Sometimes it is argued that genealogical descent can only be traced through a male, but in 1 Chronicles 2:34-35 (in the genealogy of Judah, vs. 3) we read this:
“Sheshan had no sons, only daughters, but he did have an Egyptian servant whose name was Jarha. Sheshan gave his daughter in marriage to his servant Jarha, and she bore him Attai.”
Then in verse 36 the genealogy continues through Attai (who fathers Nathan). So there is precedent in the Hebrew Bible that a genealogy could at times be counted through a female in the absence of a male.
This is an important backdrop for tracing Yeshua’s genealogy (from King David) through his mother Miriam. It can be argued quite convincingly that the genealogy in the gospel of Matthew is through Miriam, based upon the phrase (Mt. 1:16a), “Joseph the *husband* of Mary” being a lacking, alternate translation that reads better as “Joseph the *father* of Mary.”
The Greek text reads ”aner,” which does mean husband in certain contexts, but it is not limited to a husband. The word basically carries with it the idea of male/man (contrasted with female/woman). The REV Bible commentary states in part on Matthew 1:16:
“The Greek is anēr (#435 ἀνήρ), and means “an adult human male.” Anēr is generally assumed to mean “husband” in this verse, but that cannot be the case. For one thing, the list of the three sets of 14 generations that go from Abraham to Christ (vv. 2-16), makes this impossible. If Joseph is the husband of Mary, there would only be 13 generations in the last list of “14 generations.” Also, the Aramaic text reads differently in this verse than it does in verse 19, and in verse 19 Joseph is unmistakably referred to as the “husband” of Mary. The difference in the vocabulary indicates a difference in the relationship.”
Full note here: https://www.revisedenglishversion.com/Matthew/chapter1/16
So aner *could mean* “father” or “guardian” in the Greek of Matthew (1:16), and Aramaic manuscripts of Matthew’s gospel read differently in comparing 1:16 (gavra) with 1:19 (bala; vs. 19’s Joseph is definitely speaking of a husband). It’s also interesting that two manuscripts of a Hebrew Matthew (in the Shem Tov tradition) read “avi” (father) in Matthew 1:16.
It shouldn’t surprise us that more than one Joseph is listed in Matthew 1, as more than one Jacob is as well (compare vss. 2 and 16). Joseph was a prominent name in Israel.
This also pairs well with other women being mentioned in Matthew’s genealogy (which wasn’t normally the case). Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba (though the latter not by name) are all there in Matthew 1, so listing Mary/Miriam fits this pattern in verse 16.
There’s much more to this, but I’m just beginning to collect all my thoughts and studies for the last three weeks in writing, so I’ll end with one closing point. Paul writes in Romans 1:3 that Yeshua was *born of* a descendant of David according to the flesh, and Matthew 1:16 speaks of “Mary, from whom *was born* Yeshua.” I think Paul was referencing Yeshua’s birth mother in Romans.
1: I was raised Oneness, but didn’t start realizing it until I was a teenager. (My parents were more neutral on this in the home. We were just taught to believe in God, Jesus, live a Christian life, and love people. I am thankful for my parents and my upbringing.)
I was pretty heavy into Oneness (the belief that “God is one person who has manifested Himself in three primary ways: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”) from 1996 to 2002 (I married in 1998). My pastors were all Oneness, and in my studies I learned the “big texts.”
2: I rejected Oneness around 2003. What got me to thinking was how I kept reading about the “Father and Son” in the Bible (plus my Bible study skills were sharpening then). I didn’t understand near as much “Bible” as I do now, but I just couldn’t see how Scripture would speak of a Father and Son (the Father speaks about his Son at the baptism; the Son prays to the Father; John 17:5 “the glory I had with you”; John 8 “two witnesses”) and there not really be a Father and a Son.
This is what scares me about the Oneness position, there isn’t really a Son, it’s just a different mode or manifestation. (Illustration: Clark Kent gets into a phone booth and becomes Superman. Two roles are being played, but there’s only one person.) The one person is God Almighty, so the Son is just God turning into the Son to play a role.
