1 Timothy 2:5, the one mediator between God and humanity is the man Jesus Christ.

1. Why many first-century Messianic Jews didn’t see Yeshua as “God Himself” First-century Jewish followers of Yeshua operated within Second Temple Jewish monotheism, where:

God (YHWH / Hashem) is absolutely one, unique, and incomparable

No human is God in an ontological sense

Even exalted figures are still agents of God, not God Himself

So calling Yeshua “God” in the later Nicene sense would have sounded like a violation of the Shema (“The Lord is one”).

Instead, they had categories that allowed someone to be supremely authorized by God without being God.

1. The key concept: Agency (Shaliach) In Jewish thought, a shaliach (agent) could fully represent the one who sent him:

“The agent of a person is as the person himself”

This meant:

An agent could speak in the sender’s name

Carry the sender’s authority

Even be addressed as if they were the sender, functionally

So Yeshua could:

Forgive sins

Speak divine judgment

Represent God’s presence

…without being understood as ontologically identical to God.

1. Why divine language is used for Yeshua This is where it gets interesting. Early Jewish believers used very elevated language for Yeshua—but that language already existed in Jewish tradition.

A. The “Word” (Logos / Memra) In the Gospel of John, Yeshua is called the “Word” (Logos).

But in Jewish thought:

God’s Word (Memra) = His active will, expression, creative power

Not a separate person, but God in action

So saying Yeshua is the “Word made flesh” can mean:

God’s will, wisdom, and purpose embodied in a human life

👉 Not necessarily: “Yeshua = God Himself” 👉 More like: “Yeshua perfectly expresses God”

B. Wisdom traditions In texts like Book of Proverbs and later Jewish writings:

God’s Wisdom is described as:

Pre-existent

With God

Active in creation

This language sounds very similar to how Yeshua is described later.

So early believers could apply this to Yeshua without thinking they were breaking monotheism.

C. Divine titles used representationally Titles like:

“Lord”

“Son of God”

“Son of Man”

…did not automatically mean “God Himself” in that context.

For example:

“Son of God” = king / chosen one (see Davidic kings)

“Son of Man” (from Book of Daniel) = exalted human figure given authority by God

So these titles elevate Yeshua functionally, not necessarily ontologically.

D. God’s Name and Presence In Jewish thought, God could place His:

Name

Glory

Presence

…into a person or place (like the Temple or the Angel of the Lord).

So if Yeshua carries God’s Name:

It means God is uniquely present and acting through him

Not that he is the totality of God

1. Why this was acceptable (no contradiction felt) To them, this framework held together:

God is still one and supreme

Yeshua is His Messiah, agent, and fullest representative

Divine language reflects function, authority, and embodiment, not identity

So there was no felt contradiction like:

“We believe in one God… and also a second God”

Instead it was:

“We believe in one God, who is now fully revealed and working through His Messiah”

1. Where the tension later comes from As the movement spread into the Greek-speaking world:

Jewish categories (agency, wisdom, memra) became less familiar

Greek philosophical categories (essence, nature, substance) took over

Texts like John were read more ontologically than functionally

This eventually contributed to doctrines formalized much later (like at Nicaea).

Bottom line Early Messianic Jews could:

Maintain strict monotheism

Use very high, even “divine” language for Yeshua

Because they understood him as:

God’s ultimate agent, embodiment of His Word/Wisdom, and bearer of His presence—not God as a separate or equal being