The God
A comprehensive examination of Trinitarianism
Chapter Sixteen
Seeing Things in Context: Part Two
Scripture #9: 1 Timothy 3:16: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory (KJV).
The KJV translation of this passage suggests Jesus is God as it speaks of God being manifest in the flesh and we know it was Jesus who was manifested in the flesh. This rendering is sometimes used by Trinitarians as a proof text to show Jesus is God. Yet the oldest Greek Manuscripts do not show Theos but a different Greek construction that doesn’t say God was manifest in the flesh but that “He,” which is believed to refer to the Son, was manifest in the flesh. Most modern translations render this passage using the word “He” as referring to Christ.
Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory (NIV).
Without any doubt, the mystery of our religion is very deep indeed: He was made visible in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed to the gentiles, believed in throughout the world, taken up in glory (New Jerusalem Bible).
Even though the New Jerusalem translation was made by Catholic scholars who are Trinitarians, they chose to use Greek texts they felt were closer to the original even if it didn’t necessarily support Trinitarian doctrine as do the texts used by the KJV translators. The Simple English paraphrase says it this way:
We must agree that the secret of our faith is great: Christ appeared in a human body. He was shown to be right by the Spirit. He was seen by angels. He was preached among the nations. He was believed in the world. He was taken up to heaven.
Scripture #10: Matthew 28:19: Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
Trinitarians often point to Matthew 28:19 as proof of the Trinitarian nature of God. Trinitarians believe these statements show a mutual indwelling of Father, Son and Spirit which makes them the one single Being God. Jesus is understood to be saying “in the name of God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”
Matthew 28:19 is commonly used as a baptismal protocol in the Christian community. What is of interest is that this baptismal protocol is not found to have been used by the early Church. All Scriptural references to baptism show baptism being done only in the name of Jesus. Here are a few examples:
Acts 2:38: Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 10:48: So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
Acts 19:5: On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.
One reason we see the early church not following the baptismal protocol found in Matthew 28:19 may be that this formula was never uttered by Jesus. Eusebius (260 to 340 AD), Bishop of
Scripture #11: 2 Corinthians 13:14: May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.
Trinitarians see this passage as identifying God as Father, Son and Spirit. Is this the case? It can be seen throughout his writings that Paul uses the word God to designate the Father. So it can safely be said that in this passage Paul is distinguishing between the Lord Jesus and God the Father as he does in 1 Corinthians 8:6 where he clearly says the Father is the only God in distinction from Jesus being Lord. The words Jesus Christ and God are capitalized in the Greek text of this passage whereas Holy Spirit is not capitalized as is the case throughout the Greek NT. I will discuss the subject of the holy spirit in a later chapter.
In 1 Timothy 5:21, Paul says, “I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels….” No one would conclude from this statement that God, Jesus Christ and angels are in some kind of Trinitarian relationship. It appears a real stretch to conclude Paul’s remarks to the Corinthians reflects his belief God is a Trinity.
When one carefully examines Scriptures that are purported to give evidence to support the Trinitarian concept of God, it can be seen these Scriptures do not provide such evidence. When these Scriptures are examined side by side with the many passages we have studied that provide straightforward, unambiguous evidence as to the Father being the one and only Supreme God, it should be apparent the weight of Scriptural evidence clearly shows God the Father as separate and superior to the Son and the Son as a subservient agent of this God.
Scripture #12: John 12:41: Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him.
Trinitarians believe John’s statement about Isaiah seeing Jesus’ glory is associated with John 12:40 where the prophet quotes YHWH as saying:
John 12:40: He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn--and I would heal them.”
John is paraphrasing Isaiah 6:9-10 where it is YHWH who is speaking. Since John follows this statement by saying in verse 41, “Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him,” it is believed John is saying Isaiah saw YHWH as Jesus. Is Isaiah seeing YHWH as Jesus making the statement quoted from Isaiah in John 12:40? Let us examine the context of Isaiah chapter 6 from where John quotes Isaiah. Isaiah begins chapter 6 by saying the following:
Isaiah 6:1: In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord (Adonai) seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of his robe filled the temple.
Isaiah, during the reign of King Uzziah of
Isaiah 6:9-10: He said, "Go and tell this people: "`Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.' Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed."
