The Only Perfect Man

Large Print Edition
This large-print edition is suitable for

reading on a tablet or laptop computer,
and has a regular book layout (e.g.,
footnotes are placed on the same page).
The text is identical to that of the print

book available from Amazon.com
(2nd edition, 525 pages, ISBN 978-
1532898273). The Kindle e-book version is
also available (ASIN B074VXY7LF).
PDF Edition of “The Only Perfect Man”
T his book is released to the public as a free PDF e-book.

Although free, it remains under copyright and is not in
the public domain. You may redistribute the PDF file or host
it at your website if no fee is charged for distributing it and if
no alteration is made to it, as issued by Christian Disciples
Church. For the latest version of the file, please visit:
http://www.christiandc.org or
http://www.christiandiscipleschurch.org
The print edition of this e-book, with the exact same text,
can be ordered from Amazon.com. Please make sure that you
order the 2nd edition (ISBN 978-1532898273), not the first.
The Kindle e-book version is available (ASIN B074VXY7LF).
Permission is needed for translating this book. To write us
about translating it, please use the email address listed below.
This e-book is released to the world free of charge and
with the same objective that the author, Eric Chang, had
always had for it: the glory of God and the edification of
God’s people in Jesus Christ.
Christian Disciples Church

[email protected]
July 2017
The Only
Perfect Man
The
Glory of God
in the
Face of Jesus Christ
Second Edition
The Only
Perfect Man
The Glory of God in
the Face of Jesus Christ
Edition 2.3
Eric H.H. Chang
Edited and Completed by

Bentley C.F. Chan
The Only Perfect Man: The Glory of God in the Face of Jesus Christ
Eric H.H. Chang with Bentley C.F. Chan
Second Edition (version 2.3)

Copyright © 2014, 2017, 2020, all rights reserved
Eric H.H. Chang, Bentley C.F. Chan
Print edition available from Amazon.com and other online stores

Kindle e-book available at Kindle and online stores
Cover design by Bentley C.F. Chan

Image credits: © aaltair / Shutterstock,
© Can Stock Photo / Malija, © Can Stock Photo / ronyzmbow
Scripture quotations marked ESV are from The Holy Bible, English Standard
Version, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers.
Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Scripture quotations marked NASB are from the New American Standard Bible, ©
copyright The Lockman Foundation 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973,
1975, 1977, 1988, 1995. Used by permission.
Scripture quotations marked HCSB are from the Holman Christian Standard Bible.
Copyright © 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by
permission. Holman Christian Standard Bible, Holman CSB, and HCSB are
federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers.
Scripture quotations marked NIV are from The Holy Bible: New International
Version. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society,
www.ibs.org. All rights reserved worldwide.
To Jesus Christ, Lord and Savior,
“the Son of God, who loved me
and gave himself for me”
(Galatians 2:20)
Contents
Foreword xv
Preface 1
Statement of Belief 5
Introductory Remarks 13
Biblical versus Trinitarian Meanings of Bible Terms 22
Chapter 1 Yahweh, The One and Only God 41

Chapter 2 The Historical Roots of Trinitarianism: 85
Constantine and Nicaea
Chapter 3 The First Pillar of Trinitarianism: 143
John’s Prologue (1:1-18)
Chapter 4 The Second Pillar of Trinitarianism: 241
Colossians 1:15-19
Chapter 5 The Third Pillar of Trinitarianism: Hebrews 1 283
Chapter 6 The Fourth Pillar of Trinitarianism: Revelation 1 319
Chapter 7 Doxologies in the New Testament 345
Chapter 8 Are Worship and Prayer Directed to Jesus? 385
Chapter 9 The Humanity of Jesus Christ 427
Chapter 10 Philippians 2: The Name Above Every Name 509
Chapter 11 Further Reflections on Trinitarianism 555
Chapter 12 Yahweh and His Relationship to Jesus 631
Chapter 13 Jesus the Only Perfect Man 669
Chapter 14 Epilogue: The Glory of God in the Face 721
of Jesus Christ
Appendix 1 Encyclopaedia Judaica on YHWH 731
Appendix 2 Jewish Encyclopedia on Yahweh 735
Appendix 3 The Meaning of “I Am Who I Am” 738
Appendix 4 Jewish Encyclopedia on Memra 741
Appendix 5 Jesus’ Sinless Perfection is Rejected by 747
Many Scholars as Impossible
Appendix 6 Karl-Josef Kuschel on Christ and Adam 751
Appendix 7 The Gnostic Origins of “Homoousios” 756
Appendix 8 The Irresolvable Problems of Trinitarian 760
Christology
Appendix 9 What Philo Teaches, and Why He Cannot 771
be Used in Support of Trinitarianism
Appendix 10 All Instances of “In Christ” in Paul’s Letters 791
Bibliography 819
Scripture Index 829
Foreword
T hose who seek after God’s truth in a good and honest

heart—and strive for the faith once for all delivered to
the saints—will find in this book a kindred spirit. Page after
page, chapter after chapter, this book offers the reader of any
theological persuasion a rich encounter with the deep, penet-
rating insights of the author, a former trinitarian and staunch
proponent of Christ’s deity. The engagement is ultimately
with the Bible itself, which is upheld in the present work as
the sole and supreme authority on matters of faith and
doctrine.
Unlike most non-trinitarians, Eric H.H. Chang had never
belonged to any historically non-trinitarian movement, but
had for decades lived in the world of trinitarianism, even the
inner sanctums of trinitarian thinking. But one day his eyes
were opened to the clear light of Biblical monotheism. After a
wrenching struggle with his own deep-rooted trinitarian
belief, he has since desired to reverse the trinitarian teaching
that he had been promulgating for years in his books,
lectures, and church ministry trainings.
I have known the author, Eric H.H. Chang, and his wife,
Helen, for over a third of a century. I first met him on Sept-
ember 11, 1977. Some 35 years later, Christmas Day 2012, I
spoke to him for the last time. He is my friend, my teacher,
and my pastor. He is my spiritual father and mentor who
pointed me to God the Father and to Jesus Christ, Son of
God and Lamb of God.
Before Eric Chang died in January 2013 after having
served God devotedly for more than half a century, he had
been working on the present book. He and I had a prior
arrangement for me to get it published when the writing is
done. More than that, if he should depart before the writing
is finished, I will complete the writing of the book. The latter
scenario turned out to be true.
A few days after his death, Helen asked me to retrieve his
manuscript files from his computer. Some of his manuscript
notes were brief, some were developed, but most were in
between, which means that I could not avoid doing a fair
amount of writing. I fearfully but cheerfully, in that order,
took up the challenge of completing the writing of the book.
I believe that in God’s eyes, Chang’s manuscript notes,
despite having some missing gaps, were “complete” in a real
sense when they were passed to me, for God’s timing in a
person’s life—and in his death—will work for good for those
who love Him.
Although he had more things in mind to write on, what
Eric Chang had already said in this book—together with his
previous work, The Only True God—would be more than
enough to discharge him of his earthly responsibility of
proclaiming Yahweh as the only true God, and of passing on
that responsibility to his readers. In these two books we see
his commitment to the truth, his submission to the Bible’s
authority, his pastoral concern for the church, and his love for
God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ.
My role in this book

It is not uncommon for a book to be completed by someone
else after the passing of the original author. For example, the
erudite Theology of the New Testament was written by the late
Georg Strecker and “edited and completed” by Friedrich
Horn.
I likewise declare on the cover pages of the present book
that the original author, Eric H.H. Chang, is the sole author
of the book, and that it has been “edited and completed” by
someone else. I am, however, listed as the second author in
the book’s ISBN registration because I account for 35% of
the book’s contents in terms of information, and 65% of the
written composition.
In this book I use a simple style of writing. Despite my
equal esteem for British and American English, this book uses
American spelling and punctuation, but that is only because I
am more familiar with American conventions. In line with
modern books, I drop all literary distinction between double
and single quotation marks except for the purpose of nesting
quotations. And I don’t hesitate to use contractions.
It sounds like a cliché to say that on me rests the responsi-
bility for all mistakes and shortcomings in the book, but in
this case the responsibility is real and justly rests on me.
A man after God’s heart
This book was written from a shepherd’s heart by a man of
God. Though trained in the Bible at several schools (Bible
Training Institute; London Bible College; University of
London), Eric Chang was not an armchair theologian but a
true man of God who, as I can testify, loved God with his
whole heart and had experienced apostolic miracles as
recounted in his book, How I Have Come to Know God. In
1997, my wife Sylvia and I spent a month in Israel with him
and other coworkers, and there I was impressed by the con-
crete expressions of his love for Jews, Christians, and Muslims
(notably a certain Ali Hussein of Cairo).
My prayer is that you, dear reader, will be blessed by this
book, and that the glory of Yahweh God will shine through
you in Jesus the Messiah, bringing life and light to those
around you. May God our loving Father be pleased to use
this book to impart insight about Himself and His great
Name, and Jesus Christ the Son of God and the only perfect
man who has ever lived.
Gratitude
Special thanks to Helen Chang for your friendship and
encouragement; to Sylvia for your love over the decades and
your help on the manuscript; to Agnes and Lee Sen for your
fine research on “in Christ”; to Winston for your proofread-
ing; to Chris for your good suggestions over the years; to my
fellow regional overseers for your friendship and caring lead-
ership; to Felicia who gave me two good suggestions for the
book; to those who have translated the book into Chinese,
Thai, Indonesian, and other languages; to Robert a Canadian
brother and Debbie an American sister for being God’s
instruments who have led me to know Him.
My involvement in TOTG and TOPM has given me
wonderful perks, one of which is a new and widening circle of
friends: William and Eleanor MacDonald, Anthony and
Barbara Buzzard, Dan and Sharon Gill, Greg Deuble, Bruce
Lyon, John Reichardt, Maksim Ryzhikh, Tracy Zhykhovich,
Clark Barefoot, and many others. To these good people I say
thank-you for your friendship and your personal proclamat-
ion of the one true God.
Bentley Chan
Montreal, Canada
July 1, 2014, revised July 18, 2017
[email protected]
Preface
I n this book we discuss some of the important and keenly

debated issues relating to the trinitarian portrayal of Jesus
Christ as the God-man. We hope that our contribution to the
overall discussion, in terms of presenting the biblical data, will
motivate Christians everywhere to see the supreme authority
of the inspired Scriptures in evaluating the truth of any
doctrine.
This book, The Only Perfect Man, is the sequel to, but also
the counterpart of my earlier book, The Only True God. 1 For
convenience, these two books will sometimes be referred to as
TOPM and TOTG, respectively. Beyond the symmetry of
their titles, there are several points of similarity—and con-
trast—that connect the two books.
Firstly, TOTG and TOPM are written from the per-
spective of Biblical monotheism and not that of trinitarian-
ism. We take the term “monotheism” in its strict sense of the
belief in one and only God, as opposed to the polytheistic
belief in a multiplicity of divine beings. Our study of the
Scriptures has led us to the solid conclusion that there is one
1
Eric H.H. Chang, The Only True God: A Study of Biblical
Monotheism, CreateSpace, 2017, Charleston, North Carolina, ISBN
978-1532898204 (originally published in 2009 by Xlibris, ISBN 978-
1436389471, Library of Congress no. 2008911119). The book can be
downloaded from http://www.christiandc.org.
and only God, that He is one Person, that His name is
Yahweh, that He is the Father of Jesus Christ. We are equally
convinced that the Bible teaches that Jesus is the Son of God,
not “God the Son” (a title that never occurs in the Bible);
Jesus is not God; Jesus is the perfect image of God; Jesus
manifests the full glory of God; Jesus exercises all the author-
ity of God as God’s appointed plenipotentiary.
Secondly, whereas the first book TOTG centers on Yah-
weh the only true God, the present book TOPM centers on
Jesus Christ, the Son of God and the only perfect man who
has ever lived.
Thirdly, TOTG and TOPM are connected—and likewise
God and Jesus Christ are connected—by the biblical truth
that Yahweh, the only true God, dwells in (“tabernacles in”)
the man Christ Jesus, the perfect temple of God. (This bibli-
cal fact does not require us to take the trinitarian view that by
incarnation the preexistent second person of the Trinity took
on human existence as Jesus Christ such that Jesus now
possesses both a divine nature and a human nature.) John’s
Prologue (John 1:1-18) says that God Himself, who is the
Word, came into the world to dwell in Jesus. Verse 14 (“the
Word became flesh and tabernacled among us”) aligns with
the truth that Jesus’ body is the temple in which God dwells
(Jn.2:19), as will be discussed in chapter 3 of this book.
Indeed, Jesus speaks of his Father as “the Father who dwells
in me” (John 14:10, ESV).
Fourthly, because TOPM was published after TOTG, one
might think that the earlier book has to be read first before
embarking on the present work. But that is not so. TOPM is
a self-contained book that can be read independently of
TOTG. If you intend to read both books, you can read them
in either order. For the benefit of those who have not read
TOTG or have forgotten its contents, I will in the present
book occasionally refer to certain chapters of the earlier book
for some background information. You can then refer to the
print edition of TOTG available from Amazon.com, or the
PDF edition available at http://www.christiandc.org.
Fifthly, there is substantial carryover of TOTG into
TOPM in that the discussion on monotheism and trinitarian-
ism in the earlier book will continue well into TOPM. This is
necessary for clearing the trinitarian obstacles that hinder our
understanding of Jesus as the only perfect man.
Note:
• I would sometimes point out that a particular section of
this book, because of its technical nature, may be
skipped without impairing the flow of reading. This is
for the benefit of those who prefer not to read the
technical details.
• Most footnotes may be skipped though most of them
provide useful exegetical or biblical information.
• The appendixes may be skipped though the last one
contains important information.
• BDAG refers to A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Bauer,
Danker, et al). All citations from BDAG are taken from
the 3rd edition, but these can be found in the 2nd
edition, though sometimes under a different section.
• HALOT denotes Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the
Old Testament. We consult HALOT and BDAG
because they are the foremost lexical authorities for
biblical Hebrew and biblical Greek, respectively.
Statement of Belief:
How I View the Word of God
I n this study on Jesus the only Perfect Man, it is only right

that the reader be given an understanding of how this
writer looks at the Bible as a whole and the New Testament
in particular.
Many books have been written on the Bible but their
authors seldom indicate exactly how they view the Bible. Is
the Bible to them an ancient religious document that may be
of some or even considerable value for the study of antiquity?
Is the Bible, then, a collection of ancient documents that are
valuable for gaining an understanding of the nations of the
ancient Near East, of Israel in particular, but also of the enor-
mous impact that the Bible has had, especially on western
civilization?
But as an ancient document on religion and history, what
authority does the Bible hold for our faith today? A view of
the Bible that has no consideration of its authority would be
of little more than academic interest to us, and would not
have any defining meaning for our faith and the way we live.
I wish to make it clear from the start that this is not the
way I view the Bible, the Scriptures. I instead view the Bible
as the Word of God. I do not mean that it is a piece of divine
dictation given to the writers of its constituent parts, who
6 The Only Perfect Man
during the dictation were functioning as robots or recording

machines while their minds remained passive. On the contra-
ry, I believe that every writer of Scripture could be described
as a preacher or a prophet who had been given a message
from God, and who then re-expressed that divine message
from his own heart and mind with the full deliberateness of
his character and indeed his whole being.
This is confirmed by the fact that the books of the Bible,
including the New Testament letters, bear the linguistic styles
of their respective writers and even their language abilities.
For example, James has a high standard of Greek, either his
own Greek or that of an amanuensis (roughly equivalent to a
secretary in today’s terms), in contrast to the “rough” Greek
of Revelation. There would be no such linguistic or stylistic
diversity if the contents of the books were given to the writers
word for word through divine dictation. As one who has
preached many messages in my lifetime, I have some glimmer
of understanding of what the prophet Jeremiah meant when
he said that the message he had received from God was like a
fire burning in his bones (Jer.20:9). This is not a statement
that could have come from the mouth of a mere passive
“stenographer” of God’s Word.
A man of God who taught me the Word of God

I view the Bible as the Word of God not because of any loy-
alty to some denominational creed but because ever since the
day I first experienced God, I have come to know Him as
“the living God” (a term used in both the Old and New
How I View the Word of God 7
Testaments). That crucial day stretches back six decades to

Christmas Day 1953, in liberated China, when I was mulling
over an invitation to have refreshments at someone’s home. I
was undecided about going to a Christian home because I had
considered myself, if not an atheist, at least an agnostic. After
much hesitation, I arrived late at this home only to see that
most of the people there were leaving. Only two remained: a
man, just under 40, with a gentle, handsome and finely
featured face, and a middle-aged woman with graying hair
who was the one who had given me the invitation in the first
place, and whose home hosted the small Christmas party.
I won’t recount the other events of that evening—during
which the woman remained largely quiet, and the younger
man, Henry Choi, spoke to me about God and Jesus Christ
—except to say that before the day was over, I had arrived at
my own “Damascus road experience,” as Paul’s encounter
with Jesus in Acts 9 is often called.2
Within a year of that life-changing experience of mine,
Henry, who had become my teacher of the New Testament
and in particular of John’s Gospel which he brought to life in
a way I had not heard from anyone before, was one night
arrested outside his home and never seen again. To the
knowledge of all his friends, Henry had never been involved
in politics or expressed any interest in it.
2
This and other experiences of God in my early Christian years are
recounted in How I Have Come to Know God, 2017, CreateSpace,
Charleston, North Carolina, ISBN 978-1534995772. You can read the
book online at www.christiandc.org.
Surely here is a man of God of whom it could be said that

he was on fire for “God and His Christ”. Henry was a
research chemist, and he used his income to fund his evangel-
istic and preaching activities in the neighboring villages in the
greater Shanghai area. Was it for this that he was arrested? On
this side of eternity, we will never know.
Hearing God’s voice in God’s Word: The first

commandment
Studying the Bible is not like studying any other subject be-
cause the Bible is not primarily a book on history, geography
or literature, but is first and foremost the word of God.
Sometimes God does speak through the backdrop of history
or geography but we cannot study the Bible in the way we
study history or literature or any other subject if our aim is to
hear God’s voice in God’s word. But if hearing God’s voice is
not our objective, then of course we can study the Bible as an
academic subject.
What then must we do to hear God’s voice when we read
His word? We must start at the very beginning, with the first
of God’s commandments, the importance of which was
brought out by a scribe when he asked Jesus which is the first
of the commandments. Jesus replied:
This first of all the commandments is: “Hear, O Israel, the
LORD our God, the LORD is one. And you shall love the
LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with
all your mind, and with all your strength.” This is the first
commandment. And the second, like it, is this: “You shall

love your neighbor as yourself.” There is no other command-
ment greater than these. (Mark 12:29-31, NKJV)
When we fulfill the two great commandments—love for

God and love for neighbor—we will hear God’s voice in the
Bible. What we previously thought were mere stories, histor-
ical events, poems and proverbs, now become the channel of
God’s communicating with us. What we thought were
ancient writings that have lost their relevance for us today are
now living words that speak to our hearts. The God we have
been reading about in the Bible is now the God who reaches
our deepest thoughts with His word. Now we understand
why He is called “the living God” in both the Old and the
New Testaments.
But if we don’t fulfill the first commandment, we won’t
know God as the living God. Many Christians find them-
selves in this situation because they haven’t been taught to
love God with their whole being. In what meaningful sense
are we the disciples of Jesus if we don’t fulfill what he had
taught us about loving God? The consequences of this failure
for our lives and the church are on display for all to see. Some
Christian leaders have told me that after having served in the
ministry for some 20 or 30 years, they still don’t have the
spiritual power to fulfill the ministry to which they have com-
mitted themselves. The living God is hardly seen in the
church today because the first great commandment has been
neglected.
As trinitarians we rejected the monotheism of the first com-

mandment which is central to the spiritual life of Israel as
expressed in the Shema:
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. You
shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all
your soul and with all your might.” (Deuteronomy 6:4-5,
“LORD” is literally “Yahweh”)
It is never too late to return to Yahweh our God. If we

return to the first commandment, we will experience the
fulfillment of a promise from God: “I will restore to you the
years that the swarming locust has eaten” (Joel 2:25). Then
we will have the joy of knowing Him who is called “the living
God”.
Experiencing God is essential for understanding

His Word
I remember something from my student days in London that
remains etched in my memory. My professor of Hebrew was
discussing with me certain difficult texts in the Hebrew Bible
when he paused and said to himself, “I wonder if there is
really a God after all.” I was taken aback by his statement,
finding it hard to understand how anyone could devote a life-
time to studying the Hebrew Bible without believing in the
existence of the God who is central to that Bible. Was he only
interested in its literature?
I too was looking at the texts that were being discussed

when my professor uttered those astonishing words. I took a
look at him and saw that he was gazing heavenward towards
the ceiling while speaking in deep contemplation. He was a
well-known scholar who had published many books and arti-
cles on specialized topics on the Hebrew Bible. So why did he
at this particular moment stop to think of God’s reality? After
a few minutes of reflection, he returned to the text before us
and soon the session was over. But that incident left a deep
impression on me. Here was an erudite scholar famous in his
field of biblical studies who evidently had not come to any
firm conclusion about God’s reality.
He wasn’t the only one in the Faculty of Divinity who had
doubts about God’s existence. Some of the other professors
didn’t believe in God apparently because they hadn’t exper-
ienced Him as a living reality. They would, however, still
teach the Old and New Testaments as academic subjects,
with God being one of the topics. That the Scriptures were
given by divine inspiration was not something that they
accepted, for they regarded the Bible as a product of human
tradition, and found support for this view by pointing to the
human errors evident in its pages as we have them today, in-
cluding alterations to the biblical texts made either intention-
ally or by copying errors. In these tedious academic studies,
God is lost sight of. It is well known that many Bible-be-
lieving Christians have gone into theological studies with the
aim of preparing for church ministry, only to lose their vision
and even their faith because they too lacked the experience of
the living God.
How we read the Scriptures is governed by whether we

have experienced God’s reality. One who knows God will
“hear” His word in a fundamentally different way from one
who doesn’t know God. When I speak of knowing God, I
mean it as Paul meant it when he said, “I know whom I have
believed” (2Tim.1:12). Many believe in God in some vague
sense but that kind of belief is not a substitute for knowing
God. A faith that is not rooted in the experience of God will
soon become narrow, dogmatic, and hostile to those who
don’t share its opinions. But those who know God don’t
behave in this way.
I am mentioning all this because of its importance for
understanding the message of this book, which is an exposit-
ion of Scripture. I believe in the Bible as the Word of God
not merely as a point of creedal dogma, but having lived by
its teaching and discovering through this process that the
Bible “works,” I know it is the truth.
Jesus said to his fellow Jews, “If anyone is willing to do
God’s will, he will know whether my teaching is from God or
whether I am speaking on my own authority” (Jn.7:17). And
indeed I have found God’s word to be true.
It doesn’t mean that scholarship can be ignored or that
biblical studies and accurate exegesis can be tossed aside. We
can be sure that God is not glorified by carelessness in study-
ing the Bible, for God is a God of perfection. So even if we
have not attained to a high level of technical competence, we
should at least give our best efforts to the exposition of God’s
Word.
Introductory Remarks
F irstly, as stated in the book’s title—The Only Perfect

Man—the biblical Jesus is a man, a real human being like
every other human person in the world. He is not a “divine
man” or a “God-man” as posited in trinitarianism. If there
was ever such a person as a God-man, he would not be a real
man. “Divine men” or “gods” (cf. “gods many,” 1Cor.8:5)
abounded in Greek mythology and were familiar to the early
Christians who lived in pagan societies. Barnabas and Paul, in
their mission among the Gentiles, were mistaken for the gods
Zeus and Hermes (Acts 14:12) when the people of Lycaonia
rushed out to worship them, even preparing sacrificial
offerings to them. But Barnabas and Paul cried out, “Men,
why are you doing these things? We are also men of the same
nature with you” (v.15).
Jesus, as we see him in the New Testament, is a man with
the same nature as all human beings, just as Elijah was a man
with the “same nature” as us (James 5:17). Because Jesus
shared the same nature as humans, he was “in every respect
tempted as we are, yet without sin” (Heb.4:15).
But being of the same nature doesn’t mean that he is the
same as us in every respect. This brings us to the next point.
Secondly, the man Jesus was perfect. His perfection was
not, however, something that came to him automatically by
any supposed status as God the Son, the second person of the
Trinity, but something that he had learned through suffering

and attained by Yahweh’s indwelling presence in him.
Thirdly, Jesus is the only perfect man who has ever lived.
Among all the human beings who have ever lived since the
fall of Adam and Eve, there has been “none righteous, not
even one” (Rom.3:10). But when Jesus came, there was final-
ly one, but only one.
Because there has never been a sinless person in history
apart from Jesus, he is an extraordinary man, a unique man, a
glorious man, the only man who has attained to the zenith,
the highest point, of Yahweh’s eternal purposes for man. To
emphasize this remarkable fact, it is appropriate in some con-
texts to use the capitalized “Man” to show that he is true man
yet at the same time not an ordinary man, but one who had
attained perfection by Yahweh’s grace and power.
In some translations of the Hebrew Bible (the so-called
Old Testament), a few people are said to be “perfect,” but in
such cases the Hebrew word is more appropriately translated
“blameless,” a rendering that is seen in some other Bibles. No
human apart from Jesus has ever attained absolute perfection.
What was achieved by the few righteous people in the Old
Testament was not an absolute perfection but a relative
perfection or a relative blamelessness within humankind. But
when we speak of Jesus as the only perfect man, we are
speaking of his absolute sinlessness, of a total perfection with
no ifs or buts, of an achievement that is truly astounding. The
Perfect Man is the greatest miracle that Yahweh has ever done
in Christ, for no man can ever attain to absolute perfection
unless God empowers him every moment of his life. This was
achieved in the case of Jesus also for the reason that he lived
every moment of his life in total obedience to his Father
Yahweh.
Fourthly, because of his perfection, Jesus was exalted to
the highest place in the universe second to God Himself.
Jesus is seated at the “right hand of God,” made second only
to Yahweh in all creation. God has subjected everything to
him and committed all power to him. Jesus thereby functions
as God’s visible representative, hence the subtitle of this book:
“The glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2Cor.4:6).
Anyone who sees the face of Jesus sees the glory of God.
Writing from the perspective of a battlefield

This study is not a work of one who lives and works in the
academic world, though academia is not unfamiliar to him,
but that of a church minister and leader of a fairly large
fellowship of churches. The mission of the church universal is
to fulfill what Jesus had said to his disciples, that the “gospel
of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole
world as a testimony to all nations” (Mt.24:14). Advancing
God’s kingdom in a world in which mighty forces are
opposed to Him will inevitably mean that our mission is not
an easy walkover but an intense fight (2Tim.4:7). That this
struggle is not just a figure of speech drawn from the language
of athletic competitions such as those held in Corinth, can be
seen from the literal sufferings and close brushes with death
that Paul had encountered (2Cor.11:23f).
What it means is that this book is written from the vantage

point of a battlefield rather than the polished halls of academ-
ia. In turn it means that the subject-matter cannot be studied
with the kind of academic detachment that some scholars
may be able to indulge in, but rather with the subjectivity of
personal involvement in a battle that is “unto death”
(Rev.2:10; Mt.24:13; Mk.13:13). Personal involvement may
at times give rise to an intensity and vehemence of expression
that are far removed from the cool and dispassionate state-
ments of those who look at the matter from a distance. Con-
sider Jesus’ anger when he made a whip of cords to drive out
merchants and money changers from the temple (Jn.2:15).
In reality few are disengaged from the important issues dis-
cussed in this study, for there are few topics that engage the
emotions of the heart as much as the matters of faith
discussed here.
Even so, when it comes to interpreting Bible passages, it is
crucial for us to have the objectivity that equips us to study
them with care and accuracy, and with such academic com-
petence as we possess, not allowing our doctrinal presuppos-
itions to influence our understanding of what the Bible is
saying to us.
Capitalization
In this work the terms “Bible” and “Scripture” are written in
capitals as also sometimes their adjectival forms “Biblical” and
“Scriptural,” not because of bibliolatry (worship of the Bible)
but to emphasis that the Scriptures (the OT and the NT), as
the Word of God (not by dictation but by inspiration, 2Tim.

3:16), are the final and absolute authority for faith and doc-
trine. The failure to adhere to this ultimate spiritual principle
has resulted in the church’s falling into fatal errors.
Pronouns that refer to God are sometimes capitalized, not
only out of reverence but to distinguish references to Him
from pronominal references to others within the same sen-
tence. For example, the following sentence would be hard to
understand without pronominal capitalization:
Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left
nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see
everything in subjection to him. (Heb.2:8, ESV)
If we capitalize “he,” which refers to God, with all other pro-

nouns referring to Christ, the meaning becomes clear:
Now in putting everything in subjection to him, He (God)
left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see
everything in subjection to him.
On the same topic—the subjection of all things to Christ—

Paul says:
For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.”
But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain
that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him.
(1Cor.15:27, ESV)
The meaning of the clause in italics is made clear if we

capitalize “he” (referring to God). In fact, for clarity, NIV
goes beyond translation when it inserts the words “God” and
“Christ” into this verse: “this does not include God himself,
who put everything under Christ”.
Procedure: a matter of crucial importance

A study of how trinitarianism has developed will show that it
began with the Gentile worship of Jesus. That the early Gen-
tiles had a propensity for worshipping their god-men is seen
in the worship of Barnabas as Zeus and Paul as Hermes (Acts
14:12).
Since the trinitarian worship of Jesus as God is not based
on the Bible, it will come as no surprise that the Nicene
Creed and a few subsequent early “Christian” creeds do not
cite a single verse of Scripture to support their dogmatic as-
sertions. In short these are man-made creeds that are based on
human authority and not on the authority of the Scriptures,
the Word of God. No attempt is even made to conceal this
fact. The church leaders, called Fathers and bishops, elevated
themselves to being God’s appointed authority invested with
the supreme power to make binding decisions on doctrine
and to cast an anathema (a curse) on those with different
views.
It was not until the Reformation with its acceptance of sola
Scriptura (Scripture alone) as the doctrinal basis for the
church, and with its corresponding rejection of the authority
of the Catholic church, that there was a fundamental change
in procedure as to how doctrine and practice are to be

evaluated. But the problem for the Protestant church which
emerged in the Reformation was that it practically took in the
entire Catholic church creed. As a result there is no funda-
mental difference in theology—notably trinitarian theology—
between the Catholic Church and the Protestant churches. In
the Catholic church as well as Protestant churches, the zealous
loyalty to church dogma would raise its wary head whenever
an effort is made in earnest, whether by Catholic or
Protestant scholars, to evaluate doctrine solely on the basis of
its fidelity to the Scriptures. The principle of sola Scriptura is
in reality an instrument of the church to make the Scriptures
conform to church dogma, notably trinitarianism. Procedur-
ally, they start with trinitarianism and not with Scripture. We
will examine these efforts in the course of this study.
How can trinitarians read the Scriptures apart from

the only perspective they have ever known?
How can it ever be possible for those of us who come from a
trinitarian background, given that we couldn’t even be bap-
tized without accepting the church creeds, to read the Bible
without approaching it from the trinitarian point of view,
which is the only perspective we have known? How can we
read the Bible in its pristine purity if from the start we are
required to read it through the prism of fourth and fifth
century creeds? These creeds were formulated without any
explicit citing of the Bible (whose authority was supplanted,
in any case, by that of the church leaders who wrote the

creeds) and required all Christians to believe in a three-person
“Godhead”. “Godhead” is a strange word that we didn’t really
understand, and soon discovered that no one else did either.
But from the outset we were taught that God the Son, the
second person of the Godhead, became incarnate as the man
Jesus Christ.
Most Christians begin their Christian lives under the nur-
ture of the churches that they joined, in which they now take
up various activities and engage in various forms of worship.
Some Christians, notably Catholics, don’t even own a Bible,
let alone read one, not even years after their conversion,
which means that the church has become their sole spiritual
authority.
But even among evangelicals who claim to uphold the
Bible as the final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine,
the reality is that they come to the Bible as trinitarians, and
don’t know how to read it except in the trinitarian way in
which they have been brought up as Christians.
That was the way I read the Bible for most of my
Christian life, starting from the age of 19 and going past 70.
Whether I was evangelizing to non-Christians, leading Bibles
studies, or building up the pastoral leadership of the church,
somehow I would feel the need to impress upon my hearers
that Jesus is God. How then is it possible for us to read the
Bible and allow it to speak for itself when we habitually
impose our preconceived ideas on it?
My trinitarian mindset also influenced how I read the Old

Testament. This was complicated by the fact that the Old
Testament has no trace or evidence of a person called “God
the Son,” the central figure of trinitarian faith. This problem
was taken care of, psychologically at least, by assuming that
most of the instances in the Old Testament of “the Lord”
(capitalized in most English Bibles as “the LORD”) refer to the
preexistent Jesus. But if “the LORD” refers to Jesus, where is
the Father’s place in the Old Testament?
Biblical versus Trinitarian
Meanings of Bible Terms
B ecause trinitarian doctrine has changed the meanings of

key terms in the Bible, it is important for us to clarify the
meanings of some of these terms right from the start or else it
would be impossible for us to understand what the Bible
teaches. We now look at the terms God, Lord, Father, Jesus,
and Son of God. These will be discussed only briefly, just
enough to highlight the points of departure between the
Biblical and the trinitarian meanings of these terms.
God
Right from the start we need to consider the central person of
the Bible: God. By “God” trinitarians mean the Trinity—a
God consisting of three persons who share one substance. Yet
neither the concept of a divine substance (which comes from
Greek thinking and polytheistic faiths) nor that of a tripartite
God whose three persons share one substance, exists in the
Bible. The one and only God of the Bible is called “Yahweh,”
a name which occurs some 7,000 times in the Scriptures. In
striking contrast, the trinitarian God has no name at all! Even
if some trinitarians equate Yahweh with God the Father, the
Biblical Versus Trinitarian Meanings of Bible Terms 23
fact remains that this God the Father is only one of three
persons in the “Godhead”.
It is universally admitted by trinitarians (consult any Bible
dictionary or systematic theology) that the word “trinity” does
not exist in the Bible. In any case, “trinity” is not a name but
a descriptive term for a non-existent tripartite God (non-
existent, that is, in terms of its being absent from the Bible).
The tripartite aspect of trinitarianism has given rise to the
situation in which some Christians pray to the Father, others
pray to Jesus, and yet others, especially those from charismatic
circles, pray to the Spirit.
But Yahweh is one Person, not three, and He definitely
has a name. Yet for all intents and purposes, that Name has
been obliterated in Christendom. Most Christians don’t
know who Yahweh is, though they may have heard of
Jehovah, an inaccurate form of the Name which they
associate with a group called the Jehovah’s Witnesses, leaving
them with negative feelings towards the name Jehovah and by
extension Yahweh. The name Yahweh has been tossed out
(except in academia) despite the fact that it occurs on almost
every page of the Hebrew Bible (which Christians call the
Old Testament), in fact six or seven times per page on
average.
The New Testament, like the Old Testament, is strictly
monotheistic, a fact that is known to all biblical scholars. But
because true monotheism is incongruous with trinitarianism,
trinitarians try to get around this by changing the meaning of
“God” such that God is “one substance” or “one essence”
rather than one person despite the absence of the term “one
substance” (or its concept) in the Bible.
The elimination of Yahweh’s Name

The gradual suppression of God’s personal name, Yahweh,
had its beginnings among the post-exilic Jews (those who
lived after the return from the Babylonian exile) who felt that
it was reverent to refer to Yahweh not as Yahweh but as
Adonai (Hebrew for “Lord” or “my Lord”). Most crucially,
the practice of not uttering the name Yahweh was soon
reflected in what was being done in the Greek translation of
the Hebrew Bible known as the Septuagint (from septuaginta,
Latin for seventy), often shortened to LXX, the Roman num-
erals for 70, since according to tradition the translation was
done by 70 or 72 translators. The LXX is not a “translation
by committee” as we might understand that term today, but a
collection of disparate translations done over a period of two
centuries and was completed a century or so before Christ.
Most significantly, the LXX renders “Yahweh” as kyrios
(Lord), the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Adonai (Lord). In
other words, God’s unique personal name, Yahweh, was re-
placed with a descriptive title, “the Lord” (kyrios, a word that
is also applied to human beings).
Despite this misrendering of “Yahweh,” the Greek-
speaking Jews had the benefit of knowing that kyrios in many
contexts refers to Yahweh, the credit for which could be given
to their Jewish religious heritage. But the same could not be
said of the non-Jews (the Gentiles) because most of them
don’t know that kyrios (Lord) is often simply a substitute for

“Yahweh”. 3
Because of the Gentile ignorance of this fact, within three
centuries after the time of Jesus, the title “Lord” as applied to
God was conflated with the title “Lord” as applied to Jesus,
who was by then declared to be “God the Son,” a trinitarian
title found nowhere in the Scriptures. By as early as the mid-
second century, by which time the Gentile churches had
become predominantly non-Jewish, the name “Yahweh” had
practically disappeared from the church.
Significantly, with the elimination of the name Yahweh,
the church entered into a state of spiritual decline that con-
tinues to this day. In the fourth century, the Roman emperor
Constantine made himself the de facto head of the Christian
church with the political objective of stabilizing his empire.
This further hastened the spiritual decline of the church; and
not long after that, the Pope of Christendom was functioning
3
Most English Bibles render “Lord” in small capitals as “LORD”
where the word in the Hebrew text is YHWH or Yahweh. In the his-
tory of the Bible, this convention is a relatively modern typographical
device, and is not followed by all English Bibles (e.g., not by the
Geneva Bible of 1599 or the modern-day Orthodox Study Bible). In the
present book, we don’t find it necessary to render “Lord” in small cap-
itals as “LORD” except when quoting from Bibles that use such capitali-
zation. It is usually more accurate to either restore the name “Yahweh”
in the Bible quotation, or point out that the original word in the Heb-
rew text is YHWH. A few English Bibles preserve the name Yahweh,
either consistently (NJB, WEB, Lexham English Bible) or some of the
time (HCSB). ASV uses “Jehovah” consistently.
like a Roman emperor. The church was being steadily

absorbed by the world.
The elimination of the name Yahweh began with the post-
exilic refusal to pronounce it for fear of unintentionally mis-
using it, notably by violating the third commandment (“You
shall not take the name of Yahweh your God in vain”). In the
end, no one could be exactly sure how the Name (YHWH)
was originally pronounced, though the authoritative 22-
volume Encyclopedia Judaica says that the original pronun-
ciation was “Yahweh” and that it has never been lost.
Ultimately does it matter today how His name was exactly
pronounced? Doesn’t God look into our hearts to see if we
genuinely call upon Him and His name? Even if we knew
how YHWH was originally pronounced, would we know
with certainty where the stress was placed, on the first syllable
or the second? (The stress is almost certainly placed on the
first syllable because “Yah” is the short form of “Yahweh,”
hence YAHweh is more probable than YahWEH.)
The near elimination of Yahweh’s name has given trinitar-
ianism an opportunity to establish its errors. These errors will
wilt and die if we restore His Name. And indeed the Script-
ures say that the name of Yahweh is to be proclaimed, not
suppressed:
Deuteronomy 32:3 For I shall proclaim the name of Yahweh.
Oh, tell the greatness of our God! (NJB)
Isaiah 12:4 Give thanks to Yahweh; proclaim His name!

Celebrate His works among the peoples. Declare that His
name is exalted. (HCSB)
The Jewish reluctance to utter the name “Yahweh”

explains why it is not used in the New Testament. The New
Testament was written for the Jews in the first instance. Since
they held back from uttering God’s name, they would have
shunned any evangelist who spoke it, and this would have
shut the door on evangelism. The churches that Paul wrote to
were composed mainly of Jewish believers though some of the
churches had sizable Gentile minorities. And since Paul ad-
hered to the principle of preaching the gospel “to the Jews
first,” he would never risk turning the Jews away from the
gospel by uttering Yahweh’s name. In any case, the reluctance
to utter Yahweh’s name was not a serious problem in practice
because the Jews knew that the title “Lord” in many contexts
refers to Yahweh.
Lord
When the gospels and the New Testament letters were being
written some 150 years after the LXX had been completed,
the LXX had by then become entrenched and widely circu-
lated in the Greek-speaking world. The Greek language itself
had become the lingua franca or universal language of the
Roman world, especially in commerce, in much the same way
as English has become the language of international com-
merce today. That is why the New Testament writers would
usually cite Old Testament passages not from the Hebrew
Bible but from the LXX, the Greek translation of the Hebrew
Bible. It is only natural for the New Testament, which has
come to us in Greek, to cite Scripture from the Greek LXX.
The word kyrios (Lord) in the LXX verses which are

quoted in the New Testament refers to Yahweh in most
instances. That Yahweh is called “Lord” in the LXX (and in
the New Testament passages which quote the LXX) was not a
source of confusion to the early Jewish believer, for he was
aware of the referential equivalence of YHWH and “Lord”.
At the same time, he also knew that “Lord” is a broad term
that may refer to persons other than Yahweh. When Peter
told the multitudes in Jerusalem that God had appointed
Jesus “both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36)—that is, Jesus was
exalted as Lord Jesus Christ at his resurrection—the Jewish
believers did not confuse “Lord” as applied to Jesus and
“Lord” as applied to Yahweh God.
But the situation changed for the worse when the New
Testament writings fell into the hands of the Gentiles, for
they were unable to distinguish “Lord” as applied to Yahweh
and “Lord” as applied to Jesus. This conflation and confusion
suited trinitarianism perfectly, and facilitated its rise in the
early centuries of the Gentile church.
In the New Testament, “Lord” may refer to Yahweh, to
Jesus, to either Yahweh or Jesus, or to a dignitary. This varia-
bility in meaning is not the result of any careless or deliberate
confusion of persons, but arose from the fact that in the work
of salvation, Jesus functions in perfect unity with Yahweh his
Father who accomplishes mankind’s salvation in and through
Jesus. In the work of salvation, God and Jesus cannot be sepa-
rated. That is why in many instances we don’t need to look
for sharp distinctions in the use of “Lord”. For example, “the
Lord” may refer to God or to Jesus in verses such as
1Cor.16:7 (“if the Lord permits”), 1Cor.16:10 (“doing the

work of the Lord”), and Phil.4:4 (“Rejoice in the Lord”).
On the other hand, there are many instances of “the Lord”
that make a clear distinction between God and Jesus, for
example, 1Cor.6:14, “And God raised the Lord,” where “the
Lord” can only refer to Jesus. The distinction between God
and the Lord Jesus is often established by an explicit reference
to them as separate persons, e.g., “from God our Father and
the Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom.1:7; 1Cor.1:3; 2Cor.1:2;
Gal.1:3; Eph.1:2; Phil.1:2; 2Th.1:2; Phlm.1:3).
Sometimes it is not immediately clear who “the Lord” re-
fers to, but an examination of the text would usually clear up
the uncertainty, as is the case with “the Lord of glory” in the
following:
7
But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which
God decreed before the ages for our glory. 8 None of the
rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would
not have crucified the Lord of glory. (1Cor.2:7-8, ESV)
Who does “the Lord of glory” refer to? Since Jesus is not
mentioned in the preceding verse (v.7) or the following verse
(v.9), and since God is mentioned in both verses, do we take
“Lord of glory” as a reference to God, as many have done? Yet
a careful examination shows that “the Lord of glory” refers to
Jesus, not to God, because:
1. In v.2, Paul speaks of “Jesus Christ” as the one who was

“crucified,” a word that is used also in v.8. Hence
context alone confirms that “the Lord of glory” in v.8
refers to Jesus.
2. James 2:1 speaks of “Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of
glory”.
3. Since God is immortal (Rom.1:23; 1Tim.1:17) and can-
not die, “the Lord of glory” can only refer to Jesus, who
is mortal and has died for mankind.
Any of these points would be sufficient to establish that “the

Lord of glory” in 1Cor.2:8 refers to Jesus, yet we bring up all
three to show that it is not difficult to find out who “the
Lord” refers to if we are willing to go through the proper
exegetical procedure.
In the church today, “Lord” is used indiscriminately of
God and of Jesus in a way that conflates the two. This serves
the objectives of trinitarianism because trinitarians do not
want to make a distinction between God and Jesus. In trinita-
rian churches, referring to Jesus as Lord is tantamount to
saying that he is God. But not so in the New Testament.
Addressing Jesus as “Lord” is to acknowledge him as the
master of our lives; it is not an assertion of his deity.
The New Testament, notably in Paul’s letters, often makes
an intentional distinction between “God” and “Lord”. James
D.G. Dunn mentions a crucial fact that is unlikely to go well
with trinitarians:
In various passages Paul uses the formula, ‘The God and

Father of our Lord Jesus Christ’. The striking feature is that
Paul speaks of God not simply as the God of Christ, but as
‘the God…of our Lord Jesus Christ’. Even as Lord, Jesus
acknowledges God not only as his Father but also as his
God. Here it becomes plain that the kyrios title [Lord] is not
so much a way of identifying Jesus with God, as a way of
distinguishing Jesus from God. (Did the First Christians
Worship Jesus? p.110, emphasis Dunn’s)
Today there is the further problem that “Lord” has become

an archaic word that is no longer in everyday use, having been
replaced by words such as chief, boss, CEO, and so on.
Because of the conflating use of “Lord” in the church
today, this title will be used sparingly in this book until we
come to our study of the New Testament application of
“Lord” to Jesus.
My book Totally Committed! 4 expounded Deuteronomy
6:5 (“You shall love the LORD [Yahweh] your God with all
your heart and with all your soul and with all your might”)
from a trinitarian perspective, replacing Yahweh with Jesus as
the object of commitment. I now realize that this is a serious
error, indeed a serious sin, but like Paul I can only plead that
I did it in ignorance and on those grounds hope to receive
mercy (1Tim.1:13). Many thousands all over the world have
read the book or received its teaching as a Bible course. I can
4
Totally Committed: The Importance of Commitment in Biblical
Teaching, originally published in 2001 by Guardian Books. A new
2016 edition which restores Yahweh God as the object of our commit-
ment is available from Amazon.com (ISBN 978-1515071686).
only hope that they will have the chance to hear the message
of the present work.
The Father
The Israelites regarded Yahweh God as their Father as seen in
verses such as Isaiah 63:16 (“You, O Yahweh, are our
Father”) and 64:8 (“Yahweh, you are our Father”). In the Old
Testament, nine persons are named Abijah, which means,
“my Father is Yah(weh)” (Yah is the short form of Yahweh).
But to trinitarians, the Father is only the first person of the
Trinity. Just as “Father” is not a proper name but a term that
defines one’s relationship to his own son, so in trinitarianism,
God the Father has no name but is defined in relation to the
second person, God the Son, who ironically does have a
name. His name “Jesus” is a very human name which was
common in Israel in New Testament times.
Jesus
Trinitarians say that Jesus is “not just” a man but the God-
man, as if Jesus is demeaned when we say that he is true man.
In trinitarian dogma, no one other than Jesus, not even God
the Father or God the Spirit, is God-man. This leaves Jesus in
a category all of his own.
The trinitarian assertion that Jesus is fully God and fully
man ultimately means that he is neither truly God nor truly
man. It is simply impossible for anyone to be 100% God and
100% man at the same time. When we make Jesus 100%

God and 100% man, we are fabricating a non-existent person
to suit our doctrines, doing this without regard for reality or
common logic, and coming up with statements which are pat-
ently false, nonsensical, and unbiblical. Falsehood may sound
convincing enough to deceive people but that doesn’t make it
true. False gods are worshipped in many religions but that
doesn’t make them true.
There is a subtle, and for this reason dangerous, implic-
ation in the God-man doctrine: Are we making Jesus more
than God? In trinitarianism, God the Father is “only” God
whereas Jesus is God + man. We cannot discount man as
having zero value with nothing that can be added to God. In
fact, man is the apex and crown of God’s creation—a creation
that was deemed to be “very good” in God’s eyes (Gen.1:31).
Even if we insist that man is worth nothing, the fact
remains that a person who is both God and man would be far
more appealing and attractive to us human beings than one
who is “only” God. It is psychologically easier for us to relate
to someone who is human than to one who is not. This goes a
long way towards explaining the great appeal of the trinitarian
“God-man” construct of Jesus and its power of deception.
It is the human element that accounts for the strong
appeal of Mary, the mother of Jesus, to the Catholics who
worship her. Whereas the Jesus of trinitarianism is vested with
divinity and humanity, Mary is entirely human and for that
reason would be more appealing than Jesus to many
Catholics. Her appeal is strengthened by her status in
Catholicism as “the Mother of God,” making her power of
persuasion before God unsurpassed in the eyes of her devot-

ees. It is not surprising that statues of Mary are found in most
Catholic churches, and that many churches are dedicated to
her, such as the cathedral in Montreal called “Mary, Queen of
the World”. The fact that Mary is “merely” human and not
divine does not deter her devotees from adoring and even
worshipping her.
But if we go with the biblical view that Jesus is a true man,
a 100% man, it will elicit the trinitarian protest that we are
reducing Jesus to a “mere” man. But every human being on
the face of the earth is “mere” man or woman, yet was created
in “the image of God”. As for Jesus the “mere” man, it has so
pleased Yahweh the Most High God to exalt him above the
heavens and to seat him at His right hand, making Jesus
second only to Yahweh in the universe. Jesus is thus “crowned
with glory and honor” (Heb.2:7). But how can the trinitarian
Jesus ever be crowned with—i.e., conferred with—glory and
honor when as God he has always had this glory from all
eternity?
The Son of God

Finally, what does the title “Son of God” mean to most
Christians? As good trinitarians we stressed the word “God,”
so we read “Son of God” as “God the Son”. Our eyes saw
“Son of God” but our trinitarian minds were trained to see it
as “God the Son”. The fact that our intelligent and educated
minds could so easily reverse the words back to front, is a
fearsome demonstration of the power of error.
The fact that trinitarians feel compelled to reverse “Son of

