Questions or comments are welcomed.





by R. W. Young


 “But the path of the just is as a shining light, that shines more and more unto the

perfect day.” (Prov 4:18)


“Hereby know ye the Spirit of Yahweh: Every spirit that confesses that Yahshua Messiah is come in the flesh is of Yahweh” 1 John 4:2


Study 7, Chapter 1


I recently read the following statements written by a man who professes to be an apostle: “Yahshua is not 100 percent YHWH and 100 percent man as most bible believing religions, or sects teach, but is 1 million percent YHWH and 0 percent man. He was cloaked with the features of humanity, BUT was not human in His flesh, spirit, or blood!”  I have highlighted the parts that are in total contradiction to what the Bible teaches, as I intend to show in this lesson. I take no pleasure in having to present this teaching against this very unscriptural doctrine that Yahshua is not,  “man” and was only “cloaked with the features of humanity”.  In fact, it grieves me that people I considered to be true believers would so radically depart from a fundamental teaching of the Bible as to who the true Messiah is.  Though I have little expectation that such will be the case, my sincere desire is that the truth may dawn upon them and that they would repent of, and renounce, the error of their way.


 To deny the humanity of Yahshua the Messiah is as wrong as it is to deny that He is Yahweh manifested in the flesh.  In either case you are presenting a false Messiah, rather than presenting the true Messiah. In fact, according to what the apostle John says in 1 John 4:3, it may well be a form of the spirit of anti-Messiah. John says: “And every spirit that confesses not that Yahshua Messiah is come in flesh is not of Yahweh: and this is that spirit of anti-Messiah, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.”  Therefore, this is a most serious matter.  Those who teach, and those who follow the teaching, that Messiah was not human, that He is not a “man” are not teaching the true faith as it was “once delivered unto the saints”, but have departed from it.


I am fully aware that the teachers of this falsehood try to avoid the accusation of the apostle John by saying Yahshua had flesh, but not human flesh.  However, that is not the teaching of John.  What John clearly meant when he said Yahshua came in  “flesh” is that He was truly human. He was not a phantom that just appeared to have a body as taught by the Gnostics.  Nor did He come in the mere appearance of flesh, “cloaked with the features of humanity” as these men teach.     The Bible clearly teaches that the Messiah came to be a genuine part of the human race with a genetic connection to Adam. It teaches that, though He was Yahweh as the only begotten Son of Yahweh, yet after the flesh He descended through the line of Abraham and David.  This is what the scripture very plainly shows.  Therefore, no amount of twisting and wresting the meaning of passages that declare the humanity and manhood of Yahshua by these false teachers can  remove their condemnation as being teachers of a different Messiah.  Only true repentance and renouncing of this serious error will do that.


As already indicated, I take no pleasure in saying these things, but I say them in order to warn others in hope that some will be saved from what could well be a soul damning doctrine.   This is an issue that must be addressed according to the scripture.  To say Yahshua was not, or is not, a “man” flatly contradicts the Bible and is a form of departing from the “doctrine of Messiah”.  The apostle John wrote, “For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Yahshua Messiah is come in flesh.  This is a deceiver and an anti-Messiah.”  (2 John 7)  To say He had a body, that He had flesh, but not a human body is just another way to deny that He came “in flesh” no matter what else one may say to make it look otherwise.


First of all, taking a few scriptures that in no way actually state that Yahshua was not human, scriptures that in no way say He was not a man, yet spinning them such a way as to make them sound like they are teaching such a perverse teaching is the worst kind of wresting of scripture one can practice.  It is certainly not “rightly dividing”, or “rightly aligning the word of truth”, but is wrongly dividing and misusing Yahweh’s holy word.  It amazes me that so many seemingly eat up this kind of trashy hermeneutics.  They call it a new revelation and take off running with it. 


Although it smacks of ancient Gnosticism, which among other things sought to remove the Savior from anything related to the material universe, and, therefore, denied He had a real body, this is indeed a “new revelation” as they call it.  It is totally new to anything taught in the Bible.  These false teachers seek to avoid the stigma of being identified with the ancient Gnostic, anti-Messiah teachers by saying they do not deny Yahshua came in a body.  They say they confess that He came in “flesh” and in a “body”, but that it was a “body” of flesh from heaven with no genetic ties to humanity.  However, although this is not exactly the same as Gnosticism it follows the same basic principle, namely, that of trying to avoid any tie with the natural, human element.


