The Holy Trinity

Taken from Nakdimon’s page. Nakdimon, who is a Dutch Messianic Jew is the original author of this article.

Here are the actual link:

http://www.geocities.com/nakdimonspage/trinitypt1rts.html

http://www.geocities.com/nakdimonspage/trinitypt2rts.html

The Trinity

Part One

The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him. (Proverbs 18:17)

Now it’s time to deal with the concept of the Trinity. This concept is one of the foundations of the Messianic Jewish faith, that is based on the clear revelation in the New Testament (NT). This section will be about the Divine nature of Yeshua, our Messiah, since rabbi Singer has primarily focussed on that subject. Rabbi Singer has charged that the concept of the Trinity is nowhere to be found in the Tenach and not even in the New Testament. What’s funny about this is that rabbi Tovia Singer, with this statement, once more contradicts other statements in another lecture. He says one thing in one lecture because it suits the purpose of that lecture and then turns around to say the exact opposite in another lecture, because it serves the message in that lecture. In the lecture “How do missionaries paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures”, at the end of that lecture he plays the “pagan-card” and tries to link the NT-faith to the pagan religions of that day, because he knows that this will scare off sincere Jewish seekers of truth more than anything else. (That’s why this tactic is used so much) And what does he say at 01:15:16? That the author of John “opens up with a whole new idea… the Trinity”. But now he wants proof against that concept and uses this same author to prove that “primitive Christianity” didn’t know anything about that concept. Why? Because obviously it serves the entire purpose of this lecture. The truth is that, many times rabbi Singer has admitted that John 1:1 is a fatal teaching of the New Testament. But here he doesn’t even touch John 1:1. Why? Well, what is this lecture about? Denial of the Trinity. So one doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out why rabbi Singer doesn’t even go there.

Of course we do not find that word “trinity” anywhere in the Bible. Not in the Tenach and not in the NT. This word was created by Tertulian. But does that mean that the concept is completely foreign to the Bible? Of course not! Just as the word “oral law” is nowhere to be found in the Bible as well. If rabbi Singer is consistent, he would reject the notion that there was an oral law given to Moses at Sinai outright. But there is one important difference between the concept of the oral law and that of the Trinity: while the concept of the oral law is based on extremely vague allusions from Scripture, the Bible is much clearer about the concept of the Trinity. Although we understand the quotes from the Tenach rabbi Singer comes up with to be true, there is something else that rabbi Singer doesn’t touch in this lecture, perhaps something that he isn’t familiar with. Something I always bring up when discussing this concept with the detractors of the divinity of Yeshua. We will look at the passage from the Tenach that rabbi Singer brings up and will look at the passages that support the concept of the Trinity in part two of this rebuttal.

Trinity a later invention? (12:13)

Rabbi Singer then claims that the Trinity was invented at the council of Nicea in 325 AD and that emperor Constantine practically forced that concept down the Church’s throat. Also the claim is that there the New Testament was finalized and there it was decided which books are Scripture and which books are not.

Obviously, rabbi Singer is totally ignorant of Church history. This myth has long been refuted. In no way, shape or form did Constantine have such an impact on the doctrines of the Church, and certainly not regarding the canonization of the New Testament. The very fact that rabbi Singer asks who decided that the book of Hebrews should be part of the New Testament and the gospel of Thomas should not be part of it, simply shows how much rabbi Singer knows about this entire matter. The simple fact that the “gospel of Thomas“ was a later Egyptian writing dating from late second to early third century completely excludes that writing from being Scripture. Whatever Thomas that was, it wasn’t the apostle Thomas we know from the Gospels.

Rabbi Singer should know, since he portrays himself as an expert in Church history, that the canon of the New Testament and the concept of the Trinity were established long before that council of Nicea in 325 AD. We have an abundance of letters from the “Church fathers” and direct students of the disciples of Yeshua, who quoted New Testament scriptures frequently in their letters. So much so, that it is said that just from the quotes from their letters alone, we can reconstruct the entire New Testament, except for 11 verses that have no impact on theological matters. Since there was no quote from “the gospel of Thomas” in any of the earliest letters (because that gospel was simply too late) logic dictates that that gospel cannot be part of the Canon. And as far as the Deity of the Messiah is concerned, let’s look at a letter from, lets say, Ignatius, who was a student of the apostle John. Ignatius died around 108 AD, so his letters can’t be from around the time of Constantine. One of them is his letter to Ephesus, where he writes in chapter 7 (emphasis all mine):

There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible, This clause is wanting in the Greek, and has been supplied from the ancient Latin version. even Jesus Christ our Lord… But our Physician is the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For “the Word was made flesh.”

In chapter 9:

From his power Jesus Christ will deliver you, who has founded you upon the rock, as being chosen stones, well fitted for the divine edifice of the Father, and who are raised up on high by Christ, who was crucified for you, making use of the Holy Spirit as a rope, and being borne up by faith, while exalted by love from earth to heaven, walking in company with those that are undefiled.

In chapter 15:

Our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, first did and then taught, as Luke testifies, “whose praise is in the Gospel through all the Churches.” There is nothing which is hid from the Lord, but our very secrets are near to Him. Let us therefore do all things as those who have Him dwelling in us, that we may be His temples, and He may be in us as God. Let Christ speak in us, even as He did in Paul. Let the Holy Spirit teach us to speak the things of Christ in like manner as He did.

And I could go on, but I believe that my point has been well made. So, no, “Moishe Rosen wasn’t there”, but neither was emperor Constantine! Rabbi Singer’s claims are totally unfounded. He would do well to actually study these matters before making claims that are totally incongruent with historical facts.

Dealing with rabbi Singer’s claim that Tertulian didn’t believe that the Father and the Son were not of the same substance in the beginning of this lecture, at about thirty seconds into this lecture. Here is what Tertulian wrote in his letter Anti Praxeas, chapter two:

“But keeping this prescriptive rule inviolate, still some opportunity must be given for reviewing (the statements of heretics), with a view to the instruction and protection of divers persons; were it only that it may not seem that each perversion of the truth is condemned without examination, and simply prejudged; especially in the case of this heresy, which supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame Person. As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds.“

Then Tertulian goes on to explain how the Father, the Son and the Spirit are distinct, yet unseparable and of the same substance and that they are not “three gods”, which he considers a heretical teaching. Again, one might seriously wonder how rabbi Singer came up with that idea. Had rabbi Singer actually done his homework and looked into the matter, he would have known that Tertulian did believe that they were of the same substance. Again one might wonder why rabbi Singer makes these things up out of thin air or does he just blatantly choose to tell falsehoods because it so happens to suit the purpose of his lectures?

Rabbi Singer’s case from the Tenach (16:10)

Numbers 23:19

Earlier, at 8:20 into the lecture, rabbi Singer quoted from the Tenach to demonstrate that God is alone and there is no other. Again, we have no problem at all with the quotes and fully understand the meaning of the verses rabbi Singer quoted. However, as you will see in part two of this rebuttal, different characters in the Tenach, who also fully agree with the quotes, would not agree with how rabbi Tovia Singer interprets verses such as Numbers 23:19. According to rabbi Singer this verse tells us that God anticipated the possibility that people would teach that He would come down in the form of a man. And this verse tells us that God can’t appear in human form. But that is actually not what the verse says at all. The verse says that, unlike man, God is faithful because He doesn’t lie or changes His mind when He gives His word. He, unlike man, is trustworthy and does as He promises. That’s what it says:

God is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent:

when He hath said, will He not do it? or when He hath spoken, will He not make it good?

The entire point of this verse is obvious. It is not how rabbi Singer wants it. The verse is about Gods trustworthiness compared to man and nothing more.

Genesis 1:26

Rabbi Singer says that this is a verse that lacks foundation and is not even considered as proof by Christians for a Tri-unity of God. Well, I beg to differ. This verse is still seen as an allusion to the plurality of God. This is what it says.

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

This is said to be God speaking to His host, His council and other verses are cited. But the parallel verses don’t even say the same thing as Genesis 1:26. First of all, God made man in HIS image and likeness, not in the image and likeness of Him and His angels, so the “our” in Genesis 1 can’t be about the hosts. Second, while Isaiah 6, the parallel passage rabbi Singer cited, shows clearly that God is speaking to His hosts and He is actually the active force, this is not the case in Genesis 1. There the “us” is the active force:

Genesis 1

Na’asah adam…

Let US MAKE man…

Isaiah 6

Et-mi eshlach…

Whom SHALL I SEND…

The difference is major! Genesis 1 cannot be about the hosts, since God made everything alone, as rabbi Singer himself quoted in Isaiah 44:24. If Genesis is referring to the hosts, then Isaiah 44:24 is not true and God had help with His creation. So although there is a reference made in Isaiah 6 to explain how God sometimes addresses His council, this couldn’t possibly be the case in the creation account.

New Testament quotes

Then rabbi Singer goes on to selectively quote the New Testament, claiming that Yeshua denied his status as Deity. There is one thing I don’t agree with when it comes to today’s majority claim that Yeshua was fully God and fully man when he came to die for our sins. Philippians 2:7 makes that impossible. Yeshua made himself of no reputation to become a man to die for our sins. God cannot die, therefore, had Yeshua been fully God there was no way he could have laid down his life for us and there is no way he could have been of “no reputation”. He laid aside his divine nature to become flesh. So, no, Yeshua wasn’t fully God and fully man, but he instead made himself a mere man.

Rabbi Singer goes on to quote the following passages:

Mark 10:17-22

The good teacher: rabbi Singer claimed that Yeshua didn’t want to be called good, because “no one is good but God alone”. Yet Yeshua calls himself the good Shepherd in John 10. Of course, in Mark 10, Yeshua only cautioned the man not to call everyone “good”. The man didn’t even know him and called him “good”. Yeshua points him to the only one that can be called “good”, that is God. Rabbi Singer claimed that the rebuke of Yeshua means that Yeshua denied himself that title. But then what does the absence of rebuke in John 20:28-29 tell us? Rabbi Singer merely misses the entire point of the episode.

Mark 13

The Son doesn’t know the day of Judgement: As a human being, the Son only knew what was revealed to him by the Father. What is really interesting is the distinguishing of the Son from all creation: of that day and that hour knows no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. The Son exists apart from everything that is created. What mere creature could say this? Then rabbi Singer asks why the Holy Spirit wasn’t mentioned. Why should he have been? To say that the Spirit of God doesn’t know what is “in God” is simply preposterous. As Paul explains:

The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. (1 Cor 2:10-11)

The answer to rabbi Singer’s question is self evident.

Jesus praying to God/calling to God for legions of angels:

As I heard Dr. James R. White say once (paraphrase): If God would chose to enter into His creation in the form of a man, would we expect Him to be an atheist? Or would we expect Him to be the greatest example of worship and reverence to God?

This is an excellent question that has only accurate one answer. Of course we would expect him to be the epitome of human obedience to, human subservience to and human dependence on God. Yeshua came to set such an example for us. How can he go around and telling us what to do, yet himself not doing it? So, yes, he asks for angels, showing his example of dependence on God. As he said in John 11:42: he doesn’t need to do so. He only does these things to demonstrate that he isn’t just making claims. His claims are backed up by the signs God does through him.

My father is greater than I:

There is no Christian that will deny the truth of this text. Does this mean that the Son is less Deity? Of course not. The Father IS greater than the Son, just like any father is greater than his son. But it a father more humanity than his son? NO! Therefore, this text says nothing about the divinity of Yeshua.

John 17:3:

The only true God: Again, no one denies the truth of this text. I would point you to Dr. Whites question again. Does acknowledging the Father as the only true God, detract anything from the divinity of the Son? In no way whatsoever. However, the question has to be raised: What mere creature can say of himself that you have to believe in him and honour him just as you believe in and honour the Father? What does that say about the one that makes this claim? That he is either a lunatic or he is worthy of our praise and worship as our God. Anything less makes his claims idolatrous.

