Quote from Traver Dougherty on July 1, 2025, 11:21 am

Yes, it's long. But it had to be. If you're into these sorts of things, please poke holes in my arguments or tell me what parts need further clarification. Thank you.

At Yeshua’s House (YH), a number of theological frameworks need further clarification. Some of those frameworks need clarifying for the exclusive purpose of agenda harmony. Other items, such as the nature of the Godhead, are more important in that it is our official position at YH that to understand Yeshua (Jesus) as anything other than fully divine and one in essence with the Father is, at a fundamental level, to worship another god. For the purposes of this paper, I’ll refer to this counter-belief as Unitarianism.

At YH, we understand the complexity of this topic. Therefore, succinctness is a near impossibility. Nevertheless, the goal of this paper is to present our position in as few words as possible, but as many as needed to present a robust theological treatise. We should also note that certain words such as “clear” don’t have a place in such discussions; it’s not clear, or there would be no debate. At the same time, we at YH contend reasonable exegesis coupled with confirmation of the Spirit is enough for us to say, collectively as a body, that for us the matter is resolved: Yeshua as Son is God, and one in essence with the Father.

To begin, I’ll first define the doctrine of the Trinity. In Systemic Theology, Louis Berkhof develops the following maxims:

1. There is in the Divine Being but one indivisible essence (ousia. essentia).
2. In this one Divine Being there are three Persons or individual subsistences, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
3. The whole undivided essence of God belongs equally to each of the three persons.
4. The subsistence and operation of the three persons in the divine Being is marked by a certain definite order.
5. There are certain personal attributes by which the three persons are distinguished.
6. The subsistence and operation of the three persons in the divine Being is marked by a certain definite order.
7. There are certain personal attributes by which the three persons are distinguished.
8. The Church confesses the Trinity to be a mystery beyond the comprehension of man (319). [1]

Relevant texts from the Hebrew Scriptures. Gen. 1:26, 11:7, 16:7-13, 18:1-21, 19:1-28; Isa. 41:14, 43:3, 11, 14, 47:4, 48:16, 49:7, 26, 60:16, 61:1, 63:9, 10; Jer. 14:3, 50:14; Hos. 13:3; Mal. 3:1; Ps. 19:14, 33:4, 6, 45:6, 7, 78:35, 106:21; Prov. 8:12-31; Job 19:25.

Relevant texts from the Apostolic Scriptures. Matt. 1:21, 3:16, 17, 11:25, 26, 26:39, 28:19; Mark 1:11; Luke 1:76-79, 2:17, 3:22; John 3:16, 4:42, 11:41, 12:27, 28, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7; Acts 2:4, 5:3; Rom. 8:9, 11, 26; I Cor. 3:16, 12:4-6; II Cor. 13:14; Gal. 3:13, 4:4, 5, 6; Eph. 2:22; Phil. 3:30; Tit. 2:13, 14; Heb. 1:6; Jas. 4:5; I Peter 1:2; I John 4:9, 5:7.

Let’s also cover a few definitions. YH rejects all of the below, though some more than others.

Arianism: the persons of the Godhead represent only three modes or aspects of the divine revelation, not distinct and coexisting persons in the divine nature.

Macedonianism: acknowledges the divinity of the Father and the Son, but denies the full deity of the Holy Spirit, often viewing the Ruach as a created being or a divine force or emanation, rather than a distinct divine Person.

Modalism: the persons of the Godhead represent only three modes or aspects of the divine revelation, not distinct and coexisting persons in the divine nature.

Monarchianism: asserts Yeshua was born a mere human being, but at some point (often identified as His baptism, resurrection, or ascension), the Father ‘adopted’ Yeshua as His Son and endowed Him with divine power or the Spirit.

Partialism: claims the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each only a part of God, rather than being fully God individually.

Subordinationism: asserts one or more Persons of the Godhead are ontologically or subordinate to the Father.

Before moving on, I should note the above maxims, references, and definitions are provided so that you, the reader, can see that we at YH are aware of the various theological frameworks. Similarly, we are also aware of the prevailing Unitarian frameworks and the thought leaders within the “whole Bible” movement who hold to such perspectives. In what follows, it is not our intent to exegete all relevant passages or address all frameworks. Rather, it is to provide you with a synopsis of our stance and why it’s important.

Our official stance at YH is this: we believe in one God (i.e., one essence) Who manifests in three: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Again, to borrow from Berkhof: a. The Father begets the Son; b. The Son is begotten of the Father; c. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Now, borrowing an analogy from Augustine,

For the Word of the Father is the Son, which is also called His Wisdom. What is, therefore, remarkable about Him being sent, not because He is unequal to the Father, but because He is 'a certain pure emanation of the glory of the almighty God'? But there, that which emanates and that from which it emanates are of one and the same substance. For it does not issue as water from an opening in the ground or a rock, but as light from light. For when it was said: 'she is the brightness of eternal light,' what else was said, than that it is the light of eternal light? For what is the brightness of light if not light itself? (164)[2]

While we’d like to use prooftexts to show straightforward evidence and/or unambiguous causal links, no position can do this. Rather, the best we can do is present a logical hermeneutic that emerges out of the various prooftexts.

That said, before delving into the larger rationale a few prooftexts may suffice for the casual reader. Isaiah records, “For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us … and His name will be called … Mighty God (אֵ֣ל גִּבּ֔וֹר)” (9:6). Here, Isaiah explicitly refers to Messiah as “mighty God,” a title reserved for God alone. In Micah 5:2 we read, “But as for you, Bethlehem … from you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from everlasting, from the ancient days (מִקֶּדֶם מִימֵי עוֹלָם).” In antiquity, “ancient days” or “days of eternity” is a reference to "eternity," "forever," "ancient times," or "the world" (as in, "the world to come"). In Jeremiah 23:5-6 we learn,

“Behold, the days are coming,” declares Yahweh,

When I will raise up for David a righteous Branch;

And He will reign as king and prosper

And do justice and righteousness in the land.

In His days Judah will be saved,

And Israel will dwell securely;

And this is His name by which He will be called,

‘Yahweh our righteousness.’”

Notice the “righteous Branch,” a reference to Messiah, is called “Yahweh our righteousness” (יְהוָ֥ה צִדְקֵֽנוּ) and that Psalm 83:18 explicitly tells us, “That they may know that You alone—Your name is Yahweh—Are the Most High over all the earth. In Zechariah 12:10, notice the language. “And I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn (emphasis mine). Zechariah goes on to explicitly identify Yahweh as the One whose “feet will stand on the Mount of Olives” (14:1-4).

And finally, “Thomas answered and said to Him, ‘My Lord and my God!’” It is well understood Yeshua does not reject Thomas’s statement. Instead, Yeshua responds in the affirmative.

In summary, the following represents our general reasoning.

1. The Hebrew Scriptures are monotheist.

The Shema states Yahweh is one (Dt 6:4). Though Elohim can be grammatically plural, in texts such as Gen 1:1 it is not; rather, the -im denotes honor and respect and is sometimes called an honorific plural. Texts such as Isa. 43:11 and 47:4 (respectively) show the singularity. “I, even I, am Yahweh, and there is no savior besides Me” (אָנֹכִי אָנֹכִי יְהוָה וְאֵין מִבַּלְעָדַי מוֹשִׁיעַ). “Our Redeemer, Yahweh of hosts is His name, the Holy One of Israel” (גֹּאֲלֵ֕נוּ יְהוָ֥ה צְבָא֖וֹת שְׁמ֑וֹ קְד֖וֹשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵֽל).

Other supporting verses for monotheism: Isa. 43:14; 49:7, 26; 60:16; 1 Cor. 8:6 (implies, but not listed directly, confirms "one God").

2. The Hebrew Scriptures show plurality and distinction within the Godhead.

Internal plurality in Gen. 1:26. “Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness” (וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ). The plural pronouns "us" and "our" used by Elohim (honorific plural) suggest an internal deliberation or plurality within the divine being, hinting at distinct identities participating in creation.

Internal plurality in Gen18:1-2. “Then Yahweh appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, while he was sitting at the tent door in the heat of the day. And he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men …” (וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו יְהוָה ... וְהִנֵּה שְׁלֹשָׁה אֲנָשִׁים נִצָּבִים עָלָיו). Yahweh appears to Abraham yet beheld "three men." One of the men is consistently identified as Yahweh, while the other two later proceed to Sodom. This appearance of Yahweh in multiple, distinct forms also suggests a plurality within the Godhead.

Other supporting verses: Gen. 11:7; Ps. 33:6; Prov. 8:22; Isa. 48:16; 63:9, 10.

3. The Apostolic Scriptures show Yeshua’s deity.

Yeshua identified as God. Titus 2:13 reads, “waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ (θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ).” The Greek uses a grammatical construction (known as the Granville Sharp rule) where a single definite article (“the”) governs both “great God” (μεγάλου θεοῦ) and “Savior” (σωτῆρος), explicitly identifying Jesus Christ as “our great God.”

Divine prerogative. John 4:42 reads, “...this is indeed the Savior of the world.” In this text, the title attributes Savior of the world (σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου) to Yeshua, a role reserved for Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible (cf. Isa. 43:3, 11, 14; 49:26; 60:16), thereby affirming Yeshua’s divine prerogative.

Power to save. Matthew 1:21 reads, “ … for he will save his people from their sins.” The power to save from sins is a divine attribute, one that only God can accomplish (cf. Jer. 14:3; 50:14, where only God can withhold/give rain and deliver). This points to Jesus' divine identity.

Other supporting verses: Ps. 45:6, 7 (prophetically refers to a divine king, applied to Messiah in Heb. 1:8); Job 19:25 (Redeemer); Luke 1:76-79, 2:17; Acts 5:3; Gal. 3:13; 4:5.

4. The Apostolic Scriptures show the deity and personality of the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit).

In Acts 5:3-4, Peter equates the Holy Spirit with God. The Spirit is also presented as a distinct person to Whom one can lie. “But Peter said, ‘Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit (ψεύσασθαί σε τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον) and to keep back some of the price of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your authority? Why is it that you laid this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God’” (οὐκ ἐψεύσω ἀνθρώποις ἀλλὰ θεῷ).

In Romans 8:26-27, Paul describes the Ruach as One with personal attributes (interceding, helping) that go beyond a mere impersonal force, demonstrating His distinct personality within the Godhead. “And in the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness, for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words (αὐτὸ τὸ Πνεῦμα ὑπερεντυγχάνει ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν στεναγμοῖς ἀλαλήτοις); and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.”

Other supporting verses: Gal. 4:6; Eph. 2:22; Jas. 4:5; 1 Cor. 3:16 (Spirit indwells believers, making them God’s temple).

5. The Apostolic Scriptures show the persons of the Godhead acting in unity

Yeshua’s Baptism. In Matthew 3:16-17, we see all three persons of the Godhead are simultaneously present and distinctly acting: Yeshua (the Son) being baptized, the Ruach HaKodesh descending “like a dove,” and the Father speaking from heaven. “And after being baptized, Yeshua came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming upon Him, and behold, there was a voice out of the heavens saying, ‘This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.’”

The Great Commission. In Matthew 28:19, we read, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name (ὄνομα) of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” The singular “name” (ὄνομα) refers to one divine essence, authority, and power, yet it is explicitly ascribed to three distinct persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). This is a direct affirmation of unity in essence with distinction in person.

Apostolic Benediction. In 2 Corinthians 13:14, Paul links distinct blessings and relationships to each of the three persons, treating them as equally divine and acting in concert, further affirming their distinct yet unified roles. “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.”

Other supporting verses: 1 Cor. 12:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2.

6. The Apostolic Scriptures show a connection between origin and sending.

Shared authority. In John 14:26, we read, “But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name (ὃν πέμψει ὁ Πατὴρ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου), He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.” Here, the Spirit is sent by the Father, but in the Son’s name, indicating a specific relationship and shared authority in the sending of the Ruach.

The Ruach proceeds from Yahweh. In John’s gospel, Yeshua explicitly states He will send the Spirit, and the Spirit proceeds (ἐκπορεύεται) from the Father. This is crucial for understanding the procession of the Spirit and the co-agency of the Father and the Son in sending. “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father (ὃν ἐγὼ πέμψω ὑμῖν παρὰ τοῦ Πατρός, τὸ Πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, ὃ παρὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται), the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness about Me, and you will bear witness also, because you have been with Me from the beginning” (15:26, 27).

The Spirit of the Son. In Galatians, Paul shows the Father sending the Son, and the Father sending the Spirit of the Son, indicating distinct roles and eternal relations of origin within the Godhead. “But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son (ἀπέστειλεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν Υἱὸν αὐτοῦ), born of a woman, born under the Law … And because you are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “‘Abba! Father!’”

7. The Godhead is an incomprehensible mystery of one God in three manifestations or “persons.”

At YH, the biblical evidence leads to the confession of one God existing as three distinct, co-equal, and co-eternal persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In the Hebrew and Apostolic Scriptures, the one God is presented as a profound mystery, beyond full human comprehension, yet faithfully derived from divine revelation. It upholds both God’s singular being and His revealed plurality.

While the above represents a summary of our understanding, we should address one last Unitarian framework. Once more, here’s the summary of Unitarian’s conflict. If Yeshua is Yahweh, then the concept of Yeshua being a priest to Yahweh becomes a theological paradox.

If we understand the Unitarian’s framework properly, the “three” of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit compromises the strict monotheism contained in the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4), “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one,” perceiving it as leaning towards polytheism (three gods) or a complex philosophical construct not explicitly found in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Therefore, the Unitarian believes the doctrine of the “Trinity,” along with other "Christian" doctrines (such as Sunday worship, Christmas, Easter), were largely developed under the influence of Greek philosophical thought and even paganism in the early centuries of the Ecclesia (e.g., Council of Nicaea, A.D. 325). They argue these doctrines obscure the original “Hebrew” understanding of the Father and the Son. Further, while not always explicitly stating a full Unitarian or binitarian (God is two Persons, Father and Son) view, their rejection of the classical “Trinity” often leads them in these directions. Because of this, they often emphasize Yahweh (the Father) as the one supreme God, and Yeshua as the Messiah, the Son, who is subordinate to the Father. The Ruach is then often viewed more as Yahweh's power or presence, rather than a distinct co-equal person.

Given the above, some then argue that it’s impossible for Yeshua to be God and High Priest at the same time. The argument stems from their understanding of the Torah's requirements for the High Priesthood and their rejection of Yeshua’s full, co-equal deity in a Trinitarian sense. Within this general framework, the argument is thus:

1. The High Priest must be a man.

According to the Torah, the Levitical priesthood, and necessarily the High Priesthood, was strictly hereditary, limited to the descendants of Aaron (Numbers 3:10). Furthermore, the High Priest had to be a human being, able to sympathize with human weaknesses, as he offered sacrifices for both his own sins and the sins of the people. Thus, some emphasize that the Torah's definition of a priest is fundamentally a man (a human being) chosen from among men to represent them before God. If Yeshua were fully God (co-equal, co-eternal, uncreated), He could not also simultaneously be a human priest who intercedes. A fully divine being, some argue, does not need to mediate or intercede for Himself or for others in the same way a human priest does, because He is already God. The High Priest is a mediator, and in the Unitarian view, God does not need a mediator.

Prooftexts for the above position may include:

Numbers 3:10. Specific lineage requirement. “So you shall appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall keep their priesthood; but the layman who comes near shall be put to death.” This highlights the specific lineage requirement.

Hebrews 5:1. Yeshua’s humanity restricts Him from also being fully God. “For every high priest taken from among men is appointed on behalf of men in things pertaining to God, in order to offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins.” Thus, some would emphasize “taken from among men” as a prerequisite that a fully God being could not meet.

Our response: Though a mystery, we at YH contend Yeshua is fully human and fully God concurrently, though at times the Son has chosen to “empty” Himself.

Philippians 2:5-8. Have this way of thinking in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although existing in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, by taking the form of a slave, by being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

2. The High Priest is subordinate to God.

In the Temple service, the High Priest acted as a servant of Yahweh, performing rituals as instructed by God. He was the representative of God’s people, and God's representative to the people, but always subordinate to God Himself.

Some assert that if Yeshua is fully God, He would be the recipient of the worship and the one to whom the High Priest makes offerings, not the one making the offerings or serving in a subordinate role to a greater God. To be a High Priest implies a functional subordination to the ultimate Deity, which Unitarians believe contradicts the idea of Yeshua being co-equal God. They would argue that a being who is Yahweh Himself cannot be a priest to Yahweh.

A prooftext for the above position may include:

Hebrews 5:4, 5. “And no one takes the honor to himself, but receives it when he is called by God, just as Aaron was. So also Christ did not glorify Himself to become a high priest, but He who said to Him, ‘YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU,’ and as He also says in another place, ‘YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK.’” Some emphasize “called by God” as demonstrating subordination to the Father’s authority.

Our response: Again, this is a mystery. That said, the language in the above text is descriptive; the Hebrews author wants to make a correlation for the reader, bridging the prophetic gap between Melchizedek in Genesis 14, the “forever” priesthood conferred upon the Son as described in Psalm 110, and the reality of Yeshua’s forever high priestly role in a “greater and more perfect tabernacle,” one that is “not of this creation.”

Hebrews 9:11, 12. “But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation, and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy places once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.”

3. Separation of roles in the Godhead.

In the Unitarian’s framework, Yeshua is the Messiah, the Son of God, who fully obeyed and carried out the Father's will. He is divine in the sense of being uniquely chosen, empowered, and glorified by Yahweh, but not necessarily "God" in the sense of being co-equal in essence with the Father from eternity. This allows Yeshua to fulfill the role of the High Priest because He is seen as a fully perfected man (the Messiah) acting on behalf of humanity to God.

Our response: We see no conflict between Yeshua as fully perfected man and Yeshua as fully God (co-equal, co-eternal, uncreated). Our claim stems from two facts. First, Yeshua died and resurrected. Psalm 89 tells us, “What man can live and not see death?” As a man, Yeshua died. Yet, as God, death could not hold Him. While we understand some texts indicate the Father did the raising (Acts 2:24), it is also equally true that the Son had the power to raise Himself. Yeshua said, “For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one takes it away from Me, but from Myself, I lay it down. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father” (John 10:17, 18; emphasis ours). Second, though it is not our intent to downplay the earthly sphere, the real battle or work was and is in the heavenlies. The Hebrews writer tells us, “For Messiah did not enter holy places made with hands, mere copies of the true ones, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy places year by year with blood that is not his own” (9:24, 25). In other words, Yeshua’s high priestly role was at once earthly and heavenly. And because Yeshua was not from the tribe of Levi, even His earthy priesthood was fundamentally different than that of the Levitical priesthood. Thus, the constraints of the Levitical priesthood cannot be conferred upon Yeshua.

At YH, we understand the Tabernacle and Temple is crucial for understanding the Apostolic Scriptures. In the Unitarian framework, the specific and defined roles within the Levitical system are taken very literally to interpret Yeshua’s role. If the Torah defines a priest as a human male from a specific lineage, then for Jesus to be a priest, he must primarily fit that human mold, rather than being God Himself in a way that, to the Unitarian, would violate the functional definition of priesthood. Thus, the idea of Yeshua being as both fully co-equal with the Godhead and simultaneously High Priest becomes problematic because they see the High Priest as fundamentally a human representative to God, not as God Himself while in that role. In this, we do not agree. Further, we contend viewing Yeshua in this light fundamentally distorts who God is and, consequently, distorts both worship and doctrine.

Final thoughts. This is a complicated topic and no one has all the answers. Still, it is our position at YH that Yeshua is fully God and we are firm on the matter. Yes, we are always open to healthy discussion; at the same time, we ask all covenant members and teachers to uphold, without compromise, the divinity of Yeshua.

[1] Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Bielefeld: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2018.

[2] Saint Augustine. 2002. The Trinity. Vol. 00045. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press.