genesis 1, were given to His people as a reflection of His own standards and as a pattern in how to live blessed lives.
The writer states: “[Yahweh] himself is a divorcee” and refers to Jeremiah 3:8. This statement borders on blasphemy. How could Yahweh be a “divorcee” and still say, “I hate divorce”? (Mal. 2:16). In Jeremiah 3:8 Yahweh gives Israel a bill of divorce for her adultery. Does that make Him a “divorcee”? Not if we read further in the chapter: “Turn O backsliding children, says Yahweh, FOR I AM MARRIED UNTO YOU: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion,” verse 14. Yahweh still considered Himself married to Israel. He will once again be united with His bride when the Kingdom is established on this earth,Acts 1:6. Israel was never removed from the covenant. In fact, the True Believer is to become a part of Israel. Paul is crystal clear on this fact in Romans 9 and 11. The question is, was Yahweh ever truly divorced from Israel? Not according to the rest of the chapter or the rest of the Bible. See Addendum at the end of this study.
The only New Testament justification for remarriage is upon the death of a spouse, 1Corinthian 7:39. Yahweh was able to “marry” the gentiles into the Covenant only after the death of His own Son, Yahshua. The Messiah Yahshua was the one who interracted for Yahweh in the Old Testament and made the covenant with Israel. But Yahweh is going to have both Israel and the repentant gentiles in a marriage union once again. His was not a divorce, but a temporary separation “until the time of the Gentiles be fulfilled,”Luke 21:24.
The writer takes up a few more points about what is found in the Old Testament concerning divorce (Moses’ writings), but they are irrelevant to this discussion because Yahshua overruled what Moses had allowed, as we will now see.
Yahshua Clarifies Divorce and Remarriage
Jones attempts to answer Mark 10:2-9, where Yahshua said that divorce was not the original intent of marriage. He ignores verse 9, however: “What therefore Yahweh has joined together, let not man put asunder.” And he continues to bring in what Moses had allowed, but not what Yahweh intended.
The difference between Old and New testaments on the issue of divorce is that men’s hard hearts caused Moses (not Yahweh) to allow divorce in certain instances. But Yahshua teaches plainly that we are to go back to the abiding sanctity of the original institution of marriage. He indicts Moses’ allowance of divorce in Matthew 19:8 and Mark 10:5, saying it was not what Yahweh commanded. That allowance was caused by sinful, hard-hearted man. To justify divorce and remarriage today on the basis of what was once allowed because of man’s sinful heart is to say that we, also, are justified to divorce and remarry because of our sins. Yahshua says no, we are now to attain a higher standard.
In the last book of the Old Testament is a clear call to return to the true sanctity of the marriage union that was established in the Garden of Eden, where no provision is made for divorce: “Yet you say, Wherefore? Because Yahweh has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously: yet is she your companion, and the wife of your covenant. And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a righteous seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. For Yahweh, the Elohim of Israel, said that he hates putting away: for one covers violence with his garment, says Yahweh of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that you deal not treacherously.”
Jones writes, “[Yahshua] did not abolish [Yahweh’s] Laws on divorce and remarriage.” True. Yahweh’s original laws should be observed. Yahshua commanded a return to the high, spiritual intent for marriage that was originally set by Yahweh in the Garden. At creation of man and woman Yahweh gave no provision for divorce. This is the standard Yahshua advocated, not the standard Moses allowed in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 because of man’s rebellion.
In His Sermon on the Mount, Yahshua was not quoting what was “interpreted in the synagogue” or “the Pharisaical interpretation” when He referred to Deuteronomy 24:1. He was quoting Scripture, and He said that what Moses allowed in Deuteronomy 24 is not Yahweh’s will. He simply raised the standard on marriage, as He did with the sins of lust and murder.
In his explanation of Matthew 5:31-32, Jones tries to say that Yahshua’s point of contention was with those who divorced without the proper divorce papers. At this point we see why he introduces the Code of Hammurabi at the start of his study. He claims Yahshua’s purpose was to correct the Babylonian procedure of simply issuing a verbal divorce statement without the “proper divorce papers.”
Absolutely nothing in Yahshua’s words even hints at the issue of lacking “the proper divorce papers” before a divorce can be legitimized. Jones inserts his own private interpretation, which the Bible nowhere supports. Divorcing someone properly and with the proper documentation is not the issue with the Messiah here. A higher and more binding formula for marriage is, however.
Yahshua’s exact words in Matthew 5:31-32 are: “It has been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced commits adultery.” Yahshua is defining the only reason one can justify a divorce, which has nothing to do with divorce papers.
The issue is fornication, pure and simple. Why does the Savior not use the word “adultery” throughout this passage? The reason is that he is making a distinction between fornication (illicit sex before marriage) and adultery (sex with a married person not one’s spouse). His exception clause deals with the ONLY acceptable grounds for divorce: sex before marriage.
We see a clear, scriptural example of this with the earthly parents of the Savior. Joseph wanted to divorce Mary when she was found pregnant with Yahshua. Even though they were only engaged, he wanted to “put her away privily,” Matthew 1:19. This is the only instance in the New Testament where divorce was condoned, and it fits perfectly with the only reason Yahshua ever gave for divorce: illicit sex before marriage (fornication). Engagement had the effect of marriage in a husband-wife bond, Deuteronomy 22:23-24.
The only other New Testament chapter the writer deals with is 1Corinithians 7. In verses 10-11 Paul admonishes: “And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Master, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.” Jones goes to great length to explain that Paul does not refer here to a divorce but only to a separation. Under conditions of a mere separation, then, the wife must return to her husband and not get remarried.
The major flaw with this argument is that if a woman were merely separated, she OBVIOUSLY could not get remarried or she would be committing adultery. The point Jones tries to argue is moot and self-evident. Paul is not going to great pains to merely state the obvious. Rather, he is admonishing that those who claim a divorcement cannot remarry. This is proved again in verse 27: “Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.”
He makes the same mistake many do in the following verse, 28: “But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.” Paul in verse 28 is speaking to virgins, both male and female, not to those who seek remarriage. This is clear by verse 25: “Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of Yahweh: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of Yahweh to be faithful.”
The writer fails greatly in seeking to justify and condone divorce and remarriage. By omitting many other passages in the New Testament that explain clearly that divorce and remarriage are almost in every case unacceptable to Yahweh, he causes some to err.
One plain passage that is nearly always ignored in such studies is Romans 7:1-3: “Know you not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.”
What could be clearer? Remarriage is allowed only upon the death of a spouse. This is certainly not popular with our culture, which has mostly lost the sanctity of marriage, but it is Yahweh’s standard. Paul repeats this standard in 1Corinthians 7:39, which a True Believer is obligated to uphold once he or she knows better.
To recap…
*Yahweh separated from Israel, but will take her back. Reconciliation as the acceptable remedy for a broken marriage is also commanded in the New Testament (1Cor. 7:10). Remarriage is not supported in the New Testament other than for fornication during engagement (illicit relations before marriage) or upon the death of a spouse.
*Separation, not divorce, is the only arguable remedy for believers in the New Testament who face unfaithfulness.
*Yahweh’s law that established a binding marital union from the beginning of creation of man and woman has not been abolished. In fact, Yahshua reinstituted that standard, in contrast to Moses who had allowed divorce because of the sin of man, Matthew 5:31.
Addendum
Ancient Israel and True Worshipers today are betrothed to Yahshua. We have not yet completed the marriage, which is signified by a ceremony called the marriage supper of the Lamb, which will occur when He returns to earth, Revelation 19:9. In essence, we are engaged to Him. Ancient Israel was also engaged to Yahweh and that is why He could lawfully issue her a bill of divorce (for her fornication). But as we have shown, even then He will soon take Israel back because He considers Himself still married to her,Jeremiah 3:14.
When we see how Yahweh treated marriage, we can truly grasp its binding nature, which ignorant man is desecrating today by divorcing and remarrying at whim. May Yahweh have mercy.
The Bible has much to say on the subject of divorce and remarriage. Our culture has liberalized the marriage institution even while the Bible remains constant in upholding marriage and family as foundational to civilization itself. Most groups, realizing the volatile nature of this subject and not wanting to lose membership and funding, either ignore it, dance around it or make excuses for the sorry state of marriage today–but will do nothing to stem the tide. In fact, they will justify the sad situation. For those who may read this, I ask that you study and prove what I feel Yahweh has clearly placed in His Word for our guidance.
We begin with the one verse many point to as giving permission to divorce and remarry (even many times over). The words are the Savior’s in Matthew 5:32, “But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”
This passage is commonly used to justify divorce in the case of adultery in a marriage. However, with a concise and clear understanding of the Bible and what it says concerning this subject, we will find a different understanding.
The word fornication found in Matthew 5:32 is the Greek word porneia. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance defines porneia as follows: “No. 4202, porneia – from 4203; harlotry (incl. Adultery and incest); fig. idolatry: – fornication.” No. 1403 has the following definition in Strong’s: “porneuo from #4202; to act the harlot, i.e. (lit.) indulge unlawful lust (of either sex), or (fig.) practice idolatry:–commit (fornication).”
Strong’s does not offer an exact definition for the Greek word porneia; instead it gives only a broad definition. This is why we must consider all the evidence as a collective whole. For example, the Greek word pleroo, which is translated “fulfill” in Matthew 5:17, also has a broad definition. Strong’s shows: “Number 4137, pleroo from 4134…accomplish, *after, (be) completed, end, expire, fill (up), fulfill, (be, make) full (come), fully preach, perfect, supply.”
Notice that pleroo can also mean “end” or “expire.” This is valid evidence that the Concordance only offers a broad definition. To find the understanding of what the Messiah meant by the wordporneia, we must examine the entire Bible and evaluate what is found in Yahweh’s Word concerning divorce and remarriage.
Also worthy to be noted is that two Greek words are used to translate fornication and adultery in Matthew 5:32. We looked at the word porneia, which is translated fornication in Matthew 5:32 in our King James Bible. The other Greek word for our English word “adultery,” found in Matthew 5:32, is from the Greek word moichao. Strong’s Concordance defines moichao as: “Number 3429,moichao from 3432; (mid. voice) to commit adultery: –adultery.”
If Yahshua intended to use the word adultery instead of fornication, why would He have used two different Greek words? Why did He not just use the word from which we get adultery, moichao? The Greek word moichao is much more precise than the Greek wordporneia when speaking of adultery. Why the use of two different and distinct words by our Savior Yahshua the Messiah? The answer obviously is that He was making an important distinction in meaning.
Engagement
Within the eastern countries of the world a vow and a promise are taken quite seriously, unlike in the Western world today. The Jewish people still hold marriage between two people quite sacred. When a couple becomes engaged, the Jewish people see them as if already married, with the exception of the consummation of the marriage. It was the same in the New Testament. Note these revealing references:
“Betrothed to Joseph: Betrothal was the first part of marriage, constituting a man and woman as husband and wife. Subsequently infidelity was considered adultery. The betrothal was followed some months later by the husband’s taking his wife into his home, at which time normal married life began” (The New American Bible, Study Note on Matthew 1:18).
“Mary had been promised in marriage to Joseph, but the wedding had not yet taken place. In NT times, betrothal was a form of engagement (but more binding than engagement today) and it could be broken only by divorce. Although a couple did not live together until the marriage ceremony, unfaithfulness on the part of the betrothed was treated as adultery and punishable by death” (Believer’s Bible Commentary, Note on Matthew 1:18).
“Espoused: Not completely married, but contracted (engaged, betrothed, pledged, to be married: nevertheless, sexual relations were strictly forbidden until marriage. Ed. Note: Jewish betrothal was a much more binding relationship than modern engagement; it could be broken only by a formal divorce” (Matthew Henry Study Bible, Note on Matthew 1:18).
There are numerous accounts within the Old and New Covenants showing this great respect toward marriage, and the seriousness of that commitment. Genesis 19: 8, 12 graphically shows that Lot had two daughters who were virgins; however, it says that as Lot was warned to flee from the land of Sodom that he also warned his two sons-in-law (notice the word “sons-in-law” even though his daughters were not yet married). The two daughters were still virgins, unmarried, yet they were engaged. This shows by example that when a couple becomes engaged it is considered a type of marriage vow. When two people make that vow of engagement, it is much more then a simple promise, but also a very sacred and solemn vow in the eyes of Yahweh (see Numbers chapter 30).
Matthew 1:18-19 Matthew 1 is the account of the birth of Yahshua. Notice that Joseph and Mary were not yet married, but only engaged to each other. It is essential that one understands this verse, because this is the ONLY account found in the New Testament showing a man contemplating divorcing his wife. Note the following versions:
“Now the birth of [Yahshua Messiah] was on this wise: when his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put here away privily” (Matthew 1:18-19, King James Version).
“This is how the birth of [Yahshua Messiah] came about. His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph: before their marriage she found she was going to have a child through the Holy Spirit. Being a man of principle, and at the same time wanting to save her from humiliation, Joseph made up his mind to have the marriage contract quietly set aside” (Matthew 1:18-19, Revised English Bible).
“Now this is how the birth of [Yahshua Messiah] came about. When his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found with child through the Holy Spirit. Joseph her husband, since he was a righteous man, yet not unwilling to expose her to shame, decided to divorce her quietly” (Matthew 1:18-19, New American Bible).
“This is how [Yahshua Messiah] came to be born. His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph; but before they came to live together she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. Her husband Joseph, being an upright man and wanting to spare her disgrace, decided to divorce her informally” (Matthew 1:18-19, New Jerusalem Bible).
Through these accounts we can understand the following key facts:
1. Joseph and Mary were engaged, betrothed, but not married.
2. Even though the two were not married, the Bible referred to Joseph as Mary’s husband, as if already together.
3. Joseph sought to divorce her, even though they were not officially married.
Again, this account is the only account of an actual or attempted divorce in the entire New Testament.
If we consider the key facts and apply these facts to Matthew 5:32, we can say that Yahshua is speaking of an engaged couple, and not a married couple! Therefore, Yahshua said that the only cause for divorce is fornication, not adultery. Fornication is pre-marital sex. In Matthew 1 it is quite clear that Yahshua was speaking of engagement. This is clearly brought out through Joseph’s and Mary’s example, the ONLY example Yahweh presented in the New Testament concerning a divorce.
Yahshua says that when a couple becomes engaged they are bound together; however, He says only for the cause of fornication can the engagement be terminated. He goes on and says that if the one that is divorced marries another, he or she will be causing the person they marry also to commit adultery.
This raises an important question: Why after the divorce does one who remarries still commit adultery against the one they have divorced (see Romans 7:1-3). The answer is that the marital VOW they previously made still stands. And in Yahweh’s eyes they are still married (if they had consummated that marriage, of course).
Yahshua’s Death Necessary Before Remarriage Possible Jeremiah 3 shows Israel’s rebellion and unwillingness to follow Yahweh’s commands. In return for their disobedience, Yahweh says that he had given Israel a bill of divorcement.
“And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorcement; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, and went and played the harlot also…Turn, O backsliding children, saith Yahweh; for I am married [Heb. Baal, Husban] unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will you to Zion” (Jer. 3:8 KJV).
Israel was married to Yahweh, but due to their backsliding Yahweh said that He was going to divorce Israel. Yahweh could not tolerate their sin any longer. We know that old Israel was not able to stand in Yahweh’s commandments, and for that very reason we as Gentiles are given an opportunity to partake in that same promise. No longer is the promise only offered to Israel, but also to all those that fear Yahweh and work righteousness. But what had to be done to establish this New Covenant, and to allow all to partake of Israel’s promise?
“For where a testament (covenant) is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator [appointed victim]. For a Testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator lives” (Hebrews 9:16-17).
The writer of Hebrews explains that to establish a second covenant there must be a death, and the death of the one that ordained the first covenant. We know that this passage is speaking of the sacrificial system, and the role Yahshua had in establishing the New Covenant. Yahshua had to die to establish the New Covenant, and by so doing He also became the mediator for all people that would work righteousness.
“Messiah had redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written ‘cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree:’ that the blessings of Abraham might also come on the gentiles through Yahshua Messiah; that we might receive the promise through faith…For you are all the children of Elohim by faith in Yahshua Messiah. For as many of you as have put on Messiah. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male or female: for you are all one in Messiah Yahshua. And if you be Messiah’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:13-14).
We find an interesting analogy here. We know that Yahshua was the pre-existent Savior of the world, and was the one that Yahweh used to speak for Him regarding those of the Old Testament. He was also the one married or in the process of marrying Old Israel, but due to their unwillingness to follow Yahweh’s covenant and their idolatrous acts, Yahshua separated from Israel and established a New Covenant through His blood and sacrifice on the stake. Through His death sacrifice came the ability to bring the gentiles into the covenant promise of Israel, to marry the obedient gentiles. To establish the covenant that allowed the gentiles to share the covenant promise of Israel, Yahshua had to die a physical death. For us as physical human beings there isn’t any difference. We can remarry after the death of a spouse, which terminates the vow or covenant set at marriage.
Romans 7: “Till Death Do We Part”
In Romans 7 : 2 Paul says that marriage is for life. “For the women which hath an husband is bound by law to her husband so long as she liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of the her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man” (Romans 7:2-3).
Paul says that law, Yahweh’s law, binds us till death, and if we remarry while our mate still lives we commit adultery. Divorce is not an option when two people become married and are one. They have not only made that commitment, but have also become one flesh. How can “one” flesh be separated? This passage is very clear: a married couple is bound until death. “Till death do we part.” Is this not indeed a vow? Do we not say this in our marriage ceremonies today? Is this not a vow for believers and nonbelievers alike? Does not Yahweh expect us to fulfill our vows?
Yahshua said, “For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh. Wherefore that are no more twain, but one flesh. WHAT THEREFORE ELOHIM HAS JOINED TOGETHER, LET NO MAN PUT ASUNDER,” Matthew 19:5-6. But what does man do? He allows divorce. And sanctions remarriage, causing spouses to commit adultery. “If a man vow a vow unto Yahweh, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bound; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth” (Num. 30:2 KJV). “When thou vowest a vow unto Elohim, defer not to pay it; for he has no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed” (Ecc. 5:4 KJV).
The word “dead” in Romans 7:2 is from #599, apothnesko in Strong’s Greek Dictionary, and has the following definition: “apothnesko– from 575 and 2348; to die off (lit. or fig.): – to dead, death, die, lie a dying, be slain.” In Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament we find a deeper meaning for the Greek word apothnesko. “1. Of natural death of man: Mt. 9:24; 22:24; Lk. 16:22,Jn. 4:47; Ro. 7:2, and very often; subject to death, mortal.”
