Over the years, one of the arguments I've heard in attempts to prove that "Yeshua is really Yahweh," is that Yahweh had to die in order to be able to re-marry the nation of Israel. I've even heard it said that this is the argument that clinches the belief. I heard this come again just the other day, so I thought I would comment on it here.
People who promote this basically say (in a nutshell): "Yahweh was married to the nation of Israel. Yahweh later divorced Israel, because of her harlotry (with other gods). After the divorce she continued her harlotry, and based upon Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Yahweh could not have taken her back as His wife again. But, He could die and be resurrected, making it possible for Him to remarry Israel (based upon Romans 7:1-4)."
I must say that it seems odd to me to try to prove that Yeshua is Yahweh by piecing Scriptures together like this (arguing from reasoning instead of direct scriptures). I would suggest that if we want to know who Yeshua is, we start with the Bible verses that specifically address the issue. Luke 1:26-38 and Matthew 16:13-18 are a good place to start. I believe anyone who reads those verses (among many others) with no "axe to grind," will easily see that Yeshua is Yahweh's Son.
Here are 5 reasons why this idea of "dying to remarry" just does not work at all.
1. Yahweh's marriage relationship with Israel is strictly metaphorical. It is certainly not like the marriage I have with my wife (Yahweh didn't ask "Israel's father" for her hand in marriage). We can know this further by looking at Exodus 4:22-23 where Yahweh calls the same people (Israel) His son. So which is it? Is Israel's Yahweh's bride or Yahweh's son? Is Yahweh married to His own son? Ridiculous I know, but these points show that Yahweh's relationship with Israel can be described as both a Father and a Husband because they are metaphorical relationships, not literal ones. Literally, Yahweh is our Creator and we are His creation.
2. The law of Deuteronomy 24 is a law that Yahweh gave for His people Israel to abide by. We should not take that law given for human beings and try to apply it to Yahweh who is Spirit. The law is speaking about a man of Israel divorcing a woman of Israel, and then she being allowed to go and be another man's wife. If then this second husband divorces her or dies, she is not allowed to go back and marry her former husband. How in the world does this apply to Yahweh? First of all, Yahweh cannot die (I'll get more into that in the next point). Secondly, if hypothetically He did die, then to whom does Israel marry? A resurrected Yahweh? How does that follow the law of Deuteronomy 24? The law in Deuteronomy is talking about the first husband divorcing her, and then she marrying another man who is not her first husband. To apply all of this to a metaphorical relationship that Yahweh has with His people is absurd.
3. Yahweh is immortal (1 Timothy 6:16). Immortal carries the meaning of "not able to die." Immortality is what Yeshua obtained at his resurrection from the dead, and it is what we are seeking to obtain in the future as well. Now that Yeshua has been resurrected to immortality, is it still possible for him to die? How then can the word immortality even have a meaning to it? To say that Yahweh can die is to say that He is not really immortal. We would then have to say that Yeshua, although immortal, still has the possibility of dying again, and also that we (when we obtain immortality) will still have the possibility of being able to die. All of this makes the word immortal not really have a meaning at all. If we start changing the meaning of words we can come up with any teaching we want to come up with.
4. I've heard some try to use Romans 7:1-4 in pushing this doctrine of Yahweh having to die to remarry Israel, but go read Romans 7. Paul is talking about a woman being bound to her husband as long as he lives. It's like my wife and I. She is my wife. If she tries to "marry" another man, she is an adulteress. But, if I die, she is free to get married to another man because I'm no longer in the picture (alive). Paul uses this as a means to get across his point that we have become dead to the law through the death of Messiah. In other words, the law's death penalty had us bound, but through Yeshua's death we are set free to be married (metaphorical here) to him who is raised from the dead. Married here literally carries the idea of "attached to" rather than wedded to, but Paul uses married to go along with the point he just made. There is zero here about Yahweh having to die in order to remarry Israel. In Romans 7 it is us who die to the penalty of the law through the one who died in our place, Yeshua.
5. Some have asked how we can be both the bride of Yahweh and the bride of Yeshua. The answer is simple. Seeing that the relationship is metaphorical and not literal, there is not a problem. In the same way Israel can be Yahweh's son (Exodus 4:22-23) and bride (Ex. 19:1-6) and it not be a problem, because these are not literal relationships. It's not like one woman is married to both a man and his son in the natural. That would be adultery. The relationships that Yahweh and Yeshua have with us aren't literal in this sense.