God” into the unbiblical “God the Son” is an indication that
they might not be confident that they can defend “Son of
God” as a divine title; for if “Son of God” is truly a divine
title beyond any shadow of doubt, there would be no need for
anyone to reverse it as “God the Son” in the first place.
In fact some trinitarians reject the claim that “Son of God”
is inherently a divine title, even when it refers to Christ. For
example, James Stalker, a trinitarian, after examining the var-
ious meanings of “Son of God” in the Bible, goes on to say,
“When the title has such a range of application, it is obvious
that the Divinity of Christ cannot be inferred from the mere
fact that it is applied to Him” (ISBE, first edition, Son of God,
The).
But even if we clarified this error regarding “Son of God,”
most Christians still would not know what “Son of God”
means in the Bible. The title “Son of God” as applied to Jesus
simply affirms that Jesus is the Messiah or the Christ, the one
anointed by God (Messiah is the Hebrew term and Christ is
the Greek term for “the Anointed One”). This basic fact is ac-
knowledged by many trinitarian references, e.g., Westminster
Theological Wordbook of the Bible, which says that “Son of
God is a synonym for Messiah”. It goes on to give examples
of this equivalence such as Peter’s confession of Christ as the
Son of God (Mt.16:16) and the centurion’s similar confession
in Mk.15:39 which “should be understood as an acknowledg-
ment of Jesus’ messiahship” (p.478).
The titles “Son of God” and “Christ” (Messiah) are found
in juxtaposition for example in Mt.26:63 in which the high
priest says to Jesus, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if

you are the Christ, the Son of God.”
Jesus kept silent before the presiding judges who wanted
him to say something self-incriminating; hence the high priest
invoked the name of “the living God” to compel Jesus to say
under oath whether he was the Christ, the Son of God. It
would be ludicrous to conclude that the high priest was really
trying to force Jesus to admit that he was “God the Son,” not
only because the actual term used by the high priest was not
“God the Son” but “Son of God,” but also because the Jewish
people as a whole had never believed that the Messiah (the
Christ) is God. In fact the Jews thought that the thoroughly
human John the Baptist could be the Christ (Lk.3:15). But in
typical trinitarian fashion, we read into the high priest’s words
something that he would never have thought of asking,
namely, whether Jesus was the divine God the Son, the
second person of the Trinity.
The juxtaposition of Christ and Son of God is also found
in John 20:31:
… but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is
the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may
have life in his name.
John is asking his readers to believe that Jesus is the Christ,

the Son of God, these two titles being equivalent. The title
“Son of God” is equivalent to “Messiah” (mashiah, ַ‫)מָ ִשׁיח‬,
Yahweh’s anointed King and the Savior of Israel and of the
world. In donning our trinitarian spectacles, we read John as
if he were asking us to believe that Jesus is God the Son. On
the contrary, John does not ask us to believe that Jesus is God
but that he is the Messiah. The Old Testament references to
the Messiah do not indicate that he is divine. The Jews as a
whole have never expected a divine Messiah.5 N.T. Wright
says something along the same line.6
The two equivalent titles, Christ and Son of God, appear
together several times in the gospels. In addition to the verses
already cited, we have the following (all from ESV):
Matthew 16:16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the
Son of the living God.”
Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the

Son of God.
Luke 4:41 And demons also came out of many, crying, “You
are the Son of God!” But he rebuked them and would not al-
low them to speak, because they knew that he was the
Christ.
5
ISBE (revised, vol.3, Messiah): “Haggai and Zechariah as well as
rabbinic Judaism understood the Messiah as an ordinary human being,
although one ‘anointed’ by God and thus endowed with extraordinary
capacities.”
6
N.T. Wright says: “‘Messiah’, or ‘Christ’, does not mean ‘the/a
divine one’. It is very misleading to use the words as shorthands for the
divine name or being of Jesus. It is comparatively easy to argue that
Jesus (like several other first-century Jews) believed he was the Messiah
(see JVG, ch. 11). It is much harder, and a very different thing, to
argue that he thought he was in some sense identified with Israel’s
God.” (The Incarnation, p.52, Oxford University Press)
John 11:27 “Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the
Son of God, who is coming into the world.”
In the New Testament, “Christ” (Messiah) and “Son of God”

often appear together as synonymous titles. That is because
the two titles refer to one and the same person in Psalm 2,
which is the Old Testament basis for the equivalence. We
now quote Psalm 2 in full because of its importance. Note the
constant reference to the Messiah (the anointed King) or to
the Son of God:
1
Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? 2
The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take
counsel together, against Yahweh and against his Anointed,
saying, 3 “Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their
cords from us.” 4 He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord
holds them in derision. 5 Then he will speak to them in his
wrath, and terrify them in his fury, saying, 6 “As for me, I
have set my King on Zion, my holy hill.” 7 I will tell of the
decree: Yahweh said to me, “You are my Son; today I have
begotten you. 8 Ask of me, and I will make the nations your
heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession. 9 You
shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces
like a potter’s vessel.” 10 Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be
warned, O rulers of the earth. 11 Serve Yahweh with fear, and
rejoice with trembling. 12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and
you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled.
Blessed are all who take refuge in him. (Psalm 2:1-12, ESV,
“Yahweh” restored)
Verse 7 speaks of Yahweh’s Son (“You are my Son; today I

have begotten you”); this is the key verse that establishes the
messianic aspect of “Son of God”. And since the Messiah is
the Anointed One, therefore verse 2 (“his Anointed”) and
verse 6 (“my King”) refer to the Messiah-King whom God has
established on “Zion, my holy hill” from which the Messiah
will reign, not only over Israel but over all the nations to the
“ends of the earth” (v.8). The Messiah will come in Yahweh’s
name as Yahweh’s representative, and it is through him that
the people will “serve Yahweh with fear” (v.11). The final
verse (v.12) has yet another reference to the Son: “Kiss the
Son, lest he be angry… Blessed are all who take refuge in
him”. Kissing a king expresses reverence and submission.
The New Testament likewise says that Christ (the Mess-
iah) comes in God’s name: “I come in my Father’s name”
(John 5:43) and “the works that I do in my Father’s name”
(10:25).
The Son of God, the final heir to the Davidic throne, will
be King not only over Israel but over all the nations of the
earth. It is to this exalted position, the highest in all the earth,
that Jesus the Messiah has been appointed by Yahweh. The
Messiah will govern the nations of the earth—an earth in
which Yahweh’s name will be known to all its inhabitants.
Christ will represent Yahweh in the administration of every
matter in international affairs, ushering peace on earth and
creating good will among men, as announced long ago by the
angels at his birth.
For many centuries the Jews have been looking with eager
expectation to the coming of the glorious Messiah, the One
who will liberate them from the oppression they had endured
under Gentile nations for much of their history. More than
that, their Messiah will be like Moses who will teach them
Yahweh’s truth, and guide them in the ways of Yahweh God.
The challenge for the Jews is that they have no easy way of
identifying the Messiah when he comes, for their Scriptures
do not teach them to expect the arrival of a divine man but
the arrival of “a prophet like me,” that is, a prophet like
Moses: “Yahweh your God will raise up a prophet like me”
(Dt.18:15, NJB; quoted by Stephen in Acts 7:37).
Chapter 1
Yahweh,
The One and Only God
Yahweh: God’s personal name
W ho is God and does He have a name? Why do so many

biblical scholars and Bible dictionaries and Bible ency-
clopedias call Him by the name “Yahweh”? In English Bibles,
when the word “Lord” is printed in small capitals as LORD, it
indicates that the original word in the Hebrew text is YHWH
or Yahweh, God’s personal name. For example, the familiar
phrase “the word of the LORD” is in the Hebrew text literally
“the word of Yahweh” (e.g., 1Kings 18:1, “the word of Yah-
weh came to Elijah”). In Psalm 23:1, “The LORD is my shep-
herd” is literally “Yahweh is my shepherd”. The familiar term
“the Spirit of the LORD” is literally “the Spirit of Yahweh”
(e.g., Ezekiel 11:5, “the Spirit of Yahweh fell upon me”).
The typographical convention of rendering “Lord” as
LORD in small capitals is explained in the prefaces of most
modern Bibles. ESV says, “The ESV usually renders the per-
sonal name of God (YHWH) with the word LORD (printed
in small capitals).” Note ESV’s helpful reference to “the per-
sonal name of God,” a reminder of the crucial fact that

“Yahweh” or YHWH is God’s personal name. This is seen
throughout the Hebrew Bible, for example, in the Ten
Commandments: “You shall not take the name of Yahweh
your God in vain” (Ex.20:7, literal rendering). It is also seen
in Exodus 3:15 in which God says to Moses:
“Say this to the Israelites: Yahweh, the God of your fathers,
the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of
Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever; this is
how I am to be remembered in every generation.” (Ex.3:15,
HCSB)
In saying, “This is my name forever,” God was referring to

His own name Yahweh which appears in the same verse. The
word “forever” indicates that Yahweh is to be God’s name not
just for one generation but for all eternity; indeed it is “to be
remembered in every generation”.
It is standard knowledge among Bible scholars, liberal and
conservative, that Yahweh is God’s personal name, as seen in
Bible encyclopedias such as ISBE (“Yahweh is the only truly
personal name of God in Israel’s faith”), in Hebrew lexicons
such as TWOT (“Yahweh, the personal name of God”), and
in Bible commentaries such as UBC (“the knowledge of the
personal name of God, Yahweh, was arguably the greatest gift
of God entrusted to Israel”). 7
7
ISBE (God, Names of); TWOT (484a, YHWH); Understanding the
Bible Commentary (Dt.5:11).
Chapter 1 — Yahweh, The One and Only God 43
In fact the standard translation of Isaiah 42:8 makes no

sense (“I am the LORD, that is my name”) unless the name
Yahweh is restored, as in NJB and HCSB: “I am Yahweh,
that is my name”.
The preponderance of the name “Yahweh”

Most Christians don’t know that God’s name is Yahweh
(YHWH) or that He even has a name. The ignorance of
God’s name is unacceptable given that YHWH occurs 6,828
times in the Hebrew Scriptures. The ignorance is puzzling
given that many academic works regularly use the name
Yahweh or YHWH in their biblical and theological studies.
For example, the exact word “Yahweh” occurs 2287 times in
the revised International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 2090
times in United Bible Societies OT Handbooks, and 4023 times
in the OT portion of New American Commentary.
We note that these are conservative Bible references lest we
glibly dismiss “Yahweh” as a fabrication of liberal scholarship
or Christian sects. The sometimes liberal Anchor Bible
Dictionary, regarded by many as the most scholarly Bible
dictionary or encyclopedia ever, has 3280 instances of
“Yahweh”.
What about Elohim (‫)א�הִ ים‬,
ֶ ְ the well-known Hebrew word
for “God” or “god”? Whereas Yahweh occurs 6,828 times in
the Hebrew Bible, Elohim occurs about 2,602 times. Hence
the primary term for God in the Hebrew Bible (the Old
Testament) is not “God” but “Yahweh”.
Moreover, around 10% of the 2,602 instances of the term

Elohim refer to false gods such as the gods of Egypt (Ex.
12:12), the golden calf (Ex.32:4), and the goddess Ashtoreth
(1Ki.11:33). In rare instances, Elohim is used of human be-
ings, e.g., Moses (Ex.4:16; 7:1), unjust judges (Ps.82:6), and
possibly Samuel’s spirit (1Sam.28:13). The remaining 90% of
the occurrences of “Elohim” refer to the God of Israel. The
combination “Yahweh Elohim” (“LORD God” in most Bibles)
occurs 891 times.
This tells us that the Bible’s primary designation of the
God of Israel is “Yahweh” rather than “God,” not only in
terms of numerical preponderance (6,828 versus 2,602 in-
stances) but also in terms of precision of reference (the 6,828
instances of “Yahweh” all refer to the God of Israel and never
to false gods, without exception). Hence it is unacceptable that
God’s unique and personal name Yahweh is rendered in most
English Bibles as LORD, a title of honor that is sometimes
applied to humans.
In fact some Bible scholars are calling for a return to the
original name Yahweh. The standard five-volume NIDOTT
theological dictionary says:
The “translation” LORD is something of a problem from
various perspectives. LORD obscures the fact that Yahweh is a
name and not a title … In view of this reality, it could be
argued that, as with other personal names, we simply
transliterate what the original Hebrew was thought to be—
Yahweh. (New International Dictionary of Old Testament
Theology, vol.5, “Yahweh”).
The identity of Yahweh: Who exactly is Yahweh?

In order to understand a person, whether human or divine, it
is often helpful to make a few summary statements about
him. This is helpful in establishing the precise identity of
Yahweh:
• Yahweh is the one and only God. Yahweh says, “I am

Yahweh, and there is no other, besides me there is no
God” (Isaiah 45:5); and “there is no other god
besides me” (v.21).
• Yahweh is the only Creator. Yahweh says, “I am Yah-

weh, who made all things, who alone stretched out
the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself.”
(Isaiah 44:24)
• Yahweh is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Yah-

weh instructed Moses to tell the Israelites: “Yahweh,
the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the
God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to
you.” (Exodus 3:15)
• Yahweh is the God and Father of Jesus Christ. As a

preliminary point, we note that Yahweh is our
Father: “You, O Yahweh, are our Father” (Isa.63:16;
also 64:8). “Is this the way you repay Yahweh, you
foolish and unwise people? Is he not your Father who
created you?” (Dt.32:6; cf. Mal.2:10). But more spe-
cifically, Yahweh is “the God and Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ” (Rom.15:6; 2Cor.1:3; 11:31; Eph.1:3),
a truth that is expressed by Jesus when he says, “I am

ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God
and your God” (Jn.20:17). Just three chapters earlier,
Jesus calls his Father “the only true God” (Jn.17:3),
an identification that aligns perfectly with Isaiah
45:5: “I am Yahweh, and there is no other, besides
me there is no God”. Hence Yahweh is the God and
Father of Jesus Christ.
“Yahweh” in the Scriptures

In the Bible there is one and only God, and there is no other
besides Him. He has revealed His name as Yahweh which in
the Hebrew language is ‫יהוה‬, transliterated into English as
YHWH. Because it consists of four consonantal letters, it is
often called the Tetragrammaton (“four letters”). Since
Hebrew is written from right to left, the first letter, Yod, cor-
responding to Y in YHWH, is the small curved letter at upper
right:
‫יהוה‬
The name “Yahweh” is seen on almost every page of the
Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament), often several times on
one page. To be specific, YHWH occurs 6,828 times in the
Old Testament, or almost seven times per page on average,
assuming that the OT portion of a typical Bible has 1,000
pages. It occurs 34 times in Deuteronomy 28 alone.
The short form of “Yahweh” is “Ya” or “Yah” which

occurs 49 times in the Old Testament, with 40 of these found
in the Psalms, including three in the following passage:
I shall live to recount the great deeds of Yah. Though Yah
punished me sternly, he has not abandoned me to death.
Open for me the gates of saving justice, I shall go in and
thank Yah. (Psalm 118:17-19, NJB, with “Yahweh” changed
to “Yah” to conform to the original Hebrew text).
The Catholic Encyclopedia (“Jehovah, Yahweh”) says that the

name Yahweh is embedded in 163 personal names. Some of
them incorporate “Yahweh” in the first syllable (Jehoahaz,
Jehu, Jehoshaphat, Joab, Joel, Jonathan, Joshua, Judah),
others in the last syllable (Elijah, Hezekiah, Hilkiah, Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Josiah, Micaiah, Nehemiah, Uriah, Zechariah, Zep-
haniah). Given that “Jeremiah” alone occurs about 130 times
in the OT, and “Joshua” about 200 times, and “Judah” about
800 times (to give three examples which combine for over
1,000 occurrences), we can probably estimate on the low side
that the OT has at least 6,000 occurrences of “Yahweh” em-
bedded in the 163 proper names, if not 8,000 or 10,000 or
more. When we include the 6,828 and 49 occurrences of
“Yahweh” and “Yah” respectively, we could easily arrive at a
total of more than 14,000 occurrences of “Yahweh” in its
various forms.
When “Yahweh” is embedded in the first syllable of a
name, it is often shortened to “Je” as in the case of “Jehoiada”
or “Jehu”. It is in this form that Yahweh’s name appears in
the Hebrew form of “Jesus”. Another form is “Jo” which is

found in names such as “Joab” and “Joel”.
Those who don’t know Hebrew might not know that “Y”
and “J” in these transliterated names represent the same
Hebrew letter Yod, the first letter in YHWH, which is why
YHWH can be transliterated “Jahweh” as in German. The
German “J” is pronounced the same as the Hebrew Yod (“y”
is not used in German except when foreign words such as
yacht or yoga are borrowed), so Yahweh’s name is sometimes
spelled with a “J”. In fact the German “J” sounds closer to the
Hebrew Yod than does the English “J”.
From this we see that the first letter in Yahweh—the
consonant Yod—can be followed by one of several possible
vowels such as “a”, “e”, or “o”. Yet the name Yahweh is still
represented by the Yod (which, interestingly, is the physically
smallest letter of the Jewish consonantal alphabet, and this is
surely not without spiritual significance). This is confirmed
by the fact that even if the first syllable “Yah” stands by itself,
the reference to Yahweh’s name remains perfectly clear.
In the case of the name “Jesus” (from Hebrew Jehoshua or
Yehoshua), the short form Yah is used with “e”, so the refer-
ence to Yahweh appears in the “Ye” or “Je” of “Jesus”. In the
English spoken 500 years ago (as represented by KJV 1611),
“J” is closer to the German “J” than even to the modern
English “J”.
The fact that Yahweh’s name can shortened to “Yah” indi-
cates that the essential element of “Yahweh” lies in the first
syllable “Yah”. Moreover, the fact that “Yah” can exist as “Ye”
or “Ya” or “Yo” when embedded in Hebrew names indicates
that the key element of “Yah” is the initial Yod. So the tiny
letter Yod is the essential component of “Yahweh”; every
other letter can be left out (e.g., by reducing “Yahweh” to
“Yah”) or changed (e.g., “a” into “e” or “o”) without impair-
ing the recognizability of the divine name. But we can never
remove the indispensable Y (or J in some languages).
But where is Yahweh in the New Testament?

But turning a few pages from the Old Testament to the New
Testament, suddenly the name Yahweh seems to have disap-
peared, as if the New Testament were a totally different book
with only a faint connection to the Old Testament! Until I
had come to see the centrality of the name and person of
Yahweh in the New Testament, the apparent absence of His
name in the New Testament puzzled me (even if it can be
explained in historical terms by the absence of “Yahweh” in
the LXX). Then it dawned on me that in fact His name
appears on almost every page of the NT, and sometimes, as in
the OT, several times on one page. How could I have been
blind to this fact? As one who knows some Hebrew, it was
inexcusable of me.
So where is Yahweh’s name in the New Testament? It
appears in every instance of “Jesus”! Jesus is the Greek form of
the Hebrew Yeshua (i.e., Joshua). The first syllable of Yeshua
—Ye—is a common short form of Yahweh when it is em-
bedded in proper names.
Here is the striking thing: There is no way for us to invoke
the name “Jesus” without referring to “Yahweh” as the
foundation of that name. Although trinitarians have know-

ingly or unknowingly pushed aside the all-glorious Yahweh
from their doctrinal scheme of things, they cannot run away
from His name no matter what they do. Such is Yahweh’s
wisdom that every time “Jesus” is spoken, Yahweh is pro-
claimed the Savior of the world! He makes the ignorant speak
the truth even in their ignorance!
Yahweh’s prominence in the New Testament lies not only
in the fact that His name is embedded in Jesus’ name (which
means “Yahweh saves”), but also in the amazing revelation
that Yahweh Himself, the one and only God, came into the
world to dwell in Jesus, the temple of God.
Moreover, the one who gave Jesus his name in the first
place was Yahweh Himself, through an angel of the Lord
(“you shall call his name Jesus,” Mt.1:21). The reasons for
this are now clear, and one can exclaim with Paul, “How
unsearchable are His (Yahweh’s) ways.”
“She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the
name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”
(Matthew 1:21, NIV)
This verse reveals God’s purpose in giving Jesus the name

“Jesus”. But “Jesus” was a common name in New Testament
times, as can be confirmed by consulting a Bible dictionary.
None of the many others who were called “Jesus” saved peo-
ple from their sins, so the popularity of the name does not, in
itself, explain why it was given to Jesus. Yet it was Yahweh
Himself, rather than Joseph or Mary, who chose this name
for him, in which case the meaning of the name “Jesus”

would explain God’s intentions for him.
“Jesus” is equivalent to “Joshua,” a short form of
“Jehoshua” (‫ יְ הוֹשׁוּ ַﬠ‬or ‫ ;)יְ הוֹשֻׁ ַﬠ‬all these mean “Yahweh is salva-
tion” or “Yahweh saves”. The explanation given in Mt.1:21—
“because he will save his people from their sins”—now makes
sense. In Jesus and through Jesus, Yahweh will save His
people.
The similarity of these words to Psalm 130:8 (“He himself
will redeem Israel from all their sins”) is unmistakable (and is
noted by BDAG, autos, def.2a). In the LXX (in which the
verse is numbered 129:8), the similarity between Psalm 130:8
and Matthew 1:21 is even more pronounced, since both be-
gin with the emphatic pronoun “he” (autos). Hence, Matthew
1:21 is likely an intended reference to Psalm 130:8, indicating
that God’s promise in Psalm 130:8 is fulfilled in Jesus Christ.
The similarity between the two verses is unmistakable when
we compare Matthew 1:21, Psalm 129:8 (LXX), and Psalm
130:8 (Hebrew):
Matthew 1:21: αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν
ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν.
Psalm 129:8 (LXX): αὐτὸς λυτρώσεται τὸν Ισραηλ ἐκ πασῶν

τῶν ἀνομιῶν αὐτοῦ
Psalm 130:8 (Hebrew): ‫וְ הוּא יִ פְ דֶּ ה אֶ ת־יִ ְשׂ ָראֵ ל ִמכֹּ ל ﬠֲוֹנֹ תָ יו‬
Here is a literal translation:

Matthew 1:21: For he will save his people from their sins
Psalm 129:8 (LXX): He will redeem Israel out of all their

lawlessness
Psalm 130:8 (Hebrew): He will ransom Israel from all their

sins
The message is essentially the same in all three statements.

The only meaningful difference is the omission of “all” in
Matthew’s statement. Do we then conclude that the salvation
in Jesus Christ is a partial salvation that does not deliver us
from all our sins? Anyone who has read the New Testament
would not for a moment think so, so it is clear that “all” is
implied.
The name “Yahweh” is mentioned every time we say
“Jesus”. Despite the churches’ tendency to sideline Yahweh,
all along He has been confronting us with His name Yahweh
in the name Jesus.
The New Testament is God-centered. And given its Jewish
character, it is Yahweh-centered. “God” occurs 1,317 times in
the NT whereas “Jesus” occurs 917 times (244 times in
John’s Gospel).8
8
“Christ” occurs 529 times in the NT but is combined with “Jesus”
as in “Christ Jesus” or “Jesus Christ” some 270 times, not counting
other combinations such as “the Christ appointed for you, Jesus” (Acts
3:20). Hence we cannot simply add 917+529 to get the number of
distinct references to Jesus. As for “God,” there are a few instances of
“god” which do not refer to Yahweh (e.g., “the god of this world,”
When we realize that the New Testament is Yahweh-cen-

tered, we will gain a better understanding of how God relates
to the biblical Jesus. We will see, for example, that God works
in Jesus and through him, notably in the plan of salvation as
expressed in John 3:16, “For God so loved the world that He
gave His only Son”. Yahweh’s love for mankind is seen in the
giving of His unique Son. “Thanks be to God for His inex-
pressible gift” (2Cor.9:15).
On the other hand, the fact that Jesus is mentioned over
900 times tells us that depicting the New Testament as
Yahweh-centered does not do justice to the fact that Jesus is
also a focus of the NT. In fact the NT has two foci which
complement each other: Jesus never does his work apart from
Yahweh his Father, and Yahweh always does His work
through His Son Jesus Christ. It can be said that in God’s
plan to save humankind, Yahweh and Jesus are in a joint
venture or joint enterprise, to use the language of commerce,
but always with Yahweh as having the precedence as the One
who initiates every action. His preeminence in all things is
expressed by Paul: “For from him and through him and to
him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen” (Romans
11:36).
2Cor.4:4) just as not all instances of “Jesus” refer to Jesus Christ (e.g.,
Col.4:11). These exceptions do not alter the statistics significantly.
The only true God in John 17:3 is the Father,

not Jesus Christ
I marvel at the fact, yet am also saddened by it, that as a
trinitarian I could not see the clear meaning of many of Jesus’
words. The word “bewitched” that Paul uses in Galatians 3:1
is perhaps not too strong to describe the spiritual blindness
that pervades trinitarianism. To see what I mean, let us
consider what Jesus says in John 17:3:
This is eternal life, that they may know you the only true
God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. (John 17:3)
Here Jesus is not making an abstruse or complex theolo-

gical statement. His words are clear and simple. Even if the
meaning of “eternal” is vague to some, surely the vocabulary
of the sentence as a whole is not beyond that of a primary
school student. Indeed John’s Gospel is known for its simple
style and vocabulary. So why is it that seeing we do not see,
and hearing we do not hear or understand (Mt.13:13)?
What is Jesus saying in John 17:3? Within one sentence,
Jesus twice uses the pronoun “you” (singular in Greek) to
address the One he is praying to. It is clear from verse 1
(“Father, the hour has come, glorify your Son”) that Jesus is
praying specifically to his Father. This is not denied by trinit-
arians. Therefore Jesus is simply saying, “You, Father, are the
only true God,” a statement that rules out everyone else, in-
cluding Jesus himself, as being God. How then could we have
failed to grasp this short and clear statement? Yet as trinitar-
ians we completely failed to understand it.
In addressing his Father as the only true God, Jesus is

ruling out any other, even a so-called “god” or “God,” as true
God, and this is reinforced by his use of the article “the” and
the adjective “only,” both of which, especially in combinat-
ion, imply strict exclusion. The triple emphasis (the+only+
true) is a triple rejection of any divine person alongside the
Father of Jesus Christ. Similarly, in John 5:44, Jesus calls the
Father “the only God”.
Who exactly is the Father whom Jesus calls the only true
God? He is none other than Yahweh Himself, the God of
Israel and the creator of all things. For who can be “the only
true God” (Jn.17:3) but Yahweh who is the only God (“I am
Yahweh, and there is no other, besides me there is no God,”
Isa.45:5)?
How could we have been so blind as to think that the
Father is not the sole person in “the only true God,” or to
think that Jesus is speaking to the three persons of the Trinity
including Jesus himself? Does the “you” (singular in Greek)
uttered by Jesus include “me”—Jesus himself? Is Jesus praying
to himself? And what do we make of the words that follow,
“and Jesus Christ whom you have sent”? Here Jesus makes a
clear distinction between “Jesus Christ” and “you” by which
he excludes himself from “the only true God”.
John 17:3 defeats every attempt to make it

trinitarian
The monotheism of John 17:3 is rock solid and defeats every
attempt to give it a trinitarian interpretation. This explains
why many commentaries avoid mentioning this verse altoget-
her. Other commentaries would simply quote the words “the
only true God” but with zero commentary. Yet others quote
only the first part of John 17:3 which they find less problem-
atic (“this is eternal life, that they may know you”), yet are
completely silent on the second part (“the only true God, and
Jesus Christ whom you have sent”).
But a few trinitarians are so bold as to attempt to explain
away Jesus’ clear statement in John 17:3. Yet even the most
brilliant minds in church history cannot reverse the meaning
of John 17:3; this is clear proof of the strict and absolute
monotheism of John 17:3. The usual tactic is to alter Jesus’
words in a way that widens or expands the definition of “the
only true God” so as to absorb Jesus Christ or even the whole
Trinity into the redefined “only true God”.
Augustine, one of the most brilliant theologians of the
Latin church, after quoting John 17:3 correctly and accurately,
immediately goes on to alter the order of Jesus’ words in a
way that absorbs Jesus into “the only true God”. Then he
does something similar for the Holy Spirit. In the following
quotation from Augustine’s exposition of John’s gospel,
Augustine’s shocking alteration is shown in boldface:
“And this,” Jesus adds, “is eternal life, that they may know
Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast
sent.” The proper order of the words is, “That they may know
Thee and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent, as the only true
God.” Consequently, therefore, the Holy Spirit is also under-
stood, because He is the Spirit of the Father and Son, as the
substantial and consubstantial love of both. For the Father
and Son are not two Gods, nor are the Father and Son and
Holy Spirit three Gods; but the Trinity itself is the one only
true God. 9
Trinitarianism has blinded us to the plain meaning of

Jesus’ words. One would have thought that the meaning of
John 17:3 is so clear that no further discussion would be
needed to show that it is incongruous with the trinitarian
Christ of the Nicene Creed. But as trinitarians, we ignored
what Jesus had so plainly taught. I say “we” because I myself
had zealously taught and preached the Trinity for some fifty
years. A “trinitarian of trinitarians” (cp. Acts 23:6), I pro-
claimed this doctrine with utter zeal, and had led many to the
trinitarian Christ. I am not self-righteously pointing my fin-
ger at trinitarians as though I am better than they. I am only
genuinely trying my best to understand how I, and many
others, could be so entangled in serious error without reali-
zing it. Until there is a better explanation for this, it seems to
be bewitchment.
9
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, series 1, volume 7, St. Augustine:
Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John, tractate CV,
chapter XVII.1-5, paragraph 3, translated into English by Rev. John
Gibb, D.D.
S eeking an explanation for this blindness, I came across the

article “Trinity” in ISBE (vol.5, p.3012f) written by B.B.
Warfield who is known as “the last of the great Princeton
theologians”. Reading his article carefully, I began to see the
subtle process by which Jesus’ words, and with them all of
biblical monotheism, could be so easily brushed aside with
philosophical sophistication and the persuasive argumentation
of human wisdom.
Only the first part of Warfield’s essay is quoted below. It is
skillfully presented. First he admits what cannot be denied,
namely, that trinitarian language is unbiblical and derived
from philosophy, while boldly asserting that it is nonetheless
Scriptural in essence. Using the language of chemistry, War-
field says that trinitarian truth is the “crystallization” of what
is hidden in Scripture as a “solution” and in “solvent” state.
While admitting that the Trinity is a doctrine extrapolated
from “fragmentary allusions,” Warfield boldly goes on to say
that it is nonetheless a “genuinely Scriptural doctrine”.
Warfield gets bolder in the next paragraph and says that
the Trinity is in fact “indiscoverable” in Scripture and can
only be known by revelation! By this clever sophistry, he has
transformed a glaring trinitarian weakness (the lack of biblical
support) into a supposed strength, and the non-existent into
something knowable only by trinitarian illumination!
For brevity we quote only the first paragraph of his essay.
Note the boldly unscriptural (and explicitly non-Scripture)
argumentation that comes out, without exaggeration, in al-
most every sentence:
The term “Trinity” is not a Biblical term, and we are not

using Biblical language when we define what is expressed by
it as the doctrine that there is one only and true God, but in
the unity of the Godhead there are three coeternal and
coequal Persons, the same in substance but distinct in sub-
sistence. A doctrine so defined can be spoken of as a Biblical
doctrine only on the principle that the sense of Scripture is
Scripture. And the definition of a Biblical doctrine in such
un-Biblical language can be justified only on the principle
that it is better to preserve the truth of Scripture than the
words of Scripture. The doctrine of the Trinity lies in Script-
ure in solution; when it is crystallized from its solvent it does
not cease to be Scriptural, but only comes into clearer view.
Or, to speak without figure, the doctrine of the Trinity is
given to us in Scripture, not in formulated definition, but in
fragmentary allusions; when we assemble the disjecta membra
[Latin for “scattered members”] into their organic unity, we
are not passing from Scripture, but entering more thoroughly
into the meaning of Scripture. We may state the doctrine in
technical terms, supplied by philosophical reflection; but the
doctrine stated is a genuinely Scriptural doctrine.
Here we see how easily the writer moves in one bold step
from Scripture to non-Scripture. This is seen in almost every
sentence, even from the start of the article. But did we catch
it?
A crucial thing to notice is that Warfield defines trinitar-
ianism as “the doctrine that there is one only and true God, but
in the unity of the Godhead there are three coeternal and
coequal Persons” (italics added). The words in italics are a
direct reference to John 17:3 in which Jesus declares that the
Father is “the only true God”. But by failing to quote Jesus in

full, Warfield intentionally or unintentionally sidesteps the
crucial word “you” (singular in Greek) in John 17:3. Jesus is
not merely saying, “there is one true God”; Jesus is specifically
saying, “You (i.e., Father) are the only true God”. Jesus is not
just making a general statement on monotheism but specifies
exactly who the only true God is.
The same fundamental error is made in the hymn, “We
believe in One True God,” by Tobias Clausnitzer, 1668, and
translated from the German by Catherine Winkworth, 1863.
Whereas Jesus says that only the Father is true God (Jn.17:3),
the first line of this hymn goes off on a tangent: “We believe
in one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit”. Just as puzz-
ling, the Scripture verse given by a hymnbook as the biblical
basis of this hymn is none other than John 17:3! A similar
error is seen in the title of a book by Clarence H. Benson:
“The One True God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”.
It is this crucial fact—that Jesus addresses his Father as the
only true God—which is suppressed in trinitarianism. The
error then slides into a trinitarian distortion of the word
“monotheism” to make it mean something other than mono-
theism, namely, that “in the unity of the Godhead there are
three coeternal and coequal Persons, the same in substance
but distinct in subsistence” (Warfield). But how can the doc-
trine of a Godhead of three persons be monotheism, the
doctrine of one and only God?
Starting with a reference to Jesus’ lucid words spoken to
the Father in John 17:3, the ISBE article immediately moves
on to terms such as “substance” and “subsistence” and “God-
head” which are unintelligible to most people and which do

not come from anything in the Scriptures, but are in fact
“technical terms, supplied by philosophical reflection,” an apt
description that is supplied by none other than B.B. Warfield
himself!
Monotheism versus idolatry

In 1 Corinthians 8, Paul makes a strong stand for mono-
theism in statements such as “there is no God but one” and
“there is one God, the Father” which are clear echoes of Old
Testament monotheism. Paul’s exposition is notable for the
interweaving of strands of thought on monotheism and those
on idolatry, switching back and forth between the two themes
effortlessly.
4
Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we
know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is
no God but one.” 5 For although there may be so-called gods
in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and
many “lords”— 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father,
from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one
Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through
whom we exist. (1Cor.8:4-6, ESV)
Paul says that there is no God but one (v.4), and uses the
Greek word oudeis (none, nothing) to say that an idol “is no-
thing at all” (NIV) or “has no real existence” (ESV). In saying
that man-made idols are nothing, Paul is echoing the many
Old Testament statements that mock the worthlessness and

ineffectiveness of idols (1Sam.5:3; Isa.40:20; 41:7; 46:6-7).
The dual themes of 1 Corinthians 8—monotheism and
idolatry, portrayed as conflicting opposites—tell us that if we
abandon monotheism, idolatry will abound; but if we uphold
monotheism, idolatry will be destroyed.
In Old Testament times, the land of Israel was filled with
the idols which the Israelites had set up in shrines and high
places. It is not surprising that the Old Testament uses some
18 different Hebrew words to refer to idols or idolatry. The
Israelites were worshipping the false gods fashioned from
wood, stone, silver and gold (Dt.29:17; Isa.31:7; 44:13-17).
The depth and pervasiveness of their idolatry in the land of
Israel can be seen in many verses, including:
Jeremiah 11:13 You have as many gods as you have towns, O
Judah; and the altars you have set up to burn incense to that
shameful god Baal (“Lord”) are as many as the streets of
Jerusalem. (NIV)
Isaiah 2:8 Their land is filled with idols; they bow down to
the work of their hands, to what their own fingers have
made. (ESV)
A perceptive description of the evil of idolatry is given by

Ahuva Ho in The Targum of Zephaniah: Manuscript and
Commentary (pp.412-413, italics are in the original):
Idolatry is the most condemned abomination, for this is the
root of all evil. It caused the destruction of the Temples and
the exile. “The Wicked” as idolaters is self-explanatory.
Idolatry is expressed in syncretism, apostasy and agnosticism:

they worshiped both YHWH and foreign gods. They swore
in the name of YHWH then repeated that vow in the name of
their idols (1:4b–5). They worshiped Baal and allowed priests
to officiate. They worshiped the hosts of heaven. They rushed
to worship idols and to imitate the ways of the Philistines (1:4–
5, 8–9).
It would be mistaken to think that the Israelites were only

worshipping their idols ceremonially as a religious ritual.
Their idolatry went deeper, for the leaders of Israel had taken
the idols into their hearts, an abomination that is mentioned
several times in Ezekiel: “these men (the elders and leaders of
Israel, v.1) have taken their idols into their hearts” (Ezek.
14:3; also vv.4,7). They believed in their idols with all their
hearts: “their soul delights in their abominations (i.e., idols)”
(Isa.66:3). So fervent was their faith in their gods, represented
by their idols, that they offered the blood of their sons (Ezek.
16:36; vv.20-21) and set up high places to “burn their sons in
the fire as burnt offerings to Baal” (Jer.19:5).
In 1Corinthians 8:4, quoted above, the negative statement
“an idol is nothing” or “an idol has no real existence” has as
its counterpart the positive affirmation “there is no God but
one,” a striking echo of “Yahweh is one” in Dt.6:4 (kyrios heis
estin, LXX). Paul does a play on the words “nothing” and
“no” (they are basically the same word in Greek) that cannot
be brought out by translation: “An idol is nothing at all in the
world, and there is no God but one” (1Cor.8:4). This puts
the nothingness of idols in stark contrast with the affirmation
that there is “no” God but the one and only Yahweh.
The Greek word for “one” (heis) appears again in verse 6

where it occurs twice: “there is one God, the Father, from
whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord,
Jesus Christ”. Thus it is made clear that Jesus is Lord but not
God.
The words “one God” do not for Paul refer to the first
person of the Trinity called God the Father; similarly the
words “one Lord Jesus Christ” do not for Paul refer to the
second person of the Trinity called God the Son. Both these
persons do not exist in the Scriptures.
It doesn’t mean that the term “God the Father” is absent
in the Bible. It is found in several verses (Gal.1:1; Eph.6:23;
Col.3:17; 1Pet.1:2; 2Jn.1:3) but never in the trinitarian sense
of the first person among three in the Trinity. The titles “God
the Son” and “God the Holy Spirit” are, however, wholly ab-
sent in the Scriptures, a fact that does not trouble trinitarians
at all.
The affirmation that “God is one” rules out three divine
persons in a Trinity, who have “no real existence” as far as the
Scriptures are concerned. Those who reject the truth that
God is one will fall into the delusion and final disaster of idol-
atry. As trinitarians, we put our faith in a non-existent God
who, like the idols in the Old Testament, was fabricated by
man—in this case, fabricated by the western Gentile church. I
myself fervently believed and taught this man-made dogma
for more than half a century, mistaken in my belief that the
church can never be wrong. “They exchanged the truth about
God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather
than the Creator, who is blessed forever!” (Romans 1:25)
A Brief Survey of “the only God”

(ho monos theos) in the New Testament
Twice in John’s Gospel, Jesus speaks of the Father as ho

monos theos (ὁ μόνος θεός), that is, “the only God”:
John 5:44 How can you believe when you receive glory from
one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the
only God?
John 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the
only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
The words shown in boldface correspond to Greek monos, as

in most of the remaining verses we will quote in this present
section. In every major translation of John 5:44, Jesus speaks
of his Father as “the only God”. Similarly, in John 17:3, Jesus
calls his Father “the only true God”. Similar statements are
found in Paul’s letters (the following verses are from ESV):
Romans 16:27 … to the only wise God be glory forever
through Jesus Christ! Amen.
1 Timothy 1:17 Now to the King of ages, immortal, invisible,

the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
1Timothy 6:15-16 …he who is the blessed and only

Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone
has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom
no one has ever seen or can see.
The following is significant for saying that only God is holy:

Revelation 15:3-4 “Great and amazing are your deeds, O
Lord God the Almighty! Just and true are your ways, O King
of the nations! Who will not fear, O Lord, and glorify your
name? For you alone are holy.” (ESV)
All major English translations translate monos in this verse as

“alone,” a rendering which correctly expresses its meaning in
the context. In the six Bible passages quoted so far in this
section, the predominant English rendering of monos is “only”
rather than “alone,” but that is only because of the nature of
the English language which does not permit “the alone God”.
But if this were permissible in English, “the alone God”
would also convey the sense “the only one who is God”.
Whereas English has to use two words “alone” and “only”
to express the idea of one and only God depending on the
grammatical context, languages such as Greek and others have
no problems in using the same word in all six verses such as
the German “allein” in the various versions of Luther’s Bible,
or the French “seul” in Louis Segond’s Bible (1910).
The word monos occurs in several other places in John—
and in other types of context—where it is usually translated
“alone” in English Bibles: John 8:29; 16:32 (twice); 12:24
(“unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it
remains alone”), so its meaning in John is clear.
John 1:1 is the only place in the NT where “the Word” is
identified with God. But Jesus’ two references to his Father as
“the only God” make it clear that John 1:1 cannot be taken as
saying that the Word is a second person within the Godhead,
but that it shares the nature of the One from whom the Word
is sent forth. But if besides the Father there is another who is
also God, then the Father would not be the only one who is
God, and therefore not the one who alone is God.
The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew
Bible, also has ho monos theos (the only God), as seen in the
following two verses:
Psalm 86:10 (85:10 in LXX) For you are great and do mar-
velous deeds; you alone are God. (NIV)
2 Kings 19:15,19 O Lord, God of Israel, enthroned between

the cherubim, you alone are God over all the kingdoms of
the earth … O LORD our God, deliver us from his hand, so
that all kingdoms on earth may know that you alone, O
LORD, are God. (NIV; this verse is almost identical to Isaiah
37:16,20)
Paul also uses the term “one God” (heis theos):

1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father,
from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one
Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through
whom we exist. (ESV)
Ephesians 4:5-6 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God
and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
In both passages, when Paul speaks of “one God,” he is

referring explicitly to the “Father” and not to Jesus Christ. He
also makes the vital distinction between Jesus as “one Lord”
and the Father as “one God”. Other statements in the New

Testament on “one God” are:
Romans 3:30 since there is only one God (heis ho theos)
Galatians 3:20 a mediator does not represent just one, but

God is one (ho theos heis estin)
James 2:19 You believe that God is one (heis estin ho theos);
you do well. The demons also believe
Mark 12:29 The most important is, Hear O Israel, the Lord
our God, the Lord is one (kyrios heis estin)
In the last of these verses, Jesus is quoting Dt.6:4 which in

the LXX has the same phrase kyrios heis estin (the Lord is
one). The Hebrew of Dt.6:4 has ‫( יְ הוָה אֶ חָ ד‬Yahweh echad, one
and only Yahweh) or, with fewer markings, ‫יהוה אֶ חָ ד‬. The
word echad (“one”) is explained in Jastrow’s dictionary as
“singular, unique,” citing Ezek.33:24 and Dt.6:4.
In Ezek.33:24 cited by Jastrow (“Abraham was only one
man … but we are many”), the word “one” (heis, LXX) is
contrasted with “many” (polus, LXX). HALOT says regarding
echad: “numeral one … Deuteronomy 6:4 Yahweh is one; or,
the one Yahweh, Yahweh alone, Yahweh only”.
As we might expect, trinitarians try to evade these facts by
making “one” to mean a oneness or unity within God in
order to promote the idea of God as three persons. But to the
monotheist who knows of no fragmentation within God, the
idea that it is necessary to speak of a unity within God is
bizarre. What trinitarians often try to do is to make echad
(“one”) take on the meaning of unity expressed by some other

Hebrew word such as yachad, which means “together” or
“community” as in the well known Psalm 133:1 (“how good
and pleasant it is when brothers live together in unity”).
The Greek heis (“numeral one,” BDAG) has the same
basic meaning as the Hebrew echad (“numeral one,”
HALOT). Any quotation of Dt.6:4 in the NT would follow
its meaning in the Hebrew, for neither the Hebrew word nor
the Greek word means “oneness” or “unity”—but simply
“one”.
A Trinitarian’s Distortion
of the Hebrew “One”
T he Hebrew word for “hear” or “listen” is shema. For this

reason, Shema is the term used by the Jews as a design-
ation of the sacred proclamation in Deuteronomy 6:4: “Hear,
O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one,” as translated
in most English Bibles.10 This is actually a misrendering be-
cause it obscures the fact that “the LORD” in the original
Hebrew is YHWH. The verse says literally, “Hear, O Israel,
Yahweh our God, Yahweh is one”. New Jerusalem Bible has a
good translation: “Listen, Israel: Yahweh our God is the one,
the only Yahweh”.
In the Internet there is wide circulation of an article 11 by a
writer whose thesis is based on the writings of a second writer,
a certain Nick Norelli, who argues that “one” in Dt.6:4 is to
be interpreted along the lines of trinitarianism. To be specific,
there are two articles: the first which quotes Norelli, and the
second by Norelli himself. Although our discussion centers on
these two articles, starting with the first and going to the
second, it touches on a wide circle of books and articles that
present more or less the same arguments.
10
The term Shema originally referred to the sacred proclamation of
Dt.6:4 but has since been extended to include Dt.6:4-9 and 11:13-21,
and Num.15:37-41.
11
http://www.reocities.com/bicwyzer.geo/Christianity/eschad.html as
it was on March 31, 2013.
The first article (the one that cites Norelli) is remarkable

for its misspelling of the Hebrew word for “one” as “eschad”
(the correct transliteration is echad or eḥad). This misspelling
(which reveals an ignorance of the Hebrew alphabet by insert-
ing a non-existent “s”) is consistent in the whole article except
where it quotes other sources. We mention this so that where
the misspelling appears in our discussion, it won’t be con-
strued as a mistyping or a misquotation. 12
The first of the two articles, in the section “The
Argument,” begins by quoting the following statement made
by a rabbi (who is not named): “The word echad in the
Hebrew language functions in precisely the same manner as
the word ‘one’ does in the English language.” The article then
goes on to say that what the rabbi “neglects to mention is that
there are two words for ‘one’ in Hebrew”.
In short, the article is accusing the rabbi of covering up the
evidence vital to the trinitarian case. The article goes on:
“once this becomes clear you will see that the whole point of
Eschad becomes very clear.” In other words, the rabbi is
accused of obfuscating the issue by withholding the crucial
12
The Hebrew word for “one” (‫ )אֶ חָ ד‬is sometimes transliterated
echad. The “c” is added before the “h” to indicate the hard or guttural
“h” as distinct from the soft “h”. In some books the hard “h” is indic-
ated by an under-dot (ḥ) but English keyboards cannot easily type this,
so the dot is often omitted or the “h” is rendered “ch”. But the writer
of the article doesn’t know any of this, so he comes up with the non-
existent eschad, yet has the temerity to criticize a rabbi who has spent
his life studying the Hebrew Scriptures, something that his critic has
obviously not done.
piece of information that there are two Hebrew words for

“one”. This is a daring accusation from one who is not even
able to transliterate the Hebrew word for “one”.
Contrary to the accusation made against the rabbi, let it be
stated without fear of factual contradiction that, not surpris-
ingly, the rabbi is correct when he says, “The word echad in
the Hebrew language functions in precisely the same manner
as the word ‘one’ does in the English language.” Or for that
matter, in any other major language such as Chinese,
German, and French. And contrary to the accusation levelled
against the rabbi, the rabbi did not neglect to mention that
there is another word for “one” in Hebrew, for Hebrew has
no other word for “one” besides echad! But the rabbi’s critic
blindly follows a certain Nick Norelli who in what we call the
“second article” appears to be not much more knowledgeable
about basic Hebrew and biblical exegesis than this critic, but
nonetheless writes an article on this subject which has the
“form” of scholarship (that is, replete with footnotes) but
lacks the necessary “substance”.
In the second article, Norelli’s, 13 it is remarkable that
Norelli fails to understand the meaning of another Hebrew
word “yachid” that he himself brings up for discussion. Of
this word he says correctly:
13
rdtwot.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/yachid-vs-echad.doc, as it
was on March 31, 2013.
The 1917 JPS Tanach renders yachid as only 10 out of the 12

times that it appears in the Hebrew text, the other two times
being rendered solitary, and 8 of those 10 times the word is
used in reference to an only child.
Let us clarify what Norelli is saying: The Hebrew word

yachid occurs 12 times in the Hebrew Bible; the 1917 JPS
translation renders yachid as “only” 10 times and as “solitary”
twice. That is correct.
What is immediately obvious is that even by Norelli’s own
statement, in no instance is yachid ever translated as “one” in
the JPS Tanach! In other words, Norelli himself explicitly
admits that in no instance does yachid ever function as a
second Hebrew word for “one”! He is apparently unaware
that he is directly contradicting his own thesis when he
concedes (correctly) that the basic meaning of yachid is “only”
rather than “one”. This word is often used in the sense of
“only son,” but “one” is not one of its definitions.
Just as baffling, Norelli goes on to list all the 12 instances
of yachid in the Hebrew Bible. These 12 instances, which I
gathered with the BibleWorks program, are listed in the
following. All verses are from ESV or NASB, with verse num-
bers conforming to those in English Bibles, not the Hebrew
Bible:
Gen.22:2 Take your son, your only son Isaac

