Is there anything impossible for God?

[Santiago Cuellar]

The word became a human being.

John 1:14
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his
glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and
truth.

Can the one God, whose ways are as high above our ways as the heavens
above the earth (Isaiah 55:8-9), “become a human being” and still be
God? Does not the assertion that the Creator becomes the creature
contradict the very essence of what it means to be God?

The NT writers were aware that the concept of God becoming human
needed unique treatment. For example, Sha’ul writes that in Yeshua the
Messiah “bodily, lives the fullness of all that God is” (Co. 2:9);
likewise, see v.18.

Such circumspect language points to the extraordinariness of the idea.
Mattityahu writes that when the Son of Man will come “no one knows –
not the angels in heaven, not the Son, only the Father” (Mt. 24:37):
God is omniscient yet there is something the Son does not know.
Instead of rejecting the incarnation because it contradicts his
prejudices about God, an open-minded person tries to discover what the
concept means in the NT. Its writers are pointing to and attempting to
describe a mystery which God has revealed in considerable measure but
not altogether, for “now I know partly; then I will know fully” (1Cor.
13:2).

The Tanakh reports many instances of God’s appearing as a man (Gen.
18; Gen 32:25-33; Exodus 3; Joshua 5:13-6:5; Judges 2:1-5; Judges
6:11-24; Judges 13:2-23). In all of these passages the terms “Adonai”
and “the angel of Adonai” (or “Elohim” and “the angel of Elohim”) are
used interchangeably, and in some of them the angel of Adonai (or
Elohim) is spoken of as a man. The Tanakh itself thus teaches that the
all-powerful God has the power, if he chooses, to appear among men as
a man. The NT carries this already Jewish idea one step farther: not
only can God “appear” in human form, but the Word of God can “become”
a human being – and did so.

Non-believing Jews have generally taken a defensive theological
position against Christianity and its concept of incarnation. Thus the
Maimonides’ thirteen-point creed has as its third article:

“I believe with perfect faith that the Creator, blessed be his name,
is not a body, that he is free from all material properties, and that
he has no form whatsoever.”

Maimonides clearly did not mean to contradict the Tanakh’s own
descriptions of God as having physical features or appearing as man,
rather, he meant to exclude incarnation.

I agree with Maimonides that God’s nature is not physical or material,
but I will insist that the article does not exclude the incarnation of
the Word as Yeshua, if it is understood as an occasional, rather than
essential, attribute of God, an event necessitated because sin
occurred in human history. – Or are we saying that we found the one
thing that God cannot do?

On the other hand, the Malbim (Meir Loeb Ben-Yechiel Michael), writing
in the middle of the nineteenth century, though a staunch defender of
Orthodoxy against Reform Judaism, had a concept of hitgalmut
(incarnation) surprisingly close to the Christian idea of incarnation;
it is found in his commentary on Genesis 18, where Adonai appears to
Avraham.

On a separate note, the word “hitgalmut” is related to golem – recall
the Yiddish play, “The Golem” based on a folktale about a clay body
which its maker caused to come alive.

Raphael Patai brings the following extraordinary paragraph from the
works of the Alexandrian Jew Philo (20 BCE – 50 CE), using the term
“shoot” for Messiah – who remarkable words in the mouth of a Jewish
thinker says “differ not a whit from the divine image” and is the
Divine Father’s “eldest son….”:

“I have heard also an oracle from the lips of one of the disciples of
Moses which runs thus: ‘Behold a man whose name is the rising (shoot
or sprout), strangest of titles, surely, if you suppose that a being
composed of soul and body is here described. But if you suppose that
it is that INCORPOREAL ONE, who differs not a whit from the divine
image, you will agree that the name ‘rising’ assigned to him quite
truly describes him. For that MAN is the eldest son, whom the Father
of all raised up, and elsewhere calls him his firstborn, and indeed
the Son thus begotten followed the ways of his Father, and shaped the
different kinds, looking to the archetypal patterns which the Father
supplied” – Philo, De Confusione Linguarum 4:45, as cited in Rafael
Patai, The Messiah Texts Pages 171-172)

Messiah is not anything apart from God!


And we had hoped that he was the one who would liberate Israel

Luke 24:21
21 But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and
besides all this, it is now the third day since these things happened.

In other words, these Zealot-sympathizers had hoped he would turn out
to be the Messiah – for they had not yet grasped the notion of a
suffering Messiah who would die for sins. Even after the Talmidim had
seen the resurrected Yeshua a number of times and been taught by him
for forty days they still expected him to “liberate Israel” without
delay (Acts 1:6). Yeshua answered their question about when and how he
will consummate the setting up of the Kingdom in Acts 1:6-8:
6 So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at
this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He said to them, “It is
not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his
own authority. 8 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.”

