Confirming the Deity of Yahusha HaMashiach.

Introduction
I find it disappointing that outside of Judaism there are some, whilst purporting to follow the Scriptures, will deny
the deity of Yahusha. I love my Mashiach, and I felt compelled to take on those who deny His identity. Not only
does such denial go against the root of who Yahusha was and what He achieved, it argues against a lot of
Scripture. Furthermore, denying Mashiach’s deity causes a huge problem for redemption because if Mashiach
has no deity then we have no redemption because only YHWH can redeem us for our sins, no human has this
ability,

Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great Elohim and our Saviour
Yahusha HaMashiach; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify
unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. (Tit.2:13-14).

So, without Yahusha HaMashiach there is no redemption and without redemption there is no salvation and if
there is no salvation what purpose has faith?

What the Scriptures Say

To deny Yahusha’s deity is to deny the Scriptural record of His life, in effect to deny what is recorded in the
Gospels. Indeed, the Gospels are reduced to a deliberate fabrication of a person to support Old Testament
prophecy. But to what purpose? I am not going to discuss all the Old Testament prophecies fulfilled by Yahusha
HaMashiach of which there are many, this information is easily available on the internet.

One Elohim: Three Entities

This image is I believe an accurate reflection of Christianity’s concept of YHWH: three separate gods in one, in
effect a triune godhead. Where this image is wrong is in stating that the Father is not the Son, the Father is not
the Spirit. However, the image is correct in that the Spirit is not the Son or vice versa.

Some Christians will argue that it is one God in three separate persons. But you cannot have oneness and
separation that is an oxymoron and as discussed below, the Hebrew Scriptures advocates oneness when
considering YHWH. But what do we mean by ‘oneness’? Our usage of the term asserts that YHWH is a singular
entity (person) administering the universe through three personal manifestations of Himself: Father, Son, and
Spirit. What He is not from a Hebrew perspective is three persons, individuals, or minds.

The Son is Elohim only because He is of the Father, the Ruach (Spirit) is Elohim only because He is of the Father.
Neither the Son nor the Spirit is Elohim of their own right. What we have is one Elohim in three entities, we do
not have three separate Elohim. John 1 confirms this concept when it says, ‘and the Word was Elohim'. and not
say 'the Word was a Elohim'. Contrary to the above image the concept in John is that the Father is the Son and
the Ruach. Orthodox Christians hold that the Persons of the Trinity are not merely aspects of the Father or
manifestations of the Father, but they are separate/distinct individuals, this philosophy is at odds with the
monotheism confirmed by YHWH Himself (Deut.6:4, Isa.45:22), and threaded throughout the Old Testament.

When considering YHWH we may possibly use the analogy is a tree. A tree has a trunk, branches, and leaves. We
can interpret YHWH as the root and trunk, Mashiach as the branches and the Ruach as the leaves. All belong to
1
the one tree but are distinct parts of the tree. In fact, Mashiach is described as a branch (Heb. Netser) in Isa.11:1.
The miracle of YHWH is that He can separate the branches at His will - Ya'akov's wrestler, Abraham's visitor at the
Oaks of Mamre etc. without any loss of the integrity between the tree and the branch. He is also quite able to re-
graft the branch back into the tree. The same can be said of the leaves. The Father can separate a piece of
Himself, but the piece remains integral to the whole sharing the same deity. Mashiach being a 'branch' of the
one tree cannot be of a separate deity (a branch from a different tree). That would mean He introduced a new
religion and make him an idol. But no analogy will completely fit, and we must be careful we do not try and limit
YHWH to that which our limited mentality can understand.

The most profound statement against trinitarian philosophy can be found in Isaiah, where, when talking about
Mashiach it says,

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and
his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of
Peace. (Isa.9:6).

Therefore, YHWH himself shall give you a sign; Behold! a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring
forth an infant son, whose name is called Immanu’el*. (Isa.7:14).

* Immanu’el = Elohim is with us.

So, what we are told is 1) the Son is the Father and 2) the Son is Elohim, hence, both verses support Mashiach‘s
deity.

Neither do I aspire to the term godhead because it infers others outside YHWH. If we are to accurately
understand the concept of YHWH, we must refer to the Hebrew Scriptures.

YHWH From a Hebraic Perspective

The above image supports tri-theism, but the Hebrew concept of YHWH is that of monotheism borne of the
Hebrew in Deut.6:4, what is commonly called the ‘Shema’,

Shâma‛ O’ Israel Yahuwah Elohaynu Yahuwah echad.

A direct English translation would read, ‘Hear O’ Israel YHWH is our Elohim YHWH is one. The problem is with the
Hebrew word ‘Echad’ (‫ )אחד‬which is considered singular, whereas the Hebrew refers to YHWH as Elohim which is
plural. There is never an argument concerning the plurality of the term Elohim or its use to describe YHWH.
However, the idea of three individual gods in one does not accurately reflect the plurality of the word Elohim. But
the real issue surrounds ‘Echad’. Whilst ‘Echad’ can be used in the singular tense it does not necessarily always
refer to a single, individual item, it may also mean a combination of items that constitutes a complete whole. In
fact, there is another Hebrew word that can be used to describe an undivided unity. That word is ‘Yachid’ which
translates most directly to ‘the only one’ or ‘alone’. ‘Echad’ on the other hand can mean both a singular unit and
a compound unity as in the following examples.