The context of Isaiah 6 is Isaiah seeing the glory of YHWH and responding to YHWH’s request to go to the people of Judah and tell them it is because of their ever hearing and never understanding and ever seeing and never perceiving, that their cities will be destroyed. Biblical history shows this is exactly what happened when the Babylonians invaded
Because John paraphrases Isaiah 6:9-10 and goes on to say, “Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him,” it is believed Isaiah was seeing the glory of Jesus when he speaks of seeing the glory of YHWH in Isaiah 6:1. While one can associate what Isaiah said In 6:1 with what YHWH said in 6:9-10, it isn't necessary to make such association as there is no contextual reason to believe the orders given to Isaiah by YHWH in 9-10 are tied to Isaiah seeing the glory of YHWH at the beginning of Isaiah six. Is there an association between Isaiah seeing the glory of YHWH in 6:1 and Isaiah seeing Jesus’ glory as recorded in John 12:41? No there is not and here is why:
When John writes that “Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him,” John is not alluding to Isaiah 6:1. Isaiah did not see the glory of Jesus in 6:1. Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus in Isaiah 53. John is referring back to what Isaiah said in Isaiah 53:1 which John quotes in John 12:38. It is in Isaiah 53 where Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus.
Isaiah 53:1: Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed.
John 12:38: Lord (YHWH), who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord (YHWH) been revealed?
It is John’s quote of Isaiah 53:1 in John 12:38 that is associated with John’s statement in 12:41 when he said “Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him.” It is in Isaiah 53 where Isaiah sees the glory of Jesus and speaks about Him. Isaiah 53 is an overview of the first coming of Christ. In this chapter, Isaiah writes about Christ growing up, being despised and rejected by men, taking on himself our infirmities, pierced for our transgressions, oppressed and afflicted and being led like a lamb the slaughter. Isaiah writes that upon completing His sufferings, Christ receives life and a portion among the great.
It is in Isaiah 53 that the prophet speaks about Jesus and sees His glory. John 12:38, is a direct quote from Isaiah 53:1. Because it is in Isaiah 53 that Isaiah sees the glory of Jesus and speaks about Him, it should be evident John’s statement in 12:41 is associated with Isaiah 53 and not Isaiah 6:1
Rather than John 12:41 showing Jesus is YHWH, it shows just the opposite. Isaiah 53 shows Jesus as the suffering servant of YHWH and not that Jesus is YHWH. Isaiah 53:1 speaks of the arm of the LORD (YHWH). Isaiah 53:2 speaks of Christ growing up before him. Who is the “him”? I submit the “him” is YHWH who is referred to in verse one. The arm of YHWH is Christ. In Isaiah 53:10, the prophet writes the following:
Yet it was the LORD's (YHWH’s) will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD (YHWH) makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD (YHWH) will prosper in his hand.
Isaiah is showing it was YHWH’s will to crush Jesus and make His life a guilt offering and that the will of YHWH will prosper in his hand. If Jesus is YHWH, this passage makes no sense whatsoever. Isaiah is showing YHWH as the God of Jesus and not that Jesus is YHWH. Isaiah 53 offers strong evidence that Jesus is not YHWH but the servant of YHWH through whom YHWH’s will is carried out.
Scripture #13:
2 Peter 1:1-2: Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and (Greek kai) Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours: Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.
Trinitarians point out that the Greek grammatical construction of “our God and Savior Jesus Christ” reflects a rule of Greek grammar established by Granville Sharp that became known as Sharp's Rule.
This rule states that in the Greek language, when two nouns are connected by the Greek kai (and), and the article precedes only the first noun, there is a close relationship between the two nouns. When this type of construction involves personal, singular and non-proper names, it is believed the two nouns refer to the same person. Sharp believed this rule applies to 2 Peter 1:1 and therefore this passage proves Jesus is God as God is God.
Furthermore, the same grammatical construction is repeated in verse 11 where Peter writes, “and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” Here the one person Jesus Christ is clearly in view. Therefore, grammatically, verse one can speak of Jesus as God.
However, it is also grammatically correct to view God and Jesus as separate entities in this passage as is the case with Titus 2:13 as covered above. A number of translations read this way of which the following are examples:
“to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” (KJV).
“to them that have obtained a like precious faith with us in the righteousness of our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ:” (American Standard Version).
“to those who are chancing upon an equally precious faith with us, in righteousness of our God, and the Savior, Jesus Christ” (Concordant Literal New Testament).
In verse 1:2 is found the exact same grammatical construction where Peter says, “through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.” Here there is a definite distinction between God and Jesus thus showing that the grammatical construction involving definite articles and their absence does not necessarily dictate that only one person can be referenced. Peter clearly distinguishes between Jesus and God the Father in all his other writing. He refers to Jesus twelve times as Lord and forty-five times to God as Father. There is no other possible reference to Jesus as God found in Peter's writings other than the possible reference in 1 Peter chapter one. The weight of references to God as Father and the one single possible reference to Jesus as God makes it problematical that the one reference is actually calling Jesus God.
The same could be said of Romans 9:5 and Titus 2:13 which we have already discussed. Apostle Paul, like Peter, refers to God as Father 99% of the time and only on a few occasions is there a possible reference to Jesus as God. Such tremendous disparity in the way the word God is used in reference to the Father versus possible reference to the Son is instructive to say the least and creates suspicion as to whether the word God, as in the Eternal Supreme God, can be validly applied to Jesus on those few occasions where the Greek grammar allows it.
It appears more prudent to determine the intent of Paul and Peter’s statements in Romans 9:5, Titus 2:13 and 1 Peter 1:1-2 based on their consistent emphasis on seeing the one and only God as the Father in contrast to Jesus as God’s agent through whom salvation is facilitated. Various scholars believe Sharp’s rule does not apply in these passages because Paul and Peter laid such heavy emphasis on God the Father as the one and only God.
While certain grammatical tendencies have been identified in the Greek leading to proposed rules of Greek grammar, context still needs to be the primary determinant of what is being said. When the identity of God versus Jesus is studied in the over all context of the entire Scriptural record, it becomes extremely difficult to maintain the orthodox position of God being a tri-unity of Father, Son and Spirit.
Scripture #14: Jeremiah 23:5-6: "The days are coming," declares the LORD (YHWH), "when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land. In his days
The righteous branch of David is generally believed to be a reference to Christ. Therefore, it is believed Christ is being called “The Lord (YHWH) Our Righteousness,” and therefore Christ is YHWH. Since the Trinitarian God is seen as the one God YHWH and is an indwelling of Father, Son and Spirit, this passage is seen as YHWH the Father speaking about YHWH the Son in a Trinitarian relationship of Father, Son and Spirit.
While argument could be made that it is not Christ being referred too in this passage, we will assume it is Christ being referenced. Does this mean Christ is YHWH? We have YHWH declaring He will raise up to David a righteous branch who will be called “The Lord (YHWH) Our Righteousness.” If the Trinitarian perspective is correct, we have YHWH rising up YHWH which appears quite incongruous. It is much more congruent to see Christ called “YHWH Our Righteousness” as a title showing He is the representative of YHWH Elohim. This would be similar to Christ being called Emanuel (God with us) where Christ wasn’t literally God but was God’s representative as we discussed earlier.
Something or someone being called a certain name doesn’t mean they are literally what that name signifies. In Jeremiah 33:16,
Scripture reveals Jesus is the righteousness of YHWH and not that Jesus is YHWH. Jesus was a reflection of the perfect righteousness that characterizes YHWH.
Did Jesus Pre-exist?
We have examined dozens of Scriptures and Scriptural passages that show God is a Unitarian Being whose name is YHWH and who is identified as Father throughout Scripture. We have seen that Jesus, as the Son of this God, is not coequal with this God but was begotten by this God at a specific time in history for a specific purpose which He effectively fulfilled. Upon such fulfillment, Jesus was elevated by this God to the highest place in the universe, next to God Himself.
Trinitarian theology teaches the Son has always existed as a distinction of a Trinitarian God of Father, Son and Spirit. Trinitarians will point to a number of Scriptures that it is felt give evidence to the pre-existence of the Son. Let us consider these Scriptures.
John 13:3: Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God.
John 17:4-5: I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world (Greek kosmos) began.
John 17:24: Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.
John 3:13: No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of
John 6:62: What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
John 20:17: Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, `I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"
These statements by Jesus appear to say He had glory with the Father and was loved by the Father before the world began. While these statements don’t say anything about the Son being God, they appear to indicate He pre-existed. I believe I have established through our discussion to this point that the Son is not God as God is God. The Son is not coequal, coeternal and of the same substance as the God identified as YHWH and Father throughout Scripture. Did the Son pre-exist as a Being created by God at some point in eternity past? This was the teaching of the theologian Arius in the fourth century. This teaching led to much controversy and resulted in formulation of the Niacin Creed and the eventual formulation of the Doctrine of the Trinity.
To this very day there are religious groups who believe the Son pre-existed, not as an eternal god, but as a created Being. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe the archangel Michael became Jesus. They conclude this based on associations between Jesus and Michael found in scripture. Let’s look at these associations presented by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
1 Thessalonians 4:16: For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.
Since Michael is identified in Scripture as an archangel and Jesus is seen as coming down from Heaven with the voice of the archangel, it is believed Jesus is Michael. Michael, however, is not mentioned in this passage. Paul doesn’t identify any particular archangel. Paul speaks of the voice of the archangel. No definition is provided as to what that means. The main Scriptural passage used to establish Michael as Christ is found in Daniel.
Daniel 12:1: At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people--everyone whose name is found written in the book--will be delivered.
This passage is seen to parallel statements made in the Olivet Discourse as to conditions extant at the return of Christ (Mathew 24.) Michael, however, is not mentioned in the Olivet Discourse and is only mentioned twice in the entire NT with neither reference related to Christ. Sound evidence for Michael being Christ is completely lacking in Scripture which makes the validity of this perspective extremely unlikely.
In what respect is the human Jesus to be seen ascending and descending heaven? Scripture speaks of Jesus coming down from heaven. Jesus did come down from heaven in so much as the heavenly Father personally begat Jesus in the womb of Mary. He ascended to the Father after completing His Father’s mission and received the honor and glory that had been ordained for him since before creation.
As discussed in Chapter Ten, the scriptures speak of Jesus being crucified from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8). Paul speaks of the grace that was given to us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time (2 Timothy 1:9). Jesus speaks of the Kingdom having been prepared for us since the creation of the world (Matthew 25:34). Paul told the Ephesian Christians that God chose us in him (Jesus) before the creation of the world (Ephesians 1:4).
As previously discussed, there is found in Scripture a good deal of proleptic language. This is language that treats things that have not as yet happened as though they already did happen. Please review my discussion of this linguistic technique in Chapter Ten. Let’s now look more closely at some of the Scriptural passages cited from the Gospel of John.
John 13:3: Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God.
The NIV translation of John 13:3 gives the impression that Jesus was returning to the Father. The word “returning” is translated from the Greek hupago which means to withdraw oneself, depart or simply to go somewhere. There is nothing in the definition of hupago that means to return to somewhere you were before. The KJV translates it as “went.” The NKJV and RSV translate it as “going." The Greek for “had come” is exerkomai, which means to come forth or proceed. Jesus had proceeded from the Father in so much that God directly facilitated His human birth. Now Jesus was about to depart from the world and go to be with His God and Father.
John 20:17: Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, `I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"
The NIV translation incorrectly uses the word “return” in place of “ascend” in their rendering of John 20:17. Most translations use the word “ascend” which is the correct translation of the Greek anaaino which means to go upward. There is nothing in the meaning of this Greek word that suggests returning to where you were before. The word simply means to go up and is used in this manner some eighty-one times in the NT narrative.
Do Scriptures that speak of Jesus being sent from heaven and coming down from heaven prove the Son pre-existed? John 1:6 records that John the Baptist was sent from God. This doesn’t mean John the Baptist pre-existed because God sent him. It was a common Hebrew and Aramaic idiom to say that something came down from God or down from heaven when God was the cause. This doesn’t mean a literal coming down but an identification of the cause or source of the thing coming down. Even though the NT was written in Greek, the thoughts and idioms are often Hebrew or Aramaic as this was the language spoken by the people.
The few Scriptural passages that appear to indicate pre-existence for the Son must be considered within the broader context of the many Scriptural passages that show the Son had His beginning as the human Jesus nearly 2000 years ago in a small town called
Daniel 7:13-14: "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.