David Brown writes:

It is very common for Jewish objectors to point that "Jesus has not
fulfilled all the prophecies," and to scorn the suggestion that some
prophecies are for a later time and are to be fulfilled at the "second
coming." The fact is, however, that prophecies about Messiah are of
two seemingly mutually-exclusive types, as though they were talking
about two different Messiahs. Jewish scholarship refers to Messiah ben-
David and Messiah ben-Yosef. One is the positive, victorious Messiah
who ushers in a kingdom of peace, the other is a suffering servant (as
in Isaiah 53). The popular tendency is to think only of ben-David and
ignore ben-Yosef, but the Christian view accounts for both in one
person. Interestingly, these two prophetic strains are named for David
and Joseph, both of which suffered first and emerged victorious in the
end. Joseph is introduced to us with dreams of grandeur, but he was
lost to Israel – actually considered dead – before his dreams came
true. Eventually however, he had a "second coming" when he came back
into the lives of his brothers who once rejected him. Then they bowed
down to him and he became the savior of his people (sounds familiar?)
by providing for them in a time of famine. David also, though anointed
as King in his youth as far as God was concerned, was rejected by the
current King and lived as a fugitive for many years before he finally
became the quintessential King of Israel. Both of these historic
figures, which Jewish tradition has recognized as being prototypes of
Messiah, arrive amid promises, are pushed down, and finally emerge in
glory. Shouldn't the ultimate Messiah follow the same pattern?


Look at my hands and feet

Luke 24:39-42
39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see.
For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” 40
And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. 41
And while they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling, he said
to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of
broiled fish,

Yeshua’s hands and feet were pierced by the nails as per Luke 23:33.
Now Yeshua asks “Have you something here to eat?” and the NT says they
gave him broiled fish.

Apparently people in the first century had trouble believing in a
physical resurrection from the dead. Heretics solved the problem by
proclaiming that Yeshua didn’t really die on the cross (survived the
crucifixion), but only swooned. Others claimed he died a normal death
and stayed dead (Mt 28:11-15). Others simply couldn’t understand how
it could happen and thus became doubters; Sha’ul dealt with this
problem in 1 Corinthians v15. But Yeshua dealt with it by
demonstrating that he was not merely a ghost, a vague “spiritual”
entity, but fully present physically, with special capacities not
available to unresurrected persons, such as becoming invisible (v31)
and passing through walls (v 36-37; as well as John 20:19-20).


They bowed in worship to him

Luke 24:52
52 And they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy,

They bowed in worship to him because they now understood who he was,
The ben-Elohim, divine and worthy of worship, yet without being a
“second god”. Worshiping something less than God would have been
considered idolatry by every one of these highly religious Jewish
taldimin. John’s version of the Good News contains much more of
Yeshua’s own teaching concerning his divine nature than Luke’s. (John
8:58, 10:31, 14:6, 16:28, 17:5)


The Only and unique Son, who is identical with God

John 1:18
18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's
side, he has made him known.

Greek “monogenes theos” is to Jewish people a shocking and
problematical phrase. “Theos” means “God” and “monogenes” can mean
either “only-begotten” or “only,unique.”. If “monogenes is an
adjective, the phrase may be rendered, “the only-begotten God” or “the
only and unique God.” The former concept is alien to the Tanakh and
the rest of the New Testament and inconsistent with the remainder of
John’s Gospel as well; while the latter does not make sense in the
context of the sentence.

If we take “monogenes” as a substantive, with “theos” (God) standing
in apposition and describing it, the phrase then either means “the
Only-Begotten One, who is God” or “the Only and Unique One, who is
God.”

Note: The word “Son” is supplied and not used in the Greek text,
although some manuscripts do have “uios” (“son”) instead of “theos”.

What, then does it mean to call the only and unique son “God”,
especially when the Son, who is God, “has made him”, the Father, who
is also God, “known”? (John 1:18 Above.) Is there more than one God?

Again, this “Only and Unique One” is fully identified with God, yet
not in such a way as to negate the basic truth of the Sh’ma that
“Adonai is one”. We must understand the words “who is identical with”
in order to reflect the delicacy of the incarnation concept in John
1:14 when the predicate “God” is applied to “the only and unique Son”:
throughout his Gospel John teaches that the Father is God, and the Son
is God; yet he distinguishes between the Son and the Father, so that
one cannot say that the Son is the Father. I submit that the chief
difficulty in our understanding this lies neither in the Greek text
nor in our translation of it, but in the very nature of God himself.


The Son cannot do anything on his own.

John 5:19
19 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do
nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For
whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise.

Those who find Yeshua’s claim to divinity unpalatable are quick to
point out that with these words Yeshua seems to describe himself in a
way inconsistent with being divine. They say it is essential to God’s
nature that he does everything on his own and is answerable only to
himself. But they miss the point, how the Son and the Father relate to
each other within the eternal unity of Adonai. Afterall, does
Maimonides not say that God is One, without having attributes of a
Unity?

Yeshua is teaching here that he is capable, humanly, of disobeying God
and of having his own contrary will (compare Mt. 26:39). For this
reason the divine Son “learned obedience” (Hebrews 5:8) and became
completely submissive to the Father’s will through the power of the
Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit), who is with him “in unlimited
measure” (3:34). What kind of relation will Messiah entertain with
God?

