The One God/Elohim
We affirm the absolute unity of G-d as declared in the Shema:
“Hear, O Israel: יהוה is our Elohim. יהוה is one.”
— Deut 6:4, Mark 12:29
He is the Creator of heaven and earth, the G-d of Avraham, Yitz’khak, and Ya’akov—the God of Israel. His Name is יהוה, “He who was, who is, and who will be” (Ex 3:15, Rev 1:4).
He is eternal and unchanging. He is not composed of three persons, but is one Being, manifesting Himself in different ways throughout time. (Hebrews 1:1-4)
Manifested, Not Multiplied
The traditional, official doctrine of the Trinity divides the One Elohim into “three co-equal persons,” a formulation never stated in Scripture, and which—however unintentionally—can confuse or diminish the uniqueness of either the Father or the Son.
We reject any teaching that implies:
•The Father and the Son are the same person (Modalism), or
•The Son is a created being and not divine (Arianism).
We also reject the idea that the Son and the Father “share the same substance” in a philosophical or physical sense that implies sameness of person, or dismisses the real humanity and separateness of the Son as a man now in heaven, or forces God to inhabit Yeshua’s Human body with Him. Yeshua is at the Father’s right hand. Before the Word became a body, He was in God. Since Yeshua rose from the dead, He has been a man standing at the right hand of the Father.
Yeshua the Messiah: Fully Human, Perfectly Manifesting Elohim
Yeshua is not the Father, but He perfectly reveals the Father. He is the Word of יהוה who was “with Elohim” in the beginning, and who was Elohim in nature (Yokhanan/John 1:1), but not the same as Elohim in person.
He is still a man—resurrected, glorified, and seated at the right hand of the Father (Acts 7:56, Heb 1:3). His human body was never discarded after the resurrection. He did not return to being “just spirit.” God the Father did not morph into Yeshua.
“There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Messiah Yeshua.”
— 1 Tim 2:5
Does the Bible Call Yeshua “God”?
In a manner, sort of—and that’s where confusion often begins. The following verses are often used to claim Yeshua is G-d, in a way that suggests there’s no distinction between Him and the Father.
Let’s look at a few:
John’s Gospel 1:1 — “In the beginning was The Word [HaDavar], and He, The Word [HaDavar], was within the form of God [Elohim], and The Word [HaDavar] belonged to Elohim.” (John 1:1)
We see: the “Word” was with God, showing distinction; yet the Word was “Divine” (divine in nature, ). That can mean: the divine nature was in Him, but not that He was the same person as the Father. The Word is God’s Will in action, not ‘reason/logic’.
The standard English translation — “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” — can imply to many readers that the Word (identified as Yeshua in verse 14) is the same person as “God” (the Father), supporting Trinitarian views of “co-equal” “persons” in one God. However, the Greek text supports a more precise interpretation that avoids this full identity, making the alternative emphasis on “divine nature” or “belonging to Elohim” more coherent for an average reader that matches the overarching, biblical monotheism (e.g., the Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4: “יהוה our Elohim, יהוה is one”).
Why “The Word was divine” (or “of divine nature/belonging to God”) Makes More Sense Than a Flat “The Word was God”
The Greek Grammar Shows Distinction and Quality, Not Full Personal Identity: In the clause “and the Word was God” (kai theos ēn ho logos), the word “God” (theos) lacks the definite article (it’s anarthrous), unlike the earlier “with God” (pros ton theon), where “God” has the article. Greek grammar experts note this structure often conveys qualitative meaning — describing the nature, essence, or quality of something — rather than definite identity (“the same as God”).
A qualitative sense is commonly rendered as “the Word was divine” or “the Word was deity” (sharing God’s divine attributes).
This fits perfectly with the distinction: the Word is “with” God (showing separation) yet shares divine nature (not a separate lesser god, but not the Father Himself). If John meant strict identity (“the Word = God the Father”), the article would likely appear, or the wording would differ to avoid contradiction with “with God.”
