part0036

These verses are sometimes used to support the Trinity because Jesus said that he came from the Father, and the disciples answered by saying that he was speaking plainly and not using figures of speech. Thus there are two issues to discuss here. First, what did Jesus mean when he said he "came from the Father," and second, why did the disciples say he spoke clearly (using plain language) and not with a figure of speech?

As to the first issue, when Jesus said that he came from God he was using the same kind of language he used in John 3:13 (see the note on this verse in this appendix). The fact that he "came" from God did not mean he was alive with God before he came. We commonly speak of babies "coming" from their parents without meaning that the baby was somehow alive with the parent before it was born. God was Jesus' Father, and He created the perfect sperm that joined with Mary's egg to become Jesus. So it makes perfect sense that Jesus would say he "came from the Father" and mean only what we mean when we say we come from our father.

A child saying he "came from" his parents is very clear language in every culture, so the disciples acknowledged that Jesus was speaking clearly and not using a figure of speech. This is especially true when we consider that Jesus had generally been vague about his being the Son of God, the Messiah. For example, he often referred to himself as "the Son of Man" (Matt. 8:20), which was confusing to the Semitic people he was speaking to because in Hebrew and Aramaic the expression can mean simply, "a human" (Dan. 8:17). When John's disciples came and asked if Jesus were "the one," Jesus did not say "Yes," but only told them that he was healing, preaching, etc. (Matt. 11:2–6). When Peter and the Apostles finally figured out that he was the Christ, he commanded them not to tell anyone (Matt. 16:20). In John 16:28, however, Jesus said he came from the Father, just as anyone would say he came from his parents, so the disciples clearly understood that Jesus was the Christ.

1. There is no question that Jesus "existed" before the world began. But did he exist literally as a person or in God's foreknowledge, "in the mind of God?" Both Christ and the corporate Body of Christ, the Church, existed in God's foreknowledge before being alive. Christ was the "logos ," the "plan" of God from the beginning, and he became flesh only when he was conceived. It is Trinitarian bias that causes people to read an actual physical existence into this verse rather than a figurative existence in the mind of God. When 2 Timothy 1:9 says that each Christian was given grace "… before the beginning of time," no one tries to prove that we were actually alive with God back then. Everyone acknowledges that we were "in the mind of God," i.e., in God's foreknowledge. The same is true of Jesus Christ. His glory was "with the Father" before the world began, and in John 17:5 he prayed that it would come into manifestation.

2. Jesus was praying that he would have the glory the Old Testament foretold, which had been in the mind of God, the Father, since before the world began, and would come into concretion. Trinitarians, however, teach that Jesus was praying about glory he had with God many years before his birth, and they assert that this proves he had access to the mind and memory of his "God nature." However, if, as a man, Jesus "remembered" being in glory with the Father before the world began, then he would have known he was God in every sense. He would not have thought of himself as a "man" at all. If he knew he was God, he would not and could not have been "…tempted in every way, just as we are…" because nothing he encountered would have been a "real" temptation to him. He would have had no fear and no thought of failure. There is no real sense in which Scripture could actually say he was "…made like his brothers in every way…" (Heb. 2:17) because he would not have been like us at all. Furthermore, Scripture says that Jesus "grew" in knowledge and wisdom. That would not really be true if Christ had access to some type of God-nature with infinite knowledge and wisdom.

We believe that John 17:5 is a great example of a verse that demonstrates the need for clear thinking concerning the doctrine of the Trinity. The verse can clearly be interpreted in a way that is honest and biblically sound, and shows that Christ was a man, but was in the foreknowledge of God as God's plan for the salvation of mankind. It can also be used the way Trinitarians use it: to prove the Trinity. However, when it is used that way it reveals a Christ that we as Christians cannot truly identify with. We do not have a God-nature to help us when we are tempted or are in trouble or lack knowledge or wisdom. The Bible says that Christ can "sympathize with our weakness" because he was "…tempted in every way, just as we are …" (Heb. 4:15). The thrust of that verse is very straightforward. Because Christ was just like we are, and was tempted in every way that we are, he can sympathize with us. However, if he was not "just as we are," then he would not be able to sympathize with us. We assert that making Christ a God-man makes it impossible to really identify with him.

1. This verse is no problem at all in all the major versions we checked except for the NIV. The translators of the NIV caused a problem by using the word "return" instead of "ascend," and making Christ say, "…I have not yet returned to my Father…." The Greek word means, "to go up" and although it occurs 82 times in the Greek New Testament, even the NIV translators have translated it "returning" only in this one place, and as "returned" in the next verse. Christ did not "return" to his Father as if he had been there before, rather he "went up" to his Father. The Trinitarian "problem" in this verse is caused by a mistranslation, but, thankfully, other versions translate the verse more accurately.

2. This verse is one of the strongest proofs in the Bible that there is no Trinity. This event occurred after the resurrection, and Jesus said to Mary that he was ascending to "…my God, and your God." Jesus' statement makes it clear that "God" is both his God and Mary's God. If Jesus is God, he cannot have a God, for by definition if someone has a "God," he cannot be "God." If Jesus had a "God" as he said, then he cannot be part of that God. This is especially clear in this verse, because he and Mary have the same God. If he were God, then he would have been Mary's God, too. He would not have said that he was going up to her God, because "her God," i.e., Jesus himself, was standing right there. One of the most recognized principles of Bible interpretation, and one that is accepted by conservative scholars from all denominations, is that to be properly understood, the Bible must be read in a literal, "normal," or "standard" way, i.e., the words of the Word should be understood the way we understand them in everyday speech, unless figurative language is demanded by the context. Everyone understands the phrase, "my God." Christ used it both before and after his resurrection. He called to "my God" when he was on the Cross. He told Mary he was going to ascend to "my God." He spoke of "my God" to both the churches of Sardis and Philadelphia (Rev. 3:2 and 12). It is hard to see how Jesus can be assumed to be co-equal and co-eternal with God when he calls Him, "my God." The Bible simply means what it says in this verse: God is indeed both our God and Jesus' God.

1. Jesus never referred to himself as "God" in the absolute sense, so what precedent then did Thomas have for calling Jesus "My God?" The Greek language uses the word theos , ("God" or "god") with a broader meaning than is customary today. In the Greek language and in the culture of the day, "GOD" (all early manuscripts of the Bible were written in all capital letters) was a descriptive title applied to a range of authorities, including the Roman governor (Acts 12:22), and even the Devil (2 Cor. 4:4). It was used of someone with divine authority. It was not limited to its absolute sense as a personal name for the supreme Deity as we use it today.

I do not affirm that Thomas passed all at once from the extreme of doubt to the highest degree of faith, and acknowledged Christ to be the true God . This appears to me too much for the then existing knowledge of the disciples; and we have no intimation that they recognized the divine nature of Christ before the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. I am therefore inclined to understand this expression, which broke out in the height of his astonishment, in a figurative sense, denoting only "whom I shall ever reverence in the highest degree"…Or a person raised from the dead might be regarded as a divinity; for the word God is not always used in the strict doctrinal sense" [Michaelis is quoted by Dana, ref. below].

Remember that it was common at that time to call the God's representatives "God," and the Old Testament contains quite a few examples. When Jacob wrestled with "God," it is clear that he was actually wrestling with an angel (Hosea 12:4—For more on that, see the note on Gen. 16:7–13).

3. There are many Trinitarian authorities who admit that there was no knowledge of Trinitarian doctrine at the time Thomas spoke. For example, if the disciples believed that Jesus was "God" in the sense that many Christians do, they would not have "all fled" just a few days before when he was arrested. The confession of the two disciples walking along the road to Emmaus demonstrated the thoughts of Jesus' followers at the time. Speaking to the resurrected Christ, whom they mistook as just a traveler, they talked about Jesus. They said Jesus "…was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God…and they crucified him; but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel…" (Luke 24:19–21). The Bible is clear that these disciples thought Jesus was a "prophet." Even though some of the Apostles realized that Jesus was the Christ, they knew that according to the Old Testament prophecies, the Christ, the anointed of God, was to be a man. There is no evidence from the Gospel accounts that Jesus' disciples believed him to be God, and Thomas, upon seeing the resurrected Christ, was not birthing a new theology in a moment of surprise.

4. The context of the verse shows that its subject is the fact that Jesus was alive . Only three verses earlier, Thomas had ignored the eyewitness testimony of the other Apostles when they told him they had seen the Lord. The resurrection of Christ was such a disputed doctrine that Thomas did not believe it (the other Apostles had not either), and thus Jesus' death would have caused Thomas to doubt that Jesus was who he said he was—the Messiah. Thomas believed Jesus was dead . Thus, he was shocked and astonished when he saw—and was confronted by— Jesus Himself. Thomas, upon being confronted by the living Christ, instantly believed in the resurrection, i.e., that God had raised the man Jesus from the dead, and, given the standard use of "God" in the culture as one with God's authority, it certainly makes sense that Thomas would proclaim, "…My Lord and my God." There is no mention of the Trinity in the context, and there is no reason to believe that the disciples would have even been aware of such a doctrine. Thomas spoke what he would have known: that the man Jesus who he thought was dead was alive and had divine authority.

Buzzard, op. cit., Doctrine of the Trinity , pp. 39–41, 61 and 62, 136 and 137; Dana, op. cit., Letters Addressed to Relatives and Friends, pp. 23–25; Farley, op. cit., Unitarianism Defined: The Scripture Doctrine of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost , pp. 62–64; Morgridge, op. cit., True Believer's Defence Against Charges Preferred by Trinitarians , pp. 109 and 110; Norton, op. cit., A Statement of Reasons for Not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians, pp. 299–304; Snedeker, op. cit., Our Heavenly Father Has No Equals , pp. 271 and 272, 426–430.

1. We must understand that both "God" and "pneuma hagion " ("holy spirit") can refer to something other than a separate "person" in the Trinity. Since there is no verse that actually states the doctrine of the Trinity, its existence is built from assumption and by piecing verses together. Verses such as Acts 5:3 and 4 are used as "proof," for the doctrine, but that is actually circular reasoning. The doctrine is assumed, and then, because this verse fits the assumption, it is stated to be proof of the doctrine. However, at best these verses could offer minimal support for the Trinity because there are other completely acceptable ways to handle them, specifically that "the Holy Spirit" is sometimes another designation for God.

2. It is clear in these verses that God and "the Holy Spirit" are equated, and this has caused Trinitarians to claim that this proves their case that God and "the Holy Spirit" are the same. But these verses are clearly an example of Semitic parallelism, which is one of the most commonly employed literary devices in Scripture. "God" is equated with "the Holy Spirit." Obviously, the point is that Ananias did not lie to two different persons, but to one person, God, and the parallelism serves to emphasize that fact.

3. Trinitarians believe that "the Holy Spirit" is the third "person" in the three-person Trinity. Non-Trinitarians say that no "third person" exists. The original texts were all capital letters, so every use was "HOLY SPIRIT." There are times in the English versions when "spirit" is spelled with a capital "S" and times when it has a lower case "s." This is all the work of the translators, because all the early Greek manuscripts were in all capital letters. Thus, whether "HOLY SPIRIT" should be translated as "Holy Spirit" or "holy spirit" must be determined from the context (for more on capitalization and punctuation, see the notes on Heb. 1:8).

To the non-Trinitarian, the holy spirit is either 1) another name for God the Father (in which case it is capitalized), 2) the power of God in operation, or 3) the gift of God's nature (spirit) that is given to each believer. Peter spoke of this gift on the Day of Pentecost when he said, "…ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2:38 - KJV). Because pneuma has several meanings the context of a passage of Scripture must always be studied carefully to determine the correct meaning.

4. God is known by many names and designations in the Bible. Elohim , El Shaddai , Yahweh, Adon , "the Holy One of Israel," "the Most High" and "the Father" are just a few. Since God is "holy" and God is "spirit," it should not surprise us that one of the names of God, the Father, is "the Holy Spirit." The distinguished scholar and author of Young's Concordance , Robert Young, wrote: "Spirit—is used of God himself, or the Divine Mind, His energy, influence, gifts."[27] When pneuma hagion , "holy spirit," is being used as another name for the Father, it should be capitalized, just as any name is capitalized.

When "holy spirit" refers to the spirit that God gives as a gift, it should not be capitalized. Biblically, "the Holy Spirit" is quite different from "the holy spirit." The record of the birth of Christ in Luke provides a good example of why it is important to recognize whether the "Holy Spirit" refers to the power of God or another name for God. "The angel answered, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God' " (Luke 1:35). This verse and Matthew 1:18–20 make Jesus Christ the Son of the Holy Spirit, yet all the other references to Jesus make him the Son of the Father. Did Jesus have two fathers? Of course not. In the records of Christ's birth, "the Holy Spirit" is another way of referring to God Himself, and not a third person in the Trinity. This eliminates the "problem" of which person in the Trinity actually fathered Jesus. Also in Acts 5:3, "Holy Spirit" is another name for God. For a much more complete explanation of the uses of "holy spirit," see our book: The Gift of Holy Spirit: The Power To Be Like Christ. See also Appendix I.

1. Although the King James English makes this verse a little hard to understand, it is saying that Jesus was the one who brought the Israelites into the Promised Land. This is a case of mistranslation. The name "Jesus" and the name "Joshua" are the same, and on two occasions the translators of the KJV confused them. This point is well established by William Barclay, a professor and author at Trinity College in Glasgow. He writes:

The name "Jesus" underlines the real humanity of our Lord. To us the name Jesus is a holy and sacred name, and we would count it almost blasphemy to give it to any child or call any person by it. But in New Testament times it was one of the commonest of names. It is the Greek form by which three Hebrew Old Testament names are regularly represented—Joshua (e.g., Exod. 17:10); Jehoshua (e.g., Zech. 3:1); Jeshua (Neh. 7:7). There are indeed two occasions in the AV [the KJV] in which Joshua is very confusingly called "Jesus." In Acts 7:45, we read that the fathers brought the tabernacle into the land of Palestine with Jesus. In Hebrews 4:8, it is said that if "Jesus" had been able to give the people rest, there would have been no need to speak of still another day. In both cases, "Jesus" is Joshua, a fact which is made clear in all the more modern translations. By the second century, the name "Jesus" was vanishing as an ordinary name. Amongst the Jews it vanished because it had become a hated name by which no Jew would call his son; and amongst the Christians it has vanished because it was too sacred for common use.[28]

2. One of the easiest and most accessible keys to correct biblical interpretation is the context. Examine the context of Acts 7:45, and it becomes exceedingly clear that the verse is not speaking of Jesus.

There is no record anywhere in the Old Testament that shows Jesus with the Tabernacle, and, as Barclay pointed out, all the modern translations read "Joshua."

This verse supports the idea of the Trinity only as it appears in some translations. The KJV has the phrase, "calling upon God ," but puts "God" in italics to show that the translators added the word and that it was not in the original text. The truth is that "God" does not appear in any Greek text of the verse. Thus, this verse does not support the Trinity.

1. There are some Greek manuscripts that read "…the church of the Lord…" instead of "the church of God." Many Trinitarian scholars believe that "Lord" is the original reading, because there is no mention anywhere in the Bible of God having blood. If the Greek manuscripts that read "Lord" are the original ones, then the "problem" is solved. However, it is the belief of the authors that good textual research shows that "the church of God" is the correct reading.

2. Both the American Bible Society and the Institute For New Testament Research in Germany (which produces the Nestle-Aland Greek text) agree that the manuscript evidence supports the reading tou haimatios tou idiou , literally, the blood of His own (Son), and not idiou haimatios , "his own blood." God paid for our salvation with the blood of His own Son, Jesus Christ.

