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.]
Points About Yeshua, from Luke 2
The birth of Yeshua is recorded in Luke 2. Here are some key verses (KJV) in this chapter showing that Yeshua is separate from Yahweh.
Lu 2:12 And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.
Lu 2:13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,
Lu 2:14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.
Notice that the baby was lying in the manger, but God was in the highest. The baby in the manger is Yeshua. The God in the highest is Yahweh. This hearkens back to Luke 1:32 where Yeshua is called the Son of the Highest. Yahweh is the Highest, Yeshua is His Son.
Lu 2:21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called Yeshua, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
Lu 2:22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;
Lu 2:23 (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to Yahweh;)
Lu 2:24 And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.
Once Mary's purification was accomplished, her and Joseph brought Yeshua to Jerusalem to present him to Yahweh. Do we really think they thought they were presenting God to God? Yeshua was a firstborn male, and thus was holy to Yahweh, so they presented the baby Yeshua to Almighty Yahweh, as Yahweh's law required.
Lu 2:39 And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.
Lu 2:40 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.
The child that grew here is Yeshua. He waxed strong in spirit. Waxed means he had to grow. God's grace was upon him. He wasn't God, but God's grace was great in his life.
Lu 2:52 And Yeshua increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.
Yeshua had to increase in three things here: wisdom, stature, and favor. He increased in these things with both God and man. Catch that. Yeshua increased in favor with Yahweh. The more he learned and grew, he became more favorable in Yahweh's sight.
These are points that are very easy to see, but I think man-made theologies have caused people to pass over these verses without really believing them.
No one forced Yeshua to do what he did, in dying for our sin. “He submitted himself to death... bore the sin of many, and interceded for the rebels.” (Isaiah 53:12)
His sacrifice was a willing sacrifice. It was not easy. It was not a “walk in the park” as we say.
At one point he even prayed that what he was about to suffer would pass him by. I don’t think this points to any unwillingness in him, but rather to his consciousness of what was about to take place. He clears this up by following in his prayer to the Father with: “Yet not as I will but as you will.” (Matthew 26:39)
What an amazing prayer. He knew it was about to get tough, but it was his Father’s will, and Yeshua submitted because he loved us.
“No one has greater love than this, that someone would lay down his life for his friends.” (John 15:13)
Yeshua was wounded, but not for his own sins. He had none. He was bruised, but it wasn’t because he broke the Sabbath, or stole from his neighbor, or committed adultery.
The punishment for our peace fell on him. His stripes bring us healing. We would not have peace with the Father, had not Yeshua willingly submitted to die in our place.
He died. He really died. Christians have said it so much, and cliched it so much that we forget its potency. He suffered and died. Not because he deserved it. He laid down his life for his friends.
I was going back over Isaiah 53 this morning. It is powerful. If I had to pick only one text of Scripture to teach about Yeshua’s substitutionary, atoning death, it wouldn’t be in the New Testament. It would be Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12.
One part that I’ve had a hard time with is 53:10. “Yet YHWH was pleased to crush him.” Yahweh was pleased to crush the suffering servant? I have to admit that makes me cringe a little. But knowing the totality of Scripture helps at this point.
Yahweh is holy. We are not. There was a man who came up to even Yeshua once and began the conversation by saying “Good Master.” Yeshua, in humility, said: “Why do you call me good? There’s none good but One, the Almighty.” (Matthew 19:17)
The prophet Isaiah, perhaps the holiest man in Israel at the time of his prophecy, said in the presence of Yahweh that he was ruined, and a man of unclean lips (Isaiah 6:5).
Yahweh is holy, and therefore must punish sin. Yahweh wasn’t pleased to crush Yeshua (the Servant) because Yeshua was such a sinner. He was pleased to crush him because he was willing to suffer for the sins of the sheep. (Isaiah 53:6) In crushing Yeshua, he was crushing sin.
Paul put it like this: “He made the One who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that we might become the righteousness of the Almighty in Him.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)
The bad news is that we are transgressors. All we like sheep have gone astray. If Yahweh kept track of iniquities, who could stand? If He dealt with us as we deserve, we would get eternal destruction. But He has not dealt with us as our sins deserve. He forgives us, because He dealt with our sins by sending His Son to live perfectly according to the law, and then die for our sins as an unblemished sacrifice.
This is the Gospel. All else pales in comparison. Nothing else would even matter if our sin problem was not dealt with.
Because of Yeshua’s obedience to the law, and submission unto death, Yahweh resurrected him to immortality, never to die again. He was delivered up for our trespasses, and raised for our justification. (Romans 4:25)
This was Yeshua’s vindication. His resurrection proved that he had not died because of his own sins. His resurrection is just as much a part of the Gospel as his life and death. When the Apostles preached in the book of Acts, they didn’t just preach about his death, they always finished their preaching with his resurrection.
Yeshua was raised to immortality, and later he ascended to the right hand of Yahweh (Acts 2:33; 7:55-56; Romans 8:34; Hebrews 10:12). He is Yahweh’s right hand man. He is Yahweh’s priest after the order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 5:9-10; 7:17, 21-22). He serves as a priest for us, in the heavens; in the heavenly Tabernacle. He’s obtained a superior ministry than the Levite priests. He is the mediator of a better covenant. (Hebrews 8:6).
Give thanks to Yahweh. Yahweh loves us so much that He sent his Son to live for us, die for us, be raised for us, and then be our high priest in the heavens. It all goes back to Yahweh the Father. He made all this happen, and He did it through His Son.
Blog by Matthew Janzen. Lover of Yahweh, Yeshua, my wife and 5 children. All else is commentary.