It Preserves the Clear Distinction Between “the Word” and the Father: The verse explicitly says the Word was “with God” (pros ton theon), implying relationship and distinction. If the Word were the exact same person as the Father, being “with” Himself doesn’t make logical sense. Instead, the Word (HaDavar, echoing God’s creative “word” in Hebrew Scripture, like Genesis 1 or Psalm 33:6) is God’s will, plan, expression, or active presence/manifestation “in the beginning.” It is distinct (from the unmanifested Father on the throne) yet fully divine in nature because it originates from and belongs to Him. Yeshua, as the Word made flesh, perfectly reveals the Father without being the Father (e.g., “the exact imprint of His nature” in Hebrews 1:3, but still the Son exalted by God).
It Aligns Better with the Rest of Scripture’s Monotheism and Yeshua’s Subordination: The Bible consistently presents one supreme God (the Father) as the only true God (John 17:3), with Yeshua as the unique Son, mediator, and exalted man (1 Timothy 2:5; Acts 7:56). Yeshua prays to the Father, submits to Him (John 20:17; 1 Corinthians 15:28), and is given authority by God. A flat “the Word was God” risks blurring this into modalism (one person in modes) or tritheism (multiple gods), but “divine/belonging to Elohim” keeps Yeshua exalted and divine (pre-existent, creator through Him, John 1:3) while upholding the Father’s unique supremacy. This echoes Hebrew thought: God’s “Word” (Davar) is His active will in creation and revelation, not a separate person co-equal from eternity in a “triune” sense.
Historical and Theological Context Favors This Nuance: Early Jewish thought viewed God’s Word as His extension in action (not a distinct “person” in later Trinitarian terms). Post-biblical Trinitarian formulations (e.g., from councils like Nicea) introduced Greek philosophical ideas of essence and persons, which we see as diverging from the Jewish roots of Scripture [as did the Apostles]. Interpreting “the Word was God” instead as “The Word belonged to God” as qualitative (“divine nature in Him”) avoids importing later divisions into the text and better fits verses like John 10:30 (“I and the Father are one” — unity in purpose/will, not person) or Philippians 2:6–11 (Yeshua exalted by God).
In short, for an average believer aiming to honor Scripture’s emphasis on one undivided God (Elohim/יהוה) who manifests through His Word/Son without dividing into persons, the qualitative/divine rendering avoids confusion. It shows Yeshua as fully divine in nature (sharing God’s essence as His perfect expression and agent) yet distinct from the Father — God’s will in action, come out of the Father (John 16:28), now the glorified man at His right hand. This maintains biblical monotheism while affirming Yeshua’s unique, exalted identity.
Philippians 2:6–11
“Though He existed within the form of God, He did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped…”
•Yeshua had divine status before creation, but emptied Himself, taking on human form.
•Because of this obedience, GOD exalted Him and gave Him the Name above every name.
•The confession that “Yeshua is Lord (Adonai)” gives glory to the Father—because His father gave Him the authority of a master — He did not displace the Father.
Hebrews 1:3 — “The radiance of His glory and the exact imprint of His nature.”
•Yeshua is the visible expression of the God of Heaven.
•He is not the Father, but the exact representation of Him.
Some prophecies make it seem the Messiah would be God. But we understand these to affirm that He would be divine, from God, and reveal God fully—not that He is the Father Himself.
✦ Isaiah 9:5 [6]
“For a child is born to us… and His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God (El Gibbor), Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”
• El Gibbor = “Mighty God.” This title is used of יהוה in Isaiah 10:21.
•Yet this child is born—a human birth.
•The title does not mean He is the Father, but that Elohim’s power and authority are in Him. He is representing the Father perfectly.
Isaiah 9:5 – The Hebrew and Meaning
Hebrew explained:
“For a boy is born to us, a Son is given to us; and the government is on His shoulder; and His name is called:
Peleh Yo’etz El Gibor Avi Ad Sar Shalom.”
There are no ‘commas’ in the Hebrew bible, no punctuation at all.
Common Christian rendering (NIV/ESV/KJV):
“And He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”
Why the Difference?
English translations flatten the Hebrew by:
1 Removing the poetic structure, and
2 Translating the names as titles, instead of treating them as compound names (as was common in prophetic language).
the Hebrew Text Explained
The Hebrew reads several descriptors as one compound prophetic name—not individual divine titles. These names are attributes of God, but they describe God’s power working through the Son, not that the Son is the Father.
Peleh Yo’etz – “Wonderful Counselor”
→ The Messiah will have divine wisdom.
El Gibor – “Power of the Mighty”
→ This is not claiming the child is God, but that he carries the might and authority from God.
In Hebrew, names like “El” often describe relationship to God, not identity as God (see Elijah, Elisha, etc.).
Avi Ad – “Eternal Protector”
→ This doesn’t mean God the Father—but a fatherly ruler who secures eternal peace. In Hebrew, “father” can mean source or guardian, not necessarily divine identity (see Job 29:16).
Sar Shalom – “Prince of Peace”
→ This clearly describes Messiah’s role as the bringer of divine peace.
In short: These names describe the function and mission of the promised Son—not a list of divine titles implying He is God the Father.
The Problem with the Typical Translation:
Punctuating it like: “And He shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father…” forces a doctrinal conclusion: that the Son is the Mighty God and is the Everlasting Father.
But the Hebrew doesn’t support this rigid reading—it supports a prophetic naming that connects the Messiah with God’s character, not equality in identity, and not the same person.
Supporting Evidence from Scripture
1: Isaiah 11:2 confirms this interpretation:
“The Spirit of יהוה shall rest upon him… the spirit of wisdom and understanding, of counsel and might…”
→ This matches the Peleh Yo’etz and El Gibor titles: the Spirit of God empowers the Son of David.
2: Yeshua is NEVER called “God the Father” in the New Testament, and “God the Son” is NOWHERE in scripture.
◦ John 17:3 – “That they may know You, the only true God, and Yeshua the Messiah whom You have sent.”
◦ 1 Corinthians 15:24–28 – Yeshua will return all things to the Father, remaining in submission to Him.
3: Prophetic names often reflect God’s involvement, not identity:
◦ Isaiah’s own son is named Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz (“Speed the spoil, hasten the plunder”)—not a claim about who the child is, but what God will do through the child.
◦Likewise, Imanu El / Emmanuel means “God with us” because God is present through the Messiah, not because the child is God.
Our commentary:
“Isaiah 9:6 gives a poetic, prophetic name to the Messiah. It doesn’t mean the child is God the Father. It means this Son will act with God’s power, authority, and peace—bringing salvation to the world. These names describe what God will do through the Messiah, not that the Messiah is Himself the Eternal Father. The Hebrew grammar and other Scriptures show us that Yeshua is the divine Son of God—not God the Father come in a human body.”
Other Prophets identifying the divine nature of Messiah:
✦ Jeremiah 23:5-6
“I will raise up for David a righteous Branch… and this is His Name: ‘יהוה our Righteousness’.”
•This title links the Messiah with יהוה.
•Yet He is still a Branch from David—a descendant, a man.
•He inherits this Name, just as Yeshua said:
“Keep them in Your Name, which You have given Me…” (John 17:11)
✦ Micah 5:2
“From you [Bethlehem] shall come forth one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting.”
•The Messiah comes from eternity, from the presence of Elohim.
•But He still comes forth—He is sent by God, not God Himself becoming man.
The SPIRIT of GOD
We understand Ru’akh HaKodesh (the Holy Spirit) not as a third person, but as the breath, power, and presence of Elohim. It is how He moves, speaks, and fills His people.
“The Spirit of יהוה will rest upon Him…”
— Isa 11:2
“G-d anointed Yeshua of Nazareth with the Ru’akh HaKodesh and with power…”
— Acts 10:38
Yeshua was given the Ru’akh without measure (John 3:34), and now sends it to us from the Father (John 15:26).
Biblical Linguistics: “Ru’akh” (Spirit) in Hebrew
• Hebrew word: רוּחַ (Ru’akh) — “breath,” “wind,” “spirit”
• Grammatical gender: Feminine
◦This is clear in verses like Genesis 1:2:
“And the Spirit of God (וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים) was hovering over the waters…”
▪The verb m’rakhefet (מְרַחֶפֶת – “hovering”) is a feminine participle, agreeing with Ru’akh.
