IS GOD A TRINITY? PART SEVEN
SCRIPTURE #11
2 Peter 1:1-2: Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and 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” is the same as in Titus 2:13 except here the writer does not refer to God as the “great God.” Therefore, the problems discussed relative to the use of “great God” in reference to Jesus in Titus 2:13 is removed. 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 one person is clearly in view, namely Jesus Christ. Therefore, grammatically, verse one can speak of Jesus as God.
Non-Trinitarians point out that it is also grammatically correct to view God and Jesus as separate entities in this passage as is the case with Titus 2:13. They cite a number of translations that can be 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).
It is also pointed out that in verse 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. It is also noted that 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. It is therefore felt that 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.
AUTHOR’S COMMENT: This last statement can also be applied to Romans 9:5 and Titus 2:13. 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 by these Apostles 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.
SCRIPTURE #12
Hebrews 1:8-9: But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy."
Trinitarians see this as a straightforward undeniable reference to Jesus the Son being identified as God. Nearly all English translations take the phrase “Your throne, O God” as a vocative clause in the Greek which means that grammatically it indicates that something or someone is being directly addressed. There are some Greek scholars that see this phrase as a nominative clause and translate it as “God is your throne” implying that God the Father is the source of Jesus’ authority. While this is a grammatically acceptable rendering of this phrase, the majority of commentators on this passage see this as a vocative clause and therefore referring to Jesus as God.
Non-Trinitarians recognize that the nominative way of translating this passage is grammatically legitimate but have no problem seeing this passage as it is commonly translated. It is pointed out that the writer of this passage is quoting from a psalm written as a wedding song for a Davidic King, most likely Solomon.
Psalm 45:6-7: Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom. You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.
This psalm is directed to a human king who is called god (elohim). Calling human rulers god (elohim) is common in OT literature. It is a title applied to one having great power and authority. Kings have great power and authority. Judges are called gods (elohim) in Psalm 82. The application of Psalm 45 to Christ is very appropriate as He has been granted great power and authority over angels and all other created beings. This does not mean Christ is God as God is God any more than a King in
Non-Trinitarians emphatically point out that even though Christ is spoken of as god, there is a Supreme God to whom He is answerable and from whom He receives his power, authority and Kingship. Verse 9 is a clear statement of the subordination of Jesus to the one true God and should by itself dismiss all notions of Jesus being a consubstantial, coequal, coeternal hypostasis of the one true Supreme God.
SCRIPTURE #13
Hebrews 1:10-12: He also says, "In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never end."
Trinitarians see this passage as confirming that Jesus, as Lord, was there at the beginning and was the creator of the heavens and earth which will come to an end but Jesus has no end. This passage is a quote from Psalm 102:25-27:
In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded. But you remain the same, and your years will never end.
In this Psalm the writer addresses the Lord (YHWH) throughout except right before the above passage where in verse 23 the writer says, “Do not take me away, O my God, (el) in the midst of my days; your years go on through all generations.” The Hebrew for God is el which means a mighty one.
Trinitarians see this passage as showing YHWH as creating heaven and earth. Since YHWH is viewed as the creator in this passage and the writer to the Hebrews applies this passage to Christ, it is believed Christ must be equal with YHWH. The phrase “But you remain the same, and your years will never end," is seen as confirmation that Christ has no ending and by implication has no beginning and is therefore eternal. This passage is seen as proof that Jesus is the virtual incarnation of YHWH.
Non-Trinitarians point out that in Hebrew 1:1-2, the writer clearly says that God created the universe through the Son.
Hebrews 1:1-2: In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.
Position B Non-Trinitarians believe this passage shows the Supreme God is superior to the Son as the ultimate power behind creation and that He gave power and ability to the Son to facilitate the creation. Therefore, Psalm 102:25-27 is perfectly applicable to Christ. The Psalm shows YHWH as creator which He is. The writer to the Hebrews shows how YHWH did the creating. He did it through His Son to whom the one Supreme God granted great power and ability to act as His creative agent. Rather than the writer to the Hebrews showing equality between YHWH and the Son, he shows subordination of the Son to YHWH. In scripture, you always see the Father directing the activity of the Son. You never see the Son directing the activity of the Father. There is no coequality here.