So I accepted the Trinity, because at the time all I knew was either Oneness or Trinitarian - and I got my hand on several scholarly works on the Trinity, because I wanted the best this side had to offer. I have in-depth books/studies on Oneness and the Trinity, and of course I listened to lectures and debates constantly, always cross-referencing Scripture.
A good Oneness vs. Trinity Debate is: David Bernard vs. Gene Cook, and in my opinion Bernard crushed him. If I was an outsider listening in, I would have for sure thought Bernard’s position was the Scriptural one. Here’s the link: https://youtu.be/lyGbol-YUH0
But… I still ended up on the Trinity, because I was trying to be honest with the text of Scripture. The scholarly books on the Trinity - their exegesis and explanation of key texts in Scripture - answered Bernard’s points adequately (I felt), even though Gene Cook didn’t do the best job.
3: In 2004 I began to find out there were other (minority) views, namely Arianism (Jehovah’s Witnesses) and Biblical Unitarianism. I studied both views out and the Arian position made more Biblical sense to me after watching and dissecting a debate between James White and Greg Stafford (I believe from 2003). Here’s the link: https://youtu.be/x-L3IoUq-fk
My studies developed from there through 2004 and 2005, and I accepted Biblical Unitarianism (mid 2005) studying tons through Anthony Buzzard, a professor at that time of the Atlanta Bible College. Through his website I listened to lectures, debates, read books, and I’ve been at this position since 2005 (constantly developing my views and arguments). I believe it’s the most well-rounded position on the subject, taking all the Biblical data into account.
Here’s some good debates and discussions on Biblical Unitarianism vs. Trinitarianism:
1 - https://youtu.be/-77IYnZq8Io
2 - https://youtu.be/b0t90eJe0q4
3 - https://youtu.be/c35_uFjEbx8
4 - (A) https://youtu.be/GL476wkUhqs (B) https://youtu.be/gqh09OByaBE
5 - https://youtu.be/9z3lS7cZV5Y
4: Answering the main verses I used to use…
ANSWER: Yahweh is one (cp. Mark 12:28-32), but the actual word Lord (Adonai or Adoni) isn’t used in Deut. 6:4. Yeshua is Adoni-Master-Lord, but he was made Lord by the one Yahweh (Acts 2:36). He is the second Lord in the English versions of Psalm 110:1, and the language there is post-resurrection (Ephesians 1:20-23). For God to have a Son doesn’t contradict the Shema - God the Father is still the one of the Shema, He just has a unique Son that He sent to accomplish the greatest of all missions upon the earth.
ANSWER: Interestingly enough, this verse is never quoted in the NT as pertaining to Yeshua. (Isaiah 9:1-2 is, but verses 6-7 are not specifically.) Some scholars view it as a reference to Isaiah’s son, others say it’s King Hezekiah’s royal succession after the death of King Ahaz. “Mighty God” is the king portrayed as divinity in that he represents Elohim on earth (Ancient Near Eastern context). “Everlasting Father” represents the king’s fatherly concern over the nation.
I think it’s okay to find a second fulfillment in Yeshua here, and the titles “El Gibbor” and “Aviad” can be viewed in a similar, but greater light (as in Hezekiah). No doubt Yeshua is a mighty one, look at his ministry: virgin born, sinless life, powerful teaching, healing the sick, raising the dead, casting out demons, opening blind eyes, walking on water, predicting his own death and resurrection. Aviad - father of eternity - could be Yeshua’s fatherly concern for humanity, but it could be father in the sense of first to obtain eternal, immortal life (Gen. 4:20-21, Jubal was the father of all who play the lyre and flute). [There are additional ways to understand Isaiah 9:6; “one long Hebrew name praising Yahweh.]