Gen.22:12 you have not withheld your son, your only son
Gen.22:16 have not withheld your son, your only son
Judges 11:34 She was his only child
Psalm 22:20 Deliver my soul from the sword, my only life
Psalm 25:16 I am lonely and afflicted
Psalm 35:17 Rescue my soul from their ravages, my only life
Psalm 68:6 God makes a home for the lonely
Prov.4:3 I was a son … the only one in the sight of my mother
Jer.6:26 Mourn as for an only son
Amos 8:10 like the mourning for an only son
Zech.12:10 as one mourns for an only son
Had Norelli even glanced at this list, he would have seen that
“one” never occurs in the 12 verses! In English Bibles, yachid
is consistently translated “only” (apart from the two instances
translated “lonely,” a concept which in Hebrew is also based
on the concept of “only”). Even with the evidence right
before his eyes which he himself gathers, Norelli does not see
that yachid means “only” and not “one”! What is the
problem? It is one that I have had some experience of: blind-
ness induced by trinitarianism; one simply refuses to see the
obvious. This is frightening, so may God have mercy on us.
If you take this list of 12 verses to a Bible study, and ask
everyone there to read them in as many English Bibles as they
can get hold of, see if they can find one version that translates
yachid as “one”.
What Norelli “neglects to mention” (to use a phrase that

was unjustly used against the rabbi) is this: Whereas Norelli
correctly notes there that are 12 occurrences of yachid in the
Hebrew Bible, he fails to mention the crucial fact that there
are 977 occurrences of echad! A minor oversight? Or is this a
deliberate concealing of evidence vital to the understanding of
“one”?
You would recall that in the first article, the rabbi’s critic
confidently says that there are two Hebrew words for “one,”
giving the reader the impression that the two are common
words that are so closely related as to be semantically similar,
differing only in usage such that yachid is a singular “one”
whereas echad can be singular or compound, thereby lending
support to trinitarianism. If this were really so, then insofar as
the two words synonymously mean “one” in Hebrew, we
would expect a wide distribution of both words throughout
the Hebrew Bible. But the statistics show this to be entirely
false (977 versus 12).
Of the two words, only echad is found throughout the
Bible whereas yachid is a rare word that occurs in very limited
contexts. For example, yachid occurs 3 times in Genesis 22 to
refer to Abraham’s “only” son Isaac; this alone accounts for
one quarter of all instances of yachid in the whole Bible! Of
the 12 instances of yachid, 8 refer to an only child, this alone
accounting for two thirds of all references.14
14
The remaining four instances of yachid do not refer to an only
child, and are found in the Psalms where Bible translators have diffi-
culty finding suitable translations of yachid that fit the context.
With a statistical difference as striking as 977 versus 12,

even the semantic difference is overshadowed by this num-
erical contrast. The writers of the two articles have taken us
“for a ride”. Or perhaps they themselves have been misled by
others. Articles based on the same doctrinally-motivated pre-
mises are legion in the Internet and some books.
Let it be stated that echad is the only word for “one” in
Hebrew, and that yachid (“only”) can never replace “one” in
the Shema (Dt.6:4). Try reading the Shema with “one” re-
placed by “only”! Yet Norelli argues that yachid is a singular
“one” whereas echad can be singular or compound as to make
God a triunity. You can strike up a hollow victory by making
up your own rules, or in this case your own definitions, but
you will end up deceiving yourself and others, which is hardly
a wise thing to do since it involves the word of God.
Ultimately it is the living God to whom we will answer.
As for the fact that numeral “one” can have a singular or
composite meaning in Hebrew, is that not true of all major
languages? We can speak of one person or one family, so how
“one” is to be understood in any language is determined from
the sentence as a whole, and not from the word “one” itself.
By itself “one” cannot be used to prove that God is triune
since “one” can also mean unitary one. The meaning of “one”
in Dt.6:4 can only be established from the verse or from its
context, neither of which has the slightest indication of a
triune God, or in this case a triune “Yahweh”.
To illustrate what I mean, the statement “not one locust
was left in all the territory of Egypt” (Ex.10:19) refers to a
numerally single locust, not two or three locusts united as
one. On the other hand, “one man” can have one of two
possible meanings, depending on the context. It may refer to
a numerally single man (“Abraham was only one man, yet he
got possession of the land,” Ezek.33:24) or a unity of men
(“they came out as one man,” 1Sam.11:7). Hence the mean-
ing of “one man”—either singular or compound—is gov-
erned by the context, either by the singular “he” (Abraham)
or the plural “they” (the Israelites). (In these verses, quoted
from NASB or ESV, echad is used.)
It seems that Norelli is trying to achieve psychological in-
fluence on his readers by leaving a question mark in their
minds: Maybe, just maybe, the word “one” (“Yahweh your
God is one”) should be understood as a compound “one” and
therefore as a reference to the Trinity. If Norelli succeeds in
leaving this question mark in the reader’s mind, he has
already achieved his objective even though he knows full well
that his argument proves nothing.
But anyone who allows that question mark to settle in his
mind will be an easy victim of the pernicious error of trin-
itarian polytheism. The Hebrew Bible is uncompromisingly
monotheistic, a fact that no responsible biblical scholar would
deny. Since the Shema of Dt.6:4 is brought up in these two
articles, let’s look at it again: “Hear, O Israel, Yahweh our
God, Yahweh is one”.
The writers of these two articles are, in fact, more daring
than most other trinitarians in that they apply the composite
“one” to Yahweh rather than to God. In this verse, “one”
refers explicitly to Yahweh, which means that their argument
collapses immediately. Why? For a start, there are 6,828 oc-
currences of “Yahweh” in the Hebrew Bible. In every instance

in which Yahweh refers to Himself in the first person, the
singular “I” or “me” or “my” is used, not the plural “we” or
“us”. Similarly, whenever Yahweh is spoken of in the third
person, the singular “he” or “him” or “his” is used, not the
plural “they” or “them”. Against this overwhelming evidence,
Norelli tries to establish that “one” has a compound meaning
in Dt.6:4.
If the thousands of occurrences of the first and third
person singular (“I” and “me” and so on) are not sufficient
evidence for Norelli and others of like persuasion, what about
the verses that state that Yahweh is God and there is “no
other” (e.g., Isaiah 45:5, “I am Yahweh and there is no other,
besides me there is no God”)? Notice the first person singular
(“I” and “me”).
But those who close their eyes to the truth will never be
persuaded by any amount of biblical evidence. Could it be
that it is ultimately trinitarianism that they really care about,
and not Scriptural truth? Little wonder that the rabbi quoted
in the first article is frustrated with the trinitarian argument
based on a spurious explanation of “one”. He could have said
that this argument is nonsense, but is polite enough not to say
so.
And could it be that the two writers don’t know that
“Yahweh” is not a general term for God but the personal
name of the God of Israel? How can a personal name have a
multi-personal reference? How can a personal name such as
Yahweh or Jesus Christ or William Shakespeare, when used
referentially, refer to more than one particular person? It is
well known in biblical scholarship that “Yahweh” is not a

general or synonymous way of referring to God. Zondervan
Encyclopedia of the Bible, “Names of God,” says:
If El (god) was a general term for the divinity in the thought
of the peoples of the Bible lands and the Ancient Near East,
the name Yahweh was a specifically Hebrew name for
God … It is significant that the use of this name [Yahweh]
for God was unique with the Israelites. The other Semitic
peoples do not seem to have known it or at least did not use
it in reference to the Deity except as contacts with the Heb-
rew people brought it to their attention. It was the special
property of the covenant people.
As the specially revealed name of the God of Israel (Ex.3:14),

“Yahweh” has no multi-personal reference. It refers to Him
alone, and He declares that “there is no god besides me”
(Dt.32:39; cf. Isa.44:8; 45:5). This was already declared in
the First Commandment: “You shall have no other gods
before (or besides) me” (Ex.20:3; Dt.5:7) where “me” refers
explicitly to Yahweh (Ex.20:2 and Dt.5:6). Can the writers of
the two articles hope that on that Day they might escape the
serious charge of violating the First Commandment?
I have responded in a stern tone to these two writers whose
exposition is so mediocre as to be worthless for a study of
God’s word. Because the word of God is “the word of life,”
those who are not careful to “divide” it rightly (2Tim.2:15)
will have to answer to the living God for leading others into
error. Expounding the Scriptures is not a game that people
with too much time in their hands might want to play. We
must strive to understand God’s truth no matter what the

cost may be, even the loss of our cherished doctrines. Only
God’s truth must prevail if we are to enter into eternal life.
For this reason, I will attend with respect and open-minded-
ness to any exposition of God’s word that is genuinely
committed to the truth.
Jesus understands “one” in Deuteronomy 6:4

as numeral one
Deuteronomy 6:4 says, “Hear, O Israel! Yahweh our God,
Yahweh is one”. Some trinitarians take “one” in this verse not
as numeral one (which would make YHWH the one and only
YHWH, excluding all others), but as a compound “one” in
order to imply that Yahweh is a compound unity of (three)
persons.15
This is despite the fact that the Jews, as a whole, have
never interpreted Dt.6:4 to mean a compound YHWH. Old
Testament scholarship, both Jewish and Christian, has gener-
ally taken echad in Dt.6:4 to mean numeral one, which would
exclude all others from being Yahweh.16
15
A surprising exception is the ardently trinitarian ESV Study Bible
which admits that Dt.6:4 is a “statement of exclusivity, not of the
internal unity of God”.
16
The non-trinitarian interpretation of Dt.6:4 is seen in the follow-
ing authorities: HALOT, the foremost Hebrew-English lexicon, puts
echad of Dt.6:4 under the heading “numeral one” and assigns to this
verse the sense “Yahweh is one” or “the one Yahweh” or “Yahweh
alone” or “Yahweh only”. Keil and Delitzsch on Dt.6:4: “What is pre-
But amid the endless trinitarian protests against the unit-

ary sense of echad in Dt.6:4, what settles the matter is what
Jesus himself said to a scribe in the following conversation.
We briefly discuss the three highlighted sentences:
28
And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing
with one another, and seeing that he answered them well,
asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of
all?” 29 Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel:
The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the
Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and
with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second
is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no
other commandment greater than these.” 32 And the scribe
said to him, “You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he
is one, and there is no other besides him. 33 And to love him
with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all
the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is much
more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” 34 And
dicated here of Jehovah does not relate to the unity of God, but simply
states that it is to Him alone that the name Jehovah rightly belongs,
that He is the one absolute God, to whom no other Elohim can be
compared.”
TWOT, in its article on echad, concedes that Deuteronomy 6:4
“concentrates on the fact that there is one God and that Israel owes its
exclusive loyalty to him (5:9; 6:5)”. This statement is remarkable for
coming from an article that otherwise expresses trinitarian belief. In
fact, TWOT speaks positively of the following non-trinitarian reading
of Dt.6:4: “The option ‘the LORD is our God, the LORD alone’ has in
its favor both the broad context of the book and the immediate con-
text.’”
when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You

are not far from the kingdom of God.” And after that no one
dared to ask him any more questions. (Mark 12:28-34, ESV)
It suffices to make a few brief observations:
• A scribe asks Jesus which is the foremost

commandment.
• Jesus tells him that the foremost is, “Hear, O Israel:
The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love
the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your
soul and with all your mind and with all your
strength.”
• The scribe agrees with Jesus: “You are right, Teacher”.
• More than that, the scribe agrees specifically with Jesus’
interpretation of Dt.6:4: “You have truly said that he is
one, and there is no other besides him”. The words “no
other besides him” indicate that Yahweh is to be
understood in terms of numeral “one” with the sense of
uniqueness and exclusion, and not as a compound
“one”.
• Moreover, the scribe uses the specific phrase “he is
one”—a direct echo of “the LORD is one” in Dt.6:4—
as an encapsulation of his own understanding of
Yahweh’s exclusivity as the one and only Yahweh. This
puts a lock on the meaning of “the LORD is one” in
Dt.6:4.
• Jesus saw that the scribe had “answered wisely” and tells
him that he is not far from the kingdom.
In short, Jesus and the scribe agree that the Shema (Dt.
6:4) is not speaking of Yahweh as a compound unity but as a
numerally singular Yahweh such that all others are excluded
from being Yahweh. This closes any possible trinitarian
“loophole” in Dt.6:4.
Since this undermines trinitarianism, a common tactic
among trinitarians is to obscure the true meaning of “one” in
Dt.6:4 by throwing as many “possible” meanings at Dt.6:4 as
possible—in one recent publication, ten possible meanings to
choose from!—with the thinly disguised objective of diverting
the reader’s attention from the true message of this verse.
“Echad” as correctly explained by a Jew

The following paragraphs are from another Internet article,17
this time by a certain Jason, a Jewish blogger who writes on
the subjects of Judaism, Christianity, and the Hebrew lang-
uage. It correctly explains the meaning of echad (“one”) and
rejects Norelli’s explanation of the word:
In his “The Defense of an Essential: A Believer’s Handbook
for Defending the Trinity,” Nick Norelli took up the argu-
ment common among missionaries that echad (‫אֶ חָ ד‬, the
17
http://www.thehebrewcafe.com/blog/?cat=19, as it was on April 1,
2013.
Hebrew word used in Dt.6:4 to say that HaShem18 is “one”)

“is a word that allows for plurality within one and diversity
within unity” (page 3). This is the most common argument
when the subject of the Trinity comes up in the face of the
declared unity of G-d in the text of the Hebrew Bible.
Is it true that echad refers to a “compound unity” as mission-

aries say? Actually, no. It isn’t true in the least. The word
echad is used in the same way as the word “one” in English.
That is, it means a singular as opposed to a plural. If I say
that I have one book, I mean that I have one and not two.
Similarly, when I tell you that I want one hamburger from
the grill, I mean just one—and not two. It is not the word
“one” or echad that [in itself] indicates a compound unity—
not in the slightest. It is the noun to which [echad] refers
which itself may be compound. A hamburger is composed of
a bun, meat, sauces, and toppers. A hamburger itself is a
compound unity, just as a cluster of grapes is a compound
unity. It is not the word “one” that [in itself] indicates or
allows for plurality …
What do we mean when we say “one”? We mean simply

“not two (or more)” of something. It is not the word “one”
that allows for or bears the sense of composition. Rather, it is
the thing itself to which I refer that contains and bears this
sense.
18
Hebrew HaShem (“the Name”) is used by Jews as a reverential
way of referring to YHWH, the God of Israel.
Chapter 2
The Historical Roots of

Trinitarianism:
A basic definition of the Trinity
E ven among those who uphold the doctrine of the Trinity,

few know anything about it beyond the basic “God in
three persons” formula. Even fewer know about the historical
events that culminated in the creedal formulation of trinita-
rianism.
Most churches regard trinitarianism as the cornerstone of
their faith, yet surprisingly few churches teach the Trinity to
the lay people in depth, probably because a proper
understanding of trinitarianism will create objections to the
doctrine. The first thing the people will notice is the lack of
biblical support and the absence of logical cohesion.
Since we will be looking at the historical roots of trinitar-
ianism in this chapter and the “four pillars of trinitarianism”
in the next few chapters, it is only right that we gain a basic
understanding of what the Trinity is. The following definit-
ion of the Trinity is representative of how it is explained by

trinitarians, and adheres to the trinitarian language used in
definitions given by trinitarians, some of whom we will cite.
For the meanings of English words, we consult two
dictionaries: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language (5th full edition) and Oxford Dictionary of English
(3rd edition), abbreviated AHD and Oxford, respectively.
The following is a point-by-point explanation of the
Trinity with a few explanatory notes. According to
trinitarianism:
• There is one and only one God.

• God subsists in three persons.
• Note: The word “subsist” is unfamiliar to most people,
but it is commonly used in trinitarian writing to mean
“to exist, be” (AHD).
• The three persons are: God the Father, God the Son,
and God the Spirit.
• Each is fully God.
• The three are coequal and coeternal.
• The three are distinct from each other, yet are not three
Gods.
• God is not God except as Father, Son, and Spirit—the
three together.
• Note: Trinitarians often use the term “Godhead” to
refer to the triune God (AHD defines “Godhead” as
“the Christian God, especially the Trinity”). One
Chapter 2 — The Historical Roots of Trinitarianism 87
reason for the trinitarian use of the term “Godhead” is

that in trinitarianism, God is not a person.
• God is three persons, but is only one “being” or
“essence”.
• Note: Although the word “being” usually refers to a
human being, trinitarians use it in the sense of “one’s
basic or essential nature” (AHD, similarly Oxford).
• Note: Although the word “person” usually means a
human person, in trinitarian language it usually refers
to a divine person (e.g., “God in three persons”).
• Note: Trinitarians often use the Greek word hypostasis
as an approximate equivalent of “person”. Hence God
is three hypostases (three persons).
• Note: The three hypostases—Father, Son, and Spirit—
share one ousia (essence or substance). Hence trinitar-
ians speak of three hypostases in one ousia (three persons
in one substance).
• Note: From ousia comes homoousios (of one essence or
substance), which is historically the key term in
trinitarianism because it is this term that supposedly
makes trinitarianism “monotheistic”.
• Note: Because the three persons are of one substance,
they are said to be “consubstantial”.
• By incarnation the second person of the Godhead—
namely, the eternally preexistent God the Son—
acquired a human nature and took on God-man
existence as Jesus Christ, who now, as one person,
possesses both a divine nature and a human nature, and

is both fully God and fully man through the “hyposta-
tic union” (of Christ’s two natures, divine and human,
in one person or hypostasis).
This definition is complete in the sense that any further

discussion on the Trinity is fundamentally an elaboration on
these basic points, e.g., how the three hypostases relate to one
another, or how they have different roles in salvation history
(the economic Trinity), or how Christ’s divine nature relates
to his human nature (debate over this last question had
resulted in years of bitter conflict within trinitarianism).
Anyone who reads the formal or technical literature on the
Trinity will soon discover that it tends to use Greek and Latin
terms (or their equivalent English terms), and is imbued with
neo-Platonic and other philosophical concepts. These
generate more confusion than illumination on how the three
persons can be one God. We will encounter a few of these
concepts in this book, such as the concept of communicatio
idiomatum.
Our basic definition of the Trinity is based on dozens of
definitions given by trinitarian authorities, both Protestant
and Catholic, including the following six definitions (which
can be skipped on a first reading). We include a seventh
statement, on the incarnation.
“The Christian doctrine of God, according to which he is

three persons in one substance or essence.” (New Dictionary
of Theology, “Trinity”)
“The trinity of God is defined by the Church as the belief

that in God are three persons who subsist in one nature. The
belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th cen-
turies AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical
belief.” (Dictionary of the Bible, Father John L. McKenzie,
“Trinity”)
“The term designating one God in three persons. Although

not itself a biblical term, ‘the Trinity’ has been found a con-
venient designation for the one God self-revealed in Script-
ure as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It signifies that within
the one essence of the Godhead we have to distinguish three
‘persons’ who are neither three gods on the one side, nor
three parts or modes of God on the other, but coequally and
coeternally God.” (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology,
“Trinity”)
“The term ‘Trinity’ is not a Biblical term, and we are not

using Biblical language when we define what is expressed by
it as the doctrine that there is one only and true God, but in
the unity of the Godhead there are three coeternal and co-
equal Persons, the same in substance but distinct in subsist-
ence.” (B.B. Warfield, ISBE, “Trinity”)
“The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doc-

trine of the Christian religion—the truth that in the unity of
the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct
one from another. Thus, in the words of the Athanasian

Creed: ‘the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spi-
rit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.’ In
this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by
an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an
eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet,
notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are
co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omni-
potent.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, “The Blessed Trinity,”
under “The Dogma of the Trinity”)
“It is time to lay down a basic, fundamental definition of the

Trinity. But we need a short, succinct, accurate definition to
start with. Here it is: Within the one Being that is God,
there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons,
namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit … When
speaking of the Trinity, we need to realize that we are talking
about one what and three who’s. The one what is the Being
or essence of God; the three who’s are the Father, Son, and
Spirit.” (The Forgotten Trinity, James R. White, pp.26-27)
“[The incarnation is] the act whereby the eternal Son of

God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, without
ceasing to be what he is, God the Son, took into union with
himself what he before that act did not possess, a human
nature, ‘and so He was and continues to be God and man in
two distinct natures and one person, forever’”. (Evangelical
Dictionary of Theology, “Incarnation”; the words in single
quotation marks are cited by EDT from the Westminster
Shorter Catechism).
Homoousios has no biblical support, and is

rejected by Luther
The word homoousios (“of one substance”) is historically the
key term in trinitarianism because it is this term or its concept
that, on account of the word “one,” gives trinitarianism some
semblance of monotheism. The early trinitarian view that
homoousios is “the foundation of orthodoxy” (Victorinus) is
shared by modern trinitarians, yet the word homoousios itself
is found nowhere in the Bible! That it has no biblical basis is
noted by a lexical authority, New International Dictionary of
New Testament Theology (NIDNTT, ed. Colin Brown, article
God > The Trinity > NT).
The following excerpt from this article cites Karl Barth
who, despite being a trinitarian, concedes that the doctrine of
the Trinity is not found in the Bible. The excerpt has two
levels of quotation. For the convenience of the reader, I put
Barth’s words in boldface in order to separate them from the
surrounding words of NIDNTT:
The NT does not contain the developed doctrine of the
Trinity. [Barth says:] “The Bible lacks the express declaration
that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of equal essence
and therefore in an equal sense God himself. And the other
express declaration is also lacking, that God is God thus and
only thus, i.e., as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These
two express declarations, which go beyond the witness of the
Bible, are the twofold content of the Church doctrine of the
Trinity” (Karl Barth, CD, I, 1, 437). It also lacks such terms
as trinity … and homoousios which featured in the Creed of
Nicea (325).
In this remarkable statement, Barth concedes that the two

main tenets of trinitarianism are absent in the Bible. And
since homoousios is not a biblical term as noted by NIDNTT,
it comes as no surprise that strong objections to this term
have come from the ranks of trinitarians. Sure enough,
Martin Luther, a trinitarian, vehemently rejected homoousios
for being an unbiblical term, going so far as to “hate” it. The
Cambridge Companion to the Trinity (p.151) quotes Luther as
saying, “Our adversaries … are fanatics about words because
they want us to demonstrate the truth of the trinitarian
article … by asking us to assent to the term homoousios”. The
Cambridge Companion goes on to say that “trinitarian terms
such as homoousios are for Luther a ‘stammering’ and
‘babbling’”.
Luther rejects homoousios even more vehemently in a state-
ment quoted in Adolf Harnack’s seven-volume History of
Dogma:
[Luther] declared such a term as homoousios to be unallow-
able in the strict sense, because it represents a bad state of
things when such words are invented in the Christian system
of faith: “… but if my soul hates the word homoousios and I
prefer not to use it, I shall not be a heretic; for who will
compel me to use it … Although the Arians had wrong views
with regard to the faith, they were nevertheless very right in
this … that they required that no profane and novel word
should be allowed to be introduced into the rules of faith.”
(History of Dogma, vol.7, ch.4, p.225, cf. Erlangen edition of
Luther’s works, vol.5, p.505)
Luther’s objection to homoousios for its unbiblical origin

was so vehement that he was willing to concede that the
heretical Arians were “very right” in rejecting this “profane”
word. Luther knew that his objection to the use of homoousios
would expose him to the charge of heresy because homoousios
is the foundation stone of trinitarianism’s dubious claim to
monotheism, and that without homoousios, trinitarianism
would immediately descend into explicit tritheism (the
doctrine of three Gods).
A Catholic scholar’s admissions about trinitarianism

Luther comes from the ranks of Protestants but is there
similar dissent from the ranks of Catholics? Hans Küng, one
of the greatest Catholic theologians of the 20th century,
wrote a section titled, “No doctrine of the Trinity in the New
Testament,” in his classic work, Christianity: Essence, History,
and Future (p.95ff). Küng firmly rejects trinitarianism in his
work, but is there a similar dissenting voice from the ranks of
trinitarian Catholics?
An esteemed Bible dictionary—one of the most popular
for two decades and in its time the most widely used one-vol-
ume Bible dictionary ever—was the scholarly Dictionary of the
Bible by Father John L. McKenzie, which, though written by
a Catholic, was also widely used by Protestants for its
intellectual depth. The following are excerpts from “Trinity,”
an article in the dictionary. In the article, McKenzie, himself
a trinitarian, makes some observations that are unfavorable to
trinitarianism, including that: (i) The doctrine of the Trinity
was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries, and does not
represent biblical belief. (ii) The trinitarian terms used for
describing God are Greek philosophical terms rather than
biblical terms. (iii) Terms such as “essence” and “substance”
were “erroneously” applied to God by early theologians. (iv)
The personal reality of the Holy Spirit is uncertain and was a
later development in trinitarianism. (v) The Trinity is a
mystery that defies understanding. (vi) The Trinity is not
mentioned or foreshadowed in the Old Testament. Here are
some excerpts from his article:
TRINITY. The trinity of God is defined by the Church as

the belief that in God are three persons who subsist in one
nature. The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th
and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and form-
ally a biblical belief. The trinity of persons within the unity
of nature is defined in terms of “person” and “nature” which
are Greek philosophical terms; actually the terms do not
appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the
result of long controversies in which these terms and others
such as “essence” and “substance” were erroneously applied
to God by some theologians.
.....
The personal reality of the Spirit emerged more slowly than
the personal reality of Father and Son, which are personal
terms … What is less clear about the Spirit is His personal
reality; often He is mentioned in language in which His
personal reality is not explicit.
.....
… in Catholic belief the Trinity of persons within the unity

of nature is a mystery which ultimately escapes understand-
ing; and in no respect is it more mysterious than in the
relations of the persons to each other.
.....
The OT does not contain suggestions or foreshadowing of
the Trinity of persons. What it does contain are the words
which the NT employs to express the Trinity of persons such
as Father, Son, Word, Spirit, etc.
The Gnostic use of homoousios

Gnosticism is widely regarded as the greatest threat to the life
of the early church in the first two centuries. We won’t ex-
plain what Gnosticism is (but see Appendix 7 for a brief ex-
planation) since it is a standard topic in church histories,
except to mention that it was a cancerous movement that
grew deep roots in the church and nearly killed it. Eminent
historian Justo L. González says, “Of all these differing
interpretations of Christianity, none was as dangerous, nor as
close to victory, as was gnosticism.” 19
It will come as a shock to trinitarians that the Gnostics
were the first to use the word homoousios. The first person
known to have used it was the Gnostic theologian Basilides
(2nd century A.D.) who used homoousios to explain his con-
19
The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Present Day,
vol.1, p.58.
cept of a “threefold sonship consubstantial with the god who

is not”. 20
When Gnosticism was at its peak, homoousios had a reput-
ation for being a Gnostic term. Well before the Council of
Nicaea in 325, the church fathers were already aware of the
Gnostic use of homoousios. R.P.C. Hanson’s authoritative
work, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, says on
p.191: “Hippolytus quotes Gnostics as using the word
homoousios … Clement of Alexandria also uses the word in
quotations of Gnostic authors, as does Irenaeus … Origen
similarly uses the word only when he is quoting Gnostic
heretics.” The academic authority of R.P.C. Hanson’s work is
well known to all church historians and patristics scholars.
Although Gnosticism was in decline by the third or fourth
century, it had left some of its roots in the church as seen in
the adoption of homoousios. A central concept in Gnosticism
is the emanation of divine beings, the lesser from the greater.
Hence it comes as no surprise that at Nicaea it was decreed on
pain of anathema that the second person emanates from the
first, much as light emanates from a source of light. Nicaean
formulations such as “God of God, Light of Light” and other
lofty descriptions are nothing more than direct echoes of
Greek philosophy and religion.
20
Hippolytus in Refutatio omnium haeresium 7:22. See the scholarly
Wikipedia article “Homoousian” cited in Appendix 7 of the present
book (The Gnostic Origins of Homoousios).
Trinitarianism or tritheism?
Trinitarianism is the doctrine of one God in three persons
whereas tritheism is the doctrine of three Gods. Tritheism is a
special case of polytheism, the belief in many Gods (e.g.,
Hinduism). Trinitarians vehemently deny that trinitarianism
is tritheism, yet the two are intrinsically indistinguishable. To
put the matter plainly, trinitarianism is tritheism that denies
it is tritheistic.21
In trying to make sense of trinitarianism, the immediate
problem that we encounter is its use of doublespeak, in
assigning two different meanings to the word “God” and then
switching back and forth between them, usually to evade
logical dilemmas. There is the first sense of “God” in which
God is not God except as Father, Son, and Spirit—the three
together. This formulation is designed as a means of avoiding
explicit tritheism, and is one of the two foundational tenets of
trinitarianism according to Karl Barth.
But there is a second (and contradictory) sense of “God”
in which each of the three persons of the Trinity is indiv-
idually and fully God: “So the Father is God, the Son is God,
and the Holy Spirit is God” (Athanasian Creed). Trinitarians
say that each person is “fully God” (White, Grudem,
21
Tom Harpur says something pertinent: “You simply cannot find
the doctrine of the Trinity set out anywhere in the Bible. St. Paul has
the highest view of Jesus’ role and person, but nowhere does he call
him God. Nor does Jesus himself anywhere explicitly claim to be the
Second Person of the Trinity … This research has led me to believe
that the great majority of regular churchgoers are, for all practical
purposes, tritheists.” (For Christ’s Sake, p.11).
Bowman) or “fully and completely God” (ESV Study Bible,

p.2513).
The historically important Fourth Lateran Council (1215,
Rome) is even clearer: “each is God, whole and entire”. In
other words, the Father is God whole and entire; the Son is
God whole and entire; the Spirit is God whole and entire. Yet
the three together are one God whole and entire.
I n trinitarianism, each person of the triune Godhead,

whether the Father or the Son or the Spirit, is fully God,
coeternally God, and coequally God, so that trinitarians can
and do speak of “God the Father, God the Son, and God the
Spirit” in language that ascribes whole deity to each. Whole
deity of each is maintained even if we reverse the word order
within each of the three clauses: “the Father is God, the Son
is God, and the Holy Spirit is God” (Athanasian Creed).
Trinitarianism posits that each person—whether the
Father or the Son or the Spirit—is “fully” God (“each is God,
whole and entire,” Fourth Lateran Council). Moreover, trin-
itarianism assigns sufficient distinction between the persons
such that the Father is not to be confused with the Son, nor
the Son with the Spirit, nor the Father with the Spirit. The
Athanasian Creed says, “For there is one Person of the Father,
another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit”. To state
the obvious, the distinction in persons is seen in the fact that
trinitarians speak of “three persons”.
Since the three are each “fully” God yet are three distinct
persons, it would be semantically correct to say that they are
three Gods (tritheism). The force and clarity and obviousness
of this argument is noted, yet its validity is rejected, by the

Athanasian Creed: “And yet they are not three Gods, but one
God”.
This clear violation of semantic sense for which the Athan-
asian Creed offers no explanation apart from dogmatic denial,
must be rejected unless it is allowed by mitigating factors such
as explicit Scriptural support. But does the Bible really teach
the three-in-one trinitarian formulation? Many trinitarians
admit that it is absent in the Scriptures. For example, Dr.
Charles C. Ryrie, author of Ryrie Study Bible, and longtime
professor of systematic theology at Dallas Theological
Seminary, makes a shocking admission:
But many doctrines are accepted by evangelicals as being
clearly taught in the Scripture for which there are no proof
texts. The doctrine of the Trinity furnishes the best example
of this. It is fair to say that the Bible does not clearly teach the
doctrine of the Trinity. In fact, there is not even one proof
text, if by proof text we mean a verse or passage that ‘clearly’
states that there is one God who exists in three persons …
The above illustrations prove the fallacy of concluding that if
something is not proof texted in the Bible we cannot clearly
teach the results … If that were so, I could never teach the
doctrine of the Trinity or the deity of Christ or the deity of
the Holy Spirit. (Basic Theology, pp. 89-90)
Millard Erickson, well-known trinitarian and specialist on

trinitarian doctrine, and the author of Christian Theology,
writes:
[The Trinity] is not clearly or explicitly taught anywhere in

Scripture, yet it is widely regarded as a central doctrine,
indispensable to the Christian faith. In this regard, it goes
contrary to what is virtually an axiom of biblical doctrine,
namely, that there is a direct correlation between the script-
ural clarity of a doctrine and its cruciality to the faith and life
of the church. (God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Inter-
pretation of the Trinity, p.11)
The standard way of explaining away the tritheistic under-

pinnings of trinitarianism—namely, by positing that the three
persons share one essence (homoousios)—is unconvincing. It’s
not only because the word homoousios is not found in the
Bible, but also because a common essence characterizes trithe-
ism as much as it does trinitarianism! Whether we speak of a
unity of three Gods (tritheism) or a unity of three persons in
one God (trinitarianism), the three share the one substance or
essence of deity. Applying the concept of “one essence” to
three persons who are each “fully” God does not make them
“one God”; it only makes them a perfect union of three full
Gods. Hence the concept of homoousios (one in substance)—
whose first known use was by the Gnostic theologian
Basilides, and which was later adopted at Nicaea against the
objections of some bishops from both camps—offers no help
to trinitarianism but in fact draws unwelcome attention to
trinitarianism’s affinity with tritheism!
The tritheistic underpinnings of trinitarianism come out
in many books such as James R. White’s The Forgotten Trin-
ity, a book endorsed by J.I. Packer, Gleason Archer, Norman
Geisler, and John MacArthur, indicating its acceptance

among leading evangelicals.
White first gives what he calls a “short, succinct, accurate”
definition of the Trinity: “Within the one Being that is God,
there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons,
namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” (p.26)
Here White makes a distinction between “Being” and “per-
son” such that God is three persons yet one Being. To explain
what this means, White says:
When speaking of the Trinity, we need to realize that we are
talking about one what and three who’s. The one what is the
Being or essence of God; the three who’s are the Father, Son,
and Spirit.
Hence trinitarianism’s claim to monotheism is based on the

concept of “one Being” or “one essence” rather than “one
person”. In his attempt to give trinitarianism some semblance
of monotheism, White is forced to make God a what, not a
who—which is a blasphemous description of God. The God
of trinitarianism is technically an “it” rather than a “He”.
If you take this to mean that the trinitarian God is not a
person, you are correct. Tertullian says: “God is the name for
the substance” (see J.N.D. Kelly in Early Christian Doctrines,
p.114). C.S. Lewis, a wholehearted trinitarian, says:
“Christian theology does not believe God to be a person. It
believes Him to be such that in Him a trinity of persons is
consistent with a unity of Deity. In that sense it believes Him
to be something very different from a person.” (Christian
Reflections, p.79).
In the strange logic of trinitarianism, the mere use of

“one” as in “one substance” is already enough to qualify
trinitarianism to be monotheism. This is what we might call
“monotheism by vocabulary”. The only way for trinitarians to
obtain “one God” from the notion of “one substance” is to
define God as a substance (Tertullian), which is why trinitar-
ians such as James White do not hesitate to say that God is a
“what”.
Just as strange, the tritheistic concept of “three persons
who are each fully God” (note the crucial word “fully”) does
not, in the view of trinitarians, disqualify trinitarianism from
being monotheism. This is trying to have it both ways, to
have monotheism and tritheism, to have God as one and God
as three, to have one God and three who are each fully God.
In the final analysis, the convoluted logic of trinitarianism is
the predictable consequence of an attempt to prove, almost
mathematically, that three equals one or that 1/3 equals one.
White continues: “The Father is not 1/3 of God, the Son
1/3 of God, the Spirit 1/3 of God. Each is fully God, coequal
with the others, and that eternally.” This statement is
problematic because if God is three persons, then anyone who
is “fully God”—note the word “fully” by which trinitarians
mean God whole and entire—would have to be all three
persons at the same time or else he would be partially God
(unless we change the definition of “God” using double-
speak).
The problem runs deeper than that, for if Jesus is not all
three persons at the same time, he would not be God at all,
for God must always exist as three persons or else we would
be breaking the “monotheism” of trinitarianism such that it

descends into tritheism. White rejects the idea that Jesus is
one-third of God, yet it cannot be denied that Jesus is one-
third of the Trinity in the sense of being one of three persons
of the Trinity, which trinitarians equate with God.
White’s assertion that the three are each “fully God” is but
a naked assertion of pure and classic tritheism. But trinitarians
vehemently deny that their doctrine is tritheistic, and they do
this by insisting that God is not God through the Father
alone, or the Son alone, or the Spirit alone, but by all three
together. This is one of the two foundational tenets of
trinitarianism (Barth) and is explicitly stated in the following
words of Millard Erickson, a prominent spokesman for trin-
itarianism:
God could not exist simply as Father, or as Son, or as Holy
Spirit. Nor could he exist as Father and Son, or as Father
and Spirit, or as Son and Spirit, without the third of these
persons in that given case. Further, none of these could exist
without being part of the Trinity… None has the power of
life within itself alone. Each can only exist as part of the
Triune God. (God in Three Persons, p.264)
Erickson’s statement that “none has the power of life with-

in itself alone” is a most shocking way of describing someone
who is supposed to be fully God (and, in the case of the
Father, directly contradicts John 5:26 which says that “the
Father has life in himself”). Equally shocking is the statement,
“none of these could exist without being part of the Trinity”.
Erickson is not merely saying that God is ontologically triune,
but that each person has no power of existence on his own

outside the framework of the Trinity! That statement is
probably designed as a means of avoiding explicit tritheism.
Erickson’s puzzling statement—that “none of these could
exist without being part of the Trinity”—effectively destroys
what it means to be God. If Jesus (or the Father or the Spirit)
is fully God, His existence will not depend on anyone else, for
God “is”. God is the “I am who I am” or “I will be what I will
be”. Nothing can determine or limit God’s existence. Yet in
trinitarianism, the ultimate ontological truth is not God him-
self but a triune framework that governs the existence of three
persons, none of whom can exist outside the Trinity (Millard
Erickson). That is why the triune God is not a “person” (C.S.
Lewis) but a “what” (James White).
Erickson’s statement that “God could not exist simply as
Father, or as Son, or as Holy Spirit” directly contradicts the
trinitarian assertion that the Father is fully God, the Son is
fully God, and the Spirit is fully God.
The stark reality is that Erickson is trying to do the
impossible task of explaining trinitarianism, a doctrine that
has never been explained coherently for two thousand years.
That is why trinitarianism is often said to be a mystery (cf.
White, p.173, “a mystery beyond the comprehension of
man”). Trinitarianism remains a mystery up to the 21st
century because trinitarians still cannot explain coherently
how three persons, each of whom is “God whole and entire,”
can together be one God. This accounts for the predictable
retreat into “mystery” even by a brilliant mind as Augustine’s.
But that is not the biblical meaning of “mystery”. In the

Bible, a mystery is not something illogical or beyond compre-
hension, but something that is unexplained only because we
are missing some crucial information. This is true even in sec-
ular usage, e.g., the mystery of how the pyramids were built,
or a mystery being investigated by Sherlock Holmes (but once
he solves it, it is no longer incomprehensible).
Paul says that we understand a mystery as clear as light
when God reveals it to us: “to bring to light for everyone
what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who
created all things” (Eph.3:9). Paul aspires to “declare the my-
stery of Christ” not incomprehensibly but “that I may make it
clear” (Col.4:3-4), a statement that can hardly be true of the
trinitarian mystery.
In trinitarianism, a mystery remains a mystery even after
an explanation has been given for it! But not so in the Bible.
The following Bible dictionary gets it right when it says that a
mystery is not something “for which no answer can be found”
but something that “once revealed is known and understood”:
But whereas “mystery” may mean, and in contemporary
usage often does mean, a secret for which no answer can be
found, this is not the connotation of the term mystērion in
classical and biblical Gk. In the NT mystērion signifies a secret
which is being, or even has been, revealed, which is also
divine in scope, and needs to be made known by God to men
through his Spirit. In this way the term comes very close to
the NT word apokalypsis, “revelation”. Mystērion is a temp-
orary secret, which once revealed is known and understood, a
secret no longer. (New Bible Dictionary, 3rd ed., “Mystery”)
In fact the unbiblical teaching of Sabellianism or modal-

ism (which says that God, in salvation history, is manifested
in three modes, Father, Son, and Spirit, similar to how H2O
can be liquid, ice, or vapor) is infinitely more logical than
trinitarianism. That is because modalism is free of self-contra-
diction, as is tritheism. If trinitarianism is to be logical and
self-consistent, it can only be so in the form of modalism or
outright tritheism, both of which are as unbiblical as trini-
tarianism.
Tritheism, being a special case of polytheism, would be ex-
pected to borrow from the language of polytheism. Sure
enough, the famously polytheistic religion of Hinduism
would occasionally speak of the “divine essence” or “divine
substance” 22 —a fact that further exposes trinitarianism’s
affinity with tritheism and polytheism.
The trinitarian term “divine substance” is also used in
polytheistic Greek mythology 23 and in Gnosticism, 24 yet is
notably absent from the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures!
In my days as a good trinitarian, I believed in a tripartite
Godhead. Because we trinitarians believed in three coequal
persons, we could not speak properly of one God but of one
Godhead. For some strange reason, we could not speak of
22
Klaus Klostemaier, A Concise Encyclopedia of Hinduism, p.124;
Klaus Klostemaier, A Survey of Hinduism, p.487; Steven Rosen, Essen-
tial Hinduism, p.193; Sri Swami Sivananda, All About Hinduism,
p.134.
23
Richard Caldwell, The Origin of the Gods, Oxford, p.137.
24
Jean-Marc Narbonne, Plotinus in Dialogue with the Gnostics, p.39;
and Sean Martin, The Gnostics, p.38.
three Gods even though each of these divine “persons” (as

trinitarians also call them) are fully and coequally God. There
is every right to speak of three Gods—not just three per-
sons—in the Trinity who are said to be one in “substance,” a
word derived from the Greek ousia which is used more ap-
propriately of material things, but which has been conscripted
into trinitarian use because a better word could not be found.
When you start inventing terms such as “trinity” or “God the
Son” or “God-man,” you will be forced to invent other terms
such as “substance” and impose meanings on words such as
“God” which are not intended in the Bible.
If “God is spirit” (Jn.4:24), how can God be a substance?
In the trinitarian absurdity, which is not based on biblical
procedure, the material concept of “substance” is brought in
to explain how there can be three persons in the “one”
trinitarian God. Common sense tells us that if there are three
persons (not just three faces or three heads on one person),
each of whom is fully God, then there are three Gods. This is
incontrovertible in the laws of syntax, semantics, and plain
language. Yet Christians including myself have been so befud-
dled that we could not see the obvious. The brainwashing
power of tradition is frightening because it leads to blindness.
The spiritual state of the church is just as Jesus put it, “the
blind leading the blind,” with the inevitable consequence that
both “fall into a pit” (Mt.15:14; Lk.6:39).
May Yahweh God be merciful to those in the church who
pursue the truth, and may He grant them what He had
promised:
I will lead the blind in a way that they do not know, in paths
that they have not known I will guide them. I will turn the
darkness before them into light, the rough places into level
ground. These are the things I do, and I do not forsake them.
(Isaiah 42:16, ESV)
Historical Currents:
How has the doctrine of the Trinity with its use of unbiblical
language and its infusion of Greek philosophical concepts
such as homoousios and hypostasis and eternal generation
become the cornerstone doctrine of Christianity? The answer
is to be found in the historical events of the early church.
S ome three hundred years after the time of Jesus, the

Gentile church had by then made him an object of
worship. The divine Jesus, called God the Son, was a creation
of the Gentile (non-Jewish) church that had assumed for itself
the right to elevate Jesus from being man to being God. Dei-
fied men were familiar to the Gentile world of the day; indeed
the Greeks had many gods who appeared all too human, and
the Romans worshipped as gods many of their own emperors,
including Constantine himself.
The way the Gentile church deified Jesus reminds us of
what Jesus said about the way some had been treating John
the Baptist: “they did with him whatever they wished” (Mt.
17:12). With similar brazenness, the churches did with Jesus
whatever they wished. Did they really think that Jesus would
have consented to their “lifting him up” to be God (cp. John
8:28, where “lifted up” refers instead to his being lifted up on
the cross)?
From that time on, the biblical Jesus faded from the Gen-
tile church in matters of faith and practice, and the one who
took his place was the God-man Jesus Christ of trinitarian-
ism.
We must not be quick to assume that the intentions of the
church leaders were wrong when they did this. In deifying
Jesus, they undoubtedly thought that what they were doing is
right. But good intentions do not justify wrong actions,
violence, idolatry, or unbiblical doctrines, as goes the saying,
“The road to hell is paved with good intentions”.
The deification of Jesus in 325 and the Spirit in 381

Few Christians know that trinitarianism was not generally
accepted in the Christian church until A.D. 381, three and a
half centuries after the time of Jesus, in which year the
Council of Constantinople, convened by the Roman Emperor
Theodosius I, affirmed that the Holy Spirit is of the same
“substance” as the Father and the Son. It was the first such
official declaration in church history; and by this ecclesiastical
pronouncement, the Holy Spirit was declared the third per-
son of the Trinity. Before this happened, there had been no
trinity of “consubstantial” beings. To speak of a Trinity in the
New Testament is therefore anachronistic, for the church did
not even recognize the Holy Spirit as a part of a trinity until
350 years after the time of Christ.
The formal deification of Jesus took place a half century
earlier, in 325 at the Council of Nicaea, despite the fact that
the New Testament has no clear or straightforward or incon-
trovertible statement that Jesus is God. The process of deify-

ing Jesus started even earlier, in the latter half of the second
century, when bold and scripturally unsustainable statements
were being made by some Gentile church leaders on the deity
of Jesus. The deification of Jesus then gained currency in the
Hellenistic Gentile church, during which process Jesus was
being elevated higher and higher towards deity, but not with-
out entailing much controversy and hostility, even physical
violence which was carried out with no apparent concern for
the disgracefulness of such behavior.25
The problems with the Council of Nicaea

The ancient city of Constantinople is located within the land
of today’s Istanbul, Turkey, whereas the ancient city of
Nicaea is located 60 miles away, within today’s Iznik, Turkey.
These were Greek-speaking cities in the Byzantine Empire at
the time of Emperor Constantine (born 272, died 337). The
city of Constantinople was founded in 330 by Constantine
himself on the site of the earlier Byzantium. Constantinople
was conquered by the Ottoman Muslims in 1453, and was
renamed Istanbul.
25
For a history of this protracted conflict, see Philip Jenkin’s Jesus
Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided
What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 Years; and Richard
Rubenstein’s How Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity
During the Last Days of Rome.
In 325, Emperor Constantine, also known as Constantine

the Great, brought together the First Council of Nicaea
which in its definitive Nicene Creed introduced the key word
homoousios to declare that Jesus is of the “same substance”
(consubstantial) with God the Father and therefore coequal
with Him. With the official deification of Jesus in place, the
church now had two Gods (ditheism) or two persons who are
coequally one God (binitarianism) by virtue of their sharing
one substance.
A few decades later, in 381 at the First Council of
Constantinople, the Holy Spirit was added as the third person
to the Godhead to formally make God a trinity. The doctrine
of three persons in the Godhead, a formulation that is poly-
theistic rather than monotheistic, was not viewed as problem-
atic, unbiblical or heretical by much of the Gentile church,
for it was a church that, after all, had long been immersed in a
milieu in which polytheism had taken deep root, and in
which Gnostic concepts were familiar to its populace.
In short, the deity of Christ, in terms of his consubstant-
iality with the Father, was not officially established until 325,
a few months after Constantine had become the sole emperor
of the Roman empire. Seeing the sectarian conflicts among
church leaders over the issue of Christ’s deity, and fearing that
this may destabilize the unity of his empire, Constantine
immediately instructed the Christian bishops to gather at his
residence in Nicaea.
He took personal charge of the proceedings of this council
even though he was not technically a Christian (he was not
baptized until 12 years later, just shortly before he died). Not
being a Christian, he knew little about Christian doctrine,

and had to depend on the counsel of one or two Christian
advisors. Despite being a non-Christian who lacked a deep
understanding of Christian doctrine, he imposed doctrinal
unity upon the gathering of some three hundred bishops who
represented a multitude of different—in many cases, irrecon-
cilable—doctrinal views. He lacked a good knowledge of
Christian teaching but as an astute politician, he knew it
would be politically expedient to support and establish the
stronger elements of this assembly of bishops. The party that
favored the full deity of Christ was slightly stronger than the
one that did not, even though the majority of bishops still be-
lieved in the subordination of the Son to the Father. That
being the case, it was politically astute of Constantine to sup-
port the side that was advocating the deity of Christ. In any
case, the deification of Christ was not something that Con-
stantine himself would have found objectionable because
Roman emperors too were deified, himself included.
Thus the Council of Nicaea, consisting of some 300
church leaders, assumed for itself the authority over all
Christendom to deify Jesus, declaring him God by invoking
no authority but its own, not even citing Scripture in support
of its creedal declarations. This relatively small group of
church leaders did with Jesus “as they wished” when they
“lifted him up” as God and thereby “crucified the Son of God
again” (Heb.6:6). They thought that they were glorifying
Jesus by declaring him to be of the same substance as God the
Creator. But how is a person glorified when he is declared to
be what he is not, and then made into an object of idolatry?
The number of bishops at Nicaea cannot be established

with certainty. Contemporaneous reports give figures ranging
from 220 attendees (according to Eusebius of Caesarea, the
most important church historian from the early church) to
318 attendees (Jerome and Rufius; cf. Wikipedia, First Coun-
cil of Nicaea, “Attendees”). Of the estimated 1,800 bishops of
the church at that time, only 300 attended the council, some
of whom “were poorly enough acquainted with Christian
theology” (Catholic Encyclopedia, vol.11, p.44, Nicaea,
Councils of). This last observation is clearly a cause for con-
cern in regard to making official declarations on basic Bible
doctrines.
We can draw a few conclusions from these observations.
Firstly, only one in six church leaders were present at Nicaea.
Given that the council was fully funded by the Emperor who
provided for the travel, food, and accommodation expenses of
every participant, why were 83% of the bishops absent from
the council? (At that time, a bishop was basically a senior
church clergy.) Even the bishop of Rome, whose office later
became the Papal office, did not attend the council, but sent a
representative there. What kind of authority did this council
actually have?
And how do we account for the discrepancies in the
reported number of attendees? The figures were provided by
bishops who had personally attended the council, yet there is
a difference of 100 between the highest and lowest estimates.
One can only wonder at the council’s reliability in matters of
historical observation. Or did some of the bishops attend the
meetings inconsistently?
The statement by The Catholic Encyclopedia that some of

the bishops had a poor understanding of Christian teaching
leads to the question: How many are “some”? 10? 50? 100?
On what basis were they appointed bishops if they were
unable to give proper teaching to their own congregations?
Another problem—though not of their own fault—was
the dire lack of access to the Scriptures even among the bis-
hops. Recognizing this problem, Constantine commissioned
Eusebius of Caesarea to make fifty copies of the Bible.26 But
this imperial decree was issued in 331, which made it far too
late to moderate the doctrinal verdicts of Nicaea in 325.
The Nicene Creed

