The "Deity" of
the Messiah Yeshua
Introduction
This is the dogma of dogmas. Most right- and left-wing Christians
alike, especially religious professionals, at least must consent
orally and/or in writing to the doctrine of the "deity" of
the Messiah Yeshua on pain of expulsion, including unemployment in
the case of religious professionals of any sort. The more extreme
trinitarians more than imply that salvation is contingent on
affirmation of this doctrine.
Apprehending the truth on this subject, too, is kind of like the
Everest of theology, if not religion. Not many climb up there, and
those who do may not come down. Only a certain hardy breed even make
the attempt, and I guess most people think that such spiritual
fanatics are crazy.
I must say, though, that the task of apprehending the truth about
the doctrine of the "deity" of the Messiah is not like
climbing Everest. One doesn't do it just because "it's there,"
because it's the highest spiritual summit and one feels determined to
prove that it CAN be climbed. Any adventurer with that kind of
motivation, I suspect, won't reach this summit.
This is a burning issue. So many with so much prestige insist, nay
demand with so much conviction that THIS uncategorically is THE
TRUTH, that the doctrine of the "deity" of the Messiah
Yeshua is "non-negotiable." Others, not as many, to be
sure, yet equally prestigious, insist, even demand with equal
conviction that this is NOT the truth, that the doctrine of the
"deity" of Yeshua is UNTRUE.
Judge for yourself, if you haven't already, but know that
EVERYTHING does indeed rest on this judgement. It is hard in a war
not to take sides. It was hard in World War II to be a German and not
be a Nazi. In this war, the ultimate war of all wars, it is
impossible. "NARROW is the way to life, and FEW are those who
find it."
The dialogue below is a discussion
of this question. The discussion isn't over. The Lord will have the
last word, but if I am correct, He already has. The outcome already
is known, but only to the "survivors." The way to the
Kingdom of Yhwh is open. It always has been, but only the "few"
will brave the difficulties which lie on this path:
BGE wrote:
> Hayal,
> I read your Email, and have now skimmed through your web
page, and I will
> say that I agree with you in part but disagree in a few key
points. I have
> also gone back and reviewed your comments on the paper I
wrote on the
> Triune Nature of Gd. It still seems that the big
questions are "Is Yeshua
> deity?", and "Is Yeshua created or did he always
exist?". From your
> cosmological organizational chart it looks like the question
of who or what
> is the Holy Spirit also needs to be answered. I did not see
anywhere on
> your home page where these questions are biblically answered
in an in depth
> way. I would like to see them answered.
Dear BGE,
I am pleasantly surprised that you have gone to the trouble to
read over my previous literature and want to discuss the main point,
viz. the doctrine of the "deity" of Yeshua, in greater
depth. I agree, too, that this is the main point, not only within
Christianity but also in regard to the great division between
Christianity and Judaism and, I would even say, between Yhwh and the
world.
So let's get right to the main point:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the doctrine of the "deity" of
Yeshua is the IDENTIFICATION of Yeshua as Yhwh, as the One who formed
Adam from the dust of the earth, who made Chavah (Eve) from Adam's
rib, who spoke to Avraham, Yitzhak and Yaakov, appeared to
Moshe and the Yisraelim in Sinai, etc. The doctrine of the deity of
Yeshua is NOT that Yeshua is JUST an AGENT of, or "functionally
subordinant" to Yhwh but also that Yeshua is "equal"--in
rank, power, even in BEING ("ontologically equal," "one
in Being," "homoousias")--to Yhwh. Even though Yeshua
is "functionally subordinant" to Yhwh, in other words, even
though Yhwh made everything THROUGH Yeshua and that Yeshua is a
"second Person," the doctrine of the deity of Yeshua
postulates that the two also are one, NOT just in the way that a
father and a son who work together as a team are one, NOT just in the
sense that the Father and the Son are united in purpose, conviction,
love and so forth, as any two people who are united for some reason
may be, NOT, finally, just in the sense that one's arm or leg or even
one's whole body is oneself, even though one's arm, leg or body are
not ALL oneself, but MORE than this, that the two are equal in BEING
or IDENTITY, equal in EVERY WAY, not different in ANY WAY AT ALL.