A common interpretation of this word “dead” in Romans 7:2 is dead at baptism, or a type of spiritual death. However, the Greek gives a different interpretation. The Greek word implies a physical or mortal death, not a death at baptism. Romans 7:2 shows exclusively that a married couple is bound to each other till death. “The law of marriage is binding till death of one of the parties, no matter which and no longer. The death of either discharges both. I speak to them that know the law. The law has power over a man as long as he lives…The women is bound to her husband during life; so bound to him that she cannot marry another; if she does, she shall be reckoned an adulteress” (Study Note for Matthew Henry’s Study Bible on Romans 7 : 1 – 2).
Malachi 2:16
In the Book of Malachi, Yahweh gives warning to those that would heed the call. “I hate divorce, says Yahweh Elohim of Israel, and I hate a man’s covering himself with violence as well as with his garment, says Yahweh Almighty” (Malachi 2:16 NIV). Yahweh says that he hates divorce of any type. Yahweh abhors the putting away of any type of vow or covenant. A marriage and even an engagement is a vow, and Yahweh takes vows very seriously.
Matthew 19
In Matthew 19, starting with verse 3, Yahshua speaks again of divorce and remarriage when the Pharisees question him. The Pharisees ask Yahshua whether it is lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause. The first thing Yahshua says is that at the very beginning Yahweh made male and female, and for that reason shall a man leave his parents, and shall adhere to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.
Yahshua shows that the practice of polygamy was not intended at the very beginning, but Yahweh intended one man and one wife for life, and for them to become one flesh. Yahshua says, “What therefore Yahweh has joined together, let not man put asunder.” Yahweh does not teach divorce, but only tolerated the practice in the Old Testament because of the hardness of Israel’s hearts.
We have now received the Holy Spirit as Yahweh’s called-out ones, and in so doing Yahweh has given us a mind to follow Him with a pure heart, unlike old Israel. Yahshua came to this earth to fulfill or complete the law. Yahshua enhanced many of the laws, and one of which is the law of marriage as seen in Matthew 5:32 and Romans 7:2-3.
Yahshua shows in the seventh and eighth verses that Yahweh suffered old Israel to divorce their wives because of the hardness of their heart. This was not Yahweh’s wish or will, but He only allowed it because of their rebellion.
“Messiah rectifies their mistake concerning the Law of Moses; they called it a command, Messiah calls it but permission, a toleration. Messiah tells them there was a reason for this toleration, not at all to their credit. If they had not been allowed to put away their wives, when they had conceived a dislike of them, they would have used them cruelly, would have beaten and abused them, and perhaps have murdered them. There is not a greater piece of hard-heartedness in the world, than for a man to be harsh and severe with his own wife. Without virtually owning the hardness of their hearts. The Law of Moses considered the hardness of men’s heart, but the good news curses it…” (Matthew Henry’s Study Bible, study note on Matthew 19:8).
Matthew Henry explains that because of their hearts it was more profitable for Yahweh to allow divorce then to allow cruel behavior by the men of old Israel. We as Yahweh’s people today must portray Yahweh’s and Yahshua’s own ethics and morality. It is essential to understand the vow and seriousness of marriage, and what Yahshua truly taught. Yahshua never gave one reason or excuse for divorce after marriage proper. In the ninth verse Yahshua again re-states his statement in Matthew 5:32. Again, the word used is fornication, not adultery. Refer back to Matthew 5:32.
1 Corinthians 7
In 1Corinthians 7, starting with verse 10, Paul gives a commandment from Yahweh. He states, “But to the married I give charge, not I, but Yahweh, that the wife depart not from her husband (but should she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled with her husband); and that the husband leave not the wife” (1Cor. 7:10-11).
Notice that Yahweh’s commandment is that the husband and wife stay together, and if one should leave, let them be reconciled to each other. Never do we see divorce as an option in this passage. We know by the Torah that once a husband gave a bill of divorcement, that man and wife could not be rejoined (Deut. 24:4). Yahweh would not go against His own law. Thus, we can conclude that when Paul said, “but should she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled with her husband,” he was not speaking of divorce.
Starting with the 12th verse Paul gives his opinion (not Yahweh’s command) to unbelievers: “But to the rest I say, not Yahweh: if any brother has an unbelieving wife, and he is content to live with her, let her not leave her husband. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother: else were your children unclean; but now they are holy. Yet if the unbelieving departs, let him depart: the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases: but Yahweh has called us in peace. For how do you know, o wife, whether you shall save your husband? Or how do you know, o husband, whether you shall save your wife?” (1Cor. 12:12-16).
We must consider that Paul said that this was not Yahweh’s command, but his own opinion, his suggestion. In the 15th verse, where the word bondage is mentioned, most interpret that as bondage out of marriage. However, the Greek says otherwise. The Greek word is No. 1402, douloo and means: “to enslave, bring into bondage, servant.” The beginning of 1 Cor. 7 speaks of the duties of married couples. It says that neither have control over their own bodies, and in essence both are in bondage to each other. The husband and wife have a duty to each other. Paul says that if an unbelieving wife or husband leaves (separates) that mate is no longer under bondage. That person is no longer responsible for marriage duties for that unconverted mate, but according to Romans 7 they are still husband and wife. Only death ends the marriage covenant.
“But as Elohim hath distributed to every man, as the master hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all the assemblies. Is any man called being circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcised is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of Elohim. Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant? Care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. For he that is called in the Master, being a servant, is Yahweh’s freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Messiah’s servant. Ye are bought with a price, be not ye the servants of men. Brethren, let every man, wherein he was called, therein abide with Elohim” (1 Cor. 7:17-24).
What is this passage saying? Does Yahweh say here that if a man comes to the knowledge of the truth and then is baptized, but has been divorced and remarried, that he is completely free from his first marriage and all obligations to it? Let’s consider this logic. Why would Paul say that a man and wife are bound till mortal death, and then later say that the marriage vow can be given up at baptism? Let’s take a closer look at the passage.
What does this passage mention? What are the situations Paul is addressing? If you examine verses 17-24, you will never see divorce and remarriage brought up. Paul never addresses this issue. Paul never says if you have been divorced and remarried and then baptized, that the first marriage is washed away and the vow no longer exists. To say that Paul taught that baptism annuls a marriage vow is contradicting his own statement in Romans 7. It is like saying a murderer repented and was baptized, and then could go murder again. If so, what is the difference between murder and adultery? Both are sins that Yahweh hates. The only issues Paul contends with here are circumcision, uncircumcision, slavery, and the freeman. Once again, nowhere within this passage do we find Paul addressing men or women who have been divorced and remarried!
“Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of Yahweh: yet I give my judgement, as one that hath obtained mercy of Yahweh to be faithful. I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be. Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife. But and if you marry [not “remarry”], thou has not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she has not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you” (1 Cor. 7:25-28 KJV).
Paul starts at the beginning of verse 25, and says that this is not Yahweh’s command, but his own, and notice that Paul addresses this specifically to virgins. Paul says that if one is married, seek not to be loosed, but at the start of this passage Paul says that this command was for virgins. Virgins are those that have not had sexual relations, so how then could these be virgins Paul was speaking too? If we once again consider the account of Matthew 1:18-19 and apply it here to Paul’s comments, we can understand that this is engagement Paul is speaking of. If you are bound to a wife (engaged to a wife) seek not to be loosed, but if you are loosed from a wife, seek not a wife. The second statement here refers to Yahshua’s comments in Matthew 5:32. Yahshua says that those that put away their wife (engaged wife), saving for the cause of fornication, cause her to commit adultery. Those mentioned by Paul in his second statement are those that are loosed by divorcement (divorcement while engaged, refer to Matthew 1:18-19). Paul says that they are to stay single.
Why would Paul make this statement? Why would Paul command that these virgins stay single? There are several reasons we can consider. One is that Paul said in verses 32-33 that when one becomes married, one is less careful to please Yahweh. Another possible reason is the persecution that was upon the early assembly.
We should consider the following. 1) Paul says that this was his command, not Yahweh’s, 2) Paul was speaking to virgins (V. 25), and furthermore, this is additional evidence that those that are engaged are looked upon as husband and wife. The key to understanding this passage is remembering and considering that Paul’s command was exclusively to virgins. He was not speaking to the married that had already consummated the marriage. At the point of consummation the two have become one, and in the words of Yahshua, “What therefore Yahweh has joined together, let no man put asunder.”
Conclusion on Divorce and Remarriage
We must follow every word that proceeds out of the mouth of Yahweh, and Yahweh makes it clear that He hates divorce. Yahshua never taught divorce. Yahshua said, “What Yahweh has joined together, let no man put asunder.” How then can man promote and practice such a doctrine? How can man dare separate what Yahweh has joined?
When we consider Matthew 5:32, addressing those that are engaged rather than married, the pieces of the puzzle fit perfectly. This understanding ties together all the loose ends that other arguments leave hanging. The only example in the New Testament of a man considering divorce was Joseph, who was not married, but engaged. Romans 7 says that a marriage covenant can only be terminated upon death. Man cannot terminate a marriage covenant by allowing divorce. There is no such word when a couple becomes one flesh. Again, how can one flesh be separated?
What does this mean, then, for those who are divorced and remarried before baptism? Does this place them in a constant state of adultery or sin? I cannot find in the Bible where Yahweh says specifically that divorce and remarriage before baptism is forgiven and washed away. But what the Bible does say is that Yahweh is a loving Heavenly Father who will look past our ignorance. I do feel that Yahweh will acknowledge repentance that took place at baptism, and consider the present situation. Once again, this report is not to condemn, but to simply establish Yahweh standards of marriage as contained in His Word.
We at Yahweh’s Restoration Ministry do not advocate that a person separate or file for divorce in this situation, but should acknowledge Yahweh’s standards for what they are, and then strive to live a life that is well pleasing to Yahweh. Marriage is a sacred covenant and one that should not be ignored. The entire purpose for Yahweh’s marriage laws is to form a stable family environment. Yahweh’s Laws are for our benefit. If we obey Him we will find that our family will prosper in His truth and in this fleshly life.
Can a man who has been divorced and remarried hold the office of a minister? Here is what the Bible says. First Timothy 3 and Titus 1 list the qualifications for the Overseers, or Elders, and Deacons of the assembly.
Yahshua clearly shows in the 19th chapter of Matthew that at the beginning Yahweh intended one man for one woman, and the two to be one flesh. Polygamy was not an option when Paul wrote this letter to Timothy, although polygamy was still practiced at that time. First Timothy 3:2 is referring to men who have been married more then once with the other spouse still living, but can also refer to men who are committing polygamy because of their disregard for Yahweh’s law. Consider the following references on this passage:
An Elder must be blameless and that includes one wife for life (refer to D&R study). An Elder or Deacon must also be “above reproach.” They are examples to the flock. They set the standard for the entire Assembly or ministry. Only 50 years ago this high standard for the ministry would go unquestioned. Sadly, not in this day of declining morality.“A bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach”(1 Timothy 3:2).
“Husband but of one wife. A general principle that applies to any violation of Elohim’s marriage law, whether in the from of polygamy or marital unfaithfulness” (NIV Study Bible, study note on 1 Timothy 3:2).
“Not having given a bill of divorcement to one, and then taken another, or not having many wives, which at that time was common among both the Jews and Gentiles” (Matthew Henry’s Study Bible, note on 1 Timothy 3:2).
“Confuting the celibacy of Rome’s priesthood. Though the Jews practiced polygamy, yet as he is writing as to a Gentile Church, and as polygamy was never allowed among even laymen in the church, the ancient interpretation that the prohibition here is against polygamy in a candidate Bishop is not correct. It must, therefore, mean that, though laymen might lawfully marry again, candidates for the episcopate or presbytery were better to have been married only once. As in Ch. 5:9, “wife of one man,” implies a women married but once; so “Husband of one wife” here must mean the same” (Commentary on the Whole Bible Jamieson Fausset and Brown, 1 Timothy 3:2).
“Wife of one man—in order not to throw a stumbling block in the way of the Jews and heathens, who regarded with disfavor second marriages. This is the force of “blameless,” giving no offence, even in matters indifferent” (Commentary of the Whole Bible James Fausset and Brown, 1 Timothy 5:9).
“The husband of one wife] lit. ‘a man of one woman’ Four meanings have been attached to the words: (a) The presbytery is not to be a Christianised Jew, who, in accordance with the Law of Moses, had previously taken two wives. (b) He is not to take a second wife after the death of the first. (c) He is not to marry again while his divorced wife lives. (d) He is to be faithful to his wife, ‘a man of one woman’ and ‘keep himself only unto her so long as they both should live, ‘whether it were a first wife or second wife. The last is probably the right exposition, as set forth by Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret. In the case of the presbyter or bishop is contemplated as a married man” (The One Volume Bible Commentary, Edited by Rev. J. R. Dummelow, M.A., 1 Timothy 3:2).
“Now a bishop must be above reproach, married only once, temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, and apt to teach”(New Revised Standard Version, 1Timothy 3:2).
“Therefore a Bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach”(New American Bible, 1Timothy 3:1).
“Well, for the office of a bishop a man must be above reproach; he must be married only once, he must be temperate, master of himself, unruffled, hospitable, a skilled teacher” (The James Moffatt Translation, 1Timothy 3:1).
By the above commentaries and translations we find that this is a very confusing and difficult passage to comprehend, although considering Joseph and Mary’s situation in Matthew 1:18-19, and what Paul mentions in Romans 7:2-3, we can conclude that one is bound to his first mate till death. Once death occurs the living mate is free from the law of marriage. He or she may remarry and he may even be ordained; however, while the first mate is living and if the husband decides to remarry he will be bound to both, and committing adultery (refer to Divorce and Remarriage study online).
Yahshua the Messiah raised the standard of marriage. He said the ONLY legitimate reason for a separation would be if there were unfaithfulness during the betrothal period, as Joseph thought was the case with his betrothed Mary (Miriam). No other example exists in the New Testament of a Biblically sanctioned separation (divorce) between a legitimate husband and wife.
Baptism and Forgiveness of Sin
Yahshua promises that He will forgive all sins at baptism, and that a person will be white as snow. Consider the following passages.
“All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven unto men” (Matthew 12:31).
“Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool” (Isaiah 1:18).
In the shed blood of Yahshua the Messiah we can all attain that cleansing of sins at baptism, and all sins will be forgiven, with the exception of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit; however, can we say that a past marriage is sin? Some will try to say that a past marriage was sin, therefore it was washed away at baptism! But can we call a marriage “sin”? The marriage is not sin; however, adultery in a marriage is indeed sin. Still, what can we conclude from the above statement?
First, we must consider the difference between a vow and sin. Are the two the same? Is sin the same as a vow? Sin is an offence or transgression of Yahweh’s Word (1John 3:4), and a vow is a covenant or a promise set before Yahweh. The point being, sin is washed away, but vows are not. Yahweh and many of his prophets have said that we MUST perform our vows, and what is the vow of marriage? Is it not, “till death do we part,” and did not Paul say that we are bound to our mate until physical death? Numbers 30tells us: “If a man vow a vow unto Yahweh, or swear an oath to bind his soul [whole responsible person] with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth,” verse 2. At the end of this chapter we read, “These are the statutes, which Yahweh commanded Moses, between a man and his wife…” verse 16.
The Hebrew word for our English word “vow” is #5088, neder, in Strong’s Concordance, and has the following definition: “A promise (to Elohim); also (concr.) a thing promised:–vow ([-ed]).”
The Hebrew word for our English word “sin” is #2403, chattaah, in Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, and has the following definition: “An offence (sometimes habitual sinfulness), and its penalty, occasion, sacrifice, or expiation; also (concr.) an offender:–punishment (of sin), purifying (-fication for sin), sin.”
What is washed away at baptism? Can baptism wash away both sin and the vow of marriage?
In Acts 2:38 Peter tells those that were gathered for the day of Pentecost to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. Peter never mentioned a remission of vows, and we must conclude from the above statement and definitions that sin and a vow have two separate connotations. Sin is transgression of Yahweh’s law, while a vow is a promise.
As we saw earlier, marriage is a vow till death. Remember, a vow is not sin and cannot be washed away at baptism. Yahweh might overlook bad situations done in ignorance before baptism, but that does not mean that He will look past the vow.
Let’s take an example out of everyday life: let’s say you make a loan and purchase an automobile. You make monthly payments. You later decide the car was not what you wanted or expected. Meanwhile you become baptized. Does your immersion wash that vow or promise away so that you no longer owe for your car? No, you would still be responsible for that promise and commitment you made. How much more important is the vow of marriage, done in the presence of Almighty Yahweh? Yahweh established the marriage covenant, and therefore when a man and woman marry, they complete a pact not just to one another, but also in His sight. It is sealed by a vow before Yahweh Himself.
Yahweh says that a minister of His must be blameless, and those who have had more then one wife while the first or second wives are still living are not blameless. This is not to say that Yahweh will not look beyond their situation, considering their past, their ignorance in times past, and their present repentance. In the final analysis, however, Yahweh says ministers must be above reproach, they must be blameless. The ministers of Yahweh’s assembly are the example and the ones responsible for the well-being of the ministry. Therefore, they must have been married only one time.
We find no record anywhere in the Bible where a priest or apostle had more than one wife. Neither is there any record in which any of these leaders had been divorced and remarried.
A great deal of misinformation has been written about notable personalities down through history, but nothing compares to the delusion and confusion in the minds of millions regarding the true Messiah and His earthly mission.
Centuries of false teachings coupled with widespread ignorance of the Scriptures have produced an entirely skewed view of the person of the Savior and what He stood for. If Satan, the father of lies, could convince millions to believe in a different messiah who completely misses the mark, then he could score a coup of staggering proportions. That is exactly what has happened as countless people have been misled as to the teachings and purposes of their Savior.
All kinds of false concepts regarding the Son are crystallized in conventional beliefs. They extend even down to such details as His physical appearance. Imagine for a moment that He revealed His identity on the old To Tell the Truth television program. Millions of shocked viewers would stare in stunned disbelief when the announcer asks, “Would the real Messiah please stand up?” Rising from His chair is a rugged, muscular, olive-toned Hebrew with shorter, dark hair and beard, calling Himself “Yahshua” and proclaiming that He will set up His kingdom soon at Jerusalem.
Still seated on either side of him and staring forlornly into space are two fragile impostors. They sport shoulder-length, blondish locks, puppy-dog eyes, thin eyebrows, narrow noses, and lily-white skin — not unlike that popular painting of a frail, northern European “Messiah” decorating the walls of thousands of churches and homes. Rather than a Jew of the Middle East who was no stranger to hardship and hard work, these impostors present an image that is as far off the mark with regard to His appearance as popular beliefs are about what He taught.
Many of the early Christians, who were polytheistic in nature, would meld their former pagan gods and ideas into this new worship of the Messiah.The Early Alexandrian Christians were syncretic in their worship of the Messiah and Serapis (a Hellenistic-Egyptian god) and they would prostrate themselves without distinction between the two. A letter inserted in the Augustan History, ascribed to the Emperor Hadrian, refers to the worship of Serapis by residents of Egypt who described themselves as Christians: “The land of Egypt, the praises of which you have been recounting to me, my dear Servianus, I have found to be wholly light-minded, unstable, and blown about by every breath of rumour. There those who worship Serapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis…”
Is it just a coincidence that image we see of the Messiah bears a disturbing resemblance to Serapis with his long flowing locks? Does this imagery square with the Bible when the Apostle Paul tells us it is a shame for a man to have long hair?1Corinthians 11:14.
To tell the truth, the Savior of the Scriptures is not the same one you probably have been taught from your youth. He is quite unlike the individual described in contemporary sermons and Sunday school lessons.
Incredibly, millions who rely on Him for their very salvation are more ignorant of Him than they are about their favorite sports stars or Hollywood celebrities. Shouldn’t you want to know the truth about the One who stands at the center of your beliefs? Being that He is soon going to judge your life, isn’t it important to know what He said regarding salvation, as well as what His standards of judgment will be?
Clearing Out the Tangled Undergrowth of Error
You need no special revelation from on high to learn the truth about the Messiah. All it takes is an honest look into the Scriptures and a willingness to shed some popular but false concepts.
The most basic knowledge about Him, which is elementary to knowing anyone, is amazingly missing in traditional teachings. Most professed believers have been given bogus instruction about the One they claim as their Savior. Because of that fact, they do not know:
when He was actually born
what His and His Father’s Names really are
what He actually looked like here on earth
whether He had brothers and sisters
why He came to earth
what He taught about salvation and the Kingdom
when He died
how He died
why He died
whether He even died
With so much misinformation and ignorance surrounding the Messiah, how can millions say with complete confidence that they “know” their Savior?
One of the most eye-opening Scriptures regarding the Messiah is in the first verse of John 1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Yahweh, and the Word was Elohim.”
Who is this “Word” who was in the beginning? Verse 14 explains: “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us…” The Word is none other than the Son of Yahweh. He was on the scene at the creation of the universe. Proverbs 8:22-35 confirms His existence from the beginning of creation. Speaking to a group of Jews the Savior Himself testified to His heavenly existence before He came as a babe born in a manger. “Yahshua said unto them, ‘Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am’” (John 8:58). See also John 6:62 and John 6:38, where He said, “I came down from heaven.” His entire motivation, according to verse 38, was to “do the will of Him who sent me.” His Father’s plan, incidentally, has been the same from the beginning, Malachi 3:6 and James 1:17.
Everything in the universe was made by the Word, according to John 1:3. He is the image of the invisible Elohim, and “by him were all things created…by him and for him,” Colossians 1:16.
The facts surrounding His human birth have been skewed, which we are reminded of at the end of each secular year. Tradition says He was born at Bethlehem on December 25, yet the Scriptures never mention the day or even the month of His birth. He likely was born in the autumn, when shepherds would still be in the fields “watching their flocks by night,” Luke 2:8. This would not be happening in the middle of the cold, wet winters of the Middle East. The December 25th observance date derives from the ancient Roman Saturnalia, a celebration of the return of the sun-god Mithras at the winter solstice.
Nowhere in Scripture are we told to observe the birthday of the Savior; hence, no date is ever given for that observance. If His birthday were important to Him, and necessary to observe, you can be sure He would have told us exactly when it was. This is clear from those observances that are essential to Yahweh and His Son. For example, remembering His Son’s death at the Passover is explicitly mandated and, because it is so very important to Yahweh, the date to keep the Passover is precisely laid out for us (Ex. 12:6; Lev. 23:5). The same is true of the six other annual observances of the Bible.
Born a Hebrew, He Had a Hebrew Name
The Savior was born of Hebrew parents, Luke 1:27. It naturally follows that He would have a Hebrew name. “Jesus Christ” is a Greek name, and we know He was not Greek (see Luke 1:32; Hebrews 7:14).
Being a Hebrew who came in His Father’s Name, John 5:43, the Son would have a name tied to His Father’s. It is no different with a son bearing his father’s surname today. And that is just what we find in Matthew 1:21, where the angel told Joseph that his son’s Name would be based on the key fact that He would save His people from their sins. Thus, we have Yahshua, a Name in the Hebrew meaning “Yahweh is salvation” (Yah-shua). No such meaning exists in the Grecianized name “Jesus.” “Christ” is a shortened form of the Greek Christos, meaning “anointed.”
Being a hybrid, the name “Jesus” has no distinctive etymological root meaning. In fact, the letter J did not exist in any language until the time of Christopher Columbus. This is a fact provable from any unabridged dictionary under the letter J. Therefore, no one referred to Him as “Jesus” until the 15th century or 1,500 years after His birth.
The Anchor Bible explains His Name Yahshua in a note on Matthew 1:1: “The first element, Yahu (=Yahweh) means ‘the [L-rd],’ while the second comes from shua ‘To help, save’” (vol. 26, p. 2). Translator errors in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 in the King James Version testify to the fact that “Jesus” was wrongly inserted in the New Testament text for the closer “Joshua” (Yahshua), son of Nun. Modern versions have fixed this error.
Why should we be so scrupulous and careful about what we call Him? Do names really matter? Does your name matter to you? His Name certainly matters to Yahweh, who instructs us in no less than the very outset of the Ten Commandments what His Name is, and in the Second Commandment that He expects us to worship none else, Exodus 20:2-3. He also warns against falsifying His Name, 20:7, which is done by the use of erroneous substitutes.
When we use another name in worship we are dishonoring Him and His Son by ignoring His specific commands to call on His Name, and therefore putting our will before His. To insist on using another name once we know His true Name is to defy the very One who gives us each breath. The four combined Hebrew letters of His Name are found 6,823 times in the ancient text, and He refers to His Name hundreds of times throughout the Scriptures. For example, He tells us to honor His Name (Ps. 66:2,4); call on it (Ps. 99:6); confess it (1Kings 8:33); love His Name (Ps. 5:11); praise His Name (2Sam. 22:50); think on it (Mal. 3:16), and trust in it (Isa. 50:10).
Common arguments against His Name are completely baseless. Nowhere in the Bible do we find any statement saying, “It doesn’t matter what you call Me, I know who you mean.” Neither do we find a single verse stating, “I have many names” or one verse that says, “All names for Me are acceptable if you are sincere in your worship.”
On the contrary, we learn that the truly sincere worshiper will honor His Father in all things, especially when it comes to His Name. Yahweh is adamant that He has but one Name. The Psalmist writes, “That men may know that You, whose name alone is Yahweh, are the Most High over all the earth,” Psalm 83:18. His people will know and be called by His Name, Deuteronomy 28:10 tells us. He commands us not even to mention the names of other “deities,” Exodus 23:13.
He says the false prophets have tried to make people forget His Name just as their fathers have “forgotten my name for Baal,”Jeremiah 23:27. Baal, the supreme deity of the Babylonians, is associated with the title “Lord.” When we call on Him by the title Lord, we not only violate His command not to do so, but we also invoke heathen worship traditions and place Him in a lesser role than the heavenly Majesty that He is. (In English a lord is a husbandman and landowner, not a Supreme Sovereign of the universe.)
The Savior Looked Like the Average Man
Besides His Hebrew Name, the Messiah looked like a typical Jew of His day with plain, average features, a fact that was prophesied: “For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he has no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him,” Isaiah 53:2.
His hair was the normal, clipped style for a man of His time, and certainly not shoulder length. This is clear because He was a priest in the Melchizedek order (Ps. 110:4) and a priest had to have clipped hair, according to Ezekiel 44:20. Paul, who saw the risen Messiah, would never have said that it was a shame for a man to have long hair if the Messiah Himself sported long hair (1Cor. 11:14).
Yahshua, the firstborn in the family of Joseph, had four brothers: James, Joses, Simon, and Judas, and at least three sisters,Matthew 13:55-56, John 2:12. Therefore, His mother Mary (correctly, Miriam) was not a virgin for long. While dying Yahshua made arrangements for the care of His mother, John 19:26-27. His death, incidentally, was not on a cross, as popularly believed, but on an upright pole with wrists nailed overhead. This is clear from the words translated “cross.” They are the Greek stauros and xulon, and mean a plain stake or pole without a crosspiece. John 3:14 tells us He was lifted up at His impalement in the same way Moses lifted the serpent up on a pole in Numbers 21:9.
The pagan origins of the cross can be traced back to Egypt where it was known as the “Ankh” (key of the Nile). It was an ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic character that literally reads “eternal life.” The Ankh was a symbol of life and fertility.
With the syncretistic beliefs of the early Roman church it is not surprising they grasped on to this symbol as their own. One only needs to look at the Vatican in Rome to see remnants of ancient Egyptian symbols, most notably the pagan Egyptian obelisk (phalic symbol) in the center of St. Peter’s Square. Significantly, atop the obelisk they have added the cross. This obelisk was brought to Rome by pagan Emperor Caligula in CE 37 and relocated by Pope Sixtus V in 1586.
He Died or We Have No Payment for Our Sin
Some believe He did not actually die but went down to hell to preach to lost souls for three days. If He didn’t die and wasn’t resurrected from the dead, then we have no payment for our sins, 1Corinthians 15:13, 17. Sin’s consequences require no less than a death penalty payment, just as for Israel when they slayed animals on the altar. Yahshua became that death sacrifice to pay the penalty for our sins, Philippians 2:8, Hebrews 9:27-28.
In Hebrew 9:15 we read that as the mediator of the New Testament, that He redeemed transgressors under the first covenant by means of His own death. The Evangels tell us plainly that He died on the stake, Matthew 27:50, Mark 15:37, Luke 23:46, andJohn 19:30. The expression, “Gave up the ghost” in the King James Version is an Old English euphemism for the act of death, when the spirit or breath of life (Greek pneuma) leaves a person and he becomes life-less. We also know through accounts like Peter’s testimony in Acts 10:39-41 that the Messiah literally died and did not just leave His body for a period of time while He remained conscious in spirit form.
Yahshua Obeyed and Taught Obedience by Words, Example
Of all the mistruths about Him, however, the most pernicious in regard to salvation completely misconstrues the Son’s purpose for coming to this earth. Many have the image of an iconoclastic Son who came bringing simple grace and faith to replace the failed law of His Father.
This widespread myth is openly expressed in traditional teachings in spite of Yahshua’s clear and unambiguous personal testimony to the contrary. He said, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets, I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled,”Matthew 5:17-18. So long as this universe exists, so does every aspect of the law. He said so Himself!
Many read “fulfill” and still think “do away with.” This is attributable to an endless chorus of clerics who find Yahweh’s law contemptible and teach against it at every opportunity. And no wonder. It is Yahweh’s laws that separate the true faith from the many false ones, Revelation 14:12. His way of Truth is guided by His laws and commands and to learn of His Truth is to begin obeying them.
What exactly did Yahshua mean by fulfill? If I fulfill my obligations I complete them. I do everything I was obligated to do. If Yahshua fulfilled the law, He did what the law required and He did it perfectly without sin. We know this to be fact because He did no sin,1Peter 2:21-22, and sin is defined as the transgression of the law, 1John 3:4. Being sinless and not transgressing the law means to be in perfect subjection and obedience to it. Because He was our example, He showed us the necessity to obey the Father’s laws just as He did, verse 21. See also Philippians 2:5 and 1John 2:6.
Many use the term “Mosaic law” in a disparaging way, saying that ancient Israel’s obedience to “Mosaic” laws is not necessary today. Yet, in Acts 7:38 – in the New Testament – we read that Moses at Mount Sinai “received the lively [living] oracles to give unto us.” Oracles refers directly to Yahweh’s “spoken words” which were given to Moses at Mt. Sinai.
In Romans 9:4 Paul explains that spiritual Israelites today are those who get the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of Yahweh and the promises. Peter says that ministers are to speak the law of Yahweh, 1Peter 4:11. Yet, few have the desire or courage to do what Peter said.
Yahweh’s laws are perfect, and they convert the soul, Psalm 19:7 tells us. Far from being a burden, obedience to His laws changes us, shows our love for Him, and carries untold blessings as well. “For this is the love of Yahweh, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous,” 1John 5:3.
He Magnified, Not Diminished the Law
This is the most serious misunderstanding regarding Yahshua’s purpose for coming. He did not come to abolish the law given to Israel. Rather, He came to enlarge upon it, to make it more incumbent on Yahweh’s people, to teach us to obey, as He obeyed, for the right reasons. He explained that not only the sinful act itself but the very thought of the act is a sinful wrong, and He expanded the provisions of the law to cover wider applications, Matthew 5:20-47. Now just entertaining the thought of evil can condemn us.
He said that not even the least of the commandments are to be broken and those teaching against obedience to them will be called the least in the Kingdom, while those who teach His laws will be called great in the Kingdom, Matthew 5:19. Why would Yahshua say this and then in the next breath teach against obedience? After all, the law is exactly what He stands for and what His Father also stands for. “He that keeps His commandments dwells in Him, and He in him,” we read in 1John 3:24. His laws test our desire to honor and be true to Him.
The majority will not accept this key, essential truth. Human beings in their unconverted state are by nature rebellious against Yahweh and His standards. Paul warned, “Because the carnal mind is enmity against Elohim: for it is not subject to the law of Elohim, neither indeed can be.”
No wonder, then, that Yahshua’s coming to obey and uphold the laws of His Father would be met with widespread human resistance and denial. So much resistance, in fact, that His very purpose has been completely negated by the teaching that He nailed the moral law, along with the Ten Commandments, to the torture stake (popularly known as “cross”).
This teaching derives partly from a widespread misunderstanding of Colossians 2:14, where the “handwriting of ordinances that was against us” is in fact the added laws of man (which is what the Greek word ordinances –dogma – means: man-made law). Yahweh’s laws are never characterized as “against us” anywhere in the Word. On the contrary, Paul tells us they are “holy, just and good,”Romans 7:12. Yet it was the religious establishment of Paul’s day who gave these dogma or added, handwritten statutes of man, like “touch not, taste not, handle not,” the force of scriptural law, Colossians 2:20-22. Both Paul and Yahshua showed the difference between true laws of Yahweh and these “commandments and doctrines of men” that effectively separated Jew from Gentile and the Gentile from the Kingdom, in their eyes.
Above all, Yahshua taught only what was given to Him by His Father: “He that rejects me, and receives not my words, has one that judges him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.” Yahweh’s law first given to man in the Old Testament is still His law today, and Yahshua came to expand upon and perpetuate it. The only change was in the ritualistic law like animal sacrifices and man’s additions.
Scriptural law doesn’t exist for its own sake. Its purpose is rooted in Yahweh’s will for His people. Yahshua followed Biblical law because He did the will of His Father and did exactly what His Father sent Him to do, John 6:38.
His Truth Unifies Believers, Separates Others
Because Yahshua stands on the side of righteousness and obedience, He automatically generates division between the sincere follower of Yahweh and those who desire to live as they please. This is true even within families. Note how He demolished another popular myth, “Suppose you that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, No; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law,” Luke 12:51-53.
The Scriptures are characterized as a sword that cuts to the depths of soul and spirit, discerning the thoughts and intents of the heart, Hebrew 4:12. Yahshua also will return with the double-edged sword of the Word and separate the obedient from the rebellious,Revelation 1:16. He will be the Judge, John 5:22, while His Word – the law – will be the standard by which He will judge,Psalm 96:13.
This important fact is prophesied in Revelation 20:12: “And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before Elohim; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.”
How plain! If we will one day be judged by His Word, then it is crucial that we get in line with that Word now. His Word is the guide for living the life acceptable to Him. Yahshua Himself followed Yahweh’s Word (the Old Testament) and His living an obedient, sinless life was our example, 1Peter 2:21-22.
How often have you heard someone say something like, “It’s good that the Savior is going to judge you and not me, because He will forgive; I won’t.” Many have the misguided notion that going around forgiving everyone is all that Yahshua will do. His job will be to automatically forgive even the vilest behavior regardless of whether that behavior is followed by repentance or not. This is a heresy of the greatest proportions and could only make sense if He did away with the law so that there are no longer any standards to live by. But as we have seen, He did the exact opposite – He magnified the law, raising the bar by extending it even to our very thoughts (Rom. 7:1).
Lawbreaking has serious consequences and requires repentance leading to forgiveness for those contrite in heart. At the same time it exacts a death penalty on the defiant who refuse to bow the knee to Yahshua.
We learn from the Word that Yahshua has righteous indignation for those who refuse to submit to Him once they know the Truth. He minced no words when it came to the self-righteous, religious leaders – the Scribes and Pharisees of His day – calling them hypocrites, snakes, sepulchers, and blind guides. He was patient and forgiving when it came to the ignorant, but He came down hard on the knowingly rebellious in clear and devastating terms.
The Wicked and Rebellious to Face His Wrath
Yahshua is returning to the earth to wrest its control from unruly and disobedient man. Paul tells us, “For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death,” 1Corinthians 15:25-26. His actions will be forceful and decisive when He returns with a rod of iron to conquer defiant nations. “Then shall the Master go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle,” Zechariah 14:3.
Read the apocalyptic description in Revelation 6:14-17: “And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?”
When that day comes rebellion against the laws of Scripture will be dealt with swiftly and decisively. Those who say the laws were done away, but in their hearts know differently, will face an uncompromising Judge —who is the very One who gave those laws at Sinai for our own good. Everyone will either obey or taste the wrath of the Sovereign of the world.
Paul wrote these sobering words, “Seeing it is a righteous thing with Elohim to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Master Yahshua shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not Elohim, and that obey not the evangel of our Master Yahshua the Messiah,”2Thessalonians 1:6-8.
Daniel 7:27 tells us that one day soon everyone will bow to the authority of Yahweh, “And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.”
The Kingdom Yahweh sets up on earth will be placed under the rulership of His Son and run by His laws, Micah 4:2. Just as He did while He walked this earth, the nations will be keeping Biblical Sabbaths and Feast days. We read of this in the prophetic chapters ofIsaiah 66:23; Ezekiel 45, and Zechariah 14:16-19. All rebellion will be put down and the entire world will finally learn and practice His ways and worship Him on the Scripturally appointed days known as moedim.