An example of twisting the meaning of scripture by these teachers is when they put their special spin on a statement found in Hebrews 10:5 to use it to teach their heresy. When the pre-incarnate Word is quoted in Hebrews 10:5 as saying, “a body hast thou prepared me”, these teachers somehow draw the conclusion that the body Yahweh prepared Messiah was not human. They present this scripture as teaching that Yahshua was not born with any connection to the human race, saying that it means Yahweh prepared a body (as a fetus) in heaven and, then, put it in the womb of Miriam to make her not his true mother, but a surrogate mother.   Where does this passage say that it was not a human body?  It simply does not do so.  To imply that it does is to add to what is actually said in the text and context.  All it says is that Yahweh prepared a body for Him with nothing at all in the text that implies this was done in heaven or anywhere else outside the body of the virgin that was to become the Messiah’s mother.


The context as you read on in the following verses simply shows that He was referring to the fact that He would be given a body so that He could suffer and die to pay for our sins.  It says nothing about the process by which this would come about.  You have to go to other scriptures to understand how or where this was done.   And there are no other scriptures that say His body was not human, not one.  These teachers admit that the body of Yahshua was a fetus in the womb of the virgin Miriam (“Mary”) and grew in her womb over the usual 9 months period normally required for a fetus to grow into a fully developed baby. This is, of course, what the scripture shows.  Even after He was born we read, “And the child continued to grow, and to become strong in spirit.”   (Luke 1:80)  In other words, after His miraculous conception in the womb of the virgin Miriam, Yahshua went through the processes natural to humanity in general. 


There is nothing in Hebrews 10:5, or in any other scripture that refers to the birth of our Savior, to even suggest that He was not a human being.  So why suppose otherwise?  We will see what reasoning the writer I quoted in the beginning of this lesson, and others like him, use to insist Yahshua had to be “0 percent man” and was merely “cloaked in with the features of humanity”.  But first, what could the expression “a body hast thou prepared for me” be referring to?


How was a body prepared for the pre-incarnate Word to become flesh and tabernacle among men?  In the same way that a body is prepared for each and every soul that comes into the world, except that it began without a human father.   In Isaiah 44:2 Yahweh says of Jacob, “Thus saith Yahweh that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; 'Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen.”  (Also see Isa. 44:24; 49:5.)   Also, Yahweh said to Jeremiah, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."  (Jer. 1:5)  These verses show that Yahweh is the one who forms man in the womb.


The lilies of the field are arrayed in their beauty because of the natural laws Yahweh put in operation, laws He sustains by His word of power, yet Yahshua said Yahweh clothes them.  So likewise it is by the natural laws that a body is formed in the womb.   Yet the scripture clearly shows that it is Yahweh who forms or prepares the body for the soul that He puts within it.  Thus it is that Yahshua said “a body hast thou prepared for me.”   Although this conception was by the power of Yahweh overshadowing the virgin Miriam to bring about a conception without a human father, from that point on it was according to natural processes that the body was prepared by Yahweh.   If you will study the context of this passage from Hebrew 10, you will see that Yahshua was saying that it was not animal sacrifices “for sin” that Yahweh desired, but that His will was for Messiah to take away our sins by “the offering of the body of Yahshua Messiah once for all.”  This is why He said, “A body hast thou prepared for me”, not to in any way indicate that He would be conceived  totally outside the stream of humanity.  As I will show from the scripture, Yahshua had to have true, genuine genetic continuity from Abraham, through Isaac, Jacob and David in order to be the true prophesied Messiah.


Why should we suppose that when the Holy Spirit caused the miraculous conception of our Savior in the womb of the virgin Miriam [Mary] that a body was first made up in heaven and then transported into her womb?  Why make such an assumption when the Bible in no place says so? We know that in the normal process of birth a conception takes place when the dormant, inactive seed of the woman, or ova as we call it today, is given life as the additional elements needed for conception are supplied when the male seed, the sperm, unites with it. 


Since there was no male sperm, but there was, nevertheless, a true conception that took place when the Holy Spirit overshadowed Miriam (“Mary”), the obvious conclusion would be that whatever would normally have come from the human male sperm was miraculously supplied by the Word of Yahweh that entered her womb at that point of time.  That the Word did enter her womb and was somehow “made flesh” is clearly stated in the Bible in John 1:14.   And that a child was “conceived in her” (not up in heaven) is also stated in the Bible in Luke 2:21 in which the word “conceived” is the same word used in Luke 1:24,36 of Elizabeth conceiving John the Baptist.