So, biblically speaking, Ru’akh HaKodesh (the Holy Spirit) is not a “He” in the Hebrew text.
Where “He” Comes From: Greek and Later Theological Tradition
In the Greek New Testament, the word for spirit is πνεῦμα (pneuma) — and pneuma is neuter in gender. However, translators and theologians later refer to the Holy Spirit as “He” largely due to:
1 Trinitarian theology — personifying the Spirit as a “third person.”
2 Some uses of masculine pronouns in Johannine texts:
◦For example:
“When the Comforter [paraklētos] comes… He will guide you…” – John 16:13
◦Here, “He” refers grammatically to paraklētos, which is masculine—not to pneuma.
So, the masculine “He” is not based on the word for Spirit, but on titles like “Helper” or “Comforter.”
Scripture Supports That the Spirit Is of/from God, Not a Separate Person
• Psalm 104:30 – “You send forth Your Spirit….
• Isaiah 63:10-11 – Ru’akh is the presence and power of יהוה.
• Acts 2:17-18 (quoting Joel) – “I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh…”
Not “I will send someone else who is My Spirit.”
The Spirit is God’s breath, power, presence, wisdom, and yes, grammatically feminine in the original revelation.
Clarifying Common Misunderstandings
✧ Objection 1: “But Yeshua is God—He said, ‘I and the Father are One!’”
Response:
Yes, Yeshua did say, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), but in the very next verses, He clarifies that He is the Son of God, not the Father Himself (John 10:36). His unity with the Father is in purpose, will, and nature, not in person. The word “one” here is hen in Greek—neuter, not masculine—meaning “one in unity,” not “one person.”
“That they may be one, just as We are one.”
— John 17:22
If believers can be “one” with Yeshua and His Father, as Yeshua and the Father are one, it cannot mean they are one being of the same substance. It means complete agreement and unity of purpose.
The Hebrew Word אֶחָד (ekhad)
The word in Aramaic/Hebrew in this and other passages is:
• Ekhad (אֶחָד) = the number one.
•It is used numerically and grammatically to express singularity or unity.
Biblical Uses of אֶחָד
1 Deuteronomy 6:4 – The Shema
“שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יהוה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יהוה אֶחָד”
“Hear O Israel, יהוה our God, יהוה is one.”
Ekhad here is clearly numeric — there is only one God, not multiple beings or persons within God.
2 Genesis 2:24 – Man and Woman Become “One” Flesh
“…וְהָיוּ לְבָשָׂר אֶחָד”
“…and they shall become one flesh.”
This verse is often cited by Trinitarians to argue that ekhad means a compound unity (two-in-one).
But in context, it means a unified relationship — not that the man and woman become one being, but that they function in joined purpose and covenant. That’s not the same as being ontologically the same essence. The man and the woman maintain separate physicality and personality, but they are one in purpose.
3 Exodus 26:6 – The Tabernacle Becomes “One”
“…and the tabernacle shall be one.”
(וְהָיָה הַמִּשְׁכָּן אֶחָד)
The parts of the tabernacle are joined to function as one unit.
Still, the pieces remain distinct, not merged into one being. The word emphasizes function and unity, not ontological sameness.
Summary: What Ekhad Really Means
| Use | Meaning | Implication |
| Number (e.g., Gen 1:5 – “one day”) | Singular, the number 1 | Emphasizes exclusive oneness |
| Unity of parts (Gen 2:24, Ex 26:6) | Unified function or purpose | Not a blending into a single essence |
| Shema (Deut 6:4) | One God, singular | Refutes polytheism or divided deity |
Contrast with Yakhid (יָחִיד)
•Some argue that if Moses meant “absolutely one,” he would have used יָחִיד (yakhid), which means only, solitary, unique (Gen 22:2 – “Take your son, your only son…”).
•But that’s a modern linguistic misunderstanding. In Biblical Hebrew, אֶחָד (ekhad) was the common and proper word for oneness, even in exclusive contexts.
•The context of ekhad always determines whether it means unified parts or absolute singularity.
In Deut 6:4, the context is monotheism — not unity within diversity.
Application to Theology
The Shema uses ekhad to declare that יהוה is one — singular, not divided into persons or components.