Trinitarians vigorously argue for “Mighty God” but explain “Father of Eternity” in a way that doesn’t conflate Yeshua with being THE Father. Oneness take them both as showing the absolute deity of Yeshua. I don’t think either position is a must.
ANSWER: Isaiah 43’s context is in the midst of the trial of the false elohim. A string of chapters where Yahweh speaks of His uniqueness as the one, true Elohim of Israel, who rescued Israel, and none of the elohim of the other nations did it.
It does not mean Yahweh can’t send a savior. In the post-Pentateuch book of Judges, Ehud, Othniel, and Shamgar are called savior - yasha in Hebrew - the same word Yahweh says he alone is. Nehemiah 9:27 says Yahweh sent saviors plural to Israel. Moshe was the savior of Israel. Yeshua is the sent savior that Yahweh raised up (see Acts 5:29-31).
Ultimately, all salvation comes from Yahweh. Think of a generator (Yahweh) and an extension cord (Yeshua) to your camper. You need both, but the ultimate power comes from the generator.
ANSWER: John 1:1 - ton Theon (noun) vs. Theos (adjective) in one sentence. Word = thought, speech (cp. Gen. 1 and Psalm 33). “All things were made by it” in some English translations from the Greek prior to the KJV. Illustration: blueprints in the mind of their designer. I told my young son once (5), “That Dodge caravan was at one time in the mind of its designer.” He said, “Daddy, how can that big van fit inside a man’s head?”
John 10:30 - It’s not one in person here but one in unity, togetherness, mind, will, and plan. The context is about keeping the sheep, and the Father is spoken of by Yeshua as the greatest (Jn. 10:29), and the sheep were given by the Father to the Son. A similar Greek construction is found in 1 Corinthians 3:6-8). The word one still means one, but it can function as a unifier. Our English word works the same way.
John 14:9 is understood easily by just reading the next verses. Yeshua is speaking of the miraculous works he is doing - the Father *in* him does the works. No doubt, there is a close relationship here, Yeshua is the greatest man to ever live, and no one will ever be as close to Yahweh as Yeshua.
ANSWER: There is a textual variant here, but it’s highly debatable (Nomina Sacra; Theos shortened and “he” or “who” look almost identical in Greek). I think “Theos” is a probable reading, but I think the understanding of manifested is key - to make known or reveal. Yahweh Elohim made himself known through the man Yeshua of Nazareth. When you look at Yeshua, it’s as close as you can get to looking at Yahweh - his character, demeanor, actions, speech, conduct.
ANSWER: First, Jesus is not the name of the Father. You can’t look at the NT and superimpose that over (back into) the OT (that’s anachronistic). So *name* of the Father in Mt28:19 is Yahweh.
“And the name of the Son” does NOT have to be the same name. Look at Genesis 48:16 - name (singular) and then two names are mentioned.
The baptisms in Acts are centered around calling on Yahweh (Acts 22:16) and confessing Yeshua (Acts 8, the eunuch). There’s never a case in Acts where we read of the person doing the baptism as having something specific to say (“baptismal formula”), it was the baptizee - the person being baptized - that called on Yahweh (the Father) and confessed the Son (Yeshua). [NOTE: The Holy Spirit could be better read as the beginning of verse 20, since we are taught by the Spirit of Yahweh upon our hearts and minds per John 16:13.]
Amos 8:4-6 HCSB
4 Hear this, you who trample on the needy and do away with the poor of the land, 5 asking, "When will the New Moon be over so we may sell grain, and the Sabbath, so we may market wheat? We can reduce the measure while increasing the price and cheat with dishonest scales. 6 We can buy the poor with silver and the needy for a pair of sandals and even sell the wheat husks!"
I watched a video once where a teacher made some comments on this text, saying that new moon should be translated month and sabbath should be understood as sabbath year rather than sabbath day. In other words, "When will this [last] month [of the] sabbath [year] be over?" His main point is that the greedy traders were anticipating the end of the sabbatical year so that they could get back to selling grain to the poor of the land. He comments that the poor of the land were allowed to eat from the volunteer crop that grew of itself in the fields during the sabbath year.
