part0035

The purpose of this appendix is to present clear explanations of the verses in the Bible that Trinitarians have sometimes used in attempts to "prove" the Trinity and to substantiate that Jesus is God. Since there are an overwhelming number of very clear verses about Jesus Christ's identity and his distinction from God, and since God's Word has no contradictions, these comparatively few verses must fit with the many clear verses, and they do. Serious students of the Bible must acknowledge that every verse that Trinitarians use to try to prove the Trinity can be explained from a non-Trinitarian point of view.

Every lawyer understands "circumstantial evidence," and that is exactly how the case is made for the Trinity. A case is built from circumstantial evidence only when there is not eyewitness testimony or primary evidence. We assert that it is ludicrous to think that God would have Christians build the very foundation of the faith on circumstantial evidence. He would surely state it clearly. Yet there is not a single verse in the Bible that actually states the doctrine of the Trinity, and this fact is openly admitted by Trinitarians. In stark contrast to other doctrines such as salvation, the depravity of man and the need for repentance, which are clearly spelled out, the doctrine of the Trinity is pieced together from different verses and is built from inference.

Can it be that the "foundation" of Christianity is not clearly set forth in Scripture? Would God conceal the truth concerning Himself while providing great detail about less significant issues? And what if every verse used to support the Trinity has another meaning, one that fits more perfectly with the Unitarian view of God found in Scripture? It would mean that there really is no Trinity at all, and that is the conclusion we have come to. The real foundation of Christianity is clearly spelled out in the Bible. God, the Father, is the one God over all, and Christ is God's anointed, the man who was made "Lord and Christ," given a name above every name and who is seated at God's right hand. As you read our explanations of these verses that are sometimes used to prove the Trinity, it will also become apparent that some of them actually show just the opposite.

Because debate has raged about the doctrine of the Trinity since it was first formulated, there is a rich and extensive body of literature expounding our position that Jesus is the Son of God and not "God the Son." Thus, in our own brief explanations, we refer our readers to some of that literature also, with references to books and page numbers where these same verses are explained by other authors who also hold the position that Christ was created by God and is the Son of God. The books we refer to do not always support our position on how a particular verse should be handled, which will become apparent if they are read in full. Sometimes they explain verses differently than we do. However, they all agree that the verses used to support the Trinity do not actually support it at all.

We are certainly thankful for the pioneers who have gone before us and laid a foundation for understanding the Scriptures. They forged ahead with less foundation than we have, with fewer texts and fewer general resources, no computers, phones or other devices that make communication easy, and often in fear of their very lives. When we do disagree with these pioneers, we do so with the utmost respect.

This appendix consists of two parts. The first part contains, in canonical order, the verses sometimes used to prove the Trinity. We begin by quoting the verse, then give our explanation of it. Although we usually quote from the NIV first, that is not always the case. Many times it is more appropriate to quote other versions for reasons that are made obvious in the notes. The second part contains the groupings of some of these difficult verses according to topics. At the end of the appendix is an alphabetical list of the authors and the books to which we refer.

1. The word "God" is Elohim , which is itself a plural form and, like most other words, has more than one definition. It is used in a plural sense of "gods" or "men with authority," and in a singular sense for "God," "god," or "a man with authority, such as a judge." The Hebrew lexicon by Brown, Driver and Briggs, considered to be one of the best available, has as its first usage for Elohim : "rulers , judges , either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power, divine ones , superhuman beings including God and angels, gods ."[1]

Elohim is translated "gods" in many verses. Genesis 35:2 reads, "…Get rid of the foreign gods you have with you…," and Exodus 18:11 says, "Now I know that the LORD is greater than all other gods…." It is translated "judges" in Exodus 21:6, 22:8 and 9. It is translated "angels" (KJV) or "heavenly beings" (NIV) in Psalm 8:5. That is its plural use, and there is no evidence that anyone thought of these "gods" as having some kind of plurality of persons within themselves.

2. Elohim is also translated as the singular "god" or "judge," and there is no hint of any "compound nature" when it is translated that way. An example is Exodus 22:20, which reads, "Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed." Another example is Judges 6:31: "…If Baal really is a god , he can defend himself when someone breaks down his altar." In Exodus 7:1, God says that He has made Moses a "god" (Elohim ) to Pharaoh. Again, in Judges 11:24, the pagan god Chemosh is called Elohim , and in 1 Samuel 5:7, the pagan god Dagon is called Elohim , yet Christians do not conclude that those gods were somehow composite or "uniplural," or that the people who worshipped them thought they were.

Exactly how to translate Elohim in 1 Samuel 2:25 has been debated by scholars. The question is whether Elohim in the verse refers to a human judge or to God. The KJV says "judge." The versions are divided between them, some translating Elohim as a man, others as God Himself. The fact that the scholars and translators debate about whether the word Elohim refers to a man or God shows vividly that the word itself does not have any inherent idea of a plurality of persons. If it did, it could not be translated as "god" when referring to a pagan god, or as "judge" when referring to a man. The evidence in Scripture does not warrant the conclusion that the Hebrew word Elohim inherently contains the idea of a compound nature.

3. Some teach that the word Elohim implies a compound unity when it refers to the true God. That would mean that the word Elohim somehow changes meaning when it is applied to the true God so that the true God can be a compound being. There is just no evidence of this. The first place we should go for confirmation of this is to the Jews themselves. When we study the history and the language of the Jews, we discover that they never understood Elohim to imply a plurality in God in any way. In fact, the Jews were staunchly opposed to people and nations who tried to introduce any hint of more than one God into their culture. Jewish rabbis have debated the Law to the point of tedium, and have recorded volume after volume of notes on the Law, yet in all of their debates there is no mention of a plurality in God. This fact in and of itself ought to close the argument.

No higher authority on the Hebrew language can be found than the great Hebrew scholar, Gesenius. He wrote that the plural nature of Elohim was for intensification, and was related to the plural of majesty and used for amplification. Gesenius states, "That the language has entirely rejected the idea of numerical plurality in Elohim (whenever it denotes one God) is proved especially by its being almost invariably joined with a singular attribute."[2]

The singular pronoun is always used with the word Elohim . A study of the word will show what Gesenius stated, that the singular attribute (such as "He," not "They," or "I," not "We") always follows Elohim . Furthermore, when the word Elohim is used to denote others beside the true God, it is understood as singular or plural, never as "uniplural." To us, the evidence is clear: God is not "compound" in any sense of the word. He is the "one God" of Israel.

4. Scripture contains no reproof for those who do not believe in a "Triune God." Those who do not believe in God are called fools (Ps. 14:1). Those who reject Christ are condemned (John 3:18). Scripture testifies that it is for doctrine, reproof, and correction (2 Tim. 3:16 - KJV), and there are many verses that reprove believers for all kinds of erroneous beliefs and practices. Conspicuous in its absence is any kind of reproof for not believing in the Trinity.

Buzzard, op. cit., Doctrine of the Trinity , pp. 13–15, 125 and 126; Charles Morgridge, True Believer's Defence Against Charges Preferred by Trinitarians , (Boston: Benjamin Greene, 1837. Reprinted 1994 by Spirit & Truth Fellowship International, 180 Robert Curry Drive, Martinsville, IN 46151), pp. 88–96; Donald R. Snedeker, Our Heavenly Father Has No Equals , (International Scholars Publications, Bethesda, MD, 1998), pp. 359–367.

1. Elohim and Adonim , Hebrew words for God, occur in the plural. If this literally meant a plurality of persons, it would be translated "Gods." But the Jews, being truly monotheistic and thoroughly familiar with the idioms of their own language, have never understood the use of the plural to indicate a plurality of persons within the one God. This use of the plural is for amplification, and is called a "plural of majesty" or a "plural of emphasis," and is used for intensification (see note on Gen. 1:1). Many Hebrew scholars identify this use of "us" as the use of the plural of majesty or plural of emphasis, and we believe this also.

It is common in all languages with which we are acquainted, and it appears to have always been so, for an individual, especially if he be a person of great dignity and power, in speaking of himself only, to say we , our , us , instead of I , my , me . Thus, the king of France says, "We , Charles the tenth." The king of Spain says, "We , Ferdinand the seventh." The Emperor of Russia says "We , Alexander," or "We , Nicholas" (p. 93).

The plural of majesty can be seen in Ezra 4:18. In Ezra 4:11, the men of the Trans-Euphrates wrote, "…To King Artaxerxes, From your servants…." The book of Ezra continues, "The king sent this reply…Greetings. The letter you sent us has been read and translated…." Thus, although the people wrote to the king himself, the king used the word "us." It is common in such correspondence that the plural is used when someone speaks of his intentions , and the use of the more literal singular is used when the person acts . Morgridge adds more insight when he says:

It is well known that Mohammed was a determined opposer of the doctrine of the Trinity: yet he often represents God as saying we , our , us , when speaking only of Himself. This shows that, in his opinion, the use of such terms was not indicative of a plurality of persons. If no one infers, from their frequent use in the Koran, that Mohammed was a Trinitarian, surely their occurrence in a few places in the Bible ought not to be made a proof of the doctrine of the Trinity (p. 94).

3. Some scholars believe that the reason for the "us" in Genesis 1:26 is that God could have been speaking with the angels when he created man in the beginning. Although that is possible, because there are many Scriptures that clearly attribute the creation of man to God alone, we believe that the plural of emphasis is the preferred explanation.

4. The name of God is not the only word that is pluralized for emphasis (although when the plural does not seem to be good grammar, the translators usually ignore the Hebrew plural and translate it as a singular, so it can be hard to spot in most English versions). After Cain murdered Abel, God said to Cain, "…the voice of your brother's bloods cries to me from the ground" (Gen. 4:10, "bloods" is the way the Hebrew text reads). The plural emphasizes the horror of the act. In Genesis 19:11, the men of Sodom who wanted to hurt Lot were smitten with "blindness." The Hebrew is in the plural, "blindnesses," and indicates that the blindness was total so Lot would be protected. Leviticus tells people not to eat fruit from a tree for three years, and in the fourth year the fruit is "…an offering of praise to the LORD " (Lev. 19:24). The Hebrew word for "praise" is plural, emphasizing that there was to be great praise. Psalm 45:15 tells of people who are brought into the presence of the Messiah. It says, "They are led in with joy and gladness…." The Hebrew actually reads "gladnesses," emphasizing the great gladness of the occasion. In Ezekiel 25, God is speaking of what has happened to Israel and what He will do about it. Concerning the Philistines, He said, "… the Philistines acted in vengeance…I will carry out great vengeance on them…" (Ezek. 25:15 and 17). In the Hebrew text, the second vengeance, the vengeance of God, is in the plural, indicating the complete vengeance that the LORD will inflict. Although many more examples exist in the Hebrew text, these demonstrate that it is not uncommon to use a plural to emphasize something in Scripture.

Buzzard, op. cit., Doctrine of the Trinity , p. 13; Frederick Farley, Unitarianism Defined: The Scripture Doctrine of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost , (American Unitarian Association, Boston, MA, 1873. Reprinted 1994 by Spirit & Truth Fellowship International, 180 Robert Curry Drive, Martinsville, IN 46151), pp. 25–27; Hyndman, op. cit., Principles of Unitarianism , pp. 53 and 54; Morgridge, op. cit., True Believer's Defence, pp. 92–96; Snedeker, op. cit., Father Has No Equals, pp. 363–366.

For an explanation applicable to this verse, see the note on Genesis 1:26.

1. It is believed by some Trinitarians that in the Old Testament "the angel of the LORD " is Jesus Christ before he supposedly "incarnated" as a human. This point is disputed by many, and with good reason. There is not a single verse that actually says that Jesus Christ is the angel of the LORD . The entire doctrine is built from assumption. Why then, if the doctrine is not stated, do so many people believe it? The reason is that it is very awkward for Trinitarians to believe that Jesus is co-equal and co-eternal with God from the beginning of time, and yet he never appears in the Old Testament. Since one cannot miss the active role that Jesus plays today as Head of the Church, is it possible that he could have been around throughout the entire Old Testament and yet never have gotten involved with mankind? A Trinitarian answer to this question is to place Jesus in the Old Testament by assumption: he must be "the angel of the LORD ." However, we answer the question by asserting that this is very strong evidence for our position that Jesus Christ did not yet exist during the Old Testament, but was the plan of God for the salvation of man. We believe that physically he began when God impregnated Mary (Matt. 1:18). Exactly what are the reasons Trinitarians say that the angel of the LORD is Jesus? Trinitarians differ on the points of evidence (which is to be expected when working from assumptions), but the standard reasons are: he seems superior to other angels; he is separate from the LORD ; he is able to forgive sins (Exod. 23:21); he speaks with authority as though he were God; his countenance struck awe in people; he was never seen after Jesus' birth, and, most importantly, he is addressed as God himself. All these points will be considered, and we will start with the last, which is the most essential point of the argument.

2. A study of the appearances of the angel of the LORD reveals that sometimes he is addressed as the angel and sometimes he is addressed as "the LORD " or "God" (see also Judg. 6:12 and 16). The Jewish law of agency explains why this is so. According to the Jewish understanding of agency, the agent was regarded as the person himself. This is well expressed in The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion :

Agent (Heb. Shaliah ): The main point of the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the dictum, "a person's agent is regarded as the person himself " (Ned . 72b; Kidd . 41b). Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principal, who therefore bears full responsibility for it with consequent complete absence of liability on the part of the agent.[3]

In the texts in which the angel is called "God" or "the LORD ," it is imperative to notice that he is always identified as an angel. This point is important because God is never called an angel. God is God. So if a being is called "God," but is clearly identified as an angel, there must be a reason. In the record in Genesis quoted above, the angel is clearly identified as an angel four separate times. Why then would the text say that "the LORD " spoke to her? It does so because as God's agent or messenger, the angel was speaking for God and the message he brought was God's message. The same basic idea is expressed when "God" is said to "visit" His people, when actually He sends some form of blessing (see the notes on Luke 7:16). God Himself does not show up, but someone unfamiliar with the culture might conclude from the wording that He did. Also, some of the people to whom the angel appeared, clearly expressed their belief he was an angel of God. Gideon exclaimed, "…I have seen the angel of the LORD face to face!" (Judg. 6:22).

There is conclusive biblical evidence that God's messengers and representatives are called "God" (see the notes on Heb. 1:8). This is important because if representatives of God are called "God," then the way to distinguish God from His representative is by the context. We have already shown that when the angel of the LORD is called "God," the context is careful to let the reader know that the agent is, in fact, an angel.

3. Another piece of evidence that reveals that the angel of the LORD is an angel and not a "co-equal" member of the Trinity is that he is under the command of the LORD . In one record, David disobeyed God and a plague came on the land. "…God sent an angel to destroy Jerusalem…" (1 Chron. 21:15). We learn from the record that it was the angel of the LORD afflicting the people, and eventually "… the LORD was grieved because of the calamity and said to the angel who was afflicting the people, 'Enough! Withdraw your hand.' The angel of the LORD was then at the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite" (2 Sam. 24:16). These verses are not written as if this angel was somehow God himself. There is no "co-equality" here. This is simply the LORD giving commands to one of His angels.

4. Another clear example showing that the angel of the LORD cannot be God in any way is in Zechariah. Zechariah was speaking with an angel about a vision he had. The Bible records, "Then the angel of the LORD said, 'LORD Almighty, how long will you withhold mercy from Jerusalem and from the towns of Judah, which you have been angry with these seventy years?' So the LORD spoke kind and comforting words to the angel who talked with me" (Zech. 1:12 and 13). The fact that the angel of the LORD asked the LORD for information and then received comforting words indicates that he is not co-equal with God in power or knowledge. It is unthinkable that God would need information or need comforting words. Thus, any claim that the angel of the LORD is the pre-incarnate Christ who is in every way God just cannot be made to fit what the Bible actually says.