This is what I understand, based on my reading and hearing and seeing
the statements of the proponents of the doctrine of the "deity"
of Yeshua, is meant by the "deity" of Yeshua. In their own
words, Yeshua, they claim, is "fully God," 100%, nothing
less. Nothing less will do, they insist. One must insist on 100%, and
if one doesn't so insist, if one deviates at all from 100%, one is
heretical, even lost, damned, which may not be the usual insistence,
but when "push comes to shove," as they say, this IS the
"bottom line," so far as trinitarian dogma (or modalism,
too) is concerned. This critical point also is why trinitarians and
modalists are united against "Arians," JW's, etc. The big
controversy is not just a question of hair-splitting: The difference
which separates the two factions really is INFINITESIMAL, literally,
one side insisting on NO LESS, not even A LITTLE BIT LESS, than 100%,
the other side insisting on LESS than 100%, at least 99.99...% but
definitely NOT 100%. There is, in effect, a LINE, INFINITESIMALLY
THIN, between the doctrine of the "deity" of Yeshua and
"Arianism" or, in times past, "Judaizing." I
shall even draw a picture of the controversy:
Notice the LINE which separates the two parties in the controversy. That LINE, I believe, represents the Word of Yhwh. It is neither "high"
nor "low," neither Gentile nor Jewish. That, I believe, is
where the Lord stands--right on the line. Yeshua, in fact, IS the
line. "High" Christology is too high: It's ABOVE the line.
"Low" Christology is too low: It tends to UNDERstate the
"divinity" of Yeshua, to lead to such ideas as the denial
of the pre-existence of Yeshua as the Word of Yhwh. The Biblical,
Messianic, Apostolic position is EXACTLY MIDWAY between "high"
and "low" Christology. It doesn't have a problem with, or
try to underemphasize either the "high" scriptures, such as
Jn 8:58, Jn 1:1, etc., or the "low" scriptures, such as Jn
14:28, Mk 10:40, etc. It doesn't try to explain one or the other away
but, as proper hermeneutics requires, to find the correct BALANCE
between the two.
I will ask you these questions: What do you mean by the "deity"
of Yeshua or the "ontological equality" of Yhwh and Yeshua?
Do you mean that Yeshua and Yhwh are the same in EVERY WAY, even
though they are more than one Being? If this is not what the "deity"
of Yeshua or the "ontological equality" of the Father and
the Son mean, then what do these terms mean? What do YOU think they
mean?
If the "deity" of Yeshua and the "ontological
equality" of Yhwh and Yeshua DO mean that they are the same in
EVERY WAY and that Yeshua is no less than 100% God, the very One who
spoke and appeared to Adam, Avraham, etc., how can Yeshua be to the
RIGHT of that One? How can Yeshua have a different POSITION than
Yhwh? Isn't it true that if two beings have different POSITIONS, if
they occupy different sets of points in space, that in itself is a
difference; hence the fact that Yeshua sits or stands to the RIGHT of
Yhwh proves ipso facto that the two are NOT "ontologically
equal," i.e. the same in EVERY WAY. Or do you argue, as some,
that Yeshua doesn't "really" sit or stand to the RIGHT of
Yhwh?
It is manifest, though, that there are other differences, unless
you believe that Yhwh died when Yeshua died, but if Yhwh died, and
Yhwh is the source of life without which nothing can live (not even
Yeshua: cf. Jn 5:26), how is it that EVERYTHING didn't die when
Yeshua died? Doesn't the fact that everything didn't die when Yeshua
died show that Yeshua is not completely equal to Yhwh? What would
happen if Yhwh died? Do you think ANYTHING could exist if Yhwh did
not exist? Do you think YESHUA could exist without Yhwh? Yeshua said
"Of myself I can do nothing"? How then could Yeshua exist
without Yhwh?
Another thing to consider: Any human being who looks into Yhwh's
face cannot live, yet many people looked into Yeshua's face and
lived. Doesn't this, too, show that there is some difference, however
infinitesimal, between Yhwh and Yeshua? Again, the doctrine of the
"deity" of Yeshua looks questionable, which is why there is
so much disagreement about it. One of the basic rules of
hermeneutics, however, is that major doctrines must be supported
unequivocally by scripture, which is manifestly not the case in
regard to the doctrine of the "deity" of Yeshua. Another
basic rule, by the way, is that doctrine must not be based on
tradition, however old or popular such tradition may be.
Still another thing to consider: A servant, according to Yeshua,
is not greater than his master (cf. Jn 13:16, 15:20), but neither, by
DEFINITION, is a servant EQUAL to his master. Yeshua definitely is
the SERVANT of Yhwh. Even trinitarians, even the Athanasian Creed,
admitted that Yeshua is "functionally subordinant" to Yhwh.
Now every servant is "equal," in a sense, to his master
since a servant is an extension of his master, just like an arm or
leg, which is a part of, and therefore, in some sense, identical to
its owner, but, and this is the point, this is NOT the kind of
"ontological equality" that trinitarians speak of.
"Ontological equality" is not JUST the representation of
the master or principal by the servant or agent. "Ontological
equality," in fact, can only be one thing (so far as I can
tell), viz. the equality of something to itself, i.e. a = a, b = b,
etc. No two things, "a" and "b," for example, are
or can be ontologically equal because "a" must be different
IN SOME WAY from "b" in order to distinguish "a"
from "b." The minute one admits that "a" is
different AT ALL from "b," the minute one admits that there
are TWO, "a" cannot be "ontologically equal" to
"b." So the very fact that Yeshua is "functionally
subordinant" to, i.e. a SERVANT of Yhwh shows that the two are
not "ontologically equal."
There are indeed many scriptures which prophesy that Yhwh will do
this or that. Then one finds that, lo and behold, Yeshua fulfills
that prophecy. This is just like saying that George Washington won
the American Revolution, and the 13 colonies won the American
Revolution. Well, BOTH are true, yet this doesn't mean that George
Washington was "equal" in every way to the 13 colonies. In
the same way, the fact that Yhwh does everything through His Word
doesn't necessarily mean that Yhwh is the same in every way to
Yeshua.
As I have said before, nowhere does scripture require that one
confess that Yeshua is Yhwh, much less that Yeshua is 100% God,
"fully God," "ontologically equal" to Yhwh, etc.
Nor does scripture require that one confess that God is "three
Persons," "three interfaces," or three anything,
triune, etc. Many disciples confessed that the Messiah Yeshua is the
Son of Yhwh, and they were approved. We are commanded, too, to stick
to the "sound words" of the Messiah and no others, nor to
be "cheat[ed] . . . through philosophy and empty deceit,
according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles
of the world, and not according to Messiah. Messianic officials, on
the other hand, do insist that we subscribe to trinitarian dogma, yet
they also insist that scripture is our only rule. Official Messianic
jurisprudence is out of sync with the Word. My position is that this
is a problem, and the solution is to get official Messianic
jurisprudence precisely in sync with scripture. When that happens,
even when we move openly in that direction, leaving behind any and
all historical, political, socio-economic and other "hang-ups,"
then I do believe we will see those blessings and miracles for which
we pray, not just in private but in public, too. Only then will we
get over the syndrome of "charismania," a departure from
reality, living in a kind of fantasy world. Only then will we really
move forward.
The answer to the question, "Is Yeshua created or did he
always exist?" is the same: It is exactly MIDWAY between the two
alternatives. You say, "That's impossible. How can someone or
something be created and also eternally existent? Someone or
something either must be created or eternally existent. It cannot be
both," but consider John 1:1 = "In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was WITH (the) God, and the Word was God."
How can the Word be "with" (the) God and also "be"
God? To be "with" (the) God implies TWO. It implies a
DIFFERENCE between the two, like "a" and "b." To
be "God" implies ONE so there seems to be a contradiction,
but this apparent contradiction illustrates the point that the
Biblical position is neither "high" nor "low" but
exactly MIDWAY between the two.