By any rational thinking, it must be admitted that the statement “a body hast thou prepared for me” does not in itself require the interpretation that that body was prepared without any human element being involved.  There is nothing in that verse that says it was prepared in heaven. Since “a body hast thou prepared for me”, according to the previously quoted scriptures, could indeed mean that Yahweh formed Yahshua in the womb just as He formed Jacob and Jeremiah, except that He did so without the male sperm, why should we suppose otherwise?  And since it says that Yahshua was “conceived in” Miriam, that should completely close the door to the idea that the body of Messiah came into her as a zygote, embryo, or fetus already created or formed in heaven.  Thus, Hebrew 10:5 in no way proves the teaching that Yahshua was not a “man”.


It appears that the reason these false teachers give for saying Yahshua could not be a man, but that He could only have the appearance or features of being human, is that they conclude that if He were a man born with any genetic connection to humanity He would have to have had a sinful nature.  They say He could not have had the sinful nature or sinful tendencies of man.  Of course, it is true that He did not have any sin.  He did not have a sinful nature.  But wait a minute.  Who said that to be a man, to be fully human, you have to have a sinful nature or the sinful tendencies?   Is that a sine qua non of being human?  Is it “that without which” you could not be a human being?  If we accept the premise that everyone born of a human mother since Adam has had a sinful nature with sinful tendencies, it still does not follow that the sinful nature and sinful tendencies are essential to one being human. 


When Yahweh made man as a human being He made Him without such sinful nature or sinful tendencies. Adam was fully human at that time, even before he came to have sin dwelling in his flesh, even before he had what is called a sinful nature.  Only after Adam fell into sin through an act of his sovereign, free will by disobeying Yahweh’s instruction to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil could it, then, be said that man has a fallen, sinful nature with propensities toward sin existing in his flesh.  The sinful nature is not something that made Adam a man or human; he was a man or human before he sinned.  If anything his sinful tendencies made him less of a human as respects humanity as originally made. Therefore, Yahshua could have been fully human, as a true man, and still not have the sinful nature.


“Ah”, they might say, “that’s the whole point; Yahshua was not made part of the fallen human race, but was made like Adam originally was when first made by Yahweh. They say Yahweh made a body (as a fetus) in heaven by a special process that kept Him from any genetic connection to fallen humanity.  However, that is making an assumption that Yahshua could not have had any genetic connection with humanity without having taken on a sinful nature. It is a quantum leap to say that since He did not have a fallen human nature, to which we agree, He, therefore, was not a human or did not have any genetic connection to humanity. 


 I am fully aware that in the book of Job the rhetorical questions as to whether a man born of woman could be “righteous” or could be “clean” are asked.  But first of all that is Job’s “comforters” and not Yahweh speaking.  Secondly, they even said this in assuming the birth is a natural birth, not a miraculous, one of a kind, virgin birth of the Son of Yahweh.  In other words, those statements are obviously spoken in relationship to the birth in a woman who had physical, sexual relationship with a man.


Yet, starting with the premise that a sinful nature is passed on by genetics, who knows how this is done?  No one can say they know for sure how it takes place. Is it passed on from the female “seed”, from the male “seed”, or from the combination the two?   The Bible doesn’t tell us how.  Thus it is merely an assumption to say that Yahshua would have to have had the sinful nature if He had any genes from His mother.


Not only that, but, why couldn’t Yahweh have worked in such a way as to block such a sinful nature from coming into the make-up of Yahshua, even if it were known to be true that the sinful nature normally comes through the mother, which of course is not so known.   Wouldn’t we even have reason to suppose that, if that “sinful nature” was something in the female “seed”, the entrance of the “Eternal Life” of the Most Holy One would, nevertheless, have completely destroyed such a sinful natural element and fully purified that chosen “seed”?  And if so, that would not make the fetus thus produced any the less truly human.


And if, as I think is more likely, such a nature would come from the active part, which comes from the male “seed”, then, by virtue of the fact that Yahshua did not have a human father, He would automatically not have a sinful nature.  This is, of course, conjecture all the way through. It is conjecture on the part of those teaching this false doctrine that to be genetically connected to His mother Miriam, or to be truly human, Yahshua would have to have a sinful nature.  And it is conjecture our part as to through whose genes, the male or female, or the two together such a nature would be passed on.        What is not conjecture is that Yahweh could have, and obviously did, prevent His only begotten Son from having a sinful nature.  However, that did not make Him any the less human, any the less a man.  That Yahweh prevented Him from having such a nature in no way necessitates saying He was “0 percent man”.  It in no way necessitates that He could have no genetic connection to humanity.


So, in summary of this part it should be clear that being human does not, in itself, necessitate having a sinful nature. A sinful nature is not part of being human, per se.  It is not an original part of being a “man”.  And, therefore, if, as I believe the Bible teaches, and as I believe I shall show, Yahshua had a clear genetic connection with humanity through His virgin mother, but had no human father, it does not mean He had to, therefore, have a sinful nature.   It is clear that the elements which would normally come from the human father were supplied by Yahweh Himself through the Life that He imparted to the seed [or ova] of His mother.   Yahshua is called the “Eternal Life, which was with the Father” [Yahweh] “and was manifested unto us.”  (1 John 1:2)  He was the Word of Yahweh “made flesh”.  This implantation of life was Yahweh’s own life instead of the male life elements.  


Yahweh’s Eternal Life would have everything that would normally be supplied from the human, male “seed”, and much more as well, so that Yahshua would be both the “Son of man” [that is, true humanity] and also the “only begotten Son of Yahweh” at the same time.  His being truly Yahweh in the flesh would in no way cancel out the reality of His humanity, especially as He willingly laid aside His “divine” prerogatives.   The implantation of Yahweh’s own Eternal Life would, in itself, have been enough to have prevented or cancelled out any sinful nature from coming into the body of Messiah, even if it could be shown to be true that such a nature would normally pass on through the mother’s seed alone, which is something that, of course, cannot be shown from scripture.


Another argument that seems to be used to show that Yahshua was not born as a man, that He was not truly human, but was only “cloaked with the features of humanity” is that fact that He is spoken of as the “bread that came down from heaven”.  However, this is based on another pure assumption, the assumption that to be the bread that came down from heaven He had to come as already formed into “flesh”.   When He came down He was the Word of Yahweh.  He was Yahweh.  And Yahweh is Spirit, not flesh.  He came down from heaven to give His life for the world.  But He did so, as He became flesh in the body of the virgin Miriam.   There is nothing in His statement, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world” that compels us to believe it is His flesh that came down from heaven. It simply does not say that.


 He existed, even as “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world”, before He became flesh.  This was while He was the Word which was “with Yahweh” and “was Yahweh” – Yahweh who “is spirit”, not flesh.  He came down into the world to be “made flesh” not as already having been made flesh.  To conclude otherwise is just fanciful imagination not taught by the above words of our Savior.  It is reading something into the passage that is not evidently there instead of drawing out only what is said there by using good rules of interpretation.


Do we literally eat His flesh and literally drink His blood?  Do these teachers who teach that Yahshua was “0 percent man” and not truly human believe in transubstantiation as is taught in the Roman Catholic Church?  Do they believe Yahshua meant we must literally eat His flesh and drink His blood?  Is that what Yahshua meant?  Or, was Yahshua speaking metaphorically?  Was He referring to the fact that through faith in His death for our sins we partake of eternal life through Him just as the natural body partakes of life giving elements through natural bread?


If we do not literally eat His flesh and drink His blood, if He was using that phrase in a metaphorical sense, as explained above, how about the statement that He is the true bread the came down from heaven?  Did He mean that literally?  Was He saying He was literal bread?  Or, did He mean that He came down from heaven (a statement He repeated many times) in order to take on a body in His virgin mother’s womb so that He could, then, die as the sacrificed Lamb of Yahweh and, thereby, give life to all who by faith would become partakers of Him?  Was He the bread that came down from heaven?  Of course He was.  He said so.  But how did He come down?  He came down as the Eternal Life, the Word of Yahweh which from the beginning “was with Yahweh… and …was Yahweh”.  But He became conceived “according to the flesh” in His mother’s womb, not while still up in heaven as the Eternal Word.


We are told that the “Word was made flesh and tabernacled among us”.  (John 1:14)  His body was the tabernacle that He dwelled in, just as our bodies are that which we tabernacle in.     Peter speaks of his body as “this my tabernacle”.  (2 Pet 1:13-14) Our bodies are also spoken of as temples of the Holy Spirit.  But they are part of us as a whole man.  So also Yahshua’s body was part of Him as being a whole man. Yahshua spoke of His body as a temple. (John 2:21)  But His body was prepared in the womb of His mother just as ours are, except that He had no earthly Father.  She, Miriam [commonly called “Mary”] was caused to be pregnant by the Holy Spirit when the Holy Spirit “overshadowed” her.  This is plainly stated in the Bible.  Thus, since Yahshua was the Word and the Word was Yahweh, and since Yahweh is Spirit, as Yahshua said (in John 4:24) it follows that when He came down from heaven He came as Spirit to become flesh in His physical conception in His mother.


I know, as these teachers emphasize, that we have no place in scripture where Yahshua referred to Miriam as “mother”, but rather is quoted as calling her “woman”.  However, this does not necessarily mean He did not realize she was His mother.  The inspired word of Yahweh says she was “His mother” in many places.  We read, as only one such example of the many, “When Yahshua therefore saw His mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, He saith unto His mother, ‘Woman, behold thy son!”  (John 19:26)  We can only guess as to why He called her “woman”.  Perhaps it was to give caution against “Maryolatry”, or any adoration of His earthly mother.   Or, perhaps it was to help her and others to realize that earthly, fleshly relationships do not give one special authority over Him.  In any case, whatever the reason He called her “woman” on these recorded occasions, it is very clear according to the inspired word of Yahweh that she was “His mother”.  I only say these things to show that to draw the conclusion that since He is quoted as calling her “woman” in several places that this means in birthing Him there was no genetic connection involved is not a necessary conclusion.  Therefore, it cannot be used as an actual proof that He was “0 percent man”.


Some make an issue of the word used when Yahshua is called the “only begotten” son of Yahweh.  To show you how these people twist the scriptures, I here quote one of these teachers who writes, “We do know that John 1:18 refers to Yahshua as the begotten of YHWH. This word begotten means monogenes. Having one set of genes that belongs to the Father.”  This is nothing but pure rubbish.  “Monogenes” is a Greek word.  It does not mean “one set of genes” as this person says.  It means exactly as it is translated in the King James translation: “only begotten”, or “only born”.  Volume IV, page 739 in The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says, “It means ‘only begotten”.  Any good Greek Lexicon will tell you the same thing.


 A clear and absolute proof of this is Luke 7:12, which says, “Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her.”  This is the same Greek word, “monogenes”.   What shall we say, then; is this another virgin birth?  Did this mother whose son had died only have only one set of genes, her own genes and no male genes in bringing this then dead son to birth?  Can you see what foolishness these people get into in order to find support for their anti-scriptural teaching?


Before moving on, let’s summarize this point concerning Yahshua being the bread that came down from heaven.  Yes, indeed He came down from heaven as “the bread of heaven”.   That is to say, as the Word of Yahweh He came down to give His life for the world that we might continue to live by eating His flesh and drinking His blood by faith, just as we sustain our natural lives by eating natural bread and drinking natural drink.  He came down as the Word of Yahweh and as the Eternal Life.  But this does not say, or necessarily even imply, that He was  made flesh in heaven.  The logical conclusion from all scripture taken together is that He was made flesh in the womb of the virgin Miriam. 


Then, when He became a man, He gave His life by death on Calvary’s tree, not so that we could literally eat His flesh and drink His blood, but that metaphorically we could do so by taking His death for our sins as our own.  There is nothing in His statement wherein He said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven” that necessitates it to mean that He was physically formed in heaven as a fetus and, then, inserted into the womb of the virgin Miriam.  That teaching is nothing but utter nonsense.  The scripture says Mary conceived, not that a fetus formed in heaven was, afterward, put in her womb.


So, before showing what the scripture clearly, purely, and very simply states on this matter, let’s summarize what we have seen so far.   We have seen that the statement “a body hast thou prepared for me” does not say it was a body made in heaven.   There is no necessity from that verse to draw such a conclusion.  Just as Yahweh formed Jacob  and Jeremiah in the womb, so He formed Yahshua, except that in His case it was by virgin birth with “the Eternal Life”, Yahweh’s own life, taking the place of the male sperm, which would normally cause a conception.  The Bible does not state anywhere that the conception of Yahshua was in heaven, but says it was in Miriam.  Conception is the act of the ova becoming a zygote or fetus.  This happened when the Holy Spirit came upon Miriam and “the power of the Highest” overshadowed her. This is what caused the Living Word to be “made flesh” in the womb of Miriam. 


                Also we have seen that when Yahshua speaks of Himself as the “bread which came down from heaven”, He was not saying He was literal bread, but was indicating that He came down from heaven to become the One who would give His life for the world.  There is nothing in that statement that He was “the bread which came down from heaven” that whatsoever states that He was formed as a fetus in heaven.  That is pure conjecture and wresting the meaning of the scripture.  He came down from heaven as the Word, as Yahweh’s Expression of Himself, but nothing is said about Him having been first changed into a fetus in heaven. 


            We have also seen that the word “monogenes” in Greek does not mean “only one set of genes”.  Otherwise the widow’s son who had died had to also have been virgin born.  Of course, “mono” can be taken to mean “one”.  So those not really knowing, or knowing, but purposely twisting, the meaning of the Greek can make it look like “monogenes” means “one” set of “genes”, because of what “genes” means in English.   But it is clear by those who know and properly use the Greek language, and the Bible, that it means, “Only begotten”, not “one set of genes”.  What rubbish such teaching is.


            Now, then, what does the Bible teach about this matter?  Does it anywhere teach Yahshua was, “0 percent man”?  Does it teach that He had only “the appearance of being human”?  No, it clearly teaches that He was man as descended from Abraham and David.


            We read, “For there is one Elohim, and one mediator between Elohim and men, the man Messiah Yahshua.” (1 Tim 2:5)  This should be enough to close the case.  It says plainly that He is a “man”. He either was a man or He was not.   It also says in 1 Cor. 15:21-23 “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.  For as in Adam all die, even so in Messiah shall all be made alive.   But every man in his own order: Messiah the firstfruits; afterward they that are Messiah's at his coming.”  How can anyone read these verses with intellectual honesty and not see that Messiah is called “man”. How can they not see that the whole thrust of this passage is that just as death came by man, so resurrection must, and does, come by man?  To say Yahshua was man, yet was “0 percent man” is ridiculous.  It is totally contradictory, and it teaches another Messiah than the one presented to us in the Bible.  The best thing these teachers could do so that they do not end up in the lake of fire where everyone who “makes a lie” will be is to admit their mistake and repent of it.  I pray they will do so.


            To say that Yahshua had a body, but not human in the sense that he is “0 percent man” is in clear contradiction of the fact that our Savior constantly called Himself, “the Son of man”.  I should not have to show this from actual quotations since it is so often found in the Bible.  But lets look at a couple of such places.  “And Yahshua saith unto him, ‘The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.”  (Matthew 8:20)   Here’s another, “When Yahshua came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, ‘Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?” (Matthew 16:13)  There are over 80 places in the “New Testament” where He is referred to as “the Son of man”. So He is the Son of Man.  That makes Him man, just as much as when it says He is the Son of Elohim, that makes Him Elohim. It should be quite obvious that He was not just speaking of adoption as such, and as having the appearance of being such, but as being really such.


            In Genesis 3:15 in speaking to the serpent (the devil) Yahweh said, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”   The seed of the woman is the “zera” of the woman.  What could that be but that which comes from her own body.   It seems that “Rabbi” David Kimchi interpreted the “seed of the woman” as speaking of the Messiah because he wrote, "As thou wentest forth for the salvation of Thy people by the hand of Messiah the son of David, who shall wound the head of Satan, the head, the king and prince of the house of the wicked."  In the Midrash, Rabbah 23, we read, "Rabbi Tanchuma said in the name of Rabbi Samuel, Eve had respect to that Seed which is coming from another place.  And who is this?  This is the Messiah, the King." 


            However, even if these people who teach that the Messiah was not a “man” do not apply Genesis 3:15 to the Messiah there can be no question that whoever it applies to was to be the “seed” or “zera” of the woman.   It is interesting in this regard that the apostle Paul said Yahshua was “made out of [Gk. “ek”] woman”.  (Gal 4:4)  It appears that Greek scholars, such A.T. Robertson (in his Word Pictures in the New Testament) and Vincent (in Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament) take this to be speaking of Yahshua’s “humanity”.  But of course, with no scriptural backing, these others who teach that Yahshua had no humanity, will say this merely means that He came out of the woman after being inserted into her womb as a previously created fetus.  Again, there is no scripture whatsoever that says so.  It is a merely pre-determined idea for which they go to various scriptures to try to find support.  And yet none of the scriptures they go to require such an interpretation even in the least.


            They also twist the clear meaning of Hebrews chapter 2:6-17.  But let’s look at that a moment since this passage really gravitates against what they teach.  The passage begins by quoting from Psalm 8:4-6, which says Yahweh made man “a little lower than the angels, and put “all things under his feet”.  Then, it says we don’t see that yet, but we do “see Yahshua, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death… that by the grace of Yahweh He should taste death for every man.”   Then, it goes on to identify Yahshua with mankind (particularly with believers) as being one of them so that He and they are “all one”.  However, if He did not become part of humanity, then He is not one of them, but was a different creation entirely; he and they would not  be “all one”.


 Now it is true that in His resurrection He became “the first begotten from the dead’, as the start of a new creation.     But  at the point of  time described in this passage,

which was before the time of His “bringing many sons into glory” (verse 10) He was clearly identified with mankind.  When it says in verse 14, “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same” it is obviously identifying Him with humanity.  If He did not take on human flesh, He was not “all of one” with them.   They had flesh and blood, and He took part of the same.


The word “same” (Greek word “autos”) means exactly that, “the same”, not “something different”.  This is confirmed in verse 16 in which it says, “He took on him the seed of Abraham”.  The word the Greek word translated as “seed” is “sperma”  (from which we get “sperm”).  This clearly means He was physically descended from Abraham.  Through His mother, who was the seed of Abraham through the line of Isaac, Jacob and David, Yahshua was also descended from Abraham.  His conception was not in heaven as these teachers say, but in the womb of Miriam.  Finally, it says in verse 17, “Wherefore in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren. 


            The contention that Yahshua was made without a sinful nature is true.  He had no inbred sin.  Neither did man as He was originally made.  Inbred sin, as we have seen from the Bible, is not an integral part of being a man, but is something added.  It came in as a result of the fall, but is foreign to man in his original state.  So you can be a true man without having inbred sin. The subject of inbred sin is in itself something that has been debated throughout the centuries in “Christianity”.  Yet without even touching upon that subject, but just starting with the premise that sin has come to be in man’s flesh by birth, I believe it has been shown that it is not essential to make one human, but is something added to humanity.  As we have considered, therefore, Yahshua could have been made a real man, a part of the human race, without having inbred sin.   This could be so either on the basis that the sin comes in through the male sperm, which was not involved in His birth, but not from the ova, or on the basis that it comes in as a combining of the male sperm and the ova, which again did not take place in the virgin birth.  Or else it could be that Yahweh could have miraculously removed it without Yahshua being any the less a real descendant of Adam (since it is not part of man’s essential, original make up).


            The question may arise, then, as to how He could it be that He, “was in all points tempted like as we are,” as we read in Hebrews 4:15? The NASB reads this way: “has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin”.   The answer is that just as Adam who originally had no sin was tempted through his appetites, which were normal non-sinful desires as they were originally given by Yahweh, so also Yahshua had perfectly proper natural desires whereby He could also be tempted.  He could be tempted to use those natural human desires, which were in themselves proper, in a forbidden way just as Adam was before he had any sinful nature. He could, for example be tempted to turn a stone into bread when He was hungry, etc.   He could be tempted in all things like we are, “yet without sin”.  This could all be true, as indeed it was, without Him having to have something other than a non-sinful human nature.  He could be, and was, fully human, without having to have inbred sin, and could yet be tempted as the first Adam was.  Perhaps if these teachers could see this point they would not feel compelled to believe that Yahshua could not have had any genetic connection with humanity.


            The apostle Paul states very plainly that Yahshua “was made of the seed of David according to the flesh”.  (Romans 1:3)  I don’t see how, but I would not be surprised that even this clear statement could be twisted to mean something other than what is plainly stated.  “Seed” is, again, the Greek word “sperma”, and by honest interpretation can mean nothing other than genetic derivation.  In Luke 1:32 it says, “He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Yahweh Elohim shall give unto him the throne of his father David.”    Yahshua is the Son of David by genetic descent from David through his seed (his “zera” in Hebrew, and “sperma” in Greek).   The seed, or offspring, of David came right on down through the generations until He inherited those genes through His birth mother Miriam.  The scripture we have above quoted is very clear on this.  I repeat, it says Yahshua, “was made of the seed of David according to the flesh”.


Any true Israelite would know that the Messiah was to be the Son of David.  We should know that He would come through natural descent from King David who was promised that his son would sit on his throne forever.  Some didn’t understand how He could be Messiah Ben Joseph, the suffering Messiah. But they looked for Him to come as Messiah Ben David who was to reign forever on the throne of “His Father David”.  To say that Messiah was only adopted into the line of David is, in actual fact, to deny the word which says plainly that He “was made of the seed of David according to the flesh”. 