5. It is interesting that two pieces of evidence that Trinitarians use to prove that the angel of the LORD must be the pre-incarnate Jesus are that the Bible clearly states that he is separate from God and that he speaks with God's authority. We would argue that the reason he is separate from God is because he is exactly what the text calls him, i.e., an angel, and that he speaks with authority because he is bringing a message from God. The prophets and others who spoke for God spoke with authority, as many verses affirm. Also, the angel of the LORD speaks about God in the third person. For example, in Genesis 16:11 above, the angel says, "…the LORD has heard of your misery." The angel does not say, "I have heard of your misery," as if he were God. In Genesis 22:12, the angel said, "…Now I know that you fear God…," not "Now I know you fear me." In Judges 13:5, the angel says Samson will be "set apart to God," not "set apart to me." So although the text can call the angel God, which is proper for a representative of God, the angel never said he was God and even referred to God in the third person.

Also, if Jesus were the angel of the LORD who spoke to Moses at the burning bush, then he did not say so in his teaching. Mark 12:26 records Jesus speaking with the Sadducees and saying, "… have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?' " If Jesus had been the angel in the bush, and was openly proclaiming himself to be "the pre-existent God," he would have used this opportunity to say, "I said to Moses." The fact that Jesus said it was God who spoke to Moses shows clearly that he was differentiating himself from God.

6. That the angel of the LORD seems superior to other angels is no reason to assume he is somehow part of the Trinity. Many scholars agree that angels differ in power and authority. The Bible mentions archangels in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 and Jude 9, for example. It would not be unusual that this angel would be one with greater authority. Neither is the fact that the angel of the LORD can forgive sins any reason to believe that he is God. God's agents can forgive sins. God gave Jesus the authority to forgive sins, and then he in turn gave the Apostles the authority to forgive sins (see the notes on Mark 2:7).

7. Although it is true that the countenance of the angel of the LORD occasionally struck awe in people, that is no reason to assume he is God. A careful reading of the passages where he appears shows that sometimes the people did not even realize that they were talking to an angel. For example, when the angel of the LORD appeared to Samson's mother, she returned to her husband Manoah with this report: "…A man of God came to me. He looked like an angel of God, very awesome. I didn't ask him where he came from, and he didn't tell me his name" (Judg. 13:6). Note that angels had a reputation for having an awe-inspiring countenance, and the woman thought this "man of God" did too, but she still did not believe he was an angel. When Manoah met the angel of the LORD and the two of them talked about how to raise Samson, Manoah did not discover he was an angel until he ascended to heaven in the smoke of Manoah's sacrifice. Therefore, just because someone's countenance may be awesome, he is not necessarily God.

8. It is also argued that Jesus is probably "the angel of the LORD " because those words never appear after his birth, and it seems reasonable that this angel would appear right on through the Bible. The fact is, however, that the angel of the LORD does appear after Jesus' conception , which seems inconsistent with the premise that the angel of the LORD is the "pre-incarnate Christ." The record of Jesus' birth is well known. Mary was discovered to be pregnant with Jesus before she and Joseph were married, and Joseph, who could have had her stoned to death, decided to divorce her. However, "…the angel of the Lord…" appeared to him in a dream and told him the child was God's. Matthew 1:24 states, "When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife." Two conclusions can be drawn from this record. First, Jesus was already in Mary's womb when the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph. From this we conclude that "the angel of the Lord" cannot be Jesus because Jesus was at that time "in the flesh" inside Mary. Second, it should be noted that in the same record this angel is known both as "an" angel of the Lord and as "the" angel of the Lord. This same fact can be seen in the Old Testament records (cp. 1 Kings 19:5 and 7).

There are many appearances of "an" angel of the Lord in the New Testament (cp. Acts 5:19, 8:26, 12:7 and 23). From this we conclude that it is likely that the same angel who is called both "the" angel of the LORD and "an angel" in the Old Testament still appears as "an angel of the Lord" after Christ's birth. When all the evidence is carefully weighed, there is good reason to believe that the words describing the "angel" of the Lord are literal, and that the being referred to is an angel, just as the text says.

1. These verses pose a problem for Christians who have been taught that no one has ever seen God. The Hebrew text clearly says that Yahweh appeared to Abraham in the form of a man, and He was with two angels, who also took on human appearance. This is not a problem. God created mankind so He could intimately fellowship with us. It is reasonable that He would occasionally become visible and take on human form to be intimate with His creation. In fact, Scripture records a number of people to whom God appeared: Adam and Eve (they heard His footsteps, Gen. 3:8), Abraham (Gen. 12:7, 15:1, 17:1, 18:1), Jacob (Gen. 28:13), Moses and the elders of Israel (Exod. 24:9–11), Samuel (1 Sam. 3:10), Solomon twice (1 Kings 3:5, 9:2, 11:9), Micaiah (1 Kings 22:19–22), Isaiah (Isa. 6:1–5), Ezekiel (Ezek. 1:26–28), Daniel (Dan. 7:9–14), Amos (Amos 7:7), Stephen (Acts 7:56) and the Apostle John (Rev. 5:1–8).

2. A study of Genesis 18:1 in Christian commentaries reveals that most theologians do not believe that Yahweh can appear in the form of a man. Before we examine why they say that, we must remember that, difficult to believe or not, that is exactly what the text says. Many theologians who do not believe that the text can be literal have postulated other explanations. The standard explanations of the verse are: it was actually a dream and not real; it was the pre-incarnate Christ who appeared; it was an angel that appeared carrying the name of Yahweh.

Some theologians teach that the record of Genesis 18:1ff was a dream because of the circumstances, i.e., it was the heat of the day and the time for naps. However, the Bible never says it was a dream, and there certainly was no time when Abraham "woke up." The record of Sodom and Gomorrah is certainly not a dream. The angels left Abraham and went to the city of Sodom where they rescued Lot and his daughters from God's judgment. There is just no solid scriptural evidence that Yahweh's appearance was a dream. Neither would this account for the many other times Yahweh appears.

Many Trinitarian theologians say that Genesis 18:1 is an appearance of the pre-incarnate Christ. The evidence they give for their conclusion is twofold: Yahweh is invisible and no one has or can see Him, so it cannot be He; and the record clearly says it is Yahweh, so it must be the pre-incarnate Christ since "Christ is a member of the Godhead." However, if it could be shown that Yahweh does indeed occasionally appear in the form of a man, then there would be no reason not to take the Bible literally. Furthermore, the fact that Scripture never says that the one appearing is Christ is strong evidence that this is not Christ. And there are at least two occasions where Yahweh and Christ appear together (Dan. 7 and Rev. 5). This seems to us to force the conclusion that Yahweh cannot be Christ.

The major reason to make "Yahweh" of this record into an angel is the same as the reason to make the record a dream or to make Yahweh into the pre-incarnate Christ. It comes from the preconceived idea that Yahweh just cannot appear in human form. Therefore, the temptation here is to make Yahweh of necessity a dream, an angel or Christ. Even though in other records angels are called God, this record is different. We have seen from other verses that angels are occasionally called "God" (see the notes on Gen. 16:7–13). However, a study of the records where the angel of the LORD is called "God" shows that he was always clearly identified as an angel, and it was clear that he was bringing a message from God. This record, and the others mentioned above in which Yahweh appears, are decidedly different. The "man" identified as Yahweh is among other angels, and the entire record identifies Him as Yahweh. And while other records show the angel of the LORD carefully avoiding the use of the first person, "I," "me" and "my," referring to God, "Yahweh" in this record uses the first person over and over.

3. Most Christians have not been taught that God can appear in a form resembling a person. They have always heard, "no one has seen God at any time." In our book Don't Blame God! , the language of that phrase is examined and explained. John 1:17 and 18 states: "For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God…" We write:

Please note that truth , in its fullness, came not with Moses, but with Jesus Christ. It was he who for the first time in history made God truly understandable. It is not that the Old Testament believers knew nothing of God, but rather that their knowledge and understanding of Him were quite limited ("veiled"). Since truth came by Jesus Christ ["For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus,"], we believe that the first part of John 1:18—"No man hath seen God at anytime…"—means that no man had "known" God [as He truly is] at any previous time. It is Jesus Christ who reveals, or makes known, God to man.

In many languages, "to see" is a common idiom for "to know." In the Hebrew language, one of the definitions for "see" (Hebrew = ra' ah ) is "see, so as to learn, to know." Similarly, the Greek word translated "see" in verse 18 (horao ) can be "to see with the eyes" or "to see with the mind, to perceive, know." Even in English, one of the definitions for "see" is "to know or understand." For example, when two people are discussing something, one might say to the other, "I see what you mean."

The usage of "see" as it pertains to knowing is found in many places in the New Testament. Jesus said to Philip, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). Here again the word "see" is used to indicate knowing. Anyone who knew Christ (not just those who "saw" him) would know the Father. In fact, Christ had made that plain two verses earlier when he said to Philip, "If you really knew me you would know my Father as well" (John 14:7).[4]

Further evidence that "see" means "know" in John 1:18 is that the phrase "No man has seen God…" is contrasted with the phrase "has made him known." The verse is not talking about "seeing" God with one's eyes, it is saying that the truth about God came by Jesus Christ. Before Jesus Christ came, no one really knew God as He truly is, a loving heavenly Father. Jesus Christ made that known in its fullness. Our study has led us to conclude that verses seeming to say that no one has ever "seen" God are either using the word "seen" as meaning "to know," and thus referring to knowing Him fully, or they are referring to seeing Him in all His fullness as God, which would be impossible. We agree with the text note on John 1:18 in the NIV Study Bible, which says, "…since no human being can see God as He really is, those who saw God saw Him in a form He took on Himself temporarily for the occasion."

Another point should be made about the word "seen" in John 1:18. If Trinitarians are correct in that Jesus is "God incarnate," "God the Son" and "fully God," then it seems to us that they would be anxious to realize that "seen" means "known" because it makes no sense to say that no man has seen God with his eyes and then say Jesus is God. Theologians on both sides of the Trinitarian debate should realize the idiom of "seen" meaning "known" in John 1:18.

The Bible also calls God "the invisible God." This is true, and God's natural state is invisible to us. However, that does not prevent Him from occasionally becoming visible. Angels and demons are also naturally invisible, but they can and do become visible at certain times. If angels and demons can sometimes become visible, then God certainly can too. We remind the reader that the Bible plainly says, "Yahweh appeared to Abraham," and to others as well.

It is often stated that the people could not have really seen Yahweh because a person will die if he sees God. This idea comes mainly from the conversation Moses had with God. Moses asked to see the glory of God, and God responded, "…you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live" (Exod. 33:20). It is clear from the context that the "face" of God was the "glory" of God, because that is what Moses asked to see. We would concur that human beings are not equipped to comprehend God in all His fullness, and exposure to all that God is would be lethal. However, we know that God did create mankind so He could fellowship with us, and we assert that the human-like form that He has sometimes assumed in order to be near us is not His fullness in any way.

The "Ancient of Days" is Yahweh. Note his description as a man. Into his presence comes "a son of man" who is given authority and dominion. It is quite universally agreed among Christians that the "Ancient of Days" is God the Father, and the "son of man" is Jesus Christ, who receives his authority from God. Note that in this passage there is no hint of the Trinity. There is no "Holy Spirit" and no indication that the "son of man" is co-equal or co-eternal with the Father. On the contrary, while God is called the "Ancient of Days," a title befitting His eternal nature, Christ is called "a son of man," meaning one who is born from human parents. This prophecy is one of many that shaped the Jewish belief about their Messiah: he was not foretold as "God in the flesh," but rather a man like themselves who would receive special honor and authority from God. For our purposes in understanding Genesis 18:1, these verses in Daniel demonstrate very clearly that God can and does appear in human form. And because in Daniel's vision He is with the Messiah when He does so, there is no reason to assume that the other times He appears it is actually Jesus Christ.

The other very clear record is Revelation 4 and 5. The length of the record prohibits us from printing it here, but the reader is encouraged to read those two chapters. They portray God sitting on a throne surrounded by elders and creatures who repeat, "…Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty…." God is holding in His right hand a scroll that is written on both sides but sealed shut with seven seals. An angel calls out to summon those who could open the scroll, but no one was worthy. As John began to weep, an angel comforted him with the words, "…Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll…." Then "a Lamb" (the context makes it clear it is Jesus Christ) "…came and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne." At that point the creatures and the elders fell down before the Lamb and started singing a "new song."

4. This record and the others like it show a glimpse of what Christians have to look forward to. God loves us and created us to have a deep and abiding relationship with Him. He will not always remain as distant as He now sometimes seems. The Bible tells of a time when "…the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God" (Rev. 21:3).

1. It is believed by some that the Hebrew word "one" (echad ) that is used in Deuteronomy 6:4 and other verses indicates a "compound unity." This is just not true. Anthony Buzzard writes:

It is untrue to say that the Hebrew word echad (one) in Deut. 6:4 points to a compound unity. A recent defense of the Trinity argues that when "one" modifies a collective noun like "cluster" or "herd," a plurality is implied in echad . The argument is fallacious. The sense of plurality is derived from the collective noun, not from the word "one." Echad in Hebrew is the numeral "one." Isa. 51:2 describes Abraham as "one" (echad ), where there is no possible misunderstanding about the meaning of this simple word (p. 15).

There is no reference to the word "one" as to a plurality of any kind. It is used of "one" in number, "the first" in a series, "one" in the sense of "the same," and "one" in the sense of "each" or "a certain one." A study of its uses in the Old Testament will reveal its simple meaning and the truth it conveys. It is translated "first" in Genesis 1:5, when God made light on the "first" day. The whole earth spoke "one" language before Babel (Gen. 11:1). Hagar cast her child under "one" of the bushes (Gen. 21:15). In Pharaoh's dream, there were seven ears of grain on "one" stalk (Gen. 41:5). In the plague on Egypt's livestock, not "one" cow died in Israel (Exod. 9:6). Exodus 12:49 (KJV) says that Israel shall have "one" law for the citizen and the foreigner. The examples are far too many to list. Echad is used more than 250 times in the Old Testament, and there is no hint in any Jewish commentary or lexicon that it somehow implies a "compound unity."

One thing, very important, is certain, that if any such hints [that God was a plurality of persons] were conveyed, the Jews never understood them. The presumption is that they knew their own language, and it is certain they understood that the Unity of God was taught by their Scriptures in the most absolute and unqualified manner. Such was their interpretation of Moses and the Prophets at the time when Christ came. In all Palestine there probably could not have been found a single man or woman, who supposed that there was any distinction of persons, such as is now taught, in the Unity of God (p. 293).

2. Deuteronomy 6:4 is one of the strongest texts against the Trinity. God is "one," not "three-in-one" or some other plurality. This has been the rallying cry of Jews down through the ages who have stood aggressively against any form of polytheism or pantheism. Jesus quoted this verse as part of the first and great commandment: "…Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength" (Mark 12:29 and 30). It is quite inconceivable that Christ would be promoting some form of the doctrine of the Trinity while at the same time quoting Deuteronomy that God is "one" to a Jewish audience who would be sure to misunderstand him. It is much more reasonable to believe that Jesus was simply affirming that if we are to love God with all our heart we must be certain who He is—the one God of Israel.

This verse is quoted in Hebrews 1:8 and our explanation can be found there.

