Jesus and the Divine Name - Is Jesus YHWH? No! But also Yes 

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 *📜 Introduction to Jesus and the Divine Name* - Exploring the relationship between Jesus and the Divine Name (tetragrammaton). - Addressing perennial debates and recent discussions on the topic. - Considering sensitivity in discussing the Divine Name in respect to Jewish tradition. 03:28 *📖 Significance of the Divine Name in Scripture* - Delving into the origins and meaning of the Divine Name, "I am who I am." - Examining theological implications of naming and authority in the Old Testament. - Reflecting on Carmen Joy Imes's interpretation of the commandment regarding the Divine Name. 08:04 *🕊️ Bearing the Name of Yahweh* - Understanding the concept of agency in Jewish law and its relevance to bearing God's name. - Exploring how angels and the people of Israel are designated as bearers of God's name. - Reflecting on the responsibility and privilege associated with bearing God's name. 12:06 *🔍 Theophoric Names and Jesus's Name* - Analyzing the significance of theophoric names in the Old Testament. - Recognizing the presence of the Divine Name in names like Yeshua (Jesus). - Understanding Jesus's name in relation to bearing the Divine Name. 14:54 *🌿 Parable of the Vineyard and Divine Authority* - Interpreting the Parable of the Vineyard as a reflection of divine authority. - Drawing parallels between the Parable and Jesus's role as the unique bearer of God's name. - Exploring the symbolism of the vineyard and its implications for Israel and Christianity. 18:11 *🙌 Jesus Coming in the Name of the Lord* - Examining biblical passages portraying Jesus as coming in the name of the Lord. - Reflecting on the significance of Jesus's identity as the Messiah and bearer of God's name. - Considering the response of Jerusalem to Jesus's proclamation. 19:43 *📚 Jesus's Status as an Agent of God* - Analyzing Jesus's self-identification as an agent of God in the Gospel of John. - Exploring the evidence provided by John the Baptist and Jesus's works. - Reflecting on the implications of accepting or rejecting Jesus as a true messenger of God. 22:46 *📜 Jesus's Testimony of Obedience* - Jesus emphasizes that his words and works are not his own but are from the one who sent him. - He seeks the glory of the one who sent him, portraying humility and obedience. - Jesus's testimony highlights his role as a faithful messenger sent by God. 24:06 *🌟 Jesus's Authority and Mission* - Jesus acknowledges the authority given to him by God over all flesh. - He expresses his purpose to give eternal life through knowledge of the only true God. - Jesus's mission emphasizes glorifying God and fulfilling the work assigned to him. 25:43 *💬 Manifestation of God's Name* - Jesus manifests God's name to the people but emphasizes it as his Father's name, not his own. - The disciples recognize that Jesus's words are from God, reinforcing his role as God's messenger. - Bearing God's name implies being part of God's identity and mission, uniting believers with God and Jesus. 44:24 *🛡️ Jesus's Interaction with Soldiers* - Jesus's statement "I am he" is not an invocation of the Divine name, but a clarification of his identity. - Soldiers' reaction is not due to recognizing the Divine name, but to the presence of Jesus himself. 47:04 *🌟 Jesus Inherits God's Name* - Jesus receives the Divine name as an inheritance upon his ascension, as depicted in Philippians 2:9-11. - The inheritance of God's name signifies Jesus's authority and lordship, while acknowledging God the Father's superiority. 50:01 *💬 Jesus Declared Lord and Christ* - Jesus's declaration as both Lord and Christ signifies his exaltation and authority, distinct from God the Father. - The title "Lord" for Jesus parallels the practice of using "the Lord" as a substitute for the Divine name, indicating Jesus's divine status. 52:57 *📜 Distinction between God the Father and Jesus* - Paul distinguishes between "one God, the Father" and "one Lord, Jesus Christ" in 1 Corinthians 8:4-6, highlighting their separate roles. - Jesus's titles and inheritance of the Divine name do not equate him with God the Father but signify his exalted position. 54:51 *📖 Jesus's New Name in Revelation* - Revelation depicts Jesus receiving a new name distinct from God the Father's, indicating their separate identities. - The imagery of Jesus writing his new name on believers' foreheads reinforces the distinction between his identity and that of God. 57:07 *⛪️ Titles in Revelation* - Various titles in Revelation differentiate between God the Father and Jesus, emphasizing their distinct roles and identities. - Jesus's adoption of titles previously attributed to God underscores his exalted status and divine authority. 01:00:49 *🌟 Jesus's Titles and Responsibilities* - Jesus appropriates titles and responsibilities previously associated with God, signifying his exaltation and authority granted by God. - The distinction between Jesus and God the Father is maintained, with Jesus receiving divine recognition and obedience without being equated with God. 01:03:04 *📚 Understanding Yahweh Texts* - David Capes discusses Yahweh texts, referring to Old Testament passages containing the Divine name. - Paul's references to Yahweh texts in relation to Jesus demonstrate a christological focus, indicating Jesus's divine status and authority. 01:06:27 *📜 Understanding the significance of the Divine Name* - The Divine name embodies a person's reputation, history, and dignity, especially when referring to God. - Early Christians treated the Divine name with utmost reverence, reflecting their reverence for God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. - Special care was taken in copying manuscripts to ensure the proper representation of the Divine names. 01:08:04 *📖 Exploring Romans 10: Calling upon the name of the Lord* - Romans 10 contains a pivotal passage (verses 9-13) often memorized by evangelicals, emphasizing confessing Jesus as Lord for salvation. - The phrase "the name of the Lord" in Romans 10:13 is interpreted by some to refer to Jesus rather than God the Father. - Calling upon the name of the Lord reflects a significant religious devotion, akin to temple sacrifices, now applied to Jesus. 01:12:10 *🛐 Significance of calling on the name of the Lord in Christian gatherings* - Paul's reference to calling on the name of the Lord in 1 Corinthians underscores the centrality of Christ devotion in Christian gatherings. - This language echoes the religious devotion seen in temple sacrifices, now applied to Christ in Christian worship. - Christians, in their gatherings, uniquely invoke the name of Jesus, setting them apart in their religious service. 01:17:41 *📚 Interpreting Old Testament Yahweh texts in light of Jesus* - Paul's application of Yahweh texts to Jesus likely involves uncovering a new christological layer previously veiled in the Old Testament. - Jesus is not retroactively identified as Yahweh in the Old Testament but is seen as the inheritor of Yahweh's name in a new christological context. - The revelation of Jesus unveils new meanings in Old Testament passages, revealing their connection to Christ's identity. 01:19:03 *🙏 Concluding thoughts: Is Jesus Yahweh?* - Jesus is not Yahweh in the traditional sense of being the one who originally revealed the Divine name. - However, Jesus bears the Divine name and acts as God's empowered agent, cooperating with the Father in a unified purpose. - In this sense, Jesus shares in the tetragrammaton and other titles of God and Father, reflecting a unique relationship with the Divine. Made with HARPA AI