This contradicts later interpretations of a “triune” God.
Ekhad does not support a “three-in-one” concept—it simply affirms the singular nature of יהוה , who manifests Himself in different ways but remains one undivided being.
Objection 2: “Only God can forgive sins—so if Yeshua forgave sins, He must be God Himself!”
Response:
Yeshua indeed forgave sins (Mark 2:5–12), but He always gave glory to the Father who gave Him that authority:
“The Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.”
— Mark 2:10
“The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son.”
— John 5:22
Yeshua could forgive because the Father gave Him that right. That does not mean He is the Father, but that He acts on the Father’s behalf, with full authority—just as Joseph ruled Egypt with Pharaoh’s full authority, but was still not Pharaoh himself (Genesis 41:40–44).
Objection 3: “Thomas said, ‘My Lord and my God!’ That proves Yeshua is God.”
Response:
Yes, Thomas says this in John 20:28. But note that:
-
- This is a confession of awe at seeing the resurrected Messiah—not a theological formula.
2. The Greek does not contain a definite article before “God,” making it likely to mean, “my master and divine one” or “my Lord and [from] God.”
3. Even if Thomas was calling Yeshua “Elohim,” that is not unusual: in the Tanakh, other agents of God are called “elohim” (Exodus 7:1, Psalm 82:6), without being the Father Himself.
Importantly, Thomas’s declaration doesn’t change the fact that Yeshua never said He was God, and that He consistently pointed to His Father as the only true God:
“This is eternal life: that they may know You, the only true God, and [know] Yeshua the Messiah whom You sent.”
— John 17:3
Objection 4: “If Yeshua isn’t God, isn’t that denying His divinity?”
Response:
No. We fully affirm that Yeshua is divine—He came from Elohim and existed with Him in eternity past, He bears the Name of Elohim, and He now sits at the right hand of the Father in glory. But we do not say that the Father “became a man.”
This is consistent with Scripture:
•The Son was with God and was divine (John 1:1–2)
•The Son came from heaven (John 6:38)
•The Son was sent by the Father (John 8:42, 16:28)
•The Son obeyed and was exalted by God (Philippians 2:9)
If Yeshua were simply “God in disguise,” the whole idea of His obedience, suffering, bearing our sin, and exaltation would be meaningless.
God cannot abide sin in His being. Yeshua temporarliy bore the UNHOLY in His body, for our sakes. God is utterly and always HOLY.
Objection 5: “But doesn’t the Ru’akh HaKodesh speak and feel—doesn’t that mean that’s a person?”
Response:
The Ru’akh (Spirit) of God is the presence, power, and will of God. Scripture speaks poetically about the Spirit being grieved (Isaiah 63:10, Ephesians 4:30) or speaking, but these are the same ways we speak of our own spirit:
“My spirit is broken…” (Job 17:1)
“The spirit within me seeks You…” (Isaiah 26:9)
The Ru’akh is not a separate “person” but the living breath of יהוה, which empowered prophets, filled Messiah, and now dwells in His people. That same Ru’akh is called “the Spirit of Messiah” (Romans 8:9) because Yeshua is the one through whom the Father now speaks and moves by His Spirit.
Objection 6: “But the early church believed in the Trinity!”
Response:
The earliest followers of Yeshua were Jewish and continued to affirm the oneness of Elohim (Acts 3:13, 5:30, 24:14). The doctrine of the Trinity was developed later, influenced by Greek philosophy and Egyptian paganism and codified by church councils (e.g., Nicea, 325 CE).
Scripture never uses the words “Trinity,” “three persons,” or “co-equal, or “godhead”. Those are human explanations trying to solve a revealed mystery—but often at the cost of Scriptural clarity and Jewish context.
What Did the Early Jewish Believers Proclaim?
Acts is the historical record of the apostles preaching the Good News after Yeshua’s resurrection. They were taught by Yeshua Himself. If the early Jewish believers believed that “Jesus is God” in the modern Trinitarian sense, we should expect to see them saying so directly when introducing Him to Gentiles (pagans) who were unfamiliar with Jewish theology. Jews are a very direct people.