Trinitarian commentators frequently argue that "my Lord" in this verse is the Hebrew word adonai , another name for God, and is therefore proof of the divinity of the Messiah. But not only is this not a valid argument, this verse is actually one of the great proofs of the complete humanity of the promised Messiah. The Hebrew word translated "my lord" is adoni (pronounced "Adon nee"[5] ) in the standard Hebrew texts. This word is always used in Scripture to describe human masters and lords, but never God. Unfortunately, this has not been clear to most people because they only learn about the Hebrew text from concordances and lexicons. However, Hebrew concordances and lexicons give only root words, not the word that actually occurs in the Hebrew text. Most of the time this will not affect the result of a word study, but occasionally it does, and Psalm 110:1 is one of those times. The root of adoni that is found in concordances is adon (cp. Young's Concordance ), and some of the forms of adon do refer to God as well as people. Thus, a person using a concordance such as Young's or Strong's will naturally assert that the second "Lord" in the verse, which refers to the Messiah, can refer to him as God, and be wrong in their assertion. This is one reason why biblical research done by people using only tools such as a Strong's Concordance will often be limited.[6] Let us state again that the form of the word "Lord" in Psalm 110:1 is never used of God, so the fact that the Messiah is referred to as adoni is very good evidence he is not God. Focus on the Kingdom reports:

The difference between adon (the root word), adoni ("lord," always used of men or angels) and adonai (which is used of God and sometimes written adonay ) is critical to the understanding of Psalm 110:1. The Brown, Driver and Briggs Hebrew Lexicon (BDB), considered by many to be the best available, makes the distinction between these words. Note how in BDB the word adoni refers to "lords" that are not God, while another word, adonai , refers to God: [8]

In the above definition, adoni and adonai have the same root, adon , which is the word listed in the concordances and most lexicons. However, the exact words used are different. Adoni , the word used in Psalm 110:1, is never used of God. It is always used of a human or angelic superior. The fact that the Hebrew text uses the word adoni of the Messiah in Psalm 110 is very strong proof that he is not God. If the Messiah was to be God, then the word adonai would have been used. This distinction between adoni (a lord) and adonai (the Lord, God, LORD [Yahweh]) holds even when God shows up in human form. In Genesis 18:3, Abraham addresses God who was "disguised" as a human, but the text uses adonai.

There are several uses of adonai that refer to angels or men, giving them an elevated status, but not indicating that the speaker believed they were God. This is in keeping with the language as a whole. Studies of words like Elohim show that it is also occasionally used of humans who have elevated status. Examples of adonai referring to humans include Genesis 19:18, 24:9 and 39:2. In contrast to adonai being used occasionally of men, there is no time when adoni is used of God. Men may be elevated, but God is never lowered.

The following 148 verses contain 166 uses of the word (adoni )[11] and every one of them either refers to a human lord or an angel. None refers to God: Genesis 23:6, 11, 15, 24:12 (2x), 14, 18, 27 (3x), 35, 36, 37, 39, 42, 44, 48 (2x), 49, 65, 31:35, 33:8, 13,14 (2x), 15, 39:8, 42:10, 43:20, 44:5, 7, 18 (2x), 19, 20, 22, 24, 47:18 (2x), 25; Exodus 21:5, 32:22; Numbers 11:28, 12:11, 32:25, 27, 36:2; Joshua 5:14, 10:1, 3; Judges 1:5, 6, 7, 4:18, 6:13; Ruth 2:13; 1 Samuel 1:15, 26 (2x), 22:12, 24:8, 25:24, 25 (2x), 26 (2x), 27, 28, 29, 31, 41, 26:17, 18, 19, 29:8, 30:13, 15 ; 2 Samuel 1:10, 3:21, 9:11, 11:11, 13:32, 33, 14:9, 12, 15, 17 (2x), 18, 19 (2x), 22, 15:15, 21(2x), 16:4, 9, 18:31, 32, 19:19 (2x), 20, 26, 27, 30, 35, 37, 24:3, 21, 22; 1 Kings 1:13, 17, 18, 20 (2x), 21, 24, 27 (2x), 31, 36, 37 (2x), 2:38, 3:17, 26, 18:7, 10, 20:4; 2 Kings 2:19, 4:16, 28, 5:3, 18, 20, 22, 6:5, 12, 15, 26, 8:5, 12, 10:9, 18:23, 24, 27; 1 Chronicles 21:3 (2x), 23; 2 Chronicles 2:14, 15; Isaiah 36:8, 9, 12; Jeremiah 37:20, 38:9; Daniel 1:10, 10:16, 17 (2x), 19, 12:8; Zechariah 1:9, 4:4, 5, 13, 6:4.

The following 24 uses can be found under (l'adoni ), "to my Lord." While we in English separate the preposition from the noun or verb following, in Hebrew the preposition is attached directly to the word. Genesis 24:3, 54, 56, 32:5, 6, 19, 44:9, 16, 33; 1 Samuel 24:7, 25:27, 28, 30, 31; 2 Samuel 4:8, 19:29; 1 Kings 1:2, 18:13, 20:9; 1 Chronicles 21:3; Psalms 110:1. All these refer to human lords, not God.

Students of Hebrew know that the original text was written in an "unpointed" form, i.e., without the dots, dashes and marks that are now the written vowels. Thus some scholars may point out that since the vowel points of the Hebrew text were added later, the rabbis could have been mistaken. It should be pointed out, however, that the two Hebrew words, adonai and adoni , even though written the same in unpointed text, sound different when pronounced. This is not unusual in a language. "Read" and "read" are spelled the same, but one can be pronounced "red," as in "I read the book yesterday," while the other is pronounced "reed," as in "Please read the book to me." The correct way to place the vowels in the text would have been preserved in the oral tradition of the Jews. Thus when the text was finally written with the vowels it would have been written as it was always pronounced.

Further evidence that the Jews always thought that the word in Psalm 110:1 referred to a human Messiah and not God come to earth is given in the Greek text, both in the Septuagint and in quotations in the New Testament. It is important to remember that the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, was made about 250 B.C. , long before the Trinitarian debates started. Yet the Septuagint translation is clearly supportive of Psalm 110:1 referring to a human lord, not God. It translates adoni as ho kurios mou .

When Psalm 110:1 is quoted in the New Testament the same truth about the human lordship of the Messiah is preserved:

The New Testament, when it quotes Psalm 110:1, renders l'adoni as "to my lord" (to kurio mou ). But it renders adonai ([Psalm 110] v. 5 and very often elsewhere) as "the Lord" (kurios ). This proves that the difference between adonai and adoni was recognized and reported in Greek long before the Masoretic vowel points fixed the ancient, oral tradition permanently in writing.[13]

It is interesting that scholars have often not paid close attention to the text of Psalm 110 or the places it is quoted in the New Testament, and have stated that it shows that Christ must have been God. The well-known Smith's Bible Dictionary contains an article on "Son of God," written by Ezra Abbot. He writes:

We believe Abbot's conclusion is faulty because he did not pay attention to the exact wording of the Hebrew text. Even scholars who contributed to Smith's Dictionary of the Bible apparently agree, because there is a footnote after the above quotation that corrects it. The footnote states:

In ascribing to St. Peter the remarkable proposition that "God hath made Jesus JEHOVAH," the writer of the article appears to have overlooked the fact that kurion ("Lord") in Acts 2:36 refers to to kurio mou ("my Lord") in verse 34, quoted from Ps. 110:1, where the Hebrew correspondent is not Jehovah but adon , the common word for "lord" or "master." St. Peters meaning here may be illustrated by his language elsewhere; see Acts 5:31 [where Peter calls Jesus a "prince," etc.].[15]

The footnote is quite correct, for the word in Psalm 110 is the word for a "lord" or "master" and not God. Thus Psalm 110:1 gives us very clear evidence that the expected Messiah of God was not going to be God himself, but a created being. The Jews listening to Peter on the Day of Pentecost would clearly see the correlation in Peter's teaching that Jesus was a "man approved of God" (v. 22 - KJV), and a created being, the "my lord" of Psalm 110:1 which Peter quoted just shortly thereafter (v. 34). The use of adoni in the first verse of Psalm 110:1 makes it very clear that the Jews were not expecting their Messiah to be God, but were expecting a human "lord."

Occasionally, a Trinitarian will use this verse to try to support the Trinity and the pre-existence of Christ by saying that "wisdom" was appointed from eternity, Christ is the "wisdom of God" (1 Cor. 1:24) and, therefore, Christ was from eternity. This position has not found strong support even among Trinitarians, and for good reason. This wisdom in Proverbs was "appointed" (literally, "set up") by God, and is therefore subordinate to God. Carefully reading the verse and its context shows that wisdom was "…brought forth as the first of his works…" (v. 22). If this "wisdom" were Christ, then Christ would be the first creation of God, which is an Arian belief and heretical to orthodox Trinitarians. Therefore many of the Church Fathers rejected this verse as supportive of the Trinity, among them such "heavyweights" as Athanasius, Basil, Gregory, Epiphanius and Cyril. We reject it also, but for different reasons. Taking a concept and speaking of it as if it were a person is the figure of speech Personification . Personification often makes it easier to relate to a concept or idea because, as humans, we are familiar with relating to other humans. Personification was common among the Jews, and the wisdom of God is personified in Proverbs. Christ is considered the wisdom of God in Corinthians because of what God accomplishes through him.

Some people believe that because Jesus was to be called "Immanuel" ("God with us"), he must be God incarnate. That is not the case, and for a full explanation of this, see the note on Matthew 1:23 below.

1. Trinitarians should admit that this verse is translated improperly just from the fact that Jesus is never called the "Everlasting Father" anywhere else in Scripture. Indeed, Trinitarians correctly deny that Jesus is the "Everlasting Father." It is a basic tenet of Trinitarian doctrine that Christians should "neither confound the Persons nor divide the Substance" (Athanasian Creed). Thus, if this verse is translated properly, then Trinitarian Christians have a real problem. However, the phrase is mistranslated. The word translated "everlasting" is actually "age," and the correct translation is that Jesus will be called "father of the [coming] age."

In the culture of the Bible, anyone who began anything or was very important to something was called its "father." For example, because Jabal was the first one to live in a tent and raise livestock, the Bible says, "…he was the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock" (Gen. 4:20). Furthermore, because Jubal was the first inventor of musical instruments, he is called, "…the father of all who play the harp and flute" (Gen. 4:21). Scripture is not using "father" in the sense of literal father or ancestor in these verses, because both these men were descendants of Cain, and all their descendants died in the Flood. "Father" was being used in the cultural understanding of either one who was the first to do something or someone who was important in some way. Because the Messiah will be the one to establish the age to come, raise the dead into it, and rule over it, he is called "the father of the coming age."

2. The phrase "Mighty God" can also be better translated. Although the word "God" in the Hebrew culture had a much wider range of application than it does in ours, the average reader does not know or understand that. Readers familiar with the Semitic languages know that a man who is acting with God's authority can be called "god." Although English makes a clear distinction between "God" and "god," the Hebrew language, which has only capital letters, cannot. A better translation for the English reader would be "mighty hero," or "divine hero." Both Martin Luther and James Moffatt translated the phrase as "divine hero" in their Bibles. (For more on the flexible use of "God," see the notes on Heb. 1:8).

3. A clear example that the word translated "God" in Isaiah 9:6 can be used of powerful earthly rulers is Ezekiel 31:11, referring to the Babylonian king. The Trinitarian bias of most translators can be clearly seen by comparing Isaiah 9:6 (el = "God") with Ezekiel 31:11 (el = "ruler"). If calling the Messiah el made him God, then the Babylonian king would be God also. Isaiah is speaking of God's Messiah and calling him a mighty ruler, which of course he will be.

The phrase translated "Mighty God" in Isaiah 9:6 in the NIV in the Hebrew, el gibbor . That very phrase, in the plural form, is used Ezekiel 32:21 where dead "heroes" and mighty men are said, by the figure of speech personification, to speak to others. The phrase in Ezekiel is translated "mighty leaders" in the NIV, and "The strong among the mighty…" in the KJV and NASB. The Hebrew phrase, when used in the singular, can refer to one "mighty leader" just as when used in the plural it can refer to many "mighty leaders."

4. The context illuminates great truth about the verse, and also shows that there is no justification for believing that it refers to the Trinity, but rather to God's appointed ruler. The opening verse of the chapter foretells a time when "…there will be no more gloom for those in distress." All war and death will cease, and "Every warrior's boot…will be destined for burning…" (v. 5). How will this come to pass? The chapter goes on: "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given…" (v. 6). There is no hint that this child will be "God," and reputable Trinitarian scholars will assert that the Jews of the Old Testament knew nothing of an "incarnation." For them, the Messiah was going to be a man anointed by God. He would start as a child, which of course Yahweh, their eternal God, could never be. And what a great ruler this man would grow to be: "…the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty Hero, Father of the Coming Age, Prince of Peace." Furthermore, "…He will reign on David's throne… (v. 7), which could never be said of God. God could never sit on David's throne. But God's Messiah, "the Son of David," could (Matt. 9:27, et al. ). Thus, a study of the verse in its context reveals that it does not refer to the Trinity at all, but to the Messiah, the son of David and the Son of God.

See the note on Revelation 5:5.

For the usage of Savior in the Bible, see notes on Luke 1:47 and Chapter 17, under the heading "Can Only God Save?"

See the notes on Revelation 1:17.

Occasionally, a Trinitarian will argue that Jesus cannot be a man because we are expected to trust Jesus, but not to trust men. We feel that analysis misses the point of this verse, and we remind the reader that the entire verse and its context must be read to get its proper meaning. The immediate context reveals that a person is cursed if he trusts man and also turns his heart away from the LORD . But we are not turning our hearts away from God by trusting in His Son Jesus. On the contrary, "… He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father…" (John 5:23). God is the one who made Jesus our Lord and Head of the Church. Indeed, our hearts would be turning from the LORD if we did not trust Jesus. This same logic applies to other servants of God. The people were not cursed when they followed Moses, or Joshua, or David, and trusted in what they said, because these men were acting for God. Exodus 14:31 says the people trusted God and Moses. The husband of the virtuous woman is blessed when he trusts in his wife, as Proverbs 31:11 (KJV) says, "The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her…." Truth is never obtained by taking a piece or a part of a verse and ignoring its context. The entire Bible is God's Word, and it must be handled in a holy and godly way, with diligence and dignity and attention to the entire context. Grabbing a piece of a verse and forcing it to take on a meaning not fitting to the context, just to substantiate a theology, is never appropriate.

1. When something is "called" a certain name, that does not mean that it is literally what it is called. Jerusalem is also called "the LORD our Righteousness," and Jerusalem is obviously not God (Jer. 33:16). So, calling something "the LORD our Righteousness" does not make it God. Abraham called the mountain on which he was about to sacrifice Isaac "the LORD will provide," and no one would believe that the mountain was Yahweh. Similarly, no one would believe an altar was Yahweh, even if Moses called it that: "Moses built an altar and called it the LORD is my Banner" (Exod. 17:15). Later, Gideon built an altar and called it Yahweh: "So Gideon built an altar to the LORD there and called it The LORD is Peace. To this day it stands in Ophrah of the Abiezrites" (Judg. 6:24). These verses prove conclusively that just because something is called Yahweh, that does not make it Yahweh.

2. The Messiah will be called (not will be ) "the LORD our Righteousness" because God Almighty will work His righteousness through His anointed one, Jesus the Christ. The city of Jerusalem will also be called "the LORD our Righteousness" because God will work His righteousness there, and that righteousness will reach over the entire world (For more on "names" and "called," see the notes on Matt. 1:23).

1. "Origins" literally signifies a "going out," hence a beginning or birth, and thus the verse is saying that the birth of the Messiah has been determined, or appointed, from everlasting. In contrast to the Messiah who had an origin, the true God is without origin.

2. The ancient Jews read this verse and realized that it spoke of the birth and birthplace of the Messiah. One of the few things the Jews at the time of Jesus did understand about the Messiah was that he would be born in Bethlehem (Matt. 2:3–6). Yet of the Jews who read, studied, and understood the verse, there is no record that any of them concluded from the wording that Jesus had to be "God incarnate."

3. The context of Micah makes it clear that the "ruler" from Bethlehem will not be God. This ruler will be born, and have "brothers." No Jew ever thought God could be born, and the thought of the Creator of the heavens and earth having brothers was absurd to them. These verses are speaking of God's Anointed King, and the Word declares, not that this ruler will be God, but rather that Yahweh will be "his God" (v. 4). Thus, this text of Micah is clear: a child will be born in Bethlehem and the Israelites will be his brothers, but he will grow up to deliver and rule the nation and stand in the strength of Yahweh his God.

1. The name can be translated as, "God with us" or "God is with us." We know that God was with the people in Jesus Christ, and Jesus himself said that if one had seen him, he had seen the Father.