The term “Nicene Creed” is technically ambiguous because it
can refer to the historically important creed adopted at the
Council of Nicaea in 325 or, more often, the expanded creed
adopted at the Council of Constantinople in 381. The earlier
creed is sometimes called “The Creed of Nicaea”. The later
creed of 381, formally known as the Niceno-Constantino-
politan Creed but often simply the Nicene Creed, is more or
less the one adopted by trinitarian churches today because it
includes the Holy Spirit in a trinity whereas the earlier creed
of 325 contains no explicit trinitarian formulation. 27
26
Constantine and the Christian Empire, p.261.
27
The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed differs slightly in its var-
ious forms as adopted by the Lutheran Church, the Catholic Church
(from the Latin Rite), the Orthodox churches, the Coptic Orthodox
Church, and the Anglican Communion. Some of the differences
The following is the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of

381 as given in J.N.D. Kelly’s Early Christian Creeds (3rd ed.,
p.297), a standard work on the early church creeds. For a
historical-theological discussion on the creed, see Early
Christian Doctrines, chapters 9 and 10, by the same author.
Wemaker
believe in one God, the Father, almighty,
of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only-begotten Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
light from light, true God from true God,
begotten not made, of one substance with the Father,
through Whom all things came into existence,
Who because of us men and because of our salvation
came down from heaven,
and was incarnate from the Holy Spirit
and the Virgin Mary and became man,
and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate,
and suffered and was buried,
and rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures
and ascended to heaven,
and sits on the right hand of the Father,
and will come again with glory to judge living and dead,
of whose kingdom there will be no end;
between their respective versions of the Nicene Creed carry overtones

of early theological disputes, e.g., “and from the Son” appears in some
versions of the creed but not in others.
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and life-giver,

Who proceeds from the Father,
Who with the Father and the Son is together
worshipped and together glorified,
Who spoke through the prophets;
in one holy Catholic and apostolic church.
We confess one baptism to the remission of sins;
we look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come.
Amen.
Few Christians know anything about trinitarianism be-

yond the bare fact that it is a doctrine of the Father, the Son,
and the Spirit united in one substance as one God. In fact
some Christians don’t even know about the one substance,
for they simply equate trinitarianism with the idea of Jesus’
deity. But if asked whether trinitarianism is a biblical doc-
trine, they would answer with a resounding “yes”. But are
they aware that this doctrine did not become a creed until the
fourth century? The Catholic scholar, Father John L.
McKenzie, says: “the belief that in God are three persons who
subsist in one nature … was reached only in the 4th and 5th
centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a
biblical belief.”
How can a doctrine that arrived some 300 years after Jesus
be a biblical doctrine? Or did the doctrine somehow “evolve”
from the Bible over a 300-year period, to use the evolutionary
language that is freely applied to many disciplines today? The
truth of the matter is that trinitarianism developed in the
Gentile Hellenistic church from the latter part of the 2nd

century after it had lost most of its connections to the early
Jewish church from the middle of the same century. The
Gentile church in its determination to exalt the man Christ
Jesus higher and higher in the direction of deity, indeed
towards full equality with God, went through a doctrinal pro-
cess that culminated in the formal deification of Jesus Christ
at the Council of Nicaea in 325.
The early church knew that Jesus is not coequal

with his Father
Even up to the time of Nicaea and slightly beyond, the maj-
ority of church leaders did not accept the coequality of Jesus
with his Father. The majority still believed, in agreement with
the Bible, that Jesus was lower than and subordinate to his
Father, a doctrine which in its various forms is known as
subordinationism. In fact subordinationism was the “ortho-
dox” position prior to Nicaea but became the “heretical” pos-
ition after Nicaea. It is a historical fact that subordinationism
was the common orthodoxy of the church right up to the
time of Athanasius in the fourth century. (Athanasius was the
most ardent proponent of trinitarianism in the early church.)
We see this historical fact in statements made by two
esteemed academic authorities:
“Subordinationism. Teaching about the Godhead which re-

gards either the Son as subordinate to the Father or the Holy
Ghost as subordinate to both. It is a characteristic tendency in
much of Christian teaching of the first three centuries, and is
a marked feature of such otherwise orthodox Fathers as St.
Justin and St. Irenaeus … By the standards of orthodoxy esta-
blished in the 4th cent., such a position came to be regarded
as clearly heretical in its denial of the co-equality of the Three
Persons of the Trinity.” (The Oxford Dictionary of the
Christian Church, 3rd ed., pp.1552-1553)
“With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian,

East and West, accepted some form of subordinationism at
least up to the year 355; subordinationism might indeed, until
the denouement [resolution] of the controversy, have been
described as accepted orthodoxy.” (R.P.C. Hanson, The
Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, page xix)
The academic reputation of R.P.C. Hanson’s work in

patristic studies is hard to overstate. Catholic and Protestant
scholars have said of this book: “the most comprehensive
account of the subject in modern English scholarship,” “the
standard English scholarly treatment of the trinitarian contro-
versies of the fourth century,” and “for almost twenty years,
Hanson’s work has provided the standard narrative descript-
ion of the doctrine and dynamics of the fourth-century
trinitarian conflicts”.
If subordinationism was the orthodox position even as late
as 355 (R.P.C. Hanson), how did the Nicene Creed of 325
manage to declare Jesus’ coequality with God? Most Christ-
ians don’t know the answer to this question, yet it is of the

greatest importance because it concerns the central tenet of
trinitarianism, that Jesus is God. So what is the answer to this
question? The answer is Constantine.
Constantine
Few Christians know anything about Constantine the Great
(A.D. 272–337) who became the sole emperor of the Roman
Empire on September 19, 324.28 From September 324 when
he became the sole emperor to March 325 when the Council
of Nicaea commenced, there was a separation of only six or
seven months.29 It was Constantine himself who summoned
the church leaders to his residence in Nicaea. He later spoke
to them at the council, and largely directed 30 the proceedings
of the 300 or so church leaders called “bishops”. He was the
28
Eusebius, Life of Constantine, A. Cameron and Stuart Hall
(Oxford), p.41.
29
“The first Council of Nicaea was summoned in 325 CE by
Constantine within seven months of the victory that installed him as
sole ruler of the empire.” (Cambridge History of Christianity: Origins to
Constantine, vol.1, p.552).
30
Hans Küng: “But it was the emperor who had the say at the
council; the bishop of Rome was not even invited. The emperor con-
vened the imperial synod; he guided it through a bishop whom he
appointed and through imperial commissars; he made the resolutions
of the council state laws by endorsing them.” (The Catholic Church: A
Short History, p.36)
pivotal advocate 31 of the key word homoousios which was used

by the council to affirm that Christ is of the “same substance”
as God the Father.
Let’s get this clear. The decisive creed of the church is
based on the extra-biblical doctrine of consubstantiality that
was advanced by a Roman emperor who at the time was not
even baptized, and was still the chief priest of the empire’s
pagan rites! The word homoousios was itself unbiblical and
Constantine probably received it from one of his Christian
advisors (most scholars think it was Ossius, 32 the bishop of
the city of Cordova in Spain).
The thoroughly pagan nature of homoousios can be seen in
the following historical observation: “[Ossius] probably
mentioned to the emperor that the Platonic concept of a first
31
Constantine was “credited with the successful homoousios formula
agreed at Nicaea” (The Cambridge History of Christianity: Origins to
Constantine, vol.1, p.548). Hans Küng: “Constantine himself had the
unbiblical word ‘of the same substance’ (Greek homoousios, Latin
consubstantialis) inserted; later it was to cause a great controversy” (The
Catholic Church: A Short History, p.37). “Constantine, urged by his
Spanish adviser, even threw in a phrase of his own: the Son is homo-
ousios with the Father … The moderate majority were uneasy”
(Stephen Tomkins, Short History of Christianity, p.49). Jaroslav Pelikan:
“As Constantine had proposed the homoousios in 325, so his son
Constantius intervened on the opposite side with the ruling: ‘I do not
want words used that are not in Scripture.’” (The Christian Tradition,
vol.1, pp. 209-210)
32
J.N.D. Kelly (Early Christian Doctrines, p.237) refers to the “an-
cient tradition that it was Ossius who suggested ὁμοούσιος [homoousios]
to Constantine”.
and second Deity was somewhat similar to the Christian

belief in God the Father and his Son the Word, and how this
similarity might be used in converting pagans to Christ-
ianity.” 33
The heated debates at Nicaea, mainly between trinitarians
and Arians, were not centered on Scripture (though the
protagonists on each side would sometimes invoke Scripture
to support their cases). Fundamentally, both trinitarianism
and Arianism are unbiblical, and both are rooted in Greek
philosophy. The lofty Nicene phrase, “Light from light,” for
example, is the teaching of emanation which was prominent
in Gnosticism.
Remarkably, the early church creeds did not cite a single
verse of Scripture in support of the deity of Jesus. We must
not, however, anachronistically expect the early Gentile
church to rely on the Scriptures for guidance in all matters of
faith. The principle of sola Scriptura (by Scripture alone) was
established only much later in church history, and has never
been accepted by the Catholic Church. In reality, the historic
church councils regarded themselves the final authority in all
matters of faith, a position that endures in the Catholic
Church to this day.
In the drafting of the Nicene Creed which Constantine
participated in, he imposed 34 the word homoousios, the Greek
equivalent of the Latin consubstantialis, probably through the
advice of his counsels. This became the pivotal word in trini-
33
Constantine and the Christian Empire, pp.112-113.
34
Ibid., p.197.
tarianism, yet was provided by a pagan emperor who, as head

of the Roman Empire, appointed himself the head of the
Church, that is, the “Bishop of bishops,” at a time when he
was still functioning as the Pontifex Maximus, the chief pagan
priest of the Roman Empire.35 It makes one shudder to realize
that the Nicene Creed was formulated under the auspices of a
still pagan Roman emperor, and primarily for political rea-
sons, notably the preservation of the unity and stability of his
empire.
It is important to note that when Constantine was bap-
tized shortly before he died, he was baptized not by a trinita-
rian bishop but by the Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia!
36
What it means is that Constantine died an Arian, that is, as
one who does not accept the deity of Jesus and his consub-
stantiality with the Father! Can anyone make sense of this?
Perhaps it tells us how much or how little Constantine cared
about Christian doctrine except when it could be used to
further his political purposes.37
35
The thoroughly pagan nature of the office of Pontifex Maximus
can be seen in the detailed and scholarly Wikipedia article of the same
name.
36
“In the final irony, the emperor’s deathbed baptism would be per-
formed by an Arian, the same Eusebius of Nicomedia whose interests
Constantine had protected in 325” (Cambridge Companion to the Age of
Constantine, p.130). Constantine was baptized on Easter 337 by the
Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, and died on May 22, the day of
Pentecost, while preparing a campaign against Persia (Eusebius: Life of
Constantine, p.49).
37
Eusebius: Life of Constantine (p.44) says “doubts have been ex-
pressed about the genuineness of Constantine’s Christianity,” notably
Will anyone still want to maintain that all this “evolved”

out of the Bible? Constantine forced the church into doctrinal
unity, and overrode the majority who still believed in the
subordination of the Son to the Father. He established the
Nicene Creed as the faith of the church by command, backed
by the law of the Roman Empire.38 Constantine did this for
the purpose of maintaining political unity in his empire. By
suppressing dissent in the church, the freedom of the
church—libertas ecclesiae—was stamped out by the many in-
stances of excommunication from the church and banishment
as criminals under Roman law. To put it simply, one must
believe that Jesus is God or face the horrible consequences.
Few Christians know anything about the historical
development of trinitarian dogma and the Nicene Creed.
Some may be shocked to hear that the pivotal enabler of this
doctrine was the pagan Roman Emperor Constantine, who
was not even baptized at the time he convened the Council of
Nicaea in 325. He directed the proceedings of the council
both personally and through his representatives, guiding the
council to adopt the then controversial view that Jesus is
coequal with the Father in one essence, and eventually mak-
by Jakob Burckhardt in The Age of Constantine the Great, Alistair Kee

in Constantine Versus Christ, and Eduard Schwartz in Charakterköpfe
aus der Antiken Literatur: Vorträge.
38
Hans Küng: “This creed became the law of the church and the
empire—everything was now increasingly dominated by the slogan
‘One God, one emperor, one empire, one church, one faith’” (The
Catholic Church: A Short History, p.37).
ing this dogma part of state law in the Roman Empire.39 Thus
we have a doctrine central to Christendom which was deter-
mined by an emperor who at Nicaea was still functioning as
the chief priest of the Roman pagan deities. This, then, is the
origin of official trinitarian dogma.
The unbiblical nature of homoousios

The Nicene Creed, like its key word homoousios, has no bibli-
cal basis (the word appears nowhere in the Bible), which is
not surprising given that the creed was drafted by an assembly
of Gentile church leaders under the oversight of an as yet
non-Christian emperor, at a time when the Gentile church
had already been losing touch with its Jewish roots even as far
back as almost two centuries earlier. The New Testament, it
ought to be remembered, was written by Jews with the ex-
ception of Luke–Acts.40 The concepts espoused by the Nicene
Creed would have sounded foreign to the NT writers.
39
That the Nicene Creed is binding on all bishops in Christendom
and by extension on all Christians is seen in many historical observa-
tions such as the one in the previous footnote, but also the following:
“It was Constantine himself who summoned over 200 bishops to
attend the Council of Nicaea in Bythinia in Asia Minor in May 325.
Because of its size and because it was the first Church council to set out
a creed to be assented to by all bishops, the Council of Nicaea was
eventually to be accepted as the first general or ecumenical council of
the Church, its authority in theory binding on all Christians.” Jesus
Now and Then, Burridge and Gould, p.172.
40
That is, the combination of Luke’s Gospel and the Acts of the
Apostles viewed as one composition written by the same person, Luke,
We have seen that homoousios is unbiblical and that the

early church Fathers associated its use with the Gnostics.
Indeed the first man known to have used it was the Gnostic
teacher Basilides (2nd century A.D.) who used homoousios to
explain his concept of a “threefold sonship consubstantial
with the god who is not”. We have also noted that Martin
Luther vehemently opposed the use of homoousios, and that
NIDNTT (ed. Colin Brown) says, in agreement with Karl
Barth, that homoousios has no biblical basis.
Regarding homoousios (Latin consubstantialis), Hans Küng,
one of the preeminent theologians in contemporary Catholic-
ism, says that “consubstantial, with its background in Greek
philosophy, was incomprehensible not only to Jews but also
to Jewish Christians”. Küng continues:
Constantine himself had the unbiblical word “of the same

substance” (Greek homoousios, Latin consubstantialis) in-
serted; later it was to cause a great controversy. The subor-
dination of the Son to the one God and Father (“the” God),
as was generally taught by Origen and the theologians of the
previous period, was now replaced by an essential, substantial
equality of the Son with the Father, so that in the future it
was possible to speak of God the Son and God the Father. 41
to a certain Theophilus.
41
Both statements by Küng are from The Catholic Church: A Short
History, p.37.
Küng makes some important observations here. Among

them is that prior to Nicaea, the teaching of the subordinat-
ion of the Son to the Father was standard in the church. Thus
Nicaea is the triumph of a powerful minority in the church,
and a radical departure from the teaching of the church in the
first and second centuries. There were, of course, a few leaders
such as Justin Martyr and Melito of Sardis who earlier on
were already taking the position that Jesus is God and as a
result were promulgating ditheism or binitarianism (the belief
in two divine persons) though not yet trinitarianism since
they had not yet regarded the Holy Spirit as the third divine
person.
Because the Nicene Creed had deviated, as Küng points
out, from the earlier teachings represented by people such as
Origen the famous Alexandrian teacher, it comes as no
surprise that the deviation of the Nicene Creed from the New
Testament was all the greater on account of the greater time
separation. After the NT period, the teachings of the church
leaders, in combination with the separation of the Gentile
church from its Jewish mother church, especially after A.D.
135, 42 led to teachings that were becoming progressively
distant from the New Testament.
From the fourth century, the acceptance of this new creed
was made the determining mark and touchstone of faith for
the Christian. He is required to believe that Jesus is God or
42
The Parting of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and
their Significance for the Character of Christianity, 2nd ed., J.D.G.
Dunn, SCM Press, 2006.
else he will be condemned by the church as a heretic and by

the state as a criminal. This is a complete violation of the spir-
it of the Bible which never prohibits anyone from examining
the Bible and coming to his or her own genuine conclusions
in the pursuit of God’s truth. And since the Bible does not
teach the deity of Jesus in the first place, it is doubly certain
that the Bible nowhere makes salvation conditional on believ-
ing in his supposed deity. It can be said without any fear of
contradiction that no verse in the New Testament states that
one must believe that Jesus is God in order to be saved. It
demonstrates how contrary the Nicene Creed, with its
doctrinal requirements, is to the spirit of the Word of God as
taught in the New Testament.
Constantine’s Creed
These historical facts are well known to church historians and
patristics scholars but very few Christians know anything
about them. They may be surprised to hear from the great
British patristics scholar, J.N.D. Kelly, that the Nicene Creed
which established Christ’s coequality with God is in fact
Constantine’s creed (Kelly twice calls it “his creed”).43
The trinitarian creed that establishes Christ as God is, let it
be said again, Constantine’s creed. This historical fact doesn’t
43
J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, says that Constantine was
willing to tolerate the different Christian groups “on condition that
they acquiesced in his creed” (p.237), and that “while the emperor was
alive, his creed was sacrosanct” (p.238). Emphasis added.
register in the minds of most Christians, just as it didn’t

register in my mind when I was a trinitarian. Looking back at
my own biblical and theological training in England, which
adds up to six years of study at two Bible colleges and a univ-
ersity, I don’t recall that the historical roots of trinitarianism
were ever discussed, not even in courses on church history.
Why was this so? I frankly don’t know the answer to this
question. I won’t go so far as to say that there was a cover-up.
I did a careful study of the work by Dr. J.N.D. Kelly,
which is still an authoritative work on early Christian doc-
trines. I still have an old copy of this work which I read in my
student days, with carefully written notes on the margins of
every page. Dr. Kelly’s book is, however, a work on church
doctrine and not a work on church history, so the historical
details wouldn’t be presented in the same way as they would
in a historical work about the church (despite Dr. Kelly’s
impressive knowledge of church history). It was not until I
had read more deeply into the church history of that period
that the significance of the events of that era finally hit me.
Even though Dr. Kelly was not writing specifically on church
history, his familiarity with the subject comes out with
striking clarity when he bluntly describes the Nicene Creed as
“his (Constantine’s) creed”. Somehow the force of these
words did not strike me when I first read them. How did I
overlook them? This is a question I myself cannot answer.
Was it because I had thought that these scholars, Dr. Kelly
included, were Christians and probably trinitarians, so they
would not mean anything negative by this statement? But
how can such a statement be taken positively?
What is clear by now is that trinitarian doctrine arose from

what the eminent theologian Hans Küng calls the “realpol-
itik” of Constantine (realpolitik is a German word which
means “practical politics”). In other words, Constantine was
not primarily interested in any true theological stance of the
Christian church. 44 Christian theology was probably not
something that Constantine, as a non-Christian at the time,
would understand or care to understand, for what ultimately
mattered to him was the politics of his empire, its unity and
stability.45
Constantine viewed the church as an important
component of his empire, so he did not tolerate any division
or quarrel within the church that may threaten the empire’s
unity and stability. From the perspective of politics and
governance of empire, this made sense. But it also shows that
the Nicene Creed, written some three hundred years into the
Christian era, had by then strayed far from the New
Testament, far from the early Jewish church in Jerusalem, and
44
J.N.D. Kelly: “Whatever the theology of the council was, Con-
stantine’s own overriding motive was to secure the widest possible
measure of agreement. For this reason he was not prepared to bar the
door to anyone who was willing to append his signature to the creed.
There is thus a sense in which it is unrealistic to speak of the theology
of the council.” (Early Christian Doctrines, p.237)
45
As put bluntly by a popular-level history: “Constantine probably
didn’t care whether Jesus was God. He did, however, care about a
united Empire.” (Timothy Paul Jones, Christian History Made Easy,
p.39).
far from the churches that Paul established through his

missionary efforts.
As a trinitarian most of my life, I worked very hard to find
some New Testament basis for my trinitarian faith, especially
for my unwavering belief that Jesus is God. Although the
biblical evidence for trinitarianism is truly meager, I tried to
make the best of it. In retrospect and in shame, I was unwill-
ing to look at any credible evidence to the contrary, for I had
simply assumed that the deity of Christ is beyond dispute.
Likewise, the church, which is almost universally trinitarian
today, will not look at any evidence in Scripture that is con-
trary to the doctrine it holds dear. Any scholar who ventures
to point out an error in our trinitarian “exegesis” will be
ignored and even condemned as a liberal or heretic or infidel
destined for hell.
How many of us trinitarians are even remotely aware that
the pillar of our faith is Constantine’s Creed? Rev. Dr. J.N.D.
Kelly (1909-1997) died some years ago, so it wouldn’t be
possible for us to know how he would have explained the
term “his creed”. But Kelly was not a biblical scholar, so he
might not have reflected on the connection between the
Nicene Creed and the New Testament. But this is something
that we are obliged to consider if we take the New Testament
as God’s Word in which our spiritual lives are rooted and
which we consider to be something more than a mere collect-
ion of ancient religious documents that scholars study out of
academic interest.
The search for the Biblical basis of trinitarianism

It was not until the fourth century of the Christian era that
the deity of Jesus gained official recognition through the
intervention of Constantine, the officially pagan Roman
emperor without whose help it wouldn’t be certain that the
trinitarian party in Nicaea could have gained the official dei-
fication of Jesus which later culminated in the doctrine of the
Trinity. It was only after trinitarianism had been established
as the official doctrine of the Roman Empire, especially after
A.D. 381, that an effort was made to some degree of earnest-
ness to see what biblical foundations, if any, could be found
for this doctrine.
Formal trinitarian doctrine as we know it today did not
initially grow out of the Bible, but was the later result of a
retrospective search for any biblical evidence that might
support the established doctrine. This undertaking has never
been successful as might be expected under the historical
circumstances. To this day, trinitarians are still mining the
New Testament for whatever evidence they think could be
used for proving the deity of Jesus. Every vague statement is
pounced upon to serve this purpose. Even the statement, “I
and the Father are one” (Jn.10:30), is seized upon as indicat-
ing consubstantiality, ignoring the fact that the same spiritual
oneness is available to every believer: “But he who is joined to
the Lord becomes one spirit with him” (1Cor.6:17).
Since trinitarianism is not rooted in the New Testament
and did not come from it, but was retroactively imposed on
the Bible, it has no biblical validity whatsoever. Therefore, in
our study of biblical monotheism and the biblical Jesus, the
onus is not on us to disprove trinitarianism. Trinitarianism is

rightly to be regarded as heretical for it is a creedal system that
has, through the actions of its promulgators, swerved from
the Bible. All trinitarians should with fear and trembling
ponder carefully on the fact that their doctrine is of Gentile
origin, both pagan and Hellenistic, and was developed only
after the gospel had been entrenched in the pagan nations in
which the Gentiles lived, beginning from more than a century
after the time of Christ.
Historical aftermath
The Council of Nicaea under the auspices of Constantine,
who is the de facto head of the church, paved the way for
making Nicaean Christianity the official state religion of the
Roman Empire. That official step was taken by Emperor
Theodosius I (together with his co-rulers Gratian and
Valentinian II) in the Edict of Thessalonica of 380 which
declared that the creed of the earlier “First Council of Nicaea”
shall be the basis of the Empire’s sole recognized religion. This
new edict was to take immediate effect not just in Nicaea or
Constantinople but the whole Roman Empire.
But did this bring God’s blessings on the Roman Empire?
Almost immediately after the edict was issued in 380, the
empire began to fall apart. In fact, Theodosius himself was
the last emperor to rule over both the western half and the
eastern half of the Roman Empire. The Empire has never
since been reunited.
The decline was so rapid that in 410, only a generation af-

ter the edict, Rome was sacked and pillaged by the Visigoths.
Its infrastructure, notably its water conduits and sewage
system, was destroyed, and its population was reduced to
almost nothing. The great city of a million people was event-
ually reduced to a town of 10,000 as its inhabitants fled the
intolerable conditions created by a shortage of food and
water.
Does anyone see the connection between the destruction
of Rome and the establishing of the Nicaean doctrine?
Christian books generally do not mention this fact, so few
Christians know anything about it.
Does the destruction of Rome reveal something of God’s
mind? This was the point of no return for the Roman
Empire, and it has never since regained its ancient glory. This
was the first time in 800 years that Rome had been sacked.
Constantinople, the capital of the Eastern Empire, became
the “new Rome”. The western half of the empire did not sur-
vive for long and the glorious empire collapsed. Meanwhile,
the eastern part of the Roman Empire, which had shrunk to
the region of modern-day Greece and Turkey, continued on
until it was conquered by the Ottoman Muslims in 1453, and
Constantinople was renamed Istanbul.
For the sack of Rome, see Edward Gibbon’s The History of
the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, various editions.
Gibbon wrote emphatically and in detail that Christianity
contributed directly to the fall of Rome, and was criticized by
Christians for what he wrote. There is a recent book with a
similar title by the American historian James W. Ermatinger
which is not a revision of Gibbon’s work. In his work,

Ermatinger says that “Christianity in many ways contributed
to the fall of the empire” (The Decline and Fall of the Roman
Empire, p.39).
We see something similar in the 2007 25th anniversary
issue of Christian History and Biography which has a cover
story on the fall of Rome and its connection to Christianity.
The article says that the Christians in Rome believed that
Rome was unconquerable. Coins issued by the Roman Em-
pire, now officially trinitarian, bore the words Invicta Roma
Aeterna (“Eternal, Unconquerable Rome”). The article says
that a few years before the horrific pillage of Rome in 410 by
40,000 “barbarians,” the Christian poet Prudentius wrote
that Rome could not possibly fall because Rome had em-
braced the Christian faith. He even boasted that “no barbaric
enemy shatters my walls with a javelin and no man with
strange weapons, attire and hairdress, wanders around the city
he has conquered and carries off my young men”. Yet when
Rome fell on August 24, 410, the calamity was so violent and
ruinous that when the great biblical scholar Jerome heard
about it in Bethlehem, “he put aside his Commentary on
Ezekiel and sat stupefied in total silence for three days.” 46
46
In episode 3 of the BBC documentary series, History of Christian-
ity, the narrator, a professor of church history at Oxford, says: “The
greatest empire which the West had ever known seemed to be tottering
into ruin. From the beginning of the 4th century, the Roman Empire
was Christian. But then the Christian God seemed to have given up on it.
In the West, barbarians overran it. In 410, they seized Rome itself.”
The sentence in italics brings out the somber tone of its narrator,
Soon many had arrived at the conclusion that the destruct-

ion of Rome was a divine judgment against Christians, a view
that prompted Augustine to write The City of God. It was also
widely believed that the fall of Rome was a fulfillment of the
prophecy in Revelation 14:8 of the fall of “Babylon”.47
The Church’s authority to persecute heretics

Most modern versions of the Nicene Creed omit the fact that
the definitive Nicene Creed of 325 contains a closing anathe-
ma against those who do not accept the creed: “(the dissent-
ers) are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic
Church” (as translated by Philip Schaff in Creeds of Christen-
dom). The Greek word used here, anathema, is much stronger
than the English word condemn, for it implies condemnation
to hell as is seen in the three definitions of that word in
BDAG: “1. that which is dedicated as a votive offering, a vot-
Diarmaid MacCulloch, known for his Christianity: The First Three

Thousand Years, a work that won the 2010 Cundill Prize in History.
47
There are six references to Babylon in Revelation. Thayer’s Greek-
English lexicon, on Babulōn, says, “allegorically, of Rome as the most
corrupt seat of idolatry and the enemy of Christianity: Rev.14:8; 16:19;
17:5; 18:2,10,21.” The ISBE article “Babylon in the NT” says that
“most scholars hold that Rome was the city that was meant”. To the
believers in John’s day, a prophecy regarding literal Babylon would
have little meaning because Israel was under the Roman Empire and
was not threatened by Babylon. John himself was a prisoner of Rome,
not Babylon, on the island of Patmos (Rev.1:9). If John had indeed in-
tended “Babylon” to be a reference to Rome, then his teaching about
Babylon would be significant.
ive offering; 2. that which has been cursed, cursed, accursed; 3.

the content that is expressed in a curse, a curse”. We can rule
out definition 1 because the Creed would hardly regard the
dissenter as a votive offering to God. This leaves only definit-
ions 2 and 3, which means that anyone who disagrees with
the Nicene Creed is, by the same creed, condemned to hell.
Similarly the Athanasian Creed closes with a condemn-
ation: “This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe
faithfully he cannot be saved,” as translated by Philip Schaff
in Creeds of Christendom. Schaff himself disapproves of the
“damnatory clauses” of the Athanasian Creed:
THE DAMNATORY CLAUSES. The Athanasian Creed, in

strong contrast with the uncontroversial and peaceful tone of
the Apostles’ Creed, begins and ends with the solemn declara-
tion that the catholic faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation
herein set forth is the indispensable condition of salvation,
and that those who reject it will be lost forever. The same
damnatory clause is also wedged in [between the first part and
the second part of the Creed]. This threefold anathema …
requires everyone who would be saved to believe in the only
true and living God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, one in
essence, three in persons, and in one Jesus Christ, very God
and very Man in one person.
The damnatory clauses, especially when sung or chanted in

public worship, grate harshly on modern Protestant ears, and
it may well be doubted whether they are consistent with true
Christian charity and humility, and whether they do not
transcend the legitimate authority of the Church. (Creeds of
Christendom, chapter 10, paragraph 3)
Ever since Nicaea, the church has come up with its own
definition of what is heresy, and condemns those who do not
accept its standard of what a Christian is supposed to believe.
In other words, by the fourth century, the church had boldly
displaced the Scriptures, arrogating to itself the authority to
be the final determinator of what Christians may or may not
believe. That is still the case in the Catholic Church today.
While the Protestant church in its various denominations ac-
cept in principle Scripture as the final authority, its doctrinal
mindset has long been ensnared in trinitarianism for the
reason that its dogmatic foundation is almost entirely derived
from that of the Catholic Church out of which the Protestant
church emerged. (Luther himself was an Augustinian monk
in the Catholic Church.)
The Protestant church broke away from Catholicism
essentially on two main points as put forward by Luther: first,
the important matter of justification by faith; second, the
rejection of the supreme authority of the Pope and his
supposed infallibility. But apart from these two points, the
rest of Catholic dogma, including the creeds of Nicaea and
Constantinople and the other trinitarian councils that fol-
lowed, was incorporated into Protestantism. As a result there
is no fundamental theological difference between Catholicism
and Protestantism, a fact that has made it easy for Protestants
and even Protestant ministers to convert to Catholicism as so
often happens today. It also happens in the reverse direction:
Catholics who are not particularly enamored of the Pope
would have little difficulty joining Protestant churches.
As for defining what heresy is, the church from the time of
Nicaea has considered itself the sole authority on faith, and
on who is and who is not a heretic. The Catholic Church de-
clared Luther a heretic and by extension the Protestants who
followed him, though in recent years the Catholic Church has
taken a more conciliatory tone towards Protestants.
After Nicaea, the now unified Roman state and what it
regarded as its church took up a policy of persecution against
“heretics”. In an ironic twist of history, the once persecuted
Christian church had now become the persecutor of Christ-
ians, marking out some of them as heretics and pagans. The
savagery of Christian persecutors is probably best known from
the horrors of the Inquisition with its institutional use of
torture, execution, and massacres in the prosecution of
“heretics,” but the process had started centuries earlier.
When a church or a group of Christians gives itself the
right to declare what is heretical and what is orthodox, or who
is a heretic and who is not, then all sorts of fearful things can
happen that will forever remain on record as a disgrace to the
church. Jesus had already warned his followers of this when
he said, “A time is coming when anyone who kills you will
think he is offering a service to God” (John 16:2, NIV).
As for Protestants, one would think that they, having been
condemned as heretics themselves, would not be so inclined
to condemn others in the same way, but sadly this is not the
case. The horrific persecutions of the Anabaptists beginning
from the time of the Reformation will forever be a stain on
the church.
Tens of thousands of Anabaptists were killed by Catholics

and Protestants, the latter in parallel with the scorching de-
nunciation of the Anabaptists by Luther, Zwingli and Calvin
(Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed., p.55).
This is consistent with the estimate, given by several sources,
of 50,000 Anabaptists killed by the year 1535. Some of the
better-known Anabaptist victims were Jacob Hutter (burned
at the stake in Innsbruck), Hans Hut (tortured shortly before
he died in Augsburg), and the theologian Balthasar Hubmaier
(tortured and burned alive in Vienna; three days later, his
wife was drowned in the Danube with a stone tied around her
neck).48
Protestants who know of these atrocities (e.g., those who
teach church history in Bible schools) would understandably
not want to speak of them, so the average Christian doesn’t
know anything about these shameful events. Calvin’s active
role in the condemnation and the burning at the stake of
Michael Servetus is another well documented event that few
Christians, even Calvinists, know about.49
48
In Utrecht, sisters-in-law Maria and Ursula van Beckum were
burned at the stake; they were tied to the stakes loosely so that onlook-
ers could see them flinch reflexively when they were set on fire. Profiles
of Anabaptist Women: Sixteenth-Century Reforming Pioneers, Arnold
Snyder and Linda A. Huebert Hecht (eds.), pp.352-356, Wilfred
Laurier University Press, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 1996.
49
On of the trial and execution of Michael Servetus over doctrine,
see Hunted Heretic: The Life and Death of Michael Servetus, 1511-1553,
Roland H. Bainton, professor of ecclesiastical history at Yale; and Out
of the Flames, by Lawrence and Nancy Goldstone.
The arrogating to oneself the right to determine who is

and who is not a heretic goes on today. But because the
church no longer has the power of the state, it can no longer
persecute its opponents or dissenters through physical mea-
sures, but there remains a weapon of choice: slander and
defamation. This is done even through the Internet to carry
out shameless smear campaigns against the targeted churches
or church leaders. These slanderers are often the same people
who claim to accept the authority of the Scriptures, yet are
blind to the severe condemnation of the sin of slander in
these same Scriptures. This is the extent to which many in the
church have fallen into yet another sin: hypocrisy, which
Jesus condemned in Matthew 23. These are the same people
who are deaf to Jesus’ warning, “Judge not” (Mt.7:1).
The point we need to emphasize here, if there is to be any
hope for the future of the church, is that the church urgently
needs to see that it has fallen into error and hypocrisy, and is
in desperate need of having its eyes opened to these realities so
as to be able to repent for the sake of its own salvation. The
fact is that the church has lost its credibility, and is viewed by
the world as little more than a social or religious institution of
little, if any, relevance in the modern age.
The shift from holy living to doctrinal assent

A grave departure from New Testament practice, with serious
consequences for the spiritual life of the church, is that from
Nicaea onward, becoming a Christian is largely viewed as a
matter of assent to, or acceptance of, a creed. The Nicene
Creed of 325 explicitly says that salvation is conditional upon

accepting its doctrinal clauses. This is incongruous with the
New Testament mission of going out into the world to make
disciples (Mt.28:19) rather than creedal compatriots.
The “believism” that is standard in the church today
involves little more than the acceptance of a church creed,
usually based on the Nicene Creed, but without requiring any
radical change in one’s spiritual life. This is sadly the kind of
“faith” that has been the norm in the church from the 4th
century to the present day. It is not hard to foresee the neg-
ative effect that believism will have on the moral life of the
church. The conduct of many Christians is not up to the
standard of the decent non-Christian. The sins of church
leaders are reported all too often in newspaper headlines.
Fundraising is the main activity of many churches today.
What credibility does the church have in the world? Until we
are liberated from this creedal concept of faith, and heed the
New Testament call to become new people in Christ, there
will be no hope whatsoever for the church.
Chapter 3
The First Pillar of Trinitarianism:

John’s Prologue (1:1-18)
J first
ohn chapter 1, specifically John’s Prologue (1:1-18), is the
of what I used to call “the four pillars of trinitarian-
ism,” that is, the four chapters in the Bible that I had long
regarded, in my staunchly trinitarian days, as providing the
strongest support for the doctrine of the Trinity: John 1,
Colossians 1, Hebrews 1, and Revelation 1.
For many years I would call up these four pillars when
explaining (and advocating) trinitarianism to my students
who were preparing for the full-time ministry. I now examine
these four pillars in four chapters, starting with the present
chapter, but no longer from a position of trinitarianism. My
aim is to undo what I had been teaching many people over
the years, in the hope of making up for the trinitarian errors
that I had taught others, and which I myself had learned from
others.
John’s Prologue is the first pillar not only in terms of can-

onical order (it precedes the other three pillars in the Bible’s
book order) but also in terms of its importance to trinitarian-
ism. My earlier book, TOTG, covered John’s Prologue and
its pivotal verse, John 1:1, devoting three chapters (7,8,9) to
its exposition. Our present discussion on John’s Prologue will
complement TOTG but also overlap with TOTG, in equal
measure.
Observant readers of the New Testament would notice
there is little in the synoptic gospels—Matthew, Mark,
Luke—that is of use to trinitarianism. It is apparently not of
serious concern to trinitarians that three of the four gospels
cannot be drawn upon to support the deity of Christ.
The fear of pronouncing God’s name

We begin our discussion on John’s Prologue with some brief
remarks on the Jewish prohibition of uttering God’s name,
YHWH. Our starting point is a short quotation—so short
that it isn’t even a complete sentence—yet one whose signifi-
cance can hardly be overstated:
“the God who may not be named nor spoken of”
(Philo, On Dreams, that They are God-Sent, XI, 1.67)
We will discuss Philo later. It suffices for now to say that he
was a Hellenized Jewish philosopher who strived to combine
Greek philosophy and Jewish religious thought into one coh-
erent intellectual system; his ideas were later used by trinita-
rians. For now we reflect on his statement that God “may not
Chapter 3 — The First Pillar of Trinitarianism 145
be named nor spoken of”. It mirrored the belief of the Jews of

Philo’s day that God’s name, YHWH, is too sacred to be
uttered. And because Philo was a contemporary of Jesus, the
same prohibition of uttering God’s name was observed by the
Jews of Jesus’ day. The prohibition continues to this day
among the Jews.
The roots of this prohibition go back six centuries before
Christ when the Babylonian empire under Nebuchadnezzar
defeated the nation of Israel (which by then had already been
reduced to the kingdom of Judah) and laid siege to Jerusalem,
its capital. The destruction of Jerusalem was almost total; the
city was razed to the ground, and Solomon’s Temple was
plundered and destroyed. Most of the Jews, especially the
elite, were deported to Babylon.
Exactly as the prophet Jeremiah had forewarned Israel
(2Chr.36:21; Jer. 29:10), the people went into exile for 70
years as punishment for their idolatry. Their time in exile was
a period of spiritual cleansing and purification. It took no less
than the destruction of Israel as a nation by the ancient super-
powers—Assyria, Babylon, Egypt—as well as captivity in
foreign lands, for the people of Israel to return to their pure
and original devotion to God. When they finally returned to
Israel from exile, marking the start of what is called the “post-
exilic” period of Israel’s history, they looked back at all their
sufferings—the calamities, the humiliations, the killings, plus
exile to foreign lands—and understood that these things hap-
pened to them because they had turned away from Yahweh.
After returning to Israel from exile, they entered a new

phase in their history during which Israel steadfastly refused
to worship any god other than Yahweh. From that time on,
Israel remained strictly monotheistic and no longer practiced
idolatry or polytheism. The Israelites began to recite the
Shema every day. “Shema” (Hebrew for “hear”) is the first
word of Deuteronomy 6:4: “Hear O Israel, the Lord our
God, the Lord is one”. Here “Lord” in Hebrew is literally
“Yahweh,” the personal name of God. The Shema is literally
saying, “Hear O Israel, Yahweh our God is one Yahweh”. To
this day, the devout Jew would recite the Shema daily, but
without uttering the name “Yahweh”.50
After the Babylonian exile had ended, monotheism became
entrenched in Israel. The people began to fear and reverence
God even to the extent of not pronouncing the name
“Yahweh”. There is, however, no Scriptural basis for the pro-
hibition against uttering God’s name, for Yahweh had earlier
said to Moses, “[YHWH] is my name forever, the name by
which I am to be remembered from generation to generation”
(Ex.3:15). A few chapters later, Yahweh said to Pharaoh, “I
have raised you up for this very purpose, that I might show
you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all
the earth” (Ex.9:16). In Leviticus, Yahweh told the Israelites
that whenever they swear by His name, it must not be under
false pretenses (Lev.19:12). Near the end of the Pentateuch,
50
The Shema originally referred to the sacred proclamation of Dt.
6:4 but has since been extended to include Dt.6:4-9 and 11:13-21, and
Num.15:37-41.
Moses sang the words, “I will proclaim the name of Yahweh.

Oh praise the greatness of our God!” (Dt.32:3). And a Psalm-
ist wrote, “Give thanks to Yahweh, call on his name; make
known among the nations what he has done” (Ps.105:1).
Calling on Yahweh’s name is not just a matter of praise but of
salvation: “Whoever calls on the name of Yahweh will be
saved” (Joel 2:32). (All verses cited in this paragraph are from
NIV with “Yahweh” in the Hebrew restored.)
The Torah or the Law (or Instruction) taught the people
of Israel to proclaim the name of Yahweh. Yet after returning
from exile, they no longer uttered God’s name, a prohibition
that has no Scriptural basis or historical precedent. Prior to
the exile, the Israelites would regularly read out the name of
YHWH which was written on almost every page of their
Scriptures right up to the last page. But after the exile, they
no longer spoke His name. With their new fear and reverence
of Yahweh, they knew that if they should sin against Him
once more, they will be uprooted again as a nation. They
didn’t want to be exiled again, so they determined not to
speak God’s name at all for fear of using it in vain (Ex.20:7;
Dt.5:11). Instead of calling Him Yahweh, they called Him by
the substitute “Adonai” (Lord). But whereas “Yahweh” is
God’s personal name, “Adonai” is not a name but a title.
The Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the
Hebrew Bible, does not transliterate “Yahweh” into Greek
but renders it as kyrios, the Greek word for “Lord” and the
equivalent of the Hebrew “Adonai”. The Septuagint was
merely following the practice of the day—of not saying “Yah-
weh”—that had been established a couple of centuries earlier.
What Philo says about God’s name, that it may not be

spoken, is therefore without basis in the Scriptures, yet has
become the norm for religious practice among the Jews. The
man-made refusal to utter God’s name which is written in
their own Scriptures has had significant consequences for the
Jews, some of whom have forgotten the name of the God who
had rescued them out of slavery in Egypt and brought them
into a new existence as a nation. With undoubtedly good
intentions, they now refrained from uttering Yahweh’s Name
in order to prevent any accidental blaspheming of the Name,
a grave sin that in the Law would incur the death penalty.
However, the authoritative Jewish work, Encyclopaedia Jud-
aica, rejects the prohibition of uttering the name “Yahweh”
(see Appendix 1).
The “Word” as a metonym for God

If God could not be named or spoken of, how would one
refer to Him? This was usually done indirectly by means of a
metonym or circumlocution such as “the Majesty” (Heb.1:3;
8:1), “the Highest” (Lk.1:35), or “Power” (Mt.26:64), all of
which refer to God. A metonym is a name or a word that
stands for something closely related to it (e.g., “Washington”
is a metonym of the U.S. government). Many Jews today
refer to God as “the Name” (HaShem).
With nearly 7,000 occurrences of “Yahweh” in the Heb-
rew Bible, what word or words did the people of Israel use as
a metonym of Yahweh? The name Yahweh was commonly
represented by the circumlocution “the Word of the Lord” or
“the Word”. In Jesus’ day, every religious Jew who lived in Is-
rael understood that “the Word” (memra in Aramaic) is a
reference to God.
Aramaic, not Hebrew, was the main spoken language in
the Israel of Jesus’ day. Its use in the New Testament is seen,
for example, in the word bar (“son”) in names such as
Barsabbas, Bartimaeus and Bar-Jonah (bar is Aramaic, ben is
Hebrew). The use of Aramaic is seen in Jesus’ words, Talitha
koum (“Little girl, I say to you, get up”) spoken to a dead girl
(Mk.5:41), and also in Jesus’ cry at the cross, “My God, my
God, why have You forsaken me?” Mk.15:34 records this as,
“Eloi Eloi lema sabachthani?” which is Aramaic. 51
Aramaic and Hebrew are related languages but are not
mutually intelligible without prior exposure to both. 52 In
Jesus’ day, most of the Aramaic-speaking people could not
read the Hebrew Bible adequately and had to depend on
Aramaic translations. A translation of the Hebrew Bible—us-
ually a portion of the Bible—into Aramaic is called “Targum”
(an Aramaic word which means “translation”). The various
Targums collectively formed the Aramaic Bible in Jesus’ time
but also in the time when John was writing his Gospel.
Martin McNamara, an expert on the Targums, says:
51
Matthew 27:46 has, “Eli Eli lema sabachthani?” which is Aramaic
except for the Hebrew “Eli”. But some important NT codices, includ-
ing the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus, have the Aramaic “Eloi” (see the
critical apparatus of NA28).
52
The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies, p.137.
A targum is an Aramaic translation of a book or books of the

Old Testament, Aramaic being the language spoken rather
generally in Palestine in the time of Christ, and indeed for
some centuries preceding it. In the regular synagogue service,
sections of the Pentateuch and of the Prophets were read out
in Hebrew and were immediately translated into Aramaic.
(Targum and Testament, p.11)
The Palestinian Targum, recited every Sabbath in the syna-

gogues, would have been well known to Christ and his apos-
tles, as well as to the Jewish converts to Christianity. (p.167)
The familiar metonym “the Word of the Lord” could, in

poetic language, be reasonably shortened to “the Word”
(memra), a form which is often seen in the Targums but also
in John 1:1 which paraphrases the opening words of Genesis:
“In the beginning God” (Genesis 1:1)
“In the beginning was the Word” (John 1:1)
The identification of “God” in Genesis 1:1 with “the Word”

in John 1:1 via the Aramaic memra cannot be missed except
by trinitarians, not only because “the Word” (memra) was a
familiar metonym of God in John’s day (hence John 1:1, “the
Word was God”), but also because the two parallel statements
(Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1) are the opening clauses of their
respective books. A trinitarian who did not miss the identifi-
cation is Dr. Thomas Constable of Dallas Theological
Seminary who writes:
Obviously the word “Word” (Gr. logos; Aram. memra, used to

describe God in the Targums), to which John referred, was a
title for God. The Targums are Aramaic translations of the
Old Testament. Later in this verse [John 1:1] he identified
the Word as God. John evidently chose this title because it
communicates the fact that the Word was not only God but
also the expression of God. (Dr. Constable’s Expository Notes,
2010, on John 1:1)
The link between the logos of John 1:1 and the memra of
the Targums is also noted by the New Testament scholars
J.B. Lightfoot (A Commentary on the New Testament from the
Talmud and Hebraica) and C.K. Barrett (The Gospel Accord-
ing to St. John). Alfred Edersheim compiles detailed connect-
ions between Jehovah and the Memra in chapter IV of The
Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. More recently (2010),
John Ronning gives data on the connection between John’s
Prologue and the Targums in his fervently trinitarian work,
The Jewish Targums and John’s Logos Theology.
In the Targums, “Yahweh” in most instances is replaced by
“the Word of the Lord” but also by “the Word” in some in-
stances. Although “the Word of the Lord” is the predominant
metonym of Yahweh in the Targums, it is occasionally short-
ened to “the Word” even in the Targums; e.g., Gen.5:24;
9:17; 16:1; 28:10; Ex.15:8; 33:11; Lev.24:12; Dt.4:12;
5:22,23; 33:3; of the Targum Yerushalmi, i.e., Jerusalem
Targum.53
53
Also called “Targum Pseudo-Jonathan” because of an accident of
printing history (Wikipedia, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan).
The parallel between “Yahweh” and “the Word” is found

even in the Hebrew Bible. In the following verse, dabar
(“word”) stands in metonymic parallel with “Yahweh”:
“Whoever gives attention to the word (dabar) finds happiness;
whoever trusts in Yahweh is blessed.” (Proverbs 16:20)
The deep spiritual meaning of “the Word”

John’s use of “the Word” as a metonym of Yahweh (“and the
Word was God”)—similar to the metonymic use of memra
(“Word”) in the Aramaic Targums—finds rich expression in
the well-known OT phrase, “the word of Yahweh” (or, in
most Bibles, “the word of the LORD”). This important term
occurs about 242 times in the Hebrew Scriptures. It uses the
key word dabar (‫דָּ בָ ר‬, “word”) which carries the meaning of
verbal communication. According to TWOT, the noun
(word, speech) occurs more than 1400 times in the Hebrew
Scriptures; the verb (speak, declare), more than 1100 times.
The Word of Yahweh is integral to the very person of
Yahweh; hence “the Word” is a familiar metonym of God.
The Word of Yahweh is the means by which Yahweh speaks
to humankind, communicating His will, His love, His intent-
ions, His salvation. The Word is the channel by which He
reveals Himself to us. For this reason, the Word of God is
“living and active” (Heb. 4:12) and is filled with God’s life
(“the word of life,” 1Jn.1:1). Through the living Word of
God, we come into contact with Yahweh’s life and creative
power, and above all with Yahweh Himself.
With the Word as a metonym of Yahweh, John declares

that “the Word was God” (John 1:1). This Word “became
flesh” in Jesus (v.14) and is now embodied in him such that
Yahweh now dwells in Jesus, that is, true God now lives in
true man. “For in him (Christ) the whole fullness of deity
dwells bodily” (Col.2:9, ESV, note the word “bodily”). The
man Christ Jesus embodies the Word of Yahweh, hence he
embodies Yahweh’s fullness, grace, life, and power.
In John 1:14 (“the Word became flesh”), the Greek word
for “became” is ginomai, which means “to experience a
change in nature and so indicate entry into a new condition”
(BDAG). This is the definition of ginomai that BDAG assigns
to John 1:14. The Word who is Yahweh by metonymy en-
tered into a new state of being or a new mode of existence in
Christ, namely, that of human life (cf. “entering a new mode
of existence,” Wuest’s NT translation, Jn.1:14). BDAG also
defines ginomai as “to make a change of location in space,”
which aligns with the wonderful truth that Yahweh came into
the world to dwell in Jesus bodily. Yahweh had earlier pro-
claimed that He will come to His people (Isa.40:3-5,10) and
to His temple (Mal.3:1), which ultimately is Jesus Christ.
Jesus says, “the Father who dwells in me does his works”
(Jn.14:10).
Since Yahweh, with His Word, dwells in Jesus, John is
able to say, “we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son
from the Father, full of grace and truth”. This Son embodies
“the Word” which tabernacles in him; he is the temple of
God that embodies God’s Shekinah glory: “the Word became
flesh and dwelled (literally tabernacled) among us”.
How Yahweh’s Word functions in relation to Yahweh is

seen in various metaphors. For example, Yahweh compares
His Word (dabar) to the rain that comes down from heaven
in order to water the earth, nourishing it and blessing all life.
The Word goes out from Yahweh’s mouth and carries out
His purposes:
As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do
not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud
and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for
the eater, so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will
not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire
and achieve the purpose for which I sent it. (Isaiah 55:10-11,
NIV)
The Word of Yahweh finds ultimate expression as the

Word dwelling in Jesus Christ. Just as Yahweh’s Word will
not return to Him empty but will accomplish His purposes,
so Jesus says, “I glorified You on earth, having accomplished
the work that You gave me to do” (John 17:4).
Word and Spirit

God created all things by His Word, yet the Spirit of God
was also involved (Gen.1:2-3). Psalm 33:6 says, “By the word
of Yahweh the heavens were made, and by the breath of His
mouth all their host”. Here we see the Hebrew parallelism
between dabar (word) and ruach (breath or spirit). The LXX
of this verse has a similar parallel in Greek between logos
(word, cf. Jn.1:1) and pneuma (spirit or breath).
The vital link between God’s Word and God’s Spirit is

well known, and is noted by Evangelical Dictionary of
Theology (1984, p.521, Holy Spirit):
God’s creative word (Gen.1:3ff) is closely akin to God’s
creative breath (Gen.2:7). Both ideas are identical elsewhere
with God’s spirit.
The connection between Word and Spirit is seen also in

the NT. When Jesus speaks, he “speaks the words of God, for
God gives the Spirit without measure” (Jn.3:34). “It is the
Spirit who gives life,” hence Jesus’ words are “spirit and life”
(Jn.6:63). We are “born of the Spirit” (Jn.3:8) yet also “born
again through the living and abiding word of God” (1Pet.
1:23). The sword of the Spirit is the word of God (Eph.6:17).
God’s Word and God’s Spirit are not two hypostases (per-
sons) distinct from God, but are two aspects and expressions
of God.54 God is spirit in His very nature (Jn.4:24). The
Word is the form, the Spirit is the substance. The Word is the
seed (Lk.8:11) that contains the Spirit of life (Rom.8:2); cf.
“the word of life” (1Jn.1:1).
54
When we say that a man achieved great success by his wisdom, we
don’t mean that wisdom is an entity distinct from man. Similarly, the
statement, “It is he who made the earth by his power, who established
the world by his wisdom, and by his understanding stretched out the
heavens” (Jer.10:12, ESV), doesn’t mean that God’s power, wisdom,
and understanding are three separate persons distinct from Him.
Just as God’s Word and God’s Spirit were involved in the

old Genesis creation, they are involved in the new creation
which God had planned “before the foundation of the world”
(Mt.25:34; Eph.1:4; 1Pet.1:20; Rev.13:8).
The danger of misapplied metonyms

In using the “Word” (Greek logos, Hebrew dabar, Aramaic
memra) as a metonym of Yahweh, John’s Prologue is pro-
claiming the wonderful message that Yahweh—God the
Creator—has come into the world to dwell in the man Christ
Jesus, in whom the whole fullness of deity dwells “bodily”
(Col.2:9).
Metonyms of God can, however, be misunderstood or
misapplied to a person other than Yahweh, including meton-
yms such as “the Majesty” (Heb. 8:1) or “the Majestic Glory”
(2Pet.1:17) or “Power” (Mt.26:64). This was what happened
in the case of Simon the magician who was called “the Great
Power of God” (Acts 8:10).
John wrote his gospel many years after the events in Acts,
and was aware of what had happened in the early days of the
church, and of the danger of the misplaced application of
metonyms. This would explain the second and third clauses
of John 1:1 (“and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God”). Evidently these were intended as a safeguard to
ensure that “the Word” would not be mistaken as a second
divine person alongside God.
In studying John 1:1, we need to be aware that the word
“God” is understood differently by different people, depend-
ing on whether their beliefs are pagan or Christian,

monotheistic or polytheistic. Some Roman gods are the same
as Greek gods with different names (e.g. Roman Jupiter is the
same as Greek Zeus). But “God” in Greco-Roman culture
would mean something different from “God” in the Bible, so
it is important to specify which God we are taking about,
especially in explaining God to Greeks but also to people in
general, Greek or Jew. This is what John does in John 1:1,
making it specific that the God he is speaking of is Yahweh,
the Creator of all things.
Verses 2 and 3 are similarly designed to prevent the reader
from applying “the Word” to someone other than Yahweh.
Yet Gentile Christians have done the very thing that John had
intended to prevent! They did this by imposing the meaning
“with” on the word pros in John 1:1b (“and the Word was
with God”) and in John 1:2 (“he was in the beginning with
God”) even though “with” is not the primary meaning of
pros.
Does pros really mean “with” in John 1:1?