This verse has confused some Christians because it refers to Jesus being "…in the likeness of sinful man…" (the Greek is more literally: "…in the likeness of sinful flesh…," as the KJV, NASB, and ESV have). Trinitarians teach that Jesus was not a man like we are because he was both "fully human" and "fully God." But there is another explanation of the verse, one that fits with a non-Trinitarian understanding of Scripture. Carefully reading the verse shows that it does not say Jesus was like "humans," it says that Jesus was like "sinful" humans. He was like we are in that he was a man, but he was different from us "sinful" people because he was sinless. He had no sin nature. Neither did he ever commit sin. The fact that Jesus was not a God-man, but was a human in every sense of the word explains why the verse has to have the adjective "sinful" to describe "man." Jesus was a man, but only "in the likeness" of "sinful" man. If the reason that Jesus was only like man was that he was a God-man, then the presence of the adjective "sinful" is unnecessary.

The word "likeness" is a good translation of the Greek word homoioma , which refers to similarity; when things are similar. For example, Romans 1:23 speaks of images (statues, paintings, etc.), that "look like" people, birds, and animals, but of course are not the real thing. Revelation 9:7 refers to locust-creatures that in some ways were "like," or similar in appearance to, horses. Jesus Christ was "in the likeness of " us "sinful" people, but was not himself "sinful."

1. The student of the Bible should be aware that the original text had no punctuation, and thus in some instances there is more than one way a verse can be translated without violating the grammar of the text (see the notes on Heb. 1:8). Then how do we arrive at the correct translation and meaning, the one that God, the Author, meant us to believe? In the majority of cases, the context, both immediate and remote, will reveal to us what He is trying to say. The entire Bible fits together in such a way that one part can give us clues to interpret another part. The serious student of the Bible will glean information from the scope of Scripture to assist in the interpretation of any one verse. Romans 9:5 is one of the verses that can be translated different ways, and thus the context and scope of Scripture will help us determine the correct interpretation. Note from the examples below that translators and translating committees vary greatly in their handling of Romans 9:5:

Although the exact wording of the above translations differs, they fall into two basic categories: those that are worded to make Christ into God, and those that make the final phrase into a type of eulogy or doxology referring to God the Father. The RSV and Moffatt are outstanding examples of the latter.

It should be added that Rom. 9:5 cannot be adduced to prove that Paul ever thought of Christ as God. The state of the case is found in the R.V. margin…He [Paul] never leaves the ground of Jewish monotheism. It has been pointed out that Rom. 9:5 cannot be brought in to question this statement. On the contrary, God is spoken of by the Apostle as not only the Father, but also the God of our Lord Jesus Christ"[29]

3. There is good evidence from both the immediate remote contexts that the last phrase of this verse is a eulogy or doxology to God the Father. "God over all" and "God blessed forever" are both used of God the Father elsewhere in the New Testament (Rom. 1:25; 2 Cor. 11:31; Eph. 1:3, 4:6; 1 Tim. 6:15). In contrast, neither phrase is ever used of Christ. It would be highly unusual to take eulogies that were commonly used of God and, abruptly and without comment or explanation, apply them to Christ.

4. Asking why the words are even in the text gives us a key to understanding them. Paul is writing about the way that God has especially blessed the Jews. The verses immediately before Romans 9:5 point out that God has given them the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the law, the worship, the promises, the patriarchs and even the human ancestry of Jesus Christ. How blessed they are! No wonder a eulogy to God is inserted: "…God, who is over all, be blessed forever! Amen."

5. The entire context of Romans 9:5 is describing God's blessings to the Jews, who have a heritage of being aggressively monotheistic. An insert about Christ being God seems most inappropriate. This is especially true when we understand that Paul is writing in a way designed to win the Jews. For example, he calls them "…my kindred according to the flesh" (v. 3 - NRSV), and says he has sorrow and anguish in his heart for them (v. 2 - NRSV). Would he then put into this section a phrase that he knew would be offensive to the very Jews for whom he is sorrowing and who he is trying to win? Certainly not. On the contrary, after just saying that Christ came from the line of the Patriarchs, something about which the Jews were suspicious, a eulogy to the Father would assure the Jews that there was no idolatry or false elevation of Christ intended, but that he was part of the great blessing of God.

Buzzard, op. cit., Doctrine of the Trinity , pp. 131 and 132; Farley, op. cit., Unitarianism Defined: The Scripture Doctrine of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost , pp. 67–69; Morgridge, op. cit., True Believer's Defence Against Charges Preferred by Trinitarians , pp. 111–114; Norton, op. cit., A Statement of Reasons for Not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians, pp. 203–214; Snedeker, op. cit., Our Heavenly Father Has No Equals , pp. 434–440.

1. Christ is Lord, but "Lord" is not "God." "Lord" (the Greek word is kurios ) is a masculine title of respect and nobility, and it is used many times in the New Testament. To say that Jesus is God because the Bible calls him "Lord" is very poor scholarship. "Lord" is used in many ways in the Bible, and others beside God and Jesus are called "Lord."

The problem these verses cause to anyone who says Christ is God because he is called "Lord" is immediately apparent—many others beside Christ would also be God (for a concise study of the uses of "lord" in the New Testament, see Appendix B).

2. We must recognize that it was God who made Jesus "Lord." Acts 2:36 says: "…God has made this Jesus…both Lord and Christ." If "Lord" equals "God," then somehow God made Jesus "God," which is something that even Trinitarians do not teach, because it is vital to Trinitarian doctrine that Jesus be co-equal and co-eternal with the Father. The fact that the Bible says God made Jesus "Lord" is an argument against the Trinity.

The context of this verse in Romans makes it clear that the "Lord" referred to in this verse is the Lord Jesus Christ. However, this verse is a quotation from Joel 2:32 in the Old Testament, and in Joel the "LORD " is Yahweh. That has caused some Trinitarians to say that Jesus is God. The argument is not valid, however. There is nothing in the context or scope of Scripture that shows that Yahweh and Jesus Christ are the same being. What it shows is simple and straightforward: In the Old Testament, one called upon Yahweh for salvation, and now we call upon Jesus Christ for salvation. This does not show an identity of persons, rather it demonstrates a shift of responsibility. This responsibility that Jesus now has was foreshadowed in the Old Testament record of Joseph: the people would go to Pharaoh for their needs to be met, but after Pharaoh elevated Joseph to second-in-command, he told them, "Go to Joseph" (Gen. 41:55). No one would conclude that Pharaoh and Joseph were the same being, and there is no reason to conclude that Jesus and God are both "God" just because Jesus now has some of the responsibilities that God had until He exalted Jesus.

Part of the confusion surrounding this issue is that in the Old Testament, many versions do not print the name Yahweh, but instead say "LORD ." Although God never commanded it, it was the custom of the Jews, out of reverence for God, not to pronounce the name of God, so they wrote "LORD " when the Hebrew text said Yahweh. Many Christian Bibles do not have God's name clearly translated, but have "LORD " where the Hebrew has Yahweh. This confuses many Christians who see "LORD " in both the Old and New Testaments, and assume it is the same person. Also, many Christians who have some training in the Scriptures have been taught that Yahweh in the Old Testament was Jesus Christ. So, instead of seeing Yahweh in Joel and "Lord" in Romans, and then realizing that the Lord Jesus is now doing what Yahweh did, they erroneously believe the same person is acting in both places.

God made Jesus Lord and gave him all authority. This verse and others show that Jesus has taken on many of the jobs God used to do. We understand that perfectly in our culture, because we know what it means to get a promotion and take over a job someone else used to do. With the promotion and new job often comes a new title. Thus, "this same Jesus" was made "Lord" and "Christ" and was given all authority, including raising the dead and judging the people (John 5:21–27). The verses in the Old Testament that speak of God's authority are often quoted in the New Testament and applied to Christ because God gave the authority to Christ.

See the note on Revelation 5:5.

1. Trinitarians say that this verse supports their position because of the final phrase in the verse, i.e., that all things came through Jesus Christ. But what the verse actually says is that all things came "from" God, "through" Jesus. This testimony stands in contradiction to Trinitarian doctrine because it places Jesus in a subordinate role to God. According to this verse, he is not "co-equal' with the Father.

2. The context is the key to understanding what the phrase "…through whom all things came…" means. There is no mention in either the immediate or the remote context about the Creation of all things in the beginning. Therefore it would be unusual for this verse to mention God's original Creation of Genesis 1:1, which it is not. Rather, it is speaking of the Church. God provided all things for the Church via Jesus Christ. The whole of 1 Corinthians is taken up with Church issues, and Paul starts 8:6 with "for us," i.e., for Christians. The very next two verses speak about the fact that, for the Church, there are no laws against eating food sacrificed to idols. Verse 8 says, "But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do." This revelation was new for the Church. The Old Testament believers did not have this freedom. They had dozens of food laws. The verse is powerful indeed, and states clearly that Christians have one God who is the ultimate source of all things, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, who is the way by which God provided all things to the Church.

3. This verse, when properly understood, is actually strong evidence that Jesus Christ is not God. Polytheism was rampant in Corinth, and Scripture is clear that "…there is no God but one" (1 Cor. 8:4). Then the text continues with the statements that although there may be many gods and lords, for Christians there is but one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. If the doctrine of the Trinity is correct, then this text can only be construed as confusing. Here was the perfect opportunity to say, "for us there is only one God made up of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost," or something similar, but, instead, Scripture tells us that only the Father is God. That should stand as conclusive evidence that Jesus is not God.

1. This verse is only a problem if it is misunderstood or mistranslated. Some Trinitarians use it to teach that Christ was actually with the Israelites, following them around. However, the Old Testament makes no mention of Christ being with the Israelites in the wilderness. And if he had been, he certainly would not have been "following" them.

2. The word "follow" means "to go after," and that can mean either in time or space. The Israelites did "drink," i.e., get nourishment, from knowing about the Christ who was to come after them. The very Trinitarian NIV translates the word "follow" as "accompanied," as if Jesus were accompanying the Israelites on their journey. The Greek word usually translated "follow" is akoloutheo . It appears in the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament 90 times. Even in the NIV it is translated as some form of "follow" (like "follows," "following," etc.) 83 times. The NIV translates akoloutheo as "accompanied" only twice, here and in Mark 6:1, and we submit that the NIV does so here because of the translators' Trinitarian bias and not because the context calls for it. Although it is true that akolutheo can be translated as "accompany," it should not be translated that way here, but would be better translated as "followed." The vast majority of translations agree. As we have said, there is no verse in the Old Testament that records Jesus Christ traveling with the Israelites, so the translation "accompanied" does not fit with the rest of Scripture. Christ was the hope of Israel, and people who looked forward to him were strengthened by their anticipation of their coming Messiah.

3. Since this verse mentions the Israelites in the desert, the desert wanderings become the "remoter context" against which one must check any interpretation. As we have already noted, there is no reference that can be brought forward to show that Christ was either with the Israelites or was somehow following them around. Are there verses that show that the Israelites were looking forward to the Messiah? Yes, many. The Passover Lamb foreshadowed the Messiah. The manna anticipated Christ being "…the true bread from heaven." The Tabernacle, with all its offerings, foreshadowed Christ in many ways, including being the place where people would meet God. The High Priest was a type of the Great High Priest, Jesus Christ. It was in the wilderness where that great prophecy of the coming Messiah was given: "…A star will come out of Jacob; a scepter will rise out of Israel…," and "…their kingdom will be exalted" (Num. 24:17 and 24:7). There is no question that the lesson from these verses is that the people looked forward to the coming of the Messiah and "drank," i.e., got strength and nourishment, from knowing that he was coming.

1. The reason this verse is a problem verse is that the Greek manuscripts differ. Some texts read "Christ," while others read "the Lord." As it is translated in versions like the NIV, AMP, NASB and others that take the word "Lord" as original, there is no problem at all. This verse is only a problem in some versions that have "Christ" instead of "the Lord."

2. The subject of textual criticism is very involved, and it is common that scholars differ in their opinions as to which texts are more original and which texts have been altered. In this case, there are early texts that read "Lord," and some that read "Christ," so the job of determining the original reading from textual evidence becomes more difficult. We agree with the conclusion of Bart Ehrman (The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture ) that "Lord" is the original meaning, and refer anyone who wants to examine the textual argument to his work.

3. Every translator will testify to the importance of context in determining the correct translation of Scripture. We feel the context makes it clear that "Lord" is the correct reading. Although there are dozens of times that the Israelites were said to tempt "God" or "the LORD " in the Old Testament, there is not even a single reference to tempting Christ. By reading the verse carefully, we obtain a vital clue to its meaning and the proper translation. The verse says that when the Israelites tempted the LORD , they were "destroyed by serpents." This phrase allows us to find the exact record in the Old Testament that is being referred to. In Numbers 21:5 and 6, the Israelites "spoke against God" and then "…the LORD sent venomous snakes among them…." In the record of this event in the Old Testament, the words "God" and Yahweh are used, but "Christ" is never mentioned. Furthermore, there is no Scripture anywhere in the Old Testament that says "Christ" poured out his "wrath," and certainly not by sending serpents. Thus, if some Greek texts read "the Lord" and others read "Christ," the context points to "Lord" as the correct interpretation.

1. There is no mention here of the "Trinity." The verses speak of three: God, Christ and the spirit, but do not speak of a Trinitarian formula. We put "spirit" with a lower case "s" because it refers to God's gift of holy spirit that is born in each believer. For more on this use of "spirit," see the notes on Acts 5:3 and 4, Appendix I and our book: The Gift of Holy Spirit: The Power To Be Like Christ .

Three objects are distinctly mentioned—God, Christ and the Spirit. If Christ and the Spirit were persons in the Trinity, the distinct mention of them would be superfluous, they being included in "God." But as one of the objects mentioned is called "God," it follows that neither of the other two can be God; for we know that "there is none other God but one." If the three objects were the three persons in the Trinity, why is the name "God" given to one of them only?

We agree with Morgridge that the mention of "God" as one of the three, precludes the other two from being "God." The language of the text is plain and simple. There are three distinct things being mentioned, and any attempt to force them together into "one" distorts the simple truth being communicated by the Word of God.

1. As this verse is translated in the NIV, it does not have a Trinitarian meaning. Some Trinitarians use the concept from some other translations that "God was in Christ" to prove the Trinity. If the Trinity were true, then God could not be "in" Christ as if Christ were a container. If the Trinity were in fact a true doctrine, then this would be a wonderful place to express it and say, "God was Christ."

2. The fact that in some versions the verse reads that "God was in Christ" is evidence against the Trinity. If the phrase "God was in Christ" means that Christ is God, then when the Bible says that Christ is "in" Christians (Col. 1:27), it would mean that Christians are Christ. Since we know that Christ being "in" Christians does not make us Christ, then we also know that God being "in" Christ does not make Christ God. The correct understanding of the verse is that God was in Christ in the sense that God placed His spirit in Christ, and Christ is in us in the same way—via the gift of holy spirit.

1. The Greek text contains a difficult construction, and reads, "God in Christ," which has caused some to believe it is a reference to the Trinity. Not at all. If anything, it tends to refute the Trinity (see the notes on 2 Cor. 5:19).

1. This closing verse of the epistle of 2 Corinthians is a doxology, and is typical of how Paul closes his Epistles. Galatians, Philippians and both Thessalonian epistles close with "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ…." The close of Ephesians includes "…love with faith from God…." There is no reason to conclude that a closing doxology would not incorporate three wonderful attributes: the love of God, the grace of Christ and the fellowship of the spirit.

2. There is no presentation of the Trinity in this verse. Three different things are mentioned, but they are never said to be "one," or "of one substance," or "making up one God," or anything like what would be needed for a Trinitarian formula. There are many times that three things are mentioned together in the Bible, yet Trinitarians do not make them "one" just because they are mentioned together. For example, "Peter, James and John" are often mentioned together, but that fact does not make them "one." Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are also often mentioned together, and that fact does not make them "one." If three things are actually "one," there must be a clear verse that says so, and as even Trinitarians will admit, there is no such verse that articulates that God, Jesus and the spirit equal "one God."

3. Although this verse is used by some to support the Trinity, a careful reading shows that it actually contradicts it. The three mentioned in the verse are "God," "Jesus Christ" and the "Holy Spirit" (which we believe should be accurately translated as "holy spirit"). Yet the Trinitarian position is that "God" is composed of the Father, Christ and the Spirit. So the fact that the verse mentions "God" separate from Christ and the holy spirit is strong evidence that they are indeed separate from "God" and that there is no Trinity (see also the note on 1 Cor. 12:4–6).