2. The significance of the name is symbolic. God was with us, not literally, but in His Son, as 2 Cor. 5:19 (NASB) indicates: "…that God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself…." It is important to read exactly what was written: God was in Christ, not God was Christ. Symbolism in names can be seen throughout the Bible. It is not unique to Jesus Christ. Many people were given names that would cause great problems if believed literally. Are we to believe that Elijah was "God Yahweh," or that Bithiah, a daughter of Pharaoh, was the sister of Jesus because her name is "daughter of Yahweh?" Are we to believe that Dibri, not Jesus, was the "Promise of Yahweh," or that Eliab was the real Messiah since his name means "My God [is my] father?" Of course not. It would be a great mistake to claim that the meaning of a name proves a literal truth. We know that Jesus' name is very significant—it communicates the truth that, as the Son of God and as the image of God, God is with us in Jesus, but the name does not make Jesus God. For more on the fact that calling something does not make it that thing, see the notes on Jeremiah 23:6.

1. It is sometimes stated that since we are to worship only God, and, because we are also supposed to worship Jesus, therefore he must be God. That argument is not valid because, although there is a special worship that is reserved just for God, we can "worship" certain people as well. This is an issue of the heart. There is no special word for "worship" reserved only for God. The special worship due Him comes from the heart. In fact the entire temptation of Christ by the Devil proves that Jesus was not God. God cannot be tempted (James 1:13). Also, if Jesus were God, the Devil would never have asked Jesus to worship him. It was for desiring to be like God (and thus be worshiped like God) that the Devil was thrown out of heaven in the first place (Isa. 14:12–15), and it is unreasonable to think that the Devil would have believed that God could now be persuaded to worship him.

2. In the biblical culture, the act of worship was not directed only to God. It was very common to worship (i.e., pay homage to) men of a higher status. This is hard to see in the English translations of the Bible. The translators usually translate the same Hebrew or Greek word as "worship" when it involves God, but as some other word, such as "bow before," or "pay homage to," when it involves men. Nevertheless, worship is clearly there in the Hebrew and Greek texts. For example:

to Sodom (Gen. 19:1).

The above list is just a small sampling of all the examples that could be drawn from Scripture. Checking the references in most Bibles will confirm what has already been pointed out—that the translators avoided the word "worship" when men are worshipping men, but used it in reference to worshipping God. These Scriptures are more than enough proof that "worship" was a part of the culture, and a way of showing respect or reverence. Because of the theological stance that only God should be worshipped, translators have avoided the English word "worship," in spite of the fact that it is clearly in the original text. We assert that not translating what is clearly in the text has created a false impression in the Christian community. It is very clear in the biblical text that men "worshipped" men.

There is a sense, of course, in which there is a very special worship (homage, allegiance, reverent love and devotion) to be given only to God, but there is no unique word that represents that special worship. Rather, it is a posture of the heart. Scripturally, this must be determined from context. Even words like proskuneo , which are almost always used of God, are occasionally used for showing respect to other men (Acts 10:25). And the word "serve" in Matthew 4:10 is latreuo , which is sometimes translated worship, but used of the worship of other things as well as of the true God (Acts 7:42 - KJV), "…worship the host of heaven…" and Romans 1:25, "served created things"). Thus, when Christ said, "You shall worship the Lord thy God and Him only shall you worship ," he was speaking of a special worship of God that comes from the heart, not using a special vocabulary word that is reserved for the worship of God only.

Understanding that in the Bible both God and men are worshipped forces us as readers to look, not at the specific word for "worship," but rather at the heart of the one doing the worship. It explains why God rejects the worship of those whose hearts are really not with Him. It also explains why there are occasions in the Bible when men reject the worship of other men. In Acts 10:26, Peter asks Cornelius to stand up. In Revelation 19:10, an angel stops John from worshipping him. In these cases it is not the worship, per se , that was wrong, or it would have been wrong in all the other places throughout the Bible. In the aforementioned accounts, the one about to be worshipped saw that it was inappropriate or felt uncomfortable in the situation. Actually, the example of John in Revelation is another strong proof that men did worship others beside God. If it were forbidden to worship anyone beside God, the great Apostle John would never have even started to worship the angel . The fact that he did so actually proves the point that others beside God were worshipped in the biblical culture.

It is clear why people fell down and worshipped Jesus while he walked the earth and performed great miracles: people loved him and respected him greatly. It is also clear why we are to worship him now—he has earned our love and our highest reverence. He died to set us free, and God has honored him by seating him at His own right hand above all other powers and authorities.

Broughton, James and Southgate, Peter, The Trinity, True or False? (The Dawn Book Supply, 66 Carlton Rd., Nottingham, England, 1995), pp. 194 and 195; Dana, Mary S. B., Letters Addressed to Relatives and Friends, Chiefly in Reply to Arguments in Support of the Doctrine of the Trinity, (James Munroe and Co., Boston, 1845. Reprinted 1994 by Spirit & Truth Fellowship International, 180 Robert Curry Drive, Martinsville, IN 46151), p. 21; Morgridge, op. cit., True Believer's Defence Against Charges Preferred by Trinitarians , pp. 46–52; Norton, Andrews, A Statement of Reasons for Not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians, (Boston: American Unitarian Association, 10th edition, 1877), pp. 447 and 448; Snedeker, op. cit., Our Heavenly Father Has No Equals , pp. 389 and 390.

This is a similar record to Mark 2:7 and the explanation can be found there.

Although this verse is sometimes used to "prove" that Christ is God, the verse actually militates against the idea. Scripture states very clearly that Jesus was a man . The only "man" with authority in the entire context is Jesus. When the crowd saw Jesus performing miracles, they praised God for giving such power to the man, Jesus. We do the exact same thing today. For example, Christians praise God for giving such a powerful outreach ministry to Billy Graham. We trust that no one would think we Christians are saying that Dr. Graham is God just because we believe God has given him power.

Carefully reading a verse is the only way to begin to properly interpret it. In this case, it is clear that Christ's authority was given to him. Many other Scriptures say the same thing: "…God has made …Jesus…both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:36). God "placed" everything under his feet and "appointed" him to be Head of the Church (Eph. 1:22). If Christ were really God, and co-equal and co-eternal with the Father as the Trinitarians teach, then it is illogical to say Christ was given authority. God, by definition, has authority. The authority Jesus now has is delegated and derived, and is not a function of his "divine nature." The wording of these Scriptures is, in actuality, a refutation of the Trinity. Jesus is that man to whom God gave "all authority."

1. Eusebius (ca. 260—ca. 340) was the Bishop of Caesarea and is known as "the Father of Church History." Although he wrote prolifically, his most celebrated work is his Ecclesiastical History , a history of the Church from the Apostolic period until his own time. Today it is still the principal work on the history of the Church at that time. Eusebius quotes many verses in his writings, and Matthew 28:19 is one of them. He never quotes it as it appears today in modern Bibles, but always finishes the verse with the words "in my name ." For example, in Book III of his History , Chapter 5, Section 2, which is about the Jewish persecution of early Christians, we read:

What king or prince in any age of the world, what philosopher, legislator or prophet, in civilized or barbarous lands, has attained so great a height of excellence, I say not after death, but while living still, and full of mighty power, as to fill the ears and tongues of all mankind with the praises of his name? Surely none save our only Savior has done this, when, after his victory over death, he spoke the word to his followers, and fulfilled it by the event, saying to them, "Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name ."

Eusebius was present at the council of Nicaea and was involved in the debates about Arian teaching and whether Christ was God or a creation of God. We feel confident that if the manuscripts he had in front of him read "in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," he would never have quoted it as "in my name." Thus, we believe that the earliest manuscripts read "in my name ," and that the phrase was enlarged to reflect the orthodox position as Trinitarian influence spread.

2. If Matthew 28:19 is accurate as it stands in modern versions, then there is no explanation for the apparent disobedience of the Apostles, since there is not a single occurrence of them baptizing anyone according to that formula. All the records in the New Testament show that people were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus, just as the text Eusebius was quoting said to do. In other words, the "name of Jesus Christ," i.e., all that he represents, is the element, or substance, into which people were figuratively "baptized." "Peter replied, 'Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins…'" (Acts 2:38). "…they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 8:16). "So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ…" (Acts 10:48). "On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 19:5). We cannot imagine any reason for the Apostles and others in Acts to disobey a command of the risen Christ. To us, it seems clear that Christ said to baptize in his name , and that was what the early Church did.

3. Even if the Father, Son and holy spirit are mentioned in the original text of this verse, that does not prove the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity states that the Father, Son and "Holy Spirit" together make "one God." This verse refers to three, but never says they are "one." The three things this verse refers to are: God the Father, the Lord Jesus and the power of holy spirit (We say "holy spirit" instead of "Holy Spirit" because we believe that this verse is referring to God's gift of holy spirit that is born inside each believer. It is lower case because it refers to the gift of God and not God. The original Greek texts were all written in what scholars call "uncial script," which uses all capital letters. Thus, although we today make a distinction between "Spirit" and "spirit," in the originals every use was just "SPIRIT." Whether or not it should be capitalized is a translator's decision, based on the context of the verse. For more on the form of the early texts, see the note on Heb. 1:8).

No passage of Scripture asserts that God is three. If it be asked what I intend to qualify by the numeral three, I answer, anything which the reader pleases. There is no Scripture which asserts that God is three persons, three agents, three beings, three Gods, three spirits, three substances, three modes, three offices, three attributes, three divinities, three infinite minds, three somewhats, three opposites, or three in any sense whatever. The truth of this has been admitted by every Trinitarian who ever wrote or preached on the subject."

4. It is sometimes stated that in order to be baptized into something, that something has to be God, but that reasoning is false, because Scripture states that the Israelites were "baptized into Moses" (1 Cor. 10:2).

5. It is sometimes stated that the Father, Son and spirit have one "name," so they must be one. It is a basic tenet of Trinitarian doctrine not to "confound the persons" (Athanasian Creed), and it does indeed confound the persons to call all three of them by one "name," especially since no such "name" is ever given in Scripture ("God" is not a name). If the verse were teaching Trinitarian doctrine and mentioned the three "persons," then it should use the word "names." There is a much better explanation for why "name" is used in the singular.

A study of the culture and language shows that the word "name" stood for "authority." Examples are very numerous, but space allows only a small selection. Deuteronomy 18:5 and 7 speak of serving in the "name" (authority) of the LORD . Deuteronomy 18:22 speaks of prophesying in the "name" (authority) of the LORD . In 1 Samuel 17:45, David attacked Goliath in the "name" (authority) of the LORD , and he blessed the people in the "name" (authority) of the LORD . In 2 Kings 2:24, Elisha cursed troublemakers in the "name" (authority) of the LORD . These Scriptures are only a small sample, but they are very clear. If the modern versions of Matthew 28:19 are correct (which we doubt, see above), then we would still not see this verse as proving the Trinity. Rather, they would be showing the importance of the three: the Father who is God, the Son (who was given authority by God [Matt. 28:18]) and the holy spirit, which is the gift of God.

6. In reading the book of Matthew, we note that there is no presentation of the doctrine of the Trinity. Some prominent Trinitarians doubt that the Apostles were even introduced to the doctrine until after they received holy spirit. It would be strange indeed for Christ to introduce the doctrine of the Trinity here in the next-to-last verse in the book without it being mentioned earlier.

Occasionally this verse is used to prove the Trinity because it is said that the only way that Jesus could always be with his Church is if he were God. However, that is an unproven assumption, and is not stated in Scripture. Scripture shows us that there is a use of "with us" that is spiritual in nature, not physical. We must be careful not to underestimate the power and authority God gave Christ when He set him at His own right hand and gave him a name that is above every name. Just two verses before this one, Christ said he had been given "all authority." God gave Christ all authority, and made Christ Head of the Church, so it is only logical to conclude that God also gave Christ the power to stay in communion with his Church.

On several occasions the Lord Jesus told the Pharisees that their doctrine was wrong. Mark 2:7 records an instance where this was the case. There is no verse of Scripture that says, "only God can forgive sins." That idea came from their tradition. The truth is that God grants the authority to forgive sins as He pleases. He granted that authority to the Son and, furthermore, to the Apostles. John 20:23 records Jesus saying to them: "If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven…." If the Pharisees were right, and only God can forgive sins, then God, Jesus and the Apostles were all God, because they all had the authority to forgive sins.

1. There are some Trinitarians who insist that the term "Son of God" implies a pre-existence and that Jesus is God. Once the doctrine of pre-existence was propounded, a vocabulary had to be developed to support it, and thus non-biblical phrases such as "eternally begotten" and "eternal Son" were invented. Not only are these phrases not in the Bible or secular literature, they do not make sense. By definition, a "Son" has a beginning, and by definition, "eternal" means "without beginning." To put the two words together when they never appear together in the Bible or in common usage is doing nothing more than creating a nonsensical term. The meaning of "Son of God" is literal: God the Father impregnated Mary, and nine months later Mary had a son, Jesus. Thus, Jesus is "the Son of God." "This is how the birth [Greek = "beginning"] of Jesus Christ came about…," says Matthew 1:18, and that occurred about 2000 years ago, not in "eternity past."

2. When the phrase "Son of God" is studied and compared with phrases about the Father, a powerful truth is revealed. The phrase "Son of God" is common in the New Testament, but the phrase "God the Son" never appears. In contrast, phrases like "God the Father," "God our Father," "the God and Father" and "God, even the Father" occur many times. Are we to believe that the Son is actually God just as the Father is, but the Father is plainly called "God, the Father" over and over and yet the Son is not even once called "God the Son"? This is surely strong evidence that Jesus is not actually "God the Son" at all.

3. Anyone insisting that someone is somehow God simply because he is called "Son of God" is going to run into trouble explaining all the verses in the Bible that call other beings "sons of God." The phrase, "son of God" was commonly used of angels in the Old Testament [see Gen. 6:2; Job 1:6, 2:1 (the phrase in these verses is often translated as "angels," but the KJV says "sons"), and used of Israel (Exod. 4:22; etc.)]. In the New Testament, it is used of Christians, those who are born of God (see 1 John 3:1 and 2—occasionally, "sons" gets translated into "children" to be more inclusive, but the original language is clear). A study of Scripture reveals quite clearly that "son of God" does not in any way mean "God."

4. Trying to prove the Trinity from the phrase "Son of God" brings up a point that often gets missed in debates about whether or not the Trinity exists, and that point has to do with words and the way they are defined. The Bible was not written in a vacuum, and its vocabulary was in common use in the culture of the times. Words that are spoken "on the street" every day have a meaning. If someone writes a letter, it is natural for the reader to assume that the definitions of the words in the letter are the definitions common to the contemporary culture. If the person writing uses the words in a new or unusual way, he would need to say that in the letter, or the reader might misunderstand what he was saying.

The word "son" is a good example. We know what the word means, and we know that if there is a father and a son, the son came after the father. God is clearly called the Father and Christ is clearly called the Son. Thus, the meaning should be simple and clear. But according to Trinitarian doctrine, the Father and Son are both "eternal." This teaching nullifies the clear definitions of the words and makes the vocabulary "mysterious." There is no place in Scripture where the meanings of the words describing the Son are said to be changed from their ordinary meaning to some "new and special" meaning.

To explain the problem their doctrine has created, Trinitarians say that the Son was "eternally begotten," but that phrase itself creates two problems. First, it is not in Scripture, and leads to the erroneous teaching that the Bible does not contain a vocabulary sufficient to explain its own doctrines. Second, the phrase itself is nonsense, and just lends to the belief that the Bible is basically "mysterious" and cannot be fathomed by the average Christian. After all, "eternal" means "without beginning," and "begotten" means "born," which clearly indicates a beginning. The fact that the two words are inherently contradictory is why we say that combining them makes a nonsense word.

The doctrine of the Trinity has caused a number of problems with the vocabulary of the New Testament. For example, Hebrews 1:2 mentions that Jesus Christ was made "heir" by God. By definition, no one is his own heir. To say that Christ is God and then say that Christ is the heir of God is nonsense, and abuses the vocabulary that God used to make His Word accessible to the common Christian and believable to those not yet saved. It changes the simple truth of the Bible into a "mystery" no one can understand.