Another perspective on this passage in Hebrews involves the Greek construction of verse ten where in Greek this verse begins with the word “and.” Some theologians believe this makes the reference to “Lord” at the beginning of verse ten to refer back to God (the Father) last mentioned in verse nine where verse nine records “therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy." It is believed the author of Hebrews is referencing Psalm 102:25-27 in celebration and reflection upon the creative power and enduring nature of YHWH who has now given great power and authority and an everlasting kingdom to His Christ (Jesus, the anointed of YHWH).
AUTHOR’S COMMENT: There is another perspective extant relative to Hebrews chapter one. It is noted that in verse two, where the writer says that through the Son God made the universe (world in most translations), the Greek word translated universe or world is aion. This Greek word appears 165 times in the New Testament and is variously translated as “world,” “age” and “ever.” Its meaning, however, has nothing to do with the physical world as it basically means a segment of time. It can relate to a long period of time and even time without end (forever) or a short period of time. Context determines it usage. The Greek kosmos relates to the world as created and the Greek oikoumene as the world inhabited.
The writer to the Hebrews clearly shows that it is the world (oikoumene) to come that he is writing about and it is that world that is the focus of this narrative.
Hebrews 2:5: It is not to angels that he has subjected the world (oikoumene) to come, about which we are speaking.
Since the focus of the letter to the Hebrews is to show the superiority of Christ over angles, and the Aaronic Priesthood and the superiority of the New Covenant over the Old Covenant, some interpreters believe the physical creation is not being addressed here at all but what is being addressed is the new spiritual creation that the Father was facilitating through Christ. From this perspective the heavens and the earth are seen as representative of the Old Covenant which was now being replaced by the New Covenant (new heavens and earth) through the Christ event. The phrase "to come" in Hebrews 2:5 is translated from the Greek word mello which means "about to come." It is believed by some theologians that the New Covenant age was about to be established and actually was established with the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 when the means to facilitate the Old Covenant system was eliminated. There are many scriptures that could be cited to support this perspective but a complete discussion of this approach is well beyond the focus of our present investigation.
Non-Trinitarian A’s see God as creating all things with the Christ event in mind and therefore would see creation of the ages (Hebrews 1:2) as done within the context of Gods intention to bring about the New Covenant through the Christ event. The Trinitarian position is not established in these passages at all as it is clear the Son is seen as subordinate to the Father and therefore cannot be coequal with the Father. While a pre-existence for the Son can be theorized from these passages in Hebrews, other passages in this same letter point to Jesus having his beginning when Mary became impregnated by the Spirit of God. These passages will be considered in the summery section of this investigation.
SCRIPTURE #14
John 20:28: Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
Many Trinitarian apologists consider Thomas statement to be the most profound utterance found in scripture as to Jesus being God. One commentator calls it the “supreme Christological pronouncement of the fourth gospel.” Some Trinitarians believe that the Greek Kurios, translated Lord is equivalent to YHWH in the OT as the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) uses Kurios to translate YHWH. It is also believed the Greek Theos is equivalent to Elohim as this Greek word is used in the Septuagint to translate Elohim. Therefore it is believed Thomas is addressing Jesus as YHWH my Elohim (God). It is further pointed out that the word God is preceded by the definite article “the” in the Greek and is therefore referring to the one God.
In response to such assertions by Trinitarians, Non-Trinitarians point out that if you are going to conclude that the statement by Thomas is teaching that Jesus is Kurios as an equivalent to YHWH and Jesus is Theos as an equivalent to Elohim as used in reference to YHWH in the OT, you are in direct opposition to Apostle Paul’s creedal statement to the Corinthians when he said:
I Corinthians 8:6: Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
Paul clearly states there is one God (Theos) the Father and one Lord (Kurios) Jesus Christ. Paul makes a clear distinction between the one God (Theos) and the one Lord (Kurios). Paul is saying there is one Theos and that Theos is the Father from whom all things come and there is one Kurios who is Jesus Christ through whom all things come. There is absolutely no hint here of the Father and Jesus being involved in a Trinitarian relationship that is the one God. The one God is defined as the Father and the one Lord is defined as Christ. If the one God is the Father then Thomas calling Jesus God is calling Jesus the Father which Trinitarians would not accept.