John 10:30:

I and my Father are one: rabbi Singer tries to show that the reaction of the Jews hearing this claim of Yeshua doesn’t mean that they really thought that He was God. He uses Yeshua’s reaction to build his case. But before he does so, he tries to blame John for calling a spade a spade. Because John says that “the Jews” tried to stone the Messiah, rabbi Singer tries to play the “anti-Semitism card”. But is it really? First of all, weren’t these people Jews? I bet that if John would have called them “the children of Israel”, he would been criticised for that too. Furthermore, John was probably talking about “Judeans”, i.e. people of the district of Judea, instead of “Jews” in general. The word for Jew and Judean is the same. Lastly, the Tenach does far more Jew bashing than the New Testament. John, being a Jew himself, could not have been an anti-Semite. That would be like a pious Muslim, criticising his fellow Muslims because of their behaviour, being called an Islamophobe. What sense does that make?

But rabbi Singer goes on to say that Yeshua, by his referring to Psalm 82, Yeshua denies divine status. Let’s look at the text:

I and the Father are one.” Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” “We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp. (30-34)

If you read carefully, Yeshua indeed claimed to be God. The Judeans didn’t misunderstand him at all. They knew the implications of the claim he made. But at the charge of blasphemy, Yeshua puts the ball in their court, by pointing them to the Psalms. They were mad because he claimed to be Elohim, but Yeshua pointed them to their own Psalms, that calls them elohim as well. So he is basically saying “What are you mad at me for? The books that you read and revere call you elohim as well! If that applies to you, then how much more would that apply to me? So why is what I’m saying blasphemy?” He dids not take back what he said, but he re-inforced it instead, which is apparent by the second response of the Judeans.

He had a ready answer for everything and who could resist that answer he gave them?

Isaiah 9:5-6 (49:50)

Rabbi Singer’s ultimate argument against the divinity of Yeshua is found in Isaiah 9. For the majority of the time, rabbi Singer addresses the issue and difficulties of the Messianic interpretation of this section. According to rabbi Singer, this passage is about Hezekiah (Heb. Chizkiyahu), about his time of distress and the deliverance from the siege of Jerusalem by Sancheriv, the king of Assyria. We are going to examine this claim and look at the part that is considered Messianic and look at how Chizkiyahu fits this description.

Calling this an “exotic reconstruction”, rabbi Singer objects to the fact that the Christian translators use the future tense because it’s “a little annoying” to have it in the past tense. However, rabbi Singer makes one principle mistake. Just because something is written in past tense, doesn’t mean that it is actually talking about a past event. There are passages in the Bible that are in the past tense and are actual prophecies. One excellent example is Isaiah 53. Although the passage is written almost entirely in the past tense, surely no orthodox Jew will deny that Isaiah 53 is a prophecy rather than a description of a past event? In essence, this passage is so obviously messianic, that it has to be stripped of it’s messianic status in order to get the focus off of Yeshua and divert it to anyone else, in this case that would be Chizkuyahu. So if this is actually speaking of an event that happened in the past then it cannot in any way shape or form be messianic. So all the words that are in the past tense must and shall be understood to be about a past event. But if this entire passage is about an event that happened in the past, then why on earth are there sentences in the future tense? Yes, you are reading it correctly: rabbi Singer left all the future references completely untouched and focussed entirely on the past tenses:

8:21 And they shall pass this way that are sore bestead and hungry; and it shall come to pass that, when they shall be hungry, they shall fret themselves, and curse by their king and by their God, and, whether they turn their faces upward, 22 or look unto the earth, behold distress and darkness, the gloom of anguish, and outspread thick darkness. 23 For is there no gloom to her that was stedfast? Now the former has lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but the latter has dealt a more grievous blow by the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, in the district of the nations. 9:1 The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light; they that dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined. 2 You have multiplied the nation, you have increased their joy; they joy before you according to the joy in harvest, as men rejoice when they divide the spoil. 3 For the yoke of his burden, and the staff of his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, you have broken as in the day of Midian. 4 For every boot stamped with fierceness, and every cloak rolled in blood, shall even be for burning, for fuel of fire. 5 For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace; 6 That the government may be increased, and of peace there be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it through justice and through righteousness from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts shall perform this.

Future events can be described in past tense, but past events cannot be described in future tense, unless it is a recap of a dialogue. Furthermore, rabbi Singer calls to witness Isaiah 10 and 37 to support his case, that these chapters are an elaboration of the events described in Isaiah 9, a past events that speaks of Chizkiyahu. Yet the text of Isaiah 10 is entirely written in the future tense:

20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the remnant of Israel, and they that are escaped of the house of Jacob, shall no more again stay upon him that smote them; but shall stay upon the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, in truth. 21 A remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto El Gibbor. 22 For though thy people, O Israel, be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them shall return; an extermination is determined, overflowing with righteousness. 23 For an extermination wholly determined shall the Lord, the GOD of hosts, make in the midst of all the earth. 24 Therefore thus says the Lord, the GOD of hosts: O My people that dwell in Zion, be not afraid of Asshur, though he smite you with the rod, and lift up his staff against thee, after the manner of Egypt. 25 For yet a very little while, and the indignation shall be accomplished, and My anger shall be to their destruction. 26 And the LORD of hosts shall stir up against him a scourge, as in the slaughter of Midian at the Rock of Oreb; and as His rod was over the sea, so shall He lift it up after the manner of Egypt. 27 And it shall come to pass in that day, that his burden shall depart from off your shoulder, and his yoke from off your neck, and the yoke shall be destroyed by reason of fatness.

This is a chapter later. What past event is this talking about? Although I believe that Isaiah 37 is an entire recap of the events unfolding in 2 Kings 19, Isaiah 9 and 10 are not! Isaiah chapters 7-12 are soaked with allusions to the messianic age. God simply uses past events to describe the future redemption of the Jewish people. In Isaiah 9, 10 and 11 God simply uses the events of Egypt, Midian and Assyria as a parallel to the events when the redemption comes through the Messiah. How the Jewish people were first carried away and oppressed, but when Messiah comes to establish the throne of David forever, Israel will be restored. God will send Messiah to redeem his people, which will result in the praises of Israel to their God in Isaiah 12.