As I said before, instead of trying to reason our way into believe that Yeshua is Yahweh from texts that do not say such, why not go to texts that are explicitly about who he is?
"You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you will call his name Yeshua. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High, and [Yahweh] Almighty will give him the throne of his father David." ~ Gabriel (to the virgin Mary; Luke 1:31-32)
I grew up in a singing church. Sometimes we would sing for like 2 hours solid. I remember playing the bass guitar for the church as a teenager and my fingers getting so tired that they wouldn't work anymore. Those bass runs were killer.
As a child I just sang along with everything. I didn't pay much attention to what I was singing. The older I get, and the more I study Scripture, theology, christology, and all the other "ologies," I realize that some of the songs I have sang over the years are just bad. Real, real bad.
Not too long ago I heard a brother belt out this line, "I know Yahweh will make a way for me. If I live a holy life, shun the wrong and do the right." Man I used to love singing that song. But I'm gonna just be honest. I can't sing it anymore.
Yahweh makes ways for us we we live holy and do right? Um... if that song is accurate then none of us would be saved. We've all lived unholy lives. We've all shunned the right and did the wrong. The whole gospel message is that Yahweh has made a way for us WHO HAVE NOT DONE WHAT IS RIGHT. Of course I know there are people out there who actually believe they don't do wrong. They sing that tune with great gusto. I used to be one of them. Now, I've gotten to the point where I don't even know how else better to start a prayer than, "Father, have mercy upon me, a sinner."
Let me tell you about another song that I think is just a big, fat lie. It's an old one, and I'm sure this will upset some old saints in the faith, but I'm just keeping things real. It's called "I Surrender All." It starts out like this:
All to Jesus I surrender
The last time I sang that song I just thought in my mind, "No I don't. I should. I know I need to. I know that's what is demanded of me. But I don't." I put myself above my Savior all the time. I put my job above my Savior, my wife, my kids, my money; it often all comes before my Savior. There may be times when I do a bit better, but to sing "I Surrender All" at the top of my lungs acting like I mean what I am singing? Nope, not gonna lie.
The way I suggest we sing the song is "Christ surrendered all, Christ surrendered all." This way the song is absolutely true. Yeshua did surrender all to the Father. He humbled himself even to the point of death on the cross. I've failed the Father often. Yeshua never did. My faith rests in him and only him for my righteousness.
I wonder what other songs I'm still singing that aren't theologically accurate. I guess it's back to the drawing board.
References: Romans 5:6-11; Philippians 2:1-11
Yahshua: Did He Pre-Exist? (Pt. 2)
The Word "By"
Yahweh created the world "by" (through) the Son (Hebrews 1:2 KJV). The Diaglott says Yahweh created the world "on account of" the Son. Any one of the three ("by," "through," or "on account of") is technically a correct translation of the Greek word di' or dia. Dia is in the KJV translated several ways, but usually it is translated as follows:
by - 243x
through - 100x
for - 106x
because - 24x
because of - 29x
for the sake of - 32x
The King's men did not translate the word di' incorrectly in Hebrews 1:2. By or through [are] correct translations of the word, but ONLY IF THE MESSAGE in the sentence agrees, or allows it. But alas, in this case the message of the sentence will not allow this translation.
Reason #1: Hebrews 1:2a reveals Yahshua to be the heir of what was created [see part 1 of this study].
Reason #2: More than 100 Scriptures show it was Yahweh (not Yahshua) who created the heavens and the earth. Hebrews 1:2 must agree with the 100 other Scriptures. For a list of these, see our paper, "Who is the Creator?"
Editors Note: You will find this paper
For these reasons, the sentence in Hebrews 1:2b must have originally read much like the Diaglott reads today, Yahweh "...in the last of these days spoke to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, ON ACCOUNT OF whom he constituted the ages."
Another acceptable translation would be, "...a Son, FOR whom he created the world."
Many times the King James Version as well as more modern versions translate dia as "for," "because of," [or] "therefore" (meaning "for this reason"). For a more detailed layout of the word di' (dia), ask for the paper, "Hebrews 1:2 - Berry."
This is not to say the King's men purposely mistranslated, nor is this to say they were dishonest. Not at all. On the contrary, they no doubt delivered what they believed to be a correct translation of Hebrews 1:2. We must realize, however, that all of the King's men believed the doctrine of the Trinity (one is three, and three are one). Believing this, they saw no contradiction between this Scripture (as they translated it) and the 100 Scriptures which show that Yahweh the Father is truly and personally the Creator of heaven and earth.