This is the most important question we can ask about John
1:1, for how we answer it will govern the way we interpret the
whole verse. For convenience, we denote the three clauses in
John 1:1 by the suffixes a, b, c:
John 1:1a In the beginning was the Word,

John 1:1b and the Word was with God,
John 1:1c and the Word was God.
In the second clause, John 1:1b, the word “with”
(underlined above) is translated from the Greek preposition
pros whose intrinsic meaning is “to” or “towards” rather than
“with”. But trinitarians render John 1:1b as “and the Word
was with God” even though “with” is not the usual meaning
of pros. There are in fact other prepositions that are used far
more often for conveying the idea of “with”: (a) syn means to-
gether “with” someone (cf. synchronize, sympathize); (b) meta
means “with” someone or “after” someone (cf. metaphor); (c)
para means “beside” someone or something (cf. parallel).55
But pros is not one of these prepositions. If John had in-
tended to express the idea “with God” in John 1:1b, he would
have used one of the other three prepositions instead.
This comes out in the data compiled in Modern Concord-
ance to the New Testament, an important Greek-language tool
that is useful for its categorizations by class of meaning. This
concordance is praised by Protestant and Catholic scholars
alike 56 and is particularly useful for finding out what a Greek
word actually means in actual writing.
55
A well-known instance of para is in Prov.8:30 (LXX) where it is
used of the personified wisdom who was “beside” God at the creation
(“I was beside him like a master workman”).
56
Modern Concordance is praised as a “magnificent achievement” by
David Noel Freedman, the general editor of the Anchor Bible series and
a well-known expert on the Dead Sea Scrolls; and as “the best modern
Under the heading “With” (pp.679-681), Modern

Concordance gives 164 instances of meta, 66 instances of syn,
34 instances of para, but only 16 instances of pros! Hence pros
rarely carries the meaning “with” even though the word itself
occurs 700 times in the New Testament, far more frequently
than the other three prepositions: syn (128 times), para (194
times), meta (469 times). In fact, a few of these 16 instances
of pros do not obviously carry the meaning “with” as we
understand “with” in English.
The following table shows the preponderance of the three
prepositions (meta, syn, para) over the preposition pros for the
meaning “with,” based on the comprehensive data under the
heading “With” in Modern Concordance. The very last cell of
the table has only one line, indicating that pros seldom means
“with” despite occurring 700 times in the NT, far more often
than the other three prepositions. You do not need to go
through the verses in the table; they are listed to show the
relative frequencies of the four prepositions.
language concordance that I have seen” by Raymond Brown, eminent

Catholic biblical scholar.
Verses listed in Modern Concordance in which

prepositions meta, syn, para, and pros mean “with”
Meta: 164 of 469 occurrences (35%)
Matt 1:23; 2:11; 9:11; 9:15; 16:27; 17:17; 26:18; 26:20; 26:29; 26:36; 28:20; Mark 1:13; 1:29; 2:16; 2:19; 3:7; 5:24; 8:10; 8:38;
11:11; 14:14; 14:17; Luke 1:28; 1:58; 1:66; 1:72; 2:51; 5:30; 5:34; 6:17; 7:36; 22:11; 22:15; 22:53; 24:29; 24:30; John 3:2; 3:22;
3:26; 4:27; 6:3; 7:33; 8:29; 9:37; 11:54; 13:33; 14:9; 14:16; 14:30; 16:4; 16:32; 17:12; 18:2; Acts 7:9; 10:38; 11:21; 14:27; 15:4;
18:10; Rom 15:33; 16:20; 16:24; 1Cor 16:23; 2Cor 13:11; 13:13; Gal 6:18; Eph 6:24; Phil 4:9; 4:23; Col 4:18; 1Thess 3:13; 5:28;
2Thess 1:7; 3:16; 3:18; 1Tim 6:21; 2Tim 4:22; Titus 3:15; Phlm 1:25; Heb 13:25; 1John 4:17; 2John 1:2; 1:3; Rev 1:12; 2:16;
3:20; 4:1; 10:8; 21:3; 22:21; Matt 12:30; 17:3; 25:31; 26:23; 26:38; 26:40; 26:51; 26:69; 26:71; Mark 3:14; 4:36; 5:18; 5:37;
14:18; 14:20; 14:33; 14:67; 16:10; Luke 5:29; 11:23; 22:21; 22:28; 22:33; 22:59; John 6:66; 9:40; 11:16; 12:17; 13:8; 13:18;
15:27; 17:24; 18:26; 19:18; Acts 2:28; 7:38; 1John 1:3; 1:6; Rev 3:4; 3:20; 3:21; 14:1; 17:14; 20:4; 20:6; 22:12; Matt 5:25; 12:3;
12:4; 27:54; Mark 1:36; 2:25; 5:40; Luke 6:3; 6:4; John 11:31; 20:24; 20:26; Acts 9:19; 9:39; 20:34; Titus 3:15
Syn: 66 of 128 occurrences (52%)
Luke 7:6; 24:29; 24:44; John 18:1; 1Cor 15:10; Matt 26:35; 27:38; 27:44; Mark 15:27; 15:32; Luke 8:1; 8:38; 8:51; 9:18; 22:14;
22:56; 23:32; John 12:2; Acts 4:13; Rom 6:8; 8:32; 2Cor 4:14; 13:4; Phil 1:23; Col 2:13; 2:20; 3:3; 3:4; 1Thess 4:14; 4:17; 5:10;
2Pet 1:18; Mark 2:26; Luke 2:13; 5:9; 7:12; 8:45; 9:32; 24:10; 24:24; 24:33; Acts 5:17; 5:21; 13:7; 14:4; 22:9; 22:11; 27:2; Rom
16:14; 16:15; Gal 2:3; Col 2:5
Para: 34 of 194 occurrences (18%)
Matt 6:1; 19:26; Mark 10:27; Luke 1:30; 2:52; 9:47; 11:37; 18:27; 19:7; John 1:39; 4:40; 8:38; 14:17; 14:23; 14:25; 17:5; Rom
2:11; 2:13; 9:14; 1Cor 3:19; 7:24; Gal 3:11; Eph 6:9; 2Thess 1:6; James 1:17; 1:27; 1Pet 2:4; 2:20; 2Pet 3:8
Pros: 16 of 700 occurrences (2%)
John 1:1; 1:2; 12:32; 14:3; Rom 4:2; 5:1; 2Cor 5:8; 1Jn 1:2; 2:1; Mt 13:56; Mark 6:3; 9:19; 14:49; 1Th 3:4; 2Th 3:10
The table also gives the percentages of occurrence for the

meaning “with”: meta 35%, syn 52%, para 18%, pros 2%.
The low percentage for pros (2%) means that pros seldom
means “with”—only 16 times in 700 occurrences, or once in
44. Hence, in actual usage, “with” is not the usual meaning of
pros but only the secondary or tertiary meaning. Yet it is the
lesser meaning of pros that has been conscripted for trinitarian
use in John 1:1.
The meaning of “pros” in the standard lexicons

The meaning “to be with someone” that trinitarians seek in
John 1:1b (“the Word was with God,” implying a second per-
son) is not the usual meaning of pros. This is seen in the way
pros is actually used in the Bible (cf. Modern Concordance),
but also in how it is defined in Greek-English lexicons.
BDAG gives many definitions of pros, and these are shown in
the following. The definitions are technical, but you can skip
them without impairing the flow of reading. It may be help-
ful, however, to glance at the words shown in boldface (all
italics and boldface are BDAG’s): 57
3 with accusative, marker of movement or orientation toward

someone/something
(a) of place, person, or thing toward, towards, to, after verbs

α. of going
β. of sending
γ. of motion generally
δ. of leading, guiding
ε. of saying, speaking
ζ. of asking, praying
(b) of time near , at, or during (a certain time)

α. denoting approach toward
β. of temporal duration for
57
We quote only the third section of BDAG’s definition (with citat-
ions omitted, abbreviations spelled out, Greek transliterated). We skip
the first two sections because these pertain to the genitive and the
dative whereas the third section pertains to the accusative (which is the
grammatical case used in John 1:1b).
(c) of goal (aiming) at or (striving) toward

α. with conscious purpose for, for the purpose of, on behalf of
β. generally of design, destiny
γ. of the result that follows a set of circumstances (so that)
(d) of relationship (hostile or friendly), against, for

α. hostile against, with after verbs of disputing, etc.
β. friendly to, toward, with, before
(e) to indicate a connection by marking a point of reference, with

reference/regard to
α. with reference to
β. as far as … is concerned, with regard to
γ. elliptically ti pros hēmas
δ. in accordance with
ε. expressing purpose
(f) in adverbial expressions
(g) by, at, near pros tina einai be (in company) with someone
Of the many definitions listed here, the one that matches

the trinitarian reading of John 1:1b (“the Word was with
God”) is the very last one (g). In fact this is the one that
BDAG assigns to John 1:1. But being in the very last posit-
ion, definition (g) is not considered even by BDAG to be the
principal meaning of pros. The trinitarian selection of the last
meaning of pros for John 1:1b, to the exclusion of many other
more plausible meanings, would be totally arbitrary if we
cannot give a compelling reason for doing this.
And when we examine BDAG’s definitions (a) to (g)

shown above, an important fact emerges: the dominant sense
of pros (with the accusative) is not characterized by “with” but
by “to” or “towards”.
We see something similar in another lexical authority: the
Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English lexicon. 58 In this lexicon, a
principal meaning of pros with the accusative is “in reference
to”. Hence “the Word was with God” would actually mean
“the Word had reference to God,” that is, the Word referred
to God or pointed to God. This is consistent with John’s next
clause, “and the Word was God,” with these two clauses
forming a natural progression. In fact nothing in the massive
LSJ lexicon on pros supports the trinitarian reading of John
1:1b (“and the Word was with God”). This lexicon of classi-
cal Greek, unlike lexicons of biblical and Christian literature,
is not particularly interested in providing doctrinal support
for trinitarianism.
This referential function of pros is common in the Bible,
and is seen for example in Mark 12:12: “he spoke the parable
against them,” which in the Greek is literally, “he spoke the
58
See pros, C-III, 1-5. LSJ’s long discussion of pros+accusative is
given under several headings. The section relevant to John 1:1b is the
one under the heading “III. of Relation between two objects”. The
following is LSJ’s definition (with citations omitted): “1. in reference to,
in respect of, touching; 2. in reference to, in consequence of; 3. in reference
to or for a purpose; 4. in proportion or relation to, in comparison with; 5.
in or by reference to, according to, in view of; 6. with the accompaniment
of musical instruments; 7. πρός c. acc. freq. periphr. for Adv., π. βίαν, =
βιαίως, under compulsion; 8. of Numbers, up to, about.”
parable with reference to them”. This is confirmed by the

Linguistic Key to the Greek NT which translates pros autous in
this verse as “with reference to them”.
Another example of the referential use of pros is found in
Romans 10:21: “But regarding Israel (pros ton Israēl) he says,
‘All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and
contentious people’”.
Conclusion: From the lexical information in BDAG and Lid-
dell-Scott-Jones, John 1:1 should be understood as: “In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word had reference to God
(pointed to God), and the Word was God (by metonymy).” 59
Does pros ton theon really mean “with God”

in John 1:1?
We have looked at the single word pros. What about the
whole phrase pros ton theon? Does it really mean “with God”
in John 1:1? To get an idea of its true meaning, we can
simply see how ESV, a fervently trinitarian Bible, generally
translates it. The phrase pros ton theon that we find in John
1:1 occurs 20 times in the New Testament: twice in John’s
Prologue and 18 times outside the Prologue. 60 In the 18
59
The Concordant Bible gives the correct meaning “toward” for
John 1:1: “In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward
God …”
60
The 18 instances outside John’s Prologue are Jn.13:3; Acts 4:24;
12:5; 24:16; Rom.5:1; 10:1; 15:17,30; 2Cor.3:4; 13:7; Phil.4:6; 1Th.
1:8,9; Heb.2:17; 5:1; 1Jn. 3:21; Rev.12:5; 13:6. The two instances in
John’s Prologue are Jn.1:1 and 1:2.
verses outside the Prologue, ESV never translates pros ton

theon as “with God” except in Rom.5:1 (“we have peace with
God,” which does not carry the sense of “with God” which
trinitarians seek in John 1:1b). ESV instead translates pros ton
theon as “to God” or “toward God” in 14 of the 18 verses
outside John’s Prologue! The same is true of NASB. In other
words, where ESV is not compelled by trinitarian dogma, it
never translates pros ton theon in the sense of “with God”!
Interestingly, the correct reading “toward God” for pros
ton theon in John 1:1 is acknowledged by some trinitarian
commentaries. For example, New American Commentary says:
Most translators render this statement “and the Word was
with God”. Actually it is difficult to translate the Greek
phrase pros ton theon (in both vv. 1 and 2) into English. Lit-
erally it means “toward God.” (New American Commentary,
John 1:1)
NAC is not the only trinitarian commentary which says

that pros ton theon in John 1:1 means “towards God”. Others
include New Bible Commentary (“the thought is literally
‘towards God’”); The Preacher’s Commentary (“The literal
translation could be ‘the Word was towards God’”); and The
Bible Speaks Today (“With here is literally ‘towards’”).
The LXX has around 70 occurrences of pros ton theon,
most of which are translated as “to God” in English Bibles.
Why do trinitarians impose the meaning “with”

on John 1:1?
Why then do trinitarians impose the meaning “with” on the
word pros in John 1:1 but not in the rest of the New
Testament? The reason is doctrine. The rendering—“and the
Word was with God”—promotes trinitarianism by implying
that another entity that was “with” God at the creation, and
trinitarians want to imply further that this entity is the pre-
existent Jesus. But to prove their case from the Bible, three
conditions would have to be met.
First, it must be shown that the physical creation in Gen-
esis 1 involved another entity besides Yahweh. But anyone
who is familiar with the Genesis account would know that no
one was involved “with God” when He brought creation into
being. There is no record of any person, being, or entity
besides God who was involved in the creation. There is also
no “second deity,” a term used by Philo but which has been
misappropriated by trinitarians to mean something different
from what Philo meant. Thus whatever pros might mean in
John 1:1, it does not mean “with” in any sense that implies
another person alongside the one and only God.
Second, even if it could be shown that there is an entity
“with God” in the Genesis creation, it must be further
demonstrated that this entity is a real person and not just a
reification, hypostatization, or personification of something
like wisdom in Proverbs 8:30. So whether the Word in John
1:1 is another divine person besides Yahweh would still need
to be proved, and as far as Scripture is concerned, that effort
would be futile because there is simply no such person.

Yahweh expressly declares that He alone is God (Isaiah 45:5)
and that He created the heavens and the earth by Himself
(44:24). Hence, even if we take pros in John 1:1 to mean
“with God,” that is still insufficient to prove trinitarianism.
Third, it must be demonstrated that John identifies “the
Word” with Jesus, which is something trinitarians have never
done. In fact, trinitarians have not gone beyond the first
point, let alone the second and the third.
Trinitarians admit that their trinitarian

understanding of pros creates a conflict between
John 1:1b and John 1:1c
It will come as a surprise to many that the key word in John
1:1 is not logos (word) or even theos (God)—these words are
not controversial in themselves—but the word pros. That is
because the way we understand pros in John 1:1b governs the
way we interpret the whole verse.
The plain fact is that pros is not an obscure or mysterious
word but a common word with a well-established meaning
that creates no complications for John 1:1 unless we steer pros
away from its primary meaning. We have seen from BDAG
and Liddell-Scott-Jones that pros has several meanings but the
primary meaning is characterized by “to” or “toward” whereas
the secondary or tertiary meaning is “with”. The former
would make John 1:1b say that “the Word had reference to
God” or “the Word referred to God” whereas the latter would
align with the trinitarian rendering, “the Word was with

God”.
As we have seen, Modern Concordance indicates that at
most 16 of the 700 instances of pros in the New Testament
carry the meaning “with”.
If we have no compelling reason for rejecting the primary
meaning of pros for John 1:1, then the choice of its secondary
meaning would be entirely arbitrary and probably doctrinally
motivated. By contrast, we do have a compelling reason for
choosing the primary meaning of pros: referential consistency.
We likewise have a strong reason for rejecting the lesser mean-
ing of pros: referential inconsistency. To see what this means,
let us compare the two competing renderings of John 1:1:
Primary meaning of pros:

a. In the beginning was the Word,
b. and the Word had reference to God,
c. and the Word was God.
Secondary meaning of pros:

a. In the beginning was the Word,
b. and the Word was with God,
c. and the Word was God.
The two translations are identical except for the under-

lined words. The first rendering has the advantage of referent-
ial consistency: the word “God” means the same in line #b as
in line #c (they both refer to the same person, God Himself).
This is what gives the whole verse its natural flow and pro-
gression, with line #b leading naturally to line #c. But the sec-
ond rendering lacks referential consistency because the word
“God” in line #c is forced to have a different meaning from
“God” in line #b, as admitted by many trinitarians.
The inconsistency between lines #b and #c in the second
reading is problematic, yet is demanded by trinitarians in
order to avoid modalism but also to imply a second person
who was “with” God. Many trinitarian scholars are aware of
this inconsistency as anyone who reads their literature on
John 1:1 would know. Most trinitarians would, however,
quietly ignore the issue because it serves their doctrine well to
have a second divine person.
But the root problem is this: It makes no sense to say that
the Word “was with God” at the same time the Word “was
God”! This is a genuine dilemma for some well-known trinit-
arians, as we shall see. When John 1:1 is translated the
conventional way as in most Bibles, a logical conflict arises
between John 1:1b and John 1:1c. The problem is not with
John 1:1c (“and the Word was God,” a valid translation
though not the only possible one), but with John 1:1b (“the
Word was with God,” an improbable rendering that is de-
manded by trinitarians in order to safeguard trinitarianism).
But the conflict is an artificial one because it is not inher-
ent to John 1:1. The conflict exists only because trinitarians
force pros to take on its secondary rather than its primary
meaning, in order to imply a second divine person.
The conflict between John 1:1b and 1:1c in trinitarianism
is not a trivial one, and is noted by many trinitarians. We
now give five examples of this. The first four examples are
brief and simple. The fifth is longer and touches on the

Jehovah’s Witnesses’ flawed interpretation of John 1:1.
Five examples of the colossal trinitarian effort to

resolve the conflict between John 1:1b and John
1:1c
Example #1. F.F. Bruce, trinitarian and eminent NT scholar,
is aware of the conflict between John 1:1b and John 1:1c
when they are translated in the conventional way. He says of
John 1:1c that “the meaning would have been that the Word
was completely identical with God, which is impossible if the
Word was also ‘with God’” (The Gospel of John, p.31). Note
the strong word “impossible” that F.F. Bruce uses to describe
the conflict. This conundrum impels him to search for a ren-
dering of John 1:1c which would resolve the conflict without
surrendering trinitarian doctrine. For example, he speaks pos-
itively of the rendering in New English Bible, “what God was,
the Word was,” but he admits that it is just a paraphrase. In
the end, F.F. Bruce doesn’t seem to have found a solution
that is satisfactory to himself beyond taking John 1:1c to
mean, “the Word shared the nature and being of God”.
Example #2. IVP New Testament Commentary, which often

expresses a trinitarian opinion, mentions the same logical pro-
blem that F.F. Bruce discusses, and then concludes, “These
two truths seem impossible to reconcile logically and yet both
must be held with equal firmness.” (These “two truths” refer
to the two contradictory clauses that F.F. Bruce points out.)

But after admitting that the two clauses “seem impossible to
reconcile logically” (very strong words), the commentary of-
fers no resolution beyond the bare suggestion that we simply
accept the two “with equal firmness,” i.e., accept the contra-
diction as it stands.
Example #3. H.A.W. Meyer, in Critical and Exegetical Hand-

book to the Gospel of John (p.48), is aware that John 1:1b can
be read in the referential sense (the Word referred to God)
and correctly saw that this would make the Word a
“periphrasis” (an indirect term) for God himself. But this
periphrasis undermines the trinitarian insistence that the
Word is a second distinct person who was “with” God the
Father. So Meyer rejects the periphrasis in favor of the stand-
ard rendering, “the Word was with God”. But he immed-
iately sees the same logical conflict that F.F. Bruce sees. So
Meyer insists that “God” in John 1:1c “can only be the pre-
dicate, not the subject,” and proposes the reading, “He was
with God, and possessed of a divine nature” (italics Meyer’s),
which is more or less the standard trinitarian interpretation.
Example #4. The NET Bible (whose footnotes often express a

trinitarian opinion in the NT but less so in the OT) is aware
of the conflict between John 1:1b and 1:1c in the way they
are translated in most Bibles. To resolve this, NET takes the
principle that any reading of John 1:1c which collides with
John 1:1b can be “ruled out”. In other words, it is the
trinitarian reading of John 1:1b which overrides all possible
interpretations of John 1:1c. This is seen in the following

statement (the words in parentheses are NET’s):
The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word
with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word
was with God”); rather it affirms that the Word and God are
one in essence.
NET here acknowledges the conflict between the convention-

al reading of John 1:1b (“the Word was with God”) and that
of 1:1c (“the Word was God”). NET rejects this translation of
1:1c because it equates “the Word” with “the person of God,”
which is not what NET wants. In struggling with this
trinitarian dilemma, NET is forced to reject the conventional
rendering of John 1:1c (“the Word was God”) because it is
“ruled out” by 1:1b (“the Word was with God”). As a result,
NET goes on to say that the Word in 1:1c is not the “person
of God” but someone who is “one in essence” with God (this
is adding quite a lot to John’s simple statement).
This is in fact the trinitarian view that God is not a person
but an essence or a substance. We have already quoted C.S.
Lewis, a trinitarian, as saying: “Christian theology does not
believe God to be a person. It believes Him to be such that in
Him a trinity of persons is consistent with a unity of Deity.
In that sense it believes Him to be something very different
from a person.” (Christian Reflections, p.79).
In the end, NET translates John 1:1c as “the Word was
fully God,” a total paraphrase that depersonalizes the term
“God” so that it no longer refers to the God. It is a qualitative
statement of God’s essence rather than an equation of identity
between the Word and God (“the Word was God”). That is
why James White says that God is not a “who” but a “what”.
The trinitarian interpretation of John 1:1 is similar to

that of the Jehovah’s Witnesses in terms of exegeti-
cal procedure; their disagreement is over doctrine,
not exegesis
Example #5. This is the most eye-opening of our five examples
but is slightly technical. But it is written in such a way that
you can glide over the technical details and still get the main
point.
It is not our aim in this example to study trinitarianism or
the Jehovah’s Witnesses in depth but to show that they are
similar for all intents and purposes in their grammatical anal-
ysis of John 1:1. The similarity is surprising given their sharp
disagreement over the divinity of Jesus.
In the final analysis, the true disagreement between trinit-
arians and the Jehovah’s Witnesses is over doctrine, not exeg-
etical procedure. In fact they seem to agree on every aspect of
exegetical procedure that matters for the interpretation of
John 1:1:
• They agree on the Greek text of John 1:1 (i.e., no

textual issues)
• They agree, word for word, on how the first two
clauses, John 1:1a and John 1:1b, ought to be
translated into English
• Both take “the Word” in John 1:1 as a reference to

Christ
• Both take “God” in John 1:1b as a reference to God the
Father
• Both take pros in John 1:1b in its secondary sense of
“with” (the Word was “with God”), rejecting its
primary sense
• Both take “the Word was with God” in John 1:1b as
referring to two distinct persons, Jesus Christ and God
the Father
• Both are aware of the conflict between John 1:1b and
1:1c when they are translated the conventional way
• Both try to resolve the conflict by changing the
meaning of “God” in John 1:1c so that it means
something different from “God” in John 1:1b
• Both take “God” in John 1:1c as predicative, quali-
tative, indefinite; and both use the predicate anarthrous
theos argument in an attempt to justify their respective
qualitative readings of “God” in John 1:1c
• Both depersonalize the word “God” in John 1:1c such
that “God” no longer refers to the person of God but to
a divine quality or essence. In other words, both take
John 1:1c not as an equation of identity (the Word was
God by metonymy) but as a qualitative statement of
God’s essence or divinity (which is the trinitarian view,
e.g., J.P. Lange, Marcus Dods, H.A.W. Meyer, C.K.
Barrett, R. Bowman).
The similarity in exegetical procedure comes out strikingly

in one of the most detailed grammatical-exegetical analyses of
John 1:1 ever written by an evangelical. Robert M. Bowman
Jr., an ardent apologist for trinitarianism, wrote a book,
Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John, which
gives a detailed exposition of John 1:1 from a trinitarian per-
spective, interwoven with a critique of the Jehovah’s
Witnesses’ interpretation of John 1:1. But the inconvenient
fact is that their respective interpretations are almost identical
in terms of grammatical-exegetical procedure.
For convenience we refer to the Jehovah’s Witnesses as the
JWs without intending anything pejorative in the use of that
term. Their translation of the Bible, New World Translation of
the Holy Scriptures (2013 edition), is abbreviated NWT.
As for Bowman, we won’t go into the details in his book
except to outline the two main currents that run through his
exposition of John 1:1.61 Ironically, these two currents, espec-
ially the second one, have the unintended consequence of
weakening Bowman’s own trinitarian interpretation of John
1:1.
First current: Like many trinitarians, Bowman is fully aware of

the conflict between John 1:1b and 1:1c when they are trans-
lated in the conventional way found in mainstream Bibles.
He refers to the conflict explicitly:
61
For the details, see Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel
of John (Baker, 989); also the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Kingdom Interlinear
Translation of the Greek Scriptures, 1965, pp.1158-1160.
What needs to be treated in some depth is the question of

how the Word can be with God and yet be God … The
Word certainly cannot be with “God” and be “God” unless
the term God somehow changes significance from the first to
the second usage. (pp.25-26)
Bowman here explains to us the dilemma which confronts

trinitarianism: If the word “God” in John 1:1b means the
same as “God” in John 1:1c, then trinitarianism cannot be
correct. That is because if “God” means the same in John
1:1b as in 1:1c, we are forced to choose between one of two
possibilities, both of which are detestable to trinitarians:
either true Biblical monotheism (in which the Father, not the
Son, is the only true God, as in John 17:3) or the error of
modalism (Jesus = Father = Spirit, just as H2O can be water,
ice, or vapor). Neither option is acceptable to trinitarians, and
this would explain the trinitarian effort to make “God” in
John 1:1c mean something different from “God” in John
1:1b. That is the very dilemma that Bowman is trying to add-
ress when he requires that “the term God somehow changes
significance from the first to the second usage” (i.e., from
John 1:1b to John 1:1c).
But Bowman’s efforts to resolve the conflict is notable for
the casual manner in which he alters the words of John 1:1
here and there without batting an eye, in contrast to the
careful attitude of F.F. Bruce who hesitates to do this to even
one word. Bowman speaks freely of “shifts” in wording, of
changing the “significance” of words, of coming up with a
“translation-paraphrase” (which is his euphemism for “para-
phrase”). Hence it comes as no surprise that after making all

the alterations, here is his final and fully trinitarian reading of
John 1:1:
In the beginning the Word was existing; and the Word was
existing in relationship with the person commonly known as
God, that is, the Father; and the Word was Himself essent-
ially God. (p.26).
Second current: Bowman’s exposition of John 1:1 confirms

the shocking fact which I [Bentley Chan] had already sensed
some time ago, namely, that the trinitarian interpretation of
John 1:1 is fundamentally similar to that of the JWs in terms
of grammatical-exegetical procedure! Trinitarians and the
JWs agree on the first 80% of their interpretation of John 1:1
and diverge only in the final 20%. This accounts for the
many grammatical-exegetical presuppositions that they share
in common for the interpretation of John 1:1 (see the bullet
points listed a few pages back).
Bowman admits agreement with the Jehovah’s Witnesses
on three key aspects of theos (God) in John 1:1c: the qualitat-
iveness of the anarthrous theos (p.37); the predicateness of
theos (p.38); and the indefiniteness of theos (pp.41,47). With
these things in agreement, Bowman faces the great and daunt-
ing challenge of disproving “the Word was a god,” which is
the JWs’ rendering of John 1:1c.
This bring us to the most shocking irony of all: Bowman,
on p.62, after giving the longest grammatical analysis of John
1:1 that I have seen, has no choice but to admit that the JW’s
rendering of John 1:1c (“the Word was a god”) is “a possible

rendering” and is “grammatically possible” (Bowman’s own
words)! Bowman is conceding that the JWs are grammatically
correct in their rendering of John 1:1, but he rejects it only
because it is not doctrinally acceptable to him and his fellow
trinitarians.
There is nothing unusual or farfetched about a trinitarian
who admits that “the Word was a god” (as preferred by the
JWs) is grammatically possible. Thomas Constable of Dallas
Theological Seminary, a trinitarian, likewise concedes that
“the Word was a god” is grammatically possible, but like
Bowman he rejects it as doctrinally unacceptable:
Jehovah’s Witnesses appeal to this verse (John 1:1) to support
their doctrine that Jesus was not fully God but the highest
created being. They translate it “the Word was a god.” Gram-
matically this is a possible translation since it is legitimate to
supply the indefinite article (“a”) when no article is present in
the Greek text, as here. However, that translation here is
definitely incorrect because it reduces Jesus to less than God.
(Dr. Constable’s Expository Notes, on John 1:1)
In the final analysis, the real disagreement between trinita-

rians and the JWs is over doctrine, not grammatical-exegetical
procedure. After agreeing in the first 80%, they diverge in the
final 20%, namely, over the degree and the proper description
of Jesus’ divineness: “God” versus “a god”. But even here they
agree more than disagree because when trinitarians speak of
“God” in John 1:1c, they don’t mean “the God” but “God”
in the qualitative sense of a divine essence or nature, which is
similar to the way the JWs understand “a god” to mean divine

or godlike. In fact, Bowman (on p.63) and the JWs (in a foot-
note in NWT) both accept “and the Word was divine” as a
valid alternative reading of John 1:1c—yet further evidence of
the agreement between their respective grammatical-exegetical
procedures.
In the final analysis, Bowman’s disagreement with the JWs
is only skin-deep, mainly over the best way of depicting the
divineness of the Word: “God” versus “a god,” both in a qual-
itative sense. When you think about it, this is nothing more
than a theological spat over the qualitative meaning of theos in
John 1:1c. In fact Bowman uses many pages just to argue that
his qualitative understanding of theos is better than the JWs’
qualitative understanding of theos!
The weakness of Bowman’s analysis of John 1:1—and
therefore that of the JWs—is that they never consider the
possibility (recognized by Meyer) that pros could be taken
referentially. This would make John 1:1b read, “the Word
referred to God,” which harmonizes perfectly with the next
clause, “the Word was God,” without ever depersonalizing
“God”. Moreover, there would be no need to alter the mean-
ing of “God” in going from John 1:1b to 1:1c.
Bowman refuses to consider the possibility of the refer-
ential use of pros in John 1:1 because it would undermine his
trinitarian presuppositions but also because trinitarians are in
perfect harmony with the Jehovah’s Witnesses on the mean-
ing of pros in John 1:1b (Bowman, p.25).
How monotheism differs from both trinitarianism

and the JWs in the interpretation of John 1:1
By way of summary, we now quickly list six key differences
between Biblical monotheism on one side, and trinitarianism
and the Jehovah’s Witnesses on the other side, in their res-
pective interpretations of John 1:1. These are abbreviated BM
on one side, and TR and JW on the other side.
Firstly, all three teach that “the Word” in John 1:1 is pre-
existent but disagree on who the Word is: either the second
divine person called “God the Son” (TR) or a “spirit creature”
who is neither God nor man (JW); or the Word who is God
Himself, by metonymy (BM, cf. “the Word was God”).
Secondly, TR and JW read pros in John 1:1b by its
secondary meaning (“the Word was with God”), creating a
conflict between John 1:1b and 1:1c. By contrast, BM reads
pros by its primary meaning (“the Word was towards God” or
“the Word referred to God”), which leads to no such conflict,
and in fact flows naturally to John 1:1c (“and the Word was
God”).
Thirdly, to resolve the conflict, both TR and JW are
forced to change the meaning of theos (“God”) in the
transition from John 1:1b to John 1:1c whereas BM is wholly
consistent, requiring no change in the meaning of “God”.
Fourthly, TR and JW cannot read John 1:1c (“the Word
was God”) in a straightforward manner as an equation of
identity, so they take it as a reference to God’s essence, there-
by depersonalizing the term “God” in John 1:1c into a divine
essence or divine nature. By contrast, BM reads John 1:1c
(“the Word was God”) in a straightforward manner that

preserves the personality of “God” and identifies the Word
with God Himself. This equation of identity (“the Word was
God”) is not to be taken as a mathematical equation but as a
truth in which “the Word” refers to God by metonymy.
Fifthly, TR and JW need to paraphrase John 1:1c to make
it mean what they believe it to mean (Bowman even charact-
erizes his rendering of John 1:1 as a “translation-paraphrase”).
By contrast, BM doesn’t need to paraphrase John 1:1c
because BM takes the straightforward reading of John 1:1c
(“and the Word was God”).
Sixthly, JW and especially TR need to use extra-biblical
terms to explain their interpretations of John 1:1 and 1:14. In
the case of JW, the non-biblical term that comes to mind is
spirit creature (see the supplementary note below). In the case
of TR, a vast catalog of extra-biblical terms is called upon in a
convoluted attempt to explain the trinitarian understanding
of John 1:1 and 1:14: trinity, Godhead, God the Son, substance,
homoousios, hypostasis, second person, two natures, hypostatic
union, eternal generation, perichoresis, communicatio idiomat-
um, and so on. By contrast, BM sticks to John’s basic vocab-
ulary to explain John 1:1 and 1:14 (even memra simply means
dabar or logos or word, these four being metonymic references
to Yahweh God in Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, and English,
respectively).
Supplementary Note: The Jehovah’s Witnesses on the

origins of Christ
One of the clearest explanations of what the Jehovah’s
Witnesses teach about the origins of Jesus Christ is found in
their own book, What Does the Bible Really Teach? (2005, 224
pages).
Here is a summary of the main points in chapter 4 of the
book (pp.37-45, “Who is Jesus Christ?”): Before the creation
of the universe, God created the Son of God, a “spirit creat-
ure” who is neither God nor man, and lacks a physical body
(spirit creatures include angelic beings, p.96). Jesus is said to
be the “only begotten” Son because he was the only person
ever to be created directly by God; God then created the rest
of the universe through the Son. Before the Son was born into
the world, he was “the Word” who delivered God’s messages
to other sons of God, “both spirit and human”. When the
Word became flesh, the Son left heaven to live on earth as a
man. The spirit creature that had been the Son of God
became human when Jehovah transferred the Son’s life from
heaven to Mary’s womb. Jesus became the Messiah when he
was baptized in the latter part of 29 C.E. And after Jesus died,
“his heavenly Father resurrected him back to spirit life” on
the third day.
In an appendix, “Who is Michael the Archangel?”
(pp.218-219), the answer given is that “Jesus himself is the
archangel Michael”.
A serious error is the JWs’ denial of Jesus’ bodily resurrect-
ion. They teach that Jesus was resurrected into an “invisible
spirit” with no human body (Let Your Name be Sanctified,
p.266). Jesus “was not raised out of the grave a human creat-
ure, but was raised a spirit” (Let God be True, p.272), for he
cannot “become a man once more” (You Can Live Forever in
Paradise on Earth, p.143). The seriousness of this error lies in
the denial of the humanity of Jesus: He is intrinsically a spirit
creature who is neither human nor divine, and was man only
temporarily during his time on earth. The resurrection of
Jesus is not a bodily resurrection but simply a return to Jesus’
intrinsic state as a spirit creature.
This error contradicts what the risen Jesus says: “See my
hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For
a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”
(Luke 24:39)
Many theological errors stem from the failure to see the
true humanity of Jesus Christ, whether we are talking about
the Gnostics, trinitarians, Arians, or the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
John 1:1-3 is Derived from

Genesis, not Philo
The “Word” in John 1:1-3

We now quote John 1:1-2 three different ways: (i) from a
mainstream Bible; (ii) a literal translation of the Greek; (iii)
the same as (ii) but with comments inserted (shown in
boldface).
John 1:1-2 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the
beginning with God.
John 1:1-2 literal translation 1In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word had reference to God, and God was the
Word. 2 This in the beginning had reference to God.
John 1:1-2 literal translation with comments inserted
1
In the beginning (referring to Genesis 1:1) was the Word (a
metonym for Yahweh), and the Word had reference to God
(“identifying God,” ITNT), and God was the Word. 2 This (the
Word) in the beginning (another reference to Genesis 1:1) had
reference to God.
If in verse 2 we move the words “in the beginning” to the

start of the verse to match the structure of verse 1, we will see
a clear parallel:
v.1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word had
reference to God
v.2: In the beginning this Word had reference to God
The repetition is undoubtedly for emphasis, similar to the

emphasis in the triple use of “Word” in John 1:1.
Here is verse 3 (ESV):
v.3 All things were made through him, and without him was
not any thing made that was made.
The first half of this verse (“All things were made through
him”) points to Yahweh as the Creator. This is the third time
(in only three verses!) that John goes back to Genesis 1:1,
making it clear that John 1:1-3 is to be understood in con-
nection with Genesis.
Verses 1 and 2 in John’s Prologue are parallel to the first
half of Genesis 1:1 (“In the beginning God …”) whereas
verse 3 is parallel to the whole of Genesis 1:1 (“In the begin-
ning God created the heavens and the earth”). That “God” in
the Genesis account refers to Yahweh is confirmed in Genesis
2:4: “This is the account of the heavens and the earth when
they were created, when Yahweh God made earth and the
heavens.”
Even in the Nicene Creed, only God the Father, not God
the Son, is the Creator of all things visible and invisible. But
trinitarians go beyond the Creed when they say that the Son
is the creator or co-creator with the Father. So they apply
John 1:3 (“all things were made through him”) to Jesus,

whom they equate with the Word.
When reading John 1:1-3, there are two solid, incontro-
vertible facts that must be kept in mind: (1) John nowhere
identifies the Word with Jesus; (2) Genesis 1 makes no men-
tion of any person or entity working alongside God in the
creation account.
It must be kept in mind, too, that John’s Prologue is poet-
ry. This fact is widely known in New Testament scholarship
though there is some discussion as to whether it is a hymn.62
We will now proceed as follows: (i) discuss the trinitarian
use of Philo’s Logos for interpreting John’s Prologue; (ii)
show why Philo’s Logos cannot be used in support of trinita-
rianism; (iii) show that John 1:1-3 is rooted in Genesis, not
Philo; (iv) show that the Genesis creation was done by
Yahweh alone without any help from a secondary agent, and
that therefore John 1:3 (“all things were made through him”)
refers to Yahweh and not to Jesus.
62
A strong case for reading John’s Prologue as a hymn is developed
by M. Gordley in The Johannine Prologue and Jewish Didactic Hymn
Traditions: A New Case for Reading the Prologue as a Hymn, Journal of
Biblical Literature, vol.128, no.4, 2009, pp.781-802.
The trinitarian use of Philo

Trinitarians assume that the Word in John 1:1 is the preexist-
ent Jesus Christ even though there is no trace of any divine
being apart from Yahweh in the Old Testament. The OT
verse that is often cited as evidence of a triune God is Genesis
1:26 in which God says, “Let us make man in our image,
after our likeness.” It is then concluded that the plural “us”
constitutes proof of God’s triune nature despite several
alternative explanations and despite the lack of any explicit
reference to who might be the supposed second divine person
in Genesis 1:26. We won’t discuss this verse here except to
point out that some trinitarians do not accept the trinitarian
interpretation of Genesis 1:26:
• Zondervan Bible Commentary (ed. F.F. Bruce), on Genesis 1:26:

“Leupold still argues strongly for the traditional Christian view
that the plural refers to the Trinity. This should not be com-
pletely rejected, but in its setting it does not carry conviction …
Probably the plural is intended above all to draw attention to
the importance and solemnity of God’s decision.”
• New English Translation (NET Bible), in a footnote on Gen.
1:26: “Many Christian theologians interpret [the plural ‘us’] as
an early hint of plurality within the Godhead, but this view
imposes later trinitarian concepts on the ancient text.”
• Dr. Thomas Constable, trinitarian of Dallas Theological Semin-
ary: “We should not use [the plural “us”] as a formal proof of
the Trinity since this reference by itself does not prove that one
God exists in three persons.” (Expository Notes, on Genesis 1:26)
• Great Texts of the Bible, a 20-volume commentary compiled by

James Hastings, on Genesis 1:26: “We are told that the lang-
uage in which that creation is spoken of, i.e., ‘Let us make man,’
implies the doctrine of a plurality of persons in the Deity … We
are told again that we are to establish on this account the
doctrine of the Trinity. There is no reason, only ignorance, in
such a view.”
• Keil and Delitzsch view the plural “we” in Genesis 1:26 as
pluralis majestatis (“a plural of majesty”) rather than a reference
to a triune God, and as bringing out “the fullness of the divine
powers and essences which [God] possesses”.
• Lectionary Commentary: Theological Exegesis for Sunday’s Text, on
Gen.1:1-2,4a: “However, taken all by itself, Genesis 1 is not an
obviously trinitarian text. Although in history Christian
commentators have been tantalized by the plural exhortations of
‘Let us make man in our own image … ,’ Hebrew scholarship
long ago dispensed with the notion that this refers to any actual
plurality within God—this was not in the minds of those who
composed Genesis and so ought not be understood that way by
later readers either.”
The absence in the Old Testament of a divine being who

exists alongside Yahweh is evidently of no great concern to
most trinitarians because some of them have borrowed from
Philo, a Jewish philosopher (c. 20 B.C. to A.D. 50), the idea
that the Word (Logos) is a “second god”.
Philo was steeped in Greek philosophy and theosophy, and
used Greek ideas to promote Judaism. He gave special promi-
nence to the Logos (the Word), a concept that is of great
appeal to Gentiles steeped in Greek culture. It was a promi-
nent concept in Greek philosophy as taught by Heraclitus,

Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, and others.
What makes Philo’s Logos useful to trinitarians is that al-
though Philo teaches that the Logos is only an abstract inter-
mediary between God and man, in a few statements he does
call the Logos a “second god”. It is then concluded by
trinitarians that John borrowed the concept of Philo’s Logos
as a “second god,” and applied it to John 1:1 to declare that
Jesus is a second divine person. We now show that the trin-
itarian appropriation of Philo’s Logos is erroneous and
without basis.
Philo does not, as we shall see, regard the Logos as some-
thing on equal standing with God but as an abstract concept
that is distinct from God and subordinate to Him. This is
hardly surprising because Philo is at heart a Jew and a strict
monotheist. Although he uses abstract language to personify
the Logos, he does not actually believe that it is a real person,
but treats it as a philosophical concept. Yet from the frequent
references to Philo by some trinitarians, one might be
forgiven for gaining the (mistaken) impression that Philo is a
Christian! 63
63
The trinitarian use of Philo is noted by New Bible Commentary on
John 1:1: “[The Logos] was widely used in Greek literature, and many
scholars have supposed that its significance for John can be understood
only against such a background … This idea was much more fully dev-
eloped in the writings of Philo of Alexandria.” Note the illuminating
word “only”.
Some trinitarians assume without evidence that John, a

fisherman, knew about Philo’s philosophy; to them the
connection is self-evident and needs no proof. It is further
assumed that because John knew about Philo’s philosophy, he
went on to embrace it and incorporated Philo’s Logos into his
gospel.
The fact is that Philo does not think of the Logos as a real
person but as a religio-philosophical concept. But this does
not deter some trinitarians from appropriating Philo to make
the Logos in John 1:1 a second divine being. They do this
because there is nothing in the Scriptures to support the
existence of a second divine person called “God the Son”.
Philo was a pious Jew who put his own life in

danger
A lot of academic material is available to those who are inter-
ested in Philo and his ideas.64 His philosophical ideas, though
abstract, are actually not hard to explain or to understand.
But because they are, for the most part, not directly relevant
to our study, we now give only a short biography of Philo,
and then mention a few things about his teachings.
64
A readable book on Philo is Kenneth Schenck’s A Brief Guide to
Philo (2005, WJK, 172 pages). More technical is Cambridge Compan-
ion to Philo (ed. A. Kamesar, 2009, Cambridge University Press, 301
pages). For a compilation of Philo’s own writings, see The Works of
Philo (1993, Hendrickson, 944 pages).
Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 B.C. to A.D. 50), also called