As covered earlier in this series, in the OT we find two Hebrew words translated into the English lord. Adonai is translated as Lord with a capital L followed by lower case letters. Adoni is translated as lord with all lower case letters. Adonai is associated with YHWH, virtually means YHWH and is therefore capitalized to show its reference to the one God named YHWH. Adoni is translated with a small L because it never refers to the one true God but to men and on several occasions to angels. It is a title representing granted power and authority. With this in mind let’s again review what Peter said in the Book of Acts:
Acts 2:34-36: "`The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." ' "Therefore let all
The first part of this passage is a direct quote from Psalm 110:1. In that Psalm, as discussed in detail earlier in this series, the first mention of Lord is YHWH and is translated into English as LORD to signify YHWH. The second mention of lord is adoni and is a reference to Christ. The Septuagint translates YHWH as Kurios, signifying a reference to YHWH. The second lord is Kurios mou which signifies “my lord,” a reference to Christ. In the Septuagint and in the Greek NT scriptures the writers use kurios (lord) to translate both Adonai and adoni. Therefore, it is important to distinguish how kurios is being used in a particular passage and who it is being referenced by this word. Since it is adoni that references Christ in Psalm 110:1, and adoni does not refer to a Deity but to men or angels having been granted power and authority, it is in this manner that the word lord applies to Christ. This is in perfect harmony with what Peter says about God making Jesus lord and Christ, and with what Paul says about there being one God called the Father and one lord, Jesus Christ.
The capitalization of the L in lord in the NT when lord references Jesus can be misleading as it may suggest an association with Adonai who is YHWH when in actuality it reflects the Hebrew adoni which reflects Jesus being a servant of YHWH. In the Hebrew Scriptures YHWH is shown to be the Father. If YHWH is the Father than Jesus isn’t YHWH as Jesus is considered distinct from the Father even in Trinitarian theology. Oneness theology sees the Son as YHWH as it is believed YHWH God became the Son as to the Son’s Divine nature. Therefore, Jesus is not considered distinct from the Father but actually is the Father as to His Divine nature. The Scriptures, however, nowhere explicitly teach that Jesus had a dual nature. This concept is extrapolated from scriptures that are believed to show Jesus had a duel nature and it is the examination of such scriptures that is our focus as these same scriptures are used to support Trinitarianism. Position A & B Non-Trinitarians both see the one God, whose name is YHWH, as the Father and the Supreme Lord (Adonai) of scripture and the Son as the appointed and anointed lord (Adoni) Jesus Christ.
Isaiah 63:16: You, O LORD, (YHWH) are our Father; our Redeemer from of old is your name.
Isaiah 64:8: Yet, O LORD, (YHWH) you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.
Therefore, when Thomas addresses Jesus as Lord and God, it is believed he is not addressing Jesus as Deity but as the resurrected Lord and Christ who has been elevated to the right hand of the one and only true Deity, God the Father who has granted great power, authority and glory to Jesus because of what He accomplished as Messiah. Thomas reference to Christ as God is a response to his realization that Christ is truly the Son of God. The word God is being used by Thomas not as a title of Deity but as a title of great esteem and honor just as the title elohim was often used in the OT. As covered earlier in this series, neither elohim nor theos inherently mean Deity. Over all context of a passage and over all context of the entire scriptural record must determine how a particular occurrence of elohim or its equivalent theos is to be understood.
Finally, it is pointed out that after His resurrection, Jesus made a virtual creedal statement as to the relationship between God and Himself and everyone else.