With all this taken into consideration, let’s look at chapter 9 once again. How does Hezekiah meet the standards of this prophecy:

For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder;

and his name is called Pele Yo’ets, El Gibbor, Avi-Ad, Sar-Shalom;

Let’s look at these names:

Pele Yo’ets / Wonderful Counselor:

The word פֶּלֶאappears 13 times in the Tenach and in all 12 other instances the word is related to divine acts. Since the name of the Child is Pele Yo’ets this points to a divine attribute: The Divine Council will be his. Is this really fulfilled in Chizkuyahu?

El Gibbor / Mighty God:

What is interesting it that rabbi Singer doesn’t mention the name given in Isaiah 9 in Hebrew. All he says is “mighty God” and claims that this is what Chizkiyahu means, giving his audience the impression that the name in Isaiah 9 is actually “Chizkiyahu” rather than “El Gibbor”. But if he actually had mentioned the name in Hebrew, that would be devastating to his case: Chizkiyahu and El Gibbor, are two entirely different names. And it is the latter that appears in Isaiah 9. Rabbi Singer claimed that the name “El-Gibbor” points to Chizkiyahu since the name Chizkiyahu would mean Mighty God. This is just not true! The word “chizki” means my strength. It consists of the word “chazak”, which means “strong” and the possessive first person singular suffix “i”. And the suffix “yahu” is an allusion to God’s divine Name and NOT to the word “God”. Thus, the name Chizkiyahu literally means “Yahweh is my strength”. That is something totally different than “Mighty God”. The name “El Gibbor” points to none else than God, as is evident in the very next chapter. (10:21)

Avi-Ad / Everlasting Father:

This name is applied to Hezekiah. But in what way? The name can also be read as Father of eternity as meaning Owner of eternity. And this name points to the child. How does this point to Hezekiah?

Sar-Shalom / Prince of Peace:

This name says it all. Peace will be abundant in the times of this child’s reign. Chizkiyahu, on the other hand, was besieged by Sancheriv, the king of Assyria. Terror struck every inhabitant of Jerusalem in this period. Shalom there was not. Again, if this name is applied to Hezekiah, then in what way can it be applied to him?

So if rabbi Singer is going to claim that “Jesus was never called” El Gibbor (In his lecture “how do missionaries paint Jesus into the Jewish scriptures”, rabbi Singer makes the same claim when addressing the Immanuel prophecy), he will have to be consistent in his argumentation and admit that Chizkiyahu was never called that either and therefore Isaiah 9:5 does not speak about him. But rabbi Singer will not be consistent, because doing so will destroy his own case. Now, if you have to be inconsistent and use arguments that refute your own case, then what does that tell us about the strength of your argument? Obviously this is not about Chizkiyahu, but about the Messiah. Now if we are going to claim that these names of the Messiah are nothing but names and have nothing to do with the Messiah himself, then either he will have an awful lot of names or these names point us to what the Messiah will be, what his substance is:

Shilo (Gen 49:10)

Yinnon ((Ps 72:17)

Immanuel (Is 7:14)

Pele Yo’ets (Is 9:5)

El Gibbor (Is 9:5)

Avi Ad (Is 9:5)

Sar Shalom (Is 9:5)

YHWH-Tsiduqenu (Jer 23:5)

Tsemach (Zech 6:12)

Certainly these names in Isaiah 9 point to who the child will be and not merely what his name will be. But it doesn’t end there. The next verse goes on to say:

That the government may be increased, and of peace there be no end, upon the throne of David,

and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it through justice and through righteousness

from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of Yahweh of hosts doth perform this.

The reign of the child would be great and there would be no end to the peace from his time on until forever. Although Chizkiyahu was a great king, rabbi Singer and other anti-missionaries tend to blow the greatness of his reign out of proportion. In time and scope, his reign was no greater than any of the other kings. His reign lasted 29 years. Contrast that with other kings of Judah:

Asa reigned for 41 years

Yeho’ash reigned for 40 years

Amatsyah reigned 29 years

Azarjah reigned 52 years

Menashe reigned 55 years

Yoshiyahu reigned 31 years

I ask again, how does the phrase “to establish it, and to uphold it […] from henceforth even forever” fit the reign of Chizkiyahu? These are very strong words and logic dictates that this was in no way fulfilled by Hezekiah. Also consider his words in 2 Kings 20:16-19. There may have been periods of peace in his days, he had no problems with his children living in troubled times. And so they did. Where was the never ending peace then? David’s throne and kingdom would be established from then on until eternity on justice and righteousness, yet Chizkiyahu’s son Menashe was one of the most evil kings Judah ever had.

So it’s not that the Christian translators had to go to trouble to change the words of the prophet. They simply sought to communicate the obvious Messianic nature of the passage. Attributing the fulfilment of this prophecy to Chizkiyahu simply makes Isaiah a false prophet And if this is really about a past event, then this would at least be an inaccurate historical account.

The Trinity

Part two

“There could be no concept that’s more foreign to the New Testament than the idea that Jesus was God.” (Rabbi Singer, 32:42 in this lecture)

Yahweh Echad!

Yahweh is One!

The Bible teaches us that man is created in the image of God and in the likeness of God. Man is created body, soul and spirit. What you see when you look at a person is not the person himself, but his body. The soul you can not see! We might not stop and think about it, but when we make decisions, it is the soul that decides what the person does. The soul contemplates and the body acts on the soul’s decision. The spirit acts as our conscious, that’s that little voice in your inner-self trying to correct you when you make a choice that maybe you shouldn’t do, telling you “should you really be doing that?”. It is your spirit calling you to account when you make such decisions. When God created man, the Bible says that God created man as “a living soul” (Heb: nephesh khayah). God says through the prophet Ezekiel that “the soul [nephesh] that sins shall die”. When we die, the body goes back to the dust, the soul lives on (either separated from [=death] or in the presence of [=life] God) and the spirit goes back to God, from where it came. (Eccl 12:7) So in essence the human is a soul, lives in a body and has a spirit given from God. So if we are to translate these three components to our understanding of God, since we are made in His image (b’tzalmo) and His likeness (kid’muto) the correspondence will look something like this:

The Soul = the Father

The Body = the Son

The Spirit = the Spirit

If we project this to how it works with God we see the following: the Father decides what happens and everything goes according to the will of the Father, the Son does as the Father decides and acts upon His decisions, the Spirit is God’s extension to His creation. This goes all in infinitely perfect unity and with God it works infinitely more complex than it does with the human being, since we are just an extremely downgraded version of God’s Being, in Whose image and likeness we are made.