4. This verse does not mean that we have fellowship with the "person," the Holy Spirit, who is part of the Trinity. It refers to the fellowship that Christians have with each other because of the presence of God's gift, holy spirit, in each of us. The "fellowship of the spirit" is a phrase that is also used in Philippians 2:1, and the text note on this verse in the NIV Study Bible is fairly accurate. It says: "…The fellowship among believers produced by the Spirit, who indwells each of them…." We would replace "Spirit" with "spirit," (because we believe it refers to God's gift) and translate "who" as "which" ("spirit" is neuter in the Greek text), but the point is made beautifully. The fellowship of the spirit is the fellowship Christians enjoy with other believers because of the presence of the spirit in each of us (For more on God's gift of holy spirit, see the notes on Acts 5:3 and 4).

There are some Trinitarians who assert that the last phrase of verse 23 proves the Trinity. Not so, for there is no mention of any Trinitarian concept such as "three-in-one." This verse clearly teaches that God was the one who "appointed" Christ to be over the Church. Surely if Christ were a co-equal part of God, he needed no such appointment, because by nature he would already have been over the Church. The way to properly understand this verse is to read it with a standard sense of the word "appointment." If Christ were "appointed" to the position of "Head" over the Church, then it is obvious that he would not have been "Head" without the appointment, which could not be true if Christ were God.

Again the context is the great key in discovering what a verse is saying. The context of the last phrase is plainly given in the words immediately before it: "…the church, which is his body…." Christ does indeed fill everything in every way for his Church, as other verses in the New Testament verify. We know, however, that Christ's authority stretches even beyond his Church, for God gave "all authority" to him (Matt. 28:18). Thus, it is possible, although the context of this verse would not demand it, that it refers to the wide-ranging authority that God gave to Christ. This verse does not prove the Trinity, it simply confirms what other Scriptures teach, i.e., that Christ is the Head of his Body, the Church, that God has set everything under his feet, that he is Lord and that he has been given all authority.

This verse is not a problem in most translations, because most do not have the phrase, "by Jesus Christ," at the end of the verse. Apparently this phrase was added to some Greek manuscripts as debates about the Trinity caused some scribes to "augment" their position by adding to the Word of God, or it could have been a marginal note that was accidentally copied into some manuscripts. It is not well supported in the textual tradition. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament notes that the omission of the phrase is "decisively supported" by the texts, as well as by the "early patristic quotations" (i.e., the places where the Church Fathers quoted the verse). For more information about how Trinitarian information was added, see the notes on 1 John 5:7 and 8.

1. Verse 8 is a quotation from the Old Testament, where the context is referring to what God did, so there are some who say that if the verse is applied to Christ, then Christ must be God. However, it is common for a verse to be interpreted one way in the Old Testament and then applied or interpreted differently in the New Testament. Examples of this are quite abundant, and this is not disputed by theologians. Thus, it is not unusual that an Old Testament quotation would be accommodated to Christ.

A lot has been written on the subject of accommodating Old Testament verses to New Testament circumstances, and we refer interested readers to any good theological library. One illustration of this is the title, "the First and the Last," (see the notes on Rev. 1:17). Another is the prophecy in Hosea 11:1. Hosea is speaking of Israel coming up out of Egypt, but in Matthew 2:15 God accommodates the meaning to Christ coming out of Egypt as a child. Another good example is Jeremiah 31:15. In that prophecy, "Rachel," the mother of Benjamin, was weeping because her children, the Israelites, were taken captive to Babylon. She was told not to weep because "…They will return from the land of the enemy" (31:16). However, the verse about Rachel weeping was lifted from its Old Testament context and accommodated to the killing of the children in Bethlehem around the birth of Christ (Matt. 2:18).

Another example occurs in the accommodating of Psalm 69:25 to Judas. In Psalm 69, David is appealing to God to deliver him from his enemies. He cried to God, "Those who hate me without reason outnumber the hairs of my head…" (v.4). He prayed, "Come near and rescue me; redeem me because of my foes" (v.18), and he continued, "May their place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in their tents" (v.25). Peter saw by revelation that Psalm 69:25 could be accommodated to Judas, and spoke to the disciples around him: "…it is written in the book of Psalms, 'May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it…' " (Acts 1:20).

Since it is clear that prophecies in the Old Testament are brought into the New Testament and accommodated to the New Testament circumstances, it is easy to understand that some prophecies of God working in the Old Testament are pulled into the New Testament and applied to Christ. That is completely understandable because now Christ has "all authority" and has been made Head over the Church. He has been set above all principalities and powers, and given a name above every name. So, when God accommodates a prophecy or a Scripture about Himself to Christ, it does not mean that Christ is God any more than Hosea 11:1 being accommodated to Christ means that Christ is actually the nation of Israel.

1. Using this verse, some Trinitarians try to make Christ into God by what is known as the "Granville Sharp Rule." The following explanation is lengthy, but it is necessary to show that this "rule" has been properly analyzed and shown to be invalid for proving the Trinity. Granville Sharp was an English philanthropist, who began to study the grammar of the New Testament in order to demonstrate that his Trinitarian beliefs were correct and that Christ was God. From his study of the New Testament, he declared that when the Greek word kai (usually translated "and") joins two nouns of the same case, and the first noun has the definite article and the second does not, the two nouns refer to the same subject. This is the principle behind the "rule," but there are a large number of exceptions to it that must be noted.

Buzzard writes about Titus 2:13, also supposedly an example of the Granville Sharp rule:

The point is, that when Scripture refers to "…our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," it can refer to two separate beings—1) the Great God and 2) the Savior, Jesus Christ. Andrews Norton wrote a clear evaluation of the Granville Sharp Rule as it applies to the Trinity in A Statement of Reasons for Not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians . [For the ease of the reader, we have taken the liberty to translate into English some of the Greek words he uses.] Norton writes:

The argument for the deity of Christ founded upon the omission of the Greek article was received and brought into notice in the last century by Granville Sharp, Esq. He applied it to eight texts, which will be hereafter mentioned. The last words of Ephesians 5:5 may afford an example of the construction on which the argument is founded: "in the kingdom of Christ and God." From the article being inserted before "Christ" and omitted before "God," Mr. Sharp infers that both names relate to the same person, and renders, "in the kingdom of Christ our God." The proper translation I suppose to be that of the Common Version [the King James], "in the kingdom of Christ and of God," or, "in the kingdom of the Messiah and of God."

I. There is no similar rule respecting "names of substances considered as substances ." Thus, we may say "the stone and gold," without repeating the article before "gold," though we speak of two different substances. The reason of this limitation of the rule is stated to be that "distinct real essences cannot be conceived to belong to the same thing;" or, in other words, that the same thing cannot be supposed to be two different substances.

In this case, then, it appears that the article is not repeated, because its repetition is not necessary to prevent ambiguity . This is the true principle which accounts for all the limitations and exceptions to the rule that are stated by Bishop Middleton and others. It is mentioned thus early, that the principle may be kept in mind; and its truth may be remarked in the other cases of limitation or of exception to be quoted.

It would therefore, he reasons, be contradictory to suppose that any quality were at once apeira [without experience] and apaideusia [without instruction, stupid, rude]. But the names of abstract ideas are used to denote personal qualities, and the same personal qualities, as they are viewed under different aspects, may be denoted by different names. The reason assigned by Middleton is therefore without force. The true reason for the limitation is that usually no ambiguity arises from the omission of the article before words of the class mentioned.

IV. The rule, it is further conceded, is not of universal application as it respects plurals ; for, says Middleton, "Though one individual may act, and frequently does act, in several capacities, it is not likely that a multitude of individuals should all of them act in the same several capacities: and, by the extreme improbability that they should be represented as so acting, we may be forbidden to understand that second plural attributive of the persons designed in the article prefixed to the first, however the usage in the singular might seem to countenance the construction" (p. 90).

V. Lastly, "we find," he says, "in very many instances, not only in the plural, but even in the singular number, that where attributives are in their nature absolutely incompatible , i.e., where the application of the rule would involve a contradiction in terms, there the first attributive only has the article, the perspicuity of the passage not requiring the rule to be accurately observed " (p. 92).

It appears by comparing the rule with its exceptions and limitations that it in fact amounts to nothing more than this: that when substantives, adjectives, or particles are connected together by a copulative or copulative, if the first have the article, it is to be omitted before those which follow, when they relate to the same person or thing; and it is to be inserted , when they relate to different persons or things, EXCEPT when this fact is sufficiently determined by some other circumstance. The same rule exists respecting the use of the definite article in English.

The principle of exception just stated is evidently that which runs through all the limitations and exceptions that Middleton has laid down and exemplified, and is in itself perfectly reasonable. When, from any other circumstance, it may be clearly understood that different persons or things are spoken of, then the insertion of omissions of the article is a matter of indifference.

But if this be true, no argument for the deity of Christ can be drawn from the texts adduced. With regard to this doctrine, the main question is whether it were taught by Christ and his Apostles, and received by their immediate disciples. Antitrinitarians maintain that it was not; and consequently maintain that no thought of it was ever entertained by the Apostles and first believers. But if this supposition be correct, the insertion of the article in these texts was wholly unnecessary. No ambiguity could result from its omission. The imagination had not entered the minds of men that God and Christ were the same person. The Apostles in writing, and their converts in reading, the passages in question could have no more conception of one person only being understood, in consequence of the omission of the article, than of supposing but one substance to be meant by the terms "the stone and gold," on account of the omission of the article before "gold." These texts, therefore, cannot be brought to disprove the Antitrinitarian supposition, because this supposition must be proved false before these texts can be taken from the exception and brought under the operation of the rule. The truth of the supposition accounts for the omission of the article.[31]

Norton makes some great points and shows the irrelevance of the Granville Sharp Rule in "proving" the Trinity. Because no ambiguity between Christ and God would arise in the minds of the readers due to the omission of the article, it can be omitted without a problem. Likewise, there was no need for a second article in Matthew 21:12 in the phrase, "all the [ones] selling and buying," or in Ephesians 2:20 in the phrase, "the apostles and prophets," because no one would ever think that "sold" and "bought" meant the same thing, or that "apostles" and "prophets" were somehow the same office. The same is true all over the Bible. There is no need for a second article if no confusion would arise without it. The "rule" therefore begs the question. It can be made to apply only if it can be shown that an ambiguity would have arisen in the minds of the first century readers between Christ and God. Because the whole of Scripture clearly shows the difference between Christ and God, and that difference would have been in the minds of the believers, the Granville Sharp "Rule" is not a valid reason to make Christ God.

2. Ephesians 5:5 mentions the kingdom of Christ and of God. There is a time coming in the future when the earth as we know it now, with all its wickedness, disease and death, will be destroyed and it will be made into a place of justice, peace and happiness. Christ taught about this future earth when he said, The meek will inherit the earth (Matt. 5:5). The future Kingdom that will be set up on earth has many names in Scripture. It is called the "kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 4:17, etc.) and the "kingdom of God" (Mark. 1:15, etc.). In what is known as "the Lord's Prayer," Jesus called it "your [i.e., the Father's] kingdom" (Matt. 6:10). Jesus again called it the Father's kingdom in Matthew 13:43. As well as calling it his Father's kingdom, Jesus called it his own kingdom in Luke 22:30, and it is called "…the kingdom of his dear Son" in Colossians 1:13 (KJV). The reason both God and Christ are named as having the kingdom is apparent. In the Millennial Kingdom, Christ will rule with God's authority, and in the Final Kingdom there will be two rulers (Rev. 21:22–22:1). From the above evidence, it is quite fitting and proper to call the future kingdom "the kingdom of Christ and of God." Since it is so well attested that the kingdom will be the kingdom of God, a phrase well known in Scripture, there is no reason to remove "God" from Eph. 5:5 by grammatical juggling (the Granville Sharp Rule would make the word "God" a double reference to Christ and remove the Father from the verse), and every reason to see that He should be in the verse along with Jesus Christ.

1. These verses in Philippians are very important to Trinitarian doctrine (although they have also caused division among Trinitarians) and they must be dealt with thoroughly. There are several arguments wrapped into these three verses, and we will deal with them point by point. First, many Trinitarians assert that the word "form," which is the Greek word morphe , refers to Christ's inner nature as God. This is so strongly asserted that in verse 6 the NIV has, "…being in very nature God…." We do not believe that morphe refers to an "inner essential nature," and we will give evidence that it refers to an outer form. Different lexicons have opposing viewpoints about the definition of morphe , to such a degree that we can think of no other word defined by the lexicons in such contradictory ways. We will give definitions from lexicons that take both positions, to show the differences between them.

Vine's Lexicon has under "form": "properly the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual…it does not include in itself anything 'accidental' or separable, such as particular modes of manifestation." Using lexicons like Vine's , Trinitarians boldly make the case that the "nature" underlying Jesus' human body was God. Trinitarian scholars like Vine contrast morphe , which they assert refers to an "inner, essential nature," with schema , (in verse 8, and translated "appearance" above) which they assert refers to the outward appearance. We admit that there are many Trinitarian scholars who have written lexical entries or articles on the Greek word morphe and concluded that Christ must be God. A Trinitarian wanting to prove his point can quote from a number of them. However, we assert that these definitions are biased and erroneous. In addition, we could not find any non-Trinitarian scholars who agreed with the conclusion of the Trinitarian scholars, while many Trinitarian sources agree that morphe refers to the outward appearance and not an inner nature.

A study of other lexicons (many of them Trinitarian) gives a totally different picture than does Vine's Lexicon . In Bullinger's Critical Lexicon , morphe is given a one-word definition, "form." The scholarly lexicon by Walter Bauer, translated and revised by Arndt and Gingrich, has under morphe , "form, outward appearance, shape." The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament , edited by Gerhard Kittel, has "form, external appearance." Kittel also notes that morphe and schema are often interchangeable. Robert Thayer, in his well-respected lexicon, has under morphe , "the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance." Thayer says that the Greeks said that children reflect the appearance (morphe ) of their parents, something easily noticed in every culture. Thayer also notes that some scholars try to make morphe refer to that which is intrinsic and essential, in contrast to that which is outward and accidental, but says, "the distinction is rejected by many."

The above evidence shows that scholars disagree about the use of the word morphe in Philippians. When scholars disagree, and especially when it is believed that the reason for the disagreement is due to bias over a doctrinal issue, it is absolutely essential to do as much original research as possible. The real definition of morphe should become apparent as we check the sources available at the time of the New Testament. After all, the word was a common one in the Greek world. We assert that a study of the actual evidence clearly reveals that morphe does not refer to Christ's inner essential being, but rather to an outward appearance.

From secular writings we learn that the Greeks used morphe to describe when the gods changed their appearance. Kittel points out that in pagan mythology, the gods change their forms (morphe ), and especially notes Aphrodite, Demeter and Dionysus as three who did. This is clearly a change of appearance, not nature. Josephus, a contemporary of the Apostles, used morphe to describe the shape of statues (Bauer's Lexicon ).

Other uses of morphe in the Bible support the position that morphe refers to outward appearance. The gospel of Mark has a short reference to the well-known story in Luke 24:13–33 about Jesus appearing to the two men on the road to Emmaus. Mark tells us that Jesus appeared "in a different form (morphe )" to these two men so that they did not recognize him (16:12). This is very clear. Jesus did not have a different "essential nature" when he appeared to the two disciples. He simply had a different outward appearance.

More evidence for the word morphe referring to the outward appearance can be gleaned from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament from about 250 B.C. It was written because of the large number of Greek-speaking Jews in Israel and the surrounding countries (a result of Alexander the Great's conquest of Egypt in 332 B.C. and his gaining control over the territory of Israel). By around 250 B.C. , so many Jews spoke Greek that a Greek translation of the Old Testament was made, which today is called the Septuagint. The Septuagint greatly influenced the Jews during the New Testament times. Some of the quotations from the Old Testament that appear in the New Testament are actually from the Septuagint, not the Hebrew text. Furthermore, there were many Greek-speaking Jews in the first-century Church. In fact, the first recorded congregational conflict occurred when Hebrew-speaking Jews showed prejudice against the Greek-speaking Jews (Acts 6:1).