There are many words that indicate that Jesus was not equal to the Father. Christ was "made Lord"; he was "appointed" by God; he "obeyed" God; he did God's will and not his own; he prayed to God; he called God "my God," etc., etc. Trinitarian teaching contradicts the conclusion that any unindoctrinated reader would arrive at when reading these Scriptures, and insists that the Father and the Son are co-equal. Trinitarians teach that the human nature (but not the God nature) of Christ was subservient to the Father and that is why the Bible is worded the way it is. We believe that teaching twists the clear and simple words of Scripture, and we point out that there is not one verse that says that Christ had two natures. Historians admit that the doctrine of the two natures was "clarified" late in the debates about the nature of Christ (actually six out of the seven Ecumenical Councils dealt in some way with the nature of Christ), and we believe that the only reason the doctrine of the two natures was invented was to support the Trinity.

The Trinitarian concept of the two natures also forces a "mysterious" interpretation of the otherwise clear verses about Jesus' humanity. Interpreting the verses about Jesus is quite simple. He was from the line of David and "…made like his brothers in every way…" (Heb. 2:17). He was "the Last Adam" (1 Cor. 15:45) because, like Adam, he was a direct creation of God. Over and over, the Bible calls him a "man." However, these words are less than genuine if Christ were both 100 percent God and 100 percent man. How can anyone honestly say that Jesus is both fully God and fully man, and then say that he is like his brothers in every way? The standard "explanation" given is that, "It is a mystery and no one can understand it." We ask the reader to consider carefully the choice before you. We are arguing for reading the words in the Bible and then just believing what they say. We assert that one cannot do that if he believes in the Trinity. Trinitarian doctrine forces the meanings of clear and simple words like "Father," "Son," "heir" and "man" to take on new and "mysterious" meanings.

1. Some Trinitarians believe that Christ must be God because they are both called "Savior." There are many references to God the Father being called "Savior." That makes perfect sense because He is the author of the plan of salvation and is also very active in our salvation. For example, God, the Father, is called "Savior" in Isaiah 43:11; 1 Timothy 1:1, 2:3, 4:10; Titus 1:3, 2:10, 3:4; Jude 25. Jesus Christ is called "Savior" because he is the agent who carried out God's plan, and without whom it could not have come to pass.

2. The term "savior" is used of many people in the Bible. This is hard to see in the English versions because, when it is used of men, the translators almost always translated it as "deliverer." This in and of itself shows that modern translators have a Trinitarian bias that was not in the original languages. The only reason to translate the same word as "Savior" when it applies to God or Christ, but as "deliverer" when it applies to men, is to make the term seem unique to God and Jesus when in fact it is not. This is a good example of how the actual meaning of Scripture can be obscured if the translators are not careful when they translate the text. God's gracious provision of "saviors" is not recognized when the same word is translated "Savior" for God and Christ but "deliverer" for others. Also lost is the testimony in Scripture that God works through people to bring His power to bear. Of course, the fact that there are other "saviors" does not take away from Jesus Christ, who is the only one who could and did save us from our sins and eternal death.

If all the great men and women who were "saviors" were openly portrayed as such in the English versions, the grace and mercy God demonstrates in saving His people by "saviors" He has raised up would be openly displayed. Furthermore, we believe no reader would confuse the true God with the people He was working through. A good example that shows God raising up "saviors" to rescue Israel through history occurs in Nehemiah in a prayer of confession and thanksgiving to God. The Israelites prayed, "…But when they [Israel] were oppressed they cried out to you. From heaven you heard them, and in your great compassion you gave them deliverers [saviors], who rescued them from the hand of their enemies" (Neh. 9:27). Some other examples of men designated as "savior" are in 2 Kings 13:5; Isaiah 19:20; Obadiah 21. It is incorrect to say that because Christ and God are both called "Savior," they are one and the same, just as it would be incorrect to say that the "saviors" God raised up throughout history were the same individual as Jesus Christ.

There are those who believe that only God can forgive sins, but that is not true. For an explanation applicable to this verse, see Mark 2:7.

1. Occasionally, Trinitarians will cite this verse as proof that Jesus is God, because it states that God visited His people. However, that phrase in no way proves the Trinity. Any word or phrase in Scripture must be interpreted in light of both its immediate and remote contexts. In this case, the immediate context alerts us to the truth being presented. The people called Jesus "a great prophet," which tells us right away that they did not think he was God.

2. God "visits" His people by sending them some blessing. This is clear from verses like Ruth 1:6 (KJV), "Then she [Naomi] arose with her daughters in law, that she might return from the country of Moab: for she had heard in the country of Moab how that the LORD had visited his people in giving them bread." In the book of Ruth, Yahweh visited His people by sending them bread, while, in the Gospels, God visited His people by sending them "a great prophet" who raised a widow's son from the dead.

3. A lesson we should learn from this verse and others like it is that God works through His people. When He does, He often gets the credit even when people do the actual work. When God works through people, the Word records things like, "…God has visited His people" (Luke 7:16 - NASB) and "…great things God has done…" (Luke 8:39 - NASB). Americans today use the same language. If an acquaintance gives you some money when you need it and says, "The Lord put it on my heart to give this to you," you might well say to someone else, "The Lord really blessed me today." Neither you nor any other person would believe that you were saying that the person who gave you money was "the Lord." Everyone understands that the Lord works through people, and so our language, like biblical language, reflects that knowledge.

1. God works His miracles through people. Thus, whenever a miracle is performed, there are thanks for the one who stood in faith and performed the miracle, and also thanks and glory to God who supplied the power and actually did the work. The whole lesson of Hebrews 11, which speaks of the heroes of faith, is that almost always someone has to walk in faith for God's power to work, and the people listed in Hebrews 11 were "commended for their faith" (verse 39). So when Jesus performed miracles, it was not just he, but God acting also, just as it is when we, as Christians, do miracles, healings, etc. In fact, Jesus gave credit to the Father for what he was accomplishing. "The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work" (John 14:10b).

Some people use this verse to try to prove the Trinity or the pre-existence of Christ by saying that Jesus must have existed in the beginning with God because he witnessed the original war between God and Satan, and saw Satan thrown down to earth. However, that is not at all what the verse is saying. First, that interpretation makes no sense in the context. Jesus had sent out the disciples to preach the Good News, and had given them authority over demons. When they returned to report all they had done, they excitedly exclaimed, "…Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name" (Luke 10:17). To fully understand their excitement, we must remember that no one before then had ever exercised authority over demons. Neither Moses, nor David, nor Elijah, nor any Old Testament "heroes" did what these disciples were now doing, and they were excited about it, as well they should have been.

In response to their report, it does not make sense that Jesus would say that he had been around to see Satan cast out of heaven. Such a statement would be totally unrelated to what the disciples said, and also to the following verses, in which Jesus reconfirmed the authority they had and admonished them not to rejoice in their spiritual authority on earth, but that their "…names are written in heaven." Furthermore, there no reason to believe the disciples would have understood any reference to Satan falling from heaven millennia ago. Although it is true that Satan was cast to earth in one sense (Rev. 12:4; Isa. 14:12; Ezek. 28:17), it is also true that he is regularly in heaven. He shows up before God and accuses the believers (Job 1:6, 2:1; Rev. 12:10). The key to understanding Satan's presence in heaven now is to realize that there are two wars between God and the Devil mentioned in Revelation 12.

The first war, long ago, involved the dragon and one-third of the angels (Rev. 12:4). Satan was cast out of heaven, but more in the sense of heavenly authority and position than heavenly location. Scripture testifies that he comes before God regularly. The second war (Rev. 12:7–9), is still future. In this second war, Michael and his angels will fight the Devil and his angels, but the Devil will not be strong enough to retain his place in heaven.[16] He will be cast down to earth and denied any more access to heaven. Not surprisingly, this will cause great rejoicing in heaven among the angels who have had to listen to Satan's accusations.

The angels will rejoice when the Devil is forced from heaven, but he will be enraged about being denied access to God, so he will viciously attack the "…woman who had given birth to the male child" (Rev. 12:13; in this verse, the woman is not Mary, but Israel, just as Israel is portrayed as a woman in many Old Testament verses). When the Dragon cannot destroy Israel, he will go after "…those who obey God's commandments… (Rev. 12:17).

God did not destroy the Devil when he rebelled the first time. In fact, because God is just, He has allowed the Devil to stand "before" Him, that is, in His presence, and accuse the believers. That is exactly what is portrayed in the book of Job and Revelation 12:10. However, shortly before the Battle of Armageddon, the Devil will be cast out of God's presence forever.

When Jesus spoke to his disciples about seeing Satan fall like lightning, they rightly believed, as should we, that Satan is regularly in the presence of God in heaven, accusing the believers. Therefore, it would not have occurred to them that Jesus was making a reference to seeing Satan ejected from heaven eons before, because to them (and anyone else reading and believing the book of Job), he had not been.

If Jesus did not mean that he had seen Satan fall from heaven ages ago, what did he mean? The tense of the verb "saw" gives us some help, because it shows us that Jesus was watching for a period of time, but not necessarily long ago. If Jesus had meant to say, "I have seen Satan cast out of heaven long ago," it seems the Greek would be worded quite differently. The NASB gets the tense of the verb correctly when it says, "…I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning."

Consider the situation of Jesus and his disciples: Satan was in heaven, standing before God and accusing the believers. Meanwhile, Satan's demons on earth were doing their evil work. Things seemed to be running smoothly enough when suddenly there was a major disruption of a kind that had not happened before. All over Israel demons were being cast out of people and their evil work was being disrupted—by people! The local demons did not know what to do; they had never encountered people with the authority to cast them out, and they needed guidance. Satan responded by coming quickly from heaven, falling like lightning to try to repair the damage being done to his evil kingdom. God showed this to Jesus to show him the powerful impact that his disciples were having, and no doubt to give him a vision for the kind of things that could happen when thousands upon thousands of people, not just several dozen, would be empowered disciples.

1. It is imperative that the serious student of the Bible come to a basic understanding of logos , which is translated as "Word" in John 1:1. Most Trinitarians believe that the word logos refers directly to Jesus Christ, so in most versions of John logos is capitalized and translated "Word" (some versions even write "Christ" in John 1:1 - TLB & NLV). However, a study of the Greek word logos shows that it occurs more than 300 times in the New Testament, and in both the NIV and the KJV it is capitalized only 7 times (and even those versions disagree on exactly when to capitalize it). When a word that occurs more than 300 times is capitalized fewer than 10 times, it is obvious that when to capitalize and when not to capitalize is a translators' decision based on their particular understanding of Scripture.

As it is used throughout Scripture, logos has a very wide range of meanings along two basic lines of thought. One is the mind and products of the mind like "reason," (thus "logic" is related to logos ) and the other is the expression of that reason as a "word," "saying," "command" etc. The Bible itself demonstrates the wide range of meaning logos has, and some of the ways it is translated in Scripture are: account, appearance, book, command, conversation, eloquence, flattery, grievance, heard, instruction, matter, message, ministry, news, proposal, question, reason, reasonable, reply, report, rule, rumor, said, say, saying, sentence, speaker, speaking, speech, stories, story, talk, talking, teaching, testimony, thing, things, this, truths, what, why, word and words.

The above list is not exhaustive, but it does show that logos has a very wide range of meaning. With all the definitions and ways logos can be translated, how can we decide which meaning of logos to choose for any one verse? How can it be determined what the logos in John 1:1 is? Any occurrence of logos has to be carefully studied in its context in order to get the proper meaning. We assert that the logos in John 1:1 cannot be Jesus. Please notice that "Jesus Christ" is not a lexical definition of logos . This verse does not say, "In the beginning was Jesus." "The Word" is not synonymous with Jesus, or even "the Messiah." The word logos in John 1:1 refers to God's creative self-expression—His reason, purposes and plans, especially as they are brought into action. It refers to God's self-expression, or communication, of Himself. This has come to pass through His creation (Rom. 1:19 and 20), and especially the heavens (Ps. 19). It has come through the spoken word of the prophets and through Scripture, the written Word. Most notably and finally, it has come into being through His Son (Heb. 1:1 and 2).

The word logos then, denoting both "reason" and "speech," was a philosophical term adopted by Alexandrian Judaism before St. Paul wrote, to express the manifestation of the Unseen God in the creation and government of the World. It included all modes by which God makes Himself known to man. As His reason , it denoted His purpose or design; as His speech , it implied His revelation. Christian teachers, when they adopted this term, exalted and fixed its meaning by attaching to it two precise and definite ideas: (1) "The Word is a Divine Person," (2) "The Word became incarnate in Jesus Christ." It is obvious that these two propositions must have altered materially the significance of all the subordinate terms connected with the idea of the logos . [18]

It is important to note that it was "Christian teachers" who attached the idea of a "divine person" to the word logos . It is certainly true that when the word logos came to be understood as being Jesus Christ, the understanding of John 1:1 was altered substantially. Lightfoot correctly understands that the early meaning of logos concerned reason and speech, not "Jesus Christ." Norton develops the concept of logos as "reason" and writes:

There is no word in English answering to the Greek word logos , as used here [in John 1:1]. It was employed to denote a mode of conception concerning the Deity, familiar at the time when St. John wrote and intimately blended with the philosophy of his age, but long since obsolete, and so foreign from our habits of thinking that it is not easy for us to conform our minds to its apprehension. The Greek word logos , in one of its primary senses, answered nearly to our word Reason . The logos of God was regarded, not in its strictest sense, as merely the Reason of God; but, under certain aspects, as the Wisdom, the Mind, the Intellect of God (p. 307).

Norton postulates that perhaps "the power of God" would be a good translation for logos (p. 323). Buzzard sets forth "plan," "purpose" or "promise" as three acceptable translations. Broughton and Southgate say "thoughts, plan or purpose of God, particularly in action." Many scholars identify logos with God's wisdom and reason.

The logos is the expression of God, and is His communication of Himself, just as a "word" is an outward expression of a person's thoughts. This outward expression of God has now occurred through His Son, and thus it is perfectly understandable why Jesus is called the "Word." Jesus is an outward expression of God's reason, wisdom, purpose and plan. For the same reason, we call revelation "a word from God" and the Bible "the Word of God."

If we understand that the logos is God's expression—His plan, purposes, reason and wisdom, it is clear that they were indeed with Him "in the beginning." Scripture says that God's wisdom was "from the beginning" (Prov. 8:23). It was very common in Hebrew writing to personify a concept such as wisdom. No ancient Jew reading Proverbs would think that God's wisdom was a separate person, even though it is portrayed as one in verses like Proverbs 8:29 and 30: "…when He marked out the foundations of the earth…I [wisdom] was the craftsman at his side…."

2. Most Jewish readers of the gospel of John would have been familiar with the concept of God's "word" being with God as He worked to bring His creation into existence. There is an obvious working of God's power in Genesis 1 as He brings His plan into concretion by speaking things into being. The Targums are well known for describing the wisdom and action of God as His "word." This is especially important to note because the Targums are the Aramaic translations and paraphrases of the Old Testament, and Aramaic was the spoken language of many Jews at the time of Christ. Remembering that a Targum is usually a paraphrase of what the Hebrew text says, note how the following examples attribute action to the word:

The above examples demonstrate that the Jews were familiar with the idea of God's Word referring to His wisdom and action. This is especially important to note because these Jews were fiercely monotheistic, and did not in any way believe in a "Triune God." They were familiar with the idioms of their own language, and understood that the wisdom and power of God were being personified as "word."

The Greek-speaking Jews were also familiar with God's creative force being called "the word." J. H. Bernard writes, "When we turn from Palestine to Alexandria [Egypt], from Hebrew sapiential [wisdom] literature to that which was written in Greek, we find this creative wisdom identified with the Divine logos , Hebraism and Hellenism thus coming into contact."[20] One example of this is in the Apocryphal book known as the Wisdom of Solomon, which says, "O God of my fathers and Lord of mercy who hast made all things by thy word (logos ), and by thy wisdom hast formed man…" (9:1 and 2). In this verse, the "word" and "wisdom" are seen as the creative force of God, but without being a "person."