Would this be what Yeshua meant when He said:

For this cause therefore the Judeans sought the more to kill him, because he not only brake the Shabbat, but also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God. Yeshua therefore answered and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father doing: for what things soever he does, these the Son also does in like manner. (John 5:18-19)

What follows are some passages from the Tenach and we will examine them thoroughly and see what rabbi Tovia Singer did not deal with, again, perhaps because he isn’t aware of this argument. Now as we examine them, keep in mind that according to anti-missionaries, God is not a man and that He can’t appear in human form. And that it’s idolatry to equate anything with the God of Avraham, Yitzchaq and Ya’aqov. Now if we will be honest and look honestly to the Tenach texts this is what we will find written in God’s Word.

What the Tenach tells us is that, although the people knew that God is not a man and that no man is God, for some reason people tend to claim that one particular Person has the right to be called God! We can see that this Person is sent by Yahweh, hence the fact that he is called “mal’ach Yahweh” (messenger of Yahweh). What we also see is that people know that they can’t see God and live. This is something that is only applicable to the God of Israel! NO ONE has this exclusive quality other than Yahweh.

Yet, of this Person, it is said over and over again that they have seen God when they look at him. How can you, after coming to the full understanding of whom that person is, still say that he is God? Here are the texts from the Tenach that are all suspicious to say the least (all the Hebrew transliterations and most following translations are mine, mostly fashoned to the Hebrew text):

Genesis 18:1-19:1

Starting off with Genesis 18-19 where it’s said

“1 And the LORD appeared unto him by the terebinths of Mamre, as he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; 2 and he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, three men stood over against him; and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed down to the earth,”

The story goes on to say that God speaks to Avraham and Sarah and after diner the three men get up to leave for Sodom and Gomorra and the text says

“22 And the men turned from there, and went toward Sodom; but Abraham stood yet before Yahweh.”

Avraham then reasons with God for not sweeping away the righteous with the wicked. After he is done, he goes his way and the text says that Yahweh goes His way. That’s the last verse of chapter 18. Now look at the very next verse:

“1 And the two angels came to Sodom at even…”.

Did you see that? There were 3 men when Yahweh appeared to Avraham, after they have eaten they get up and go to Sodom, but God stays with Avraham to reason with him, and then they part ways after the other men are long gone and the Bible says that 2 angels arrived to Sodom. Where is “angel” #3? He was with Avraham talking about not sweeping away the righteous with the wicked and called Yahweh!

Genesis 32:31

Next up is Genesis 32:31 where Jacob wrestles with someone who changes his name from Ya’aqov to Yisrael because he “has striven with God and with man and prevailed”. Then Jacob comes to an amazing conclusion in verse 31 where he says

“ki ra’iti Elohiem panim el-panim watinatsel nafshi”
(for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved)

How do we know he isn’t just speaking of a “judge” but of “God”? The fact that he claims to have seen Him and is amazed that he is still alive to tell! Look at this conclusion! If he wasn’t talking about the God of Avraham, then who was he talking about when he was amazed that he was still alive. It is only when you look at Elohim of Israel you fear for your life. It is only when you look at our God that you consider the possibility of dying in the process. Yet Ya’aqov, knowing full well that God is not a man, says that the Man he just saw face to face and whom he wrestled with is his God. Is Jacob idolatrous there? He sure is according to the anti-missionary position. Who was this Being? You don’t say that you have seen a judge and are lucky to live. Only when having seen the God of Jacob, this proclamation makes any sense.

Genesis 48:15-16

How about Jacobs prayer for his offspring? In Genesis 48:15-16 Jacob makes another remarkable statement about his God. He is about to give his blessings to his offspring and blesses his beloved son Joseph. When announcing the blessing he says the following:

“HaElohim asher…, haElohim haro’eh oti…haMal’ach hago’el oti mikol rah, y’varech et-han’arim…
(The God whom… the God who tends me… the Messenger that saves me from all evil, bless the children…)”.

How remarkable! Jacob requires the blessing of the Almighty and includes the Mal’ach in this request. Notice he doesn’t use the plural “yiv’r'chu” (may they bless), but the singular “y’varech” (may he bless)! And why on earth would you include a mere angel in a blessing required from the Most High God?

Exodus 24:9-11

Then we have Exodus 24:9-11, where Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up to approach God. Verse 10 tells us

Wayir’u et Elohei Yisrael - and they saw the God of Israel;

and there was under His feet the like of a paved work of sapphire stone, and the like of the very heaven for clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel He laid not His hand; and they beheld God, and did eat and drink.

Who did they see? They saw the God of Israel and they lived to tell. Some try to use the excuse that this was merely a vision as an escape clause. But that can’t be. It says that they ate and drank. How do you eat and drink when you’re in the middle of a vision? So, how does this mesh with the teaching that God has no form, when the text itself describes what is under God’s feet. To say that this is merely figure of speech, requires one to provide the proof for his case.

Judges 13

Now forward to Manoach in Judges 13, who makes the exact same claim, only now there is an extra detail. Manoach speaks to “the man of God” and at the end of the conversation the man does something supernatural. And when everything has passed the text says

“az yada Manoach ki mal’ach YHWH hu
(then he knew that it was Mal’ach Yahweh)“.

So the text tells us that Manoach knew who this was! And still, in full realisation of whom he saw, he says

“mot namut, ki Elohim ra’inu
(we will die, because we have seen God)“.