Instead, when we look carefully at every apostolic sermon and teaching in Acts, what we see is very consistent:
They never say “Jesus is God.”
They always say Yeshua is the Son of God, the Messiah, whom God raised from the dead, and to whom God gave authority.
Let’s examine the key moments:
Acts 2 — Peter’s First Sermon (to Jews and “God-fearers”, gentiles who converted to Judaism)
“Men of Israel, hear these words: Yeshua of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God did through Him in your midst…” – Acts 2:22
“This Yeshua God has raised up…” – Acts 2:32
“Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Yeshua, whom you executed, both יהוה and Messiah.” – Acts 2:36
Yeshua is called:
•A man
•Approved by God
•Raised by God
•Appointed by God as יהוה and Messiah
Nowhere does Peter say “Yeshua is God.”
Acts 3 — Peter at the Temple (again to Jews)
“The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified His servant Yeshua…” – Acts 3:13
“You killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead…” – Acts 3:15
Yeshua is again called:
• Servant of God
• Raised by God
Never called “God.”
Acts 7 — Stephen before the Sanhedrin
“Behold, I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” – Acts 7:56
Yeshua is:
• At the right hand of God (not being God)
• Separate from the Father
Acts 8 — Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch (Gentile convert)
The eunuch asks about Isaiah 53. Philip:
“Preached Yeshua to him.” – Acts 8:35
When the eunuch wants to be baptized, he confesses:
“I believe that Yeshua the Messiah is the Son of God.” – Acts 8:37 (included in some manuscripts)
Confession: Son of God, Messiah
Not: “God in the flesh.”
Philip baptized him without demanding a confession that “Jesus is God”.
Acts 10 — Peter at Cornelius’ House (first full Gentile household)
“God anointed Yeshua of Nazareth with the Ru’akh HaKodesh and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by evil, for God was with Him.” – Acts 10:38
“God raised Him up on the third day…” – Acts 10:40
Peter emphasizes:
•God anointed Yeshua
•God was with Him
•God raised Him
•Yeshua was appointed to judge the living and dead
Still no declaration: “Yeshua is God.”
Acts 13 — Paul’s Sermon in Pisidian Antioch (Jewish audience, but Gentiles listening)
“God raised up Yeshua as a Savior…” – Acts 13:23
“God raised Him from the dead…” – Acts 13:30
“Through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed…” – Acts 13:38
Yeshua is:
•A man
• Raised by God
•A Savior provided by God
Acts 17 — Paul in Athens (to pagan Gentiles)
This would have been the perfect moment for Paul to say “Jesus is God” to idol-worshiping Gentiles—but instead, he says:
“God now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.” – Acts 17:30–31
Paul says:
•God will judge the world through a man
•This man is Yeshua
•God raised Him from the dead
Still, no claim that Yeshua is “God.”
Conclusion: What Did the Early Jewish Believers Proclaim?
| What They Preached | Scriptures |
| Yeshua is the Messiah | Acts 2:36, 3:20, 5:42 |
| Yeshua is the Son of God | Acts 8:37, 9:20 |
| Yeshua is a man approved by God | Acts 2:22 |
| Yeshua was raised by God | Acts 2:32, 3:15, 10:40 |
| Yeshua now sits at God’s right hand | Acts 7:56 |
| Yeshua will judge the world on God’s behalf | Acts 10:42, 17:31 |
Not once do they say “Yeshua is God.”
They never introduce Him as “God in the flesh” to Gentiles or Jews. Catholics cite “progressive revelation” in order to support adding the new ideas to their theology. “I am יהוה, I do not change.” “Yeshua is the same yesterday, today, and forever.”
Explained Simply:
“When the apostles preached to Gentiles in Acts, they never said ‘Jesus is God.’ They said Yeshua is the Son of God, raised from the dead by God, and now ruling at God’s right hand. That shows He’s divine in authority and honor—but not God Himself. God worked through Yeshua. He didn’t become Yeshua.”