The fact that Ancient Israelites were happy to have names like Elijah seems to suggest they were happy to pronounce the tetragrammaton in a way modern Jews don't. God Has a Name, YHWH, and the "Do not take the name of YHWH in vain" clearly didn't prevent Elijah having his name, or people from yelling "Hallelujah!"

Perfect way to spend a fasting sunday, keep them coming Sam!

Thank you for the heads up, Sam!

Looking forward

Thanks so much for this talk - it was fascinating to get a bit more of an understanding of a Biblical Unitarian approach to Jesus.

49:28 we find the idea of the possibility of becoming elevated above even the angels in Jewish thought (and applying not just to the Messiah- in fact it's never specifically applied to the Messiah afaik). It's linked to the entire Jewish people and repentance, especially re:Rosh Hashana. That last bit you said re:Hebrews sounded a lot like the rabbinic dictum "The Torah was not given to the angels"

Hey Sam, really enjoying your channel! Regarding John 3:13 which you are “speculative” on, this verse may very well be a parenthetical statement, with John speaking rather than Jesus. Verses 13-21 may actually all be John speaking (which is something he does occasionally in his gospel). For John and his readers, the ascension would have already taken place so it would register with his audience. From what I gather, it doesn’t appear like the Bible speaks of more that one ascension of Jesus. Something to consider. Thanks for the content!

Jesus said "The Father is greater than I am." That seems pretty clear.

I like what she said about not taking the Lords name in vain

Have you read Owen Barfield's 'The Son of God and the Son of Man'? 'Philology and the Incarnation' as well. Both, I think, might help you explain your position to others.

1:06:57 one issue with Capes is if a name in the Bible refers to a full history of that person, everything that they are, how come God has so many names, how come biblical figures have names that change? Names are relational and not essential.... Not the magic pointer to the secret, sacred self

Did you see my comment on your talk with Trent Horn? I’m glad you’re doing stuff like this now. You’re actually seeking understanding across divisions and building bridges. Sadly I don’t think the “old guard” of Unitarianism really cares that much about that sort of thing. The comment on Horn’s video was this: “Biblical Unitarians can affirm: - Jesus is God - Mary is the mother of God - God died on the cross Jesus being the agent (shaliach) of God, this would all be true. Unitarians would even have an easier time with the second one than most Trinitarians (see: Nestorius)”

11:40 so, what you’re saying is, leonidas denied the filioque? Edit: I don’t think the home comparison actually works, but I’m sticking with it.

