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.

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? 

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:

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 

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?"

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.

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:

As we have discovered above, to agree with other Scriptures, and with the context of the message, a more acceptable reading is as follows: