DawahWise Gold

How misused: Repeatedly interpreted as unity of purpose or agreement, not unity of essence or being, to deny Yeshua's divinity. The speaker often equates this 'oneness' with the unity believers are called to have (John 17:21), implying Yeshua's 'oneness' with the Father is not unique.

Scripture's answer: The Greek word 'hen' (ἓν) in John 10:30 is neuter, emphasizing unity of nature or essence, not merely purpose, which would typically use a masculine plural. The immediate Jewish reaction (picking up stones to stone Him for blasphemy) demonstrates they understood Yeshua's claim as an assertion of deity (John 10:33), making Him equal with God. Yeshua's statement is a claim to shared divine nature, distinct from the unity of will or love among believers (John 17:21-22) who are united in relationship, not in essence.

How misused: Used to claim that only the Father is 'the only true God,' thereby explicitly excluding Yeshua from deity and asserting a Unitarian understanding of God. This is presented as proof Yeshua is merely a messenger and not God Himself.

Scripture's answer: This verse affirms the unique deity of the Father but does not deny the deity of Yeshua. In Trinitarian theology, the Father is the source and origin of the Godhead, and Yeshua's divine Sonship means He shares the *same* divine essence as the Father, not a different one. The 'only true God' describes the *one being* of God, not necessarily *one person* to the exclusion of others. Other New Testament passages explicitly affirm Yeshua's deity (e.g., John 1:1, Philippians 2:6, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:8).

How misused: Cited as proof of Yeshua's limited knowledge, implying He cannot be omniscient God because God would know everything. This is presented as a logical contradiction to Yeshua's divinity.

Scripture's answer: This verse reveals Yeshua's genuine humanity and His voluntary self-limitation (kenosis) during His earthly ministry (Philippians 2:6-7). As the Incarnate Son, Yeshua chose to submit to the Father's will and experience human limitations, including the withholding of certain divine knowledge, without ceasing to be fully God. His divine nature inherently possesses omniscience, but in His human nature, He did not always exercise it. This demonstrates His perfect obedience and identification with humanity, not a flaw in His divine being.

How misused: Interpreted as Yeshua literally being cursed by God, implying moral imperfection, rather than bearing humanity's curse. Used to argue Yeshua is unworthy of worship or is a 'sinner' according to Paul.

Scripture's answer: Paul quotes Deuteronomy 21:23. Yeshua did not become morally cursed; rather, He *bore* the curse of the law for humanity's transgressions, becoming the substitute for our sin (2 Corinthians 5:21). This act of substitutionary atonement is precisely why He is worthy of worship and is the sinless Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29; 1 Peter 1:18-19). His identification with the curse was for our redemption, not because of His own sin.

How misused: Cited to argue against the Christian doctrine of original sin and vicarious atonement, claiming it proves individuals are only responsible for their own sins, thus negating Yeshua's death for others' sins.

Scripture's answer: Ezekiel 18 addresses *individual* accountability for *personal*, deliberate sins within a covenantal context, especially after a period where people blamed ancestors for their misfortunes. It speaks against a fatalistic view of inherited *personal guilt* for the *actions* of parents, but does not deny the reality of inherited *sinful nature* or the spiritual consequences of Adam's fall (Romans 5:12-19). Yeshua's atonement is not about bearing personal guilt for a literal ancestor's crime, but about redeeming humanity from the *power* and *penalty* of sin, which affects all people universally due to their fallen nature.

How misused: Dismissed as a royal plural or a reference to a divine council (angels) rather than a hint at the plurality within the Godhead. This is used to assert an absolute singular monotheism that precludes the Trinity.

Scripture's answer: While 'royal plural' is a possible interpretation, and divine council a common ancient Near Eastern motif, in the context of progressive revelation, this plural pronoun (plural for 'Elohim' used with singular verbs throughout Genesis 1) is consistently interpreted by Christian theology as a proto-Trinitarian hint, signifying the internal plurality within the unified divine being. The New Testament confirms that Yeshua (Colossians 1:16) and the Ruach HaKodesh (Psalm 104:30) were active in creation, further solidifying the Trinitarian understanding.

How misused: Used to claim God actively 'hates' sinners and that God's love is conditional, thus contradicting His all-loving nature as understood by Christians and aligning it with Islamic conditional love.

Scripture's answer: This verse expresses God's holy hatred for sin and wickedness, not for the individual person Himself (Ezekiel 33:11, John 3:16). God loves humanity but hates evil and those who persist in it. This is not a contradiction but a reflection of His perfectly just and holy character. His love leads Him to offer redemption from the very iniquity He hates (Romans 5:8).

How misused: Interpreted hyper-literally regarding 'His seed' to mean biological offspring. Since Yeshua had no biological children, the speaker claims this prophecy cannot refer to Him, thus denying Yeshua as the suffering Messiah.

Scripture's answer: The term 'seed' (זֶרַע, *zera'*) in biblical Hebrew can refer to physical offspring, but also to spiritual descendants or legacy, especially in prophetic contexts (e.g., Abraham's seed in Galatians 3:29). In Isaiah 53, the 'seed' refers to those who are regenerated through the Suffering Servant's atoning work—His spiritual children (1 John 3:9, 1 Peter 1:23). 'Prolong His days' refers to Yeshua's resurrection and eternal reign, not merely a long physical life on earth.