3. The logos , that is, the plan, purpose and wisdom of God, "became flesh" (came into concretion or physical existence) in Jesus Christ. Jesus is the "…image of the invisible God…" (Col. 1:15) and His chief emissary, representative and agent. Because Jesus perfectly obeyed the Father, he represents everything that God could communicate about Himself in a human person. As such, Jesus could say, If you have seen me, you have seen the Father (John 14:9). The fact that the logos "became" flesh shows that it did not exist that way before. There is no pre-existence for Jesus in this verse other than his figurative "existence" as the plan, purpose or wisdom of God for the salvation of man. The same is true with the "word" in writing. It had no literal pre-existence as a "spirit-book" somewhere in eternity past, but it came into being as God gave the revelation to people and they wrote it down.

4. The last phrase in the verse, which most versions translate as "and the Word was God," should not be translated that way. The Greek language uses the word "God" (Greek = theos ) to refer to the Father as well as to other authorities. These include the Devil (2 Cor. 4:4), lesser gods (1 Cor. 8:5) and men with great authority (John 10:34 and 35; Acts 12:22). At the time the New Testament was written, Greek manuscripts were written in all capital letters. The upper and lower case letters were not blended as we do today. Thus, the distinction that we today make between "God" and "god" could not be made, and the context became the judge in determining to whom "THEOS " referred.

Although context is the final arbiter, it is almost always the case in the New Testament that when "God" refers to the Father, the definite article appears in the Greek text (this article can be seen only in the Greek text, it is never translated into English). Translators are normally very sensitive to this (see John 10:33 below). The difference between theos with and without the article occurs in John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with "the theos ," and the Word was "theos ." Since the definite article is missing from the second occurrence of "theos " ("God,") the usual meaning would be "god" or "divine." The New English Bible gets the sense of this phrase by translating it, "What God was, the Word was." James Moffatt who was a professor of Greek and New Testament Exegesis at Mansfield College in Oxford, England, and author of the well-known Moffatt Bible, translated the phrase, "the logos was divine."

In a case like this we cannot do other than go to the Greek, which is theos en ho logos . Ho is the definite article, the , and it can be seen that there is a definite article with logos , but not with theos . When in Greek two nouns are joined by the verb "to be," and when both have the definite article, then the one is fully intended to be identified with the other; but when one of them is without the article, it becomes more an adjective than a noun, and describes rather the class or sphere to which the other belongs.

An illustration from English will make this clear. If I say, "The preacher is the man," I use the definite article before both preacher and man, and I thereby identify the preacher with some quite definite individual man whom I have in mind. But, if I say, "The preacher is man," I have omitted the definite article before man, and what I mean is that the preacher must be classified as a man, he is in the sphere of manhood, he is a human being.

[In the last clause of John 1:1] John has no article before theos , God. The logos , therefore, is not identified as God or with God; the word theos has become adjectival and describes the sphere to which the logos belongs. We would, therefore, have to say that this means that the logos belongs to the same sphere as God; without being identified with God, the logos has the same kind of life and being as God. Here the NEB [New English Bible] finds the perfect translation: "What God was, the Word was."[21]

5. It is important to understand that the Bible was not written in a vacuum, but was recorded in the context of a culture and was understood by those who lived in that culture. Sometimes verses that seem superfluous or confusing to us were meaningful to the readers of the time because they were well aware of the culture and beliefs being propounded by those around them. In the first century, there were many competing beliefs in the world (and unfortunately, erroneous beliefs in Christendom) that were confusing believers about the identities of God and Christ. For centuries before Christ, and at the time the New Testament was written, the irrational beliefs about the gods of Greece had been handed down. This body of religious information was known by the word "muthos ," which we today call "myths" or "mythology." This muthos , these myths, were often irrational, mystical and beyond understanding or explanation. The more familiar one is with the Greek myths, the better he will understand our emphasis on their irrationality. If one is unfamiliar with them, it would be valuable to read a little on the subject. Greek mythology is an important part of the cultural background of the New Testament.

The myths were often incomprehensible, but nevertheless, they had been widely accepted as the "revelation of the gods." The pervasiveness of the muthos in the Greco-Roman world of the New Testament can be seen sticking up out of the New Testament like the tip of an iceberg above the water. When Paul and Barnabas healed a cripple in Lystra, the people assumed that the gods had come down in human form, and the priest of Zeus came to offer sacrifices to them. While Paul was in Athens, he became disturbed because of the large number of idols there that were statues to the various gods. In Ephesus, Paul's teaching actually started a riot. When some of the locals realized that if his doctrine spread, "…the temple of the great goddess Artemis will be discredited, and the goddess herself, who is worshiped throughout the province of Asia and the world, will be robbed of her divine majesty" (Acts 19:27). There are many other examples that show that there was a muthos , i.e., a body of religious knowledge that was in large part incomprehensible to the human mind, firmly established in the minds of some of the common people in New Testament times.

Starting several centuries before Christ, certain Greek philosophers worked to replace the muthos with what they called the logos , a reasonable and rational explanation of reality. It is appropriate that, in the writing of the New Testament, God used the word logos , not muthos , to describe His wisdom, reason and plan. God has not come to us in mystical experiences and irrational beliefs that cannot be understood; rather, He reveals Himself in ways that can be rationally understood and persuasively argued.

Gnosticism took many forms, but generally Gnostics taught that there was a supreme and unknowable Being, which they designated as the "Monad." The Monad produced various gods, who in turn produced other gods (these gods were called by different names, in part because of their power or position). One of these gods, called the "Demiurge," created the earth and then ruled over it as an angry, evil and jealous god. This evil god, Gnostics believed, was the god of the Old Testament, called Elohim . The Monad sent another god, "Christ," to bring special gnosis (knowledge) to mankind and free them from the influence of the evil Elohim . Thus, a Gnostic Christian would agree that Elohim created the heavens and earth, but he would not agree that He was the supreme God. Most Gnostics would also state that Elohim and Christ were at cross-purposes with each other. This is why it was so important for John 1:1 to say that the logos was with God, which at first glance seems to be a totally unnecessary statement.

The opening of the gospel of John is a wonderful expression of God's love. God "…wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:4). He authored the opening of John in such a way that it reveals the truth about Him and His plan for all of mankind and, at the same time, refutes Gnostic teaching. It says that from the beginning there was the logos (the reason, plan, power), which was with God. There was not another "god" existing with God, especially not a god opposed to God. Furthermore, God's plan was like God; it was divine. God's plan became flesh when God impregnated Mary.

The Racovian Catechism , one of the great doctrinal works of the Unitarian movement of the 14th and 15th centuries, states that the word "beginning" in John 1:1 refers to the beginning of the new dispensation and thus is similar to Mark 1:1, which starts, "The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ…."

In the cited passage (John 1:1) wherein the Word is said to have been in the beginning, there is no reference to an antecedent eternity, without commencement; because mention is made here of a beginning , which is opposed to that eternity. But the word beginning , used absolutely, is to be understood of the subject matter under consideration. Thus, Daniel 8:1 (ASV), "In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared to me, even unto me, Daniel, after that which appeared unto me at the first ." John 15:27 (ASV), "And ye also shall bear witness because ye have been with me from the beginning ." John 16:4, "…these things I said not unto you from the beginning because I was with you. And Acts 11:15 (ASV), "And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on us at the beginning ." As then the matter of which John is treating is the gospel, or the things transacted under the gospel, nothing else ought to be understood here beside the beginning of the gospel; a matter clearly known to the Christians whom he addressed, namely, the advent and preaching of John the Baptist, according to the testimony of all the evangelists [i.e., Matthew, Mark, Luke and John], each of whom begins his history with the coming and preaching of the Baptist. Mark indeed (Chapter 1:1) expressly states that this was the beginning of the gospel. In like manner, John himself employs the word beginning, placed thus absolutely, in the introduction to his First Epistle, at which beginning he uses the same term (logos) Word, as if he meant to be his own interpreter ["That which is from the beginning…concerning the Word (logos) of life." 1 John 1:1].[23]

8. To fully understand any passage of Scripture, it is imperative to study the context. To fully understand John 1:1, the rest of the chapter needs to be understood as well, and the rest of the chapter adds more understanding to John 1:1. We believe that these notes on John 1:1, read together with the rest of John 1 and our notes on John 1:3, 10, 14a, 15, and 18 will help make the entire first chapter of John more understandable.

Broughton, and Southgate, op. cit., The Trinity, True or False?, pp. 238–248; Buzzard, op. cit., Doctrine of the Trinity , pp. 111–119; Morgridge, op. cit., True Believer's Defence Against Charges Preferred by Trinitarians , pp. 107–109; Norton, op. cit., A Statement of Reasons for Not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians, pp. 307–374; Robinson, op. cit., Honest to God , p. 71; Snedeker, op. cit., Our Heavenly Father Has No Equals , pp. 313–326.

1. Trinitarians use this verse to show that Christ made the world and its contents. However, that is not the case. What we have learned from the study of John 1:1 above will be helpful in properly interpreting this verse.

2. The pronoun in verse 3 can legitimately be translated as "it." It does not have to be translated as "him," and it does not have to refer to a "person" in any way. A primary reason why people get the idea that "the Word" is a person is that the pronoun "he" is used with it. The Greek text does, of course, have the masculine pronoun, because like many languages, including Spanish, French, German, Latin, Hebrew, etc., the Greek language assigns a gender to all nouns, and the gender of the pronoun must agree with the gender of the noun. In French, for example, a table is feminine, la table , while a desk is masculine, le bureau , and feminine and masculine pronouns are required to agree with the gender of the noun. In translating from French to English, however, we would never translate "the table, she," or "the desk, he." And we would never insist that a table or desk was somehow a person just because it had a masculine or feminine pronoun. We would use the English designation "it" for the table and the desk, in spite of the fact that in the original language the table and desk have a masculine or feminine gender.

This is true in the translation of any language that assigns a gender to nouns. In Spanish, a car is masculine, el carro , while a bicycle is feminine, la bicicleta . Again, no English translator would translate "the car, he," or "the bicycle, she." People translating Spanish into English use the word "it" when referring to a car or bicycle. For another example, a Greek feminine noun is "anchor" (agkura ), and literally it would demand a feminine pronoun. Yet no English translator would write "I accidentally dropped the anchor, and she fell through the bottom of the boat." We would write, "it" fell through the bottom of the boat. In Greek, "wind" (anemos ) is masculine, but we would not translate it into English that way. We would say, "The wind was blowing so hard it blew the trash cans over," not "the wind, he blew the trash cans over." When translating from another language into English, we have to use the English language properly. Students who are studying Greek, Hebrew, Spanish, French, German, etc., quickly discover that one of the difficult things about learning the language is memorizing the gender of each noun—something we do not have in the English language.

Greek is a language that assigns gender to nouns. For example, in Greek, "word" is masculine while "spirit" is neuter. All languages that assign gender to nouns demand that pronouns referring to the noun have the same gender as the noun. Once we clearly understand that the gender of a pronoun is determined by the gender of the noun, we can see why one cannot build a doctrine on the gender of a noun and its agreeing pronoun. No student of the Bible should take the position that "the Word" is somehow a masculine person based on its pronoun any more than he would take the position that a book was a feminine person or a desk was a masculine person because that is the gender assigned to those nouns in French. Indeed, if one tried to build a theology based on the gender of the noun in the language, great confusion would result.

In the Greek language, "spirit" is neuter and thus is associated with the neuter pronoun, "it." So, for example, verse 17 above should be literally translated as: "…The world cannot accept it (the spirit), because it neither sees it nor knows it. But you know it, for it lives with you and will be in you." Any Analytical Lexicon will confirm that the pronouns in this verse that refer to spirit are neuter, not masculine.

If the pronouns in the Greek text are neuter, why do the translators translate them as "he" and "him?" The answer to that question is that translators realize that when you are dealing with a language that assigns genders to nouns, it is the context and general understanding of the subject at hand that determines how the pronouns are to be translated into English as we have seen in the above examples (desk, bicycle, car, wind, etc.). It is amazing to us that Trinitarian translators know that the same neuter pronoun can be converted to an English masculine pronoun (e.g., "it" becomes "he") but are evidently not as willing to see that a Greek masculine pronoun could be translated as an English neuter pronoun (e.g., "he becomes "it"), if the subject matter and context warrant it. Linguistically, both conversions could be completely legitimate. But any change depends, not on the gender assigned by the Greek language, but rather on the subject matter being discussed. For example, the logos is God's plan and should be an it," and "holy spirit," when used as God's gift, should also be translated into English as an "it." To the unindoctrinated mind, plans and gifts are obviously not "persons."

Trinitarian Christians believe "the Holy Spirit" is a masculine being and translate the pronouns that refer to it as "he" in spite of the fact that the noun is neuter and call for an "it," not a "he" in Greek. Similarly, even though the masculine noun calls for the masculine pronoun in the Greek language, it would still not be translated into English as the masculine pronoun, "he," unless it could be shown from the context that the subject was actually a male; i.e., a man, a male animal, or God (who represents Himself as masculine in the Bible). So the question to answer when dealing with "the Word," "the Comforter" and "the holy spirit" is not, "What gender are the noun and associated pronoun in the Greek language?" Rather, we need to ask, "Do those words refer to a masculine person that would require a "he" in English, or do they refer to a "thing" that would require the pronoun "it"?" When "holy spirit" is referring to the power of God in action or God's gift, it is properly an "it." The same is true for the "comforter." For a much more exhaustive treatment of the subject of holy spirit see our book: The Gift of Holy Spirit: The Power To Be Like Christ.

In Hebrew, "spirit" is feminine and must have feminine pronouns, while in Greek, "spirit" is neuter and takes neuter pronouns. Thus, a person trying to build a theology on the basis of the gender of the noun and pronoun would find himself in an interesting situation trying to explain how it could be that "the spirit" of God somehow changed genders as the New Testament was written.

Because the translators of the Bible have almost always been Trinitarians, and since "the Word" has almost always been erroneously identified with the person of Christ, the pronouns referring to the logos in verse 3 have almost always been translated as "him." However, if in fact the logos is the plan, purpose, wisdom and reason of God, then the Greek pronoun should be translated into the English as "it." To demand that "the Word" is a masculine person and therefore a third part of a three-part Godhead because the pronouns used when referring to it are masculine, is poor scholarship.

3. Viewed in light of the above translation, the opening of the gospel of John reveals wonderful truth, and is also a powerful polemic against primary heresies of the day. We have already seen (under John 1:1) that Gnostics were teaching that, in the hierarchy of gods, the god Elohim and the god Christ were actually opposed to each other. Also active at the time John was written were the Docetists, who were teaching that Christ was a spirit being and only appeared to be flesh. The opening of John's gospel shows that in the beginning there was only one God, not many gods. It also shows that this God had reason, wisdom, a plan or purpose within Himself, which became flesh in Jesus Christ. Thus, God and Christ are not at cross purposes as some were saying, and Christ was not a spirit being as others were saying.

The opening of John reveals this simple truth in a beautiful way: "In the beginning there was one God, who had reason, purpose and a plan, which was, by its very nature and origin, divine. It was through and on account of this reason, plan and purpose that everything was made. Nothing was made outside its scope. Then, this plan became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ and tabernacled among us." Understanding the opening of John this way fits with the whole of Scripture and is entirely acceptable from a translation standpoint.

1. This verse is a reference to the Father, not to Christ. A study of the context reveals that this section opens in verse 6 by telling us, "There came a man who was sent by God…." We are told, "God is light," and that God's light shown through Jesus Christ and made him the light of the world . Though God was in the world in many ways, including through His Son, the world did not recognize Him. He came unto his own by sending His exact image, Jesus Christ, to them, but even then they did not receive God, in that they rejected His emissary. The fact that the world did not receive Him is made more profound in the context as Scripture reveals how earnestly God reached out to them—He made his plan and purpose flesh and shined His light through Christ to reach the world—but they did not receive Him, even though He was offering them the "…right to become children of God" (v. 12).

1. The "Word" is the wisdom, plan or purpose of God (see John 1:1) and the Word "became flesh" as Jesus Christ. Thus, Jesus Christ was "the Word in the flesh," which is shortened to "the Word" for ease of speaking. Scripture is also the Word, but it is the Word in writing. Everyone agrees that the "Word" in writing had a beginning. So did the "Word" in the flesh. In fact, the Greek text of Matthew 1:18 says that very clearly: "Now the beginning of Jesus Christ was in this manner…." Some ancient scribes were so uncomfortable with the idea of Jesus having a "beginning" that they tried to alter the Greek text to read "birth" and not "beginning," but they were unsuccessful. The modern Greek texts all read "beginning" (genesis ) in Matthew 1:18. "Birth" is considered an acceptable translation of "genesis ," since the beginning of some things is birth, and so most translations read "birth" in Matthew 1:18. Nevertheless, the proper understanding of Matthew 1:18 is the "beginning" (genesis ) of Jesus Christ.