The Jews translating the Septuagint used morphe several times, and it always referred to the outward appearance. Job says, "A spirit glided past my face, and the hair on my body stood on end. It stopped, but I could not tell what it was. A form (morphe ) stood before my eyes, and I heard a hushed voice (Job 4:15 and 16). There is no question here that morphe refers to the outward appearance. Isaiah has the word morphe in reference to man-made idols: "The carpenter measures with a line and makes an outline with a marker; he roughs it out with chisels and marks it with compasses. He shapes it in the form (morphe ) of man, of man in all his glory, that it may dwell in a shrine" (Isa. 44:13). It would be absurd to assert that morphe referred to "the essential nature" in this verse, as if a wooden carving could have the "essential nature" of man. The verse is clear: the idol has the "outward appearance" of a man. According to Daniel 3:19, after Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego refused to bow down to Nebuchadnezzar's image, he became enraged and "the form (morphe ) of his countenance" changed. The NASB says, "his facial expression" changed. Nothing in his nature changed, but the people watching could see that his outward appearance changed.

For still more documentation that the Jews used morphe to refer to the outward appearance, we turn to what is known as the "Apocrypha," books written between the time of Malachi and Matthew. "Apocrypha" literally means "obscure" or "hidden away," and these books are rightly not accepted by most Protestants as being part of the true canon, but are accepted by Roman Catholics and printed in Catholic Bibles. Our interest in them is due to the fact that they were written near the time of the writing of the New Testament, were known to the Jews at that time and contain the word morphe . In the Apocrypha, morphe is used in the same way that the Septuagint translators use it, i.e., as outward appearance. For example, in "The Wisdom of Solomon" is the following: "…Their enemies heard their voices, but did not see their forms…" (18:1). A study of morphe in the Apocrypha will show that it always referred to the outer form.

There is still more evidence. Morphe is the root word of some other New Testament words and is also used in compound words. These add further support to the idea that morphe refers to an appearance or outward manifestation. The Bible speaks of evil men who have a "form" (morphosis ) of godliness (2 Tim. 3:5). Their inner nature was evil, but they had an outward appearance of being godly. On the Mount of Transfiguration, Christ was "transformed" (metamorphoomai ) before the Apostles (Matt. 17:2; Mark 9:2). They did not see Christ get a new nature, rather they saw his outward form profoundly change. Similarly, we Christians are to be "transformed" (metamorphoomai ) by renewing our minds to Scripture. We do not get a new nature as we renew our minds, because we are already "partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4), but there will be a change in us that we, and others, can tangibly experience. Christians who transform from carnal Christians, with all the visible activities of the flesh that lifestyle entails, to being Christ-like Christians, change in such a way that other people can "see" the difference. 2 Corinthians 3:18 (KJV) says the same thing when it says that Christians will be "changed" (metamorphoomai ) into the image of Christ. That we will be changed into an "image" shows us that the change is something visible on the outside.

We would like to make one more point before we draw a conclusion about "morphe ." If the point of the verse is to say that Jesus is God, then why not just say it? Of course God has the "essential nature" of God, so why would anyone make that point? This verse does not say, "Jesus, being God," but rather, "being in the form of God." Paul is reminding the Philippians that Jesus represented the Father in every possible way.

So what can we conclude about morphe ? The Philippian church consisted of Jews and converted Greeks. From the Septuagint and their other writings, the Jews were familiar with morphe referring to the outward appearance, including the form of men and idols. To the Greeks, it also referred to the outward appearance, including the changing outward appearance of their gods and the form of statues. The only other New Testament use of morphe outside Philippians is in Mark, and there it refers to the outward appearance. Also, the words related to morphe clearly refer to an outward manifestation or appearance. We assert the actual evidence is clear: the word morphe refers to an outward appearance or manifestation. Jesus Christ was in the outward appearance of God, so much so that he said, "…He who has seen Me has seen the Father…." Christ always did the Father's will, and perfectly represented his Father in every way.

Schema , as Kittel points out, can be synonymous with morphe , but it has more of an emphasis on outward trappings rather than outward appearance, and often points to that which is more transitory in nature, like the clothing we wear or an appearance we have for just a short time. As human beings, we always have the outward form (morphe ) of human beings. Yet there is a sense in which our schema , our appearance, is always changing. We start as babies, and grow and develop, then we mature and age. This is so much the case that a person's outward appearance is one of the most common topics of conversation between people when they meet.

Like the rest of us, Christ was fully human and had the outward form (morphe ), of a human. However, because he always did the Father's will and demonstrated godly behavior and obedience, he therefore had the outward "appearance" (morphe ) of God. Also, like the rest of us, his appearance (schema ) regularly changed. Thus, in Philippians 2:8, schema can be synonymous with morphe , or it can place an emphasis on the fact that the appearance Christ had as a human being was transitory in nature. The wording of Philippians 2:6–8 does not present us with a God-man, with whom none of us can identify. Rather, it presents us with a man just like we are, who grew and aged, yet who was so focused on God in every thought and deed that he perfectly represented the Father.

2. After saying that Christ was in the form of God, Philippians 2:6 goes on to say that Christ "…did not consider equality with God something to be grasped" (NIV). This phrase is a powerful argument against the Trinity. If Jesus were God, then it would make no sense at all to say that he did not "grasp" at equality with God because no one grasps at equality with himself. It only makes sense to compliment someone for not seeking equality when he is not equal. Some Trinitarians say, "Well, he was not grasping for equality with the Father." That is not what the verse says. It says Christ did not grasp at equality with God , which makes the verse nonsense if he were God.

3. The opening of verse 7 contains a phrase that has caused serious division among Trinitarians. It says, "But made himself of no reputation…" (KJV), "but made himself nothing" (NIV), "but emptied himself " (NASB, RSV, NRSV). The Greek word that is in question is kenos , which literally means, "to empty." For more than a thousand years, from the church councils in the fourth century until the nineteenth century, the orthodox position of the Church was that Christ was fully God and fully man at the same time in one body. This doctrine is known as the "dual nature of Christ," and has to be supported with non-biblical words like communicatio idiomatum , literally, "the communication of the idiom." This refers to the way that the "God" nature of Christ is united to the "man" nature of Christ in such a way that the actions and conditions of the man can be God and the actions and conditions of God can be man. Dr. Justo Gonzalez, an authority on the history of the Christian Church, notes, "The divine and human natures exist in a single being, although how that can be is the greatest mystery of the faith."[32] Biblical truth is not an "incomprehensible mystery." In fact, God longs for us to know Him and His truth (see the notes on Luke 1:35).

The doctrine of the dual nature of Christ has been the standard explanation for the miracles of Christ, such as multiplying food, knowing the thoughts of others, raising the dead, etc. This explanation is maintained in spite of the fact that the prophets in the Old Testament were also able to do these things. The doctrine of Christ's dual nature has caused a serious problem that is stated well by John Wren-Lewis:

Our experience in speaking to Christians all over the world confirms what Wren-Lewis stated: the average Christian does not feel that Christ "…had to be made like his brothers in every way…" (Heb. 2:17), but instead feels that Christ was able to do what he did because he was fundamentally different. We believe that the teaching of the dual nature is non-biblical and robs power from people who might otherwise seek to think and act like Christ. This artificially separates people from the Lord Jesus.

In Germany in the mid-1800's, a Lutheran theologian named Gottfried Thomasius began what has now developed into "Kenotic Theology." This thinking arose out of some very real concerns that some Trinitarians had about dual nature theology. First, dual nature theology did not allow Christ's full humanity to be expressed. Second, it seemed to turn Christ into an aberration: very God and very man at the same time. Third, "if Jesus were both omniscient God and limited man, then he had two centers, and thus was fundamentally not one of us". Kenotic Theology (which has since splintered into a number of variants) provided a "solution" to these problems. Since Philippians 2:7 (NASB) says Christ "emptied Himself," what he must have "emptied" was his God-nature, i.e., sometime before his incarnation, Christ agreed to "self-limitation" and came down to earth as a man only.

Trinitarian theologians have vehemently disagreed among themselves about Kenotic Theology, and some orthodox theologians have even called its adherents "heretics." The central criticisms of Kenotic Theology are: First, being only a little more than a hundred years old, it is simply not the historic position of the Church. Second, orthodox theologians say that it is not biblical, and that Philippians 2:7 does not mean what kenotic theologians say it means. And third, Kenotic Theology forces God to change—God becomes a man—which causes two problems for orthodox Trinitarians: God cannot change, and God is not a man.

We agree with the Kenotic theologians who say that dual nature theology does not allow Christ's humanity to be expressed, and that it creates a "being" who is really an aberration and "fundamentally not one of us."[34] However, we also agree with the orthodox Trinitarians who take the biblical stance that God is not a man, and that God cannot change. We assert that it is Trinitarian doctrine that has caused these problems, and that there simply is no solution to them as long as one holds a Trinitarian position. We assert that the real solution is to realize that there is only one True God, the Father, and that Jesus Christ is the "man accredited by God" who has now been made "both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:22 and 36). Then Christ is fully man and is "one of us," and God is God and has never changed or been a man.

4. While Trinitarians have argued among themselves about the meaning of Philippians 2:6–8, an unfortunate thing has occurred—the loss of the actual meaning of the verse. The verse is not speaking either of Christ's giving up his "Godhood" at his incarnation or of his God-nature being willing to "hide" so that his man-nature can show itself clearly. Rather, it is saying something else. Scripture says Christ was the "image of God" (2 Cor. 4:4), and Jesus himself testified that if one had seen him, he had seen the Father. Saying that Christ was in the "form" (outward appearance) of God is simply stating that truth in another way. Unlike Adam, who grasped at being like God (Gen. 3:5), Christ, the Last Adam, "emptied himself " of all his reputation and the things due him as the true child of the King. He lived in the same fashion as other men. He humbled himself to the Word and will of God. He lived by "It is written" and the commands of his Father. He did not "toot his own horn," but instead called himself "the son of man," which, in the Aramaic language he spoke, meant "a man." He trusted God and became obedient, even to a horrible and shameful death on a cross.

The Philippian Church was doing well and was supportive of Paul, but they had problems as well. There was "selfish ambition" (1:15, 2:3) and "vain conceit" (2:3), arguing and lack of consideration for others (2:4 and 14) and a need for humility, purity and blamelessness (2:3 and 15). So, Paul wrote an exhortation to the believers that, "Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus" (2:5). He then went on to show how Christ did not grasp at equality with God, but was completely humble, and as a result God "highly exalted him." The example of Jesus Christ is a powerful one. We do not need to make sure people notice us or know who we are. We should simply serve in obedience and humility, assured that God will one day reward us for our deeds.

Buzzard, op. cit., Doctrine of the Trinity, pp. 48–50; Dana, op. cit., Letters Addressed to Relatives and Friends, Letter #2, pp. 16 and 17; Farley, op. cit., Unitarianism Defined: The Scripture Doctrine of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, pp. 76–78; Norton, op. cit., A Statement of Reasons for Not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians, pp. 191–193; Op. cit., Racovian Catechism, pp. 119–121; Snedeker, op. cit., Our Heavenly Father Has No Equals, pp. 443–446.

1. As with all good biblical exegesis, it is important to note the context of the verses and why they would be written and placed where they are. Reading the book of Colossians reveals that the Colossian Church had lost its focus on Christ. Some of the believers at Colosse had, in practice, forsaken their connection with the Head, Jesus Christ, and some were even being led to worship angels (2:18 and 19). The situation in Colosse called for a strong reminder of Christ's headship over his Church, and the epistle to the Colossians provided just that.

There is no definitive reason to believe that the believers in Colosse were Trinitarian. A thorough reading of Acts shows that no Apostle or teacher in Acts ever presented the Trinity on their witnessing itineraries. Instead, they presented that Jesus was "…a man approved of God…" (Acts 2:22 - KJV), God's "servant Jesus" (Acts 3:13), God's "Prince" (Acts 5:31), the one God anointed (Acts 10:38), the Son of God (Acts 9:20), etc. Acts has no presentation to new Christians that Jesus was God, nor was there any formal presentation of the Trinity, and Colosse was reached with the Word during the Acts period. This is important background, because Trinitarians read Colossians about Christ creating, and think it refers to Jesus creating the earth in the beginning. But if a person who is not a Trinitarian reads the same passage of Scripture, he will come away with a completely different understanding it.

2. These verses in Colossians clearly teach that Jesus is not God. We know that because they open with Christ being "…the image [eikon ] of the invisible God…." If one thing is the "image" of another thing, it is, by definition, not the thing itself. Christ is the "image" of God, and therefore not God. If he were "God," the verse would simply say so. The Father is plainly called "God" many times in the Bible (John 6:27; Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 15:24), and never called the "image" of God. In contrast, Jesus is called the "image" of God precisely because he is not God. Jesus was the image of God in many ways, and lived and acted like God Himself would have if He had been on earth, which is why he could say, "…Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father…" (John 14:9 and 10).

There are Trinitarian theologians who assert that the word eikon (from which we get the English word "icon," meaning "image," or "representation") means "manifestation" here in Colossians, and that Christ is the manifestation of God. The evidence of Scripture makes it clear that they choose to define eikon as "manifestation" in this one verse to support their belief in the Trinity. The word eikon occurs 23 times in the New Testament, and it is clearly used as "image" in the common sense of the word. It is used of the image of Caesar on a coin, of idols that are manmade images of gods, of Old Testament things that were only an image of the reality we have today, and of the "image" of the beast that occurs in Revelation. 2 Corinthians 3:18 says that Christians are changed into the "image" of the Lord as we reflect his glory. All these verses use "image" in the common sense of the word, i.e., a representation separate from the original. 1 Corinthians 11:7 says, "A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God…." Thus, just as Jesus Christ is called the image of God, so men are called the image of God. We are not as exact an image as Christ is because we are marred by sin, but nevertheless the Bible does call us the "image" of God. Thus, the wording about being the image of God is the same for us as it is for Christ.

We maintain that the words in the Word must be read and understood in their common or ordinary meaning unless good reason can be given to alter that meaning. In this case, the common meaning of "image" is "likeness" or "resemblance," and it is used that way every time in the New Testament. If the word "image" took on a new meaning those few times it referred to Christ, the Bible would have to let us know that. It does not, so we assert that the use of "image" is the same whether it refers to an image on a coin, an image of a god, or for both Christ and Christians as the image of God. In closing this point, we want to reiterate that calling Jesus the "image" of God is very strong evidence that he is not God.

3. People are often confused by Colossians 1:16 because it says "For by him [Jesus] all things were created…." When we read the word "create," we usually think about the original Creation in Genesis 1:1, but there are other ways the word is used in Scripture. For example, Christians are "new creations" (2 Cor. 5:17). After the resurrection, God delegated to Christ the authority to create, and when we read the Epistles we see evidence of Jesus creating things for his Church. For example, Ephesians 2:15 refers to Christ creating "one new man" (his Body, the Church) out of Jew and Gentile. In pouring out the gift of holy spirit to each believer (Acts 2:33 and 38), the Lord Jesus has created something new in each of them, that is, the "new man," their new nature (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15; Eph. 4:24).

