It has already been shown that the title “god” in the earlier scriptures and elsewhere is applied to others; it functions just like “lord,” “master,” or “father.” If Jesus were truly God, it would be far too slight to say simply that he “shall be called god.” The wording should have been, “he is God,” for the Almighty is not identified in such indirect terms.

Indeed, the very proof (1) by which you have made him divine furnishes the strongest evidence that he is a servant and the son of human beings. The text itself states, “A son shall arise for David,” and it is this son of David who is given the title “god.” It is therefore clear that the name has been bestowed on a created, fashioned, and born being—not on the Lord of all worlds, the Creator of the heavens and the earth.

If you contend, “We declared him divine only because of the words of the prophet Isaiah: ‘Say to Zion, Rejoice and exult, for God is coming and will deliver the nations; He will save those who believe in Him; He will rescue the city of Jerusalem; God will reveal His holy arm there to all the scattered nations, make them one people, and all the inhabitants of the earth will behold (2) the salvation of God, for He will walk with them and before them; the God of Israel will gather them,’” (3) then the reply is as follows.

First, it must be established that these exact words are indeed found in the prophecy of Isaiah, unmarred by textual alteration and free from mistranslation—something that is not certain. Even if it were confirmed, it would still provide no proof that he is a perfect, uncreated deity. The passage is comparable to what appears in the Torah: “God came from Mount Sinai, shone forth from Seir, and appeared from the mountains of Paran” (4); yet nothing in that statement indicates