What an amazing proclamation!! Was Manoach mistaken? His wife surely didn’t think he was. She didn’t say, “are you crazy? Everybody knows that God isn’t a man, so that couldn’t have been God!” or something like that! She doesn’t reason like anti-missionaries do, because she has nothing or no one to refute. Instead, his wife said unto him:

‘If Yahweh were pleased to kill us, He would not have received a burnt-offering and a meal-offering at our hand, neither would He have shown us all these things, nor would at this time have told such things as these.’

Notice that she doesn’t deny that this was the God of Israel. One would expect her to say something like “if that really were God then we would have been dead by now”. Instead, she assured him that they wouldn’t die, not because “that wasn’t God”, but because He wouldn’t have shown them all they were shown.

Judges 6

Back up to Gideon, Judges 6. He talks with a man and the man suddenly does something remarkable. When Gideon realises whom he’s dealing with, look at the remarkable response:

“wayar’ Gid’on, ki mal’ach YHWH hu; wayomer Gid’on: atah Adonai YHWH, ki-al-ken ra’iti mal’ach YHWH panim el-panim
(And Gideon realised that it was the Messenger of YHWH and Gideon said: Alas, O Lord YHWH! forasmuch as I have seen the angel of YHWH face to face)”.

He then gets assured that he won’t die. Why assure someone that he won’t die since he hasn’t seen God? Or has he?

I have yet to meet someone that can adequately explain these passages to me without making ridiculous statements like “those were angels that had the glory of God with them”. That is NOT what the text says! I have searched and discussed these passages with orthodox Jews and anti-missionaries who haven’t come up with any explanation that does right to these passages.

So what we see is that there is a Person that says of Himself “ehye asher ehye” (Gen 3:14 - I will be what I will be), that is sent by YHWH to act in Gods name, bares the name of YHWH and acts in that full authority. We see this through later revelation in the New Testament fulfilled by Yeshua the Messiah! He came to man to make His Father known to us, cause He is the “tselem” (image) of the Invisible God. Obviously God created man to his own “tselem” (image), so how can God create something and say that it’s created in His image, when He has no form? So when Moses, Aharon and the Elders on Sinai “saw the God of Israel” and described what they saw was “under His feet” it wasn’t God, the Father. It was the Son of God Whom they saw, cause no one can see or has ever seen the Father.

The only possible (and plausible) answer

If you would say that this is some god outside of HaShem, then it is definitely idolatry. So unless you claim that they have just been mistaken, Jacob, Gideon, Manoach and Moshe were all idolaters, because they said to have seen the God of Israel and all feared for their lives just because they claimed to have seen HaShem. Now I’ll ask anti-missionaries to be consistent by answering this question honestly, holding these instances from the Tenach to the same critical standard as they hold the New Testament: Is this idolatry? If is it, then the Torah and the Prophets endorse idolatry, since it doesn’t correct the supposedly idolatrous conclusions of these towering characters from the Tenach anywhere. Which automatically means that Genesis, Exodus and Judges have to rejected by rabbinic Judaism. If not, then why on earth is it idolatrous when we say that Yeshua is Elohim? Now we (i.e. most Messianics) see it the same way as these biblical characters. When we say that Yeshua is God we do NOT see Him as a God besides YHWH, cause there is no God besides YHWH. Knowing full well that there is no such thing as “seeing a prophet is the same thing as seeing God, Who sent the prophet” based on the so called “law of agency”.

The only way that these passages can be explained adequately is Yeshua, the Image of the Invisible God! Now to all the texts from the New Testament that rabbi Singer conveniently left out of his lecture.

Now take a good look at the texts below that say that all things were made by Yeshua, through Yeshua and for Yeshua and that he sustains all things by his powerful word. But before we do that, let’s first go back to Isaiah 44:24 and look at what God said about creation:

Here, Yahweh says that it is HE that makes all things and he does it ALONE. The authors of the New Testament were fully aware of this text. To say that they didn’t believe that Yeshua was God, yet attribute all creation to him is simply untenable! Look at the following explanations as found in the New Testament and as you read these texts, and I urge you to read them carefully (please, don’t just skim through them), consider the implications of the following words and ask yourself this question: To what mere created thing can the following words be applied?

Philippians 2:5-8

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Messiah Yeshua: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Colossians 1:15-17+2:9

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him… For in Messiah all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,

Hebrews 1:1-12

In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

For to which of the angels did God ever say,
“You are my Son; today I have become your Father“?

Or again,
“I will be his Father, and he will be my Son”?

And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,
“Let all God’s angels worship him.”

In speaking of the angels he says,
“He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire.”

But about the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.”

He also says,
“In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe;
like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same,
and your years will never end.”

John 1:1-3+14

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made…. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth…

Revelation 7:9+10

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 God which sits upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.

Revelation 5:11-14

And I saw, and I heard a voice of many angels round about the throne and the living creatures and the elders; and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands; saying with a great voice, Worthy is the Lamb that has been slain to receive the power, and riches, and wisdom, and might and honour, and glory, and blessing. And every created thing which is in the heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and on the sea, and all things are in them, heard I saying, Unto him that sits on the throne, and unto the Lamb, [be] the blessing, and the honour, and the glory, and the dominion, for ever and ever. And the four living creatures said, Amen. And the elders fell down and worshipped.

Who, besides God, is worthy to receive all this praise? Who, besides God, is worthy of the worship of “every created thing”, as expressed in Revelation 5:13? With this, he separates the Lamb from all creation and puts him alongside God. Now look at what a mere created thing should have said if he would be worshipped:

Rev 19:10

And I fell down before his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See do it not: I am a fellow-servant with you and

with your brethren that hold the testimony of Jesus: worship God; for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

Rev 22:9

And he said unto me, See do it not: I am a fellow-servant with you and with your brethren the prophets,

and with them that keep the words of this book: worship God.

If Yeshua were nothing more than ministering angels, even the highest angel isn’t worthy of worship, then please explain to me why God allows the Lamb to be worshipped?

The Targumim

Even in the Targumic concept of the Memra of YHWH (the Word of Yahweh) we see the same concept as explained above. The quotes from Scripture are in italics and the bold face are the Targums:

Gen 1:27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.

[JERUSALEM]. And the Word of the Lord created man in His likeness, in the likeness of the presence of the Lord He created him, the male and his yoke-fellow He created them

—

2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward, in Eden; and there He put the man whom He had formed.