1:03:20 thanks for being mindful of the video speed. 🤗

48:54. We don't really see the concept of inheriting a name in much Jewish thought until the 2nd century (with perhaps one exception in Ben Sira) but it's a major concept in Greco-Roman thought - hereditary nomen and cognomen, one might ask whether Paul, who is much more Greco-Roman, is trying to translate the idea from a Jewish into a Greco-Roman context

15:54 thankfully someone else is using this parable to explain about Jesus! This is what I would call an irrefutable text to explain Jesus being sent just like the prophets and his human status.

As fallen beings, we don’t always learn from our mistakes; rather, we keep repeating them. And sometimes we overcorrect our mistakes so much that we just replace one distortion with another. It's not uncommon for us to respond to a real, and often perceived, problem by falling prey to a sort of overcorrection syndrome. This is what I believe happened in the early church and what we are witnessing now with this more modern idea of Jesus being equated to YHWH of old. As a result of the provocation of the Arians in the 4th century, rather than accurately identifying, understanding, and correcting the actual errors of Arius, not to mention their own erroneous presuppositions, the Athanasians overcorrected and ended up in another extreme error, which is today known as Trinitarianism. It's the proverbial going from the frying pan into the fire. To complicate matters even more, the Athanasians compounded problems when they added a great deal of bitterness and violence into the mix. This not only multiplied the distortion, confusion, and pain, it also destroyed the objectivity of scripture. This tragic response led the apostolic church to actually leave the original faith of the Apostles altogether and return to a more pagan understanding of God. Their bitterness and rivalry led them to eagerly embrace the support of the Hellenized world, and adopt its ways, and its “wisdom,” leaving them with a world-approved theology. While the Athanasian church may still have believed in God, their values, behavior, and beliefs mirrored those who have rejected God, if not hated God. Today we see many that carry over the bitterness of Athanasius. They spend a large part of their lives as ardent adversaries of the truth, with a particularly heightened animus toward us, who have a higher view of Scripture than that of the traditions of men. As we draw closer to the revelation of Jesus, the errors of the Chalcedonian church are becoming increasingly evident. But rather than correcting the errors of the great ecumenical councils, trinitarians are doubling down in desperation by propagating further errors, like we have witnessed in this debate. However, there is hope. In fact, there is an abundance of hope. But it is found only with the truth, true grace, and the God of hope, the Father, who is the true God of Scripture through his human son, Jesus Christ the messiah.

You seem to equivocate between the Tetragrammaton and Eheye-asher-Eheya which of course are not the same name, despite being related.

Not every instance of naming is from a superior to inferior - naming in Tanakh tends to be about labelling a functional/relational aspect with the other (or even the self). It's not inherently hierarchical

Excellent, Sam. All in all, I agree with you. Jesus, as inheritor of the Father's name, is YHWH in the same sense as Cephas is a rock. What Jesus being YWHW of Old all boils down to is an argument for his supposed preexistence, but I believe it's an overcorrection layered on top of other overcorrections, which is characteristic of trinitarian theology. I may make a separate post about this. I don't know if I can add any more to this, but I'll try to further reinforce this theme of the messenger bearing God's name (authority byproxy of His words) by pointing out Deuteronomy 18:15-18. We know from the NT that this verse is speaking of Jesus (Lk 24:27, Jn 5:46, Acts 3:22-23; 7:37). It reads: v.15: "YHWH will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken." v.18: "I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." So the first thing you'll notice by comparing these two verses is that "YHWH" is equated with the singular pronoun "I". Second, we see that there is a clear distinction between Yahweh and "the prophet" (Jesus). Further, we can compare this verse to 1 John 4:14: "And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world." To conclude, we can be certain that YHWH is a single person, which is the Father, and is distinct from the Son that he sent. Finally, consider Isaiah 63:16 : "For You are our father, for Abraham did not know us, nor did Israel recognize us; You, YHWH, are our father; our redeemer of old is your name."

1:20:11 What if we don’t assume the linear progression of time and mechanistic causation? ie Jesus creating the world from the Cross. What if the Cross is the center of all Creation?