Final Thought: What We Proclaim
1. Elohim is ONE, not three persons. He is eternal, uncreated, and seated on the throne.
2. Yeshua is the Son of Elohim, eternally present with the Father, but now permanently a man, glorified and alive.
3. The Ru’akh is Elohim’s presence and power, not a separate divine person.
4. Yeshua perfectly reveals the Father (John 14:9) but is not the Father.
5. Yeshua is not merely divine, but is the manifestation of Elohim in human flesh.
6. Yeshua died as a man, and was raised as a man, and now lives as a man at the right hand of the Father.
7. Salvation is through trusting in His atoning work and walking in faithful obedience to Torah, as empowered by the Ru’akh.
Here are all the passages that say plainly that Yeshua would be/is the Son of God:
| Scripture | Text / Summary | Notes |
| Psalm 2:7 | “You are My Son, this day have I begotten you.” | Clear messianic prophecy. Quoted in NT (Heb 1:5, Acts 13:33). |
| 2 Samuel 7:14 | “I will be to him for a father, and he shall be to Me for a son.” | Davidic covenant; typologically fulfilled in Yeshua. |
| Isaiah 9:5 | “For a boy is born unto us, a Son is given unto us” | contains divine titles, but context emphasizes sonship. |
| Proverbs 30:4 | “What is His Name, and what is His Son’s name, for you will confess it” | Confers the Name יהוה to the Son, See Acts 2:36, Phil 2:9-11, John 17:17 |
| Matthew 3:17 | “This is my Beloved Son, with whom I am pleased.…” | At Yeshua’s baptism — a direct voice from heaven. |
| Matthew 16:16 | “Shimon Kefa answered and said, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God..” | Peter’s confession; affirmed by Yeshua. |
| Luke 1:35 | “the One who is to be born of you is Holy, and He will be called The Son of God.” | Spoken by the angel Gabriel to Mary. |
| John 1:34 | “And I saw and testified that this is The Son of God.” | John the Baptist’s testimony. |
| Romans 1:3-4 | “concerning His Son who was born in the flesh, of the seed of the house of David, and who came to be known as The Son of God” | Paul affirms sonship through resurrection. |
| Hebrews 1:5 | “You are my Son, this day have I fathered you.” | Quotes Psalm 2, contrasting angels and the Son. |
These are all countered by proponents of the “Jesus is God” narrative with the following verses:
| Micah 5:2 | “From everlasting…” | The Messiah’s origins are eternal. |
| John 1:1,14 | “The Word was God… became flesh.” | Yeshua = divine Word [דבר , D’var יהוה ] in flesh. |
| John 8:58 | “Before Abraham was, I am.” | Many assert that Yeshua used the divine name… |
| John 10:30 | “I and the Father are one.” | Yeshua was accused of blasphemy. |
| John 20:28 | “My Lord and my God!” | Thomas addresses Yeshua as God. |
| Colossians 2:9 | “In Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” | Total divinity in human form. |
| Titus 2:13 | “Our great God and Savior, Yeshua.” | Direct reference. |
| Hebrews 1:8 | “But of The Son He said, “Your throne, O Elohim, is forever and ever…” | God addresses the Son as God. |
| Revelation 1:8 | “I am the Alpha and the Omega…” | Title used by Yeshua and יהוה. |
People tend to take those verses literally, and ignore all the verses in the previous table that call Him very plainly the SON of God.
With these verses in the “Jesus is God” table, however, many of them have been deliberately translated or punctuated to support the doctrine. A closer look at original texts, however, shows that they are indeed mistranslated.
John 8:58, when isolated in a standard English translation done by proponents of this doctrine seems to imply that Yeshua called Himself “The I Am”. There are two problems with that interpretation:
εἰμί = eimí, i-mee’; the first person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb; I exist
Above is the Greek word where it is rendered “am” in the translations. But that is not what Yeshua said. He said, “Before Abraham was, I exist”.
Further, even if one insists that we must conclude here that Yeshua said “I am” due to subtle linguistic license, it breaks down with the reference people insist to Exodus 3:14 when one looks at the GREEK of that text, translated from the Hebrew:
καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν· ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν
“And God said to Moses: I am the One who is”
Then He adds:
ὅ δε εἶπον τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραήλ· ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς
“Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel: **‘The One who is’ has sent me to you.”