And Elohim called the light ‘day’ and the darkness He called ‘night.’ And there came to be evening
and there came to be morning, day one (Echad). (Gen.1:5).

Some translations have first day but the Hebrew is ‫ יֹום אֶ חָ ד‬which translates ‘day echad’. Another example is
Gen,2:24,

For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and they shall become
one (Echad) flesh.

Here again the Hebrew ‫ אחד‬is used. The fact that YHWH chose to describe himself in terms of ‘Echad’ ‫ אחד‬and not
‘Yachid’ tells us that He did not intend for us to understand His oneness in terms of a numerical oneness but as a
composite unity of persons. ‘Echad’ functions like the English word ‘one’ which can mean a solitary item or a
single set comprising several items.

2
Confirming the Plurality of YHWH
Let us consider Gen.1:26,

And Elohim 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 heavens, and over the livestock, and over all the earth
and over all the creeping creatures that creep on the ground.”

The question begs, to whom is YHWH talking? He was not speaking to human beings because they were not yet
created. Neither did He consult with the heavenly host, they were not active partners in creation. So, who are the
‘us’ in this verse? Well, what we do know is that the Ruach was present (Gen.1:2) and we also know that
Mashiach was present (John.1:1-3). Only these two were present with YHWH. Yet the Old Testament clearly
states that YHWH alone created the world:

You are YHWH, you alone. You have made the heavens, the heavens of the heavens, with all their
host, the earth and all that are on it, the seas and all that are in them, and You give life to them all.
And the host of the heavens are bowing themselves to You. (Neh.9:6).

Father, Son and Ruach are all YHWH, all are equal, all are Elohim. The apostle confirms this equality when
describing creation to the Corinthian congregation He talks in terms of the Father and later discussing the same
subject to the Colossian congregation he talks in terms of Yahusha HaMashiach,

For us there is one Elohim, the Father, from whom all came and for whom we live, and one Master
Yahusha HaMashiach, through whom all came and through whom we live (1Cor.8:6).

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible,
whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him,
and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. (Col.1:16-17).

The word ‘Echad’ describes a wholeness that consists of several entities. The Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4 says
that God is one whole who consists of several entities and that the people of Israel must worship this wholeness.
We said earlier that the Father can take a piece of himself and separate Himself (His Son and His Spirit) from the
whole. When He does this, what is separated can exist as an individual entity, but it is still part of the whole.
Hence, Mashiach was not only able to describe Himself as equal to Elohim (John.5:17-18) but as Elohim
(John.10:30). Also compare John.5:25-29 with 1Sam.2:6 and Mark.2:5-7 with Isa.43:25. Finally on the issue of
equality Mashiach says, “All that belongs to the Father is mine”, (John.16:15).

Conclusion
If we deny Mashiach’s deity then the New Testament has no credibility whatsoever, because the message is all
about Mashiach and the redemption offered through Him. This single thread holds the New Testament together
and if the New Testament cannot be believed, why should we believe the Old Testament? Why not also consider
the Old Testament to be nothing more than a fabrication to align with historical records and archaeological
discoveries. Ultimately, why believe in a Mashiach at all and this begs the question what is the purpose of life?

Denying Yahusha leads to the destruction of the spiritual truth and foundation of the Scriptures. The Rabbis have
painted their own truth of the Scriptures to support their own philosophies. As early as Jeremiah YHWH’s truth
was being manipulated and the manipulation has continued through to today in orthodox Judaism,

How do you say, ‘We are wise, and the Torah of YHWH is with us’? But look, the false pen of the
scribe has worked falsehood. (Jer.8:8).

Judaism has attached many of the Messianic prophecies to king David, but David’s life fails miserably to satisfy all
the prophecies: He never entered Jerusalem riding on a donkey (Zach.9:9), he did not suffer a tortuous death
(Ps.22:1-31). It is hard to accept that the following verse from Isaiah is about king David,

3
 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and
his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty Elohim, The everlasting Father, The Prince
of Peace. (Isa.9:6)

King David never claimed to be Elohim but constantly prayed to his Elohim. However, the one prophecy that can
never be attached to king David is Daniel’s Seventy Weeks. Daniel lived centuries after king David yet prophecies
the exact date for the coming of HaMashiach. It is because Daniel flies in the face of Rabbinic teaching that the
Rabbis have placed a Talmudic curse on any Jew who reads Daniel’s prophecy,

The Rabbinic Curse of the Talmud

May the bones of the hand and the bones of the fingers decay and decompose of him who turns the
pages of the book of Daniel to find out the time of Daniel 9:24-27 and may his memory rot off the
face of the earth forever. (Talmudic Law page 978, section 2, line 28).

That the Rabbis felt a necessity for this curse only serves to validate the Gospels and the epistles.

You either follow the misleading teaching of the Rabbis or you follow the teaching of the apostles, there is no
middle ground here. To deny Yahusha is to join the synagogue, and to wear the same blindfold as the Jews
(2Cor.3:14-16).

I must ask those who deny Yahusha’s deity what do they believe is YHWH’s plan for a humanity that is born
unrighteous/unworthy?

By way of a final comment, when the end comes, I would prefer to believe and be proved wrong rather than not
believe and be proved wrong.

Clifford Fearnley 2022