Since a shaliach is only considered acting in the name of the sender if they don't sin in the name of that sender, you can understand why there was particular interest around whether Jesus violated the Law and why Jesus has to defend that his actions don't truly violate the Law (and perhaps why Christians settle on saying Jesus is entirely sinless despite Jewish theology on how repentence makes one sinless on this point)

35:45 yes that is a common midrashic trope. That Adam, Abraham, Jacob, Moses etc see prophetically something about their descendants or Israel more generally

Sam, you are just getting to the point that probably begins my discomfort at the title of your video. What is the relationship between Jesus and Hashem. I don't have an answer for your question and am not sure how I feel about the one you gave

38:04 and here is where we get to a Crux of the disagreement. Because God in the prophets says that even when they sin they are still considered His Children. That doesn't mean that the sin isnt problematic, and that it doesn't desecrate His Name BUT it does mean the covenant of being his first born isn't fully abrogated - because there is grace, repentance and atonement is always possible. Once they become God's first born, as a nation, that cannot be abrogated. BUT an individual can sin in ways to cut themselves off from the nation, which might be what he is getting at... Because honestly I don't think he is necessarily arguing against a rabbinic position here (except for testifying about himself, that's certainly a problem from a legal perspective - though there are a few types of cases the rabbis, against the other sects, do allow a single witness to testify... Curious)

28:00 yes the idea of oneness of the people connected to the making God's Name One Im the world is found in Rabbinic sources as well as Tanakh itself fairly clearly

Christ’s “putting on” of the New Man of his learned obedience via his own suffering was *without change*. Is ours? Idk. I’d guess that it is also. A changeless change. 🤔 Mufasa: “Simba, become who you are.”

14:05 ironically the messianic/Christian rendering of Jesus name as Yeshu or Yeshua actually removed the theophoric element which is the first element of Yehoshua (Yeho is the theophoric element)

YHWH = "I am BEING itself".

The one who was, who is, and is to come is not the Tetragrammaton NOR the name from the burning bush but a different related name that we find in Rabbinic literature as well, but very distinct in Hebrew. No odd grammar nor anything fun lol

8:53 isn't just an interesting take it's an extremely common trope in Jewish thought even today- that the way Jews act reflects on God's Name, we use this constantly

48:01 I think Paul is making a claim that Jesus doesn't quite make in Phillipians (though I imagine you'd say Jesus makes this claim in his prophecy to Paul)

11:13 is somewhat inaccurate. Ones shaliach is only considering acting on behalf of the sender if they don't commit a sin. There is a general Halakhic principle that "there is no shlichut for sin" - if an agent sins even if commanded to by the sender they are almost always liable, because they should have known better

39:00 "I am" isn't one of God's Names exactly so I don't think that's the heresy. I think you could be right re:Messiah OR it could be a claim of pre-existence (or both, they aren't mutually exclusive, especially since the Name of the Messiah is established before the Creation of the World in midrashic literature)

45:00 Jews weren't allowed to have soldiers? There is an entire book that just came out on the Jewish soldiers of the Roman armies.. there were quite a lot of Jewish soldiers in this period, though it's true not as many serve in Judea- Rome tried to move them to other provinces. But there were some at least in judea. Still I think your overall point is correct

52:30 Except kyrios is elohim/Elokim not the Tetragrammaton and men can be called that (despite what Heiser holds lol)- famously Moses, but any judge with the authority of the seat of Moses (such as the rabbis)

Doesn't it make more sense to say that Jesus was the first created being, as he is called the firstborn of all creation, not that he merely had a vision? He really was with God.

17:59 you say Jesus comes in G-d's name. I will be listening carefully for what that means, whether this is still, within the Christian context, what the prophets say, what those who G-d sent out with various tasks would say. What following G-d asks us to say about basic daily tasks even, that we come to them in the attitude and intention in which G-d calls on us to do them. Not an easy task, not impossible, but because He asks, and if we fail, we apologize, get up and continue. That I understand.

22:51 never thought before how this parallels the evidence/witnesses needed for testimony from over seas re:Halakha

So Jesus pre-existed?? In what manner did he pre-exist?

Doesn’t “name” mean authority and not the literal Tetragrammaton.

31:50 Seems like you are developing some Biblical Unitarian doctrine 😅

I don’t like that analogy a little bit.

25:45 Summary of the whole video: “… Jesus isn’t the One who HAS the divine name. He bears and manifests the Divine Name.” I think Chalcedon means that he is/does both. And the disagreements about human v divine natures is semantic debating which, unfortunately, lead to division. But, hopefully, with greater understanding all in all. In the “end”. Also, I think our White Stone name is our HAVING the Divine Name in our own idiosyncratic way that only we can have. Edit: 27:20 I also think this is/will be the fulfillment of John 17

34:23 distinction without division?

You are too tall for that basketball goal sir.

Your son's and daughters deserve better theology... Find apostolic church and attend that. Weird j e wish Ismaelite philosophy based on the gnostic gospels ... Strange...

*_Saul/Paul, the bounty hunter drove Jesus/Isa (pbuh) message to Paganism._*

How are you different from a Je w? gnostic, kabbalahist , Je wish interpretation of the Bible does not seem like a good position. Your position seems to be ( rejecting fully the echuemical councils of the Catholic Church )