There are at least two other Scriptures in which di' should have been translated for, or on account of. These are Colossians 1:16-17 and John 1:10. Let us review these Scriptures, then return to our study in the book of Hebrews.
For by him (Yahshua) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth... all things were created by him and for him. (Colossians 1:16,17 KJV)
Just as in Hebrews 1:2, di' can be translated for, and on account of, as well as by or through. As indicated above, either way is technically correct for this word. However, the MESSAGE in this text must decide which is the proper translation. The same is true of the Greek word en (= the English in).
Since Yahweh is the Creator (Hebrews 3:4; Exodus 20:11; Matthew 21:33; Mark 12:7; Luke 20:14 [etc.]), and Yahshua is the heir, then Colossians 1:16-17 SHOULD TELL THE SAME STORY. Dozens of Scriptures in both Testaments tell us plainly that Yahweh is the Creator, and there is no other El but him. He alone is the only true El, Eloah, Elohim, and Creator.
Yahshua and the New Testament writers proved everything by Old Testament Scriptures, therefore New Testament Scriptures should (and originally did) agree with Old Testament Scriptures. The New Testament Scriptures are based on the older ones. This being true, it seems that a more exact reading of Colossians 1:16-17, and one which is agreeable to the Greek text, is as follows:
For in (en = in, to, unto, by) him were all things created, that are in (en) heaven, and that are on earth... all things were created on account of (di') him and for him.
He (the light, Yahshua) was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. (John 1:10, KJV)
As we have discovered above, to agree with other Scriptures, and with the context of the message, a more acceptable reading is as follows:
He was in the world and the world was made for (di' - on account of, because of) him, and the world knew him not.
YAHSHUA: DID HE PRE-EXIST? (Pt. 2)
Did the Messiah pre-exist in some form before he was conceived of Mary, the [Hebrew] woman? Many people believe he did, while many believe he did not. Most if not all of these people seem to rely on the same source of information - the Bible, so why isn't there complete agreement, since all read from the same source? There are several reasons for non-conformity, some of which are as follows:
1. Background. A person whose church teaches the pre-existence is not likely to question whether this is true or false. Instead, it is accepted as fact. This is true of most religious views. Generally, it is only those doctrines which seem to be "new" which are examined to determine if they are true or false.
2. Bias. A preference for or against a doctrine can sometimes prevent a correct analysis of Scripture. This can be caused by a person's background, or by some other consideration.
3. Failure. Failure, for whatever reason, to understand the message of Scripture.
4. Translation. There is the possibility, in some cases, that the religious views of the translators have influenced their translation.
There are a number of Scriptures which seem to promote the pre-existence of the Messiah. Surely the most powerful of these is Hebrews 1:2.
In many and various ways [Yahweh] spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. (RSV)
This indicates the heavenly Father is supreme. Also:
1. As most English versions read, he authorized the Son, Yahshua, to do the actual work in creating the heavens and the earth and all things in them.
2. Many believe that Yahshua, in a pre-existent state, was Yahweh's spokesman; a Son who spoke for him, and did Yahweh's work for him, such as, creating the world.
If either of these statements are indeed true - if Yahshua spoke the world into existence - then certainly the Messiah existed before the world existed. Let us now examine Hebrews 1:1-2.
What is a spokesman? "One who speaks in the name and behalf of another or others." (Readers Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1975)
Reviewing Hebrews 1:1 we see [that] Yahshua was not Yahweh's spokesman. Instead, the prophets were his spokesmen. Yahweh "spoke to our fathers by the prophets." Therefore, even if Yahshua pre-existed, he was not the spokesman who contacted "our fathers." It was, evidently, only in "these last days" that Yahweh "spoke to us by his Son" (Hebrews 1:1; 1 Peter 1:20).
Yahshua the Heir
...but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed HEIR OF ALL THINGS... (Hebrews 1:2)
What does this say? Yahweh appointed his Son (Yahshua) to be his heir - to inherit "all things." Please keep in mind: A son does not inherit property which he, himself, has worked for. No. He owns that already. Instead, he inherits (becomes an heir of) his father's property. This indicates Yahshua did not, after all, create the world, since he is the heir to his Father's property. Does this agree with other Scriptures? Indeed, yes. Please note the following evidence.