Yeshua IS the "beginning of the creation of Yhwh" (Rev
3:14). High Christology wants to say that Yeshua PRECEDED the
beginning. Low Christology wants to say that Yeshua began after the
beginning, at his birth in Beyt Lechem, for example, or even,
like the "Adoptianists," at his baptism. It's like the
Democrats and the Republicans: The Democrats always want to put more
money into welfare and education. The Republicans always want to put
more money into "the military-industrial complex." This is
"party spirit" or partisanship, which we are to avoid.
Yeshua IS the beginning. He is neither before nor after.
But when did the beginning begin? Did you know that there was a
controversy in ancient Greek philosophy over whether the first
instant of time was infinite or infinitesimal? Some philosophers took
one side, and some took the other, but the Word resolves the problem:
Yeshua IS the beginning. Yeshua is like a duck-billed platypus: Is it
a bird or a marsupial? It's part bird and part marsupial. It has some
features of a bird and some of a marsupial. It's a cross between the
two. Or Yeshua is like a photon: Is a particle or a wave? It's a
cross between the two. Yeshua is a cross between God and nature. He
has features of both. High Christology, though, wants to
overemphasize the divine features. Low Christology wants to
overemphasize Yeshua's materiality. The solution is to emphasize the
"sound words" of Yeshua and the Apostles and to steer away
from ". . . foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they
generate strife" (II Tim 2:23). Once one deviates away from
scripture into either "high" or "low" territory,
once one begins to impose other words such as "deity,"
"triune," etc., one unleashes a world of strife. It is like
eating the forbidden fruit. It brings death into the world, and those
who do so shall reap what they sow.
You also asked about the Holy Spirit. Do you believe that God is
three Spirits? Probably not, I would assume, yet you believe that God
is "three Persons" or "triune" so there must be a
difference between a "person" and a "spirit,"
viz. that spirits are not "flesh" (cf. Luke 24:39 "Behold
My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a
spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.")
We know that the HS is a Spirit. We know that spirits can and do
speak and act. Evil spirits, for example, can make people sick or
crazy, speak, and move from a person to a pig (cf. Mk 15:13). Would
you say that the "legion" of demons in the Gadarene
demonaic were "persons"? I assume not. Why, then, do you
insist that the HS is a "Person"? Just because the HS
speaks, thinks and acts doesn't prove that the HS is a "Person."
Neither is the HS a "force"
or "power" like magnetism or electricity, but scripture
does speak of the HS "flowing" or being "poured out,"
rather like a fluid or gas. Again, this is another duck-billed
platypus situation: The HS has features like a "person" and
like a "force." High Christology wants to emphasize the
"personal" features. Low Christology emphasizes the
"inanimate" features. Scripture says that the HS is Spirit
so let's not deviate to the right or left, high or low. Let's stick
to the "sound words."
> Apart from these questions I want to challenge you to preach
the Gospel
> first on your home page then give a warning as to the error
of "Trinitarian
> Dogma". It is my opinion that we are first called to
proclaim the Gospel
> of the Kingdom of Gd, second to challenge people to
righteousness and
> bringing forth the fruit of the Spirit, and third to warn
people of error.
If my thesis is correct, if trinitarian dogma is "mystery
Babylon," 666, etc., I AM preaching the gospel. Those who
"worship the beast," have the "mark of the beast,"
the "number of the beast," etc., are destined, not to
salvation but to perdition. To identify trinitarian dogma as 666 IS
to preach the gospel. It just depends to whom one preaches. Most
Jews, for example, don't believe in trinitarian dogma, but they
reject Yeshua. They need to hear the Truth, which is that the Messiah
Yeshua IS the supremely beloved Son of Yhwh.
It is evident, though, that the Lord has called me to preach to
YOU (Messianic believers) and to tell YOU that something MAJOR is
AWRY and that some recalibration needs to occur in the Messianic
world. He even has told me exactly WHAT is awry, which is exactly
what I am telling you, not to anger you but just the opposite, to
help you and others FIND what you seek. I am not against you. I'm FOR
you. Very much so. I am not preaching to Catholics or Presbyterians,
not even principally to Jews because YOU are the ones who are CLOSEST
to the Truth. YOU are the VANGUARD. You need me, and I need you. If
you cut me off, don't be fooled: You cut off yourselves, not me.
> I am looking forward to your response and further dialog.
Me, too.
Hayal Talmid