Not only did Jesus create his Church out of Jew and Gentile, he had to create the structure and positions that would allow it to function, both in the spiritual world (positions for the angels that would minister to the Church—see Rev. 1:1, "his angel") and in the physical world (positions and ministries here on earth—see Rom. 12:4–8; Eph. 4:7–11). The Bible describes these physical and spiritual realities by the phrase, "…things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible…" (1:16). Jesus was not around in the beginning to create the heavens and the earth, but he did create the "all things" that pertain to his Body, the Church. Colossians 1:16 must be read carefully with a knowledge of both vocabulary and figures of speech if we are going to understand it properly. The study of legitimate figures of speech is an involved one, and the best work we know of was done in 1898 by E. W. Bullinger, titled Figures of Speech Used in the Bible .[35]

Once we understand that Jesus created things for the church, we are in a position to more fully understand verse 16, both how the word "all" is used in the verse, and how the figure of speech epanadiplosis is used. First, the student of the Bible must be aware that when the word "all" (or "every" or "everything") is used, it is often used in a limited sense. People use it this way in normal speech all over the world. I had an experience of this just the other day. It was late at night and I wanted a cookie before bed. When I told my wife that I wanted a cookie, she said, "The kids ate all the cookies." Now of course our kids did not eat all the cookies in the world. The implied context was the cookies in the house . This is a good example of "all" being used in a limited sense, and the Bible uses it that way too. For example, when Absalom held a council against his father, David, 2 Samuel 17:14 says that "…all the men of Israel…" agreed on advice. "All" the men of Israel did not agree with Absalom, but all the men who were there with him did. Another example is Jeremiah 26:8, which says that "all the people" seized Jeremiah to put him to death, but the context makes it clear that "all the people" only meant the people who were present at that time. The last example we will give is 1 John 2:20 (NJKV), which says of Christians, "you know all things." Surely there is no Christian who actually believes that he knows everything. The phrase is using a limited sense of "all," which is determined by the context.

The point we are trying to make is that whenever the word "all" occurs, the reader must determine from the context whether it is being used in the wide sense of "all in the universe," or in the narrow sense of "all in a specific context." We believe the narrow sense is called for in Colossians 1:16, that Jesus created "all" things for his Church, not "all" things in the universe (For more on the limited sense of "all," see the note on John 2:24).

Verse 16 also contains the figure of speech, epanadiplosis , which we refer to as "encircling" in English. E. W. Bullinger notes that the Romans called it inclusio (p. 245), and he gives several pages of examples from the Bible documenting the use of the figure. He writes: "When this figure is used, it marks what is said as being completed in one complete circle…" With that in mind, note that the phrase "all things were created" is repeated twice in the verse, once close to the beginning and once close to the end, thus encircling the list of created things: "For by him all things were created : things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him." The things that are "created" in this list are not the earth and trees and sky that God created in the beginning, but rather the "thrones, powers, rulers and authorities," which are the positions that Christ needed to run his Church, which he created for that purpose. The figure of speech "encircling" identifies the "all things" that Christ created and show us that "all" has a narrow sense, and refers to the things Jesus needed to administer the Church. The Colossian believers had lost their focus on Christ as the Head of the Church, and Colossians 1:16 elevates Christ to his rightful position as Lord by noting that he was the one who created the powers and authorities in the Church.

4. The phrase in verse 17 that "He is before all things…" was to show the Colossians that Jesus has been elevated by God above everything else, certainly far above the "angels" that some people were worshipping (Col. 2:18), and the rules of the world (Col. 2:20). Some people have used the phrase to try to prove that Jesus existed before everything else. However, the word "before" (here pro ) can refer to time, place, or position (i.e., superiority). This leads us to conclude that the whole point of the section is to show that Christ is "before," i.e., "superior to" all things, just as the verse says. If someone were to insist that time is involved, we would point out that in the very next verse Christ is the "firstborn" from the dead, and thus in his new body and in the presence of God "before" his Church in time as well as in position.

5. Colossians 1:19 contains the phrase, "For God was pleased to have all his fullness [Greek is pleroma ] dwell in him," which has confused some people because they wrongly think that if Jesus had God's fullness, he must be God. It is important that we keep in mind that the problem in Colosse was that people had "…lost connection with the Head…," (Col. 2:19), and people needed to be reminded about how important and exalted Jesus really was. One way to elevate Christ was to point out that the fullness of God resided in him. We should immediately notice that this phrase tells us that Jesus is not God, because if he was, the fullness of God would not "reside" in him (the Greek "dwell," or "reside," is katoikeo ; "reside, live, dwell, inhabit"). The fullness of God does not "reside" in God, any more than the fullness of who we are "resides" in us. Our identity and fullness does not just "live" in us, it is us. That the fullness of "God" is said to "reside" or "live" in Christ is proof that Jesus is not God. We see this elsewhere in the New Testament. For example, Ephesians 3:19 (KJV) says, "And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God." Here is Paul's prayer that each Christian be filled with all the fullness [pleroma ] of God, so it is quite clear that a person can be filled with the fullness of God and not be God.

The verse clearly shows that "God" and Jesus are separate, and that Jesus is not God. If the Trinity were true and Jesus were God, this verse would make no sense, and would even confuse people. We can see this because "God" "was pleased" to have "his" fullness dwell in Christ. If Christ were God, then the verse would be saying that it pleased God to have his fullness dwell in himself, which makes no sense. Furthermore, there would be no need for God to "have" his fullness dwell in Christ, because if Christ were God, the "fullness" would already be inseparable from him.

1. This verse, although not usually considered a Trinitarian verse, is occasionally used to show that the mystery of God is Christ (i.e., that Christ is both God and Man, and thus a "mystery"). The verse was a subject of hot debate early in the Christian era, and there is ample evidence from the Greek manuscripts that scribes changed the text to fit their theology. Bruce Metzger writes, "The close of Colossians 2:2 presents what is, at first, a bewildering variety of readings; the manuscripts present fifteen different conclusions of the phrase."[36] In almost all 15 of them, the possibility that Christ could be God is eliminated. The KJV represents a good example: "That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ."

2. There is now a wide concurrence of belief among scholars that the original Greek text read "tou musteriou tou theou Christou ," but the exact translation of that phrase is debated. It can be translated the way the NIV is: "…the mystery of God, namely, Christ." However, it can just as easily be translated "the mystery of the Christ of God." We believe the latter is the most probable translation for reasons that will be given in points 3 and 4 below.

3. It is difficult to make "Christ" into a "mystery" in the biblical sense of the word. In Greek, the word "musterion " does not mean "mystery" in the sense of something that cannot be understood or comprehended by the mind of man. It means a "sacred secret," something that was hidden but is then made known. This point cannot be overemphasized for the correct interpretation of the verse. Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words under "mystery," has this to say about musterion : "…not the mysterious, but that which…is made known in a manner and at a time appointed by God." This is actually very clear in Colossians 1:26 and 27, which speak of the "mystery" that has now been "made known" to the believers.

Thus, a biblical "mystery" can be understood, in contrast to the Trinitarian "mystery," which is beyond comprehension. A quick study of the other uses of "musterion " in the Bible will show that once a "sacred secret" is revealed, it can be understood. But the "Trinity" and the "two natures" cannot be understood at all. Trinitarian theology speaks of the "mystery" of Christ in the sense that his incarnation and dual nature are impossible for us to understand. The Greek text, however, is implying no such thing. 1 Timothy 3:16 does refer to the "secret of godliness," and this text is plainly discernible. Even today, although the Word openly proclaims personal godliness through the Savior, Jesus Christ, this fact remains a secret to the world and, unfortunately, even to some Churchgoers.

4. The difficulty in translating the verse, "the secret of God, namely Christ," can be plainly seen. Although some of what Christ accomplished for us can be called a secret, and some of the things he went through were certainly hidden from the Jews, the Man Jesus Christ is the great subject of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. We believe that it is much more accurate to translate Colossians 2:2 as, "the secret of the Christ of God." We believe this because there is a "sacred secret" in the New Testament that is clearly set forth in the Church Epistles. The word "musterion ," i.e., "sacred secret," is used to refer to the "administration of God's grace" in which we are living now. Ephesians 3:2 and 3 should read, "Surely you have heard about the administration of God's grace that was given to me for you, that is, the sacred secret [musterion ] made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly." Thus, when Colossians refers to "the [sacred] secret of the Christ of God," it is referring to the Grace Administration, which was a sacred secret hidden before the foundation of the world, but revealed to Christians today (see Eph. 3:2–9; Col. 1:27 and Gal. 1:11 and 12, and keep in mind that the word translated in many versions as "mystery" should be "sacred secret").

5. Trinitarians are very open about the fact that the doctrine of the Trinity is a "mystery" that is beyond human comprehension. But with the correct biblical definition of "mystery" as "sacred secret," i.e., "something that anyone can understand once it has been revealed or unveiled," one can ask, "Where does the idea that the Trinity is mysterious and beyond comprehension come from?" That concept is found nowhere in Scripture. There is not a single verse from Genesis to Revelation that a Trinitarian can produce to show that one God exists in three persons and that this is a mystery beyond human comprehension. Yet they continue to say things like, "You can't understand it because it is a mystery." We maintain that the reason the Trinity is a "mystery beyond comprehension" is that it is an invention of man and not actually in the Bible at all.

1. The word "Deity" or "Godhead" is a translation of the Greek word theotes . In A Greek English Lexicon , by Liddell and Scott, the classic lexicon of the ancient Greek language, it is translated as "divinity, divine nature." In making their case, Liddell and Scott cite Greek authors Plutarch and Lucian, and also reference Heliodorus and Oribasius using the phrase dia theoteta = "for religious reasons." The Greek word occurs only once in the Bible, so to try to build a case for it meaning "God" or "Godhead" (which is an unclear term in itself ) is very suspect indeed. Standard rules for interpreting Scripture would dictate that the way Paul used theotes in Colossians would be the same way the Colossians were used to hearing it in their culture. There is no reason to believe that Paul wrote to the Colossians expecting them to "redefine" the vocabulary they were using. Christ was filled with holy spirit "without measure," and God gave him authority on earth to heal, cast out demons, forgive sins, etc. Thus, it makes perfect sense that Scripture would say that Christ had the fullness of the "divine nature" dwelling in him. In fact, the same thing is said about every Christian (2 Pet. 1:4).

2. The word "fullness" demonstrates that the verse is speaking of something that one could also have just a part of. It makes no sense to talk about the "fullness" of something that is indivisible. God is indivisible. We never read about "the fullness of God the Father" because, by definition, God is always full of His own nature. Therefore, the verse is not talking about Christ being God, but about God in some way providing Christ with "fullness." What this verse is saying is made clear earlier in Colossians: "…God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him" (Col. 1:19). That is true. John 3:34 adds clarification: "For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit."

4. If Christ were God, it would make no sense to say that the fullness of God dwelt in him, because, being God, he would always have the fullness of God. The fact that Christ could have the fullness of God dwell in him actually shows that he was not God. 2 Peter 1:4 says that by way of God's great and precious promises we "…may participate in the divine nature…." Having a "divine nature" does not make us God, and it did not make Christ God. The note on 2 Peter 1:4 in the NIV Study Bible is almost correct when, referring to the divine nature, it states: "…we are indwelt by God through His Holy Spirit…" (we would say "holy spirit", referring to God's gift). Likewise Christ, who was filled with holy spirit without limits, had the fullness of "Deity" dwelling in him.

5. The context is a key to the proper interpretation of the verse. The Colossians had lost their focus on Christ (see Col. 1:15–20 above). Colossians 2:8 shows that the people were in danger of turning to "hollow and deceptive philosophy" rather than being focused on Christ. What could philosophy and traditions offer that Christ could not? The next verse is a reminder that there is no better place to turn for answers and for truth than to Christ, in whom all the fullness of God dwells. There is nothing in the context here that would warrant believing that Paul is writing about the Trinity. He is simply saying that if you want to find God, look to Christ. Christ himself had said he was "the Way" and "the Truth," and that "no man comes to the Father except through me."

1. Some Trinitarians try to force this verse to "prove" the Trinity by what is known as the Granville Sharp Rule of Greek grammar. We have shown that this is not a valid proof of the Trinity (see Eph. 5:5, "The Granville Sharp Rule").

2. It is easily established in Scripture that both God and Jesus Christ give grace. The phrase "the grace of God" is well attested to, and there are plenty of verses in the Old and New Testament that reveal the grace of God. That Jesus Christ also gives grace is obvious in Scriptures such as 2 Corinthians 8:9; Galatians 1:6, 6:18; Ephesians 4:7; Philippians 4:23, etc. Also, it is well known from the salutations at the beginning of the Epistles that both God and Jesus Christ send their grace and peace to Christians. One example will do, although many could be given: "To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. 1:7). Since it is so plain in the Bible that both God and Christ give us grace, there is no reason to try to make the two of them into one, and thus remove the Father from the verse.

1. Although the above verse in the NIV does not support the Trinity, there are some Greek manuscripts that read, "God appeared in the flesh." This reading of some Greek manuscripts has passed into some English versions, and the King James Version is one of them. Trinitarian scholars admit, however, that these Greek texts were altered by scribes in favor of the Trinitarian position. The reading of the earliest and best manuscripts is not "God" but rather "he who." Almost all the modern versions have the verse as "the mystery of godliness is great, which was manifest in the flesh," or some close equivalent.

["He who"] is supported by the earliest and best uncials…no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century supports theos ; all ancient versions presuppose hos or ho ["he who" or "he"]; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading theos . The reading theos arose either (a ) accidentally, or (b ) deliberately, either to supply a substantive for the following six verbs [the six verbs that follow in the verse], or, with less probability, to provide greater dogmatic precision [i.e., to produce a verse that more clearly supports the Trinitarian position]."[37]

3. When properly translated, 1 Timothy 3:16 actually argues against the Trinity. "…by common confession great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Beheld by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory" (NASB). This section of Scripture beautifully portrays an overview of Christ's life and accomplishments. It all fits with what we know of the man , Jesus Christ. If Jesus were God, this section of Scripture would have been the perfect place to say so. We should expect to see some phrases like, "God incarnate," "God and Man united," "very God and very man," etc. But nothing like that occurs. Instead, the section testifies to what non-Trinitarians believe—that Christ was a man, begotten by the Father, and that he was taken up into glory.

Buzzard, op. cit., Doctrine of the Trinity , pp. 144 and 152; Dana, op. cit., Letters Addressed to Relatives and Friends, p. 137; Farley, op. cit., Unitarianism Defined: The Scripture Doctrine of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost , pp. 69 and 70; Morgridge, op. cit., True Believer's Defence Against Charges Preferred by Trinitarians , pp. 82 and 115; Snedeker, op. cit., Our Heavenly Father Has No Equals , p. 451.

2. It is important to read the Bible thoroughly to find keys that help with the interpretation of a verse in question. In this case, we find that it was common in the biblical culture to charge someone "in the sight of God" (see note #2 on 2 Tim. 4:1). Given that fact, and given that Paul definitely charges Timothy by both God and Jesus Christ in 1 Timothy 6:13, there is no reason to remove God from this verse by making the word "God" a second reference to Jesus Christ.

3. This verse has an element that is very hard to explain if the Trinity is true, and makes perfect sense if it is not. Paul charges Timothy by God, by Christ and by "the elect angels." This fits beautifully with what we teach; i.e., that there is the one God, and there is the man Jesus who has been made "Lord and Christ," but there is no "person" called "the Holy Spirit." If there were a Trinity composed of three co-equal, co-eternal "persons," why would Paul charge Timothy by the "elect angels" and leave the "Holy Spirit" out of the picture?

1. It is stated by Trinitarians that since God is called "King of kings and Lord of lords," as is Christ, that Christ must be God. However, simply because the same title is used for two individuals does not mean that they are actually somehow one being. Before any conclusion is drawn about the title, we should search all of Scripture to see if we can determine how the title is used. A thorough search reveals that the phrase "king of kings" simply means "the best king." In Ezra 7:12, Artaxerxes is called "the king of kings" because he was the most powerful king at the time. Consider also Ezekiel 26:7: "For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: 'From the north I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, with horsemen and a great army." God again calls Nebuchadnezzar "king of kings" in Daniel 2:37. Nebuchadnezzar was the most powerful king of his day, and the Bible calls him "king of kings." Thus, Scripture shows us that having the title "king of kings" does not make a person God. In the Bible, other powerful kings had that title, and no one denies that Jesus Christ is a powerful king and thus is also worthy of it.