Hear another parable. There was a householder who planted a vineyard, and set a hedge about it, and dug a wine press in it, and built a tower, and let it out to tenants, and went into a far country. When the season of fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the tenants, to get his fruit; and the tenants took his servants and beat one, killed another, and stoned another. Again he sent other servants, more than the first; and they did the same to them. AFTERWARD he SENT HIS SON to them, saying, They will respect my son. But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, This is the HEIR; come, let us kill him and have his INHERITANCE. And they took him and cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. When therefore the OWNER of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants? (Matthew 21:33-40; Mark 12:1-7; Luke 20:9-16)
The following points are clear:
1. The Father (Yahweh) was the householder.
2. The Father (Yahweh) planted the vineyard.
3. The Father (Yahweh) set the hedge, built the tower, and dug the wine press.
4. The Father (Yahweh) made the contract with the tenants; that is, Israel (Isaiah 5:1-7; Psalm 80:8-19)
5. The Father (Yahweh) sent his servants (the prophets).
6. The Father (Yahweh) sent his Son (Yahshua).
7. The Son (Yahshua) was the heir of his Father's property (the vineyard with all its improvements).
8. The Son (Yahshua) was cast out and killed.
Obviously, Yahshua is both the Son and the Heir; not the owner, nor the householder. True, this is a parable, but in order to teach truth, a parable must agree with prevailing conditions. Other Scriptures - Scriptures which are not parables - agree with Hebrews 1:2 that Yahshua is the heir of Father Yahweh's property.
For all who are led by the spirit of [Yahweh] are sons of [Yahweh]... and if children, then heirs, heirs of Yahweh and fellow HEIRS WITH the Messiah... (Romans 8:14,17)
We inherit the promises made to Abraham: the kingdom (the world, the vineyard), and everlasting life, because Yahshua is the chief heir. By baptism into his name we, and the ancients, become "fellow heirs" with the Messiah (Galatians 3:16-19; Titus 3:7; Hebrews 11:7-10; Acts 20:32; 7:5-6; Romans 4:13; Ephesians 1:3-23; 1 Peter 1:3-4; Revelation 21:5-7).
Remember the mother of James and John? She asked the Savior to grant that her two sons will sit, one on Yahshua's right and one on his left in the kingdom of Yahweh. Yahshua's reply: This is not for me to grant, but my Father only. Why? Because Yahweh (the heavenly Father), being the Creator, is owner of all, while Yahshua (his Son) is the heir. [rf. Matthew 20:20-23]
I will tell of the decrees of Yahweh: He said to me, 'You are my son, today I (Yahweh) have begotten you. Ask of me and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession.' (Psalm 2:7-9; Hebrews 5:5)
Again, this shows Yahweh as both Father and Creator, and Yahshua as both the Son and the Heir. Ephesians 1:3-23 also shows Yahweh to be the Creator, the Father, and the owner of the inheritance. One day Yahshua will receive this inheritance, and make us (the saints, [Judahite] and Gentile) joint heirs with himself. Again, the following quotation reveals Yahweh as the provider and owner of the inheritance. Yahshua extends to us a share as joint heirs.
For every house is builded by someone; but he that built all things is Yahweh. (Hebrews 3:4, Bethel Edition)
These Scriptures are more than enough to confirm Yahweh as Creator, and Yahshua - his Son - will one day inherit his Father's property - his Father's creation.
By Whom He Made the Worlds
Hath in these last days spoken to us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, BY WHOM also he made the worlds... (Hebrews 1:2 KJV, the RSV reads "through whom he created the world.")
This very clearly states the world was created by the Son of Yahweh. This Son is Yahshua, of course. However, Scriptural evidence noted above indicates Yahweh did the creating, not Yahshua. Are we to believe the Apostles and the Gospel writers wrote two ways, sometimes reporting that Yahweh is Creator, and at other times reporting that his Son is Creator? Indeed no.
More than 100 Scriptures state clearly that Yahweh is Creator and Maker of heaven and earth (Exodus 20:11). Some of these indicate no other deity exists (Isaiah 44:6). No other deity helped him in his creating acts (Nehemiah 9:6). Except for the angels, he was alone in the creation (Isaiah 45:5-18). These are stated clearly - as clearly as Hebrews 1:2 states that Yahshua "made the world."
What shall we do? Do we cancel (erase, throw out) more than 100 Scriptures so that we can accept Hebrews 1:2 instead? Since this Scripture does not in most English versions agree with the 100, we should carefully examine Hebrews 1:2 and, hopefully, discover why it does not agree.
Blog by Matthew Janzen. Lover of Yahweh, Yeshua, my wife and 5 children. All else is commentary.