The traditional, worldly holidays will be but a distant and flickering memory. Isaiah wrote, “And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Yahweh’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of Yahweh, to the house of the Elohim of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Yahweh from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more,” 2:2-4.
Once obedience is universal the earth will return to its Edenic state, a re-establishment of a time when there was no sin and consequently the earth was a veritable paradise. Yahshua’s role as “Yahweh’s salvation” will be finished. From Yahshua – the “Salvation of Yah” – He will become Yahzidkenu, “Yahweh our Righteousness” as the will of His Father is enforced across the whole earth, Jeremiah 23:6. Peace, happiness, and unspeakable joy will fill the lives of everyone.
At last mankind will understand the truth and realize the blessings of obedience that Yahshua taught while on this earth. Everyone will get in line with the ways of Yahweh and His Son. There will be no atheist or agnostic in the coming Kingdom on earth. All will know Him, from the least to the greatest. Satan will no longer be around to pervert the truth through false teachings and injurious heresies like “all His laws have been nailed to the cross.”
The inspired prophets boldly proclaimed that His laws will go forth from Zion into every corner of the planet, and then all people will discover firsthand the unspeakable blessings that come with following the ways of Yahweh.
May each of us hold to the sure hope of the soon-coming rulership of Yahshua the Messiah, the true Savior whose blood paid sin’s death penalty and opened the way of salvation. May we seek and learn all we can of Him, obeying Yahweh as His Word commands and as Yahshua taught, in preparation for that Kingdom.
The greatest blessing of a true follower of Yahweh is to be found worthy to attain His Kingdom, 2Thessalonians 1:5, and to show others the only way that leads to life everlasting through faith in Yahshua and a life of obedience to His Word.
Please take a moment to complete our short survey. We appreciate your time and value your feedback.
It’s the seventh day of the week. Dressed in simple attire an unassuming young man sits by the seashore speaking to a small gathering. A gust of wind wafts the pungent aroma of fish and seaweed over the crowd. The teacher paints one vivid picture after another in stories that teach about sin, repentance, and the coming Kingdom. He talks of obedience and warns of wickedness and evil that could destroy His listeners’ faith. He quotes liberally from the Old Testament and explains that he has not come to bring peace and harmony to this world but by special calling to make a separation of His people by the sword of the Word.
He is provocative, His words are penetrating and his straight-to-the-heart style enraptures His audience. His amazing insights bring to the surface the deepest thoughts, motives, and guilt of His listeners. They are cut to the quick. They hang on His every word and many share a burning and repentant desire hence-forth to live by the truth He teaches.
We switch now to a different teacher at another place and time.
– It’s morning on the first day of the week. A black-robed man with chevrons on his sleeves and sporting a pricey necklace dangling a shiny silver cross steps up to a richly carved oak podium. The walls of his sanctuary are decorated with ornate fish symbols, crosses, and Greek letters on wide, velvet banners. Behind him on a polished altar burn two tiers of tall white candles. Rainbows of light shoot through colorfully painted windows.
– A red-robed choir stands ready, waiting for their cue to present a chorus of J.S. Bach accompanied by a huge, melodious pipe organ. The audience rises from their cushioned pews to echo the minister’s chants, after which he stretches out his arms and motions them to sit in unison.
– His stained-glass voice speaks of grace and acceptance of all faiths as just different routes to heaven. He tells his listeners to think positive thoughts and to love themselves or else they cannot love others. After quoting part of a verse in Galatians about the need to reject Scriptural law, he tops off his 15-minute message with a story of a 7-year-old child who loses a pet turtle.
– The choir sings a final selection and the audience quickly files out, satisfied that they fulfilled their spiritual duty for another week and eager to enjoy the rest of the day at the mall or head to the local links to play 18 holes.
A Forgotten Message
Here are two modes of worship, both purporting to teach truth but both at polar opposites.
The first by our Savior is firmly planted in the Word and is riveting, life-changing, and relevant for all ages. The other is a blend of pop psychology and trendy clichés focusing exclusively on increasing the listener’s own prosperity and self-fulfillment. Yahshua is missing from this message; the real focus is on self. People are urged to look within; to try to understand themselves; to come to grips with their problems, their hurts, their disap-pointments; to have their needs met, their desires granted, their wants fulfilled.
If they could be transported back 2,000 years to stand on the seashore and listen to the Messiah Yahshua teach, most churchgoers today would be too uncomfortable to linger long. His style and messsage are out of vogue, so how could they possibly have any truth?
But the real reason for rejection is more serious: Yahshua’s teachings of repentance, obedience, sacrificing self, and permanent change in personal behavior is offensive to a culture obsessed with self-fulfillment, self-achievement, and self-worship free of all restraints. And so He and His Word have gone AWOL from today’s pulpits.
The powers that be in churchianity are so completely focused on whatever works to bring in more members and money that they fear any Bible-based message that might work counter to this goal. Like making a stand for truth and risk losing friends and family.
Fearing what they themselves might discover, most worshipers today are unwilling to take their Bible out of their dresser drawer and see what it actually says. If they did they would quickly realize that what millions take for granted as right religious instruction is totally foreign to the teachings of the Scriptures.
Missing Foundation, Twisted Truth
How many have stopped to consider that the Savior was not a Christian but a Hebrew, a Jew? He based His teachings on truths from the Old Testament – the only Scriptures in existence at the time He walked this earth.
Christianity sprang from Israelite worship. That means its roots are deeply established in the Old Testament. This simple fact is a thinly veiled secret in today’s
denominations that have sought for centuries to separate themselves from anything “Jewish” or “Old Testament.”
But facts are facts and the proof is convicting. Consider this: because modern worship actually sprang from Old Testament worship, churches still have “altars” as did ancient Israel. It is the reason churches continue to take up “offerings,” just as Israel took their offerings each day to the tabernacle or temple. Because it grew out of Judaism, Christianity still gives lip service, at least, to keeping one day of the week “holy,” just as Judah and Israel kept holy the seventh-day Sabbath as the Word commands.
The weekly communion service is a carryover from Israel’s Passover, with its body and blood symbols. The word “Easter” in the KJV of Acts 12:4 mistranslates the Greek Pascha and the Old Testament Hebrew Pesach or Passover.
Worship areas of churches are known as “sanctuaries,” a throwback to the holy place in the Tabernacle and Temple. Music in the modern church service sprang from the Old Testament practice of singing Psalms, most of which King David wrote and set to music.
Church terms like “father,” “elder,” “priest,” and “shepherd” trace directly to the Old Testament. Similarly, “amen,” “halleluyah,” “Sabbath,” and other designations used in the modern worship service come untranslated right from the Hebrew. Many other terms used from time to time in churches today are pure Hebrew, too, like: abba, Satan, mammon, maranatha, raca, cummin, shekel, jubilee, corban, and hosanna.
Wrongly Dividing the Word
Despite these and other similarities with Old Testament practice and teaching, to advocate seriously using the Old Testament as the basis of Biblical truth would get you quickly ushered out the door of most churches today.
Through centuries of conditioning, the average Bible believer has been led to the false notion that the Old Testament and its system of worship, laws, and principles for living are dead. Its books are considered irrelevant. This is the same conditioning that would make today’s churchgoer uncomfortable gathering at a seashore for a worship service. It is just not what most are accustomed to.
It has been drilled into most churchgoers that the Old Testament’s 39 books have no significance today. Never mind that the Apostles and the Savior Himself quoted from, taught from, referred to, and based their teachings on Old Testament Scriptures. Never mind that the Old Testament continues to be published alongside the New in every Bible version coming off the modern press. Could it be that Yahweh has preserved His entire Word for a very important reason?
Suppose you were given a two-part novel to read. How much of it would you understand if you were told to skip Part One and go directly to Part Two?
Without solid grounding in the knowledge that the New Testament has Hebraic roots, that Christianity grew out of Judaism (nearly every one of the early converts was a Jew), and that the promises were given only to Israel (others are grafted in, Rom. 9 and 11), you would be open to manifold errors and even blinded to the basic Biblical message. This is the state nominal worship finds itself in. It has lost its moorings as well as its direction because it has left the fundamental teachings of the Word.
Without a firm footing in Yahweh’s law and commandments the modern church is powerless to confront today’s sin. Televangelists can talk forever about realizing your self-potential and seeking “what G-d wants for you” and – because they ignore the Word – get swept right into the cesspool along with the culture.
For today’s church to condemn society’s murder, stealing, lying, adultery, and every other rampant sin while simultaneously teaching against Biblical law is hypocrisy. If it insists on continuing to compete with worldly entertainment in its worship and continue watering down whatever might be left of a Bible-based message, the modern church will be powerless to stem the tide of runaway sin. In an effort to please listeners with pablum, it ties its own hands, Isaiah 30:10.
Paul, churchianity’s champion, is often said to teach a “law-less” New Testament as well. Paul explains the truth of the matter, however, in Acts 24:14, “But this I confess unto you, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the Elohim of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets.” “Law and prophets” means the Old Testament with its laws and teachers. Paul supports the Commandments in 1Corinthians 7:19, and even maintains that the law has dominion over a man so long as he lives, Romans 7:1.
Notice what he says in writing to the Romans about the roots of True Worship: “For I would not, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away unrighteousness from Jacob,” Romans 11:25-26.
He calls it a “mystery,” Greek musterion, which refers to a sacred secret that Yahweh intends to carry out for the purpose of His Kingdom. That secret rests on the duration of Israel’s blindness. To bring the gentiles into the promise, Yahweh sent a Deliverer from Zion – not from Athens or Rome!
Notice that Paul does not say that Yahweh has a different plan for the church , which now replaces Israel. Rather, Yahweh has opened a way up for Gentiles to come into the covenant promise established with Israel. The New Covenant today is a takeoff of that first covenant with Israel. It is not a completely new plan applying exclusively to the “church.” It is an open covenant where others can join in salvation with His chosen. They must, however, still meet the conditions and standards of obedience just as in the first covenant.
Hebrews 8:7-13 clearly explains the main difference between the New as opposed to the Old Covenant, which in essence is putting His laws in our hearts and minds. Hebrews chapters 9 and 10 show that a change in priesthood and ritual means that the New Covenant is based on Yahshua as High Priest. His shed blood pays the penalty for sin, Hebrews 10:10. Animal blood under the Old Covenant served only to remind Israel of their sins, not remove those sins, Hebrews 10:3-4.
Being totally ignorant of this fundamental truth of sin in the covenants, people have the notion that all churchgoers are headed for a reward in heaven regardless of what they believe or how they behave. In contradiction, Paul said all are damned who don’t believe the Truth, but enjoy unrigh-teousness (sin), 2Thessalonians 2:12.
The fact is, the Kingdom is promised only to those who are of Israel or become a part thereof through partaking in the one promise offered to all in the New Covenant through faith and obedience. That is the substance of Paul’s message. The wild olive is grafted in, not replanted and grown in a separate plot, Romans 11:17, 24.
Do not be deceived into going down the broad way that leads to death. The way of Truth means adhering to the “faith once delivered,” Jude 3. Return to the roots!
One of the major barriers to understanding the correct teaching of Yahweh’s Word is the simple fact that the Western world looks at the Scriptures through Western eyes. In truth, the Bible is about Middle Eastern people and their Hebrew-centered beliefs in the Mighty One named Yahweh.
Because of doctrinal derailment by the Adversary, most churchgoers today don’t recognize the truth when it hits them squarely between the eyes. They have swallowed hook, line, and sinker so many falsehoods for so long that when the truth is presented to them it seems strange and unbelievable.
It started when the Roman church found Biblical truths rooted in a Hebrew faith distasteful. Anti-Semitism was strong. That the Roman church had a “Jewish” Messiah at its center was an inescapable fact that the church fathers avoided like a dark secret.
To distance itself from its Hebraic roots, the early church created a new “sabbath” day and called it Sunday – the L-rd’s Day – with the justification that the Savior rose on Sunday. To reinforce this doctrine the church revamped another observance, the Hebraic Passover, into a Latinized-Grecianized Easter observance. Other Biblical holy days were replaced by pagan celebrations that came to be called “holidays.” And New Testament writings, mostly by a Hebrew named Shau’l (a name altered to the Grecianized “Paul”) were twisted to support a whole array of unscriptural doctrines and Greek philosophy of men like Plato.
Torn from their Israelite roots and joined to a European culture, the Apostles are made to look as if they wrote their epistles on the steps of Roman basilicas. The question becomes, is the Bible a Hebrew book, a Greek book, a Latin book or a hopeless mixture? And how is the Truth reflected?
Hebrew is the language of the oldest Old Testament manu-scripts. Greek is the preeminent language of the New Testament (though not the original New Testament lan-guage). Therefore, in the minds of many the Bible is a book with a first section reflecting Hebraic faith and a new section reflecting a Grecian set of beliefs and practices.
This has been the major belief for centuries, even though the New Testament was written by Hebrews about Hebrew people who spoke Hebrew and lived in an Israelite society. That the oldest New Testament manuscrips in existence are in Greek does not mean they were composed in Greek. Keep in mind that the oldest available manuscripts of the Old Testament were in Greek also, until even older Dead Sea Scrolls were found with their Old Testament text in Hebrew.
Implied in today’s majority teachings is that the New Testament included progressive Jews who were in the process of switching from their Israelite faith to Greek thinking and beliefs. In this supposed reform process they were giving up the Sabbath for Sunday, Passover for Easter, other Feasts for Xmas, and obedience to the law for grace and faith alone.
But this presents a huge problem. We find that the Sabbath is still in effect in the New Testament, along with the Feasts and the law. We find Shau’l himself teaching that the law is not made void but is established, Romans 3:31. Even if it is argued that the Feasts and law were on their way out, why do we find them in the prophecies of the coming millennial Kingdom still being followed and enforced? Read Isaiah 66, Ezekiel 45, Micah 4:2; Zechariah 14.
Yahweh made a covenant with Israel and Israel only. Other peoples and nations may join in that agreement called the New Covenant through a grafting in process. To do that they obey the same laws given to Israel and accept the other terms of the covenant. May YOU join with those who today are seeking Him through a pure and obedient heart.
For nearly 2,000 years the intrinsic nature of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit has been in dispute. To remedy this problem the Roman Church convened councils and passed several creeds, which continue to influence modern worship today. But do these creeds reflect the truth of Scripture? To answer this crucial question, this booklet will explore the historical and biblical accuracy of these doctrines, including the Trinity, oneness belief, and the preexistence of Yahshua the Messiah.
An Early Paradigm Shift
The main inducement for interpreting the essence of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in a triune deity came through Greek and Roman cults. The early church constituted Jews and proselytes to the Jewish faith. With the introduction of gentile converts came a shift in thought and theology. Unlike the Jews, who viewed the worship of Yahweh in a monotheistic manner, the gentiles were polytheistic, worshiping many false gods.
Besides the monotheism versus polytheism issue, there was another key distinction between Jew and gentile. While the Jews emphasized their relationship with Yahweh, the Greeks were more concerned with His essence. This difference in emphasis along with the burgeoning numbers of gentile converts led to understanding Yahweh from a Greco-Roman perspective.
According to authors Alan Johnson and Robert E. Webber, “The view of God in the ancient church passed through the Greco-Roman grid. Consequently the emphasis in this early period of the church is not so much on the relationship of God to the world as on God as he is in himself” (What Christians Believe, A Biblical and Historical Summary, p. 82).
The authors go on to state, “The issue the church faced in the pagan Hellenistic culture was to affirm both the unity and the diversity of God in the midst of a polytheistic culture. On the one hand, the church needed to remain faithful to the Old Testament emphasis on the oneness of God. On the other hand, it could not ignore the New Testament revelation of diversity. So the questions were: How do you maintain the unity of God without losing the diversity? How do you maintain the diversity of God without falling into polytheism? While the church was eventually to affirm both the unity and the diversity of God in the creeds, various groups in the second and third century overemphasized either the unity or the diversity” (p. 83).
The authors explain here the overwhelming task that the Church had in the first few centuries. As gentile-minded believers were coming in they had to please both them and the Jewish converts who established the early assembly in the New Testament. Many Jews were arguing that a convert to Messiah had to become a Jew first through physical circumcision, which is the controversy inActs 15.
So what was the church to do? Should they continue to maintain the monotheistic beliefs of the Jews or change their theology to more closely align with the many new gentile converts? At the root of this question was the essence of the Father and Son. Were they one and the same, were they distinct beings, were they co-equal, were they co-eternal, was one subservient to the other?
To answer these critical questions, the church went through several stages of meetings (counsels) and developed several creeds until they solidified the position of the church. The major advocates of each side were Arius (250 CE – 336 CE) and the bishop Athanasius (296-336). While there were other arguments and contributors, the positions that the men proposed became the two competing views of the church.
Arius’ Hebraic View
Arius was a prominent priest in Alexandria, Egypt. He chose an ascetic life, rejecting the many pleasures of the world. From historical accounts, Arius was a man of devotion and sincere motives. He received his religious training at Antioch, the first location of the early assembly. Unlike Alexandria, which was dominated by the Greek mind, Antioch maintained a Hebraic view, including a strict monotheistic interpretation of Scripture. He was taught under Lucian of Antioch, a well-known teacher and martyr of the early church; some blamed Lucian for Arius’ opposition to the Trinity.
Arius held that the Father and Son were distinct from one another and that the Father was superior to the Son. He also maintained that the Son pre-existed with the Father and rejected the belief that the Son was co-eternal with the Father. He maintained that the Messiah was created by His Father Yahweh. For these beliefs he was branded a heretic and suffered persecution.
Author Wayne Gruden concurs, “Arius taught that god the Son was at one point created by God the Father, and that before that time the Son did not exist, nor did the Holy Spirit, but the Father only. Thus, though the Son is a heavenly being who existed before the rest of creation and who is far greater than all the rest of creation, he is still not equal to the Father in all his attributes—he may even be said to be ‘like the Father’ or ‘similar to the Father’ in his nature, but he cannot be said to be ‘of the same nature’ as the Father” (Systematic Theology, p. 243).
Athanasius for the Opposition
While historical records are sketchy, records show that Athanasius was born in Alexandria and was mentored under Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria. From an early age he showed promise in the church. As a result, he was ordained a deacon in the Roman Church before age 30.
Because of these early achievements, Athanasius was instrumental at influencing the most important council in the history of the church. “Although many early church leaders contributed to the gradual formulation of a correct doctrine of the Trinity, the most influential by far was Athanasius. He was only twenty-nine years old when he came to the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325, not as an official member but as secretary to Alexander, the Bishop of Alexandria. Yet his keen mind and writing ability allowed him to have an important influence on the outcome of the Council, and he himself became Bishop of Alexandria in 328” (Ibid, p. 245).
Athanasius understood the relationship between the Father and Son much differently from his opponent, Arius. He believed that the Father and Son were co-equal and of the same substance. According to author Earl E. Cairns he “insisted that Christ had existed from all eternity with the Father and was of the same essence (homoousios) as the Father, although He was a distinct personality. He insisted upon these things because he believed that, if Christ were less than He had stated Him to be, He could not be the Saviour of men. The question of man’s eternal salvation was involved in the relationship of the Father and the son according to Athanasius. He held that Christ was coequal, coeternal and consubstantial with the Father…” (Christianity Through the Centuries, pp. 142-143).
Political Unity the Overriding Concern
Because of the competing beliefs of Arius and Athanasius, many were concerned about not only the stability of the church but of the empire, including Emperor Constantine. Authors Anthony F. Buzzard and Charles F. Hunting in their book, The Doctrine of the Unity, describe this deep fear: “The marked ideological differences between Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch were matters of concern to the Roman Emperor. The power of religion played so great a role in the stability of the fourth-century Roman Empire that religious turmoil had to be brought under control by the State, lest it disrupt political unity.
“Constantine determined to resolve the dispute by means of the following identical, conciliatory letters sent to each faction, urging reconciliation of differences: ‘Constantine the Victor, Supreme Augustus, to Alexander and Arius…How deep a wound has not only my ears but my heart received from the report that divisions exist among yourselves…Having inquired carefully into the origin and foundation of these differences, I find their cause to be of a truly insignificant nature, quite unworthy of such bitter contention’” (pp. 149-150).
Emperor Constantine simply wanted political unity in his empire and he failed to grasp the magnitude of what was being discussed. This is consistent with his heathen background, wherein both pagan Greek and Roman cults’ theological differences were inconsequential. The overriding concern was only that the many gods in Greece and Rome got their due obeisance. Doctrine was not critical.
The theological impact of the two views being espoused was enormous, with Athanasius firmly holding to the view that the Father and Son were of the same substance, co-eternal and co-equal, while Arius contended that the Father and Son were distinct with the Son being neither co-eternal nor co-equal with His Father. According to historians, their differences led to numerous bloody conflicts. “Before the orthodox doctrine of the relationship of the two natures was finally formulated, many scenes of passion and violence occurred” (Christianity Through the Centuries, p. 146).
According to Arthur Cushman McGiffert, “In the hope of securing for his throne the support of the growing body of Christians he had shown them considerable favor and it was to his interest to have the church vigorous and united. The Arian controversy was threatening its unity and menacing its strength. He therefore undertook to put an end to the trouble. It was suggested to him, perhaps by the Spanish bishop Hosius, who was influential at court, that if a synod were to meet representing the whole church both east and west, it might be possible to restore harmony. ‘Constantine himself of course neither knew nor cared anything about the matter in dispute but he was eager to bring the controversy to a close, and Hosius’ advice appealed to him as sound’” (A History of Christian Thought, vol. 1, p. 258).
It’s ironic that the motivation for finding a resolution on this central issue was not scriptural but political. To accomplish this, the church convened a council, which would become the method of resolving disputes in the church. In most cases, the emperor would preside over the councils. In the case of the Council of Nicea, Emperor Constantine chaired the proceedings.
Hot Debate at the Council of Nicea
From June 19 through August 25, 325 CE, leaders of the Church met at the council of Nicea. Constantine invited 1,800 bishops, but only a fraction attended. In addition to discussing the canonization of the New Testament and the date for Easter, the council was there to finally resolve the debate between Arius and Athanasius.
According to author Earl E. Cairns, “Three hundred and eighteen leaders were present, but less than ten were from the Western section of the Empire…Arius, who was backed by Eusebius of Nicomedia (to be distinguished from Eusebius of Caesarea) and a minority of those present, insisted that Christ had not existed from all eternity but had a beginning by the creative act of God prior to time. He believed that Christ was of a different (heteros) essence or substance than the Father. Because of the virtue of His life and His obedience to God’s will, Christ was to be considered divine. But Arius believed that Christ was a being, created out of nothing, subordinate to the Father and of a different essence from the Father. He was not coequal, coeternal or consubstantial with the Father. To Arius He was divine but not deity.
“Athanasius became the chief exponent of what became the orthodox view. His wealthy parents had provided for his theological education in the famous catechetical school of Alexandria. His work De Incarnatione presented his idea of the doctrine of Christ. At the council this young man, slightly over thirty, insisted that Christ had existed from all eternity with the Father and was of the same essence (homoousios) as the Father, although He was a distinct personality. He insisted upon these things because he believed that, if Christ were less than He had stated Him to be, He could not be the Saviour of men. The question of man’s eternal salvation was involved in the relationship of the Father and the son according to Athanasius. He held that Christ was coequal, coeternal and consubstantial with the Father, and for these views he suffered exile five times before his death” (Christianity Through the Centuries, pp. 142-143).
After much debate, Athanasius won the day. While this was a major setback for those who embraced the original Jewish tenants as taught by the Messiah and His Apostles, this was a notable win for the Greek minded gentiles that influenced the church. Authors Anthony F. Buzzard and Charles F. Hunting state, “The Greek philosophically-minded Alexandrian theologians, led by Athanasius, won the day. Those more under the earlier influence of Jewish monotheism were defeated. Dissenters who refused to sign the agreement were immediately banished. The Church was now taken over and dictated to by theologians strongly influenced by the Greek mind… ‘When the Greek mind and the Roman mind, instead of the Hebrew mind, came to dominate the Church, there occurred a disaster from which the Church has never recovered, either in doctrine or practice’” (The Doctrine of the Trinity, pp. 151-152).
To ensure uniformity in the Church, the council drafted its first creed, which was called the Nicene Creed. It read, “We believe in one God the Father all-sovereign, maker of all things. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only-begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through whom all things were made, things in heaven and things on the earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, and became man, suffered, and rose on the third day, ascended into the heavens, and is coming to judge living and dead. And in the Holy Spirit. And those that say ‘There was when he was not,’ and, ‘Before he was begotten he was not,’ and that, ‘He came into being from what-is-not,’ or those that allege, that the son of God is ‘Of another substance or essence’ or ‘created,’ or ‘changeable’ or ‘alterable,’ these the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes.”
While the first Nicene Creed set out to express the official position of the Church regarding the persons of the Father and Son, it did little to address the Holy Spirit. Consequently, while this council gave a final dogmatic ruling on the Father and Son, it did not fully substantiate the Trinity doctrine. It would take almost fifty more years to solidify the Trinity doctrine into church teaching.
How Constant Was Constantine?
With Emperor Constantine presiding over and greatly influencing the results at the Council of Nicea, it must be asked, was this emperor ever converted? Even though many in Christendom desire to show him as a champion of the Church, the reality is he was nothing more than a crafty politician and a pagan sun worshiper, as was his father before him.
“Constantine appears to have been a sun-worshiper, one of a number of late pagan cults which had observances in common with Christians. Worship of such gods was not a novel idea. Every Greek or Roman expected that political success followed from religious piety. Christianity was the religion of Constantine’s father. Although Constantine claimed that he was the thirteenth Apostle, his was no sudden Damascus conversion. Indeed it is highly doubtful that he ever truly abandoned sun-worship. After his professed acceptance of Christianity, he built a triumphal arch to the sun god and in Constantinople set up a statue of the same sun god bearing his own features. He was finally deified after his death by official edict in the Empire, as were many Roman rulers” (Ibid, p. 147).
Author Norbert Brox endorses this position. “Constantine did not experience any conversion; there are no signs of a change of faith in him. He never said of himself that he had turned to another god. . . at the time when he turned to Christianity, for him this was Sol Invictus (the victorious sun god)” (A Concise History of the Early Church, p. 48).
Another historian writes of Constantine, “He did not make Christianity the sole religion of the state. That was to follow under later Emperors. He continued to support both paganism and Christianity. In 314, when the cross first appeared on his coins, it was accompanied by the figures of Sol Invictus and Mars Conservator. To the end of his days he bore the title of pontifex maximus as chief priest of the pagan state cult. The subservient Roman Senate followed the long-established custom and classed him among the gods” (A History of Christianity, Kenneth Scott Latourette, p. 92).
Despite his penchant for sun worship, the church in its attempt to recognize the legitimacy of Constantine’s involvement at the Council at Nicea deified him as a saint. Such recognition is hardly justifiable on any level. For this reason all those who bow their knee to Athanasius and to the Nicene Creed justify this pagan emperor who changed the church forever!
If not for Constantine’s involvement, it’s possible that the Church would have preserved its monotheistic heritage. “The bulk of Christians, had they been let alone, would have been satisfied with the old belief in one God, the Father, and would have distrusted the ‘dispensation,’ as it has been called, by which the sole Deity of the Father expanded into the Deity of the Father and the Son… ‘All simple people,’ Tertullian wrote, ‘not to call them ignorant and uneducated…take fright at the “dispensation”…They will have it that we are proclaiming two or three gods’” (The Doctrine of the Unity, Anthony F. Buzzard and Charles F. Hunting, p. 145).
Council at Constantinople Solidifies the Trinity
After the first council at Nicea and the persistent strife that followed, Emperor Constantine began to regret convening the council. According to historians, little changed after this council. Church leaders continued teaching their preferred position, whether it was Arius (also known as Arianism) or the doctrine solidified by Athanasius at Nicea. “For two centuries after Constantine, slaughter followed slaughter as professing Christian vied with Christian in a bloody struggle in defense of what became a hardened religious orthodoxy. It was required that one accept belief in the Godhead of two persons (later expanded to a Deity of three persons) or face banishment, exile, torture and death…” (Ibid, p. 153).
In an attempt to finally resolve the division in the church, in 381 CE Emperor Theodosius I, also known as Theodosius the Great, who ruled from 379 CE to 395 CE, called a second ecumenical council. A total of 150 bishops attended. It was held at Constantinople, which is Istanbul, Turkey, today. Gregory of Nazianzus chaired the council, an educated philosopher who infused Hellenistic beliefs into the church. Being an advocate of the Trinity, including the divinity of the Holy Spirit, he urged his fellow bishops to accept his view. However, during the council, Gregory of Nazianzus became ill and resigned his chair. In his place, a man named Nectarous was appointed. Oddly, Nectarous was not even baptized and was now in a position to help determine the theological fate of Christianity. This was the second time a layman presided over a prominent council.
The council ultimately confirmed the Holy Spirit as a third equal “person” in the Trinity. As a result, the original Nicene Creed, now known as the Nicene -Constantinopolitan Creed, was updated to read,
“We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven. By the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended in heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.”
This final step by Theodosius the Great not only produced an updated creed, but also established the doctrine of the Trinity that we know today.
Scholars: Zero Evidence in New Testament for the Trinity
Being that it took 350 years after the Messiah to solidify the Trinity, the simple question is, why so long? If the Trinity is found and supported in the Bible, why did it require many centuries and numerous church schisms, arguments, debates, and even violence to legitimize and propagate this doctrine? Why wasn’t it authenticated from the very beginning, in the book of Acts, avoiding endless questions and wrangling over it? Where is the New Testament teaching of a triune being?
The fact is the word “Trinity” is not found anywhere in the Bible. Even the concept is missing. Clearly it was contrived in the imaginations of man. An exhaustive review of Scripture and history reveals the simple fact that the Trinity teaching was unknown to the early New Testament assembly, as supported by numerous authorities:
• “Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the New Testament. Likewise, the developed concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the canon” (Oxford Companion to the Bible, 1993, p. 782).
• “The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. Neither the word ‘trinity’ itself nor such language as ‘one-in-three,’ ‘three-in-one,’ one ‘essence’ (or ‘substance’), and three ‘persons,’ is biblical language. The language of the doctrine is the language of the ancient church taken from classical Greek philosophy” (Christian Doctrine, Shirley Guthrie, Jr., 1994, pp. 76-77). It’s important to observe here that the author attributes the notion of the Trinity not to Scripture, but to influence from Greek philosophy.
• “This is not itself a Biblical term, but was a term coined by Tertullian to refer to this whole concept under one word” (Classic Bible Dictionary, Jay P. Green, p. 483). Tertullian was a Christian author and apologist who lived from 160 CE to 225 CE. Before Tertullian the word trinity did not exist in Christian writing.
• “Many doctrines are accepted by evangelicals as being clearly taught in the Scripture for which there are no proof texts. The doctrine of the Trinity furnishes the best example of this. It is fair to say that the Bible does not clearly teach the doctrine of the Trinity” (Basic Theology, Professor Charles Ryrie, 1999, p. 89).
• “It is indeed true that the name ‘Trinity’ is nowhere to be found in the Holy Scriptures, but has been conceived and invented by man” (The Sermons of Martin Luther, John Lenker, Vol. 3, 1988, p. 406). Even though Martin Luther was an avid supporter of the Trinity, he correctly recognized that the doctrine was derived from man and not from the Bible.
• “The term ‘Trinity’ is not a biblical term…In point of fact, the doctrine of the Trinity is a purely revealed doctrine…As the doctrine of the Trinity is indiscoverable by reason, so it is incapable of proof from reason” (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia , vol. 5, p. 3012, “Trinity”).
• “It is admitted by all who thoughtfully deal with this subject that the Scripture revelation here leads us into the presence of a deep mystery; and that all human attempts at expression are of necessity imperfect” (New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, 1988, p. 1308, “Trinity”). Should we rest our entire faith on a belief that is a “deep mystery?”
• “Respecting the manner in which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit make one God, the Scripture teaches nothing, since the subject is of such a nature as not to admit of its being explained to us” (Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, p. 553, “Trinity”).
• “Precisely what that doctrine is, or rather precisely how it is to be explained, Trinitarians are not agreed among themselves” (A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge, 1885, “Trinitarians”). Disagreements abounded through the centuries even among those who advocate this doctrine. Should not a belief so critical and indispensable be not only plainly and clearly taught in the Scriptures, but at least be understood and agreed upon by its very proponents?
• “The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the NT” (The Harper Collins Bible Dictionary, 1996, “Trinity”).
• “The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies… The council of Nicea in 325 stated the crucial formula for that doctrine in its confession that the ‘Son is of the same substance…as the Father,’ even though it said very little about the Holy Spirit…By the end of the 4th century…the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since” (Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Trinity”).
• “…primitive Christianity did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds of the early church” (New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 2, 1976, p. 84, “God”).
• “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century… Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14).
Both secular historians and Bible scholars readily admit that the doctrine of the Trinity was not official church teaching until the council of Nicea. This is startling! Neither the Apostles nor the early apostolic fathers had a concept of a triune relationship among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is freely admitted that the doctrine was not established until 400 years after the Savior’s resurrection. If the doctrine of the Trinity is not biblical, how did it originate?
Legions of Pagan Trinities
Author Marie Sinclair writes, “It is generally, although erroneously, supposed that the doctrine of the Trinity is of Christian origin. Nearly every nation of antiquity possessed a similar doctrine” (Old Truths in a New Light, 1876, p. 382). The belief in a triune deity is also very ancient, and can be traced back to ancient Babylon. “Will anyone after this say that the Roman Catholic Church must still be called Christian, because it holds the doctrine of the Trinity? So did the pagan Babylonians, so did the Egyptians, so do the Hindoos at this hour, in the very sense in which Rome does” (The Two Babylons, by Alexander Hislop).
Hislop’s statements are supported in the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, “Although the notion of a divine triad or Trinity is characteristic of the Christian religion, it is by no means peculiar to it. In Indian religion we meet with the trinitarian group of Brahma, Siva, and Vishnu; and in Egyptian religion with the trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus, constituting a divine family, like the Father, Mother and Son in mediaeval Christian pictures” (Trinity, p. 458). According to the Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology, Sumer, an ancient civilization first settled around 4500 BCE to 4000 BCE in southern Mesopotamia (modern Iraq), contained a similar belief, “The universe was divided into three regions each of which become the domain of a god. Anu’s share was the sky. The earth was given to Enlil. Ea became the ruler of the waters. Together they constituted the triad of the Great Gods” (1994, pg. 54-55).
Perhaps even more important is the influence of Greek philosophy. According to Aristotle, “All things are three, and thrice is all: and let us use this number in the worship of our gods; for, as the Pythagoreans say, everything and all things are bounded by threes, for the end, the middle and the beginning have this number in everything, and they compose the number of the Trinity” (Author Weigall,Paganism in Our Christianity, p. 197-198).
A question few ever stop to ask is, why is the Trinity a belief held firmly by most of Christendom, being completely lacking in the Bible’s teachings? The historian Will Durant offers this revealing explanation, “Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it…The Greek language, having reigned for centuries over philosophy, became the vehicle of Christian literature and ritual; The Greek mysteries passed down into the impressive mystery of the Mass. Other pagan cultures contributed to the syncretist result. From Egypt came the ideas of a divine Trinity” (The Story of Civilization, vol. III).
This blending with paganism, which was commonplace in the early church, changed Christianity forever. Like the development of the Trinity, many practices and beliefs today developed over time without biblical support.
A Son Unequal to His Father
What does the Bible actually say about the relationship between the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit? Does any evidence for the Trinity exist in the New Testament? The answer is a resolute no. The first problem with the Trinity doctrine is that the New Testament says expressly that the Father is greater than the Son. Yahshua called Yahweh His “Father” for the simple reason that Yahweh was superior to and preceded the Son in existence—as do all fathers.
The doctrine of the Trinity says that the Son is both co-equal to and co-eternal with the Father, while the Scriptures maintain the opposite.
Yahshua the Messiah Himself affirmed that he was not co-equal with the Father, but was in submission and subjection to the Father. “You have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If you loved me, you would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). One cannot be equal with another if the other is greater.
Yahshua again confirms his submission to his Father in John 10:29, “My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.” Since Yahshua is speaking, He included Himself here. In His own words Yahshua confirms that the Father is superior to everyone, including the Son Himself. As we note in the Restoration Study Bible, “…This precludes the possibility of a duality or trinity of Father and Son.”
The Apostle Paul also confirms Yahshua’s subordinate relationship to the Father. “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Messiah; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Messiah is Yahweh” (1Cor. 11:3). As Yahweh appointed the man over the woman at creation, Paul states in like manner that the Father is over His Son.
In another of Yahshua’s statements we find that the Father is superior in knowledge to the Son, “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father” (Mark 13:32). If the Father and Son were equal, why is it that the Son is not privy to the timing of His own coming? If they are indeed co-equal, something is amiss here.
In Matthew 20:23 Yahshua is confronted by the mother of Zebedee’s children about future positions for her sons. In response to her inquiry, Yahshua clearly shows that the Father is superior, “And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.”
The Father alone prepares Kingdom rewards. This is not something that the Son can provide. He again defaults to His Father. If they were equal and of the same being, why is this honor not bestowed also upon the Son?
In several instances the Messiah stated that he could do nothing outside of His Father. In response to the Jews’ hatred for doing His Father’s will, He stated, “…Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise” (John 5:19). If the Father and Son shared equal authority, why then was He limited by what He saw the Father do? Clearly, the concept of the Father and Son being co-equal is scripturally unfounded.
The Son Is Not Co-eternal with the Father
These passages pose serious problems — but not the only ones — with the Trinity. The definition of the Trinity states that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-eternal. This assertion is another misunderstanding, arising from the Council of Nicea.
John of Patmos wrote the Book of Revelation under the direction of Yahshua the Messiah. He confirmed that Yahshua was the first of Yahweh’s creation. “And unto the angel of the assembly of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of Elohim” (Rev. 3:14).
The Greek for the word “beginning” here is arche and means, “a commencement, or (concretely) chief (in various applications of order, time, place, or rank),” Strong’s. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words further defines this word: “…NT:746 means ‘a beginning.’ The root arch primarily indicated what was of worth. Hence the verb archo meant ‘to be first,’ and archon denoted ‘a ruler.’” While some will argue for the latter definition, the primary and most reasonable definition conveys that Yahshua was the first in the commencement of His Father’s creation. If Yahshua was created by His Father how then can He be co-eternal with His Father? Knowing that one existed prior to the other, reason alone would conclude that a co-eternal relationship between the Son and Father is illogical.
To further confirm Yahshua’s statement in Revelation, in Proverbs 8 we find Solomon confirming Yahshua’s cre-ation, “Yahweh possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth” (vv. 22-25).
The preceding verses speak of wisdom. Yahshua the Messiah is the personification of wisdom. Solomon here was not referring to simply an attribute, but to the creation of Yahweh’s Son. The word “possessed” comes from the Hebrew qanah and is a primitive root. Strong’s defines this word as, “to erect, i.e. create; by extension, to procure, especially by purchase (causatively, sell); by implication to own.” Even though qanah most often refers to procurement in context of Scripture, the primary meaning in Strong’s is “to erect, i.e. to create.”
In addition to the aforementioned passages, the Bible clearly states that only Yahweh, the Heavenly Father, has immortality and is the only one who ever possessed innate immortality. “Who only has immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man has seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and power everlasting” (1Tim. 6:16). This statement can only apply to Yahweh, the Father. How can a Son be co-eternal with His Father if only His Father contains immortality? This is further proof that a co-eternal relationship between the Son and Father cannot be scripturally established.
The Power of Yahweh
The Nicene – Constantinopolitan Creed defined the Holy Spirit as, “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified…” There are several contradictions between this creed and the Bible regarding the Holy Spirit. However, before examining these inconsistencies, let’s first seek to understand the terms.
The term “Holy Spirit” is from the Hebrew ruach qodesh. The word spirit is derived from the Hebrew ruach, occurring 389 times in the Old Testament. That includes 232 as “spirit,” 92 times as “wind,” and 27 times as “breath” in the King James Version.
Note the definition of the word ruach: “The basic meaning of ruach is both ‘wind’ or ‘breath,’ but neither is understood as essence; rather it is the power encountered in the breath and the wind, whose whence and whither remains mysterious…2. ruach as a designation for the wind is necessarily something found in motion with the power to set other things in motion…The divine designation also apparently has an intensifying function in a few passages: ruach elohim (Gen 1:2) and ruach yhwh (Isa 59:19)” (Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, “Ruach”).
This lexicon states that ruach implies a power that is within the breath and wind, which is connected to the Name YHWH or Yahweh. The Holy Spirit is the power emanating from our Father Yahweh. It is Yahweh’s power that puts all things into motion. It is His power that brings life into creation. In Genesis 1:2 the Spirit of Elohim “moved” upon the face of the waters. The word is rachaph in the Hebrew and means, “to brood (flutter, move, shake).” Yahweh’s power (not an individual) energized the planet, after which the earthly creation began in earnest.
The Greek word for Spirit is pneuma, which shares a mirror definition with the word ruach. “Pneuma; to breathe, blow, primarily denotes the wind. Breath; the spirit which, like the wind, is invisible, immaterial, and powerful” (The Complete Word Study New Testament, “Pneuma”).
It can be further demonstrated that the Holy Spirit is not a separate being, but an inanimate power that proceeds from the Father. InIsaiah 32:15, 44:3, and Acts 2:17 the Holy Spirit is described as being poured. How can a being be poured into another? Titus 3:5-6and Acts 2:33 testify that the Spirit is shed. How can a being shed itself onto another? The Spirit is also described as something that can be stirred up, 2Timothy 1:6; quenched, 1Thes. 5:19, and renewed, 2Cor. 4:16. These attributes are far more fitting for a power than a person.
Father and Son, but No Spirit
In addition to this, there is another key fact consistent in the New Testament. Paul never addressed the Holy Spirit in the salutation of his letters, as he did the Father and Son. Notice:
“… Grace to you and peace from Yahweh our Father, and the Master Yahshua Messiah” (Rom. 1:7).
“Grace be unto you, and peace, from Yahweh our Father, and from the Master Yahshua Messiah” (1Cor. 1:3).
“Grace be to you and peace from Yahweh our Father, and from the Master Yahshua Messiah” (2Cor. 1:2).
“Grace be to you and peace from Yahweh the Father, and from our Master Yahshua Messiah” (Gal. 1:3).
“Grace be to you, and peace, from Yahweh our Father, and from the Master Yahshua Messiah” (Eph. 1:2).
“Grace be unto you, and peace, from Yahweh our Father, and from the Master Yahshua Messiah” (Phil. 1:2).
“…Grace be unto you, and peace, from Yahweh our Father and the Master Yahshua Messiah” (Col. 1:2).
“…Grace be unto you, and peace, from Yahweh our Father, and the Master Yahshua Messiah” (1Thess. 1:1).
“Grace unto you, and peace, from Yahweh our Father and the Master Yahshua Messiah” (2Thess. 1:2).
“…Grace, mercy, and peace, from Yahweh our Father and Yahshua Messiah our Master” (1Tim. 1:2).
“…Grace, mercy, and peace, from Yahweh the Father and Messiah Yahshua our Master” (2Tim. 1:2).
• “…Grace, mercy, and peace, from Yahweh the Father and the Master Yahshua Messiah our Saviour” (Tit. 1:4).
In these twelve passages not once does Paul mention the Holy Spirit; however, he consistently mentions both the Father and Son. Is it possible that Paul, one of the greatest apostles in the New Testament, simply forgot about one-third of a heavenly triunity? Of course not, Paul recognized that it was not proper to include the Spirit, since it represents Yahweh’s power and not a sentient being.
Paul is not alone in his omission of the Holy Spirit. There are two key passages that mention the Father and Son with no reference to the Holy Spirit. The first is Acts 7:55-56, “But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of Elohim, and Yahshua standing on the right hand of Yahweh, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of Yahweh.”
As Stephen was being stoned for his open rebuke of the Jewish leaders, he saw a vision of the Father and Son. While Scripture states that he was “full of the Holy Spirit,” the fact is the Spirit was missing from his supernatural vision. He saw only the Father and Son. If the Trinity is biblical, why does Stephen see only two heavenly Hosts in this profound vision? There is no better opportunity to reveal it than in a sacred visualization of the heavenly majesty, especially at such key times like these.
In our second example, we find again the Father and Son present, but the Spirit absent. “After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our Elohim which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb” (Rev. 7:9-10).
If the Trinity were legitimate and understood by the writers of the New Testament, why is the Holy Spirit missing in this passage and in so many others where it should be found? It’s quite simple –no heavenly triumvirate exists in either old or new testament.
Alvan Lamson, author of The Church of the First Three Centuries, offers a summation as to the legitimacy of the Holy Spirit in composing part of a Trinity. “…we must look, not to Jewish Scriptures, nor to the teachings of [Yahshua] and his apostles, but to Philo and the Alexandrine Platonists. In consistency with this view, we maintain that the doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation; that it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; that it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the Platonizing Fathers…”
Why the Pronoun ‘He’?
In the New Testament the Holy Spirit is often referenced with the personal pronoun “he,” “him,” or “himself.” Many will point to this as proof for the Trinity. For example, in John 14:16-17 Yahshua stated, “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.”
The “whom” here refers to the comforter, which comes from the Greek parakletos, a masculine word in Greek. Even though the Holy Spirit is described in the both the neuter and masculine throughout the New Testament, it’s likely that the translators used the Greekparakletos as an indicator for the gender of the Holy Spirit. As such, the Spirit has been incorrectly rendered by the masculine pronoun in the New Testament.
Referring to inanimate objects in the masculine and feminine is not unusual. We find it in many languages. For example, in Italian the words for “love,” “sea,” and “sun,” are masculine and the words for “art,” “faith,” and “light” are feminine. In like manner, in Arabic, which contains no neuter gender, the words for “book,” “class,” “street” are masculine while the words “car,” “university,” and “city” are feminine.
Similarly, Hebrew, a semitic language that shares many parallels with Arabic, including being without the neuter gender, has many cases where inanimate objects are rendered in the masculine or feminine. Masculine examples include the words for “word,” “day,” and “room.” Instances of the feminine include “land,” “animal,” and “spirit.” Even though the word for spirit (Heb. ruach) is feminine in the Hebrew language, Judaism views ruach as an inanimate object, i.e., wind. Likewise, parakletos is masculine in Greek, notwithstanding, its usage is neuter. Translators with preconceived ideas about the Spirit would use “he” when they had no justifiation to do so.
While many follow the pattern found in the King James Version in rendering the Holy Spirit in the masculine, a few translations correctly render it in the neuter, including the Diaglott, Rotherham, Goodspeed, and Literal Concordant. In addition to the above references, there are three instances in the KJV where it correctly refers to the Holy Spirit in the neuter. The first is found inMatthew 10:20, “For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.” Instead of “who,” the translators correctly used the form “which” in reference to the Spirit. The last two examples are both found in the eighth chapter of Romans, “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of Elohim…Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered” (vv. 16, 26).
The Meaning of Elohim
In addition to the gender gap, much confusion over the Trinity has developed from the Hebrew word elohim. According to theEnglishman’s Concordance, this term occurs 2,597 in the Hebrew text. While it is singular in usage, it can be used in the plural form, as a collective noun. Strong’s defines this term as, “…plural of OT:433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative.”The Complete Word Study Old Testament further states, “Elohim; this masc. noun is pl. in form but it has both sing. and pl. uses. In a pl. sense it refers to rulers or judges with divine connections (Ex. 21:6); pagan gods (Ex. 18:11; Ps. 88:8); and probably angels (Ps. 8:5; 97:7)…In the sing. sense it is used of a god or a goddess (1 Sam. 5:7; 2 Kgs. 18:34); a man in a position like a god (Ex. 7:1); God (Deut. 7:9; Ezra 1:3; Is. 45:18 and many other passages,” Lexical Aids, 430. The following provide additional evidence for the singular and plural usages of elohim, beginning with the singular.
Singular:
• “And Elohim said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Yahweh Elohim of your fathers, the Elohim of Abraham, the Elohim of Isaac, and the Elohim of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations” (Ex 3:15).
• “When Jethro, the priest of Midian, Moses’ father in law, heard of all that Elohim had done for Moses, and for Israel his people, and that Yahweh had brought Israel out of Egypt” (Ex. 18:1).
• “Seven days shalt thou keep a solemn feast unto Yahweh thy Elohim in the place which Yahweh shall choose: because Yahweh thy Elohim shall bless thee in all thine increase, and in all the works of thine hands, therefore thou shalt surely rejoice” (Deut. 16:15). The above examples illustrate elohim in the singular; the remainder provides examples of this word in the plural.
Plural:
• “And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their mighty ones [elohim]: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their mighty ones” (Num. 25:2).
• “Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their mighty ones [elohim], and do sacrifice unto their mighty ones [elohim], and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice” (Ex. 34:15).
• “And they forsook Yahweh Elohim of their fathers, which brought them out of the land of Egypt, and followed other mighty ones [elohim], of the mighty ones [elohim] of the people that were round about them, and bowed themselves unto them, and provoked Yahweh to anger” (Judg. 2:12).
Many assume that because elohim is usually used in the plural, that it must refer to a Trinity. This is an erroneous assumption by many who attempt to force the concept of a triad into the Hebrew elohim. Elohim does not specify a number, only a plurality. It can just as easily mean two heavenly beings.
Problematic ‘Trinitarian’ Passages
Two New Testament passages are popularly used to support the doctrine of the Trinity. One is Matthew 28:19: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (KJV).
The Jerusalem Bible questions whether the formula given for baptism here is inspired or liturgical (added later by the church). The Hebrew version of Matthew omits the verse entirely. And although the passage is found in the three earliest known Greek New Testament manuscripts, without any original New Testament manuscripts in existence we have no evidence to substantiate that the present form of Matthew 28:19 is accurate.
One reason biblical scholars question the authenticity of this passage is that it conflicts with the actual method used for baptizing in the New Testament. In all other instances baptism is done only into the singular name of Yahshua (see Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5;22:16; Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27). The Companion Bible makes special note of this: “To some, perplexity, and even distress, is caused by the apparent neglect of the disciples to carry out the [Master’s] command in Matthew 28:19, 20, with regard to the formula for baptism. …Turning to Acts and onwards, they find no single instance of, or reference to, baptism in which the Triune name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is employed. On the contrary, from the very first, only ten days after the injunction had been given, Peter is found (Acts 2:38) commanding all his hearers including those of the dispersion to be baptized in the name of [Yahshua the Messiah]” (p. 206, Appendix 185).
A second reason why biblical scholars are skeptical of Matthew 28:19 is because of conflicting historical documents. Eusebius of Caesarea is known as one of the greatest Greek teachers and historians of the early church. He lived approximately between the years of 270 CE and 340 CE. In citing Matthew, Eusebius omitted the Trinitarian formula found in Matthew 28:19. “The facts are, in summary, that Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19, 21 times, either omitting everything between ‘nations’ and ‘teaching,’ or in the form ‘make disciples of all nations in my name,’ the latter form being the more frequent” (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics).
The Jewish New Testament Commentary says, “Although nearly all ancient manuscripts have the trinitarian formula, Eusebius, the Church historian, who may have been a non-trinitarian, in his writings preceding the Council of Nicea in 325 C.E., quotes the verse without it. Most scholars believe the formula is original, but papers by Hans Kosmala (‘The Conclusion of Matthew,’ Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute, 4 (1965), (pp. 132-147) and David Flusser (‘The Conclusion of Matthew in a New Jewish Christian Source,’ ibid., 5 (1966-7), pp. 110-119) take the opposite view” (note on Matt. 28:19, p. 86).
Obviously, Eusebius did not recognize the current form of Matthew 28:19. Instead of quoting the phrase, “in the name of the Father, and the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” he most often used the phrase, “in my name,” which would agree with all other accounts of baptism in the New Testament.
The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, p. 380, further reveals that Justin Martyr, another church father, was also possibly ignorant of the present form of Matthew 28:19. “Justin Martyr quotes a saying of Christ as a proof of the necessity of regeneration, but falls back upon the use of Isaiah and apostolic tradition to justify the practice of baptism and the use of the triune formula. This certainly suggests that Justin did not know the traditional text of Matthew 28:19.”
The second passage in question is 1John 5:7. “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.” Most biblical scholars will admit that 1John 5:7 was a late addition to the New Testament. In other words, this passage is not found in the oldest Greek New Testament manuscripts.
Note the following on 1John 5:7: “During the controversy of the 4th cent. over the doctrine of the Trinity the text was expanded – first in Spain ca. 380, and then taken in the Vulg. – by the insertion: ‘There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.’ A few late Greek manuscripts contain the addition. Hence it is passed into the KJV. But all modern critical editions and translations of the NT, including RSV, omit the interpolation, as it has no warrant in the best and most ancient manuscripts or in the early church fathers” (The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, note on1John 5:4-12).
The Jerusalem Bible note on 1John 5:7-8 says, “Vulg. vv. 7-8 read as follows ‘There are three witnesses in heaven: the Father the Word and the Spirit, and these three are one; there are three witnesses on earth: the Spirit the water and the blood’. The words in italics (not in any of the early Greek MSS, or any of the early translations, or in the best MSS of the Vulg. itself) are probably a gloss that has crept into the text,” 1 John 5:7.
There should be no question regarding the faulty rendering of 1John 5:7-8. Historically, along with modern scholarship, it is freely admitted that this passage is a later addition to the original New Testament manuscripts. This passage, along with Matthew 28:19, cannot be used to establish the doctrine of the Trinity.
From both the inspired Word of Yahweh and biblical scholarship, the error of the Trinity is exposed. It is freely admitted through historical and present scholarship that the Trinity was not established during the time of the Apostles, but took an additional three hundred years to become firmly established in the church. This occurred at a time when the church was assimilating many people of pagan beliefs, most of whom held to a Trinity teaching in their heathen background.
Like so many beliefs practiced by mankind, the Trinity was developed through syncretized theology from various religions, and not from the inspired Word.
Modalism (Oneness)
In addition to the Trinity, there is another doctrine that developed during the first few centuries of the early Church. It was called “Modalism” or “Sabellianism” and emphasized that there was only one mighty one. Those who held to this belief rejected the Trinity. According to author Wayne Grudem, “Another term for modalism is ‘modalistic monarchianism,’ because this teaching not only says that God revealed himself in different ‘modes’ but it also says that there is only one supreme ruler (‘monarch’) in the universe and that is God himself, who consists of only one person,” Systematic Theology, p. 242.
The online Catholic Encyclopedia states, “The Monarchians properly so-called (Modalists) exaggerated the oneness of the Father and the Son so as to make them but one Person; thus the distinctions in the Holy Trinity are energies or modes, not Persons: God the Father appears on earth as Son; hence it seemed to their opponents that Monarchians made the Father suffer and die. In the West they were called Patripassians, whereas in the East they are usually called Sabellians. The first to visit Rome was probably Praxeas, who went on to Carthage some time before 206-208; but he was apparently not in reality a heresiarch, and the arguments refuted by Tertullian somewhat later in his book ‘Adversus Praxean’ are doubtless those of the Roman Monarchians” (newadvent.org, “Monarchians”).
A modern version of Modalism is “Oneness.” This doctrine is a cornerstone of the Pentecostal faith and other charismatic groups. It’s also believed by many in today’s messianic movement. Like Modalism, they accept only the singleness of G-d. They emphatically state that the G-d of the Bible presented himself in different “modes” at different times. In the Old Testament He was the Father; in the New Testament (prior to the giving of the Spirit) He was the Son and lastly; on the day of Pentecost appeared as the Holy Spirit. Along with the Trinity, they also reject the Messiah’s preexistence, which will be discussed at length later.
The Pentecostal Oneness movement arose in the early 1900s from a desire to follow Acts 2:38, baptism into the singular name of the Messiah. While most Oneness advocates accept Matthew 28:19, they reinterpret the passage as referring to the singular name of the Son. The movement soon broke away from its parent church, the Church of God, and formed an independent Oneness denomination. The movement then merged with the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World. Since they emphasized the singleness of “Jesus,” they were also called by the name “Jesus Only,” implying their rejection of the Father and Holy Spirit.
The two largest Oneness Pentecostal organizations today are the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World and the United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI). According to the UPCI statement of beliefs, “There is one God, who has revealed Himself as our Father, in His Son Jesus Christ, and as the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ is God manifested in flesh. He is both God and man. (SeeDeuteronomy 6:4; Ephesians 4:4-6; Colossians 2:9; 1Timothy 3:16.)”
Does Scripture show that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are simply different modes existing at separate times in history? As we have already seen in our discussion of the Trinity, the Father and Son are distinct; they are neither co-equal nor co-eternal.
Passages Cited for Oneness
We will now look at some of the common passages used by those who advocate the oneness doctrine. One of the most cited isDeuteronomy 6:4, also known as the Shema. It states, “Hear, O Israel: Yahweh our Elohim is one Yahweh.”
While there is debate as to the meaning of this passage, the word “one” can be interpreted two ways. The first is as a single being. In this case it refers to the Father. The second way is as a collective noun. The Hebrew for “one” is echad, meaning, “…united, i.e. one; or (as an ordinal) first,” Strong’s. In Genesis 2:24 this word is used to express the relationship of a husband and wife. “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” Clearly, the word echad here doesn’t refer to one being, but to one in unity. The same relationship exists between the Father and Son. They are not one being, but one in mind and goal. This is likely what the Shema conveys.
Another passage cited in support of Oneness is Deuteronomy 32:39, “See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no mighty one with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.” This passage is simply expressing the omnipotence of our Father in heaven. There is nothing in this passage indicating that the Father and Son are one.
A third and very common reference is Isaiah 9:6, “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty El, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” This is a prophecy of the Messiah when He will reign as King in the millennial Kingdom. Many who promote Oneness point to the title “everlasting Father.” As the Restoration Study Bible note reads, “This literally means, ‘Father of eternity.’ However, The Chaldee renders this passage, ‘The man abiding forever’; The Vulgate as, ‘The Father of the future age.’ The Jews understand the term ‘father’ in a variety of ways, including: as a literal father, a grandfather, a ruler, or an instructor. Since the context seems to refer to the Messiah, perhaps, this would be better rendered, ‘everlasting ruler’ or ‘instructor.’ Yahshua will both rule and instruct mankind in the Millennium and for all ages to come (Isa. 11:1-5; Mic. 4:1-2).”
No Other El
The next three claims for the Oneness teaching are related and found in Isaiah. We will therefore refer to them together:
• “O Yahweh of hosts, Elohim of Israel, that dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the Elohim, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth: thou hast made heaven and earth” (Isa. 37:16).
• “Ye are my witnesses, saith Yahweh, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no El formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am Yahweh; and beside me there is no saviour. I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange elohim among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith Yahweh, that I am El. Yea, before the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let it? Thus saith Yahweh, your redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; For your sake I have sent to Babylon, and have brought down all their nobles, and the Chaldeans, whose cry is in the ships. I am Yahweh, your Holy One, the creator of Israel, your King” (Isa. 43:10-15).
• “I am Yahweh, and there is none else, there is no Elohim beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am Yahweh, and there is none else” (Isa. 45:5-6).
Those who maintain the oneness of Yahweh will typically say of these passages:
• Yahshua the Messiah did not preexist.
• Yahweh alone formed man from the womb.
• Yahweh alone made the earth.
• Yahweh alone stretched forth the heavens.
In short, Yahweh created all things without the presence of Yahshua the Messiah. From these verses one can see how they might come to these conclusions; however, as with most points of study there is another possible explanation. This passage is not expressing the literal act of creation but the Father’s authority.
In Exodus 3:14 the Father revealed Himself as the great “I AM,” conveying His ultimate superiority to all creation, including His Son, Yahshua the Messiah. In this light all that is done is the result of Yahweh’s greatness, regardless of whether He is the active force involved. It is for this reason that He alone receives the recognition for the creation of the heavens and earth, as we find here in Isaiah.
This is no different from notable historical figures like Alexander the Great or Nebuchadnezzar claiming complete credit for their empires. In truth, probably neither Alexander the Great nor Nebuchadnezzar ever laid a brick, but it was by their authority and power that they built their kingdoms and as a result received full acknowledgment for their grand achievements.
A scriptural example can be found with King Solomon and the building of the temple. “So Solomon built the house, and finished it. And he built the walls of the house within with boards of cedar, both the floor of the house, and the walls of the cieling: and he covered them on the inside with wood, and covered the floor of the house with planks of fir. And he built twenty cubits on the sides of the house, both the floor and the walls with boards of cedar: he even built them for it within, even for the oracle, even for the most holy place…And the oracle he prepared in the house within, to set there the ark of the covenant of Yahweh…So Solomon overlaid the house within with pure gold: and he made a partition by the chains of gold before the oracle; and he overlaid it with gold. And the whole house he overlaid with gold, until he had finished all the house: also the whole altar that was by the oracle he overlaid with gold” (1Kings 6:14-16, 19, 21-22).
This passage gives all credit to Solomon as the builder in every phase of temple construction. Does it mean he was out there with gloves and hammer chipping away at stones while sweating in the hot sun? No, Solomon was just overseeing and directing the construction. Yet, he received full credit for the work. Similarly, Yahweh also oversaw creation of the universe and justifiably received all credit. In both cases each was acknowledged for the accomplishments but the actual work was carried out by others.
What ‘One’ Means
The New Testament passage most often used to support the Oneness doctrine is John 10:30. Yahshua states there, “I and my Father are one.” Was He referring to one in being or one in unity? Dr. E.W. Bullinger states, “Gr. hen. Neut., one in essence, not one person…” (Companion Bible, John 10:30). Barnes Notes further clarifies, “The word translated “one” is not in the masculine, but in the neuter gender. It expresses union, but not the precise nature of the union. It may express any union, and the particular kind intended is to be inferred from the connection.”
Again, John 10:30 speaks of one in mind and purpose. Yahshua provides many illustrations of this unity in the New Testament. One of the clearest is John 17, where He is praying to His Father prior to His impalement. “And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are” (vv. 10-11).
The word “one” here is the same word in John 10:30. According to Yahshua, in the same way we believers are one, the Father and Son are one. Are we all one person? Obviously not! As we find from the Apostle Paul, we are one in conviction and heart: “Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind,” Philippians 2:2. Consider the following:
• “Yahshua saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work” (John 4:34).
• “Then answered Yahshua and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise” (John 5:19).
• “Then said Yahshua unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things” (John 8:28).
• “For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak” (John 12:49).
Clearly Yahshua is not stating that He and His Father are the same being, but simply that they are one in mind and heart. As a son follows the instructions of his father, Yahshua followed the instructions of His Father Yahweh. He repeatedly said that He did not come to do His own will, but the will of the Father. They cannot possibly be the same individual! See Luke 22:42; Matthew 26:39;John 5:30; 6:38.
Another passage that is commonly used to support Oneness is John 14:6-7: “Yahshua saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.” Some will make the claim from this passage that Yahshua and His Father are the same individual; however, this passage would again be better understood as being one in goal and mind. As previously noted, just as a son obeys and shares the same interests as his father, the Son shares the same interest, desire, motivation, and character as His Heavenly Father.
The Son’s Authority
Another approach used by Oneness advocates is the testimony found in John 20:28: “And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Master and my Elohim.” As referenced in the foregoing discussion on elohim, while this term most often refers to Yahweh, it can also denote false deities (both male and female), angels, and mankind. In essence, it refers to an exalted position. Thomas here was not confusing the Son with the Father, but was simply conveying the Son’s high-ranking position, keeping in mind that this was after Yahshua’s resurrection.
In another passage, Peter states, “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that Elohim hath made that same Yahshua, whom ye have impaled, both Master and Messiah,” Acts 2:36. The word “Master” is translated “Lord” in the KJV. It comes from the Greekkurios and means, “…supreme in authority, i.e. (as noun) controller; by implication, Mr. (as a respectful title),” Strong’s. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words defines this term as, “…properly an adjective, signifying ‘having power’ (kuros) or ‘authority,’ is used as a noun, variously translated in the NT, ‘Lord,’ ‘master,’ ‘Master,’ ‘owner,’ ‘Sir,’ a title of wide significance, occurring in each book of the NT save Titus and the Epistles of John. It is used (a) of an owner, as in Luke 19:33, cf. Matt 20:8;Acts 16:16; Gal 4:1; or of one who has the disposal of anything, as the Sabbath, Matt 12:8; (b) of a master, i.e., one to whom service is due on any ground, Matt 6:24; 24:50; Eph 6:5; (c) of an Emperor or King, Acts 25:26; Rev 17:14; (d) of idols, ironically,1 Cor 8:5, cf. Isa 26:13; (e) as a title of respect addressed to a father, Matt 21:30, a husband, 1 Peter 3:6, a master, Matt 13:27;Luke 13:8, a ruler, Matt 27:63, an angel, Acts 10:4; Rev 7:14; (f) as a title of courtesy addressed to a stranger, John 12:21; 20:15;Acts 16:30; from the outset of His ministry this was a common form of address to the Lord Jesus, alike by the people, Matt 8:2;John 4:11, and by His disciples, Matt 8:25; Luke 5:8; John 6:68; (g) kurios is the Sept. and NT representative of Heb. [Yahweh] (`LORD’ in Eng. versions), see Matt 4:7; James 5:11, e. g., of adon, Lord, Matt 22:44, and of Adonay, Lord, 1:22; it also occurs for Elohim, God, 1 Peter 1:25.”
Similar to the word elohim, the Greek kurios refers to positions of power or authority. This not only includes the Father and Son, but also authority within family and society. As such, there is nothing in this word’s definition that would imply that the Son and Father are one in being. Akin to the previous example, this passage is simply expressing the Son’s elevated position.
Paul’s fourth chapter of Ephesians is also used by advocates of the Oneness teaching: “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Master, one faith, one baptism, One El and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all” (vv. 4-6).
Do we finally see evidence here for Oneness? No. Paul is conveying six key truths, none of which shows that the Father and Son are the same being. Note:
While these passages provide insight into the nature and activities of the Father and Son, they are silent in support of the Oneness teaching. Nowhere in his writings does Paul forthrightly state that the Father and Son are one being. This concept isn’t only missing here, but is also counter to his message, as he makes a distinction between our Master Yahshua and His Father Yahweh, the Creator and El of this grand universe.
Paul writing to young Timothy states, “For there is one Elohim, and one mediator between Elohim and men, the man Messiah Yahshua” (1Tim. 2:5). Oneness adherents will also use this to support their view. However, Paul shows a distinction between the two beings. If Yahshua the Messiah is the mediator between His Father and man, how is it possible that He is also the Father? Such reasoning is not only unscriptural, but also irrational.
Writing again to Timothy, Paul speaks of a great mystery pertaining to our Father Yahweh. “And without controversy great is the mystery of holiness: Elohim was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory” (1Tim. 3:16). Many believe that Paul is confirming here that the Father and Son are the same being. This passage is used by advocates of both the Trinity and Oneness teachings.
“Manifest” is derived from the Greek phaneroo and means, “…to render apparent (literally or figuratively),” Strong’s. Thayer’s Greek Lexicon states, “to make manifest or visible or known what has been hidden or unknown, to manifest, whether by words, or deeds, or in any other way.” This word conveys making something known or visible. The Father was made visible in the flesh through His Son, Yahshua the Messiah. Paul confirms this in the first chapter of Colossians: “Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible El, the firstborn of every creature” (vv. 13-16).
The phrase “invisible El” refers to the Father. Yahshua, the son of Yahweh, was created in His Father’s image and therefore represented His Father on earth. Does this mean that the Father and Son are the same being? It must be remembered that mankind too was created in Yahweh’s image, Genesis 1:26. If Paul’s statement in Colossians 1:16 proves that the Father and Son are one being, then we also must be one being with the Father, as Scriptures declare that we were created in His image as well! (Gen. 1:27).
The Alpha and Omega
The phrase “Alpha and Omega” is also frequently employed to confirm the oneness of the Father and Son. It appears four times in the book of Revelation and depending on the context, refers to both the Father and the Son. The words “Alpha” and “Omega” are the first and last letters in the Greek alphabet, respectively.
Chapter one contains the first two occurrences, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith Yahweh, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty…I was in the Spirit on Yahweh’s day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last…” (vv. 8, 10-11). From the context, this is describing our Father Yahweh.
The third example is found in chapter 21, “And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his Elohim, and he shall be my son” (vv. 6-7). With the reference here to Elohim and the promise of becoming his “sons,” this third also refers to the Father.
Chapter 22 contains the last and final instance, “And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last” (vv. 12-13). Unlike the previous, this last example likely refers to Yahshua the Messiah. Yahshua will come at the end of the age and reward those who were faithful (Matt. 16:27; 24:30; 25:1-13; Mark 13:26; Luke 21:27; Acts 1:9-11; Rev. 1:7). According to Paul in1Corinthians 15:23-28, the Father cannot come until Yahshua defeats all enemies, including death.
What is the purpose for the phrase, “Alpha and Omega”? This term is likely the result of rabbinic influence. According to Barnes’ Notes, “Among the Jewish rabbis it was common to use the first and the last letters of the Hebrew alphabet to denote the whole of anything, from beginning to end. Thus, it is said, ‘Adam transgressed the whole law, from “Aleph ( ) to Taw ( ).”’ ‘Abraham kept the whole law, from “Aleph ( ) to Taw ( ).”’”
Speaking about Yahshua, Paul states, “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the assembly: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.”
According to Paul, through Yahshua all things were created and consist. It’s important to recognize that Yahshua was the active, creative agent behind all “thrones,” “dominions,” “principalities,” and “powers.” As such, He is the beginning and end of all things within this universe, the visible and invisible. Does this imply though that the Son is the same being as the Father? Of course not! As Yahshua did the will of His Father in the New Testament, the same was true in His preexistence. Yahshua is the manifestation of all that His Father is. All that He does reflects upon His Father. It’s for this reason that the phrase “Alpha and Omega” complements the Father, even in reference to the Son.
Contradictory Passages
Numerous passages show a clear distinction between the Father and Son. Possibly the greatest hurdle of those who promote the Oneness doctrine involves Yahshua’s death and resurrection. After our Savior was horrifically beaten and tortured on the tree, Scripture indicates that he died. Matthew 27:50 clearly states that He “yielded up the spirit.” As seen earlier, the word “spirit” is from the Greek pneuma and refers to “a current of air, i.e. breath…” Strong’s. The Hebrew equivalent to pneuma is ruach. Strong’s defines this word as, “wind; by resemblance breath….”
When we die our Spirit returns to Yahweh (Eccl. 12:7), our con-sciousness ceases to exist (Ps.146:4; Eccl. 9:10) and our bodies lie dormant in the grave awaiting the resurrection (Dan. 12:2, Matt. 27:52; 1Thess. 4:13-15). If our spirit or breath returns to Yahweh at death, where then did Yahshua’s breath return, if He and the Father were one? Equally perplexing, being that the Son was dead and unconscious in the grave, is who resurrected Him three days later? Peter confirms that Yahweh resurrected Yahshua, Acts 2:32. If Yahweh and Yahshua are one, this means that Yahweh resurrected Himself from the grave even while dead.
Some attempt to explain these contradictions by claiming that Yahshua never died, but descended to the depths of Hades where he preached to the wicked. The fact is, if He never died we are without a Savior. Hebrews unequivocally states that a complete death was required by our Savior if we are to have life everlasting: “But Messiah being come an high priest of good things to come by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us… And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth” (Heb. 9:11-12, 15-16).
Yahshua confirms His own death in Revelation 1:18, “I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of the grave and of death.” The word “dead” here comes from the Greek nekros and according to the Thayer’s literally refers to “one that has breathed his last, lifeless.” Based on Hebrews and Yahshua’s own testimony, there should be no doubt that our Savior literally died and was in the grave (heart of the earth) for three full days and three full nights, as He prophesied inMatthew 12:40. On a side note, this would make His traditional time in the grave impossible. Based on the biblical record, He was placed in the tomb Wednesday evening and resurrected late on the Sabbath (Saturday before sunset).
In addition, it must be asked, if Yahweh and Yahshua are one, how did the world survive for the three days and three nights while they lay unconscious in the grave? To state that the Father resurrected Himself and that Yahweh was absent for three days and three nights makes no sense and contradicts the very core of Scripture!
One might also ask who Yahshua cried out to when he stated, “…Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My El, my El, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matt. 27:46). Yahshua is calling out here to His Father. If the Father and Son are one, does this mean that He was calling out to Himself?
What about those instances where Yahshua prayed to the Father, both in public and private. If He and the Father were one being, what was the point? Was it for public show or self-affirmation? Certainly neither. Yahshua was not praying to Himself but to His Father in heaven.
Consider two more illustrations. Yahshua in Matthew 22:44 said, “Yahweh said unto my Master, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.” Is Yahshua sitting on His own hand? As a final example, Yahshua confirms that only the Father knows the timing of His Coming, “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only,”Matthew 24:36. If the Father and Son are one being, how is it possible that the Father has information that the son lacks? Was Yahshua simply telling a fib? Of course not; He was confirming the fact that is apparent from cover to cover and that is that He and His Father are not the same being. These passages along with the other examples confirm that the belief in Oneness is not only unfounded scripturally, but escapes reason and logic.
The Word Became Flesh
Even though the Son is distinct and not co-eternal with the Father, Scripture confirms that He existed prior to His birth at Bethlehem. There is no passage of greater importance regarding His preexistence than the first chapter of John, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Elohim, and the Word was Elohim. The same was in the beginning with Elohim. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made…And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth” (John 1:1-3, 14).
Who represents the “Word” here? In verse 14 the “Word” is identified as the only begotten of the Father. This can refer only to Yahshua the Messiah. Does the “Word” in verse 1 correspond to the “Word” in verse 14? There are those who argue that the word in verse 1 refers to the “plan of Yahweh,” while the word in verse 14 refers to the manifestation of that plan, i.e., Yahshua the Messiah. The problem with this view is context. It’s clear here that there is only one “Word” and that is the Messiah.
This passage could be rendered, “In the beginning was the Messiah, and the Messiah was with Elohim, and the Messiah was Elohim.” Here is evidence that the Messiah was with Yahweh in the beginning. There are some who struggle with John 1:1, which states, “…the Word was Elohim.” Some have interpreted this as John confirming the equivalence of the Father and Son; validating that the Father and Son are either co-equal or co-eternal or perhaps both.
Proper understanding begins with the Greek word for “elohim,” i.e., theos. This word refers to “a general name of deities or divinities” (Thayer’s). From the Old and New testaments we find that this term along with its Hebrew equivalent, elohim, contains a wide application and applies to both the Father and Son. Based on the meaning of theos, this passage could be rendered, “…the Messiah was a ‘Mighty One.’” John is not confusing the Father and Son. He is simply confirming that in the beginning the Son was with His Father as a “Mighty One.”
Having established who this “Word” represents, let’s now move on to the meaning of verse 3. It says there that all things were made by Him. The Word, i.e., Yahshua, was the one who created all things. This includes the atom, one of the smallest units of matter known to man, as well as the vast galaxies in this universe.
To summarize, we find three facts in this passage: (1) The “Word” represents Yahshua the Messiah, (2) Yahshua was with His Father in the beginning and (3) all things were made through the Messiah. To remove the Messiah’s preexistence is to remove His presence with His Father and His pivotal role at creation.
Existed Before
In Yahshua’s eye-opening prayer in John 17:5 we find Yahshua Himself declaring His own preexistence as He prepared for His imminent death: “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.”
The key word here is “was.” It is derived from the Greek einai meaning, “to exist” (Strong’s). Thayer’s offers a similar definition, “to be, to exist, to happen, to be present.” Based on the Greek, Yahshua is asking His Father to provide Him the same glory that He had before the world existed. The Messiah here offers irrefutable confirmation of his preexistence. He declares that He had glory with His Father, indicating His exalted state, before the world existed. This is the same message found in the first chapter of John.
Similar to the previous example, in John 8:56-58 the Messiah confirms that He existed before Abraham. “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham? Yahshua said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.”
Before we consider verse 58, the critical verse here, we must understand the context of this passage. Though this passage speaks in the present tense, the context clearly refers to the past. In verse 58, Yahshua makes the remarkable statement, “….before Abraham existed, I was.” What was He actually saying here? The meaning is once again revealed in the Greek. The word “was” comes from the Greek ginomai. Strong’s defines it as, “to cause to be, i.e. (reflexively) to become (come into being).” Thayer’s adds, “to become, that is, to come into existence, to begin to be, or to receive being.” The phrase “I am” comes from the same Greek word for “was” in John 17:5, i.e., einai. Additionally, The Complete Word Study New Testament, under its Lexical Aid, provides this definition: “to be, to exist, have existence or being.”
The Messiah confirms here that before Abraham came into being that He Himself existed or was present.
John the Baptist also confirms the Messiah’s preexistence, “John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, this was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me” (John 1:15). The word “before” here is the Greekprotos. Strong’s defines this word as, “foremost (in time, place, order or importance).” This statement by John clearly refers to time and not to order of importance. This is evident from John’s earlier statement, “He that cometh after me.”
Those who know the genealogy might be saying, but wait. John the Baptist’s mother, Elisabeth, conceived six months before Mary (Luke 1:26). How then was Yahshua before John? This is explained only through His preexistence. He existed in heaven with His Father prior to being born as a man.
I Came from Above
In addition to these examples, Yahshua also noted in several passages that He came down from heaven. One is John 3:13, “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.”
Yahshua states that He came down from heaven. The phrase “came down” is the Greek katabaino, meaning “to descend” (Strong’s). Thayer’s offers additional detail on the meaning: “the place from which one has come down.” Yahshua confirms that He came down or descended from heaven. Based on the Greek, no other interpretation would apply. For this statement to be true our Savior would have had to first exist in heaven prior to His human birth.
An analogous passage can be found in John 6:38, “For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.” The phrase “came down” is derived from the same Greek word found in John 3:13, katabaino. The Messiah confirms once more that He came down or descended from heaven. For this to be possible, He would have had to preexist. In verse 62 Yahshua went on to say, “What and if you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?” Scripture states that after Yahshua’s death and resurrection that He ascended into heaven (Acts 1:11).
In John 8:23 Yahshua provides proof for His previous existence by drawing a contrast between Himself and mankind. “And he said unto them, You are from beneath; I am from above: you are of this world; I am not of this world.” The Messiah provides witness here to His place of origin. He states that while man was from beneath and of this world, that He Himself was neither. If Yahshua was not from beneath or of this world, from where did He commence? The only clear conclusion is that He had His beginning in heaven. The fact that Yahshua also stated that He was from above further solidifies this fact.
So from multiple passages we find the same message, the Messiah came down from or existed in heaven prior to his human birth. He also confirms that no man has gone to heaven which is corroborated in both Old and New testaments (Gen. 3:19, Job 14:2, Ps. 103: 14-16, 146:4, Eccl. 9:10, 12:7, Dan. 12:2, Acts 2:29-34).
Image of the Invisible El
Paul in Colossians 1:14-17 not only confirms Yahshua’s preexistence, but also explains His role in the Old Testament: “In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible El, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.”
The subject here is clearly Yahshua. In verse 15 Paul states that Yahshua is the image of the invisible El, referring to the Father. The Messiah in John 6:46 confirmed that no man had seen the Father except for the Son. Scripture also corroborates that the Father cannot be seen and is invisible (1Tim. 1:17, Heb. 11:27).
Paul states here that Yahshua is the image of His Father. Is he referring to Yahshua’s past existence with His Father prior to the world or His present existence as a man? From the next few verses we find that he’s referring to His past existence, which confirms that He was the image or representation of His Father in the Old Testament.
In verse 15 Paul states that Yahshua is the firstborn of every creature. The word “firstborn” is derived from the Greek wordprototokos. Both Strong’s and Thayer’s define this word as “firstborn.” They offer no other definition. The KJV also translates this word as “first begotten.” The meaning of prototokos is very specific. It forthrightly describes Yahshua as the firstborn of every creature.
To ensure that we have a full understanding of this passage, we must not neglect the word “creature.” This word is derived from the Greek ktisis. Strong’s defines it as, “original formation.” Thayer’s offers a similar definition, “creation, that is, a thing created; used of individual things, beings, a creature, a creation.” Based on the Greek, Paul is validating that Yahshua was the firstborn of every original formation of creation.
He goes on to further explain that not only was Yahshua the firstborn of every creature, but also that through Him all things in the heavens and on earth were created. The word “created” in verse 16 is from the Greek ktizo. Strong’s defines this word as, “to fabricate” or to “create.” As we saw from John 1:3, it was by the Messiah that all things in heaven and on earth were created.
Paul’s last point here is important. Paul states that by Him, Yahshua, all things consist, speaking about the creation of the heavens and earth. If Yahshua was not present at creation, how then would all things consist by Him? This would make no sense unless Yahshua was both present and active at creation.
Present in the Beginning
As noted, Yahshua again validates His preexistence in Revelation 3:14, “And unto the angel of the assembly of the Laodiceans write, These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of El.” This passage states that Yahshua was the “beginning” of Yahweh’s creation. This word is derived from the Greek arche. Strong’s defines this word as, “a commencement, or (concretely) chief” as it pertains to time. Thayer’s offers a similar definition: “(1) beginning, origin; (2) the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader; (3) that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause; or (4) the extremity of a thing; used of the corners of a sail.”
As seen from these sources, the Greek arche has two definitions: (1) origin, beginning or commencement and (2) chief in importance. While both definitions would apply to Yahshua, the first is much more likely based on Colossians 1:15, where Paul states that the Messiah is “the firstborn of every creature.” Yahshua verifies here by His own testimony that He was the beginning, origin, or commencement of Yahweh’s creation. Understating this point is paramount. To ignore this truth is to disregard the remarkable contribution Yahshua had as the origin or active cause of Yahweh’s creation.
More extraordinary evidence of Yahshua’s preexistence is found in Luke 10:17-18: “The seventy-two returned with joy and said, ‘Master, even the demons submit to us in your name.’ He replied, ‘I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven’” (NIV).
Satan was once in heaven, but because of his rebellion was cast out. The Old Testament also speaks of Satan’s fall from grace in the past tense (Gen. 3:14; Isa. 14:12; Ezek. 28:12-15). Yahshua said here that He witnessed this event. If Yahshua did not preexist, how is it possible that He witnessed Satan’s fall from heaven? Without being present, this would have been impossible. The only reasonable conclusion is that Yahshua was actually there when Yahweh ousted Satan from heaven, thus confirming Yahshua’s existence prior to Bethlehem.
Yahshua the Rock
In 1Corinthians 10 we find Paul confirming Yahshua’s presence in the Old Testament. He states, “Moreover, brethren, I would not that you should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Messiah” (vv. 1-4).
Yahshua as the “spiritual Rock” had a unique relationship with Israel. He followed, meaning accompanied, Israel through the wilderness. The Old Testament calls Him “the Angel of Yahweh.” A clear connection exists between the “spiritual Rock” and the Angel of Yahweh in the Old Testament.
We find a second parallel between Yahshua and the Angel of Yahweh. As Israel symbolically drank of this “spiritual Rock,” we find in the New Testament that Yahshua declared that He was the living waters: “In the last day, that great day of the feast, Yahshua stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believes on me, as the scripture has said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water” (John 7:37-38).
In both Old and New testaments Yahshua symbolized spiritual waters. This further reinforces the connection between the Angel of Yahweh and the Messiah’s presence and activity in the Old Testament.
Solomon Confirms the Savior’s Preexistence
As seen earlier, Solomon in Proverbs 8:22-31 chronicles Yahshua’s preexistence and active role in creation. “Yahweh possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.”
Some will say this passage refers not to Yahshua, but to Yahweh’s wisdom. They will refer to verse 12 to validate this assertion, where Solomon was inspired to write, “I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions.” The challenge with this belief is that the person in verse 22 was “possessed,” literally meaning, “to erect, i.e., create,” Strong’s.
To erect or create something conveys that the thing at one point did not exist. Therefore, to state that this refers to Yahweh’s wisdom would be to claim that Yahweh at one point was without wisdom. A much more likely interpretation is that the preexistent Messiah is meant. This would not only harmonize with Revelation 3:14, but also corroborate with all other New Testament passages referring to the Messiah’s presence before Bethlehem.
Before moving on, Proverbs 8:30 offers a key truth. It again states, “Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him.” The phrase “one brought up” comes from the Hebrew amown. Brown Driver and Briggs Hebrew Lexicon defines this Hebrew word as, “an artificer, an architect, a master workman, a skilled workman.” Within the context, this phrase would be better rendered “master workman,” as found in most modern translations.
Yahweh possessed (i.e., created) Yahshua before His works of old. This includes before the existence of the earth (v.26) and heavens (v.27). In verse 30, as previously noted, Yahshua was with Yahweh, His Father, as a master workman. This phrase connotes the integral contributions of the preexistent Messiah. As Solomon produced the blueprints and plans of the temple and hired the best workman to complete the construction, we find the same relationship here between Yahweh, the great architect, and Yahshua, His master workman.
Solomon provides another contribution to the Messiah’s preexistence in Proverbs 30:4. He writes, “Who has ascended up into heaven, or descended? who has gathered the wind in his fists? who has bound the waters in a garment? who has established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son’s name, if you can tell?” (Prov. 30:4).
This passage is referring to the creation of the heavens and earth. This is a key point. In closing, Solomon asks, “What is His Name, and what is His Son’s Name?” The question leads to one conclusion: both the Father and Son existed and were present at creation.
Elohim Created
This relationship may also be found in Genesis 1:1, where we read, “In the beginning Elohim created the heaven and the earth.” As previously mentioned, the word Elohim is singular, but is often used in the plural, expressing more than one mighty one.
Based on the context of Genesis chapter one, this word undoubtedly refers to more than one mighty one. This can be seen from verse 26, where Scripture states, “Let us make man in our image.” Similar language is found in Genesis 3:22; 11:7. The question is, who is the “us” mentioned here? Based on Proverbs 8:22-31, John 1:1-3, and Colossians 1:15-16, the “us” likely refers to the Father and Son, showing evidence once more of both the Father and Son at creation.
As a side note, Genesis 1:1 literally reads, “In the beginning Elohim, Aleph Tau, created . . . .” The Aleph and Tau represents the first and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet and is a sign of the direct object in Hebrew grammar. This may also depict the presence of both the Father and Son at creation. As previously noted, a parallel exists with several passages in Revelation, where both the Father and Son are referred to as the Alpha and Omega.
Angel of Yahweh
Another intriguing parallel concerning the pre-existent Messiah is found in the Angel of Yahweh. Exodus 23:20-21 reveals several similarities between these two figures: “Behold, I send an Angel before you, to keep you in the way, and to bring you into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.”
Three significant comparisons are found here between the Angel of Yahweh and the New Testament Messiah. They both required obedience (Ex. 23:21 and Matt. 28:20), had authority over sin (Ex. 23:21 and Matt. 9:6), and contained Yahweh’s Name (Ex. 23:21and Matt. 1:21). As noted, this angel is likely the “spiritual Rock” that Paul referred to in 1Corinthians 10:4.
No other being corresponds based on the context of these two passages. This angel can be found in other important roles, three of which we will cover now. The first is referred to by Deacon Stephen in the New Testament. In Acts 7:38 Stephen confirms that Moses received the law from an angel: “This is he [Moses], that was in the assembly in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us.”
The word angel here is from the Greek aggelos meaning, “a messenger; especially an ‘angel’” (Strong’s). Thayer’s offers a similar definition: “a messenger, an envoy, one who was sent, an angel, a messenger….” In contrast, Yahweh, the Father, the exalted El, is neither an angel nor a messenger. Both are far below His exalted status.
How does this correspond to the Old Testament? “And Yahweh said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, You have seen that I have talked with you from heaven” (Ex. 20:22). How do we reconcile this passage with what Stephen said in Acts? The one who likely gave the commandments to Moses was the Angel of Yahweh, corresponding to the preexistent Messiah (1 Cor. 10:4) and the active agent of creation (John 1:1). In the two remaining examples, this point will become clearer.
In Genesis 22 we find Abraham on the brink of sacrificing his son Isaac, in which he was stopped by a mysterious figure. “And the angel of Yahweh called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, And said, By myself have I sworn, saith Yahweh, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld your son, your only son” (Gen. 22:15-16).
A passage akin to Genesis 22 is Exodus 3:2, 4: “And the angel of Yahweh appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed… And when Yahweh saw that he turned aside to see, Elohim called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.”
In both of these passages we find one being called the “angel of Yahweh” and “Yahweh.” The narrative clearly shows that this is the same being. From the culmination of evidence, this likely refers to the active Word or preexistent Messiah acting on behalf of His Father.
Before continuing, it’s important to clarify several crucial points. The Word, Angel of Yahweh and the Yahweh who spoke and interacted with mankind was not the Father, but the Son conveying the intents and words of His Father. This is comparable to when Yahshua spoke and acted on behalf of His Father in the New Testament (John 1:18; 4:34; 5:19; 6:38; 7:16; 8:15-19, 28-30; 14:6). As noted earlier, Scripture does not support a duality between the Father and Son. The Father is greater than the Son (John 10:29;14:28; 1 Cor. 11:3) and “one” only in mind and purpose (John 17:22), not in being.
Yahweh of the Old Testament
We now lack only one remaining piece of this puzzle. In several Old Testament passages we find “Yahweh” appearing and interacting with man. For the reasons stated above and one additional reason, which will now be explained, this cannot be the Father. Scripture expressly states that no man has seen or heard the Father:
“No man hath seen Yahweh at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him” (John 1:18).
“And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. You have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape” (John 5:37).
“Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting” (1Tim. 6:16).
“No man hath seen Yahweh at any time. If we love one another, Elohim dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us” (1John 4:12, 20).
Yahshua, Paul, and John all state that no human has seen or heard the Father. Considering this, how can we explain those instances of when Yahweh appeared before man? For example, how can we explain when Yahweh appeared before Abraham inGenesis 18:1-3: “And Yahweh appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, And said, My Master, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant.”
Genesis 19:1 identifies the two men with Yahweh as angels. The question remains, who was the “Yahweh” who appeared before Abraham? Since Scripture declares that no man has seen the Father, this cannot be the Father. From the weight of evidence, this probably represents the Son, the active Word (Heb. Debar, Gk. Logos). To extend this mystery further, Genesis 19:24 reveals two beings with the name Yahweh: “Then Yahweh rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Yahweh out of heaven.” We find here one Yahweh on earth, the same Yahweh who appeared before Abraham, and a second Yahweh in heaven. The Yahweh on earth likely represents the Son and the Yahweh in heaven represents the Father. We find that the Son rained fire and brimstone from the Father, not from Himself.
In the New Testament Yahshua testified that He could do nothing without His Father (John 8:28). As found here, this New Testament principle held true in the Old Testament. All things within this universe come from the Father, including His active Word, the preexistent Messiah. Yahshua’s presence before Bethlehem is well documented in both Old and New Testaments. The most important of this evidence is from the Messiah Himself. He declared in several passages that He was with the Father from the beginning (John 1:1), that He descended from heaven (John 3:13), that He existed before Abraham (John 8:56) and that He had glory with the Father before the world was (John 17:5).
In summary, while the identity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit has been a long standing debate throughout the history of the Church, Scripture is clear on the following facts:
The word “Trinity” and its concept is absent from the Old and New testaments.
The notion of the Trinity is not new, but goes back to the start of civilization.
The Trinity doctrine was not firmly established until over 300 years after the Messiah.
The codification of the Trinity was motivated from political pressure.
The Father is greater and superior to the Son.
The Holy Spirit represents the power of the Father, not a third of a Trinity.
The Father and Son are not one in being, but one in mind and goal
While the Messiah is not eternal, He preexisted as the active Word, i.e., logos.
As mankind ponders the nature of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, it’s important that we study and confirm the truth behind this crucial subject. This begins by letting go of preconceived thoughts and biases and acknowledging the pages of Scripture as the sole source of authority. Only through a forthright look at the Word can we decipher and break through 2,000 years of man’s tradition.
Watch: The Pagan Trinity Exposed below:
Please take a moment to complete our short survey. We appreciate your time and value your feedback.