            Yes, He was also brought into a legal line of David through His foster father Joseph. We have this in the genealogy in Matthew chapter one.  But He was also as Paul said, “made of the seed of David according to the flesh” through the genes of His virgin mother Miriam.  We have that genealogy in Luke chapter three.


            So to put it very simply,  there is no compelling reason whatsoever in the Bible to accept the idea that Yahshua was “0 percent man” and was merely “cloaked with the features of humanity, BUT was not human in His flesh, spirit, or blood”.   No scripture whatsoever that says that, or anything like it.  So why not believe the Bible’s plain statements.  The Bible says that He is “the man Yahshua Messiah”, that He was “the Son of man”, that He and His brethren are “all of one”, that as they “are partakers of flesh and blood He also Himself likewise took part of the same” (not a different kind of flesh and blood), that He “took on the seed of Abraham”, that He was “made out of woman” (not out of some unearthly substance), and that He “was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.


            That false teaching is nowhere expressly taught in the Bible, not in the least bit. But just the opposite is taught.  It is a teaching that appears to have been cooked up in a mind that was just looking for something new and spectacular, or in a mind that somehow did not understand how it could be that Yahshua could have genetic connection with humanity through His virgin mother without having inbred sin in Himself.  It is purely anti-biblical and should be discarded and repented of for it destroys the essential meaning of the Biblical truth that the word became flesh, that Yahweh became man.  As the Word He laid aside His glory in order to die for our sins.  And by His becoming man, dying for our sins, then, rising again victorious over sin and death, He took humanity back into the glory that He had with Yahweh before He became man, the glory He had with the Father even “before the world was”.  In Him, as “the first born among many brethren”, man has entered into the glory of Yahweh.   Thus, through union with Him, we can follow Him there. He is the first born of the new creation that He became, not by His birth into the stream of humanity, but by His resurrection from the dead and His resultant glorification. 


When the Bible says, “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of Yahweh”, it is not saying, as some suppose, that only human flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom, but that only the “flesh and blood” that supposedly came down from heaven can (as if there were something such as heavenly flesh and blood).  No, it means exactly what it says: “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of Yahweh”.   In this passage it is not an issue of human flesh and blood being sinful, but it is an issue of the physical, natural man - flesh and blood - not being able to enter into the realm of the Spirit, into the realm of the life of Yahweh who Himself is Spirit.  Only as Yahshua left His glory, became flesh and blood as a true “man”, called “the Son of man”, and shed His blood and died, could He rise again from the dead as a glorified man to become made “a life giving spirit”.  He was, then, no longer flesh and blood, but as He said “flesh and bones” (Luke 24:39).  In His resurrection body He was no longer sustained by the human blood life, but by Spirit life and power.  Thus He was the first “man” to be glorified so that He could enter with that humanity into the kingdom of Yahweh and, thus, prepare the way for us to someday follow Him there.


            We read, in 2 Corinthians 5:14-17, “ For the love of Messiah compels us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then all died: And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.  Wherefore, henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Messiah after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.  Therefore if any man be in Messiah, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.”  It is not because, His fetus was made in heaven, as these teacher suppose, and just put into the womb of Miriam, that He, thereby, has become the second Adam and the start of a New Creation.  But it because that, after He died in our place, for our sins, He rose again from the dead and was glorified.


It is because He became truly flesh, as a true man, as a true member of the human race, that He could become “the last Adam” of that race, because all died in Him.   And it is because He was the first fruit of the harvest, as the first begotten of the dead, that He has also become “the second Adam”, as the start of a new creation of glorified humans.   It is because “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us”, overcame sin and died in our place that, by His resurrection power and life, His Holy Spirit, that we can now become one with Him through faith in His name and thus become what He has become as a New Creation as we wait for our resurrection bodies.  It is His resurrection body that we hope to become like (not like the flesh and blood body that He received by conception in the womb of His mother Miriam in order to die in our place).


“For our citizenship is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Savior, the Master Yahshua Messiah, Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.” (Phil 3:20-21)  It is this new creation that counts.  “And as many as walk according to this rule”, the rule of being a new creation because of what Yahshua has done, “peace be on them, and mercy, even upon the Israel of Yahweh.”  (Gal. 6:16)