2. In the Semitic languages, the genitive case was often used to express the fact that something was the "best." Thus, "the best king" was designated as "the king of kings," etc. When Daniel revealed King Nebuchadnezzar's dream, Nebuchadnezzar called Daniel's God a "God of gods," and that was long before Nebuchadnezzar realized much about the true God. He was simply stating that since Daniel's God could interpret dreams so well, he was "the best god." When Noah spoke of the future of Canaan, he foretold that Canaan would be "a servant of servants" (Gen. 9:25 - KJV). We use the same terminology in our English vernacular to express the greatness of something: "The sale of sales" is the biggest sale, and "the deal of deals" is the best deal.

3. When properly interpreted, 1 Timothy 6:14–16 is a strong refutation of the Trinity. Unfortunately, the Greek text has been translated with two different slants. A few versions, including the KJV, make the verse read such that Christ shows the Father to the world: "…he [Jesus Christ] shall shew who is the blessed and only Potentate… [i.e., God]." The vast majority of the versions and most of the commentators, however, state that the verse reads differently. They testify that the verse can be very naturally translated to read that God will bring about the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ. And this is exactly the testimony of the rest of Scripture—there will come a day when God will send Jesus back to earth (Acts 3:20). The NASB does a good job of translating the Greek text and staying faithful to the meaning: "…until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which He will bring about at the proper time—He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords; who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen."

The NIV carries the same meaning but, by substituting "God" for "He," makes the verse a little easier for the reader: "…until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which God will bring about in his own time—God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen."

In both these versions, the ending eulogy refers to God. God alone is the one who is immortal and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. Those words cannot be made to refer to Christ, who, although he occasionally takes on some of the titles or attributes of God, cannot accurately be referred to as ever dwelling in unapproachable light or as one whom no man can see.

The reason these verses so strongly testify against the Trinity is now clear. There are clearly two beings involved—"God" and Christ. And of the two, "God" is the "blessed and only ruler," and He will bring about Christ's return. If Christ were God, or an equal part of a "Triune" God, these verses would not differentiate between "God" and Christ by calling "God" the "only ruler."

4. Jesus Christ has been given "all authority" by God. Jesus Christ is the Head of the Body of Christ, the one who will raise and judge the dead, and be the ruler of the next ages. He is called "King of kings and Lord of lords," and as God's vice-regent he is indeed that, but notice should be taken of the fact that Christ is never given the title, "God of gods." That title is reserved for God alone, especially since Christ is not above God. Even after his resurrection and in his glorified body, he still called God, "my God" (John 20:17).

2. There is no logical reason for this verse to have a double reference to Christ by making the word "God" refer to Jesus Christ, thus removing "God" (normally understood to be the Father) from the verse entirely. A study of Scripture reveals that charging someone by God was common in biblical times. For example, the High Priest charged Jesus "before God" to say whether or not he was the Christ (Matt. 26:63), and other examples could be cited. In another place, Paul charged Timothy by both God and Christ: "In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you to keep this command without spot or blame…" (1 Tim. 6:13 and 14).

A study of the books of Timothy will show that Paul charges Timothy three times. The other two times he mentions both Christ and God in his charge (1Tim. 5:21, 6:13). Because it was a custom to charge people before God, and because Paul charges Timothy by both God and Christ in the other places, it is unreasonable for Trinitarians to assert that the word "God" is referring to Christ, and therefore leave God out of the verse altogether. It is much more reasonable to believe that Paul is consistent throughout Timothy and that he does indeed charge Timothy by both God and Jesus Christ, the "Dynamic Duo."

1. Scholars debate the exact translation of this verse, and the two sides of that debate are seen in the various translations. Some scholars believe that "glory" is used in an adjectival sense, and that the verse should be translated as above in the NIV. Versions that follow suit are the KJV and the AMP. Many other versions, such as the Revised Version, ASV, NASB, Moffatt, RSV, NRSV, DRB, NEB, etc., translate the verse very differently. The NASB is a typical example. It reads, "looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus." The difference between the translations is immediately apparent. In the NIV, etc., we await the "glorious appearing" of God, while in the NASB and other versions we await the "appearing of the glory" of God our Savior (this is a use of "Savior" where the word is applied in the context to God, not Christ. See the note on Luke 1:47), i.e., we are looking for the "glory" of God, which is stated clearly as being "Jesus Christ." Of course, the glory will come at the appearing, but Scripture says clearly that both the glory of the Son and the glory of the Father will appear (Luke 9:26). God's Word also teaches that when Christ comes, he will come with his Father's glory: "For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory…" (Matt. 16:27). Keeping in mind that what is revealed in other places in the Bible about a certain event often clarifies what is being portrayed in any given verse, it becomes apparent from other Scriptures referring to Christ's coming that the Bible is not trying to portray God and Christ as one God. In this case, the glory of God that we are waiting for is Jesus Christ.

2. It has been stated that the grammar of Titus 2:13 forces the interpretation that Jesus is God because of the Granville Sharp Rule of grammar. That is not the case, however. The Granville Sharp rule has been successfully challenged, and an extensive critique of it occurs in this appendix in the notes on Ephesians 5:5. The point is that when Scripture refers to "our Great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," it can mean two beings—both the "Great God," and the "Savior," Jesus Christ. The highly regarded Trinitarian Henry Alford gives a number of reasons as to why the grammar of the Greek does not force the interpretation of the passage to make Christ God.[38]

3. The context of the verse helps us to understand its meaning. The verse is talking about saying "no" to ungodliness while we wait for the appearing of Jesus Christ, who is the glory of God. Its purpose is not to expound the doctrine of the Trinity in any way, nor is there any reason to assume that Paul would be making a Trinitarian reference here. It makes perfect sense for Scripture to call Christ "the glory of God" and for the Bible to exhort us to say "no" to ungodliness in light of the coming of the Lord, which will be quickly followed by the Judgment (Matt. 25:31–33; Luke 21:36).

1. The Greek word translated "universe" (or "world" in many translations) is the plural of the Greek word aion , and actually means "ages." There are other Greek words that mean "world," such as kosmos and oikoumene , and when the Devil tempted Jesus by showing him all the kingdoms of the "world," these words are used. This verse is referring to the "ages," not the "world." Vine's Lexicon has, "an age, a period of time, marked in the N.T. usage by spiritual or moral characteristics, is sometimes translated 'world;' the R.V. margin always has 'age.'" Bullinger's Critical Lexicon has:

"Aion [age], from ao , aemi , to blow, to breathe. Aion denoted originally the life which hastes away in the breathing of our breath, life as transitory ; then the course of life, time of life, life in its temporal form. Then , the space of a human life, an age, or generation in respect of duration . The time lived or to be lived by men, time as moving, historical time as well as eternity. Aion always includes a reference to the filling of time"[39]

Since most translators are Trinitarian and think that Jesus was the one who made the original heavens and earth, they translate "ages" as "world" in this verse. But the actual word in the Greek text means "ages," and it should be translated that way.

2. Trinitarians use the verse to try to prove that Jesus Christ created the world as we know it, but the context of the verse shows that this cannot be the correct interpretation. Verses 1 and 2 show that God spoke through Jesus "in these last days," whereas He had spoken "in the past" in various ways. If indeed it were through Jesus that the physical world was created, then one of the ways that God spoke in the past was through Jesus. But that would contradict the whole point of the verse, which is saying that God spoke in other ways in the past, but "in these last days" is speaking through the Son.

4. The fact that God appointed the Son to be "heir" shows that God and the Son are not equal. For the Son to be the "heir" means that there was a time when he was not the owner. The Bible was written using common words that had common and accepted meanings in the language of the time. The doctrine of the Trinity forces these words to take on "mystical" meanings. Yet there is no evidence in Scripture that the writer changed the meaning of these common words. We assert that if the Bible is read using the common meanings of the words in the text, there is simply no way to arrive at the doctrine of the Trinity. The word "heir" is a common one and, because death and inheritance are a part of every culture, it occurs in every language. Any dictionary will show that an heir is one who inherits, succeeds or receives an estate, rank, title or office of another. By definition, you cannot be an heir if you are already the owner. No one in history ever wrote a will that said, "My heir and the inheritor of my estate is…ME!" If Christ is God, then he cannot be "heir." The only way he can be an heir is by not being the owner.

That Christ is an "heir" is inconsistent with Trinitarian doctrine, which states that Christ is co-equal and co-eternal with the Father. If Christ were God, then he was part owner all along, and thus is not the "heir" at all. These verses teach that God is the original owner, and will give all things to His heir, Jesus Christ. It is obvious from the wording of these first two verses that the author of Hebrews does not consider Christ to be God.

5. The entire opening section of Hebrews, usually used to show that Christ is God, actually shows just the opposite. More proof of this is in verses 3 and 4. After Christ sat down at the right hand of God, "…he became as much superior to the angels…" as his name is superior to theirs. "God" has always been superior to the angels. If Christ only became superior after his resurrection, then he cannot be the eternal God. It is obvious from this section of Scripture that "the Man" Christ Jesus was given all authority and made Lord and Christ.

6. Since aionas means "ages" and not "world," it is fair to ask in what sense God has made the ages through Jesus. First, it must be understood that the word "made" is extremely flexible. It is the Greek word poieo , which, both alone and in combination with other words, is translated more than 100 different ways in the NIV, and thus has a wide range of meaning. Some of the ways poieo is translated are: accomplish, acted, appointed, are, be, bear, began, been, bring, carry out, cause, committed, consider, do, earned, exercise, formed, gain, give, judge, kept, made, obey, performed, preparing, produce, provide, put into practice, reached, spend, stayed, treated, was, win, work, wrote, and yielded. Although most people read poieo in Hebrews 1:2 as referring to the original Creation, it does not have to mean that at all. The context dictates that the "ages" being referred to are the ages after Christ's resurrection. In verse 2, Christ became heir after his resurrection. In verse 3, he then sat at God's right hand after his resurrection. Verses 5 and 6 also refer to the Resurrection. The context makes it clear that God was not speaking through His Son in the past, but that He has spoken "in these last days" through His Son, and "given form to" the ages through him (note #1 on Heb. 1:10 below provides more evidence for this).

Broughton, and Southgate, op. cit., The Trinity, True or False?, pp. 286–298; Hyndman, op. cit., Principles of Unitarianism , pp. 123–127; Norton, op. cit., A Statement of Reasons for Not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians, pp. 194–196; Op. cit., Racovian Catechism , pp. 93 and 94; Snedeker, op. cit., Our Heavenly Father Has No Equals , pp. 457–459.

1. The English language makes a clear distinction between "God" and "god." Thus, in English Bibles, the heavenly Father is called "God," while lesser divinities, people with God's authority on earth and important people such as kings, are also called "god" (2 Cor. 4:4; John 10:34 and 35; Acts 12:22). The Hebrew and Aramaic languages cannot make the distinction between "God" and "god." Since Hebrew and Aramaic have only capital letters, every use is "GOD." Furthermore, although the Greek language has both upper case and lower case letters as English does, the early Greek manuscripts did not blend them. It was the style of writing at the time of the New Testament to make manuscripts in all capital letters, so the Greek manuscripts were, like the Hebrew text, all upper case script. Scholars call these manuscripts "uncials," and that style was popular until the early ninth century or so when a smaller script was developed for books.[40]

Actually, Bible students should be aware that in both the early Hebrew and Greek manuscripts there were no spaces between the words, no punctuation marks, no chapters and no verses. The original texts of both the Old and New Testament were capital letters all run together, and it looked like this:

Of course, the entire Bible was hand-printed exactly the same way, with every letter in upper case and no spaces between any words. As you can imagine, that made reading very difficult, and so it was common to read aloud, even when reading to yourself, to make it easier. That is why Philip the Evangelist could hear the Ethiopian eunuch reading the scroll of Isaiah (Acts 8:30). Such a text was hard to read and practically impossible to teach from. Imagine not being able to say, "Turn to Chapter 5, verse 15." Therefore, divisions in the text began to appear quite early. However, because scribes lived far apart and hand-copied manuscripts, the divisions in the various manuscripts were not uniform. The first standardized divisions between verses came into being around 900 A.D. , and the modern chapter divisions were made in the 1200s.

It should now be very clear that there was just no way to distinguish between "God" and "god" in the early texts, and so it must always be determined from the context whether or not the word "GOD" is referring to the Father or to some lesser being. Although it was usual that the presence of the definite article in the Greek text alerted the reader that the "GOD" being referred to was the Father, this was not always the case (see the note on John 10:33). For example, in 2 Corinthians 4:4, the word "theos " has the definite article, but the verse is referring to the Devil. Context is always the final judge of whether theos should be translated "God" or "god."

2. The Semitic languages, and both the Latin and Greek spoken by the early Christians, used the word "God" with a broader meaning than we do today. "God" was a descriptive title applied to a range of authorities, including great people, rulers and people acting with God's authority. In John 10:33, when the Jews challenged Jesus and said he was claiming to be "a god" (mistranslated in most versions as "God"; see our note on that verse), he answered them by asking them if they had read in the Old Testament that people to whom the Word of God came were called "GODS" (and we use all caps here because the earliest texts did. It is hard to escape the modern notion that "God" refers to the True God and "gods" referred to lesser deities).

Any study of the words for "God" in both Hebrew and Greek will show that they were applied to people as well as to God. This is strange to English-speaking people because we use "God" in reference only to the true God, but both Hebrew and Greek used "God" of God, great men, other gods, angels and divine beings. It is the context that determines whether "God" or a great person is being referred to. This is actually a cause of occasional disagreement between translators, and they sometimes argue about whether "GOD" refers to God, the Father, or to a powerful person or representative of God. One example of this occurs in Exodus 21:6, which instructs a master whose servant wishes to serve him for life to bring the servant "to Elohim ." The KJV, the NIV and many others believe that the owner of the servant is supposed to bring the servant before the local authorities, and so they translate Elohim as "judges" (see also Exod. 22:8 and 9 for more examples). Other translators felt that the master was required to bring the servant to God, so they translated Elohim as "God."(e.g., NRSV) Thus, the verse will read, "God" or "judges," depending on the translation.

Hebrews 1:8 is like other verses in that just because the word "theos " ("GOD") is used does not mean that it refers to the Father. It could easily be referring to "god" in the biblical sense that great men are called "god." The Septuagint uses the word theos for God, but also for men in places like Psalm 82 where men represent God. The context must be the determining factor in deciding what "GOD" refers to. In this case, in Hebrews which we are studying, the context is clear. Throughout the entire context from Hebrews 1:1, Christ is seen to be lesser than God the Father. Therefore, the use of "theos " here should be translated "god."

3. The context must determine whether Christ is being referred to as the Supreme Being or just a man with great authority, so it must be read carefully. In this case, however, one need not read far to find that Christ, called "God," himself has a "God." The very next verse, Hebrews 1:9, says, "…therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions…." Thus, Christ cannot be the supreme God, because the supreme God does not have a God. Furthermore, Christ's God "set" him above others and "anointed" him. This makes it abundantly clear that the use of theos here in Hebrews is not referring to Christ being the supreme God, but rather a man with great authority under another God. Andrews Norton writes:

Here the context proves that the word "God" does not denote the Supreme Being, but is used in an inferior sense. This is admitted by some of the most respectable Trinitarian critics. Thus, the Rev. Dr. Mayer remarks: "Here the Son is addressed by the title God : but the context shows that it is an official title which designates him as a king: he has a kingdom, a throne and a scepter; and in verse 9 he is compared with other kings, who are called his fellows; but God can have no fellows. As the Son, therefore, he is classed with the kings of the earth, and his superiority over them consists in this, that he is anointed with the oil of gladness above them; inasmuch as their thrones are temporary, but his shall be everlasting."[41]

4. The verse is a quotation from Psalm 45:6 and 7. The Jews read this verse for centuries and, knowing the flexibility of the word "God," never concluded that the Messiah would somehow be part of a Triune God.

5. We must note that the verse in the Greek text can also be translated as, "Your throne, O God." However, because the verse is a reference from the Old Testament, and because we believe that God, the Father, is calling His Christ a "god" (i.e., one with divine authority), there is no need to translate the verse other than, "…Your throne, O god, will last for ever and ever…."