I do not believe this is the best understanding of the text. Traders were not forbidden to sell grain during the sabbatical year, and the poor of the land would still be buying grain during the sabbatical year; grain that was stored up on the 6th year, prior to the 7th. So buying and selling would continue.
On top of this, even in non-sabbatical years, the poor of land were still allowed to glean the fields (after harvest) and eat from the borders of the fields (see Leviticus 19:9-10; Deuteronomy 24:21). My point is that the poor people would often not have to buy any grain during non-sabbatical years too. They weren't just getting free grain during a sabbatical year. They got free grain all the time, but they also would have to buy grain, because there is only so much free grain to glean. So on a regular planting year, you would still have poor people getting free grain from the borders of the field, and from gleaning after harvest. I'd say that there was much more FREE grain for the poor during planting years. Think about it. Planting years yield MORE grain; sabbatical years only yield sparse volunteer "crops."
Furthermore, I don't see where these greedy traders in Israel were interested in following sabbath to begin with, whether yearly or weekly. The point is (rather) that the poor and needy would not purchase grain on new moon or sabbath. That's why the greedy traders wanted these days to be over with. It was the poor and needy that were faithful to Yahweh (Torah observers) here, not the greedy traders. The greedy traders wanted the sabbath and new moon to be over. They cared not about Yahweh's law.
If the Amos passage is saying, "When will this month be over, and this sabbatical year - that we can sell grain and market wheat," the passage makes no sense. The greedy traders COULD sell stored grain and market stored wheat during the sabbatical year. Poor people COULD buy grain during the sabbatical year. There was only so much to glean from a volunteer crop in the field.
It makes more sense for the Amos passage to have the greedy traders asking, "When will the new moon [festival] be over, and the sabbath [day], so that we can get back to our dishonest gain." With lunar sabbaths this makes even more sense because at the end of the each moon/month you will have at least 2 days, back-to-back, sabbath and new moon (I personally believe there were 3 days in a row kept on 30 day months). The greedy traders were getting restless on these consecutive worship days, because the faithful Israelites weren't interested in buying grain, they were concerned with Torah study, fellowship, worship, praise, and rest.
It would be like if your home town went by Yahweh's law and everything was shut down on the sabbath and new moon festival. There would inevitably be some greedy traders thinking, "I'll be glad when these days are over so we can get back to making money,” but the faithful in your town wouldn't be concerned with commerce. They would be focused upon Yahweh and His set apart days.
I think it's best to see the Amos passage as related to 2 Kings 4:23, Isaiah 66:22-23, and Ezekiel 46:1, 3 - all which mention the new moon WITH the sabbath as being a special, set-apart time on Yahweh's calendar. We shouldn't say, "Well we can't find anything in the Torah that specifies this." Remember, both Ezekiel and Amos passage are Torah, because Yahweh is the speaker in both texts. It is Yahweh that separates the new moon from the 6 working days (right along with the Sabbath). We should also realize that the ancient Israelites knew more about the Torah than we do, and it's obvious that they understood the new moon to NOT be a regular working day like the 6 working days.
“The new moon, the first of the month, was observed as a popular holiday (2 Kings 4:23; cf. 1 Samuel 20:5; 1 Samuel 20:24), and marked by religious services Isaiah 1:13-14; Hosea 2:11; and often in later writings: cf. Numbers 28:11-15). From the present passage, it is apparent that, like the sabbath, it was a day on which trade was suspended, and which accordingly was viewed by the grasping Israelitish merchants with impatience, on account of the interruption which it occasioned in their unjust practices.” (Cambridge Bibles for Schools and Colleges, note on Amos 8:5)
“The rich and powerful of the land were the most guilty of oppression, as well as the foremost in idolatry. They were weary of the restraints of the sabbaths and the new moons, and wished them over, because no common work might be done therein.” (Matthew Henry, note on Amos 8:5)
“Amos 8:5 and Amos 8:6 show how they expect to accomplish their purpose. Like covetous usurers, they cannot even wait for the end of the feast-days to pursue their trade still further. Chōdēsh, the new moon, was a holiday on which all trade was suspended, just as it was on the Sabbath (see at Numbers 28:11 and 2 Kings 4:23).” (Keil and Delitzch, note on Amos 8:5)
It’s become more and more popular over the last few decades to say that Sodom and Gomorrah’s sin was not what we call sodomy or homosexuality, but it’s just not Scripturally accurate.