Philo Judaeus, was born before Jesus and died after Jesus. He
was a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher who lived in the city of
Alexandria in Egypt. He is noted for his efforts to harmonize
Greek philosophy and Jewish religious teaching, and to com-
bine Plato and Moses into one philosophical system.
Philo was known to the first-century Jewish historian
Josephus who says in Antiquities of the Jews that Philo was
skilled in philosophy. Josephus also says that Philo steadfastly
refused to honor the Roman emperor as god, and publicly
resisted emperor Caligula’s plan to erect a statue of himself in
the Jerusalem temple. In fact Philo was the most visible
spokesman in the Jewish opposition to the statues of Caligula
set up in the synagogues of Alexandria. It was a dangerous
stand for Philo to take because all this turmoil was taking
place at a time when the Romans were crucifying Jews in
Alexandria.
We mention Philo’s bold and public opposition to emper-
or worship to show that Philo was staunchly Jewish in his
religious sensitivities. In fact he was a strict monotheist.
Philo’s Jewish piety is noted by Eusebius of Caesarea (c.
A.D. 263-339), known as the father of church history for his
Ecclesiastical History. He says that Philo is a Jew who is
steeped in the teachings of his forefathers and in the laws and
customs of the Jewish nation. He confirms that Philo calls the
Logos a “second God”.
But Eusebius’ explanation (see Appendix 9 of the present
book) of what Philo means by “second God” is of no help to
trinitarians because it bears no resemblance to the Word in
John 1:1 as understood by trinitarians (that the Word is a

second divine person). To the contrary, Eusebius says that
Philo proposes the “second God” as a means of avoiding a
direct, unmediated connection between the divine and the
human, and the immortal and the mortal, especially in the
teaching that man was created in the image of God. Instead
of being created in the image of God, man is said (by Philo)
to be created indirectly in the image of the “Logos of God”.
That is how Eusebius understands Philo. What about
Philo himself? Does he teach that the Logos or second God is
a divine being? Is his Logos even a real person? The answer to
both questions is no, as can be verified from Philo’s own writ-
ings. We will skip the details and give only a few brief points
in summary. Those who are interested in the details are
referred to Appendix 9.
What Philo really means by Logos (a quick summary)

One of the most accessible books on Philo is Kenneth
Schenck’s A Brief Guide to Philo (2005, WJK), the first
significant introduction to Philo in a quarter of a century.65
Schenck’s book is not a book on religion or Christianity per
se, but on Philo and his philosophical writings, which means
that the book is less likely to be doctrinally motivated to
interpret Philo through the prism of trinitarianism (it has no
65
In the opinion of G.E. Sterling, professor of NT and Christian
Origins, University of Notre Dame, and general editor of the Philo of
Alexandria Commentary.
discussion on trinitarianism beyond a survey of John’s logos in

the chapter, “Philo and Christianity”). Here is a summary of
Schenck’s explanation (pp.58-62) of what Philo means by the
Logos:
• Philo teaches that God is one

• Philo occasionally speaks of the logos as a “second God”
• Philo says that many people mistake his logos for God
• Philo sometimes depicts the logos as God’s reason in
action, and sometimes as a boundary between God and
His creation
• Philo says that the logos is neither created nor uncre-
ated; yet he puts it on the created side of the creation
• Philo does not regard the logos as a person, but as a
hypostasis, though not a personal one.
For the details, see Appendix 9. Philo does not teach that
the logos is a real person. Yet some early binitarians found his
logos useful for their doctrines. Early church leaders who were
steeped in Greek thinking such as Justin Martyr, one of the
foremost interpreters of the logos, readily adopted the concept.
His strongly anti-Semitic statements in his Dialogue with
Trypho show the degree of his departure from the Jewish roots
of his faith. His statements, along with similar ones made by
other early church fathers, hastened the “parting of the ways”
between Jews and Christians.
Scholarship is aware that Philo’s logos is not a

person
The problem with the trinitarian use of Philo’s Logos for
John 1:1 is threefold. First, Philo was a strict Jewish mono-
theist. Second, there is no evidence that John, or even the
scholarly Paul, was aware of Philo, much less had use for his
teaching. Third, although Philo proposes the Logos as an
intermediary between God and man, his Logos is not equal
with God, and is not even a real person. The last point is
noted by The Catholic Encyclopedia; ISBE; and Encyclopedia
Judaica (their statements are given in Appendix 9).
The reader who is interested in Philo’s own statements is
referred again to Appendix 9 of the present book. It contains
numerous citations from The Works of Philo, translated by
C.D. Yonge. Since most readers may wish to skip the appen-
dix, we now quickly mention that the quotations in Appendix
9 are arranged in three sections to show that Philo: (i) believes
in one and only God; (ii) does not believe that the Logos is a
real person; and (iii) depicts the “second God” not as a real
person but as the words, thoughts and intentions emanating
from a divine Being.
Philo’s concept of God is that of a remote transcendent
Being who is inaccessible to man. But the God of the Bible is
just the opposite, for He took the initiative to reach out to
man. Interestingly it was during Philo’s lifetime that God
came into the world to dwell in the man Jesus Christ.
Yahweh’s coming into the world is the message of John’s
Prologue and of the good news of the New Testament.
The Genesis roots of John’s Prologue

It makes no sense to say that John derived his Logos concept
from Greek philosophy via Philo when John had at hand the
biblical concepts of the dibbur and the memra (“word”). John
was inspired by Hebrew Scripture, not Greek philosophy or
theosophy.
The scholar among the apostles was not John 66 but Paul.
If any apostle knew about Philo of Alexandria in Egypt, it
would be Paul, not John. Yet there is not a hint in Paul’s
letters that he knew about Philo or had any use for his philo-
sophy. Moreover, John 1:1 tells us in plain language that the
Word has to do with Genesis 1:1 (“in the beginning”). This is
repeated in the next verse (“this was in the beginning with
God”). In short, John’s Prologue has to do with Genesis 1:1,
not Philo. A.T. Robertson says, “John’s standpoint is that of
the Old Testament and not that of the Stoics nor even of
Philo, who uses the term Logos” (Word Pictures in the New
Testament, John 1:1). Similarly, F.F. Bruce says:
The term logos was familiar in some Greek philosophical
schools … It is not in Greek philosophical usage, however,
that the background of John’s thought and language should
be sought … The true background to John’s thought and
66
Unless we are talking about another John. Because the writer of 2
John and 3 John calls himself “the elder,” some have suggested that the
writer of these letters was a certain “John the Elder” or “John the Pres-
byter” who was a different person from John the apostle. Even if this
were so, we still would not know anything about this John the
Presbyter.
language is found not in Greek philosophy but in Hebrew

revelation. (Gospel of John, p.29)
I n John 1:1-3, we find three unmistakable references to

Genesis 1 (see the words in boldface):
1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God, and the Word was God.
2
He was in the beginning with God.
3
All things were made through him, and without him was not
any thing made that was made. (ESV)
If we, amazingly, had missed these three references to

Genesis, there is yet another in verse 10: “the world was made
through him”. Yahweh in His wisdom knows how to leave us
“without excuse” (Romans 1:20)!
In John’s day there was no chapter/verse numbering sy-
stem for the Bible, for that came much later. How then
would one refer to a passage in Genesis or any other in
Scripture? This was often done by quoting its opening words,
in this case, “In the beginning”. This is explained by a
commentary that sees a Genesis connection in John 1:1:
When hearing the phrase “in the beginning,” any person in
John’s day familiar with the Scriptures would immediately
think of the opening verse of Genesis: “In the beginning
God created the heavens and the earth” … Echoes of the
creation account continue here with allusions to the power-
ful and effective word of God (“And God said, ‘Let there be
light,’ and there was light”). (Zondervan Illustrated Bible
Backgrounds NT Commentary, vol.2, on John 1:1)
In John 1:2 (“He was in the beginning with God”), the

Greek word translated “he” is houtos (“this one”). Hence a
more accurate rendering would be, “This was in the begin-
ning with God,” a meaning preserved in KJV (“The same was
in the beginning with God”) and ITNT (“This word,
expressed in the beginning, belonged to God”). Marshall’s
Greek-English interlinear renders houtos in John 1:2 as “this
one” in the English parallel, as does the Greek-English inter-
linear by Brown and Comfort.
But most Bibles have “he” in v.2 (“He was in the
beginning with God”); this is a trinitarian interpretation that
implies a different person from God the Father. How power-
ful is the influence of a translation on the reader who cannot,
or does not, check the original Greek text!
The Creator in Genesis 1

In Genesis 1, Yahweh created all things through His word. In
this chapter alone, the phrase “and God said” or similar
occurs eleven times. Eight of the instances (vv.3,6,9,11,14,
20,24,26) are declarations of an act of creation in the manner
of, “And God said, Let there be light”. The other three
instances (vv.22,28,29) are ancillary commands given to the
things God had already created, along the lines of, “Be
fruitful and multiply”. Six of the eleven instances conclude
with, “and it was so”.
All eleven refer to God’s acts of creation through the
speaking of His word. What is important is not just the fact
that He spoke, but that His word brought creation into
being.67 This is a concrete and living expression of the Word

of God. Yet the creative power of the Word resides not so
much in the Word as in the One who speaks it. When God
speaks, He sends forth His power by His dynamic and
creative Word that accomplishes His purposes straightaway;
hence the repetition of “and it was so”.
We now see that “Word” is the primary metonym of God
in Genesis 1. A metonym of God points to a specific aspect of
His character, attributes, and works. The description of God
as the Word in John 1:1 (“the Word was God”) highlights
His creative power as displayed in His creation.
It also declares that God has come into the world to dwell
in Jesus Christ in order to establish a new creation consisting
of those who are “born from above” or “born anew” (John
3:3-8). Genesis 1 is about the physical creation, yet it already
gives an intimation of the new creation by pointing to it in
seed or prophetic form. The very last of the eight authorit-
ative declarations of creation relates to the creation of man
(“Let us make man in our image,” v.26), yet it does not con-
clude with the customary “and it was so”. It may be a hint
that God’s work in man hasn’t yet been concluded, for man
hasn’t yet been perfected. This hint is strengthened by fact
that although the phrase “God saw that it was good” occurs
six times in Genesis 1 (vv.4,10,12, 18,21,25), Genesis a-
bruptly stops using it just before it comes to the creation of
67
In eight stages, namely, the creation of: light; an expanse amid the
waters; dry land amid the seas; vegetation; lights for day and night;
birds and marine creatures; land animals; man and woman (though,
strictly speaking, they were “formed” by God).
man in verses 26-28. But after moving past the creation of

man, Genesis reverts to “and it was so”.
The final verse of Genesis 1 concludes the whole creation
account with the observation, “Behold, it was very good,” a
summation of the glorious creation. God will fulfill His pur-
poses for His creation through His appointed Messianic King;
then all things will indeed be “very good”.
The repeated use of “and God said” is an emphatic way of
saying that God created all things by His Word. Thus it is
easy to see why the Word is a metonym of God. The power
of His Word is seen in Psalm 33:8-9: “Let all the earth fear
Yahweh; let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of
him! For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it
stood firm.”
Jaroslav Pelikan, eminent historian of Christian doctrine,
draws a direct link between “the Word” of John 1 and “God
said” of Genesis 1:
These opening words of [John 1] declare the common faith
that Christianity shares with Judaism … The vocable “word”
here translates the Greek noun logos, which comes from the
verb legein, “to say” or “to speak”… But whatever other mean-
ings it may or may not be said to have, “In the beginning the
Word already was” may be read as a summary and paraphrase
of the repetition of the elevenfold “In the beginning God
said” from the first chapter of Genesis. (Whose Bible is It? A
Short History of the Scriptures, p.25)
In the Old Testament, Yahweh is the only Creator

Trinitarian interpretations of John 1:3 are often feats of circu-
lar reasoning: Since Jesus is the Word and the Word is God,
therefore Jesus is the creator of all things (“all things were
made through him”). And since Jesus is the creator of all
things, he is God. One can be caught in this merry-go-round
reasoning without realizing it.
Jesus is not the creator or co-creator of the universe, for
Scripture consistently teaches that Yahweh alone is the creator
of all things. This is seen in many OT passages which give not
the slightest hint that He was assisted in any way by another
person (the following are from ESV unless otherwise indic-
ated, with “Yahweh” in the Hebrew restored):
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and

the earth.
Nehemiah 9:6 You are Yahweh, you alone. You have made
heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth
and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them.
Psalm 8:3 When I look at your heavens, the work of your
fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in
place …
Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God, and the
sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Psalm 102:25 Of old you laid the foundation of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
Isaiah 40:28 Yahweh is the everlasting God, the Creator of

the ends of the earth.
Isaiah 45:12 I made the earth and created man on it; it was
my hands that stretched out the heavens, and I commanded
all their host.
Isaiah 48:12-13 I am he; I am the first, and I am the last. My
hand laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand
spread out the heavens; when I call to them, they stand forth
together.
Isaiah 51:13 Yahweh, your Maker, who stretched out the
heavens and laid the foundations of the earth.
Jeremiah 10:12 It is he (Yahweh, v.10) who made the earth
by his power, who established the world by his wisdom, and
by his understanding stretched out the heavens. (repeated in
51:15)
Jeremiah 27:5 It is I who by my great power and my out-
stretched arm have made the earth, with the men and
animals that are on the earth, and I give it to whomever it
seems right to me.
Jeremiah 32:17 Ah, Lord Yahweh! It is you who have made
the heavens and the earth by your great power and by your
outstretched arm!
Jeremiah 51:19 He is the Maker of all things, including the
people of his inheritance—Yahweh Almighty is his name.
(NIV)
Zechariah 12:1 Thus declares Yahweh, who stretched out the

heavens and founded the earth and formed the spirit of man
within him …
(Also Psalm 136:5-9; 146:5-6; Isaiah 42:5)
These verses show that Yahweh created all things without

help from anyone. This is stated with double emphasis—
“alone” and “by myself”—in the following verse:
Isaiah 44:24 I am Yahweh, who made all things, who alone
stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by my-
self.
In the New Testament, Yahweh is the only Creator

The New Testament continues the Old Testament teaching
that Yahweh is the only Creator. The following NT passages
give no hint that Christ assisted in God’s work of creation (all
verses from ESV unless otherwise noted; note also my com-
ments):
Acts 4:24 When they heard this, they raised their voices
together in prayer to God. “Sovereign Lord,” they said, “you
made the heavens and the earth and the sea, and everything
in them. (NIV)
Comment: In this prayer the people declare that God is the
maker of all things. However they twice speak of “your holy
servant Jesus” (vv.27,30); the word “your” implies that Jesus
is a different person from God who made the heavens and
the earth.
Acts 7:48-50 Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses
made by hands, as the prophet says, “Heaven is my throne,
and the earth is my footstool. What kind of house will you
build for me, says the Lord, or what is the place of my rest?
Did not my hand make all these things?”
Acts 14:15 the living God who made heaven and earth and
the sea and everything in them! (CJB)
Acts 17:24-26 The God who made the world and everything
in it … he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and
everything. And he made from one man every nation of
mankind to live on all the face of the earth.
Comment: The immediate context (v.31) says that God had
appointed a man whom He raised from the dead. Hence
Jesus is a different person from the God who “made the
world and everything in it” (v.24).
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s
invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—
have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been
made, so that people are without excuse. (NIV)
Ephesians 3:9 God who created all things …
Revelation 4:11 Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to re-
ceive glory and honor and power, for you created all things,
and by your will they existed and were created.
Revelation 14:7 … worship him (God) who made heaven
and earth, the sea and the springs of water.
No fewer than four of these texts are from Acts. This is the
book that recounts the going forth of the gospel of salvation
from the center of the spiritual world, Jerusalem, to the center
of the secular world, Rome. In the promulgation of the gospel
it is important to declare who is the God from whom the
gospel proceeds, and who is the God who sends His apostles
into the world to preach it.
That God is the creator of heaven and earth—and every-
thing in them—is His unique “mark of identification”. Trin-
itarians ought to think carefully of what they are doing when
they reassign Yahweh’s mark of identification as Creator to
their preexistent God the Son. In so doing are they not treat-
ing Yahweh with contempt, seeing that according to Scripture
He alone is the creator of all things? His creation reveals His
glory (Romans 1:20), yet trinitarians dare to wrest that glory
from Him and give it to the second person of the Trinity who
does not exist in the Scriptures.
In Romans 1:25, Paul refers in the singular to “the
Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.” This is a doxology
and as we shall see in chapter 7, doxologies are almost always
addressed to Yahweh God.
Jesus also refers to the Creator in the singular: “Have you
not read that He who created them from the beginning made
them male and female?” (Mt.19:4)
John 1:3: “All things were made through him”

Since the Word in John’s Prologue refers to Yahweh, there-
fore John 1:3 (“all things were made through him”) refers to
Yahweh, and with that the case is closed. But trinitarians will
argue that John 1:3 says that all things were made “through
him” rather than “by him,” implying a second person who is
not identical with Yahweh the Creator yet is nonetheless His
agent in the creation. The intention is to say that Jesus is that
second divine person.
We now briefly examine “through him” as applied to Yah-
weh and to Jesus in the New Testament. Those who depend
solely on English translations won’t get the full picture
because the various Bible translations render John 1:3 diff-
erently; some have “through him” and others have “by him”.
To make the matter easy to understand, we look at the
word dia (used in John 1:3) which in Yahweh’s wisdom is
easily recognized even by those who don’t know Greek.
When transliterated into English, this word is dia, which
looks like the word in Greek script, δια! And when we exam-
ine dia (a preposition), we will see that it is sometimes used in
the New Testament of God (Yahweh) as the Creator.
The meaning of a Greek preposition depends on the gram-
matical “case” of the word that follows (often the genitive or
accusative but also the dative). The preposition dia can take
either the genitive or the accusative. In John 1:3, dia
(“through”) is used with the genitive, so we are interested in
the instances of dia+genitive which pertain to the creation.
For reference, here is John 1:3 again, noting the dia+genitive:
John 1:3 All things were made through him (dia+genitive),

and without him was not any thing made that was made.
An important verse for our discussion is Hebrews 2:10

because it has two instances of dia which relate to the creat-
ion, the first with the accusative, the second with the genitive:
Hebrews 2:10 For it was fitting that he (God), for whom
(dia+acc) and by whom (dia+gen) all things exist, in bringing
many sons to glory, should make the founder of their
salvation perfect through suffering. (ESV)
This verse is saying that the God who created all things (“by
whom all things exist”) is also the one who made Jesus perfect
through suffering. This immediately makes Jesus a different
person from God the Creator. This crucial fact, in combin-
ation with the fact that God is mentioned here as the Creator
using the dia+genitive construction as in John 1:3, greatly
weakens the trinitarian assertion that the Word in John 1:3
refers to Jesus. BDAG (dia, B2a) says that dia+genitive in
Hebrews 2:10 “represents God as Creator”.
In Romans 11:36, dia+genitive refers to God as Creator
without mentioning Jesus: “For from him and through him
(dia+genitive) and to him are all things. To him be glory for-
ever. Amen.” The triple “him” refers to Yahweh who is men-
tioned two verses earlier by an allusion to Jer.23:18 and Isa.
40:13, both of which speak of Yahweh. But Jesus is not men-
tioned at all in Romans chapter 11, nor in chapter 12 except
in v.5 in a different context (“we are one body in Christ”).
Nowhere in the NT is the Genesis creation attributed to

Jesus. But trinitarians, having decided ex cathedra (on their
own authority) that the Word in John 1:3 refers to Jesus since
Jesus is the creator of all things, now use this same verse to say
that Jesus created all things! This kind of circular reasoning is
common in the trinitarian literature on John’s Prologue. Yet
it is clear from the above passages that God, the creator of all
things, is a distinct person from Jesus Christ.
Those who wish to research the topic further can examine
the instances of dia+genitive pertaining to God or Jesus
Christ, either exhaustively with the BibleWorks software pro-
gram or by looking up the references listed in BDAG, dia, A.
The investigation will yield three verses highly relevant to our
present discussion (the asterisk denotes the dia+genitive in the
following three verses, all from ESV):
Ephesians 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and
through* all and in all.
1 Corinthians 1:9 God is faithful, by* whom you were called

into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.
Hebrews 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his

Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through*
whom also he created the world. (We will look at this verse
in chapters 4 and 5 of this book)
The first verse speaks of God the Father, not the Son; the
second and the third verses speak of God as being distinct
from “his Son”. Even in the third verse which speaks of the
Son, the creator is still the Father. All this strengthens the fact
that the Word in John 1:3, and hence also in John’s Prologue,
refers to Yahweh and not to Jesus. The plain fact is that the
Word nowhere refers to Jesus in John’s Gospel or the New
Testament.
In the beginning
My earlier book, TOTG, concluded by pointing to the glor-
ious Old Testament message, revealed long ago by Yahweh,
that He Himself will be coming into the world to accomplish
His saving plan for humanity. John’s Gospel begins with a
poem that proclaims this truth.
The poem may have been written originally in Aramaic
which was the common spoken language in Israel until at
least A.D.135. Most NT scholars believe that John’s Gospel
was written in the 90’s of the first century, which would
mean that Aramaic was still current in John’s day.
When the poem was expressed or re-expressed in Greek, its
key word logos (“word”), a concept rooted in Hebrew
religious thought, would be misunderstood by John’s Greek-
speaking and Greek-thinking readers unless it is explained by
the original leaders of the church who were Aramaic-speaking
Jews like the apostle John. By ignoring the Aramaic, scholars
to this day debate fruitlessly over the meaning of the Word in
John 1:1. Trinitarians insist that the Word refers to Jesus even
though there is not an iota of evidence for this identification
in the New Testament.
But even if Jesus is the Logos, his being “in the beginning”
does not prove that he is God. “In the beginning” refers to
the time when the heavens and the earth were created. The
creation account in Genesis appears to have specific reference
to our solar system, not the entire universe. This is not to say
that the universe was not created by God, for undoubtedly it
was. But looking at the Genesis account with its reference to
the sun and the moon, we can be sure that the account is
mainly about the solar system and the creatures in it. There is
no specific mention of stars apart from Genesis 1:16, but even
here it is unlikely that the verse is speaking of the creation of
stars, as noted by some scholars.68 The stars were undoubtedly
created by God, for nothing can come into being apart from
Him. But Genesis 1 and 2 are mainly about the creation of
man and not how the universe as a whole came into being.
In James Ussher’s calculations, the world came into being
some 6,000 years ago, an estimate that he arrived at by
assuming that the world was created in six literal 24-hour
days. Counting back to Adam via the genealogies in the Bible,
he arrived at a figure of just over 6,000 years. For those who
accept his calculations, “in the beginning” was not very long
ago and would hardly prove that Jesus is the eternal God or
the eternal “God the Son” of trinitarianism.
68
UBS Old Testament Handbooks, vol.1, Gen.1:16: “He made the
stars also: the words he made are added by many English translations,
but they are not in the Hebrew.” Another reference says, “Thus v.16 is
not an account of the creation of the sun, moon, and stars on the
fourth day but a remark that draws out the significance of what has
previously been recounted.” (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, abridged,
K.L. Barker and J.R. Kohlenberger III eds., on Genesis 1:16)
The same holds true even if we look at time from a

scientific perspective. There is general consensus among
cosmologists that the universe came into being through the
Big Bang about 13.77 billion years ago.69 This figure is not as
intimidating as it once was, for nowadays we would speak of
financial matters in terms of billions or trillions of dollars.
Even if Jesus existed 13 billion years ago, that still would not
prove his divinity, for God is eternal and infinite: “from ever-
lasting to everlasting you are God” (Ps.90:2). Yahweh is “the
everlasting God” (Gen.21:33; Ps.90:2; Isa.40:28; Jer.10:10).
With Him there is no beginning or end. He is the beginning
and the end of everything, including the universe and all
created beings. It doesn’t take a mathematician to know that
infinity cannot be contained in a number with a finite
number of zeros, not even a trillion trillion zeros.
Where is Yahweh in John’s Prologue?

John’s Prologue is rooted in the Old Testament, not in Greek
philosophy or Philo. But our thinking has been so swayed by
Christocentric trinitarianism that we don’t see Yahweh in the
New Testament. He has vanished from our thinking and line
of sight.
Where does Yahweh appear in John’s Prologue? Since
Jesus is said to be God in trinitarianism, Jesus is the one who
immediately comes to mind when we encounter a name or
69
NASA at http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html. We are
using the American definition of billion: 1,000,000,000.
noun or pronoun in the Prologue, whether it is “Word” or

“life” or “light” or “him” or “his”. In trinitarianism, not even
God the Father of trinitarianism makes an appearance except
in verse 1.
But the opening clause of John’s Prologue, “In the
beginning was the Word,” refers to Yahweh, not only because
the Word is an established metonym of Yahweh but also
because Yahweh “in the beginning” created the heavens and
the earth by Himself. At the Genesis creation, Jesus had not
yet existed, yet all things were created for him, that is, with
him in view.
How many times is God referred to directly or indirectly
in the 18 verses of John’s Prologue? Many people may be
surprised by the preponderance of references to Yahweh in
the Prologue, either directly (“God”) or metonymically
(“Word”) or pronominally (“He”): vv.1,1,1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,6,9,
10,10,10,11,11,11,11,12,12,12,12,13,14,14,18,18,18. There
are more instances than these but we omitted a few because
some readers may count fewer instances than we. But
irrespective of the exact count, these serve to bring home the
point that Yahweh is central to the Prologue. “Jesus Christ” is
named only once, at the end of the Prologue (v.17, “grace
and truth came through Jesus Christ”), whereas John the
Baptist is named twice (vv.6,15).
In the New Testament, “God” (theos) occurs 1,317 times,
not counting the many instances of the divine passive in
which God is the author of an act without being named (e.g.,
Heb.9:28). On the other hand, “Jesus” (’Iēsous) without
“Christ” (Christos) occurs 672 times; “Christ” without “Jesus”
281 times; “Jesus Christ” 135 times; and “Christ Jesus” 95

times; for a total of 1183 times, fewer than the 1,317 in-
stances of “God”. These figures do not include the pronouns
referring to God or instances of the divine passive.
That God is mentioned more often than Jesus in the New
Testament aligns with the fact that God is central to the NT
as also to John’s Prologue. As trinitarians we read the NT as if
Christ is the central figure and God has a less prominent role
than Jesus who is, after all, God! The fact is that Jesus is not
called “God” in the New Testament; hence the elevation of
Jesus to God amounts to idolatry.
The Israelites were deeply inclined towards idolatry. They
had barely left Egypt when they clamored for something to
worship. Aaron obliged them by making a golden calf under
whose image they worshipped the Canaanite god “Baal,” a
word which means “Lord”. Because the Israelites also
addressed Yahweh as “Lord” (Adonai), a situation developed
in Israel in which “Lord” could refer to Yahweh or Baal. The
Israelites in the end didn’t care much which Lord they were
worshipping, and most of them ended up worshipping Baal.
That was the main reason for their exile.
The situation of ancient Israel was later mirrored by the
Gentile church soon after the time of Jesus. Since Yahweh is
called “Lord” and Jesus is called “Lord,” Yahweh was soon
replaced by Jesus in the church, and almost no one noticed
that anything had happened! The church now has a tripartite
God, the Trinity, ensuring that there is no room in this
“Godhead” for the real Yahweh. The “church of God” (a
term which occurs nine times in the New Testament) had
been commandeered by the bishops of Rome, Alexandria,

Antioch, and other cities in the Roman Empire, with the
emperor, starting from Constantine, as the general overseer.
The herald in the Prologue

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He
came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all
might believe through him. He was not the light, but came
to bear witness about the light. (John 1:6-8, ESV)
Why is John the Baptist given so much prominence in the

Prologue when his place in the four gospels as a whole does
not have similar prominence? It is because he is none other
than the herald of Yahweh’s coming! This was foretold by
Isaiah:
A voice cries, “Prepare in the desert a way for Yahweh. Make
a straight highway for our God across the wastelands. Let
every valley be filled in, every mountain and hill be levelled,
every cliff become a plateau, every escarpment a plain; then
the glory of Yahweh will be revealed and all humanity will see
it together, for the mouth of Yahweh has spoken.” (Isaiah
40:3-5, NJB)
This passages mentions “Yahweh” three times. A voice

cries out to proclaim His coming. It also proclaims “the glory
of Yahweh” which in John’s Prologue is the “glory” (Jn.1:14)
that shines forth in Jesus Christ.
John the Baptist confirms that he is the herald spoken of

by Isaiah: “I am the voice of one crying out in the wilderness,
‘Make straight the way of the Lord (Yahweh),’ as the prophet
Isaiah said.” (John 1:23)
All four gospels quote Isaiah 40:3 (Mt.3:3; Mk.1:3;
Lk.3:4; Jn.1:23) and are united in declaring that Isaiah’s pro-
phecy was fulfilled by Yahweh’s coming into the world in
Christ. This is a most astonishing event for those who have
eyes to see and ears to hear.
John 1:14
The Word became flesh and tabernacled among us

The Word is mentioned in verses 1 and 2 of John’s Prologue,
but is not mentioned again until verse 14:
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we
have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father,
full of grace and truth. (John 1:14, ESV)
John’s Prologue culminates in the statement, “And the Word

became flesh”. This is poetic language and is not meant to be
taken literally to mean that God changed into flesh, 70 but
that He came into the world “embodied” in Jesus the Messiah
(cf. Col.2:9, “in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bod-
70
In an earlier section titled, “The spiritual meaning of the Word,”
we briefly looked at the meaning of the Greek word ginomai, translated
“became” in John 1:14 (“And the Word became flesh”).
ily”). Indeed, the language of “dwell” comes out in the Greek

of John 1:14, in the words “dwelt among us”. Here “dwelt” is
literally “tabernacled”; hence John is saying, “And the Word
became flesh and tabernacled among us”.
In English, tabernacle is a noun, not a verb, but the Greek
language has a verb form of “tabernacle”: skēnoō (to
tabernacle), which is the verbal cognate of the noun skēnē (a
tabernacle). BDAG says that the noun skēnē is used in the
LXX of “Yahweh’s tabernacle” and “the Tabernacle or Tent
of Testimony”. BDAG also says that the verb skēnoō in John
1:14 is “perhaps an expression of continuity with God’s
‘tenting’ in Israel”. Scripture elsewhere says that Jesus is the
temple of God (Jn.2:19), as are those who are in Christ
(1Cor.3:16).
The following verses in Revelation are helpful for bringing
out the meaning of “tabernacle,” both the verb and the noun,
albeit in a different context from John 1:14. The words in
italics correspond either to the Greek naos (a temple) or skēnē
(a tabernacle) or skēnoō (to tabernacle):
Revelation 7:15 Therefore they are before the throne of God,
and serve him day and night in his temple; and he who sits
on the throne will shelter them with his presence. (ESV)
Revelation 12:12 Therefore, rejoice, O heavens and you who

dwell in them! (ESV)
Revelation 21:3 Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men,

and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people,
and God Himself will be among them. (NASB)
Once we see that it was Yahweh Himself and not the

second person of the Trinity who “became flesh and taber-
nacled among us” (Jn.1:14)—similar to Yahweh’s declaration,
“My tabernacle that is among them” (Lev.15:31)—we will see
Yahweh’s glorious indwelling presence in the man Christ
Jesus through whom Yahweh worked and spoke. The right
way of understanding the power in Jesus’ words and deeds,
including his miracles, is to see God’s presence in him. Indeed
these mighty miracles were done by God “through” Jesus
(Acts 2:22). There is no need to resort to what we were doing
before, attributing Jesus’ God-empowered activities to Jesus’
own alleged divinity as God the Son. That was the way we
used to assert that Jesus is God, disregarding John’s intention
that through his gospel we may believe that Jesus is “the
Messiah, the Son of God” (Jn.20:31) rather than God the
Son.
Yahweh came into the world to dwell in flesh, that is,
bodily, in order to reconcile the world to Himself in Christ
(2Cor.5:19). John’s Gospel is a proclamation of Yahweh’s
saving activity in Christ. Jesus plainly said that it was his
Father, Yahweh, who worked and spoke through him, but we
trinitarians were stone-deaf to this plain statement. If it were
not for God’s mercy, we would have no hope of seeing the
truth.
We have seen his glory

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we
have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father,
full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)
The glory mentioned here is God’s glory and presence in

Jesus Christ, and is explained by Paul as “the glory of God in
the face of Jesus Christ” (2Cor. 4:6). The glory in John 1:14
is related to the light mentioned a few verses earlier in John’s
Prologue, in verses 4 and 5: “in him was life, and the life was
the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the
darkness has not overcome it.” This in turn links to Gen.1:3
(“let there be light”), returning to Genesis once again!
Not only is light linked to glory, it is linked to life (“the
life was the light of men”), as seen also in the following OT
verses (all from ESV):
Job 33:28 He has redeemed my soul from going down into
the pit, and my life shall look upon the light.
Job 33:30 to bring back his soul from the pit, that he may be
lighted with the light of life.
Psalm 36:9 For with you is the fountain of life; in your light
do we see light.
Psalm 56:13 For you have delivered my soul from death, yes,
my feet from falling, that I may walk before God in the light
of life.
The words “light of life” in two of these verses are quoted

by Jesus: “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me
will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” (Jn.
8:12) In the Genesis creation, God is the giver of life to His
creatures (cf. John 1:4, “In Him was life”).
John’s Prologue mentions “light” again in v.9: “The true
light that gives light to every man was coming into the
world”. Yahweh, the One coming into the world, is identified
as the true light. The picture of Yahweh as light is seen in
many Old Testament verses: Ps.27:1 (“Yahweh is my light
and my salvation”); Ps.84:11 (“Yahweh is a sun and shield”);
Isa.2:5 (“let us walk in Yahweh’s light”); Isa.60:1 (“your light
has come, and the glory of Yahweh has risen upon you”); Isa.
60:19 (“Yahweh will be your everlasting light”). Since God’s
fullness dwells in Jesus, it follows that God’s light will shine
through Jesus:
And the city (New Jerusalem) has no need of sun or moon to
shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is
the Lamb. (Rev. 21:23 ESV, also Rev.22:5)
God is the light whereas Jesus is the lamp, confirming that

the Word in John 1:1 is Yahweh in the first instance and not
Jesus.
At the transfiguration of Jesus (Mt.17:1-9; Mk.9:2-9;
Lk.9:28-36), God’s glory shone through Jesus in a way that
was visible to the three disciples who were with him, Peter,
James and John. Years later, Peter recalls this event, noting
that Jesus’ glory was something that Jesus had “received” from
God the Father, who is called the Majestic Glory:
… we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. He received honor

and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him
from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I
love; with him I am well pleased.” We ourselves heard this
voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the
sacred mountain. (2Peter 1:16-18, NIV)
John almost certainly referred to this manifestation of glory,

of which he was an eyewitness, when he said in John 1:14,
“We have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the
Father, full of grace and truth”.
John 1:18: The only Son or

the only begotten God?
ESV and HCSB, two modern Bibles first published at around

the same time, give conflicting translations of John 1:18:
ESV: No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the
Father’s side, he has made him known.
HCSB: No one has ever seen God. The One and Only Son—
the One who is at the Father’s side—He has revealed Him.
Which is correct? ESV has “the only God,” a trinitarian ren-

dering which makes Jesus the only God, whereas HCSB has
“the One and Only Son,” a non-trinitarian rendering which
makes Jesus the Son of God. These two renderings represent
two main camps. One camp includes HCSB, CJB, KJV,
NJB, RSV, REB, which prefer “the only Son” or variations
such as “the one and only Son”. The other camp includes
ESV, NASB, NIV, NET, which prefer “the only God” or
variations such as “the only begotten God”.
These in turn represent two opinions on which Greek
text-type is to be used for translating this verse: the Byzantine
versus the Alexandrian. The “only Son” rendering is based on
the Byzantine text-type (popularly known as the Majority
Text), which is the text-type with the widest attestation (sup-
port) among all known Greek manuscripts. On the other
hand, the “only God” rendering is largely based on the
Alexandrian text-type which is represented by manuscripts

which, though fewer, are generally of an earlier date and are
given more weight in UBS5 and NA28.
The criterion of early date is reasonable but does not by
itself take into sufficient account the fact that even early
manuscripts can have errors (e.g., a misunderstanding of the
Aramaic, as we shall see). Careful NT exegesis takes into con-
sideration both the Majority Text and the UBS5/NA28
critical text, so it is not a matter of choosing the one to the
exclusion of the other.
Among Bibles with the “only God” rendering, there is
further differentiation between “the only God” and “the only
begotten God” as seen in ESV versus NASB (italics added):
ESV No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the
Father’s side, he has made him known.
NASB No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten
God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained
Him.
ESV’s rendering is problematic in terms of logic and theo-

logy. What sense do we make of “the only God”? If Jesus is
the only God, then Jesus must be invisible in some sense, for
the same verse says that “no one has ever seen God”. Even
worse, if Jesus is the only God, that would exclude the Father
as God, a conclusion which would be blasphemous even to
trinitarians; it would also contradict John 17:3 which says
that the Father is the only true God. NIV 1984 matches ESV
in absurdity: “No one has ever seen God, but God the One
and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.”
The next two or three paragraphs are slightly technical, so

some readers may wish to skip them and jump to the next
section, “The internal evidence”
The Greek New Testament which underlies the “only

begotten God” rendering is the Novum Testamentum Graece
(NA27/NA28) and the United Bible Societies Greek NT
(UBS4/UBS5). The companion volume to UBS4, A Textual
Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd edition),
explains on pp.169-170 that manuscripts P66 and P75 are what
influenced the “majority” of the UBS editorial committee of
five scholars to prefer “the only begotten God”. But one of
the five, Allen Wikgren, a distinguished Greek and NT
textual expert, registered his objection to the committee’s de-
cision in a note that is included in the commentary in which
he says that monogenēs theos (the only begotten God) “may be
a primitive (early) transcriptional error in the Alexandrian
tradition”; this is the tradition which asserted Jesus’ deity and
triumphed at Nicaea. Wikgren adds, “At least a D decision
would be preferable.” When a text in UBS4 is classified as
{D}, it means that “there is a very high degree of doubt
concerning the reading selected for the text”. In UBS4/5, the
actual classification is {B}, expressing the view that the textual
evidence is in favor of monogenēs theos (the only begotten
God), though not overwhelmingly so.
Another committee member, Matthew Black, in his book

An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, cites with appro-
val another Aramaic scholar’s assessment that:
… one of Burney’s most valuable observations of this kind [a
misreading of the Aramaic] is that the disputed monogenēs
theos in John 1:18 mistranslates yehidh ‘elaha, “the only-
begotten of God” (p.11).
In other words, “the only begotten of God” was misunder-

stood as “the only begotten God”! It is alarming that the de-
cision of a “majority” of the five-member committee resulted
in millions of copies of the Bible being printed with “the only
begotten God” rather than “the only begotten Son”. Most
readers don’t know the truth behind this reading.
The internal evidence

Here is the situation so far: The manuscript evidence for John
1:18 is divided between “the only begotten Son” and “the
only begotten God”. This is mirrored by a lack of consensus
even within the UBS committee—hence the {B} level of un-
certainty for “the only begotten God”—but also by the diver-
gence among mainstream Bibles, some of which prefer the
trinitarian reading (ESV, NASB, NIV, NET) and others the
non-trinitarian (HCSB, CJB, KJV, NJB, RSV, REB). Hence
the textual evidence does not, by itself, settle the issue. So
what about the internal evidence?
In the New Testament, monogenēs (which means “only

begotten” or “only” or “unique”) is used of Jesus only in
John’s writings. Interestingly, the five instances of monogenēs
in John’s writings all refer to Jesus. The following are the four
verses in the NT outside John 1:18 in which monogenēs is
applied to Jesus (all verses are from NASB):
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us,
and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from
the Father, full of grace and truth.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that He gave His only
begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish,
but have eternal life.
John 3:18 He who believes in Him is not judged; he who

does not believe has been judged already, because he has not
believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
1 John 4:9 By this the love of God was manifested in us, that
God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that
we might live through Him.
A few observations:
• Of these four verses, the last three have the word “Son”
(huios in Greek) in the phrase “only begotten Son”.
Hence, outside John’s Prologue, whenever monogenēs is
used of Jesus, it always refers to the only begotten Son,
never to the only begotten God.
• One of the verses, John 1:14, has neither the word

“Son” nor “God”. In this sense it constitutes “neutral”
evidence for deciding between “the only begotten Son”
and “the only begotten God”.
• If we take John 1:18 to mean “the only begotten God”
(the trinitarian reading), we run into the problem that
this verse contradicts the other verses which speak of
“the only begotten Son”. The fact is that “the only
begotten God” appears nowhere in the NT outside the
debated John 1:18. Why would John be inconsistent
with himself, using “the only begotten Son” consist-
ently except in John 1:18? If we detach John 1:18 from
the rest of John’s writings by making it say “the only
begotten God,” it would be left without parallel any-
where in John’s Gospel or the NT.
• But if we take John 1:18 to say “the only begotten
Son,” all five verses would harmonize.
• Of the five verses, John 1:18 is the only one which has
significant textual issues. The other four have no textual
issues and are, in fact, given zero comment in UBS5’s
critical apparatus.
Of course one could argue as a principle of textual criti-

cism that since “the only begotten God” is the more difficult
reading than “the only begotten Son,” it is more likely that
the former was changed to the latter in order to smooth out
this difficulty. Perhaps so, but this overlooks the fact that the
textual issues surrounding John 1:18 are not doctrinally neu-
tral, unlike the situation with most other verses with textual
issues such as the verse just after it, John 1:19 (“the Jews sent
priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him”).
The issue of doctrinal influence is crucial because the pro-
cess of deifying Jesus started before A.D. 200. If indeed “the
only begotten God” was the established reading in the early
manuscripts of around A.D. 200, wouldn’t it be quickly
adopted by the Gentile church leaders who by that time were
already elevating Jesus to deity? Yet the fact remains that the
majority of NT texts have the “only begotten Son”.
That is why Allen Wikgren, whom we have quoted, says
that the “only begotten God” reading may be an early “trans-
criptional error in the Alexandrian tradition,” that is, the
result of trinitarian influences in the early church.
James F. McGrath, in The Only True God: Early Christian
Monotheism in Its Jewish Context, makes some striking com-
ments on John 1:18, including the observation that manu-
scripts P66 and P75 (regarded by some as tipping the balance in
favor of the “only begotten God” reading) contain evidence of
trinitarian tampering. Both manuscripts delete the word
“God” from John 5:44 to avoid saying that the Father is “the
only God,” thereby hoping to include Jesus as God. P66 adds
“the” to “God” in John 10:33 to make Jesus call himself “the
God” rather than “God” in the sense of Psalm 82:6. Here is
an excerpt from McGrath’s book (p.65, his footnotes
omitted):
The attestation of two early Alexandrian papyrus manuscripts

of the Gospel, known as P66 and P75, is frequently given more
weight than it deserves. P75 is indeed a very early text, but it
frequently gives a reading which is generally accepted to be
inferior, and in a few instances shows signs of conscious add-
itions or alterations having been made. Also significant is the
agreement of these two manuscripts in omitting the word
God in John 5:44, which almost all scholars agree was part of
the original text. Beasley-Murray regards this as accidental,
but it may equally be the case that the scribes who copied
these manuscripts had difficulty referring to the Father as the
only God, since the Logos can also be spoken of as “God.”
Also significant is that P66* adds the definite article before the
word “God” in John 10:33. There are thus indications that
the copyists of these manuscripts had a particular theological
view which their transcription reflects. Both of these manu-
scripts preserve inferior readings in abundance, and although
their combined weight needs to be taken very seriously, it is
not conclusive, as indicated by the general agreement that
“only God” is the original reading in the instance just cited
(John 5:44).
Philip Wesley Comfort, in his ardently trinitarian textual

commentary, A Commentary of the Manuscripts and Text of the
New Testament, says on p.248 that “the only begotten God”
is the probable reading for John 1:18 for the reason that it
would align with the rest of John’s Prologue in upholding the
deity of Christ and is a fitting conclusion to the Prologue and
a mirror of John 1:1. But this argument is unconvincing be-
cause it could just as well argue for the opposite by exposing
an obvious trinitarian motive for giving John 1:18 a trinitar-
ian reading, a factor that carries weight because of the rising

deification of Jesus in the early church.
Bart D. Ehrman (Misquoting Jesus, p.162) argues that
“unique Son” is more likely than “unique God” to be the
original for the reason that altering “unique Son” into
“unique God” can be plausibly accounted for by the preser-
vation of unique in both. The point is that if a scribe had
changed the unproblematic “unique Son” to the problematic
“unique God” (problematic because if Jesus is unique God,
the Father would be excluded as God), then by failing to
remove the associated word unique, the scribe exposes his own
alteration and defeats his own efforts.
In the final analysis, irrespective of what may be the
external or internal evidence, the overall result is that Bibles
such as CJB, KJV, HCSB, NJB, RSV, and REB, despite their
trinitarian leanings to one degree or another, have chosen to
interpret John 1:18 in a non-trinitarian way. By contrast,
ESV gives John 1:18 a trinitarian rendering despite the
immense difficulties that it creates. It makes John contradict
himself and implies that Jesus is “the only God” to the
exclusion of God the Father.
Thayer’s Greek-English lexicon (on monogenēs) rejects the
“only begotten God” reading for John 1:18 because it is in-
congruous with John’s speech and way of thinking, and may
have been doctrinally motivated:
The reading monogenēs theos (without the article before
monogenēs) in John 1:18, which is supported by no inconsid-
erable weight of ancient testimony … is foreign to John’s
mode of thought and speech (John 3:16,18; 1John 4:9),

dissonant and harsh—appears to owe its origin to a dogmatic
zeal which broke out soon after the early days of the church.
(Greek transliterated)
John 1:18: Only Son or unique Son?

Whereas KJV has “the only begotten Son” for John 1:18,
many translations omit “begotten” because scholars are aware
that monogenēs simply means “only” or “unique”. When
monogenēs is used of a son, it simply means an only son or a
unique son without the word “begotten”. “Begotten” is an
archaic English word for “born”; an “only born son” is simply
an “only son”.
The application of monogenēs is not limited to Jesus. It is
used of Isaac the only son of Abraham (Heb.11:17); of a
widow’s only son who died and was raised from the dead
(Lk.7:12); and of the only son of a man (Lk.9:38). It is also
used of female offspring, e.g., Jairus’ only daughter (Lk.8:42).
In the NT, monogenēs is used of Jesus only in John’s
writings (Jn.1:14, 18; 3:16,18; 1Jn.4:9). BDAG gives two
definitions of monogenēs:
1. pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a

specific relationship, one and only, only
2. pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class,
unique (in kind) of something that is the only example of its
category
In short, BDAG gives two basic definitions of monogenēs:

only versus unique. The glosses (BDAG’s summary definitions
shown in italics) nowhere contain the word “son” or “born,”
though many of BDAG’s citations for the first definition have
to do with human offspring.
The word monogenēs consists of two parts: the first part,
mono, is easily recognized as the first part of mono + theism
(“one and only” + God); the second part comes from a Greek
word for “born” (or “begotten,” in archaic English). From
BDAG’s explanation of monogenēs, it is clear that the meaning
of this word stems mainly from the first part (mono) rather
than the second part.
Which then is the more accurate rendering of John 1:18,
“only Son” or “unique Son”? 71 Since both renderings are
lexically valid, the question of which is the intended meaning
can only be answered by seeing which fits the New Testament
data better.
Whereas most translations prefer “only Son” when mono-
genēs refers to Jesus, BDAG allows for “unique Son”. BDAG
notes that in John’s writings, monogenēs huios is used only of
Jesus; it then says that in all such instances, “the renderings
only, unique may be quite adequate for all its occurrences
here.” In other words, for the term monogenēs huios, BDAG
allows for both “only son” and “unique son” in all instances.
71
The Complete Jewish Bible incorporates both: “only and unique
Son”.
But if we choose “only Son” for John 1:18, we run into a

problem with the word “only” because in the Bible, the title
“son of God” is applied not only to Jesus but to many categ-
ories of beings as noted by many scholars.72 It means that
Jesus is not literally the “only” son of God. In fact the plural
“sons of God” appears in both the Old and New Testaments
(Job 1:6; Mt. 5:9; Gal.3:26). The fact that Jesus is called the
“firstborn” (Rom.8:29; Col.1:15, 18; Rev.1:5) already indi-
cates that he is not the only son. In God’s eternal plan, Jesus
is to be “the firstborn among many brothers” (Rom.8:29). In
fact, Jesus speaks of his disciples as his “brothers” (Mt.25:40;
28:10; Jn.20:17). That is because Jesus and his believers be-
long to the same family: “Both the one who makes men holy
and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus
is not ashamed to call them brothers” (Heb.2:11, NIV 1984).
What is beautiful about this verse is that Jesus, who is holy by
reason of his perfection, is not ashamed to accept as his bro-
thers those who have not (yet) attained to perfection. There is
no self-righteousness in him.
Adam is called “the son of God” (Lk.3:38) as are all be-
lievers (Mt.5:9; Gal.3:26). The sons of God are those who cry
out to God, “Abba, Father”; they are fellow heirs with Christ
(Rom.8:14-17).
72
Westminster Theological Wordbook of the Bible, article “Son of
God,” says that “son of God” or “sons of God” applies to the following
categories of beings or entities: Israelites; Israel as a whole; God’s peo-
ple; Zion’s king; David’s offspring; the righteous man; heavenly beings;
and finally Jesus Christ.
From the New Testament data, many are called sons of

God, so Jesus is not literally the “only” son of God. Hence
reading John 1:18 as “the only Son” would leave us in an
exegetical quandary. But the problem disappears as soon as we
take monogenēs in John 1:18 to mean “unique,” a definition
that in any case is lexically possible. It means that John would
be bringing out the uniqueness of Jesus as Yahweh’s “one and
only Son” by virtue of his being, for example, the one and
only perfect man. Though there are many sons of God, Jesus
is the unique Son of God. This makes perfect sense and
harmonizes with the New Testament.
T he following excerpts from three standard references

explain monogenēs in a way that brings out Jesus’ unique-
ness as Son of God.
Monogenēs is literally “one of a kind,” “only,” “unique”
(unicus), not “only-begotten,” which would be μονογέννητος
(unigenitus), and is common in the LXX in this sense (e.g.,
Judg 11:34; Ps 21(22):21; 24(25):16). It is similarly used in
the NT of “only” sons and daughters (Lk 7:12, 8:42, 9:38),
and is so applied in a special sense to Christ in Jn 1:14,18;
3:16,18; 1Jn 4:9, where the emphasis is on the thought that,
as the “only” Son of God, He has no equal and is able fully to
reveal the Father.’ (Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary of the
NT, monogenēs)
Monogenēs, pertaining to what is unique in the sense of being

the only one of the same kind or class—“unique, only.” τὸν
υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν “he gave his only Son” Jn 3:16… “he
who had received the promises presented his only son” or
“…was ready to offer his only son” He 11:17. Abraham, of

course, did have another son, Ishmael, and later sons by
Keturah, but Isaac was a unique son in that he was a son born
as the result of certain promises made by God. Accordingly, he
could be called a μονογενής son, since he was the only one of
his kind. (Louw-Nida Lexicon of the NT Based on Semantic
Domains; monogenēs, 58.52, emphasis added)
[“Begotten” is] used especially of God’s act in making Christ

His Son: “Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee”
(Ps 2:7) quoted in Acts 13:33 in reference to His resurrection
(compare Rom 1:4). The same passage is cited (Heb 1:5) as
proving Christ’s filial dignity, transcending the angels in that
“he hath inherited a more excellent name than they,” i.e. the
name of son; and again (Heb 5:5) of God conferring upon
Christ the glory of the priestly office. (T. Rees in ISBE, article
“Begotten,” italics added)
The last of these excerpts reminds us that the New Testament

application of “begotten” and “son” to Jesus Christ is rooted
in Psalm 2:7, a verse in which God declares the promised
Messiah to be His Son, the one who will rule over Israel and
all nations (vv.8-10). The declaration “You are my Son; today
I have begotten you” in Psalm 2:7 is quoted in Acts 13:33
and in Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5. But even where Psalm 2:7 is not
quoted explicitly, the concepts of “begotten” and “son” when
applied to Christ are implicitly derived from Psalm 2:7.
John appends “unique” or “only” to “son” in the case of
Jesus in order to bring out his uniqueness. That is because in
John’s Gospel, believers are also called sons of God for the
reason that they are “not of the world” (Jn.15:19; 17:16) but
are “born from above”. The rendering “born from above” for
John 3:3,7 in NJB, NRSV, CJB, ITNT 73 is correct since anō-
then means “from above” according to BDAG and Thayer.
The words “from above” are parallel to “from heaven” (John
3:31). But whereas the title “son of God” applies to Jesus and
believers, only Jesus the unique Son is the Messiah.74
73
ITNT refers to Idiomatic Translation of the New Testament, by Dr.
William G. MacDonald, author of The Greek Enchiridion.
74
For a balanced study of Paul’s concept of the Messiah, see The
Jewish Messiahs, the Pauline Christ, and the Gentile Question, Matthew
V. Novenson, pp.357–373, Journal of Biblical Literature, vol.128,
no.2, 2009.
Is Wisdom in Proverbs 8 to be
identified with Christ?
Some trinitarians equate “wisdom” in Proverbs 8 with Christ,

just as they equate the Word in John 1 with Christ. The
theme of Proverbs 8 is wisdom, which is depicted as a princi-
ple of godliness but is famously personified as the wisdom
who speaks in the first person (e.g., “I, wisdom, dwell with
prudence, and I find knowledge and discretion,” v.12). Most
significantly, wisdom is said to be present with Yahweh before
and during the creation of the universe. Note the words in
boldface, especially in v.30:
22
The Lord (lit. “Yahweh”) possessed me at the beginning of
his work, the first of his acts of old. 23 Ages ago I was set up,
at the first, before the beginning of the earth.
24
When there were no depths I was brought forth, when
there were no springs abounding with water.
25
Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I
was brought forth, 26 before he had made the earth with its
fields, or the first of the dust of the world.
27
When he established the heavens, I was there; when he drew
a circle on the face of the deep, 28 when he made firm the
skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep, 29
when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might
not transgress his command, when he marked out the found-
ations of the earth,
30
then I was beside him, like a master workman, and I was
daily his delight, rejoicing before him always, 31 rejoicing in
his inhabited world and delighting in the children of man.
(Proverbs 8:22-31, ESV)
Just as trinitarians identify the Logos with Christ, so they

identify the personified wisdom of Proverbs 8 with the
preexistent Christ. But some trinitarians disagree with this
identification, and for a specific reason. One of them says:
“Many have equated wisdom in this chapter with Jesus
Christ … But because wisdom appears to be a creation of
God in 8:22-31, it is unlikely that wisdom here is Jesus
Christ.” 75 This explanation is notable for the reason given for
rejecting the identification of wisdom with Christ, namely,
that wisdom in Proverbs 8 “appears to be a creation of God”
—and trinitarianism would never accept the idea that Christ
was created!
A careful reading of Proverbs 8 shows that wisdom (which
incidentally is feminine in both Hebrew and Greek) is never
directly involved in the work of creation. It is only Yahweh
who creates. Wisdom is only a firsthand witness who was
present with Yahweh at the creation, delighting and rejoicing
in Yahweh’s work. In v.30 of some Bibles (ESV, RSV,
NASB), wisdom is described as a “master workman,” but
some other Bibles (NIV, CJB, KJV) omit these words because
75
Allen P. Ross, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol.5, p.943,
cited in Dr. Constable’s Expository Notes, 2010, on Proverbs 8.
the Hebrew text doesn’t allow them, according to some

scholars. 76
In Proverbs 8, wisdom speaks in the first person, but it
doesn’t mean that wisdom is a separate person from Yahweh.
Wisdom is just one of His attributes and is not a separate per-
son from God. Likewise, wisdom and understanding in Prov.
3:19 are not separate persons from God: “Yahweh by wisdom
founded the earth; by understanding He established the
heavens”.
The trinitarian identification of wisdom with the preexist-
ent Christ is negated by the fact that wisdom in Proverbs 8
was created by Yahweh. The United Bible Societies OT
Handbooks, a series which deals with issues of Bible transla-
tion rather than theology, concludes on the basis of Proverbs
8:22 that wisdom was created, and recommends that this fact
should be reflected in Bible translations:
Wisdom is not engaged in an independent creative act and,
aside from the Lord as creator, Wisdom has no independent
existence. In verse 22 it is the Lord who creates Wisdom.
(UBS OT Handbooks, Prov.8:22)
76
ISBE, article “Wisdom,” explains why “master workman” may be
incorrect: ‘The most famous passage is Prov 8:22-31, however. The
Wisdom that is so useful to man was created before man, before,
indeed, the creation of the world. When the world was formed she was
in her childhood; and while God formed the world she engaged in
childish play, under His shelter and to His delight. So Prov 8:30
should be rendered (as the context makes clear that ’mwn should be
pointed ’amun) “sheltered,” and not ’amon, “as a master-workman.”’
The following are four renderings of Proverbs 8:22, the verse

which according to UBS Handbooks speaks of the creation of
wisdom (italics added):
ESV: The LORD possessed me at the beginning of his work, the
first of his acts of old.
CJB: ADONAI made me as the beginning of his way, the first
of his ancient works.
NIV: The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works,
before his deeds of old.
RSV: The LORD created me at the beginning of his work, the
first of his acts of old.
There are significant differences between the four versions,

notably in the words highlighted in italics. ESV expresses the
trinitarian position by not portraying wisdom as something
created. But the other three versions all say explicitly or im-
plicitly that wisdom was created: “made me” (CJB); “brought
me forth” (NIV); “created me” (RSV). The Septuagint
explicitly says, “the Lord created me”.
Whether we take Proverbs 8:22 to say that Yahweh “poss-
essed” wisdom (ESV) or “created” wisdom (RSV, LXX), are
we saying that God had no wisdom until He brought it into
existence? That cannot be, for wisdom is an inalienable part
of God. It would be absurd to suggest that the first thing God
had to do was to acquire wisdom, for this would imply that
He had no prior wisdom. Paul speaks of God as “the only
wise God” (Romans 16:27).
But read poetically, Proverbs 8 is not a problem, and was

not a problem to the Jews. The problems were created later
by Christians, beginning from the middle of the second
century, who applied to Proverbs 8 the poetic device of
personifying wisdom (similar to the personification of love in
1Cor.13:4, “love does not envy or boast”)—and then made
wisdom into a real person.
We easily fail to see what is so perceptively stated by ISBE
in the article “Wisdom”: “And Wisdom is a quality of man
(Prov 8:31-36), not a quality of God.” ISBE is not saying that
God has no wisdom but that the purpose of Proverbs is to
teach wisdom to those who seek it. Proverbs is an instruction
manual. As a book of instruction, it is like the “Torah,” a
word which is usually translated “Law” but which means
“instruction” or “teaching”. In Proverbs, wisdom is practical
and spiritual in its guidance for daily living.
The principle of wisdom in Proverbs finds full expression
in the life, the person, and the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Wisdom is an essential element of his perfection. One could
say that Jesus is the embodiment of wisdom, though in New
Testament he is not explicitly identified with wisdom.77
Jesus is said to have wisdom (Mt.13:54; Mk.6:2;
Lk.2:40,52); to impart wisdom (Lk.21:15); to possess wisdom
as hidden treasure (Col.2:3); and to be ascribed wisdom
77
In the NT, wisdom is personified only in Mt.11:19 (“yet wisdom
is justified by her deeds”) and Lk.7:35 (“yet wisdom is justified by all
her children”).
(Rev.5:12). Christ is spoken of as the wisdom of God

(1Cor.1:24,30).
Chapter 4
The Second Pillar of

Trinitarianism:
Colossians 1:15-19
S ome years ago, while training students preparing for the

full-time church ministry, I would call Colossians 1:15-19
the second pillar of trinitarianism because it is one of the
main Bible passages used by trinitarians to prove the deity of
Jesus, notably verse 16 which is interpreted as saying that
Jesus is the creator of all things and is therefore God. But this
interpretation is not supported by the biblical evidence, as we
shall see.
We will look at verse 16, then verse 17, then verses 15 and
18 together (because of their common use of “firstborn”),
then verse 19. Here is the passage which constitutes the
second pillar of trinitarianism (note v.16, in bold):
Colossians 1:15-19 15
He is the image of the invisible God, the
firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in
heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or
dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created
through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in
him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the
body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the
dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19 For in
him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell. (ESV)
Which is correct, “in him” or “by him”?

For trinitarians, the key verse in this passage is verse 16 which
in some Bibles has, “For by him all things were created,” but
in some other Bibles has, “For in him all things were created”.
These two renderings are identical except for the difference of
one word—“by” versus “in”—a tiny difference which carries
immense implications for trinitarianism. Which translation is
correct?
The first word in verse 16 is hoti, a Greek word that means
“for” or “since” or “because”. It is a connecting word that
links this verse to the preceding verse (v.15) which speaks of
Jesus as the “firstborn of all creation”.
But the key term for trinitarians in verse 16 is en autō,
literally “in him” (“for in him all things were created,” refer-
ring to Christ). This is correctly and literally translated as “in
him” by NIV, NJB, RSV, NRSV, REB, and incorrectly as
“by him” in ESV, NASB, HCSB.
Chapter 4 — The Second Pillar of Trinitarianism 243
Two points to mention here. Firstly, NIV 1984 had the

incorrect translation “by him” but in the 2011 edition, this
has been corrected to “in him”.
Secondly, although ESV, NASB, HCSB render en autō in
v.16 as “by him” in order to make Paul say that all things
were created by Christ, yet just three verses later (v.19), these
same Bibles translate en autō correctly as “in him”. Even more
telling, these three Bibles translate en autō as “in him” or
similar in 99% or 100% of all instances of en autō in Paul’s
letters—with the glaring exception of Col.1:16 where they
have “by him” even though “in him” would have made better
semantic sense. The arbitrariness in the way these Bibles ren-
der Col.1:16 exposes the doctrinal leanings of the translators.
In fact the Greek preposition “en” (en autō, “in him”) is
not an obscure or mysterious word but is a word similar in
meaning to the English preposition “in”. They are similar not
only in spelling and fundamental meaning but also in their
many nuanced shades of meaning. This can be confirmed by
a meticulous comparison of the definitions of “en” listed in
the BDAG Greek-English lexicon and the definitions of “in”
listed in Oxford Dictionary of English (the massive 2010 3rd
edition). To those who are unfamiliar with BDAG, its defin-
itions may seem different from Oxford’s, but that is only
because BDAG gives the definitions using technical terms and
unfamiliar abbreviations. But when we look past the technical
jargon, we will see much common ground between Greek
“en” and English “in”. In fact the Greek “en” doesn’t seem to
be much more nuanced or varied than the English “in,” and
some of the definitions in Oxford are just as abstruse as any in
BDAG (e.g., Oxford’s 4th definition of “in” is quite abstract:

“indicating the quality or aspect with respect to which a judg-
ment is made”). Native speakers of English are usually
unaware that the English preposition “in” is complex and
nuanced when it is analyzed and formally defined.
We notice the similarity in spelling between Greek “en”
and English “in”. Oxford gives the following etymology:
Greek “en” to Latin “in” to Old English “in” to modern
English “in,” with influences from German and Dutch. The
ancient word “en” is one of the most enduring and ubiquit-
ous words in the Indo-European family of languages, and is
preserved today in Italian “in”, Catalan “en”, Czech “en”,
Dutch “in”, German “in”, Portuguese “em”, Romanian “în”,
Slovak “in”, Spanish “en”—all with the same basic meaning.
Some of these modern languages even preserve the ancient
spelling “en,” which predates the Greek. 78 Although etymo-
logy is not always reliable in determining the meaning of a
word (e.g., English deception means something different from
French déception, “disappointment”), the fact remains that
“en” has survived a few millennia with little change in funda-
mental meaning.
Even if we didn’t know these details, the fact that Greek
“en” has survived in English “in” with little change in funda-
mental meaning can be seen in the amazing fact that although
the New Testament was written 2,000 years ago in a different
78
For a general outline of the evolution of “en,” see the article
“Indo-European Roots” in American Heritage Dictionary (5th full
edition, not the college edition).
language from English, the phrase en autō is translated by

English Bibles as “in him” with near 100% consistency. The
fact is that the English “in him” carries not just the basic
meaning of the Greek en autō but also many of its nuances.
Many trinitarians reject the trinitarian reading

of Colossians 1:16
In fact many trinitarian authorities firmly reject the trinitar-
ian rendering “by him” for Colossians 1:16, preferring the
literal “in him”:
• Vincent’s Word Studies, on Colossians 1:16, says that the correct
translation is “in him” rather than “by him,” and that “in him”
is “not instrumental but local”
• A.T. Robertson, Robertson’s Word Pictures, takes Colossians 1:16
as saying “in him” rather than “by him”
• Nicoll’s Expositor’s Greek Testament has “in him”
• Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (a commentary), on
Colossians 1:16, says that “in him” is the literal rendering, and
is “far better” than “by him”
• Pulpit Commentary reads Colossians 1:16 as, “For in him were
created all things” and says that “en” in Paul always means “in”
and never “by”
• Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures reads Colossians 1:16
as saying, “because in him all things were created”
• Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Commentary reads Colossians
1:16 as “in him were all things created,” saying that this is “the
logically correct confirmation” of “the firstborn of all creation”
• Henry Alford’s Greek Testament (5th ed.) rejects “by him” in

favor of “in him”.
BDAG doubts the instrumental meaning (“by him”) for

Colossians 1:16, a verse that BDAG puts under the 4th defin-
ition with the heading, “marker of close association within a
limit, in” (italics BDAG’s). BDAG’s definition is technical
and is put in a footnote here 79 and may be skipped.
Daniel Wallace’s Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (pp.
373-374) says that en+dative rarely, if ever, expresses agency.
Here are excerpts from this grammar but some readers may
wish to skip them (boldface added):
Some have suggested that either the naked dative or ἐν + the
dative can express personal agency in the NT. However,
once a clear definition is given for personal agency, this will
be seen to be a rare or nonexistent category …
[Blass-Debrunner-Funk] accurately assess the NT situation

of the naked dative used for personal agency: “Dative of
agency is perhaps represented by only one genuine example in
the NT and this with the perfect: Luke 23:15.” In summary,
we can say that there are very few clear examples of the dative
of agency in the NT …
79
BDAG: ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα (prob. to be understood as local,
not instrumental, since ἐν αὐ. would otherwise be identical w. διʼ αὐ. in
the same vs.) everything was created in association with him [Col] 1:16
(cp. M. Ant. 4, 23 ἐν σοὶ πάντα; Herm. Wr. 5, 10; AFeuillet, NTS
12, ’65, 1–9).
The slightly different phenomenon of ἐν + the dative is also

considered by many to express agency on a rare occasion. Yet
no unambiguous examples are forthcoming. Thus what can be
said about the dative of agency can also be said of ἐν + the
dative to express agent: it is rare, at best.
See also Wallace’s “Dative of Agency” (pp.163-166).
T o be true to the grammatical facts and to be consistent

within Colossians chapter 1, we ought to read v.16 to
mean that all things were created “in” Christ, not “by” Christ.
This is the literal and straightforward reading. By contrast,
the trinitarian reading “by him” seeks to promote Christ’s
preexistence and his involvement in the Genesis creation. But
this reading is rejected by many trinitarian commentaries and
by Bibles such as NJB, RSV, NRSV, REB, NIV 2011, despite
their trinitarian leanings to one degree or another.
The trinitarian reading “by him” overlooks two vital
things. Firstly, in the preceding verse 15 (which is tied
strongly to v.16 by hoti), Jesus is called “the firstborn of all
creation,” a title that would make little sense if Jesus is also
the creator of all things (this logical absurdity is noted by
Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Commentary in a comment on
Col.1:16).
Secondly, “by him” overlooks the vital fact that “in him”
or “in Christ” is a central concept in Paul’s letters. Not only is
“in Christ” a common construction in Paul’s letters, it is
uniquely Pauline in a specific sense not found in the other
NT writings: “in Christ” is the sphere in which God carries

out His work of salvation, reconciling the world to Himself
(2Cor.5:19). Ultimately it is God, not Christ, who is the
main focus of the term “in Christ”.
When Colossians 1:16 is read in its Pauline context, it be-
gins to make sense: Christ stands in the preeminent position
of being “the firstborn of all creation” (v.15) because it was
“in him” that God created everything, that is, with Christ in
view. Christ is the reason God created all things! This reveals
the heights of God’s glorious purposes in creating all things.
Anyone who has eyes to see this revelation will marvel at it.
Some English Bibles miss this beautiful truth when they make
Colossians 1:16 say that all things were created “by him”—by
Christ.
Summary: The five reasons for rejecting “by him”

In summary, en autō in Col.1:16 ought to be rendered “in
him” rather than “by him” for five reasons: Firstly, “in him” is
the literal and straightforward translation of en autō. Sec-
ondly, since “in him” makes semantic sense in the context,
there is no reason to change it to “by him”. Thirdly, the ren-
dering “by him all things were created” makes no sense in the
light of the preceding statement that Christ is the “firstborn
of all creation”; this would be saying that the one who created
all things is also the firstborn of his own creation! Fourthly,
the Bibles that render en autō in Col.1:16 as “by him” would
elsewhere in Paul’s writings render en autō as “in him” with
99% or 100% consistency. Fifthly, “in him” affirms the “in
Christ” principle that is fundamental to Paul’s teaching (we

will return to “in Christ” later).
Christ as the reason for God’s creation

We follow up on our statement that Christ is the reason for
God’s creation. The NT contains a few passages which link
Christ to the creation. But since the OT and the NT unequi-
vocally state that God alone is the creator of all things
(“Yahweh alone stretched out the heavens,” Isa.44:24), what
are these passages saying about Christ? Some trinitarians
point to Hebrews 1:2 to say that Christ is the creator of all
things because of the words “through whom”:
… but in these last days he (God) has spoken to us by his
Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through
whom (dia+genitive) also he created the world. (Hebrews
1:2, ESV)
We note a few things. Firstly, the word “heir” implies that

Jesus is the recipient, not the creator, of all things. Secondly,
the fact that he was “appointed” the heir of all things means
that all things were given to him by God’s authority, not
Christ’s authority. Thirdly, this verse doesn’t say that it was
the Son who created the world, but that it was God who
created the world (or “universe,” NIV) through the Son.
The issue is not whether God created the world (He did
create the world), but whether “through whom” would mean
that God created the world not by Himself but through an
agent, Jesus Christ. If so, this would collide with the consist-
ent Bible teaching that Yahweh created all things by Himself.
Grammatically, the statement is ambiguous because
“through whom also he created the world” can also mean
“because of whom he also created the world” (that is, God
created the world with Christ in view).
Preposition dia can also mean “because of”

The preposition dia usually means “through” but it can
sometimes mean “because of” in the sense of “on account of,”
as defined in three references.
The first reference is BDAG. In explaining dia + genitive
in Heb.1:2, BDAG (dia, A5) specifically says, “At times dia
w. gen. seems to have causal mng … because of … Rom.8.3;
2Cor.9.13”. Here BDAG gives two examples of dia+genitive
which carry the meaning “because of”: Romans 8:3 (the law
was weakened “because of” the flesh) and 2Cor.9:13
(“because of the proof given by this ministry, they will glorify
God,” NASB).
The second reference is Daniel Wallace’s Greek Grammar
Beyond the Basics which on p.369 assigns to dia+accusative the
meaning “because of, on account of, for the sake of”. No
other meaning is given.
The third reference is Thayer’s Greek-English lexicon
which on p.134 says that dia+accusative means “by reason of,
because of” (also Greenlee, Concise Exegetical Grammar of
New Testament Greek, p.31).
Whereas BDAG allows the meaning “because of” for the

dia+genitive construction, Wallace and Thayer assign this
meaning to the dia+accusative construction. It indicates that
the meaning “because of” is intrinsic enough to, and strong
enough in, dia for it to span two cases, the genitive and the
accusative (the only two cases that dia can take), though
unequally, for the meaning comes out more strongly in the
accusative than in the genitive.
Hence Hebrews 1:2 can be rendered “through whom also
he created the world” or, if context allows, “because of whom
also he created the world”. Both are lexically and grammati-
cally valid, so we need to look at the context to establish the
intended meaning of the verse. The latter reading (that God
created all things “because of” Christ) finds support in the
immediate context which says that Christ is the “heir” of all
things (i.e., the recipient, not the creator, of all things). By
contrast, the other reading (that God created all things
“through” Christ) contradicts a later verse, Hebrews 2:10,
which makes no mention of a secondary agent in creation,
but on the contrary makes a clear distinction between God
the Creator and Jesus such that Jesus is not the one who
created all things:
Hebrews 2:10 For it was fitting that he (God), for whom and
through whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to
glory, should make the founder (Jesus) of their salvation
perfect through suffering.
The dia+genitive construction that we see in both Hebrews

1:2 and 2:10 is also found in 1 Corinthians 8:6, twice in fact
(see the two asterisks):
Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all
things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ,
through* whom are all things and through* whom we exist.
(1 Corinthians 8:6)
All things come from God the Father and we exist for Him.
Everything owes its existence to God, the one “from whom
are all things”. So what does this mean in regard to Christ?
What can it mean but that God created all things, including
us, because of Jesus Christ and for his sake? As we have seen,
dia+genitive can at times mean “because of” (BDAG, dia,
A5).
Similarly, the Babylonian Talmud says, “The world was
created … for the sake of the Messiah.” 80 This statement
aligns with the biblical truth that man is the reason for the
Genesis creation. Yahweh God created the sun and the moon
not because He needed them for illumination but because
man needed them.
In Colossians 1:16, the verse that we are discussing, we see
three Greek prepositional constructions, namely, dia +
genitive and two more:
80
The Soncino Talmud, ed. Rabbi Dr. Isidore Epstein, Soncino
Press, London, Folio 98a (98b in some editions of Soncino’s English
translation).
Colossians 1:16 For by him (literally “in him,” en+dative) all

things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and
invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or author-
ities—all things were created through him (dia+genitive) and
for him (eis+accusative). (ESV)
It is in him and for him—not by him—that all things were

created. On this verse, Thayer’s Greek-English lexicon (ἐν)
says, “in him [Christ] resides the cause why all things were
originally created”. In other words, Christ is the reason for
God’s creation.
In Christ
In our trinitarian days, we took en autō in Colossians 1:16 to
mean “by him” when it should have been “in him,” taking it
as instrumental to imply that all things were created by
Christ. Since “in Christ” is a key concept in Paul, let us see
how he uses the en+dative construction in reference to Christ.
The term en Christō (in Christ) occurs 73 times in Paul.
The similar term en autō (in him) occurs 24 times in Paul, of
which 19 refer to Christ (8 times in Colossians, including
1:16). In Paul’s letters, en tō Iēsou (in Jesus) occurs only in
Eph.4:21. Every verse was individually checked and verified.
Adding the 73 instances of “in Christ,” plus the 19 in-
stances of “in him” referring to Christ, plus the sole instance
of “in Jesus,” we have a total of 93 instances of “in Christ” (or
variations) in Paul’s writings so far. See Appendix 10 for every
instance of “in Christ” or its variations in all of Paul’s
writings.
Here is a crucial fact: In none of these 93 instances is it

linguistically necessary to translate the term as “by Christ” or
“by him”! In Colossians 1:16, many Bibles correctly have “in
him” but others have “by him” for doctrinal reasons. NASB
and ESV have “by him” in Colossians 1:16, but “in him”
everywhere else in Paul’s letters!
Colossians chapter 1, the second pillar of trinitarianism,
has six instances of en referring to Christ: three instances of en
Christō (in Christ, vv.2,4,28) and three instances of en autō (in
him, vv.16,17,19). The latter term occurs several times in the
next chapter, Colossians 2, in verses 6,7,9,10,15. All in all, we
have a large number of verses in the immediate context for
the purpose of comparison and examination. Hence the
meaning of “in Christ” can be determined to a considerable
degree of certainty.
To see how ESV renders “in Christ” according to its trin-
itarian leanings, the following is a list of all the occurrences of
en Christō (in Christ) and en autō (in him, all referring to
Christ) in Colossians 1 and 2; all these have the en+dative
construction. In each instance, ESV gives the correct and
literal rendering “in Christ” or “in him” with the glaring
exception of Col.1:16 (see the boldfaced) which ESV renders
as “by him” but which could have been rendered “in him,”
especially in view of v.15 and Paul’s “in Christ” teaching:
Col.1:2 To the saints and faithful brothers in Christ

Col.1:4 we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus
Col.1:16 For by him all things were created
Col.1:17 in him all things hold together
Col.1:19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell
Col.1:28 that we may present everyone mature in Christ
Col.2:6 as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him
Col.2:7 rooted and built up in him and established in the faith
Col.2:9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily
Col.2:10 and you have been filled in him
Col.2:15 by triumphing over them in him
Appendix 10 lists all the instances in Paul’s letters of “in

Christ” and its variations conforming to the en+dative con-
struction. In no instance is it ever necessary, grammatically or
lexically or semantically, to render it as “by Christ” or similar.
NASB 1977 and a few other Bibles never use the preposition
“by” to translate the en+dative construction referring to
Christ—except in Colossians 1:16.
Colossians 1:16: The new creation, not the old

Genesis creation
In studying Colossians 1:16, it is crucial to keep in mind the
vital distinction between the old creation and the new creat-
ion. In the old Genesis creation, Yahweh is the sole creator
without any co-creator (Isa.44:24, “I am Yahweh, who made
all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread
out the earth by myself”).
Colossians 1:16, on the other hand, is about the new

creation, not the old creation, for two important reasons.
Firstly, the preceding verse (v.15, joined to v.16 by hoti)
says that Christ is the “firstborn of all creation”. The word
“firstborn” means the eldest son in a family among other sib-
lings. This is made explicit in Rom.8:29 which says we have
been “predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son,
in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers”
(ESV). This refers to the new creation because we become
Jesus’ brothers by being “born again” or “born from above,”
with Jesus as the firstborn. Jesus speaks of his disciples as his
“brothers” (Mt.25:40; 28:10; Jn.20:17), for he is not ashamed
to call us his brothers (Heb.2:11). Hence the creation in
Colossians 1:16 is the new creation in Christ, not the Genesis
creation.
Secondly, Colossians 1:16 speaks of creation not in terms
of the sun and the moon and stars, but things “in heaven and
on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions
or rulers or authorities.” The word “invisible” refers to eternal
spiritual things as opposed to transient physical things (e.g.,
2Cor.4:18, “the things that are seen are transient, but the
things that are unseen are eternal”; also Rom.8:24; 2Cor.5:7;
Heb.11:1,13). Hence the creation in Colossians 1:16 is the
new creation rather than the old creation.
Both the old and new creations are created by Yahweh
God, but the new is created in Christ and through Christ—
not by Christ. That is why Colossians 1:16 has “in him” and
“through him” and “for him”—not “by him”. The new
creation is in Christ because Yahweh, before the foundation
of the world, had Christ in view for the new creation. The
new creation is “through Christ” because it was brought into
being through the suffering and shed blood of Jesus.
“In Christ” in Paul’s letters

In Paul’s letters, “in Christ” has the special meaning of the
sphere in which God does His work of salvation and of recon-
ciling the world to Himself in Christ (2Cor.5:19). That the
“in Christ” principle is specially Pauline is seen in the fact
that it occurs most often in Paul’s letters (en Christō occurs 73
times in his letters).
Since “in Christ” is the sphere in which God does His
work of salvation, it also has to do with our union with
Christ: If we are “in Christ” then Christ is in us (“Christ who
lives in me,” Gal.2:20), as seen also in Jesus’ words, “you in
me, I in you” (Jn.14.20). To be “in Christ” we must first be
“baptized into his death” (Rom.6:3); then we are “united”
with him (v.5) and live by the power of his resurrection life.
These are not just metaphorical concepts but a spiritual real-
ity in the present age.
The “in Christ” principle is also expressed pronominally as
“in him” (en autō), which is the form used in Col.1:16 (“in
him all things were created”). It appears again a few verses
later: “For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell”
(v.19). Here, as in 2Cor.5:19, the purpose for God’s fullness
to dwell in Christ is to establish reconciliation, as confirmed
by the next verse: “through him to reconcile to himself all
things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by mak-
ing peace through his blood, shed on the cross” (Col.1:20,

NIV). Here we see the term “through him” that we saw in
verse 16.
The multiple interconnections involving “in him” and
“through him” in Colossians 1:15-19 make this a closely knit
and strongly coherent passage which reveals Christ’s exalted
role in God’s eternal plan for His creation. It is in Christ that
we see God’s purpose in creating all things, and through Christ
that God’s eternal purposes will be accomplished. All this is
for Christ, as tersely summed up in, “Christ is all and in all”
(Col.3:11). And just as all things are created for Christ
(Col.1:16), so all things belong to us in Christ (1Cor.3:22; cf.
2Cor.4:15).
But trinitarians are so keen to make Christ the creator of
all things that they make Col.1:16 say that all things were
created by Christ, through Christ, and for Christ! In that case,
there would be nothing left for the other two persons of the
Trinity to do in the work of creation! For trinitarians, Christ
is for all intents and purposes the only God who really
matters.
It is difficult, even impossible, to make sense of the trinita-
rian rendering of verses 15 and 16: Christ is “the firstborn of
all creation, for by him all things were created”. How is the
creator of all things also the firstborn of his own creation?
The trinitarian quandary stands in contrast to the elegant
coherence of Romans 11:36: “For from him and through him
and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.”
The pronoun “him” refers not to Jesus but to Yahweh, who is
mentioned two verses earlier (v.34) in a quotation of the Old
Testament. A comparison of Rom.11:36 and Col.1:16 shows

that they cannot both be right if we translate the latter in the
trinitarian way (“by him all things were created”). The
trinitarian reading would give one of two possibilities: either
that two Creators created everything (which is biblically
impossible) or that Jesus is the only creator to the exclusion of
Yahweh (a blasphemous conclusion). Anyone who thinks that
trinitarianism is just a matter of doctrinal preferences would
be wise to think on the eternal consequences of this system of
belief.
The rendering of Colossians 1:16 in the Complete Jewish
Bible, a messianic Jewish translation, makes more sense than
the trinitarian one: “because in connection with him were
created all things—in heaven and on earth, visible and invis-
ible, whether thrones, lordships, rulers or authorities—they
have all been created through him and for him.”
In fact it is against trinitarian belief to say that all things
were created “through him and for him,” for trinitarians insist
that Jesus is the creator of all things. That is why they change
“in him” to “by him” in Colossians 1:16.
All this shows how dangerous it is to read the Scriptures
through the lens of our dogma. But the guilt of the Bible
translators is greater because the average reader of the Bible is
unable to analyze the original languages and is dependent on
the translations. For this reason the translators will bear the
guilt for misleading the readers.
As if this were not enough, these translations go on to say
that Jesus not only created all things and did so by himself,
but that he did it all for himself. How do we reconcile this
self-centered Jesus with the self-giving Jesus whom we see in

the Scriptures? In the end, everything is motivated by Jesus’
desire to do all things for himself! What the translations have
done is to change something beautiful into something repul-
sive!
But the Bible has a different picture. Right from the begin-
ning, God’s eternal plan to bring creation into being was
carried out in connection to Christ (“in Christ”), but also
“through Christ”: through his birth, his life, his death, his
resurrection, his exaltation. Something wonderful is revealed
here, namely, that God created all things with Christ in
view—“for him”. Christ is the goal of—and the reason for—
Yahweh’s creation! This is the astonishing message that trin-
itarianism has lost sight of.
The plan of creation originated with Yahweh, and is car-
ried forward by His wisdom and power, so that all the glory
will be given to Him when the magnificent fulfillment of His
plans is seen by all. Hence the doxology in Romans 11:36:
“For from him and through him and to him are all things. To
him be glory forever. Amen.”
God’s work in Christ has another aspect: God’s people
established in Christ by God’s work. “For we are his work-
manship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God
prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” (Eph.
2:10, ESV) This truth is well expressed by Lars Hartman:
“Christ” also denotes a divine sphere, or a divine realm of

power, which God has established through him and his
work … The same Christ is also the origin of a new human-
ity, in which religious, social and other barriers are eliminated:
“there is neither Jew nor Greek” (1Cor 12.13; Gal 3.28). (Into
the Name of the Lord Jesus: Baptism in the Early Church, p.80)
The next few pages are important, but readers who find
them too detailed may skip them on a first reading, and
proceed to the section called “Colossians 1:17 — He is
before all things”.
“In the Lord Jesus”

We now consider a few more prepositional constructions in
Paul’s writings. We have looked at en Christō (in Christ) and
its semantic equivalent en autō (in him) when it refers to
Christ. In both cases, “Christ” and “him” are in the dative,
since the preposition en takes the dative.
The construction “in the Lord” (en kuriō) occurs 48 times
in the New Testament (e.g. “in the Lord Jesus,” Rom.14:14;
1Th.4:1; 2Th.3:12). All are found in Paul with the exception
of Rev.14:13 (“blessed are the dead who die in the Lord”)
where it carries the same meaning as in Paul; this leaves 47 in-
stances in Paul. It again conforms to the en+dative construct-
ion, giving us so far a total of 140 occurrences in Paul of this
type of construction which refer to Christ (140 = 47 + the 93
instances mentioned so far).
“In God”
For completeness we mention “in God” which in the Greek is
either en theō (Rom.2:17) or en tō theō (Rom.5:11); again
both conform to the en+dative construction. “In God” is seen
in 1Thess.1:1 (repeated in 2Thess.1:1): “Paul, Silvanus, and
Timothy, to the church of the Thessalonians in God the
Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” Here “God” and “Lord
Jesus Christ” are in the dative because they share the same
preposition “en”. The Thessalonians are in God and in Christ
in some interrelated way. To be in God is to be in Christ, and
to be in Christ is to be in God. This is powerfully expressed
in the following Pauline concepts: “God in Christ” (2Cor.
5:19; Rom.6:11; 8:39; Eph.4:32; Phil.3:14); “Christ in God”
(Col. 3:3); “of God and of Christ” (2Tim.4:1; Eph.5:5); cf.
Jn.17:21.
“Through Christ”
Another prepositional construction is “through Christ” (dia
Christou) and the related “through him” (di’ autou) when it
refers to Christ. Here “Christ” and “him” are both in the
genitive, giving us the dia+genitive construction.
“Through Christ” brings out Christ as an instrument in
God’s eternal plans, notably in the new creation and the work
of salvation. Checking the many verses where this term is
used, it is clear that Christ is the one through whom and in
whom God accomplishes man’s salvation.
To our surprise, in no instance does “through Christ” or

“through him” refer to the Genesis creation; all instances
refer, directly or indirectly, to the new creation which God
brought into being through Christ. The following list in-
cludes all the NT instances of “through Christ” (dia Christou)
and “through him” (di’ autou, referring to Christ), plus a few
related dia+genitive forms such as “through our Lord Jesus
Christ” or “through a man”. All are from ESV except where
indicated otherwise:
John 1:17 grace and truth came through Jesus Christ
John 3:17 that the world might be saved through him
Acts 13:38 through this man the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed
Rom.1:5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship
Rom.1:8 I thank my God through Jesus Christ
Rom.2:16 God will judge men’s secrets through Jesus Christ
(NIV)
Rom.5:1 we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ
Rom.5:9 saved from God’s wrath through him (NIV)
Rom.5:11 We also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ
Rom.5:17 reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ
Rom.7:25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ
1Cor.8:6 one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for
whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through
whom are all things and through whom we exist
1Cor.15:21 resurrection of the dead comes also through a man
(NIV)
1Cor.15:57 victory through our Lord Jesus Christ
2Cor.1:5 through Christ we share abundantly
2Cor.1:20 it is through him that we utter our Amen

2Cor.5:18 God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself
Eph.2:18 through him we both have access in one Spirit to the
Father
Col.1:16 all things were created through him and for him
Col.1:20 through him (Jesus) to reconcile to himself (God) all
things
Col.3:17 giving thanks to God the Father through him
“Through him” is also used of God:

Rom.11:36 from him and through him and to him are all things
1Cor.1:9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into
fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ
Gal.4:7 if a son, then an heir through God
Heb.2:10 through whom everything exists
In fact, all the prepositions used of Jesus are also used of God
(e.g. “through” is used of both Jesus and God the Father in
Gal.1:1). But the reverse is not necessarily true, that is, not all
the prepositions used of God are used of Jesus, notably ek
(from, out of) which is used of God (“from God” or “out of
God”) but never of Jesus in relation to the creation of all
things (ta panta). Here are some examples of ek, all referring
to God (all from ESV):
Rom.11:36 from him and through him and to him are all things
1Cor.8:6 from whom are all things (cf. 1:30)
1Cor.11:12 all things are from God
2Cor.5:18 all this is from God
Though God does all things and creates all things without
depending on anyone, He still chooses to do these things
“through Christ,” notably in the work of salvation (“the
Father who dwells in me does his works,” Jn.14:10). But
ultimately all things proceed from Yahweh God: “one God
and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all”
(Eph.4:6), confirming again the solid biblical truth that God
the Father (Yahweh) alone created all things (Isa.44:24).
Thayer’s lexicon, on dia, says that God is the first cause:

Where it is evident from the religious conceptions of the
Bible that God is the author or first cause: Jn.11:4; Acts
5:12; Eph.3:10; 4:16; Col.2:19; 2Tim.1:6; Heb.10:10;
2Pet.3:6.
To this list one might add Heb.3:4 (“the builder of all things
is God”) and Eph.3:9 (“God who created all things”).
“All things” (ta panta)

In our survey so far, we have encountered a few verses which
speak of “all things” (ta panta) either in relation to God (e.g.,
all things were created by God) or in relation to Christ (e.g.,
all things exist for Christ). Here are some important instances
of ta panta (all from ESV unless noted otherwise):
Col.1:16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven

and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or
powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been
created through him and for him. (NIV 2011)
Rom.11:36 For from him and through him and to him are all
things. To him be glory forever. Amen.
1Cor.8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are
all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus
Christ, through whom are all things and through
whom we exist.
1Cor.11:12 And all things are from God (ek tou theou, “from
God,” occurs 5 times in Paul)
Eph.3:9 to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the
mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things
1Tim.6:13 I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to
all things, and of Christ Jesus
Heb.2:10 For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all
things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should
make the founder of their salvation perfect through
suffering.
Heb.3:4 For every house is built by someone, but the builder of
all things is God.
In these verses, it is God rather than Christ who is the creator

of all things. The phrase ta panta (“all things”) occurs 35
times in the NT, mostly in Paul (30 times). The phrase ta de
panta (“but all things”) occurs 4 times. The form pantōn (all
things) is used frequently by Paul (e.g., Col.1:17).
“For Christ” and “into Christ”

Thayer’s Greek-English lexicon defines eis (into) as follows:
“εἰς, a preposition governing the accusative, and denoting
entrance into, or direction and limit: into, to, toward, for,
among.”
Two eis+accusative constructions are relevant to our
discussion. The first is eis Christon (into Christ or for Christ)
which occurs 12 times in the New Testament, mostly in Paul
(10 times). It is used in a variety of contexts but the meaning
of eis remains the same, pointing to Christ as the goal, object,
or purpose. Here are a few examples (quoted from ESV) of
eis+accusative referring to Jesus Christ as the object of faith:
Acts 24:24 heard him speak about faith in Christ Jesus
Galatians 2:16 through faith in Jesus Christ
John 12:11 many of the Jews were going away and
believing in Jesus
The similar construction eis auton (into him) occurs 38

times in the NT, usually referring to Jesus as the object of
something, e.g., the object of insult during his trial (Mt.
27:30) or the one on whom (or into whom) Yahweh’s Spirit
descends (Mk.1:10). It is used 16 times in John’s writings of
Jesus as the object of faith. It occurs 8 times in Paul (4 times
of Christ, 3 times of God), sometimes with the meaning “for
Christ” as in Colossians 1:16 (“all things were created
through him and for him”).
Here “for him” indicates that Christ is the goal of—and
the reason for—God’s creation of all things. This is a most
significant revelation in Scripture, yet is made unremarkable
in trinitarianism because it would mean that “God the

Father” (the first person) created the universe for “God the
Son” (the second person), being nothing more than a case of
God creating something for God.
But in biblical monotheism, God created all things for a
man—the true man Christ Jesus—and then for believers in
Christ. This is an astonishing revelation of God’s love for
man. Hence Scripture admonishes all believers “to put their
hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our
enjoyment” (1Tim.6:17). Paul does not envisage the Christ-
ian life as one of constant deprivation and hardship though
these may come to us as a result of hostility and persecution
as has happened so often in the history of the church.
God’s creation is for Christ with Christ as the goal, the
purpose, and the destination of the new creation. Christ, as
the conclusion of God’s creation, is the “first and the last”
(Rev.1:17), a title that is also applied to Yahweh (Isa.41:4;
44:6; 48:12). Ultimately it is Yahweh who is the Alpha and
the Omega, the beginning and the end (Rev.21:6). But Christ
who is “the image of the invisible God” (Col.1:15) is also “the
first and the last” (Rev.1:17; 2:8) as well as the “author and
perfecter of our faith” (Heb.12:2).81
81
Later we will see that the truly eternal title “who is and who was
and who is to come” in Revelation 1:8 and other verses is reserved for
God, not Jesus.
Colossians 1:17 — He is before all things

We now proceed to Colossians 1:17 which says of Christ:
“And he is before all things, and in him all things hold
together”. Trinitarians take “before” as a time reference, and
“all things” as the Genesis or physical creation, thereby
arguing for Christ’s preexistence. But what Paul has in view is
not the physical or material creation but the new creation;
hence he speaks of spiritual powers represented by “thrones or
dominions or principalities or powers” (v.16), both visible
and invisible.
In Greek as in English, “before” (pro) can mean priority in
spatial location, priority in time, or priority in rank (BDAG,
pro). In Colossians 1:17, “before all things” translates pro
pantōn. Although BDAG puts this verse under its second
definition of pro (“earlier than, before”), it could just as well be
translated “above all things” (priority in rank) which would
be under BDAG’s third heading (“marker of precedence in
importance or rank”). In fact, under this third heading,
BDAG cites James 5:12 and 1Peter 4:8, both in which pro
pantōn occurs exactly as in Colossians 1:17.
If we take “he is before all things” to mean priority in time
(the trinitarian view), it would refer to preexistence. But if it
is understood in terms of rank and precedence (“he is above
all things”), it would refer to Christ’s exaltation. It is the latter
and not the former that harmonizes with the whole context of
Col.1:17, which is about his glorification. Hence it is clear
that pro pantōn is to be understood as speaking of Christ’s
preeminence over all creation. This is confirmed in the next
verse, “that in everything he might be preeminent” (v.18).
Hence context alone rules out one interpretation (priority in

time) in favor of the other (preeminence over all things).
In English but not in Greek, “before” is usually taken as a
time reference, and this is evidently how the translators in-
tend the reader to understand it. But a look at Greek-English
lexicons will show that priority in time is not the first
meaning of pro in Greek. BDAG’s first definition of pro is,
“marker of a position in front of an object, before, in front of,
at”. It is position, not time, that comes first to the Greek
mind when he sees the word pro. The same priority is seen
also in Thayer’s Greek-English lexicon under pro, whose first
definition has to do with space, not with time.
In addition to these two possible meanings of pro in
Col.1:17 (pro as a time reference versus pro as rank and pre-
eminence), there is a third meaning that expresses how God’s
plan which is unfolding in the present age had been in His
view before the creation of the world. Even before Jesus was
born into the world—and all the more before he was exalted
to God’s right hand and to preeminence above all creation—
he had already existed in God’s mind: “He was chosen before
the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times
for your sake” (1Pet.1:20, NIV).
Yahweh in His foreknowledge extended that act of election
to believers—those in Christ—before the creation of the
world: “Thus he chose us in Christ before the world was
made to be holy and faultless before him in love” (Eph.1:4,
NJB). Christ had to be chosen first before God could choose
us “in Christ.”
This third meaning of pro is independent of the first two,

or it could incorporate the two to express what is in God’s
supernal mind. Whereas secular Greek-English lexicons might
not be expected to have this third definition of pro, lexicons
of New Testament Greek could reasonably be expected to
provide a biblical definition for pro in relation to God, and, in
this case, to God’s choosing of Christ before the creation of
the world.
In him all things hold together

The second half of Col.1:17 says, “in him all things hold
together” (this time most Bibles have “in him” rather than
“by him”). “Hold together” translates one Greek word, suni-
stēmi, which basically means staying together or being closely
united. This echoes Eph.1:10 which says that God has a “plan
for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him (Christ),
things in heaven and things on earth”. The words “heaven”
and “earth” indicate that God has in view nothing less than
the cosmic scope of His redemptive work in Christ. The same
cosmic outlook is mentioned again two verses after Col.1:17:
For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and
through him (Christ) to reconcile to himself (God) all
things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the
blood of his cross. (Col.1:19-20, ESV)
Sin is discord, disharmony and hostility, whereas peace is

the removal of hostility and the establishing of unity between
mutually hostile parties, creating one new, coherent, and
harmonious entity. That even the things in heaven are recon-

ciled “by the blood of his cross” (v.19) is a striking revelation.
It tells us that sin and discord extend to heaven itself (cf. “war
in heaven,” Rev.12:7) and that the magnitude of what was
achieved at the cross through Jesus’ blood amounts to so great
a spiritual power as to reconcile even spiritual beings with
Yahweh. This is an extraordinary revelation.
Colossians 1:15 and 1:18: Firstborn of all creation,

firstborn from the dead
In Colossian 1:15-19, “firstborn” (prōtotokos) is twice used of
Jesus:
1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all
creation.
1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the

beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he
might be preeminent (or “hold the first place”).
American Heritage Dictionary defines “firstborn” as: “adj.