The Spirit of the Lord will rest on that Branch. He will help him to
be wise and understanding. He will help him make wise plans and carry
them out. He will help him know the Lord and have respect for him
(Isaiah 11:2).

• “Genesis 1:2: The Spirit of G-d was moving over the face of the
waters indicates that the Spirit of Messiah King was present, as
written in Isaiah 11:2, The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon
him” (Genesis Rabbah 2:4). There is no difference between the Spirit
of the Lord and the Spirit of Messiah King.

Yeshua is not inferior to his Father: to submit and obey perfectly
demonstrates one of God’s perfections; to will what is not God’s will
is to be inferior to God. How does the Bible suggest the supernatural
nature of the Messiah?

“Bethlehem, you might not be an important town in the nation of Judah.
But out of you will come a ruler over Israel for me. His family line
goes back to the early years of your nation. It goes all the way back
to days of long ago” (Micah 5:2). (cf. Jeremiah 23:5-6)

On Jeremiah 23:5-6, “The Messiah will have the name of the Holy
Blessed be He ... for it is said in Jeremiah 23:6, This is the name by
which he will be called: The Lord is our righteousness” (Talmud b.
Baba Bathra 75b).

• On Micah 5: “And you Bethlehem Ephrata which has been too small to
be counted among the thousands of the house of Judah, from you will
come out the Messiah who will rule on Israel and whose name has been
pronounced since eternity” (Targum of Jonathan).

Historical facts

Luke 21:20-23
20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that
its desolation has come near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee
to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and
let not those who are out in the country enter it, 22 for these are
days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written. 23 Alas for women
who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days!
For there will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this
people.

In these verses Yeshua predicts the destruction of Jerusalem by the
Roman armies in 66-70 CE. The “days of vengeance” in v22 are spoken of
in the Song of Moses in Deut. 32:35 as the time when Adonai “will
judge his people” for being wicked and forsaking him; however, the
context there is that ultimately God will “forgive his land and his
people” Deut. 32:43. Such vengeance is also spoken of in Jeremiah
46:10 and Hosea 9:7.

But a problem exists with Deut. 32:43! The phrase "bow down to him,
all gods, (or angels)" might not be in your Tanakh version, since most
OT are of the Masoretic Text... but the phrase is in Dead Sea Scrolls,
which in some cases are about 1,000 older than some of the other
oldest manuscripts. Here is how Deuteronomy 32:43 should read:

43 “Rejoice with him, O heavens;
bow down to him, all gods, [1]
for he avenges the blood of his children [2]
and takes vengeance on his adversaries.
He repays those who hate him [3]
and cleanses [4] his people's land.” [5]

Translation Notes
[1] 32:43 Dead Sea Scroll, Septuagint; Masoretic Text Rejoice his
people, O nations [2] 32:43 Dead Sea Scroll, Septuagint; Masoretic
Text servants [3] 32:43 Dead Sea Scroll, Septuagint; Masoretic Text
lacks He repays those who hate him [4] 32:43 Or atones for [5] 32:43
Septuagint, Vulgate; Hebrew his land his people

Deut. 32:43 The Hebrew Masoretic text, which most bibles usually
follows, presents problems in this verse. So here the Dead Sea Scrolls
and Septuagint variants have been followed, as they represent an
earlier stage of textual transmission. The verse brings the song to a
triumphant conclusion affirming that, despite Israel's sin and exile,
God will ultimately restore them. The quotation from this verse in
Rom. 15:10 uses a phrase found only in the Septuagint, “Rejoice O
Gentiles, with his people,” to convey the expectation that God would
one day bring the light to the entire Gentile world.

cf. Hebrews 1:6
6 And again, when he brings o the firstborn into the world, he says,
“Let all God's angels worship him.”

Hebrews 1:6 Let all God's angels worship him may be an interpretative
citation of either Ps. 97:7 or Deut. 32:43 —or possibly both. In both
cases angels are considered “sons of God,” but without the rights of
the unique Son of God.

Lets inject some logic here: The job of angels is to worship God, and
hence to worship his Son (the “exact imprint of his nature,” Heb.
1:3). Since only God is worthy of worship (Ex. 20:3–5; Isa. 42:8;
Matt. 4:10; Rev. 19:10; 22:9), this is further evidence of the Son's
full deity and it is found not only in the NT, but in the Torah
itself, which God spoke to Moses “face to face” and further supported
by Bereshith Rabbati:

“But then I will purify what all of the nations say. And they will use
their words to worship me. They will serve me together (Zephaniah
3:9).

• Zephaniah 3:9: “Then I will give to the peoples a pure language that
they may call on the name of the Lord (YHWH), to serve Him with one
accord; the name of the Lord (YHWH), this is nothing else but the King
Messiah” (Bereshith Rabbati 41:44).


Conclusion:
I know and understand that the incarnation concept creates many
problems for Jewish thinkers….. but have we found the one thing God
cannot do? Is there anything impossible for God? – I urge you to pray
for wisdom and understanding.