Broughton, and Southgate, op. cit., The Trinity, True or False?, pp. 196 and 197; Buzzard, op. cit., Doctrine of the Trinity , pp. 35; Dana, op. cit., Letters Addressed to Relatives and Friends, pp. 205 and 206; Farley, op. cit., Unitarianism Defined: The Scripture Doctrine of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost , pp. 71 and 72; Morgridge, op. cit., True Believer's Defence Against Charges Preferred by Trinitarians , pp. 110 and 111; Norton, op. cit., A Statement of Reasons for Not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians, pp. 301 and 302; Snedeker, op. cit., Our Heavenly Father Has No Equals , pp. 459–463.

1. This verse is quoted from the Old Testament (Ps.102:25), where it applied to Yahweh, and the author of Hebrews is lifting it from the Psalms and applying it to Jesus Christ. The subject of the verse changes from Yahweh (Old Testament) to Jesus Christ (New Testament). It makes sense, therefore, that the action being attributed changes also. Many Old Testament verses testify that God created the original heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1, etc.) However, both the Old Testament and New Testament tell us that there will be a new heaven and earth after this one we are currently inhabiting. In fact, there will be two more. First, the heaven and earth of the Millennium, the 1000 years Christ rules the earth, which will perish (Isa. 65:17; Rev. 20:1–10), and then the heaven and earth of Revelation 21:1ff, which will exist forever. The context reveals clearly that Hebrews 1:10 is speaking of these future heaven and earth. If we simply continue to read in Hebrews, remembering that the original texts had no chapter breaks, Scripture tells us, "It is not to angels that He has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking " (Heb. 2:5). This verse is very clear. The subject of this section of Scripture is not the current heaven and earth, but the future heaven and earth. The reader must remember that the word "beginning" does not have to apply to the absolute beginning of time, but rather the beginning of something the author is referring to (see the note on this on John 6:64). When this verse is referring to the work of the Father, as it is in the Old Testament, it refers to the beginning of the entire heavens and earth. When it is applied to the Son, it refers to the beginning of his work, not the beginning of all Creation, as Hebrews 2:5 makes clear.

2. Although we ascribe to the explanation above, a number of theologians read this verse and see it as a reference to the Father, which is a distinct possibility. Verse 10 starts with the word "and" in the Greek text, so verse 9 and 10 are conjoined. Since verse 9 ends with, "…your God, has set you [the Christ] above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy," these theologians see the reference to "the Lord" in the beginning of verse 10 as a reference back to the God last mentioned, i.e., the Father. Norton explains this point of view:

Now the God last mentioned was Christ's God, who had anointed him; and the author [of the book of Hebrews], addressing himself to this God, breaks out into the celebration of his power, and especially his unchangeable duration; which he dwells upon in order to prove the stability of the Son's kingdom…i.e., thou [God] who hast promised him such a throne, art he who laid the foundation of the earth . So it seems to be a declaration of God's immutability made here, to ascertain the durableness of Christ's kingdom, before mentioned; and the rather so, because this passage had been used originally for the same purpose in the 102nd Psalm, viz . [Author uses KJV] To infer thence this conclusion, "The children of thy servants shall continue, and their seed be established before Thee . In like manner, it here proves the Son's throne should be established forever and ever , by the same argument, viz ., by God's immutability."[42]

Theologians such as Norton say that as it is used in the Old Testament, the verse shows that the unchanging God can indeed fulfill His promises, and they see it used in exactly the same way in Hebrews: since God created the heavens and the earth, and since He will not pass away, He is fit to promise an everlasting kingdom to His Son.

Authors who believe that the verse applies to the Father:

1. This verse is occasionally used to prove the Trinity, but if so, it is only because a mistranslation is not recognized. Any student of the Bible should know that the words in the KJV that are in italics were added by the translators. The translators wanted readers to know what was in the Greek text and what was not, so they kindly placed the words they added in italic script. This is much more honest than some versions that add all kinds of things without giving the reader a hint of it. Without the italics , the verse in English becomes somewhat of an enigma, because it is not clear how Christ did not "take on" angels, but did "take on" Abraham's seed. The solution is in the translation of the Greek text, and the modern versions (including the NKJV) get the sense very nicely: "For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendants" (NIV). "For surely it is not with angels that he is concerned but with the descendants of Abraham" (RSV).

2. Correctly translated and read in its context, this verse beautifully portrays how the man, Jesus Christ, "helps" us. He was human like we are, a lamb from the flock, and without spot or blemish so he could accomplish God's purpose by being the perfect sacrifice and thus atone for our sins. This allows us to be totally free from fear of death because Christ showed us that death is not permanent for those who believe in him. God can and will raise us from the dead. And, because he was like us in every way, "he is able to help those who are tempted." Because in the context, it so clearly states that Jesus was "…like his brothers in every way…" (v. 17), there can be no reference to the Trinity in this verse. If the Trinity is correct and Jesus had both an eternal nature and human nature, he is hardly like us "in every way."

As it is translated above, this verse does not support the Trinitarian position at all. In some versions, the name "Joshua" was mistranslated as "Jesus," which makes it sound as if Jesus were in the Old Testament. The names "Jesus" and "Joshua" are the same in Hebrew and Greek, and the translators of the KJV, for example, confused the names. This is easily discernible by reading the context, and every modern version we are aware of, including the New King James Version (NKJV), has the name "Joshua" in the verse, clearing up the misconception that somehow "Jesus" led the Israelites across the Jordan into Canaan (see the notes on Acts 7:45).

1. There are some Trinitarians who teach that Melchizedek was actually Jesus Christ because this verse says he was without Father or mother, beginning or end of life, etc. This cannot be the case, and misses the point of this entire section of Scripture. Knowing the Old Testament, specifically the Law of Moses, and then knowing about the genealogy of Jesus, the Jews did not believe that Jesus could be a high priest. The Law of Moses demanded that priests be descendants of Aaron and of the tribe of Levi. Of course, Jesus Christ came from the tribe of Judah. This "problem" is actually clearly set forth in the book of Hebrews itself: "For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests" (v. 14).

What is the solution to this problem? This section of Hebrews shows that if Melchizedek can be a priest recognized by the great patriarch Abraham, and he had no priestly genealogy, then Christ can be a priest when he has no priestly genealogy. The Jews were very aware of the "qualifications" for the priesthood, and if someone claimed to be a priest but could not produce the required genealogy, he was disqualified (see Ezra 2:62). Thus, when this verse says Melchizedek had no genealogy or beginning or end, the Jews understood perfectly that it meant he did not come from a line of priests. They never thought, nor would they believe, that he had no father or mother or birth or death. They understood that if Melchizedek could be a priest to Abraham without being a descendant of Aaron, the first priest, then so could Jesus Christ.

2. Jesus Christ cannot be Melchizedek. Hebrews 7:3 says that Melchizedek was without Father or mother and without genealogy (i.e., without one given in Scripture). However, Jesus did have a father, God, and a mother, Mary. He also had a genealogy, in fact, two—one in Matthew and one in Luke. Furthermore, this verse says that Melchizedek was "like the Son of God." If he was "like" the Son, then he could not "be" the Son of God.

1. There is nothing in the context to warrant believing that this verse has anything to do with a "plurality of persons," "one substance in the Godhead" or any other Trinitarian concept. The verses around verse 8 tell believers not to be fooled by strange new doctrines. The verse preceding it says to "remember" the leaders and "imitate" them. The verse just after it says, "Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings…." The context makes the intent of the verse obvious. Believers were being led astray by new teachings, and the author of Hebrews was reminding them that Jesus Christ does not change. The truth about him yesterday is the same now and will be the same in the future.

2. Although some people try to use this verse as if it said that Jesus Christ has existed from eternity past, the very wording shows that is not the case. A study of the word "yesterday" in Scripture shows that it refers to something that happened only a short time before. It stretches the grammar beyond acceptable limits to try to make this verse say that Christ has always existed.

The fact that this verse says the "Spirit of Christ" was upon people in the Old Testament has caused people to believe that Christ himself was present in the Old Testament. But, as we will see, such is not the case. In the first place, the phrase "Spirit of Christ" never appears in the Old Testament. The "spirit of the LORD " or "the spirit of God" appears over and over, but never the "Spirit of Christ."

The spirit that people receive from God takes on different names as it refers to different functions. This can be abundantly proven. God always gives His spirit, and then it is named as it functions. When it is associated with wisdom, it is called the "spirit of wisdom" (Exod. 28:3 (KJV); Deut. 34:9; Eph. 1:17). When it is associated with grace, it is called the "spirit of grace" (Zech.12:10; Heb. 10:29). When it is related to glory, it is called the "spirit of glory" (1 Pet. 4:14). It is called the "spirit of adoption" when it is associated with our everlasting life (Rom. 8:15, which is translated as "spirit of sonship" in some versions). It is called "the spirit of truth" when it is associated with the truth we learn by revelation (John 14:17, 16:13). When it came with the same power as it was brought to Elijah, it was called "the spirit of Elijah" (2 Kings 2:15). These are not different spirits. All the names refer to the one gift of holy spirit that God gives. Ephesians 4:4 states clearly that there is "one spirit," and that spirit is God's gift of holy spirit given to some people in the Old Testament and to all believers today.

2. This verse is generally translated one of two ways: "…Our God and Savior, Jesus Christ…" (Revised Version, RSV, NIV, etc.) and "…God and our Savior Jesus Christ… (KJV). Although it is possible that the word "God" (Greek = theos ) is here being used in its lesser sense, i.e., of a man with divine authority (see Heb. 1:8 above), it is more likely that it is referring to the true God as distinct from Jesus Christ. This is certainly the way the context is leading, because the very next verse speaks of them separately.

3. There is absolutely no reason to force this verse to make Jesus Christ into God. It is the opening verse of the epistle, and reading all of the Epistles will show that it is customary in the New Testament to introduce both God and Christ at the opening of each one. Furthermore, it is through the righteousness of both God and Christ that we have received our precious faith. It was through God in that it was He who devised the plan of salvation and was righteous in His ways of making it available to us. It was through Christ in that by his righteous life he carried out the plan so that we can have what we now have. Both God and Christ had to be righteous in order for us to enjoy our current status in the faith, and we think the evidence is conclusive that they are both present in the verse.

There is no Trinitarian inference in the above verse or in 1 John 3:16 as it is translated in most versions. However, the King James Version reads as if "God" laid His life down for us. It reads: "Hereby perceive we the love of God , because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren." The problem is caused by mistranslation. However, the informed reader will see the solution, even in the KJV text itself. In the KJV, words in italics were added by the translators. In this case, the translators added "of God ," and thus caused the difficulty.

1. Some English versions have a shorter rendition of 1 John 5:7 and 8 than the KJV quoted above. The King James Version has words that support the Trinity that most modern versions do not have. How can this be? The reason that there are different translations of this verse is that some Greek texts contain an addition that was not original, and that addition was placed into some English versions, such as the KJV (the words added to some Greek texts are underlined in the quotation above). The note in the NIV Study Bible, which is well known for its ardent belief in the Trinity, says, "…the addition is not found in any Greek manuscript or NT translation prior to the 14th century."

Most modern versions are translated from Greek texts without the addition. We will quote the NIV: "For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement." We agree with the textual scholars and conclude from the evidence of the Greek texts that the statement that the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit are "one" was added to the Word of God by men, and thus has no weight of truth.

There are many Trinitarian scholars who freely admit that the Greek text from which the KJV is translated was adjusted in this verse to support the Trinity. The Greek scholar A. T. Robertson, author of the unparalleled work, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research , and the multi-volumed Word Pictures in the New Testament , writes:

At this point [1 John 5:7] the Latin Vulgate gives the words in the Textus Receptus, found in no Greek MS. save two late cursives (162 in the Vatican Library of the fifteenth century, [No.] 34 of the sixteenth century in Trinity College, Dublin). Jerome did not have it. Erasmus did not have it in his first edition, but rashly offered to insert it if a single Greek MS. had it, and 34 was produced with the insertion, as if made to order. Some Latin scribe caught up Cyprian's exegesis and wrote it on the margin of his text, and so it got into the Vulgate and finally into the Textus Receptus by the stupidity of Erasmus."[44]

Robertson shows how this addition entered the text. It was a marginal note. Since all texts were hand-copied, when a scribe, copying a text, accidentally left a word or sentence out of his copy, he would place it in the margin in hopes that the next scribe would copy it back into the text. Unfortunately, scribes occasionally did not make the distinction between what a previous scribe had left out of the last copy and wrote in the margin, and marginal notes that another scribe had written in the margin to help him understand the text. Therefore, some marginal notes got copied into the text as Scripture. Usually these additions are easy to spot because the "new" text will differ from all the other texts. However, there are times when people adore their theology more than the God-breathed original, and they fight for the man-made addition as if it were the original words of God. This has been the case with 1 John 5:7 and 8, and we applaud the honesty of the translators of modern versions who have left it out of their translations.

The famous textual scholar, F. F. Bruce, does not even mention the addition in his commentary on 1 John (The Epistles of John ). The International Critical Commentary does not mention it either. The conservative commentator R. C. H. Lenski, in his 12 volume commentary on the New Testament, only mentions that it is proper to leave the addition out. He writes: "The R. V. [Revised Version] is right in not even noting in the margin the interpolation found in the A.V. [KJV]." Henry Alford, author of the The Greek Testament , a Greek New Testament with extensive critical notes and commentary, writes:

2. With the spurious addition gone, it is clear that there is no reference to the Trinity in 1 John 5:7 and 8. The context is speaking of believing that Jesus is the Son of God (v. 5 and 10). There are three that testify that Jesus is the Son of God: the spirit that Jesus received at his baptism, the water of his baptism and the blood that he shed.

Scripture says, "We accept man's testimony, but God's testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son" (1 John 5:9). This verse is so true! How often people accept man's testimony and believe what men say, but do not believe what God says. We need to accept the testimony of God that He has given about His Son, and agree with the testimony of the spirit, the water and the blood, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Farley, op. cit., Unitarianism Defined: The Scripture Doctrine of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost , pp. 28–33; Morgridge, op. cit., True Believer's Defence Against Charges Preferred by Trinitarians , pp. 70–87; Sir Isaac Newton, "An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture ," reprinted in 1841 (John Green, 121 Newgate Street, London), pp. 1–58; Norton, op. cit., A Statement of Reasons for Not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians, pp. 185 and 186; Op. cit., Racovian Catechism , pp. 39–42; Snedeker, op. cit., Our Heavenly Father Has No Equals , pp. 118–120.

1. Many Trinitarians claim that the final sentence in the verse, "This is the true God," refers to Jesus Christ, since the closest noun to "This" is "Jesus Christ." However, since God and Jesus are both referred to in the first sentence of the verse, the final sentence can refer to either one of them. The word "this," which begins the last sentence, is houtos , and a study of it will show that the context, not the closest noun or pronoun, must determine to whom "this" is referring. The Bible provides examples of this, and a good one is in Acts 7:18 and 19 (KJV): "Till another king arose, which knew not Joseph. The same (houtos ) dealt subtilly with our kindred, and evil entreated our fathers, so that they cast out their young children, to the end they might not live." It is clear from this example that "the same" (houtos ) cannot refer to Joseph, even though Joseph is the closest noun. It refers to the other king earlier in the verse, even though that evil king is not the closest noun.

If it were true that pronouns always referred to the closest noun, serious theological problems would result. An example is Acts 4:10 and 11(KJV): "Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This [houtos ] is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner." If "This" in the last sentence refers to the closest noun or pronoun, then the man who was healed is actually the stone rejected by the builders that has become the head of the corner, i.e., the Christ. Of course, that is not true.