In the beginning, God had a plan, a purpose, which "became flesh" when Jesus was conceived. To make John 1:14 support the Trinity, there must first be proof that Jesus existed before he was born and was called "the Word." We do not believe that such proof exists. There is a large body of evidence, however, that Jesus was foreknown by God, and that the "the Word" refers to God's plan or purpose. We contend that the meaning of the verse is straightforward. God had a plan (the Word) and that plan became flesh when Jesus was conceived. Thus, Jesus became "the Word in the flesh."

2. It is quite fair to ask why John would say, "The Word became flesh," a statement that seems so obvious to us. Of course Jesus Christ was flesh. He was born, grew, ate and slept, and Scripture calls him a man. However, what is clear to us now was not at all clear in the early centuries of the Christian era. In our notes on John 1:1, we explain that the Bible must be understood in the context of the culture in which it was written. At the time of John's writing, the "Docetic" movement was gaining disciples inside Christianity ("Docetic" comes from the Greek word for "to seem" or "to appear"). Docetic Christians believed Jesus was actually a spirit being, or god, who only "appeared" to be human. Some Docetists did not believe Jesus even actually ate or drank, but only pretended to do so. Furthermore, some Jews thought that Jesus was an angel. In theological literature, theologians today call this "angel-Christology." John 1:14 was not written to show that Jesus was somehow pre-existent and then became flesh. It was to show that God's plan for salvation "became flesh ," i.e., Jesus was not a spirit, god or angelic being, but rather a flesh-and-blood man. A very similar thing is said in 1 John 4:2, that if you do not believe Jesus has come in the flesh , you are not of God.

This verse is occasionally used to support the Trinity because it is assumed that for Jesus to come "before" John he would have had to exist before John. While it is true that the Greek word "before" (protos ) can mean "before in time," it can just as easily be "first," "chief," "leader," etc. The "first" and great commandment was not the first given in time, but the first in rank. There are many examples of this in Scripture, including: Matt. 20:27, 22:38; Mark 6:21, 10:44; Luke 11:26. John the Baptist recognized that Jesus was above him in rank, and said so plainly.

1. As it is written in the KJV, there is no Trinitarian inference in the verse.

The NIV and NASB represent theologians who believe that the original text read "ho monogenes theos " = "the unique, or only begotten God," while the KJV is representative of theologians who believe that the original text was "ho monogenes huios " = "the only begotten Son." The Greek texts vary, but there are good reasons for believing that the original reading is represented in versions such as the KJV. Although it is true that the earliest Greek manuscripts contain the reading "theos ," every one of those texts is of the Alexandrian text type. Virtually every other reading of the other textual traditions, including the Western, Byzantine, Caesarean and secondary Alexandrian texts, read huios , "Son." The two famous textual scholars, Westcott and Hort, known for their defense of the Alexandrian text type, consider John 1:18 to be one of the few places in the New Testament where it is not correct.

A large number of the Church Fathers, such as Irenaeus, Clement and Tertullian, quoted the verse with "Son," and not "God." This is especially weighty when one considers that Tertullian argued aggressively for the incarnation and is credited with being the one who developed the concept of "one God in three persons." If Tertullian had had a text that read "God" in John 1:18, he certainly would have quoted it, but instead he always quoted texts that read "Son."

It is difficult to conceive of what "only begotten God" would have meant in the Jewish culture. There is no use of the phrase anywhere else in the Bible. In contrast, the phrase "only begotten Son" is used three other times by John (3:16 and 18 - KJV; 1 John 4:9 - KJV). To a Jew, any reference to a "unique God" would have usually referred to the Father. Although the Jews of John's day would have had a problem with "only begotten God," Christians of the second century and beyond, with their increasingly paradoxical understanding of Christology and the nature of God, would have been much more easily able to accept such a doctrine.

The reason that the text was changed from "Son" to "God" was to provide "extra evidence" for the existence of the Trinity. By the second century, an intense debate about whether or not Jesus was God raged in Alexandria, Egypt, the place where all the texts that read "God" originated. The stakes were high in these debates, and excommunication, banishment or worse could be the lot of the "loser." Changing a text or two to in order to "help" in a debate was a tactic proven to have occurred. An examination of all the evidence shows that it is probable that "the only begotten son" is the original reading of John 1:18. For a much more detailed accounting of why the word "Son" should be favored over the word "God," see The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture , by Bart Ehrman (Oxford University Press, New York, 1993, pp. 78–82).

This verse, spoken by John the Baptist, is actually simple to understand, but has been clouded by Trinitarian theology and often translated with a Trinitarian slant. John the Baptist was speaking to his disciples about Christ, calling him "the Lamb of God" (John 1:29), and speaking to them of the importance of Jesus. John's statement that Jesus was before him, and had surpassed him, was to help his disciples see that Jesus was the Messiah. There is no evidence that John thought Jesus was God, here or anywhere else John testified about Jesus. In fact, in this context, John says, "…I testify that this is the Son of God."

The words "has surpassed me" are well translated. The Greek uses the perfect tense of the verb ginomai , "to become," and the word emprosthen , which means "to be before, ahead of, or higher in position or rank than someone." "To become" of a higher rank than someone is to surpass him, thus, "has surpassed me" (NIV) is a good translation. No one argues that Jesus had surpassed John the Baptist in every way.

The next phrase of the verse, however, needs to be understood properly. First, when John says, "he was before me," the Greek word "protos " can mean first in the sense of time, i.e., earlier, or first in the since of rank, i.e., more important, more prominent. Second, the Greek word translated "was" is the imperfect tense, active voice of eimi , the common word for "to be" (which occurs more than 2000 times in the New Testament), so "was" is a good translation. The force of the imperfect is, "he was and continues to be." Jesus was, in the mind of God, and continued to be after his birth, "before" John in rank and importance.

Jesus was before John in both time and rank, but not because he existed in a literal sense before John, but rather because he existed in the foreknowledge of God and in the prophecies, and then, of course, "outranked" John on earth. The existence of Christ in the mind of God is so clear that it need not be disputed. Before the foundation of the world he was foreknown (1 Pet. 1:20); from the foundation of the world he was slain (Rev. 13:8); and before the foundation of the world we, the Church, were chosen in him (Eph. 1:4). The certainty about the Messiah that is expressed in the prophecies about him definitively reveal that all aspects of his life and death were clearly in the mind of God before any of them occurred. That is what John had in mind when he said Jesus "was before" him; Jesus was before John in time and rank in the mind of God, as the prophecies make clear. Thus this verse is similar to other verses that refer to Jesus being before his physical birth, including Jesus himself saying that he was "before" Abraham (John 8:58b; see that verse).

In conclusion, we should note that a number of modern versions translate the last phrase something like, "because he [Jesus] existed before me." That translation would be all right as long as we realize that something can "exist" in the mind of God before it exists in the real world. However, generally, that translation is written due to a Trinitarian slant, and makes the verse more difficult for most Christians to understand than it is if the text reads "was before me."

1. Many verses plainly state that it was the Father who raised Jesus, and the Bible cannot contradict itself.

2. Jesus was speaking to the Jews after he had just turned over their tables and driven their animals out of the Temple. This was the first of the two times when he did this, and this occurrence was at the beginning of his ministry. He did it once again at the end of his ministry, and that event is recorded in other Gospels. The Jews were angry and unbelieving, and Jesus was speaking in veiled terms, so much so that the gospel of John has to add, "But He was speaking of the temple of His body," (John 2:21 - NASB) so the reader would not be confused. Since Jesus was standing in the actual Temple when he said, "Destroy this temple," the natural assumption would be the one his audience made, that he was speaking of the Temple where he was standing at the time.

3. The fact that Jesus was speaking in veiled terms to an unbelieving audience should make us hesitant to build a doctrine on this verse, especially when many other clear verses say that the Father raised Jesus. For example, 1 Corinthians 6:14 states: "By his power God raised the Lord from the dead…." Jesus was not in a teaching situation when he was speaking. Tempers were flaring and the Jews were against Jesus anyway. It was common for Jesus to speak in ways that unbelievers did not understand. Even a cursory reading of the Gospels will show a number of times when Jesus spoke and the unbelievers who heard him (and sometimes even the disciples) were confused by what he said.

4. We know that Jesus was speaking in veiled terms, but what did he mean? He was almost certainly referring to the fact that he was indeed ultimately responsible for his resurrection. How so? Jesus was responsible to keep himself "without spot or blemish" and to fully obey the will of the Father. In that sense he was like any other sacrifice. A sacrifice that was blemished was unacceptable to the LORD (Lev. 22:17–20; Mal. 1:6–8). Since this event in John was at the start of his ministry, he knew he had a long hard road ahead and that obedience would not be easy. If he turned away from God because he did not like what God said to do, or if he were tempted to the point of sin, his sin would have been a "blemish" that would have disqualified him as the perfect sacrifice. Then he could not have paid for the sins of mankind, and there would have been no resurrection. The reader must remember that Jesus did not go into the Temple and turn over the money tables because he "just felt like it." John 2:17 indicates that he was fulfilling an Old Testament prophecy and the will of God, which he always did. Had he not fulfilled the prophecy spoken in Psalm 69:9, he would not have fulfilled all the law and would have been disqualified from being able to die for the sins of mankind. Thus, his destiny was in his own hands, and he could say, "…I will raise it up."

5. It is common in speech that if a person has a vital part in something, he is spoken of as having done the thing. We know that Roman soldiers crucified Jesus. The Gospels say it, and we know that the Jews would not have done it, because coming in contact with Jesus would have made them unclean. Yet Peter said to the rulers of the Jews, "you" crucified the Lord (Acts 5:30). Everyone understands that the Jews played a vital part in Jesus' crucifixion, so there really is a sense in which they crucified him, even though they themselves did not do the dirty work. A similar example from the Old Testament is in both 2 Samuel 5 and 1 Chronicles 11. David and his men were attacking the Jebusite city, Jerusalem. The record is very clear that David had sent his men ahead into the city to fight, and even offered a general's position to the first one into the city. Yet the record says, "…David captured the stronghold of Zion…." We know why, of course. David played a vital role in the capture of Jerusalem, and so Scripture says he captured it. This same type of wording that is so common in the Bible and indeed, in all languages, is the wording Jesus used. He would raise his body, i.e., he would play a vital part in it being raised.

1. It is obvious from Scripture that Jesus did not know everything, for he grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52), and he did not know certain things (Matt. 24:36). Whenever the word "all" is used, the student of Scripture must be careful to ascertain from the context whether it means "all" in a totally inclusive sense, or whether it means "all" in a more limited sense (see note #5 on Col. 1:15–20). For example, 1 John 2:20 (KJV) says of Christians, "ye know all things." Surely there is no Christian who actually believes that he knows everything. The phrase is taken in a limited sense of "all" according to the context.

2. Trinitarians explain the fact that Jesus did not know certain things by appealing to his "manhood" in contrast to his "Godhood," or "God-nature." However, when there is a verse that can be construed to mean that Jesus knows everything, they abandon that argument and say that his omniscience proves he is God. We think it is reasonable to assert that you cannot have it both ways. Either Christ did not know everything, or he did. There are very clear verses that say he did not, and no verse that actually says that Jesus did know everything the same way God does. When a verse seems at first to say Jesus "knew all men," it should be understood in a limited sense according to the context, just as when Scripture says Christians "know all things."

Trinitarians are aware that some verses say that Jesus did not know everything and others say he did. Rather than accept the common use of "all" in a limited sense, they press onward with their doctrine by asserting that Christ had both a God nature and a human nature within himself. They claim that the "God nature" knew everything, but the "human nature" was limited. This argument falls short on many counts. First, Jesus Christ was "…made like his brothers in every way…" (Heb. 2:17, et al .), and we are not "part God, part human," or "fully God and fully man." In order for the integrity of Scripture to be preserved, Jesus must actually be like we are, i.e., fully human.

Second, there is no place in Scripture where this doctrine of the "dual nature" of Christ is actually stated. Trinitarians are asking us to believe something they cannot prove from the Word of God. We, on the other hand, are asking them to believe something that we can read line by line in the Bible: that Jesus was flesh and bone, not spirit; that he was a man, and that he partook in our humanity. Third, the very concept involves a self-contradiction. God is infinite and man is finite, and so Christ would have to be a finite-infinite being, which we believe is inherently impossible. That is not the Jesus described to us in the Bible. No wonder Tertullian, an early Trinitarian, said, "Credo quia impossibile est " (I believe because it is impossible). We realize it is not only "impossible," but also unscriptural , so we choose not to believe it.

4. In saying that Jesus knew all men, the Bible was confirming that Jesus was in touch with God just as were the prophets of old (but, of course, much more intimately). It was a common belief that prophets knew people's thoughts (Luke 7:39, etc.), and it is substantiated in Scripture that God did show prophets what people were thinking. Nathan knew of David's secret sin (2 Sam. 12:7). Ahijah knew what the wife of Jeroboam wanted, and who she was, even though he was blind and she was wearing a disguise (1 Kings 14:4 and 6). Elijah knew that Ahab had committed murder by framing Naboth (1 Kings 21:17–20), and he knew the information that the king of Israel wanted to know (2 Kings 1:1–4). Elisha knew that Gehazi was lying and knew of the greed in his heart (2 Kings 5:19–27). Daniel knew Nebuchadnezzar's dream, even though Nebuchadnezzar had not revealed it to anyone (Dan. 2:5 and 28ff). By saying that Jesus knew all men, Scripture confirms that he was, like the prophets of old, in communication with God.

The Jews would not have taken John's words to mean that Christ "incarnated." It was common for them to say that something "came from heaven" if God were its source. For example, James 1:17 says that every good gift is "from above" and "comes down" from God. What James means is clear. God is the Author and source of the good things in our lives. God works behind the scenes to provide what we need. The verse does not mean that the good things in our lives come directly down from heaven. Most Christians experience the Lord blessing them by way of other people or events, but realize that the ultimate source of the blessings was the Lord. We should apply John's words the same way we understand James' words—that God is the source of Jesus Christ, which He was. Christ was God's plan, and then God directly fathered Jesus.

There are also verses that say Jesus was "sent from God," a phrase that shows God as the ultimate source of what is sent. John the Baptist was a man "sent from God" (John 1:6), and it was he who said that Jesus "comes from above" and "comes from heaven" (John 3:31). When God wanted to tell the people that He would bless them if they gave their tithes, He told them that He would open the windows of "heaven" and pour out a blessing (Mal. 3:10 - KJV). Of course, everyone understood the idiom being used, and no one believed that God would literally pour things out of heaven. They knew that the phrase meant that God was the origin of the blessings they received. Still another example is when Christ was speaking and said, "John's baptism—where did it come from? Was it from heaven, or from men?…" (Matt. 21:25). Of course, the way that John's baptism would have been "from heaven" was if God was the source of the revelation. John did not get the idea on his own, it came "from heaven." The verse makes the idiom clear: things could be "from heaven," i.e., from God, or they could be "from men." The idiom is the same when used of Jesus. Jesus is "from God," "from heaven" or "from above" in the sense that God is his Father and thus his origin.

The idea of coming from God or being sent by God is also clarified by Jesus' words in John 17. He said, "As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world" (John 17:18). We understand perfectly what Christ meant when he said, "…I have sent them into the world." He meant that he commissioned us, or appointed us. No one thinks that we were in heaven with Christ and incarnated into the flesh. Christ said, "As you have sent me…I have sent them…." So, however we take the phrase that Christ sent us, that is how we should understand the phrase that God sent Christ.

1. The people in the time and culture of the Bible knew that children often carried the authority of the family. For example, the son of a king had authority. When Christ said that God was his Father, the Pharisees correctly interpreted that to mean that he had God's authority on earth, something that Jesus was in fact saying (cp. John 5:17ff ).

3. The concept of people being "equal" is found in several places in the Bible. For example, when Joseph was ruling Egypt under Pharaoh, Judah said to him, "…you are equal to Pharaoh himself " (Gen. 44:18). Paul wrote about men who wanted to be considered "equal with us" (2 Cor. 11:12). No Christian we are aware of believes that Joseph and Pharaoh or Paul and his opponents are "of one substance," and make up "one being" simply because they are called "equal." We believe that John 5:18 should be handled like the other verses that mention equality. Jesus was using God's power and authority on earth, and was thus "equal" to God in the same way Joseph, who was using Pharaoh's authority and power, was equal to Pharaoh.

See notes on John 3:13.

1. For more information on "seeing" God, see our explanation of Genesis 18:1 and 2, which covers God occasionally appearing in human form.

2. Some people infer from John 6:46 that Jesus must be God, or at least that he pre-existed his birth, because he said he had seen the Father. However, this verse has nothing to do with the Trinity or pre-existence. For one thing, his audience would not have understood Jesus' teaching about the Trinity unless it included more information, because they were not expecting a Messiah who was God.

In contrast, it was assumed in the culture that the Messiah would have an intimate relationship with God, so what Jesus was saying to them could, and likely was, properly understood by some of his audience. However, the Biblical record does not focus on the average people in the audience, but upon the religious leaders, which the Bible refers to as "the Jews" (John 6:41 and 52). Since almost all of Jesus' audience would have been Jewish, it is well known to scholars that the phrase, "the Jews" refers to the religious leaders such as top Pharisees and Sadducees in the audience. In this teaching after feeding the 5,000, as in most of his teachings, the religious leaders did not understand Jesus' message.

The key to understanding John 6:46 is knowing that the phrase "seen the Father" does not refer to seeing with the eye, but to "knowing the Father." Jesus knew God, not because he lived with God before his birth, but because God revealed Himself more clearly to Jesus than to anyone else. Jesus made this clear in other teachings, saying, "For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does…" (John 5:20a).

In both Hebrew and Greek, words translated "see" also mean "to know, to realize." The Hebrew word ra'ah is used of both seeing with the eyes and knowing something, or perceiving it (Gen. 16:4; Exod. 32:1; Num. 20:29). Similarly, the Greek word horao , translated "see" in John 1:18, 6:46; and 3 John 1:11, can mean "to see with the eyes" or "to see with the mind, to perceive, know." Even in English, one of the definitions for "see" is "to know or understand." For example, when two people are discussing something, one might say to the other, "I see what you mean."

The usage of "see" as it pertains to knowing is found in many places in the New Testament. For example, Jesus said to Philip, "…Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father…" (John 14:9). Here again the word "see" is used to indicate knowing. Anyone who knew Christ (not just those who "saw" him) would know the Father. In fact, Christ had made that clear two verses earlier when he said to Philip, "If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him" (John 14:7). In this verse Jesus says that those who know him have "seen" the Father.

The phrase "seen God" is parallel to the phrase "has made Him known," and both phrases refer to knowing God. No man fully knew God, but Jesus made Him known. Throughout the Old Testament, what people knew about God was very limited. In fact, 2 Corinthians 3:13–16 refers to the fact that even today, the Jews who reject Christ have a veil over their hearts. The full knowledge, the "truth" about God, came through Jesus Christ (John 1:17). He was the one who "saw" (fully understood) God, and then he taught others—which is what John 1:18 says. Before Jesus Christ came, no one really knew God as He truly is, a loving heavenly Father, but Jesus Christ "saw" (knew) God intimately, because the Father revealed Himself clearly to him.

1. This verse is referring to the resurrection of Christ. This fact is clear from studying the context. Because the translators have chosen to translate anabaino as "ascend," people believe it refers to Christ's ascension from earth as recorded in Acts 1:9, but Acts 1:9 does not use this word. Anabaino simply means "to go up." It is used of "going up" to a higher elevation as in climbing a mountain (Matt. 5:1, 14:23, et al .), of Jesus "coming up" from under the water at his baptism (Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10), of plants that "grow up" out of the ground (Matt. 13:7; Mark 4:7, 8 and 32), or of even just "going up," i.e., "climbing," a tree (Luke 19:4). Christ was simply asking if they would be offended if they saw him "come up" out of the ground, i.e., be resurrected, and be where he was before, i.e., alive and on the earth.

2. The context confirms that Jesus was speaking about being the bread from heaven and giving life via his resurrection. Verses such as 39, 40 and 44 confirm this: Jesus repeatedly said, "…I will raise him [each believer] up at the last day." Christ was amazed that even some of his disciples were offended at his teaching. He had been speaking of the resurrection, and they were offended, so he asked them if they would be offended if they saw him resurrected, which has been unfortunately translated as "ascend" in verse 62.

1. Some Trinitarians act as if this verse proves that Jesus was God just because the word "beginning" is in the verse. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even a cursory word study will show that the word "beginning" has to be defined by its context. Any good lexicon will show that the word "beginning" is often used to describe times other than the start of Creation. Examples abound: God made them male and female at the "beginning," not of Creation, but of the human race (Matt. 19:4). There were "eyewitnesses" at the "beginning," not of Creation, but of the life and ministry of Christ (Luke 1:2 and 3). The disciples were with Christ from the "beginning," not of Creation, but of his public ministry (John 15:27). The gift of holy spirit came on Peter and the Apostles "at the beginning," not of Creation, but of the Church Administration that started on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 (Acts 11:15). John 6:64 is simply saying that Christ knew from the time he began to choose the Apostles which one would betray him.

2. When this verse is understood in its context, it is a powerful testimony of how closely Jesus walked with his Father. First, there is nothing in the context that would in any way indicate that the word "beginning" refers to the beginning of time . Jesus had just fed the five thousand, and they said, "…Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world" (6:14). Right away that tells you that the people did not think Jesus was God , but a prophet. The people wanted to make Jesus king, but only because he filled their stomachs (6:15 and 26). When he challenged them to believe in him (6:29), they grumbled (6:41). As Jesus continued to teach, the Jews began to argue among themselves (6:52), and even some of Jesus' disciples began to grumble at the commitment Jesus was asking from them (6:60 and 61). Jesus, knowing his disciples were upset with his teaching, did not back off, but rather pressed on, even saying that he knew some would not believe (6:64). The result of this discussion was that some of his disciples left him (6:66). Since some disciples left him after this teaching, it would be easy to say that perhaps Jesus acted unwisely by pressing on with his difficult teaching. Not so. Scripture reminds us that Christ knew from the beginning who would not believe, and even who would betray him. Thus, he also knew that his hard words would not drive any of the true sheep away. The "beginning" being referred to here is the beginning of his ministry. When he started gathering disciples and Apostles and teaching them, God showed him by revelation who would believe and who would betray him.

Trinitarians occasionally cite this verse to try to show the necessity of believing their doctrine, and unfortunately sometimes even to intimidate those who doubt it. They supply the word "God" after "I am," not from the text, but from the dictates of their doctrine, and make the verse read: "… for if you believe not that I am [God], ye shall die in your sins." This is a distortion of the biblical text as a whole, and the gospel of John in particular. The purpose of the gospel is clearly stated in 20:31: "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is ["God"? No!] the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." In light of the explicitly stated purpose of the gospel of John, teaching that unless one believes in Christ's "deity," he will die in his sins, is particularly unwarranted. The true meaning of the text is that if one does not believe that Jesus is the Christ , he will die in his sins, and this teaching can be found in a number of Scriptures in the New Testament. Obviously, if one chooses to not believe in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, he will die in his sins. We believe the NIV does a good job with this particular text, especially in light of the way Christ was veiling his role as Messiah: "…if you do not believe I am the one I claim to be , you will indeed die in your sins." This then fits with other times he said similar things, such as in John 13:19 when he said to disciples at the last supper, "I am telling you this before it [his betrayal] happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I am He."

See the explanation for: "I came from God" under John 3:13.

1. Trinitarians argue that this verse states that Jesus said he was the "I am" (i.e., the Yahweh of the Old Testament), so he must be God. This is just not the case. Saying "I am" does not make a person God. The man born blind that Jesus healed was not claiming to be God, and he said "I am the man," and the Greek reads exactly like Jesus' statement, i.e., "I am." The fact that the exact same phrase is translated two different ways, one as "I am" and the other as "I am the man" (John 9:9), is one reason it is so hard for the average Christian to get the truth from just reading the Bible as it has been translated into English. Most Bible translators are Trinitarian, and their bias appears in various places in their translation, this being a common one. Paul also used the same phrase of himself when he said that he wished all men were as "I am" (Acts 26:29). Thus, we conclude that saying "I am" did not make Paul, the man born blind or Christ into God. C. K. Barrett writes:

2. The phrase "I am" occurs many other times in the New Testament, and is often translated as "I am he" or some equivalent ("I am he"—Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8; John 13:19, 18:5, 6 and 8. "It is I"—Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20. "…I am the one I claim to be…"—John 8:24 and 28.). It is obvious that these translations are quite correct, and it is interesting that the phrase is translated as "I am" only in John 8:58. If the phrase in John 8:58 were translated "I am he" or "I am the one," like all the others, it would be easier to see that Christ was speaking of himself as the Messiah of God (as indeed he was), spoken of throughout the Old Testament.

At the Last Supper, the disciples were trying to find out who would deny the Christ. They said, literally, "Not I am, Lord" (Matt. 26:22 and 25). No one would say that the disciples were trying to deny that they were God because they were using the phrase "Not I am." The point is this: "I am" was a common way of designating oneself, and it did not mean you were claiming to be God.

3. The argument is made that because Jesus was "before" Abraham, Jesus must have been God. There is no question that Jesus figuratively "existed" in Abraham's time. However, he did not actually physically exist as a person; rather he "existed" in the mind of God as God's plan for the redemption of man. A careful reading of the context of the verse shows that Jesus was speaking of "existing" in God's foreknowledge. Verse 56 is accurately translated in the King James Version, which says: "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it , and was glad." This verse says that Abraham "saw" the Day of Christ, which is normally considered by theologians to be the day when Christ conquers the earth and sets up his kingdom. That would fit with what the book of Hebrews says about Abraham: "For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God" (Heb. 11:10). Abraham looked for a city that is still future, yet the Bible says Abraham "saw" it. In what sense could Abraham have seen something that was future? Abraham "saw" the Day of Christ because God told him it was coming, and Abraham "saw" it by faith. Although Abraham saw the Day of Christ by faith, that day existed in the mind of God long before Abraham. Thus, in the context of God's plan existing from the beginning, Christ certainly was "before" Abraham. Christ was the plan of God for man's redemption long before Abraham lived. We are not the only ones who believe that Jesus' statement does not make him God:

To say that Jesus is "before" him is not to lift him out of the ranks of humanity but to assert his unconditional precedence. To take such statements at the level of "flesh" so as to infer, as "the Jews" do that, at less than fifty, Jesus is claiming to have lived on this earth before Abraham (8:52 and 57), is to be as crass as Nicodemus who understands rebirth as an old man entering his mother's womb a second time (3:4).[25]

4. In order for the Trinitarian argument that Jesus' "I am" statement in John 8:58 makes him God, his statement must be equivalent with God's "I am" statement in Exodus 3:14. However, the two statements are very different. While the Greek phrase in John does mean "I am," the Hebrew phrase in Exodus actually means "to be" or "to become." In other words God is saying, "I will be what I will be." Thus the "I am" in Exodus is actually a mistranslation of the Hebrew text, so the fact that Jesus said "I am" did not make him God.

Buzzard, op. cit., Doctrine of the Trinity , pp. 93–97; Dana, op. cit., Letters Addressed to Relatives and Friends, Letter 21, pp. 169–171; Morgridge, op. cit., True Believer's Defence Against Charges Preferred by Trinitarians , pp. 120 and 121; Norton, op. cit., A Statement of Reasons for Not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians, pp. 242–246; Snedeker, op. cit., Our Heavenly Father Has No Equals , pp. 416–418.

See the notes on John 2:19.

1. There is no reason to take this verse to mean that Christ was saying that he and the Father make up "one God." The phrase was a common one, and even today if someone used it, people would know exactly what he meant—he and his father are very much alike. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians about his ministry there, he said that he had planted the seed and Apollos had watered it. Then he said, "…he who plants and he who waters are one…" (1 Cor. 3:8 - NKJV). In the Greek texts, the wording of Paul is the same as that in John 10:30, yet no one claims that Paul and Apollos make up "one being." Furthermore, the NIV translates 1 Corinthians 3:8 as "The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose …." Why translate the phrase as "are one" in one place, but as "have one purpose" in another place? In this case, translating the same phrase in two different ways obscures the clear meaning of Christ's statement in John 10:30: Christ always did the Father's will; he and God have "one purpose ."

2. Christ uses the concept of "being one" in other places, and from them one can see that "one purpose" is what is meant. John 11:52 says Jesus was to die to make all God's children "one." In John 17:11, 21 and 22, Jesus prayed to God that his followers would be "one" as he and God were "one." We think it is obvious that Jesus was not praying that all his followers would become one being or "substance" just as he and his Father were one being or "substance." We believe the meaning is clear: Jesus was praying that all his followers be one in purpose just as he and God were one in purpose, a prayer that has not yet been answered.

3. The context of John 10:30 shows conclusively that Jesus was referring to the fact that he had the same purpose as God did. Jesus was speaking about his ability to keep the "sheep," the believers, who came to him. He said that no one could take them out of his hand and that no one could take them out of his Father's hand. Then he said that he and the Father were "one," i.e., had one purpose, which was to keep and protect the sheep.

1. Any difficulty in understanding this verse is caused by the translators. Had they faithfully rendered the Greek text in verse 33 as they did in verses 34 and 35, then it would read, "…you, a man, claim to be a god ." In the next two verses, John 10:34 and 35, the exact same word (theos , without the article) is translated as "god," not "God." The point was made under John 1:1 that usually when "God" is meant, the noun theos has the definite article. When there is no article, the translators know that "god" is the more likely translation, and they are normally very sensitive to this. For example, in Acts 12:22, Herod is called theos without the article, so the translators translated it "god." The same is true in Acts 28:6, when Paul had been bitten by a viper and the people expected him to die. When he did not die, "…they changed their minds and said he was a god." Since theos has no article, and since it is clear from the context that the reference is not about the true God, theos is translated "a god." It is a general principle that theos without the article should be "a god," or "divine." Since there is no evidence that Jesus was teaching that he was God anywhere in the context, and since the Pharisees would have never believed that this man was somehow Yahweh, it makes no sense that they would be saying that he said he was "God." On the other hand, Jesus was clearly teaching that he was sent by God and was doing God's work. Thus, it makes perfect sense that the Pharisees would say he was claiming to be "a god" or "divine."

2. We take issue with the NIV translation of "mere man" for the Greek word anthropos . The English word "anthropology," meaning "the study of man," is derived from anthropos . Spiros Zodhiates writes, "man, a generic name in distinction from gods and the animals."[26] In the vast majority of versions, anthropos is translated as "man." The word anthropos occurs 550 times in the Greek text from which the NIV was translated, yet the NIV translated it as "mere man" only in this one verse. This variance borders on dishonesty and demonstrates a willingness to bias the text beyond acceptable limits. Unfortunately, the NIV is not the only translation that puts a Trinitarian spin on this verse. The Jews would have never called Jesus a "mere" man. They called him what they believed he was—a "man." They were offended because they believed that he, "being a man, made himself a god (i.e., someone with divine status).

This verse is sometimes used to prove the Trinity, but it proves nothing of the kind. The exact same language about being "in" is used many times of Christians. We assert that when the same exact language is used both of Christ and of Christians, it needs to be understood the same way. We are "in" Christ, and Christ is "in" us (cp. John 14:4–7, 17:21, 23 and 26). When used in the sense of "in God," or "in Christ," the word "in" refers to a close communion, a tight fellowship. It was part of the covenant language of the day, when people spoke of being either "in" or "cut off from" the covenant.