The Hebrew of Exodus 3:14 reads very plainly:
אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה וַיֹּאמֶר כֹּה תֹאמַר לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶהְיֶה שְׁלָחַנִי אֲלֵיכֶם
“I will be who I will be; and thus you shall say to the Sons of Israel: “I Will Be” has sent me to you.”
So John 8:58 is rendered incorrectly in most English translations, even from the Greek. But, this is actually another proof that Aramaic came first. Because the Aramaic verse reads this way:
בְּטֶרֶם הָיָה אַבְרָהָם אֲנִי הוּא. :: “before Abraham was, I [am] He”.
The verb “to be” is only implied here, and so Yeshua did not say the great confession of God the Creator.
Further, Yeshua had just said to this crowd, “I proceeded forth and came out of my Father.” So, even if He had used the ‘Great Confession’, He did so on the heels of saying that He LEFT God to come here.
The next one poorly translated is Colossians 2:9, where most translations read like the above. The above, however, is a translation done by those who support the doctrine. And when asked, a greek scholar must tell you it is a reach:
ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς
-
θεότης (theotēs) is used only here in the NT. It is a noun formed from θεός (theos) = God. It refers not merely to divinity in general, but God-ness — the state or quality of being like God
The problem with rendering this word as ‘godhead’ is that ‘godhead’ is an invented term to expressly say that God is ‘three people living in one body”. That is not at all what this verse is saying in the original greek. And the Aramaic, again, proves that the greek originals are actually way more reliable than the later English translations:
“For in Him is embodied all the fullness of the divine.” This same idea that is attributed to Yeshua is given to us as believers in a blessing from Paul to the Ephesian congregation in Ephesians 3:19:
“and to know the love of Messiah which surpasses all knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.”
That does not make each and every one of us God, if we are filled with ‘the divine’ just like Yeshua is! This shows us that God is answering His Son’s prayer in John 17, that we would be in Him, in the the Father, and they in us!
Next is Titus 2:13. This one is more a victim of punctuation than translation. Standard versions read like the above, “Our great God and Savior, Yeshua”, where the comma actually does the work of translation.
The ancients did not use punctuation. So, the translations should strive to use context, linguistic, cultural, biblical, and historical context, to render the reading more accurately in a translation.
From the Aramaic we read this way: “looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great Elohim, and Our Savior Yeshua The Messiah.”
Greek:
προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
Transliteration:
prosdechomenoi tēn makarian elpida kai epiphaneian tēs doxēs tou megalou theou kai sōtēros hēmōn Iēsou Christou
Where the more accurate, unbiased reading would be:
“the glorious appearing of the great God, and of our Savior Yeshua the Messiah.”
In the other verses from the “Jesus is God” argument table above, the readers and translators tend to ignore the verbs involved.
In John 1: 1 and 14, we did read that The Word was in the beginning. But, The Word was IN GOD, in the beginning, which is equality with God, and the POWER of God manifesting to create the whole world. But in John 1:14, it is not telling us that GOD became a body, but “The Word” “became” a body. This fits the understanding that Yeshua came OUT OF GOD, just like He said in John 8:42 and 16:28. The Word, the divine WILL OF GOD came out of God and became a man. He is the Son of God in these verses as well.
In Hebrews 1:8, where it is said to the Son, “Your throne, O God,” the reader tends to forget who is SPEAKING: GOD the FATHER.
If God the Father were speaking about Himself as the Son, then He would have to say, “MY THRONE”. Thus, this verse in no way eliminates the distinction between the Father and the Son, but in fact SUPPORTS it.
The rest of the verses in that table were treated in the previous commentary, so we will trust our reader to go back and review those within this writing to see that they are often misused to support a later doctrine invented by anti-Semitic gentile political rulers.
In Closing: Unity Without Confusion
We invite all believers to approach this mystery with humility. The nature of G-d is not confined by human categories like “trinity,” “modalism,” or “arianism.” He is One, and He reveals Himself to us through His Son and by His Spirit.
Read more on the subject: The Word Became Flesh:: Isaac Newton and the Problem of the Trinity: Exegesis, History, and Heresy :: How Language Created the Trinity Doctrine ::