[Pseudo Jonathan] And a garden from the Eden of the just was planted by the Word of the Lord God before the creation of the world, and He made there to dwell the man when He had created him.

—

3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden toward the cool of the day;

[Onkelos]And they heard the voice of the Word of the Lord God walking in the garden in the evening of the day;

—

3:9 And the LORD God called unto the man, and said unto him: ‘Where art thou?’…11 And He said: ‘Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?’

[JERUSALEM]. And the Word of the Lord God called to Adam, and said to him, Behold, the world which I have created is manifest before Me; and how thinkest thou that the place in the midst whereof thou art, is not revealed before Me? Where is the commandment which I taught thee?

—

3:22 And the LORD God said: ‘Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; …

[JERUSALEM] And the Word of the Lord God said, Behold, Adam whom I have created is sole in my world, as I am sole in the heavens above…

—

6:3 And the LORD said: ‘My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for that he also is flesh; therefore shall his days be a hundred and twenty years.’

JERUSALEM. And the Word of the Lord said…Have I not imparted My Spirit to the sons of men… Behold, I have given them a prolongment of a hundred and twenty years,

—

15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and He counted it to him for righteousness.

[Onkelos] And he believed in the Word of the Lord, (Memra da Yeya,) and He reckoned it to him unto justification

—

17:2 And I will make My covenant between Me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.’…7 And I will establish My covenant between Me and thee and thy seed after thee throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant…10 This is My covenant, which ye shall keep, between Me and you and thy seed after thee: every male among you shall be circumcised…11 And ye shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of a covenant betwixt Me and you.

[Onkelos] I and I will set a covenant between My Word and thee, and I will multiply thee exceedingly much…And I will establish My covenant between My Word and thee, and thy sons after thee unto perpetual generations…This is My covenant which you shall keep between My Word and you and thy sons after thee, to circumcise every male that is among you. And you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between My Word and you.

—

20:6 And God said unto him in the dream: ‘Yea, I know that in the simplicity of thy heart thou hast done this, and I also withheld thee from sinning against Me. Therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.

[Pseudo Jonathan]And the Word of the Lord said to him in a dream, Before Me also it is manifest that in the truthfulness of thy heart thou didst this, and so restrained I thee from sinning before Me; therefore I would not permit thee to come near her.

—

21:22 And it came to pass at that time, that Abimelech and Phicol the captain of his host spoke unto Abraham, saying: ‘God is with thee in all that thou doest. 23 Now therefore swear unto me here by God that thou wilt not deal falsely with me, nor with my son, nor with my son’s son;

[Onkelos] And it was in that time that Abimelek and Phikol, chief of his host, spake to Abraham, saying, The Word of the Lord is thy Helper in everything thou doest; and now swear to me here, by the Word of the Lord, that thou wilt not be false with me, nor with my son, nor with my son’s son.

—

21:33 And Abraham planted a tamarisk-tree in Beer-sheba, and called there on the name of the LORD, the Everlasting God.

[JERUSALEM]. And Abraham planted a paradise in Beer Sheba…And Abraham praised and prayed there in the name of the word of the Lord, the God of Eternity.

—

Exo 6:3 and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name YHWH I made Me not known to them.

[JERUSALEM] And the Lord was revealed in His Word unto Abraham, to Izhak, and to Jakob, as the God of Heaven; but

the Name of the Word of the Lord was not known to them.

—

17:15 And Moses built an altar, and called the name of it YHWH-nissi. 16 And he said: ‘The hand upon the throne of the LORD: the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.’

[PJ]And Mosheh builded an altar, and called the name of it, The Word of the Lord is my banner; for the sign which He hath wrought (in this) place was on my behalf. And he said, Because the Word of the Lord hath sworn by the throne of His glory, that He by His Word will fight against those of the house of Amalek, and destroy them unto three generations; from the generation of this world

—

30:6 And thou shalt put it before the veil that is by the ark of the testimony, before the ark-cover that is over the testimony, where I will meet with thee.

[Onkelos] And thou shalt place it before the veil which is over the ark of the testimony before the mercy?seat which is over the testimony, where I will appoint My Word to be with thee.

—

33:9 And it came to pass, when Moses entered into the Tent, the pillar of cloud descended, and stood at the door of the Tent; and [the LORD] spoke with Moses. 10 And when all the people saw the pillar of cloud stand at the door of the Tent, all the people rose up and worshipped, every man at his tent door.

[PJ]And it came to pass when Mosheh had gone into the tabernacle, the column of the glorious Cloud descended and stood at the door of the tabernacle; and the Word of the Lord spake with Mosheh. And all the people beheld the column of the Cloud standing at the door of the tabernacle, and the whole people at once rose up and worshipped towards the tabernacle, standing every man at the door of his tent.

—

Lev 26:11 And I will set My tabernacle among you, and My soul shall not abhor you. 12 And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be My people.

[PJ] And I will set the Shekinah of My Glory among you, and my Word shall not abhor you, but the Glory of My Shekinah shall dwell among you, and

My Word shall be to you for a redeeming God, and you shall be unto My Name for a holy people.

—

Num 14:20 And the LORD said: ‘I have pardoned according to thy word.

[JERUSALEM] And the Word of the Lord said, Behold, I have absolved and pardoned, according to thy word

—

Deut 4:7 For what great nation is there, that hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is whensoever we call upon Him?

[PJ] But the custom of (other) nations is to carry their gods upon their shoulders, that they may seem to be nigh them; but they cannot hear with their ears, (be they nigh or) be they afar off; but the Word of the Lord sitteth upon His throne high and lifted up, and heareth our prayer what time we pray before Him and make our petitions.

—

4:24 For the LORD thy God is a devouring fire, a jealous God.

[Onkelos]For the Word of the Lord thy God is a consuming fire: He is a jealous God.

—

26:17 Thou hast avouched the LORD this day to be thy God, and that thou wouldest walk in His ways, and keep His statutes, and His commandments, and His ordinances, and hearken unto His voice. 18 And the LORD hath avouched thee this day to be His own treasure, as He hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all His commandments;

[JERUSALEM] You have chosen

the Word of the Lord to be King over you this day, that He may be your God. But the Word of the Lord becometh the King over you for His Name’s sake, as over a people beloved as a treasure, as He hath spoken to you, that you may obey all His commandments.

—

Written in Deut 32. [PJ] When the Word of the Lord shall reveal Himself to redeem His people, He will say to all the nations: Behold now, that I am He who Am, and Was, and Will Be, and there is no other God beside Me: I, in My Word, kill and make alive; I smite the people of the Beth Israel, and I will heal them at the end of the days; and there will be none who can deliver them from My hand, Gog and his armies whom I have permitted to make war against them.

So in summary, looking at these quotes from the Targumim, we see the following:

 The Word has made man in His image, (Gen 9:6)

 The Word made Eden and was present there the whole time,

 The Word receives prayers and forgives sins,

 The Word rules in heaven,

 Altars are built in honour of the Word,

 There are petitions in the name of the Word and by His name people swear,

 The Word is being sent,

 The Word is called redeeming and en jealous God. My last example says that He Is, Was and will Be and that there is no God besides Him.

So in short:

* This Mal’ach is sent and gets the same response as though He is God in the Tenach
* The Memra is sent and gets the same credits as though He is God in the Targums
* Yeshua is sent and gets the same credits as though He is God in the New Testament

Do you see the parallels? These aren’t Christian sources, these are rabbinic Jewish sources. Who was this being that people spoke of so highly as though it was God himself? There are more places that can be pointed out, but are less ambiguous than these. But I challenge anyone to read the texts with an open mind and an open heart (forget trinity believes!) and to come up with a satisfactory explanation of these verses without coming to the same conclusion as we have. Namely, that there is something more than “unitarians” (for lack of better words) would like us to believe. The excuse that “one who represents God has His authority” simply will not work in these cases! A prophet represents God too but no one would claim that “seeing a prophet” equals “seeing God” and would then fear for his life after having seen a prophet. But I have to say, with people like Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Gideon and Manoach on our side, we are in very good company.

John 12:39-41

A few more things to be said about this subject in conclusion. I will take you to a few more passages. In the verses 39-41 of the gospel of John we find the following:

For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere:
“He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn—and I would heal them.”

Isaiah said this because he saw Yeshua’s glory and spoke about him.

Does anyone know what part of Isaiah John is quoting here? When did Isaiah see the glory of Yeshua? John quotes Isaiah 6:10. If we go to the quote in Isaiah 6 we see the entire episode that John is alluding to and we see what Isaiah saw before the quote in John 12:

In the year of the death of King Uzziyahu, I saw Adonai sitting on a high and exalted throne, and His lower extremity filled the Temple. Seraphim stood above for Him, six wings, six wings to each one; with two he would cover his face, and with two he would cover his feet, and with two he would fly. And one called to the other and said, “Kadosh, kadosh, kadosh is Yahweh Tseva’ot; the whole earth is full of His glory.” And the doorposts quaked from the voice of him who called, and the House became filled with smoke. And I said, “Woe is me for I am lost, for I am a man of unclean lips, and amidst a people of unclean lips I dwell,

for the King, Yahweh Tseva’ot have my eyes seen.

(Isaiah 6:1-5)

This is what Isaiah saw! Yochanan (John) claims that this wasn’t the Father that Isaiah saw, since no one has seen the Father. (John 1:18) According to John, this was Yeshua’s glory that Isaiah saw. How can anyone, in his right mind, say that the New Testament doesn’t teach that Yeshua is God? Unless, of course, he has some agenda, like rabbi Singer.

John 20:24-29

Then we go to John 20:24-29. Yeshua has risen from the dead and has appeared to the disciples except for Thomas. Now He appears to Thomas, who still couldn’t believe that Yeshua resurrected. After he became convinced that it actually did happen, this is what John records:

But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Yeshua came. So the other disciples were saying to him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.” After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Yeshua came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, “Shalom aleichem.” Then He said to Thomas, “Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.” Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” Yeshua said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”

No one can claim that Thomas wasn’t talking to Yeshua and just exclaimed something in astonishment. John clearly said that Thomas addressed Yeshua. He answered “and said to Him”. And where is the rebuke of Yeshua to Thomas? It doesn’t exist! There is only the affirmation: Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed. And so it is indeed.

2 Peter 1:1

Lastly, I present 2 Peter 1:1. He starts with the following proclamation:

Shim’on Kefa, a bond-servant and apostle of Yeshua the Messiah, To those who have received a faith of

the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Yeshua the Messiah:

Look at that! Yeshua is called “our God and Saviour”. Now I know that people will claim that the phrase should be translated as saying “our God and our Saviour…”, separating the two and distinguishing the words “our God” from “our Saviour”. But if we look at verse 11, we see the exact same phrase when is says:

and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Yeshua the Messiah.

So why translate these verses differently when they say the exact same thing, with the only difference being the words “kuriou” and “theou” (see also 2:20; 3:18):

2 Peter 1:1

tou qeou hmwn kai swthroV ihsou cristou:

tou theou emon kai soteros Iesou Christou

2 Peter 1:11

tou kuriou hmwn kai swthroV ihsou cristou

tou kuriou emon kai soteros Iesou Christou

The translation “God and Saviour” is totally justified and actually the only correct reading of the text.

Conclusion

It is pretty obvious what the New Testament teaches about the divinity of Yeshua, our Messiah and Lord. To think otherwise is to totally neglect everything that is said by either Yeshua Himself or the apostles. Surely, for rabbi Singer to say that the teaching that Yeshua is God is foreign to the New Testament is as nonsensical as saying that Rashi, the Rambam and all the Sages believed in the validity of the New Testament as inspired Scripture, that Yeshua was the Messiah and that they were all passionate Muslims all at the same time. Who would believe that?

May the grace of haAdon Yeshua haMashiach, and the love of Elohim,

and the fellowship of Ruach haKodesh be with you all.

(1 Cor 13:14)

Nakdimon

Email me!

Back to Part I

Back to the main page