Genesis 19:1-5 shows that the men (not the women) of the city wanted/desired to have sex with the male visitors.
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 calls this very act to’evah, often translated abomination, and this is easily seen by even pro-gay “Christian” proponents, because their argument here is just: “The law is no longer binding through Christ.” Unbelievers see it clearly too. I once heard Ian McKellan say that he tore out the Leviticus 18 page of the Gideon Bible when he slept in a hotel room, because he didn’t want to sleep beside such garbage. They all see it; it’s not hard to see.
Jude 1:7 then says the cities were given over to ekporneuo, a Greek word meaning sexually immoral acts, and suffered the punishment of eternal fire. The strange flesh Jude mentions isn’t speaking of the men wanting sex with angels - they didn’t even know the men were angels - it’s speaking of the flesh being different than female, i.e. a male-to-male sexual relationship.
The text many progressives like to go to is in Ezekiel 16:49. There we find that *a* sin of Sodom was pride connected with a neglect of helping the poor and needy. Most do not read the next verse though where it says that Sodom practiced to’evah, the same word used in Leviticus 18:22 (and verse 26, 27, 29, and 30) and Leviticus 20:13.
It would be fine to say that practicing homosexuality was not Sodom’s *only* sin, but that’s certainly not how those using Ezekiel 16:49 frame it. They attempt to bypass the Older Testament Law by saying Leviticus has been abolished, or they try to use some fancy footwork to get around what Genesis and the rest of the Bible teaches against, all in hopes of appeasing a modern crowd.
White and Neil write, “Indeed, arrogance and pride are closely related to a willingness to twist even the most basic and fundamental aspect of our being, our sexuality, and to flaunt this in the face of God and our fellow creatures.” (The Same Sex Controversy, p.42)
Some try to say gang rape is in view in Genesis 19:1-5, but it was only the men of the city who were lustfully wanting the *male* visitors. They weren’t interested in the females. And there was no violence going on in Genesis 19:1-5, only a request that righteous Lot knew was wicked (2 Pet. 2:6-8).
Yahweh even held the Canaanites accountable to their many sexual sins; that’s how Leviticus 18 begins and ends. He tells Israel to not act like the Canaanites, because the Canaanites were vomited out of their land due to their sexual sins (Lev. 18:27-28). It’s similar to when Yahweh speaks of the “iniquity of the Amorites” (Gen. 15:16). Homosexual practice is just like adultery, it’s not limited to being prohibited in Israel.
In the beginning Yahweh made them male and female (Mt. 19:4). This is why a man leaves *father and mother* (one family unit) and *he* cleaves to his *wife* (forming a new family unit), Genesis 2:23-24. It’s been happening for thousands of years.
Some people use the, “Well Jesus never condemned homosexuality.” I can at least understand if an unbeliever says something like that (because they don’t believe the Bible), but for a believer to say such is unacceptable. We are supposed to be whole Bible Christians. Yeshua (Jesus) doesn’t have to address something for it to be a sin. His Father is the law-giver, and is top authority. As a matter of fact, Yeshua didn’t even speak his own words (John 12:49-50).
Stick with the whole Bible my friends. Don’t let anyone fool you by quoting one verse. #pridemonth
Blog by Matthew Janzen. Lover of Yahweh, Yeshua, my wife and 5 children. All else is commentary.