An even more troublesome example for those not recognizing that the context, not noun and pronoun placement, is the most vital key in determining proper meaning, is 2 John 1:7 (KJV): "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist." The structure of this verse closely parallels the structure of the verse we are studying. If one insists that the final phrase of 1 John 5:20 refers to Jesus because he is the closest associated noun, then that same person is going to be forced by his own logic to insist that Jesus Christ is a deceiver and an antichrist, which of course is absurd. Thus we conclude that, although the last phrase of 1 John 5:20 may refer to Jesus Christ, it can just as easily refer to God, who appears in the phrase "Son of God " and, via the possessive pronoun "his," in the phrase "his Son Jesus." To which of the two it refers must be determined from studying the words in the verse and the remoter context.

2. Once it is clear that the last sentence in the verse can refer to either Jesus or God, it must be determined which of the two it is describing. The context and remoter context will determine to whom the phrase "true God" applies. The result of that examination is that the phrase "true God" is used four times in the Bible beside here: 2 Chronicles 15:3; Jeremiah 10:10; John 17:3 and 1 Thessalonians 1:9. In all four of these places, the "true God" refers to the Father and not the Son. Especially relevant is John 17:3, which is Jesus' prayer to God. In that prayer, Jesus calls God "the only true God." These examples are made more powerful by the consideration that 1 John is a late epistle, and thus the readers of the Bible were already used to God being called the "true God." Add to that the fact that John is the writer of both the gospel of John and the epistles of John, and he would be likely to use the phrase the same way. Thus, there is every reason to believe that the "true God" of 1 John 5:20 is the heavenly Father, and there is no precedent for believing that it refers to the Son.

4. Not all Trinitarians believe that the last sentence in the verse refers to the Son. A study of commentators on the verse will show that a considerable number of Trinitarian scholars say that this phrase refers to the Father. Norton and Farley each give a list of such scholars. In his commentary on 1 John, Lenski writes that although the official explanation of the Church is to make the sentence refer to the Son:

Buzzard, op. cit., Doctrine of the Trinity , pp. 137 and 138; Farley, op. cit., Unitarianism Defined: The Scripture Doctrine of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost , pp. 72–75; Norton, op. cit., A Statement of Reasons for Not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians, pp. 196–199; Op. cit., Racovian Catechism , pp. 78–89; Snedeker, op. cit., Our Heavenly Father Has No Equals , pp. 466–468.

1. As it is written above and in most other versions, the doctrine of the Trinity is not stated or implied in this verse in any way.

2. However, there are a few texts that add the phrase "the only Lord God" in close proximity to "Jesus Christ," and this has caused some Trinitarians to force this verse into a proof of the Trinity by using the grammar and the Granville Sharp Rule. This falls short on two counts. First, the Granville Sharp Rule cannot be shown to "prove" the Trinity (see the extensive note on Eph. 5:5). Second, modern textual research has shown that the word "God" in the phrase "the only Lord God" was not in the original text, but was added as the centuries progressed. Textual critics and translators recognize that fact and thus modern translations read in ways similar to the NASB ("…our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ").

1. These words apply to God, not to Christ. The one, "…who is, and who was, and who is to come…" is clearly identified from the context. Revelation 1:4 and 5 reads: "…Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits before his throne, and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.…" The separation between "…him who is, and who was, and who is to come…" and Christ can be clearly seen. The one "…who is, and who was, and who is to come…" is God.

3. Because of the phrase, "…the Alpha and the Omega…," many feel this verse refers to Christ. However, a study of the occurrences of the phrase indicates that the title "Alpha and Omega" applies to both God and Christ. Scholars are not completely sure what the phrase "the Alpha and the Omega" means. It cannot be strictly literal, because neither God nor Christ is a Greek letter. Lenski concludes, "It is fruitless to search Jewish and pagan literature for the source of something that resembles this name Alpha and Omega. Nowhere is a person, to say nothing of a divine Person, called 'Alpha and Omega,' or in Hebrew, 'Aleph and Tau.'"[47]

Although there is no evidence from the historical sources that anyone is named "the Alpha and Omega," Bullinger says that the phrase "is a Hebraism, in common use among the ancient Jewish Commentators to designate the whole of anything from the beginning to the end; e.g., 'Adam transgressed the whole law from Aleph to Tau' (Jalk. Reub., fol. 17.4)"[48] The best scholarly minds have concluded that the phrase has something to do with starting and finishing something, or the entirety of something. Norton writes that these words, "denote the certain accomplishment of his purposes; that what he has begun he will carry on to its consummation" (pp. 479 and 480).

Since both God and Jesus Christ are "the Alpha and the Omega" in their own respective ways, there is good reason to believe that the title can apply to both of them, and no good reason why that makes the two into "one God." The titles "Lord" (see Rom. 10:9 above), "Savior" (see Luke 1:47 above) and "king of kings (see 1 Tim. 6:14–16 above) apply to both God and Christ, as well as to other men. As with "Lord," "Savior" and "King of kings," this title fits them both. God is truly the beginning and the end of all things, while Christ is the beginning and the end because he is the firstborn from the dead, the Author and Finisher of faith, the Man by whom God will judge the world, and the creator of the new ages to come (see Heb. 1:10 above).

Some texts in the Western tradition add the words, "I am the Alpha and Omega" to this verse, but textual scholars agree that the phrase is an addition to the text, and thus versions like the NIV, NASB, etc., do not have the addition (see the notes on Rev. 1:8).

1. Many theologians have noticed the similarities between this description of Christ in Revelation, and the description of the "Ancient of Days" (i.e., God) in Daniel 7:9 and Ezekiel 43:2. Thus, based on the similarities between the two descriptions, these verses are used to support the Trinity. One of the reasons that more Trinitarians do not advance these verses in Revelation as a "proof" of the Trinity is that most Christians are unprepared to really understand the argument. That God appeared in the form of a human being is very new information for most people, and quite a few are unwilling to accept it. Nevertheless, the Trinitarian argument goes like this: God appeared in the Old Testament with a certain physical description. Christ has much the same description; therefore Christ must be God.

2. When God became visible to Daniel (7:9), He had hair "white like wool," and from Ezekiel (43:2 - NASB) we learn that His voice "…was like the sound of many waters.…" This description is the same for Jesus Christ in Revelation 1:13–15, and thus the two are compared. Although we realize that these descriptions are similar, we would note that many things that are similar are not identical. Police are very aware of this. If you went to the police with the description of a man and said, "He has white hair and a deep voice," that would be helpful, but more would be needed to establish identity, since that description can fit more than one person.

To see if Christ is the same as, or identical with, God, we must study the records, and indeed, the entire scope of Scripture. Daniel, Chapter 7 is about the succession of empires through time. By the time we get to verse 9, Daniel described a vision he had of something that is still future to us. He described God preparing for the Judgment. Daniel also foresaw Jesus Christ taking the kingdom from his God, the Ancient of Days.

In the book of Revelation, God and Christ are both present. Chapter 4 and the opening of Chapter 5 describe God on a throne with a scroll in His right hand. Then Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, "… came, and He took it out of the right hand of Him who sat on the throne" [i.e., God] (5:7 - NASB). Again, there are clearly two present: God and Christ. Nothing in the context indicates in any way that these two are somehow "one." There is no reason to assume that. Two is two. Furthermore, why is it so amazing that the risen Christ has an appearance similar to the one that God chooses to take on when He appears to us? Since God can take on any form He wants, why would He not take on a form that he knew would be similar to His Son? This similarity does not prove identity in any way, but it does show the functional equality of Jesus Christ and God.

1. The phrase, "…the First and the Last," is a title that is used five times in the Bible, twice in Isaiah of God (44:6, 48:12) and three times in Revelation of the Son (1:17, 2:8, 22:13). Trinitarians sometimes make the assumption that since the same title applies to both the Father and the Son, they must both be God. However, there is no biblical justification on which to base that assumption. When the whole of Scripture is studied, one sees that the same titles are used for God, Christ and men. Examples include "Lord" (see Rom. 10:9 above) and "Savior" (see Luke 1:47 above) and "King of kings" (see 1 Tim. 6:14–16 above). If other titles apply to God, Christ and men without making all of them into "one God," then there is no reason to assume that this particular title would mean they were one God unless Scripture specifically told us so, which it does not.

Thus, the Bible connects the phrase "…the First and the Last" with calling forth the generations. While God was the one who called forth the generations in the Old Testament, He has now conferred that authority on His Son. Thus, it is easy to see why the Lord Jesus is called "…the First and the Last…" in the book of Revelation. It will be Jesus Christ who will call forth the generations of people from the grave to enter in to everlasting life. God gave Jesus authority to raise the dead (John 5:25–27). His voice will raise all dead Christians (1 Thess. 4:16 and 17), and he will change our bodies into new glorious bodies (Phil. 3:20 and 21). However, even when Jesus said he had the authority to raise the dead, he never claimed he had that authority inherently because he was God. He always said that his Father had given authority to him. While teaching about his authority, Jesus Christ was very clear about who was the ultimate authority: "…the Son can do nothing by himself…the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son…For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to judge…" (John 5:19, 22, 26 and 27). If Jesus had the authority to raise the dead because he was in some way God, he never said so. He said he had his authority because his Father gave it to him. With the authority to raise the generations came the title associated with the existence of the generations, and thus after his resurrection Jesus Christ is called "…the First and the Last."

1. As it is translated above, there is no Trinitarian inference in the verse. It agrees perfectly with what we know from the whole of Scripture: that God has made Jesus both Lord and Christ.

2. In the KJV, the word "ruler" (Greek = arche ) is translated "beginning." The word arche can mean "beginning," "first" or "ruler." When most people read the KJV, they say that Jesus Christ is the "beginning" of God's original creation, and this has caused some people to say that the verse is Trinitarian, because Jesus would thus have been before everything else. If that interpretation is correct, then this verse would be a strong argument against the Trinity because then Christ would be a created being. "Arianism" is the doctrine that Christ was the first of all of God's created things and that God then created everything else through Christ, and the way the KJV translates the verse can be understood as Arian.

3. It is possible (and some scholars do handle the verse this way) to understand the word "beginning" as applying to the beginning of the new ages that Christ will establish. If that were so, the verse would be similar to Hebrews 1:10 (see above). Christ, being the "firstborn from the dead," would be the beginning of God's new creation. Although it is certainly possible from a textual standpoint to handle the verse that way, the context of the verse is Christ ruling over his people. He is reproving and disciplining them (v. 19) and granting places beside him with the Father (v. 21). Thus, the translation of arche as "ruler" is a good translation and best fits the context. No one can argue with the fact that Christ is the ruler over all of God's creation.

Jesus Christ is called the "Root of David" two times in the book of Revelation (here and 22:16), while in two other places he is called the "Root of Jesse" (Isa. 11:10; Rom. 15:12). Jesse was the father of David (Ruth 4:22; 1 Chron. 2:12–15), so the phrases are basically equivalent, however, the name "Jesse" is more closely associated with the whole royal lineage and the people of God, while "David" is more directly associated with the kingdom.

In order for us to understand the phrases: "Root of Jesse" and "Root of David," we must understand how the word "root" was used in the Bible and in the biblical culture. It is used literally of the root of a plant or tree, as many verses show (Matt. 3:10; Luke 17:6). In both Hebrew and Greek, the word "root" is also used to portray strength, stability, the foundation of something, and the source of nourishment (Isa. 27:6; Ezek. 31:7; Hosea 9:16; Matt. 13:21; Mark 4:17). Furthermore, in both Hebrew and Greek it is used to portray the source of something (1 Tim. 6:10; Heb. 12:15).

When the Bible calls Jesus Christ the "Root of Jessie" or "the Root of David," it is saying that Jesus Christ is the strength and stability, as well as the source of nourishment, for the kingdom of God and the people of God. Trinitarians assert that as "God," Jesus is the creator of the people of God and is therefore their root, or source. Jesus, however, never even hinted that he was the creator of people. He himself is often referred to as the "son" of David. In John 15, Jesus refers to himself as the vine (not "root"), and the people as the branches. He made it clear that unless one remained in the vine, he would bear no fruit. Similarly, a plant that is cut off from its root, its source of strength and nourishment, dies. In that sense, Jesus saying he is the vine and we are the branches, or Jesus being our "root," are very similar. From the context and scope of Scripture we can conclude that when Scripture says that Jesus is the "Root of David" it is saying that Jesus is the foundation of stability, strength, and nourishment for the Kingdom of God and the people of God.

There is another possibility that we must consider when studying these verses. The Greek word rhiza , usually translated "root," can also mean "shoot" or "sprout." Furthermore, the Hebrew word sheresh , normally translated "root," can also refer to a sucker on a stump or the growth of new plant out of the ground (cp. Isa. 53:2). Scholars such as R. C. H. Lenski assert that "shoot" is proper translation of rhiza and sheresh in the verses referring to the Messiah being from Jesse or David. In that case, the Messiah is the shoot that comes up from the stump of Jesse and David, which is certainly true.

The kingdom of Israel, represented by Jessie or David, was cut off so completely by its captors, the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans, that it did not look as if there would ever be a kingdom of Israel again. Only a "stump" remained of the once powerful kingdom. Nevertheless, a "shoot" came up from that stump of Jessie and David to reestablish the kingdom of Israel.

There is still another possibility. Since both "root," and "shoot" can be the meaning of the original text, and since both meanings are true of Jesus Christ and important for understanding who he is and what he does, it is possible that God is employing the figure of speech Amphibologia . We sometimes refer to this figure as "double entendre" and it occurs when one thing is said, but it can be taken two ways, both of which are true. Jesus is both a shoot from Jessie and David, and also the "root" of the people of Israel, their source of strength and stability.

1. For commentary on the phrase "Alpha and Omega," see Revelation 1:8 above.

2. The exact meaning of the phrase "…the Beginning and the End…" is not given. Scholars give differing explanations of the phrase, but the meaning must be closely associated with the concepts of "Alpha and Omega" and "First and Last" because these titles are associated together (see Rev. 22:13 below). We have seen from the study of the title "Alpha and Omega" that it refers to the start and finish of something, and we have seen from the title "First and Last" (Rev. 1:17) that Christ will raise up the generations of people unto everlasting life. It is clear why Christ would be called the "Beginning and the End" in association with these concepts. He is the firstborn from the dead, and he will be the one to call the last people out of their graves, he is both the Author and Finisher of faith, he is the Man by whom God will judge the world and he is the one who will then create and bring to completion the next ages (see the notes on Heb. 1:10). There is no compelling reason to assume Jesus is God simply because of the title, "the Beginning and the End."

This verse refers to Jesus Christ for commentary on the phrase "Alpha and Omega," see the notes on Revelation 1:8; on "the First and Last," see the notes on Revelation 1:17; on "the Beginning and the End," see the notes on Revelation 21:6.

See the note on Revelation 5:5.

This guide takes the verses listed above and outlines them by categories. Individual explanations for these verses are in the Canonical Index above. The reason for a topical Guide is to allow students to better study the verses that fall under specific categories. A second reason is to allow people to find answers to verses that may not be listed above, but fall under a general heading. For example, some Trinitarians insist that because Jesus is called "Lord," he is God. We explain why that thinking is not valid in our explanation of Romans 10:9 above, however, we do not feel it is necessary to list every place in the New Testament where Jesus is called "Lord." An interested person can find "Lord" below in the topical index and know where to look for our explanation.

[9 ]. Brown, Driver and Briggs, op. cit., The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, p. 11 (Adon , "Lord"). We have changed the punctuation and reference abbreviations to make it consistent with the abbreviations we use for ease of reading. The letters in parenthesis mark their belief as to the exact writer or redactor of that portion of Scripture, something we do not agree with theologically.

[16 ]. A number of authors have written about this future war. A few of the notable ones are: E. W. Bullinger, op. cit., Commentary on Revelation , pp. 403–412; Arnold Fruchtenbaum, The Footsteps of the Messiah (Ariel Ministry Press, Tustin, CA, 1982), pp. 165 and 166; Henry Morris, The Revelation Record (Tyndale House Publishers, Wheaton, IL, 1983), pp. 223–228; John Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Moody Press, Chicago, 1966), pp. 191–194.

[17 ]. Arndt and Gingrich, op. cit., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament .