The Bible does not identify Jesus as Yahweh (part two)

For part one, click here: https://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2025/02/the-bible-does-not-identify-jesus-as.html

“The heavens are the work of your hands”

The first passage to which Mr. Wayne appeals in support of his position that Jesus is identified as “Jehovah” in Scripture is Hebrews 1:8-10. After quoting these verses, Wayne writes the following:

He is quoting here from Psalm 102, a prayer to Jehovah by name that could not be talking to or about any other being. The citation even addresses the son as the “Lord.” Again, throughout the Psalm, in the Hebrew, the word “Lord” is the name “YHWH” or “Jehovah.” The Book of Hebrews thus plainly identifies Jesus as Jehovah.

In these verses the Psalmist was addressing Yahweh (the Father) rather than Christ (see verses 1, 12, 19-23). This means that the “Lord” being addressed in Hebrews 1:10 is the same person referred to as “He” in Hebrews 1:13 (i.e., the God and Father of Jesus).

It should be noted that the words “Yet Thou art the same, And Thy years shall not be defaulting” (Heb. 1:12) are simply a way of emphasizing God’s inability to die. The fact that God’s “years shall not be defaulting” (or “shall not come to end”) simply means that God cannot die (and note that this was something that the Psalmist considered to be true of the One whom he was addressing at the time when he was writing). Since Psalm 102:27 refers to the fact that God cannot die, it cannot be understood as a reference to Christ. For, after being alive on the earth for approximately 33 years, Christ died/became lifeless (and remained dead/lifeless for three days). In other words, Christ’s years “defaulted.” Jesus’ God and Father, on the other hand, has never died; it was just as true when Psalm 102 was written as it is today that Yahweh’s years “shall not come to end.” However this was not true of Christ at the time when Psalm 102 was written.

That the “Lord” being addressed by the Psalmist in Psalm 102:25 is Yahweh, the God and Father of Jesus Christ (rather than Jesus himself), is not only evident from the context of Psalm 102, but it’s also evident from how the pronoun “He” in v. 13 points back to the “Lord” who is in view in the previous verses:

And, Thou, originally, Lord, dost found the earth, and the heavens are the works of Thy hands. They shall perish, yet Thou art continuing, and all, as a cloak, shall be aged, and, as if clothing, wilt Thou be rolling them up. As a cloak also shall they change. Yet Thou art the same, and Thy years shall not be defaulting.

Now to which of the messengers has He declared at any time, “Sit at My right, till I should be placing Thine enemies for a footstool for Thy feet”?

The nearest antecedent of the personal pronoun “He” in v. 13 is the “Lord” referred to previously in verses 10-12. Thus, the pronoun “He” should be understood as referring back to the person referred to in these verses as “Lord” and “Thou.” Since the “He” of v. 13 is the Father (i.e., Yahweh, at whose right hand Christ is sitting), we can understand the same divine person to be in view in verses 10-12.

The writer’s purpose in quoting Psalm 102:25-28 before Psalm 110 (which is quoted in v. 13) is to demonstrate that the same absolute authority over “the works of [God’s] hands” (which Yahweh is described as having in Psalm 102:25-28) has been given to the Messiah (who, in fulfillment of Psalm 102, now “sits at God’s right,” having been given all authority in heaven and on earth and placed over the works of God’s hands). In other words, the truth being emphasized here (perhaps more so in this passage than in any other passage of Scripture) is that God is absolutely sovereign over the heavens and the earth. He created the heavens and the earth, and when he decides it’s time, he will replace the heavens and the earth.

For Christ to have been invited to sit at God’s “right” (or “right hand”) means that he was given the authority that formerly belonged exclusively to God – i.e., all authority in heaven and on the earth. And this, of course, means that he is greater than the messengers (which, again, is the truth that the writer of the letter to the Hebrews is defending in verses 5-14).[i]

“Because he saw his glory”

The next passage to which Mr. Wayne appeals is John 12:36-41. Here’s how these verses read in the CLNT:

Yet, after His having done so many signs in front of them, they believed not in Him, that the word of Isaiah the prophet, which he said, may be being fulfilled, “Lord, who believes our tidings? And the arm of the Lord, to whom was it revealed?” Therefore they could not believe, seeing that Isaiah said again that He has blinded their eyes and callouses their heart, lest they may be perceiving with their eyes, and should be apprehending with their heart, and may be turning about, and I shall be healing them.

These things Isaiah said, seeing that he perceived His glory, and speaks concerning Him.

In the first verse that John quotes (i.e., Isaiah 53:1), the “Lord” being referred to is clearly Yahweh (whose name actually appears in the original verse that John was quoting). And the second verses quoted by John (Isaiah 6:9-10) are a quotation of the words of Yahweh himself (who spoke to Isaiah during the vision described in Isaiah 6, and which involved John seeing Yahweh sitting on a throne in the temple). Thus, the one whose glory we’re told Isaiah saw (and concerning whom he spoke) would’ve undoubtedly been understood by both Isaiah and John to have been Yahweh, the one God of Israel.

That the one referred to as “His” and “Him” in verse 41 is Yahweh, the God of Israel, is confirmed from the fact that the same person who’s referred to as “Him” in v. 41 is also in view in v. 40: 

“…Isaiah said again that He has blinded their eyes and callouses their heart, lest they may be perceiving with their eyes, and should be apprehending with their heart, and may be turning about, and I shall be healing them.” 

Who was John referring to as “He” in this verse? Answer: John would’ve believed that Yahweh himself was ultimately responsible for the circumstances being described in this verse. So John was saying that the prophet Isaiah said what he did because he perceived Yahweh’s glory (the glory of the one divine being sitting on the throne), and spoke concerning him. Thus, in order to understand John to have been referring to Jesus when he used the pronouns “his” and “him” in v. 41 (and thus to have been identifying Jesus as Yahweh), one must already be presupposing that Jesus is Yahweh. If the reader isn’t already assuming that Jesus is Yahweh, he will have no reason to understand the one whose glory Isaiah perceived to have been Jesus. The reader will, instead, understand the one whose glory Isaiah perceived to be Jesus’ God and Father.

In accord with this consideration, we know that it’s the Father (and not Jesus) who is ultimately responsible for the blinding and callousing of unbelieving Israel. This is confirmed from Romans 11:8, where Paul wrote the following concerning unbelieving Israel:

“Now the rest were calloused, even as it is written, God gives them a spirit of stupor, eyes not to be observing, and ears not to be hearing, till this very day.” 

Throughout Paul’s letters, we find him consistently using the title “God” as a reference to the Father, and distinguishing “God” from Christ.[ii] For example, in Rom. 10:9 Paul wrote that “God rouses [Jesus] from among the dead” (cf. Rom. 6:4, where we read that “Christ was roused from among the dead through the glory of the Father”). Based on this consideration, we can understand the one whose glory Isaiah perceived (and whose voice Isaiah heard) to have been the God and Father of Jesus.

“I will pour out my spirit”

Mr. Wayne next appeals to the fact that, according to Peter’s words in Acts 2:32-33, Jesus poured out the spirit that Yahweh promised that he would pour out. Mr. Wayne’s argument could be formulated as follows:

1. Yahweh promised through the prophet Joel that he (Yahweh) would pour out his Spirit on all flesh.

2. According to Peter, this promise from the book of Joel has been fulfilled since Jesus has poured out the Spirit as prophesied.

3. Therefore, Peter was identifying Jesus as Yahweh.

However, a more careful analysis of the scriptural data leads to a different conclusion.

Christ had previously referred to the promise from Yahweh found in Joel 2 when speaking to his disciples. In Luke 24:49 we read that Christ declared the following shortly before his ascension:

“And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”

The fact that Yahweh’s promise to pour out his Spirit is referred to by Christ as “the promise of my Father” means that Jesus understood the one who promised to pour out his Spirit – i.e., Yahweh, the God of Israel – to be his God and Father. And this means that Yahweh – i.e., the one who declared the words recorded in Joel 2:27 (“I am Yahweh your God, and there is no other”) – is Jesus’ God and Father alone. That is, the Father alone is the one who referred to himself as “Yahweh your God.” And this means that “there is no other” who is Yahweh, the God of Israel, except Jesus’ God and Father.

Notice, also, that Christ declared that he would be the one sending the promise of Yahweh. Thus, while Yahweh is the one who originally made the promise to pour out his Spirit, Jesus understood that he would be the one through whom Yahweh would accomplish this work.

In Acts 1:4-8, we find another reference to this “promise of the Father”:

“And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

Here, again, Yahweh’s promise to pour out his Spirit is referred to as “the promise of the Father” (which, again, identifies Yahweh, the God of Israel, with Jesus’ God and Father).

Having established the fact that the words recorded in Joel 2:27-28 are the words of Jesus’ God and Father (who promised to pour out his Spirit) – i.e., Yahweh, the God of Israel – let’s now consider the verse that Mr. Wayne believes supports his view that Jesus is Yahweh. In Acts 2:33, Peter declared the following:

“Being, then, to the right hand of God exalted, besides obtaining the promise of the holy spirit from the Father, He pours out this which you are observing and hearing.”

Contrary to Mr. Wayne’s interpretation of this verse, Peter was not equating Jesus with Yahweh here. Instead, Peter was simply communicating the same truth that Jesus himself had articulated to his disciples before his ascension. Here, again, is Luke 24:9:

“And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”

What Christ referred to as “the promise of my Father” is the promise of Yahweh found in Joel 2:28. Rather than being identical with the One who promised to pour out his spirit, Jesus was the agent through whom Yahweh accomplished the work of pouring out his spirit. In other words, Yahweh fulfilled his promise of pouring out his spirit through the instrumentality of his Son, Jesus.

“Every knee will bow”

Mr. Wayne’s last main argument from Scripture is based on what Paul wrote in Philippians 2:

In Philippians 2, Paul is clear that Jesus not only personally existed before his human conception and birth, but that He did so in the very nature of God:

“although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men,” (Philippians 2:6-7).

As I’ve argued in greater depth elsewhere (see, for example, the following article: When did Christ take the form of a slave?), Paul did not reveal in Phil. 2:6-7 that Jesus “personally existed before his human conception and birth.” Mr. Wayne is importing his own belief (which, to be sure, is a belief shared by most Christians) into what Paul wrote here.

The words “existed in the form of God” (or “being inherently in the form of God,” CLNT) refer to what was true of Christ during his earthly ministry. The word translated “form” in Phil. 2:6 means “outward appearance” (and not “nature” or “essential being”); see, for example, Mark 16:12; 2 Tim 3:5 (cf. Isaiah 44:13, LXX). And we know that, during Christ’s earthly ministry, Christ perfectly represented his Father (such that, when one saw and beheld the Father, one saw and beheld Christ; see, for example, John 12:45; 14:9). This means that Christ was “inherently in the form of” – i.e., he had the outward appearance of – his God and Father during his earthly ministry. Mr. Wayne is thus reading the idea of pre-existence into a verse that is perfectly understandable in light of what we know was true with regard to Christ during his earthly ministry.

Moreover, the words “emptied Himself” refer to what Christ did when, in obedience to God’s will, he allowed himself to be arrested in Gethsemane (and subsequently treated by the Jewish and Roman authorities as an enslaved criminal). Christ emptied himself – i.e., he abased himself and divested himself of his prerogatives as God’s Son – when, as an expression of his submission to God’s will (Luke 22:42), he refused to use his God-given power and authority to prevent his arrest (and, ultimately, the crucifixion to which it inevitably led). In doing so, he took the form (or outward appearance) of a slave – i.e., a slave of other human beings (which is what Paul’s readers would’ve most naturally thought of when reading or hearing the term “slave,” and which Paul had in mind nearly every other time he used the term “slave” or “slaves” in his letters without qualifying what kind of slave to which he was referring).[iii] However, in “taking the form of” a slave, Christ was not actually a slave (again, the term “form” refers only to outward appearance).

When Christ emptied himself, he also came to be in the likeness of humanity. The word translated “men” in Phil. 2:7 – i.e., anthrōpōn (the genitive/masculine/plural form of anthrópos) – is the same word translated “mankind” in 1 Tim. 2:5. And in 1 Tim. 2:5, the word clearly refers to the category of humans that consists of every human except Christ himself (for it is this group of humans of whom Christ is the Mediator). It is in the likeness of this group of humans (a group which, again, includes every human except Christ himself) that Christ came to be when he “emptied himself.” Although Christ himself said that he could’ve entreated his Father and received the aide of more than twelve legions of messengers (Matt. 26:53), he allowed himself to be treated as if he were no different in status than those for whose sake he was about to be crucified (and, in doing so, came to “be in the likeness of humanity”). Since Christ wasn’t a member of the group of humans for whom he suffered and died, it was only in their “likeness” that he came to be when, in Gethsemane, he “emptied himself.”

Mr. Wayne: Paul made a similar point to the Colossians, stating that: “For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9).

What Paul wrote in Col. 2:9 concerns what is true of a certain glorified man (i.e., Jesus Christ), and has nothing to do with what was the case before Christ was generated/begotten by his God and Father within the womb of his mother. What Paul referred to as “all the fullness of Deity” – or “the entire complement of the Deity” (CLNT) – is the Father’s spirit (i.e., that which descended upon Christ in the form of a dove when he was baptized by John). It is this that, in Christ, was/is “dwelling bodily.”

That Paul was referring to the Father when he referred to “the Deity” whose “fullness” (or “entire complement”) is “dwelling bodily” in Christ is confirmed from what Paul wrote in Col. 1:19. There, we read that, “in [Christ], the entire complement delights to dwell, and through Him to reconcile all to Him…” It is the Father who delights to dwell in Christ (who is “the Son of His love” [Col. 1:13]), and who will be reconciling all to himself through Christ. In accord with this fact, we read in 2 Cor. 5:19 that “God was in Christ, conciliating the world to Himself…” The Father alone is the “God” who was in Christ conciliating the world to himself (just as the Father alone is the God who was “with [Jesus]” during his earthly ministry [Acts 10:38]).

Mr. Wayne: Philippians 2 goes on to make it quite clear that Jesus did not merely exist as a divine, god-like creation, but that He is Jehovah God Himself. Paul goes on to say:

“So that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Philippians 2:10-11).

Here, Paul is applying to Jesus the words from Isaiah, where Jehovah Himself says: “I have sworn by Myself, The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness And will not turn back, That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance,” (Isaiah 45:23).

Jehovah swore by His own name that every knee would bow and every tongue will confess His own Lordship. Paul says that this oath of God will be fulfilled in every knee bowing and every tongue confessing that Jesus is Lord. Again, Jesus is identified as YHWH, the LORD, Jehovah.

Paul was not implying that Jesus is the same divine being who identified himself as Yahweh in Isaiah 45:23-24. As has already been demonstrated in this article, Jesus’ God and Father is the only God who is Yahweh. Thus, the only being of whom we read in Phil. 2:10-11 who is Yahweh is the being to whom Paul referred as “God, the Father.”

Does this, then, mean that every knee is going to be bowing (and every tongue swearing allegiance) to Jesus instead of to Yahweh (the Father)? No. Paul didn’t say that those who will be bowing to Jesus (and acclaiming that he is Lord) won’t also be bowing and swearing allegiance to the Father. That is, Paul wasn’t arguing that all will be honoring and praising Jesus exclusively. Rather than revealing that the prophecy of Isaiah 45:23 will be fulfilled by what we read in Phil. 2:10-11, Paul was instead revealing that the same all-inclusive group of people who are ultimately going to be bowing and swearing allegiance to Yahweh are also going to be bowing down to Jesus, and acclaiming that he is Lord.

We find an analogous situation described in 1 Chronicles 29:20 concerning king David and Yahweh. In this verse we read the following:

Then David said to all the assembly, “Now bless Yahweh your God.” And all the assembly blessed Yahweh, the God of their fathers, and bowed low and prostrated themselves to Yahweh and to the king.

Just as the assembly of Israel bowed low and prostrated themselves to Yahweh and to David (“the king”), so all are ultimately going to bow down to both Yahweh and to his ultimate Anointed One (Jesus), swearing their allegiance to Yahweh and acclaiming that Jesus is Lord.

Thus, Jesus isn’t being identified as Yahweh in Phil. 2:10-11. Rather, what Paul wrote in these verses identifies Jesus as the one whom David prophesied would be exalted to Yahweh’s right hand as Lord of all. Although Jesus’ status as Lord and exalted position at God’s right hand makes him worthy of the universal display of honor and praise of which we read in Isaiah 45:23, it doesn’t make Jesus identical with Yahweh himself (i.e., the one to whose right hand Jesus has been exalted). As has already been argued, Jesus’ Lordship and exalted position is derived from Yahweh. The honor and praise that will be given to Christ is based on his God-given status and position. Christ is not going to be honored and praised as Yahweh; rather, he’s going to be honored and praised as the one who, because of his obedience unto death, Yahweh (the Father) made Lord of all.

---

[i] For a slightly more detailed defense of the understanding of Heb. 1:10-13 presented above, see the following article: https://www.biblestudentsnotebook.com/bsn718.pdf. 

It may be objected that, in the previous verse (Heb. 1:2), we’re told that it is “through [Christ]” that God “also makes the eons.” However, as I’ve argued elsewhere (see, for example, the following article: https://www.biblestudentsnotebook.com/bsn717.pdf), the eons in view in this verse are the eons during which Christ will be reigning after the kingdom of God has been established on the earth. These future (and final) eons are elsewhere referred to in Scripture as simply “the eons” (Matthew 6:13; Luke 1:33; Romans 1:25; 9:5; 11:36; 16:27; 2 Corinthians 11:31; Hebrews 13:8; Jude 25) and as “the eons of the eons” (Galatians 1:5; Philippians 4:20; 1 Timothy 1:17; 2 Timothy 4:18; Hebrews 13:21; 1 Peter 4:11; 5:11; Revelation 1:6, 18; 4:9,10; 5:13,14; 7:12; 10:6; 11:15; 14:11; 15:7; 19:3; 20:10; 22:5).  

Thus, the eons that God “makes” (aorist indicative active tense) through his Son are the future eons that will transpire during the Son’s reign – i.e., the eons that Paul referred to as “the oncoming eons” (Eph. 2:7). These eons will be made by means of the authority that Christ was given when, as a reward for his obedience unto death, he became “enjoyer of the allotment of all” (Heb. 1:2) and “so much better than the messengers as He enjoys the allotment of a more excellent name than they” (v. 4).  

[ii] Despite how Romans 9:5 is translated in most Bibles (according to which Paul was referring to Christ as the God who is “blessed forever”), what Paul wrote in this verse can just as validly be translated as follows: 

“…whose are the fathers, and out of whom is the Christ according to the flesh, Who is over all, God be blessed for the eons. Amen!” (CLNT) 

“…to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed forever. Amen.” (RSV) 

“…the patriarchs are theirs, and theirs too (so far as natural descent goes) is the Christ. (Blessed for evermore be the God who is over all! Amen.)” (Moffatt, New Translation) 

These translations of Romans 9:5 are no less grammatically valid than those in which Christ is being identified as the God to whom Paul was referring. Thus, there is no grammatical reason why the doxology with which Rom. 9:5 concludes can’t be understood as a reference to the same divine being whom Paul consistently referred to as “God” throughout his letters (and distinguished from “the Lord Jesus Christ”) – i.e., the Father. And since this verse can be validly translated in such a way that Jesus’ God and Father is the one whom Paul said is “blessed for the eons” (or “blessed forever”), it follows that the only reason one would be inclined to translate it in such a way that Christ (and not Christ’s God and Father) is the subject of Paul’s doxology is that one already believes that Christ is the God to whom Paul was referring in this verse. 

In addition to this consideration, understanding the last phrase as a doxology to Jesus’ God and Father is in accord with the fact that, elsewhere in his letters (including in Romans), Paul used identical or similar phraseology as that which is found in Rom. 9:5 when referring to the Father (but never to Christ): 

“…those who alter the truth of God into the lie, and are venerated, and offer divine service to the creature rather than the Creator, Who is blessed for the eons! Amen!” (Rom. 1:25) 

“Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of pities and God of all consolation…” (2 Cor. 1:3) 

“The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, Who is blessed for the eons, is aware that I am not lying.” (2 Cor. 11:31) 

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who blesses us with every spiritual blessing among the celestials, in Christ…” (Eph. 1:3) 

Peter also used the same expression found in Eph. 1:3: 

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who, according to His vast mercy, regenerates us into a living expectation, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from among the dead…” 

[iii] Not only was our Lord treated like a slave from the time of his arrest to the time of his crucifixion, but we also know from history that, in Jesus’ day, crucifixion was the most common form of execution for slaves (Williams, David John. Paul’s Metaphors: Their Context and Character. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999 (p. 115)).