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 (ascending in most translations) to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"
Jesus clearly reveals the Father as His God. There is no hint of Jesus being consubstantial, coequal and coeternal with His God. God is defined as Father and is shown to be God and Father over everything including Jesus. This is the teaching delineated throughout scripture.
AUTHOR’S COMMENTS: This Non-Trinitarian response appears decisive against Trinitarian claims for the statement of Thomas. The fact remains, however, that Thomas does call Jesus “the God” as is seen in the Greek construction (God with the definite article). Some feel any reference to “the God” is a reference to the one God. We see, however, that the one God is sometimes referred to without the definite article. In John 20:17, quoted above, there is no article before theos in this passage and yet by context it is obvious Jesus references His Father God. The same is true of Paul’s statement about one God in 1 Corinthians 8:6. There is no definite article before theos. The definite article only appears before the Greek word for Father. It is apparent, therefore, that the presence or absence of the definite article “the” with theos is not what determines whether the one supreme God is being referenced or whether the word god (small g) is being used to designate someone else. Immediate context and overall scriptural teaching must be considered in determining how theos is being used (See also: “Authors Comments” in the earlier discussion of John 1:1).
It should also be noted that in two verses after the quote of Thomas saying “My Lord and My God” John refers to Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God. John states that what he has written is to demonstrate that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Nothing is said or implied that Jesus is actual God.
John 20:31. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
SCRIPTURE #15
John 1:18: No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known (NIV).
The NIV translation of this passage implies that Jesus is God and is the One who has made known the Father. This rendering is used by Trinitarians to show oneness between the Father and the Son and therefore their unity as the one God. The NIV translation is derived from a reading of Alexandrian Greek texts that predate the texts most commonly used when translating this passage. These Alexandrian texts have monogenes theos where the word mono means only and genes means to be born or begotten or, as more recent scholarship has identified, genes means kind, type or unique and theos means god. Most Bible versions use later Greek texts that read monogenes huios where huios is the Greek word for son. Typical of such translations is the KJV:
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, (monogenes huios) which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. Bosom is from the Greek kolpos which literally means “the front part of the body between the arms.” In Greek literature it is used both literally and figuratively.
There has been much discussion in scholarly circles as to which Greek manuscripts reflect what John intended. Some argue that since the Alexandrian manuscripts are older, they better reflect what John said as they are closer to the time he wrote his Gospel. Other scholars, such as Bart Ehrman in “The Orthodox Corruption Of Scripture,” argue that the Alexandrian rendering was a reaction to Adoptionist theology of the first century that taught Jesus was only a man born in the normal way and declared to be the Son of God sometime after His birth. Ehrman believes scribes altered the text to read “theos” in order to promote the belief that Jesus was God in opposition to Adoptionist teaching. Ehrman sees the Alexandrian renderings as problematical however because they suggest that the One and Only God resides in the One and Only God. Ehrman questions that if the Son is the One and Only unique God then what does that make the Father? Ehrman shows that the Alexandrian text passages of John 3:16, 18 and 1 John 4:9, which are all passages that speak of the only begotten Son, read monogenes huios which coordinates with the reading of later Greek texts. Ehrman opts for the later readings of John 1:18 being correct and the Alexandrian readings of this passage being a corruption facilitated by scribes who where trying to protect the concept of Jesus being God.
Non-Trinitarians point out that if the Alexandrian text is the correct rendering of what John was saying, it simply means Jesus is a one of a kind unique god (small g) and He is such because he is the only god (small g) who lives in such close proximity and relationship to the Father as to be described as being in the bosom of the Father. It’s argued (as is true of Ehrman) that Jesus cannot be the One and Only unique God and at the same time be in the bosom of the One and Only God. Non-Trinitarians see the Alexandrian readings as acceptable as long as theos in this rendering is seen as a small g designating a separate and lesser being than the Supreme God. The same would apply to monogenes huios which is sometimes translated as unique or one of a kind Son.
Non-Trinitarians see using the reading monogenes huios to say “Only begotten Son” as acceptable provided that begotten is understood in its normal sense to show a definite beginning in time and not “eternal generation,” a Trinitarian concept it is felt is scripturally untenable.
AUTHOR’S COMMENTS: This discussion of John 1:18, underscores how problematical it is to use ambiguous passages of scripture in support of a doctrinal position. Here we have different readings of this passage in ancient Greek manuscripts and different understandings as to the meaning of certain Greek words contained in this passage. Even if the Alexandrian manuscripts are correct and Ehrman is wrong as to how he thinks the rendering in these manuscripts came about, this passage translated as we see in the NIV does not prove Jesus is the one true God as God is God. It only speaks of a one and only unique God or god who is at the Father's side making the Father known. The very fact it speaks of the one God/god being at the Father's side shows separation. Trinitarian theology teaches there is no separation, only distinctions in God. Scripture throughout the NT shows separation between the Father and the Son.
The bottom line is that to use this passage in support of the doctrine of the Trinity is risky because we just can’t be certain what John actually said or intended by what he said. We have a similar problem with the next passage.
SCRIPTURE #16
Acts 20:28: Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the
Some Trinitarians believe this passage supports the belief that Jesus is God because it is Jesus who shed His blood and this passage says God bought the church with his blood. This passage, however, is ambiguous because English translations differ depending upon what Greek manuscripts were used as the source for translation. Some translators used manuscripts that have the Greek kurios rather than theos and thus translate the passage as “church of the Lord.” Reference to “the Lord” is seen as a reference to Christ and therefore this passage in these translations have no bearing on the matter of Jesus being or not being God as the entire focus is on Jesus.
Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood (American Standard Version).
Some commentators have pointed out that the literal translation of the Greek at the end of this passage is “with the blood of his own.” The phrase “his own” is felt to be a reference to the Son and therefore the passage is sometimes translated as “with the blood of His own Son.”
Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the
AUTHOR’S COMMENTS: Here we see several different ways of translating this passage depending on the Greek manuscript used and the manner in which the Greek construction is understood. As with John 1:18, there is no justification for using this passage as a proof text for the Trinity. It is interesting to note that “
Ehrman believes the textual variant of “church of the Lord” was an attempt to moderate the Patripassianist view that God the Father became Jesus and shed his blood. Later Greek manuscripts are seen to further adjust the passage to read “the church of the Lord and God.” What is also interesting is that in the oldest Greek manuscripts the end of this passage is rendered “the blood of his own” while in later texts, including most modern Greek texts, the rendering is “his own blood” thus making “his own” refer back to God. What we are seeing is that over the centuries, copiers (scribes) of the Greek text made adjustments of the Greek text to reflect what those in positions of Church leadership promoted as orthodox. What appears to be the case, as Ehrman points out, is that at times adjustments were made one way and at other times adjustments were made the other way in order to counter what were considered unorthodox teachings.
In the case of Acts 20:28, it appears that “church of God” and “the blood of his own” is the correct rendition as this is the rendering found in many of the oldest manuscripts and is also in harmony with other scriptures. This would permit the passage to say that God purchased the church through the shedding of the blood of His own Son. This would harmonize well with I John 1:7 where God's Son Jesus is seen as shedding His blood for sin. Yet in most of the more recent Greek texts, we see the rending “his own blood” to support the idea that the reference to God in this passage is a reference to Jesus and therefore tacitly provides support for the Trinity.
All this raises the obvious question as to how much has orthodoxy influenced the transmission of scripture versus scripture being allowed to influence and determine orthodoxy? This is a very delicate dynamic and it should instruct us to be very careful in how scripture is used to establish doctrine, especially a doctrine as foundational as the nature of the Father and the Son. It is very apparent that Greek texts differ in their rendering of certain passages and English and other language translations from such Greek texts will reflect such differences. Historically, translators have had to make choices as to what texts to use. It is evident from the variance seen in renderings; choices are often made on the basis of what is orthodox theology at the time. This, however, does not ensure that the rendering chosen is that which best reflects the thinking of the original author. The following is another example of this sort of thing.