First in order of birth; born first. n. The child in a family who
is born first.” In the LXX and the NT, “firstborn” (prōtotokos)
often means the one who is born first in a family:
Genesis 35:23 The sons of Leah: Reuben the firstborn of
Jacob, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar and Zebulun. (NIV)
Luke 2:7 And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped
him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger (ESV)
The same word prōtotokos is used of Christ in Romans 8:29:

For those whom he (i.e., God) foreknew he also predestined
to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he
might be the firstborn among many brothers. (Romans, 8:29
ESV)
Concerning this verse, BDAG under prōtotokos says,

… of Christ, as the first firstborn of a new humanity which
is to be glorified, as its exalted Lord is glorified prōtotokos en
pollois adelphois Ro 8:29. Also simply prōtotokos Hb 1:6
(Greek transliterated)
BDAG is to be commended for being among the few works

to recognize that Christ is “the firstborn of a new humanity”.
Many other lexicons (such as Thayer, prōtotokos 2b) simply
assume that the word “creation” in “firstborn of all creation”
refers to the material Genesis creation. The possibility of the
new creation doesn’t seem to cross their minds even though it
is seen in other verses in which “firstborn” appears, e.g. “that
he might be the firstborn among many brothers” (Rom.8:29).
In the NT, “brothers” is a common term for believers, and it
is said of them that Jesus “is not ashamed to call them bro-
thers” (Heb.2:11). That “brothers” refers to the new creation
and not the Genesis creation lies in the fact that not all the
people of the world are the brothers of Jesus, but only those
who are born again or from above. This is brought out pic-
turesquely in Hebrews 12:23: “the assembly of the firstborn
who are enrolled in heaven”.
Trinitarians deny that Jesus is the firstborn in the sense of

being the first to be born among many brothers who are also
born (Rom.8:29), and they do this by separating the honor
given to the firstborn from the fact of being born first. In
other words, Jesus is accorded the honor given to the first-
born, but it is denied that he is the first in a succession of
many brothers to be born. This is the kind of thing that
trinitarians do when they want to deny that Jesus is part of
God’s creation as the firstborn of that creation, yet insist that
Jesus is firstborn only in the sense of the honor bestowed on
him. That is because trinitarianism maintains that Jesus is not
part of the creation but is preexistent to it.
If the only aspect of “firstborn” that Paul wants to apply to
Christ is preeminent honor, why wouldn’t he simply use the
word “honor” or one of its synonyms that would be less
problematic to trinitarians? But as soon as Paul uses the word
“firstborn,” it cannot be denied that it could mean that Christ
is the first in a series of those who are born or created. The
fact that Jesus is the “firstborn among many brothers” (Rom.
8:29) draws the unwelcome connection (unwelcome, that is,
to trinitarians) between the birth of Jesus and the birth of his
brothers.
It is gratuitous to alter “firstborn of all creation” to “first-
born before all creation” since there is no biblical basis for in-
serting the word “before” (or “prior to,” Thayer ibid., p.555,
prōtotokos) into the text. A shocking distortion of Colossians
1:15 is seen in Vine’s Expository Dictionary of NT Words
(“First-Begotten, Firstborn”): “the clause means both that He
was the ‘Firstborn’ before all creation and that He Himself

produced creation.”
The fact remains that in Col.1:15, Paul does not say “first-
born before all creation” but simply “firstborn of all creation”.
The trinitarian reading “firstborn before all creation” has the
grave effect of separating the word “firstborn” from “all
creation” which were originally joined by the genitive “of”
(“firstborn of all creation”). Even a partitive genitive 82 offers
no basis for changing “of” into “before”. If Paul had intended
to say “before creation,” he could have done so in Greek with-
out the help of trinitarians! Yet this way of distorting Script-
ure is common practice in trinitarianism. In this instance, the
aim is to avoid the conclusion that Christ is a part of “all
creation,” that is, to deny that he was created by Yahweh.
When believers are one day perfectly conformed to Christ
the firstborn (Rom.8:29), will they not also bear Christ’s
image in the way that Christ is “the image of the invisible
God” (Col.1:15)? Thus everyone in the “assembly of the first-
born” will bear the image of the firstborn (1Cor.15:49).
That is why Paul says, “For to me to live is Christ”
(Phil.1:21), and “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who
lives in me” (Gal.2:20). Though Paul is not perfect in the
absolute sense, he is still able to tell the Galatians that they
82
A partitive genitive is a genitive in which “the substantive in the
genitive denotes the whole of which the head noun is a part” (Greek
Grammar Beyond the Basics, p.84). This can be explained with the con-
struct “A of B”. In a partitive genitive, A is a part of B the whole. This
“part of whole” construct is seen in “half of my possessions” (Lk.19:8)
and “the poor of the saints” (Rom.15:26).
have received him as Christ (Gal.4:14). If Paul at this imper-

fect stage already bears Christ’s image and manifests his
fragrance (2Cor.2:14,16), how much more in “the age to
come” (Eph.1:21; Heb.6:5)! Every believer will ultimately
bear Yahweh’s image through Christ, and radiate God’s glory
in the world.
Jesus is “the beginning of God’s creation” (Rev.3:14), a
statement that aligns with Colossians 1:18, “He is the begin-
ning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might
be preeminent”. Thayer’s lexicon (archē, 2) defines “begin-
ning” in Col.1:18 as “the person or thing that commences,
the first person or thing in a series, the leader”.
The three key words we have brought up (archē beginning,
aparchē firstfruits, prōtotokos firstborn) point to Jesus Christ as
the “second man” and the “last Adam” (1Cor.15:47, 45), and
the head of God’s new creation (Col. 1:18). Jesus is the final
and greatest and ultimate Man in Yahweh’s eternal plan for
mankind. Colossians 1:18 combines in one statement the
declarations that Jesus is the beginning, the firstborn from the
dead, and the head of the new creation: “And he is the head
of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn
from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.”
There is nothing here that can be used in support of trinita-
rianism. In fact ISBE explains Jesus Christ as the “firstborn”
without referring to any trinitarian concept:
In three passages (Rom 8:29; Col 1:15; Heb 1:6), Jesus
Christ is the firstborn—among many brethren (Rom 8:29);
of every creature (Col 1:16). This application of the term to
Jesus Christ may be traced back to Ps 89:27 where the

Davidic ruler, or perhaps the nation, is alluded to as the
firstborn of Yahweh. (ISBE, Firstborn)
That the New Testament speaks of Jesus as the firstborn—

the eldest son in a family—was a problem to me when I was a
trinitarian, for no one can be the eldest without being part of
a family. Yet the plain fact is that Rom.8:29 speaks of Jesus as
“the firstborn among many brothers”.
Jesus is also “the firstborn from the dead” (Col.1:18), the
first to be raised from the dead by God: “Christ has indeed
been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have
fallen asleep” (1Cor.15:20 NIV, cf. v.23, “Christ, the first-
fruits”). Only if Christ had truly died could he be the
“firstfruits” or the “firstborn from the dead” (also Rev.1:5).
As trinitarians we found Colossians 1:15 problematic: “He
is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creat-
ion.” For how can Jesus be the firstborn of all creation unless
he is part of the creation? To our trinitarian minds, Jesus
cannot be part of the creation. We insisted that Jesus, being
God, was not part of “all creation” but was uncreated and
preexistent to it.
One trinitarian makes the rather astonishing statement
that “the context (of Col.1:15) does not admit the idea that
He is a part of the created universe” (T. Rees, ISBE, “First-
Begotten”). The writer is saying that Paul’s statement on the
“firstborn of all creation” in v.15 seems to be dissonant with
its context, as though Paul is in conflict with himself!
Colossians 1:15 most definitely says that Christ is part of

the created universe. Christ is the firstborn and the most
highly exalted of all creation (cf. Psalm 89:27, “I will make
him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth”; also
Rev.1:5). In any case, how can Jesus not be part of the created
universe when Scripture says that he was the “firstborn son”
of Mary (Luke 2:7)? He was born into the world as all human
beings are; and having been born into the world, he is, like all
men, part of “all creation”.
Conforming to the image of Jesus the firstborn

We note three things about “firstborn” as applied to Jesus.
First, “firstborn” has to do with a son. Second, it implies
there are others born after him, with Jesus being the “first-
born among many brothers” (Rom.8:29). Third, Jesus is the
first of many brothers not just in priority but also in that he is
the image which those after him will bear. The same verse,
Romans 8:29, says that these will “be conformed to the image
of his Son”. 83
In the new creation, Jesus is the firstborn on whom the
Father bestows the highest honor. God’s plan includes bring-
ing into being “the children of God” through regeneration.
One could say that the new creation is “materialized” in the
83
J.D.G. Dunn says: “The Jesus who is Lord and the image of God
is also the last Adam and pattern to whom believers are being con-
formed, the eldest brother in the family of the new creation.” (Did the
First Christians Worship Jesus?, p.148)
children of God through Christ and in Christ. This new

community of God’s children is what Paul calls “the body of
Christ,” that is, the church (ekklēsia, those called out by
God). What is meant in the word “church” is not to be ap-
plied indiscriminately to some of the churches as they exist in
the world today, most of which worship a different Jesus.
God’s eternal plan for Christ encompasses not only the
children of God (Mt.25:34; Eph.1:4; Rev.13:8), the true
believers, but the whole universe. This is the cosmic aspect of
Christ in God’s eternal plan that is given only brief mention
in the New Testament.
Colossians 1:19: All the fullness of God dwells in

Jesus
Colossians 1:19 says of Jesus, “For in him all the fullness of
God was pleased to dwell”. This is supplemented by another
verse in Colossians which speaks of God’s bodily presence in
Christ: “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in
bodily form” (Col.2:9, NIV).
BDAG, theotēs, referring to the latter verse, says that “the
deity” is “the state of being god, divine character/ nature, deity,
divinity, used as abstract noun for theos (God)”.84 Hence “all
the fullness” of God means that every aspect of the person of
Yahweh (cf. “abstract noun,” BDAG) and not just some
84
By “abstract noun,” BDAG means that “the deity” refers to God
Himself, but using indirect or abstract or qualitative or conceptual
terminology.
aspect of His being (such as His Spirit, His power, His

wisdom, His word, etc.), but His whole Being or Person, lives
bodily in Jesus.85 All the fullness of God—all the fullness of
the Deity—dwells in Christ bodily.
It will come as a surprise to trinitarians that God’s people
are collectively also filled with God’s entire fullness: “that you
may be filled with all the fullness of God” (Eph.3:19). The
“you” is plural (since “filled” is plural in the Greek), express-
ing the corporate nature of God’s people who, as God’s tem-
ple and God’s dwelling place, are filled with all His fullness:
In him the whole building, being joined together, grows into
a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built
together into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit. (Eph.
2:21-22, NET)
Just as Yahweh, the only true God, does not fit into the Trin-
ity, so Paul’s statements in Col.1:19 and 2:9 about God’s full-
ness dwelling in Christ make no sense in trinitarianism. For if
Christ were God, then these two statements (“in him all the
fullness of God was pleased to dwell” and “in Christ the
whole fullness of the deity dwells bodily”) would mean that
“God the Son” is filled with all three persons: God the Father,
God the Son, and God the Spirit (for if any is missing, it
would not be the fullness of God).
85
In Col.2:9, the verb “lives” is the present active of katoikeō (“to
inhabit, live”). The word “bodily” translates sōmatikōs, defined as
“bodily-wise” and “corporeally” and “in concrete actuality” (Vocabulary
of the Greek NT, Moulton and Milligan).
Are we saying that God is filled with God? That God the
Son is filled with himself? Or that the human nature of the
God-man Jesus is filled with God? The latter proposition is
untenable because the human nature is only an aspect of a
human being, and does not represent the whole man. What
sense does it make to say that “all the fullness of God” fills
Jesus’ human nature?
But if Paul is saying that it is the man Christ Jesus in
whom the fullness of deity dwells, then Colossians 1:19
would make perfect sense.
But if Paul is speaking of “God the Son” of trinitarianism,
then Col.1:19 would be nonsensical because it would be
saying that the whole fullness of the Deity (the Trinity) dwells
bodily in “God the Son,” that is, the fullness of God dwells in
God! It is a tautology that makes no sense, for if God’s full-
ness does not dwell in God, how is He God in the first place?
Paul’s statement makes sense only if there is a person other
than God in whom God’s fullness dwells. The magnificence
of Col.1:19 and 2:9 lies in the fact that His fullness dwells in
a human being, the man Christ Jesus. This is unique in the
history of creation.
The two aorists in Colossians 1:19, eudokēsen and katoikē-
sai (in “pleased to dwell”) refer to a specific point in time (the
aorist is sometimes called “the punctiliar”). If we accept the
trinitarian view, then at what point in time was God the Son
filled with God’s fullness, and was he God before this hap-
pened? Trinitarians have no satisfactory answer to this quest-
ion because in their view, Jesus has always been God from
eternity past, and therefore has always had the fullness of

deity.86
But if Col.1:19 is applied to the biblical Jesus, a man, it
would make perfect sense to say that at some particular point
in time, he was filled with God’s fullness, especially in the
light of John’s Prologue, notably John 1:14.
Since Jesus is filled with God’s fullness, we can now better
understand John 1:16, “From his fullness we have all
received, grace upon grace,” that is, from Yahweh’s fullness in
Christ we have all received the abundance of saving grace by
which we are “born from above” (Jn.3:3,7). The church, the
body of Christ, is also filled with God’s fullness. In every
instance, it is always man in whom God’s fullness finds ex-
pression (“that you may be filled with all the fullness of God,”
Eph.3:19).
86
The trinitarian problem is compounded by the fact that “although
[Jesus] was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered”
(Heb.5:8). How is it that the preexistent and divine God the Son had
never learned obedience to God the Father in all eternity past until he
came down to earth?
Chapter 5
The Third Pillar of

Trinitarianism: Hebrews 1
H ebrews chapter 1 is what I used to call the third pillar of

trinitarianism. Woven into the fabric of the chapter is a
catena of quotations from the Old Testament which take up
more than half the chapter and are called up for the purpose
of demonstrating that Jesus is the promised Messianic king of
Israel. No Old Testament text ever speaks of the Messiah as
divine, nor is this the intention of Hebrews. Here is Hebrews
chapter 1 in full:
Hebrews 1: 1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways,
God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last
days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the
heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3
He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint
of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his
power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the
right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much
superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more
excellent than theirs. 5 For to which of the angels did God

ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or
again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a
son”? 6 And again, when he brings the firstborn into the
world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.” 7 Of the
angels he says, “He makes his angels winds, and his ministers
a flame of fire.” 8 But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O
God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the
scepter of your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and
hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed
you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.” 10
And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the
beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; 11
they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a
garment, 12 like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment
they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years
will have no end.” 13 And to which of the angels has he ever
said, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a
footstool for your feet”? 14 Are they not all ministering spirits
sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit
salvation? (ESV)
Hebrews 1:2
To prove the deity of Jesus, trinitarians need to find a verse
that speaks of him as the creator of the world. If Jesus is the
creator or a co-creator or even an agent of creation, then he is
evidently preexistent and divine. The scarcity of such verses in
the Bible drives trinitarians towards a search for one. And
since such a verse cannot be found, why not just make one
Chapter 5 — The Third Pillar of Trinitarianism 285
up? This statement is not meant as a joke but a point to be

taken in all seriousness.
In the last chapter we have seen that “through whom also
he created the world” in Hebrews 1:2 can also mean “because
of whom also he created the world,” a reading that offers no
support for Christ’s preexistence. We now revisit this verse
from a different angle and note the four places in ESV’s ren-
dering of this verse that deviate from the Greek text.
We now quote Heb.1:2 twice, the first time from ESV and
the second time also from ESV but with its four deviations
from the Greek text shown in boldface and marked with
superscript numbers 1,2,3,4 for reference:
Hebrews 1:2 in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son,
whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom
also he created the world.
Hebrews 1:2 in these last days he has spoken to us by his 1

Son, whom he appointed the 2 heir of all things, through
whom also he created 3 the world 4. (ESV)
The last few words of this verse, “through whom also he

created the world,” are precisely the reading desired by trinit-
arianism because it implies that Jesus played a role in the
Genesis creation. Yet alarm bells are set off when New Jeru-
salem Bible says something different: “through whom he
made the ages”. Which translation is correct? Here is the verse
as it stands in NJB and in the Greek text:
Hebrews 1:2 NJB … in our time, the final days, he (God) has
spoken to us in the person of his 1 Son, whom he appointed
heir of all things and through whom he made the ages.
Hebrews 1:2 NA28 … ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ, ὃν ἔθηκεν

κληρονόμον πάντων, δι᾽ οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας
[aiōnas]
Anyone who can read Greek would immediately know that

it is NJB, not ESV, which has the correct translation. In the
Greek, the crucial word is the very last one in the verse,
namely, aiōnas, a plural of aiōn. 87 In fact the English word
“eon” (an age) comes from Greek aiōn via the Latin aeōn.
Whereas ESV has made four alterations to Hebrews 1:2
with respect to the Greek, NJB has made only one. We now
list out the four ESV alterations marked above by the four
superscript numbers; this will be followed by a more detailed
discussion of the fourth alteration.
Alteration #1: In the term “his Son” of Hebrews 1:2, the word
“his” is not found in the Greek, so why does ESV add it in?
The inclusion of “his” does not make the statement doctrinal-
ly incorrect, but why introduce a word into the text which is
not there, thereby limiting the meaning of “son”? The fact is
that the Scriptures teach that God is “bringing many sons to
glory” (Heb. 2:10), not just one son.
87
On the plural of aiōn (“the ages”), Thayer’s lexicon makes the
rather picturesque comment, “the plural denotes the individual ages
whose sum is eternity”.
Alteration #2: Similarly, the word “the” in “the heir” is not in

the Greek, so why does ESV add it in? What does “the heir”
imply but that Jesus is the only heir? What is the reason for
imposing on “heir” a limit that is not found in the Bible? Paul
says that believers are also heirs: “if children, then heirs—heirs
of God and fellow heirs with Christ” (Rom.8:17).
Alteration #3:The word “made” (which is correctly preserved

in NJB) has been changed by ESV to “created”. The reason
for the change is obvious: man can “make” things but only
God can “create” things. Changing “made” to “created” is a
fundamental alteration that implies Jesus is God. The
difference in meaning between “make” and “create” is not as
pronounced in English as in Greek; but even in English, the
statement “I made this bread” (perhaps by baking) would be
understood differently from “I created this bread” (which
could take one of several meanings, including creating bread
by a miracle).88
Alteration #4:
This is a huge alteration which is reflected in the
contradictory renderings of NJB (“through whom he made
the ages”) and ESV (“through whom also he created the
world”). NJB correctly translates tous aiōnas as “the ages”
(which is the exact literal translation89) whereas ESV changes
88
The Chinese language also makes a distinction between make (做
or 造 or 制造) and create (创造).
89
As seen also in Marshall’s Greek-English interlinear which gives
the literal rendering “the ages” rather than “the world,” as also the
interlinear by Brown/Comfort.
it to “the world” to imply that the world was created through

Jesus. Interestingly, the exact construction tous aiōnas occurs
29 times in the Greek New Testament, yet ESV never trans-
lates it as “the world” except in Hebrews 1:2!
Lexically, tous aiōnas in Hebrews 1:2 does not mean “the
world” but “the ages”. It comes from the plural of aiōn which
means “age” (hence the plural “ages”). For English-speaking
people, this point is easy to grasp because the English word
“eon” is derived from aiōn. That aiōn carries the sense of time
and ages (as does “eon” in English) is further seen in the fact
that eis ton aiōna (or eis tous aiōnas) is the standard Greek
expression for “forever” (it occurs 54 times, e.g., 2 John 1:2).
An attempt to circumvent Hebrews 1:2

[Note: Some readers may wish to skip this section]
Thayer and other Greek-English lexicons acknowledge that

aiōn carries the sense of time and ages, yet Thayer tries hard
to find a trinitarian circumvention of this fact in Hebrews
1:2, through a supposed metonymy.
The word “metonymy” may seem arcane but its concept is
easy to grasp. American Heritage Dictionary says that a met-
onymy is a figure of speech in which a word is substituted for
another with which it is closely associated. AHD gives two
examples of metonymy: “Washington” stands for the United
States government, and “sword” stands for military power.
Thayer’s lexicon (p.19) brings up a non-existent metony-
my to say that aiōn means “the worlds, the universe” by
metonymy. This lexicon seems to be the only one in which

this contrived metonymy is found. Its definition of aiōn is
correct up to a point by focusing on “age” rather than
“world,” that is, until it brings up the metonymy in the last
sentence:
1. age, a human lifetime, life itself
2. an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity
1a. universally, forever, Jn.6:51,58; 14:16; Heb.5:6; 6:20,
etc.
2. by metonymy of the container for the contained, hoi
aiōnes denotes the worlds, the universe, i.e., the aggregate of
things contained in time: Heb.1:2; 11:3
Contrary to what Thayer says in the last statement, aiōn is

never by metonymy the “container” of the created material
universe. There is simply no biblical evidence for this alleged
metonymy. Not surprisingly, Thayer cites no literary preced-
ent for this unusual meaning. This so-called metonymy was
evidently fabricated for trinitarian use. Is this “rightly han-
dling the word of truth” (2Tim.2:15) or is it “distorting the
word of God” (2Cor.4:2)?
By contrast, the unabridged 1973 edition of the standard
Liddell-Scott-Jones (LSJ) Greek-English lexicon makes no
mention of “world” or “universe” in its definition of aiōn
(contra ESV), much less say that aiōn is a container of the
world or universe (contra Thayer). The first edition of LSJ
was published in 1843, 46 years before the publication of
Thayer’s lexicon in 1889. So why did Thayer give an
unprecedented definition of aiōn not found in LSJ—which in

Thayer’s time was an established and authoritative lexicon as
it is to this day—without providing any literary evidence for
it?
The following is the definition of aiōn (with the Greek
transliterated) in the 1996 9th edition of LSJ. It gives no such
meaning as “world” or “worlds” (contra ESV), much less any
suggestion of an alleged metonymy.
aiōn, ōnos, ho:-a period of existence:
1. one’s lifetime, life,
2. an age, generation,
3. a long space of time, an age, ap’ aiōnos of old, for ages, N.T.; ton
di’ aiōnos chronon, for ever,
4. a definite space of time, an era, epoch, age, period, ho aiōn houtos
this present world, opp. to ho mellōn, N.T.:- hence its usage in pl.,
eis tous aiōnas for ever.
A third Greek-English lexicon, BDAG, on aiōn, classifies

Hebrews 1:2 under heading 3 with the definition, “the world
as a spatial concept”. But BDAG is unsure of this classifica-
tion, and admits that “many of these passages (i.e., those just
cited by BDAG, including Heb.1:2) may belong under 2”.
Heading 2 gives the definition, “a segment of time as a part-
icular unit of history, age,” which agrees with the literal and
fundamental meaning of aiōn. In any case, the world created
in Genesis is not just “a spatial concept” but also a spiritual
concept that points to the new creation. The new creation is
vital for understanding Hebrews 1:2 and other verses in
Hebrews (e.g. Heb.11:3).
In the Bible, aiōn never refers to the material creation of

Genesis. Hence Hebrews 1:2 does not speak of any involve-
ment on Jesus’ part in the Genesis creation of the world. On
the contrary, Yahweh’s purpose for His creation is that Christ
should be heir of all creation, with his brothers becoming
joint heirs with him. That is why the same verse, Heb.1:2,
speaks of the Son as the one whom God “appointed heir of all
things,” and then goes on to say that it is through Christ that
God established the ages (NJB “through whom he made the
ages”; ITNT “around him he also formulated the epochs”).
In summary, aiōn does not refer to the material world or
universe but to the ages or epochs of human history from
Genesis to the end of this age. As we have seen, the English
eon comes from Greek aiōn via Latin aeōn.
The two principal ages in salvation history

In what way then is Christ central to the ages? What Hebrews
is concerned with is “salvation history”. In the New Testa-
ment and in Judaism, salvation history is divided into two
principal ages: “this age” and “the age to come”. The two
converge on Jesus the Messiah and are mentioned together in
Mt. 12:32 (“whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not
be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come”) and in
Eph.1:21 (God placed Christ “above every name that is
named, not only in this age but also in the age to come”).
Yahweh has made Christ the center of the epochs, for Yahweh
is the eternal King of “the Ages” (1Tim.1:17, which has the
same plural aiōn), fulfilling His plan of salvation for mankind

through Christ.
The present age began with Abraham and continues to the
present. The age to come began with Jesus the Messiah and
will continue up to the fulfillment of all that God has pro-
mised. This means an overlap of the two ages, and they will
continue to overlap until Jesus comes again (Acts 1:11; Mark
13:26). The overlap of the ages is what makes it possible for
us to experience “the powers of the age to come” right now
(Heb.6:5). Although “this present age” can be said to have
commenced with Abraham, it is equally valid to say that it
commenced with Adam’s disobedience. Whichever is the
case, this present age will continue “to the end of the age”
(Mt.28:20, tēs sunteleias tou aiōnos), concluding with the gen-
eral resurrection—an awesome display of Yahweh’s life-giving
power—and with the final judgment.
In this present age, God performs many wonders such as:
the revealing of His Name Yahweh; the deliverance of Israel
out of Egypt; the giving of the Ten Commandments to
Moses; and above all, the miraculous birth of Jesus, followed
by his perfection (achieved through suffering), his death, and
his resurrection for the salvation of the world.
In Hebrews, the two ages or epochs (this age and the one
to come) correspond to the two covenants: the “first cove-
nant” and the “new covenant” (Heb.8:7-8). Hebrews says of
the first covenant that “what is becoming obsolete and grow-
ing old is ready to vanish away” (8:13). The new covenant is a
“better covenant” (7:22) and spiritual in nature, involving the
heart and mind: “I will put my laws into their minds, and
write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they
shall be my people” (8:10; 10:16). Jesus accordingly “has been
given a ministry as far superior as is the covenant of which he
is the mediator, which is founded on better promises” (Heb.
8:6, NJB). Hence the new covenant is called the “eternal
covenant” (13:20).
“Covenant” (diathēkē) is a key word in Hebrews, and
occurs far more frequently in Hebrews (14 times) than in any
other NT book (the next highest is Galatians, 3 times). The
earliest recorded covenant between God and man is the one
that God made with Noah, by which He promised never
again to afflict the world with a flood (Gen.9:9-17).
Of the early covenants, a significant one was the one that
Yahweh made with Abraham when he was still called Abram
(Gen.15:18); it defined the boundaries of the land which will
be given to Israel. Circumcision was the sign of this covenant
(Gen.17:10) as it is to this day among the Jews. This
covenant later became the basis of God’s covenant with Israel
through Moses: “And God heard their groaning, and God
remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with
Jacob” (Ex.2:24; 6:5ff).
The verse we are discussing, Heb.1:2, says that Christ was
“appointed heir of all things” by God. Here “all things”
means much more than the sun and moon and stars, for
Christ will reign as Lord over all living things, including and
especially men and angels. The term “all things” directs our
attention not to the past (the Genesis creation) but to the
future (cf. the forward-looking word “heir”).
But before an inheritance can be bestowed in the spiritual

realm, the reality of sin, which has put men and angels under
bondage, must be dealt with. The sins of the present “evil
generation” (Mt.12:45; Lk.11:29) must be atoned for—and
reconciliation with Yahweh must be achieved—before one
could speak of the Son’s inheritance. By definition, a son in-
herits from his father what belongs to the father; hence
whatever Christ inherits from the Father must, on account of
God’s holiness, be pure and holy. Hence the necessity of
atoning for man’s sins and his being reconciled with the
Father.
G od made these ages through Christ and with Christ in

view. Like the mighty works, wonders and signs that
God did “through” Jesus (Acts 2:22), the ages are God’s work
through Jesus. 90 The ages are not random or incidental per-
iods of time, for in them God works out His eternal plan of
salvation through Christ, just as the signs and wonders which
God did through him had the purpose of pointing us to
salvation in Christ.
Though man has some degree of freedom to maneuver
within segments of time, he cannot control time, and is under
time’s control. But it is the opposite with God the Almighty,
90
A connection between Hebrews 1:2 and Acts 2:22 is seen by
comparing δι᾽ οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας (“through whom he made
the ages”) in Hebrews 1:2 with δυνάμεσι καὶ τέρασι καὶ σημείοις οἷς
ἐποίησεν δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ὁ θεὸς (“mighty works and wonders and signs that
God did through him”) in Acts 2:22, noting the correspondence of the
words in boldface.
the Eternal, for He “creates” time (cf. “he made the ages,”
Heb.1:2, NJB) and marks out its ages according to His eter-
nal purposes.91
The word aiōn has to do with time (cf. eon). To translate it
as “world” or “universe” is misleading because “world” has
meanings unrelated to time, as can be seen in any Greek or
English dictionary. Yet some translations render aiōn in
Heb.1:2 as “world” rather than “age” to say that God created
the material world through Jesus, thereby implying Jesus’
preexistence.
Hebrews 1:3
Hebrews 1:3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the
exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his
powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he
sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. (NIV)
We compare the first part of this verse with two verses from 2
Corinthians 4:
91
In Heb.1:2 (“through whom he made the ages,” NJB), the Greek
for “made” is poieō (ποιέω). Here it does not mean “created the world”
(ESV) but “made (marked out, appointed) the ages”. The sense of
appointment in poieō is seen in: Heb.3:2 (“who appointed him”); Acts
2:36 (“God has appointed him both Lord and Christ”); Rev.5:10 (“you
have appointed them a kingdom and priests to our God”); Mk.3:14
(“he appointed the twelve”); and so on.
Heb.1:3a The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact
representation of his being
2Cor.4:6b the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
2Cor.4:4b the light of the glory of Christ, who is the image of
God.
The latter two verses come from the same Bible passage and
are separated by only one verse (v.5). When viewed as a unit,
the two verses have clear parallels with Hebrews 1:3a. Because
Jesus Christ is “the image of God,” he is “the radiance of
God’s glory” that is seen “in the face of Jesus Christ”. See the
words in boldface.
But if Jesus is God as he is in trinitarianism, Hebrews 1:3
would make no sense because the glory he reveals would be
his own divine glory. By contrast, the glory that shines
through the biblical Jesus is God’s glory.
The Greek word charaktēr, translated in Hebrews 1:3 as
“representation” (NIV) or “imprint” (ESV), refers to out-
ward, visible form. BDAG defines the word as “an impression
that is made, outward aspect, outward appearance, form”. The
word form in this definition aligns with the fact that Christ is
the “image of God” (2Cor.4:4).92 Because “representation”
and “image” are used of Jesus the perfect man, something
significant is revealed: Because of his perfection, Jesus is
uniquely the visible image of the invisible God and the exact
(perfect) representation of God. The fact that Jesus makes
visible the invisible God is the most powerful fulfillment of
92
This will be discussed more fully in chapter 10 of the present
book.
God’s purpose in creating man, namely, to reveal Himself to

man and all creation. God’s self-revelation is the vital first
step in communicating with the sentient beings in His
creation.
Referring to Christ, Hebrews 1:3 speaks of “sustaining all
things by his powerful word,” where “sustaining” translates
pherō, a verb with various meanings: lead, bring forward, bear,
endure, uphold, carry (e.g., it is used of Jesus carrying the
cross, Lk.23:26).
In Hebrews, Jesus and Moses are compared but also con-
trasted (e.g., Heb.3:3, “Jesus has been counted worthy of
more glory than Moses”). Not surprisingly, this word pherō is
used in the Bible of both Moses and Jesus: Moses “carried”
(led, bore with) the people of Israel,93 and similarly Jesus
“carries” the world by “sustaining all things by his powerful
word” (Heb. 1:3). In Heb.1:3, pherō is a present participle,
indicating that Jesus is doing the sustaining now and will con-
tinue to do so into the eschatological future. His sustaining of
all things does not look back to the distant past or to
preexistence or to the material creation, but to the power and
authority that come with his exaltation to the highest place at
God’s right hand (Heb.1:3). This is not just a seat of honor
for Jesus to “rest on his laurels,” sitting back and relishing the
greatness of his achievements. With his exaltation comes the
authority to rule as Yahweh’s plenipotentiary over His uni-
93
In the LXX, pherō is used of Moses as the one who “carried” the
people of Israel, e.g., Num.11:14 (“I am unable to carry all this people
alone,” cf. vv.11,17) and Deut.1:9 (“I am not able to bear you [the
Israelites] by myself”).
verse, to command “all things” (1:3). Because Jesus has been

exalted by God and given a name above every name (Phil.
2:9), he is now the “Lord of all” (Acts 10:36), having been
given authority over everyone and everything in heaven and
on earth with the exception of God Himself (1Cor.15:27), at
whose right hand Jesus sits. In this verse, Hebrews 1:3,
Yahweh is referred to by the metonym “the Majesty in
heaven” (as also in 8:1).
Hebrews 1:4-5
Hebrews 1:4 … having become as much superior to angels as
the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.
The words “having become as much superior to angels”

would make no sense if they are applied to the trinitarian
God the Son, for if Jesus is God as he is in trinitarianism,
then he would be inherently superior to angels. He cannot
“become” superior, that is, elevated to superiority over angels,
for that would imply prior inferiority. That the writer to the
Hebrews could so easily and casually speak of Christ’s
“becoming” superior to angels clearly shows that he doesn’t
think of Christ as God.
Hebrews 1:5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,
“You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I
will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”? (ESV)
The Father-Son relationship was not granted to angels but to

the Messianic king (“you are my Son, today I have become
your Father,” Ps.2:7); to Solomon (“I have chosen him to be

my son,” 1Chr.28:6); and to those in Christ (“in Christ Jesus
you are all sons of God,” Gal.3:26). Here are some relevant
verses:
Psalm 2:7 I will proclaim the decree of Yahweh: He said to
me, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father.”
1 Chronicles 22:10 [Solomon] shall be my son, and I will be

his father, and I will establish his royal throne in Israel
forever (also 17:3; 28:6)
Psalm 89:26 [David] shall cry to me, “You are my Father, my

God, and the Rock of my salvation.”
Hebrews 1:6
Hebrews 1:6 When he brings the firstborn into the world, he
says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.” (ESV)
Hebrews 1:6 is probably a concatenation of two OT verses,

Ps.97:7 (Ps.96:7 in LXX) and Dt.32:43, in the form as they
appear in the LXX (the Greek OT) rather than the Hebrew
Scriptures.94 The exact nature of the concatenation cannot be
established with certainty since Heb.1:6 is a free concatena-
tion of a few words from one of the verses, and a few words
from the other.
94
In translating Dt.32:43, some Bibles (ESV, NJB, NRSV) follow
the LXX, and some (NASB, HCSB, NIV) follow the Hebrew Bible.
Yet we cannot fail to notice the similarity in wording

between Heb.1:6 and these two OT verses as they stand in
the LXX. We now put Hebrews 1:6 together with its proba-
ble LXX parallels, Ps.96:7 (Ps.97:7 in most Bibles) and
Dt.32:43:
Hebrews 1:6 When he brings the firstborn into the world, he
says, “Let all God’s angels worship* him.” (ESV)
Psalm 96:7 LXX “Do obeisance* to him, all his angels!” (New
English Translation of the Septuagint 95)
Deuteronomy 32:43a “Rejoice with him, O heavens; bow

down* to him, all gods” (ESV; LXX has “sons of God”)
The asterisk * indicates that the Greek word so marked,

whether in the NT or LXX, is proskyneō (which has several
meanings, fundamentally “bow down to” or “pay homage to”
but sometimes “worship”). The two OT texts from which
Hebrews 1:6 is derived—Ps.96:7 (LXX) and Dt.32:43—both
refer to Yahweh.96 Hence proskyneō—which in Hebrews 1:6 is
rendered “worship” (ESV) or “pay him homage” (NJB, REB)
or “reverence” (ITNT)—is in the Old Testament applied to
Yahweh, the one and only God.
95
The New English Translation of the Septuagint is a scholarly
translation of the major critical edition of the LXX, the Göttingen
Septuaginta editio maior.
96
That is because Psalm 97 (96 in LXX) refers to Yahweh six times
(vv.1,5,8,9,10,12). As for Dt.32:43, a reference to Yahweh is found a
few verses earlier, in v.39.
Why does Heb.1:6 say, “Let all God’s angels worship

him”? If this verse is indeed derived from Ps.97:7 (LXX 96:7)
and Dt.32:43—despite some uncertainty about this (Clarke’s
Commentary, on Heb.1:6)—it would be a merging of a few
words from one verse and a few from the other. The conca-
tenation may be free yet the overall message is unmistakable:
the Messiah is the firstborn, hence God’s angels must “wor-
ship him” (ESV) or “pay him homage” (NJB, REB) or “revere
him” (ITNT) or “adore him” (Douay-Rheims).
Christ has been granted the honor and privileges as the
firstborn who is superior to angels. His superiority over angels
is brought out in the immediate context of Heb.1:6 in no less
than three statements: Christ is superior to angels (v.4);
Christ is the Son of God in a way that angels are not (v.5);
Christ sits at God’s right hand as angels do not (v.3). Because
Heb.1:6 comes right after these three verses (3,4,5), it is a
continuation of their train of thought, namely, that Christ is
superior to angels. Hence all angels must “worship him” or
“pay him homage”.
The exaltation of Christ is seen in the gospels and in Paul’s
letters, and expressed by men and angels. In Matthew 2:11,
the magi fell before the infant Jesus and “worshipped him”
(ESV) or “did him homage” (NJB, REB) or “adored him”
(Douay-Rheims). Years later, God exalted him such that “at
the name of Jesus every knee should bow in heaven and on
earth and under the earth” (Phil.2:10). The words “in hea-
ven” are eminently applicable to God’s angels and therefore
to Hebrews 1:6 (“Let all God’s angels worship [or reverence]
him”), with the difference being that Philippians is describing

a post-resurrection scenario.
Note: In chapter 8 of this book, we will examine the

NT data on proskyneō and discover that when the
word is used of Jesus, it means “to pay homage to”
rather than divine worship.
The fact that proskyneō means “pay homage to” rather than
“worship” when it is used of Jesus (as will be demonstrated in
chapter 8) also comes out in the context of Hebrews 1:6
which declares two things: (i) Christ is the firstborn; (ii)
Christ is superior to God’s angels. Concerning (i), nowhere in
Scripture is the firstborn ever worshipped as God, as can be
verified by combing through the more than 100 verses in the
Old and New Testaments that refer to a firstborn. To the
contrary, Jesus the firstborn Son declares that his Father is
“the only true God” (Jn.17:3). Using “reverence” rather than
“worship” in Hebrews 1:6 would align with this truth and
with the affirmation that Christ is superior to angels. Angels
are to pay homage to Christ, the one who is superior to them,
and at whose name all must bow their knees (Phil.2:10).
Hebrews 1:8
Hebrews 1:8 But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is
forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of
your kingdom.” (ESV)
Psalm 45:6 Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The

scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness. (ESV)
Hebrews 1:8 is a quotation of Psalm 45:6. It is crucial to note

that Psalm 45 is an enthronement psalm: “I address my verses
to the king” (v.1). This person has become the king of Israel
through an anointing (v.7, “God, your God, has anointed
you with the oil of gladness”) which reminds us that the kings
of Israel are anointed. Psalm 45 is announcing the anointing
of a human king at his ascension to the throne of Israel. The
king is clearly human rather than divine because v.2 says that
he comes from “the sons of men”.
On the one hand the king is human, yet on the other he is
addressed “O God”. This would make sense only if “God” is
understood in the same way as in Jesus’ statement, “I said you
are gods” (Jn.10:34), a quotation of Psalm 82:6 (“you are
gods”).
Among scholars who have studied Psalm 45:6, it is univer-
sally acknowledged that although the king is called “God” or
“god” in this verse, he is still human. This is seen in the fol-
lowing trinitarian authorities:
The writer addressed his human king as “God” (Elohim). He

did not mean that the king was God but that he stood in the
place of God and represented Him. (Dr. Constable’s Exposi-
tory Notes, on Psalm 45:6)
Because the Davidic king is God’s vice-regent on earth, the

psalmist addresses him as if he were God incarnate. A similar
use of hyperbole appears in Isa.9:6, where the ideal Davidic
king of the eschaton is given the title “Mighty God”. (NET
Bible, on Psalm 45:6)
In what sense can the king be called “god”? By virtue of his

divine appointment, the king in the ancient Near East stood
before his subjects as a representative of the divine realm.
(Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: Old
Testament, vol.5, on Psalm 45:6)
Although the Israelite king was not regarded as divine (as the
kings of Egypt were), it is possible that he could be addressed
as “God” either in a form of Oriental hyperbolic language or
as a representative of God (cf. Ex.21:6; 22:8,9,28; Ps.82:6).
(Zondervan Bible Commentary, F.F. Bruce ed., on Psalm
45:6)
The simple and natural sense is that Solomon reigns not

tyrannically, as most of the kings do, but by just and equal
laws, and that, therefore, his throne shall be established for-
ever. Although he is called God, because God has imprinted
some mark of his glory in the person of kings … It is true,
indeed, that angels as well as judges are called collectively
“Elohim,” “gods” (John Calvin’s Commentary, on Psalm
45:6)
If, however, the king is addressed as Elohim, we should note

that he is still reminded that it is “God, your God,” who
“has set you above your companions.” The Hebrew term
Elohim has a wider range of meaning than our terms “God”
and “gods.” In Ex.21:6 and 22:8-9,28 (possibly 1Sam.2:25),
it appears to be applied to human judges (see also Ex.4:16;
7:1). (Understanding the Bible Commentary, Psalm 45:6)
Since God is the ultimate king of Israel (“Yahweh, the

King of Israel,” Isa.44:6; cf. Zeph.3:15), the throne of Israel is
God’s throne. Every king of Israel who occupied that throne
did so as Yahweh’s regent and representative.
I n any case, what is the point of the trinitarian assertion

that Jesus is God on account of Hebrews 1:8 (“Your
throne, O God, is forever and ever”) since this would make
“God” lower than the angels for a while (2:7)? Psalm 45:7
(quoted in Hebrews 1:9) says that God is the God of the
anointed king even though the latter is addressed “O God”.
Hence there is still a distinction of persons between God and
the anointed king. If we identify “O God” with a divine
Jesus, this would make God the God of God.
The focus in Hebrews 1:8 is not on “O God” but “Your
throne is forever and ever”. The Son’s throne is eternal
because it is Yahweh’s. The heavens and the earth, though
created by Yahweh (Heb.1:10, quoting Psalm 102:25 which
refers to Yahweh), will perish (Heb. 1:11,12). But it is said of
Yahweh, “you remain the same, and your years will have no
end” (v.12).
Because of the eternal nature of God and His throne, the

Jews in Jesus’ day knew that the “Christ will remain forever”
(Jn.12:34), a confidence that is strengthened by God’s prom-
ise to David, “His offspring shall endure forever, his throne as
long as the sun before me” (Ps.89:36; cf. Isa.9:7; Ezek. 37:24-
25; Dan.7:14).
But trinitarians will argue that the writer to the Hebrews
knowingly and intentionally took Psalm 45:6 with the expli-
cit words, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,” and
applied it to the Son. Several observations can be made in
response to this, and these complement each other.
Firstly, the main Bible available to the Greek-speaking
Jews in New Testament times was the Septuagint (LXX).
Unlike what we can do today, namely, choose a Bible that
reads Psalm 45:6 as “Your divine throne” (RSV), or another
Bible that has “Your throne is from God” (NJB), or yet
another that has “Your throne, O God” (NIV), the writer to
the Hebrews had no choice but to quote the LXX as it stood,
because he would never take the liberty to delete the words
“O God” from the version of Scripture (the LXX) that was
available to him, even if all he wanted to say was that the
throne is eternal. In using a few words of Psalm 45:6, he
would quote the whole sentence.
Secondly, the Jews as a whole do not believe that the
Messiah is God, and would not think of Psalm 45:6 as evid-
ence for his deity. Picking out this one verse from the Old
Testament to prove that the Messiah is God would be absurd
to most religious Jews.
Thirdly, many biblical scholars are aware of an important

way of reading Psalm 45:6 that heightens its message for
those who are waiting for the coming of the Messiah who will
reign over all nations in God’s name. In Exodus 4:16,
Yahweh told Moses that Moses will “be as God” to Aaron.
Three chapters later, in Exodus 7:1, Yahweh said to Moses,
“See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh”. If God made
Moses “as God” to Aaron and “like God” to Pharaoh, how
much more will He make Christ “like God” to the world, the
visible image of the invisible God (cf. Col.1:15)?
Fourthly, among scholars who have studied Psalm 45:6a
(“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever”)—whether they
are trinitarian (John Calvin) or non-trinitarian (Michael Ser-
vetus), whether they are Christian (Craig Broyles) or Jewish
(Robert Alter), whether they are Protestant (Peter Craigie) or
Catholic (Father Mitchell Dahood)—it is universally acknow-
ledged that although the king in Psalm 45:6 is called “God”
or “god,” he is not divine but is the human representative of
God. I have checked over a dozen authorities, both ancient
and modern, and none has expressed any opinion contrary to
this.
We can be sure that the writer to the Hebrews, who is tho-
roughly steeped in the Hebrew Scriptures and in the ways of
his forefathers, would be fully aware that in Psalm 45:6, the
king who is addressed “O God” is not divine but human (in
fact he would have to be human because he comes from the
ranks of “the sons of men,” v.2). So if the writer to the
Hebrews could apply the same verse, Psalm 45:6, to Jesus
purposefully and with a heightened awareness of its Scriptural
continuity, would he not also think of Jesus in similar terms,

that Jesus is called “O God” not because he is divine but
because he is the human representative of God? Why would
the writer to the Hebrews understand Hebrews 1:8 in a way
that contradicts his understanding of Psalm 45:6? And what
about his audience, the recipients of his letter to the Hebrews,
who are after all called the Hebrews? Would they not also be
aware that in Psalm 45:6, the king who is addressed “O God”
is not divine but human?
All in all, Hebrews 1:8 offers no evidence for the deity of
Christ. Ironically, Hebrews 1:8 would be of greater help to
trinitarians if it were not linked so closely to Psalm 45:6!
It is the exactness of the quotation of Psalm 45:6 in
Hebrews 1:8 that causes Christopher M. Tuckett (Lecturer in
NT Studies at Oxford) to be cautious about ascribing deity to
Jesus from Hebrews 1:8:
One should, however, perhaps be a little cautious. The quota-
tion of Psalm 45 is an exact repetition of the words of the
psalm which are there addressed to the king. There is presum-
ably no idea of ascribing divinity to the Israelite king in such
language when used in the Old Testament, and hence one
should be wary of assuming that such an idea is present in
Hebrews 1. In any case the dominant thought seems to be not
so much that the Son can be called ‘God’; rather it is that the
throne of the Son is ‘for ever and ever’ and that, as he has
loved righteousness and hated wickedness, God has anointed
him above his fellows. His position is above that of the angels
because, due to his ethical stance, he has been appointed by
God to a position on a ‘throne’ which will be for ever.

(Christology and the New Testament, pp.96-97).
Hebrews 1:10
Hebrews 1:10 You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in
the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands.
(ESV)
Psalm 102:25 Of old you laid the foundation of the earth,

and the heavens are the work of your hands. (ESV)
Hebrews 1:10 is a quotation of Psalm 102:25. Other verses in

the OT that use similar imagery to describe Yahweh’s creation
of the heavens and the earth are Isaiah 42:5; 48:13; 51:13;
Jeremiah 32:17; Zechariah 12:1.
The “you” in Psalm 102:25 refers to Yahweh on account
of v.22 (“worship Yahweh”); hence it is Yahweh God who is
spoken of in Psalm 102:25 as the creator of the heavens and
the earth. This identification is seen also in the several OT
verses just listed and in the book of Hebrews as a whole. For
example, Hebrews 2:10 (cf. 3:4; 11:3) says of God: “For it
was fitting that He, for whom and by whom all things exist,
in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of
their salvation perfect through suffering”. This verse makes a
distinction of persons: On the one hand there is God by
whom all things exist; on the other there is Jesus who was
perfected by God. This corresponds with the overall teaching
that Yahweh is the only creator.
Irrespective of how we read Hebrews 1:10, it would be err-

oneous to take it as an exception to, or a contradiction of, the
entrenched biblical fact that Yahweh God is the only creator.
This indicates that Hebrews 1:10—and more broadly verses
10 to 12—refers to Yahweh rather than Jesus.
Only one verse separates Hebrews 1:10 from 1:8 (“your
throne, O God, is forever and ever”). The combination of
these two verses shows that Yahweh the Creator has granted
the Son and his throne to remain forever. As Yahweh will
remain forever (“you are the same, and your years have no
end,” 1:12), so the throne of Christ will remain forever. In
Hebrews 1:10-12, God’s immortality is seen in the three
phrases shown in italics:
Hebrews 1:10-12 You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth
in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;
they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a
garment, like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they
will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have
no end. (ESV)
This passage, a quotation of Psalm 102:25-27, speaks of

Yahweh’s immortality: His years will have no end, and He
remains even if the heavens and the earth perish. But the tri-
nitarian “God the Son” is capable of dying and does not have
the immortality mentioned in this passage. Hebrews 1:10-12
cannot be literally true of the Lamb of God who takes away
the sin of the world (John 1:29).
R egarding the use of Psalm 102:25 in Hebrews 1:10, and

more generally the use of OT passages in Hebrews,
either the writer to the Hebrews is indiscriminately applying
to Jesus verses from the OT that refer to Yahweh (despite the
Jewish belief that the Messiah, the Son of God, is human and
not divine) or there is an important reason for making the
connection. What reason can there be but that Jesus is the
one who represents Yahweh perfectly and who literally em-
bodies Yahweh such that God lives in him bodily (“in him the
whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,” Col.2:9)?
The letter to the Hebrews was written by a Jew to fellow
Jewish believers. Would anyone doubt that these Jews were
committed monotheists? Even Philo, a Hellenized Jew
steeped in Greek philosophy, was a committed monotheist. It
defies reason to extract proto-trinitarianism from Hebrews 1.
There is no doubt that the writer to the Hebrews, who was
steeped in the Hebrew Scriptures, was aware that the OT
verses he was quoting referred to Yahweh. Why then would
he quote them in relation to the Son?
Did the writer to the Hebrews think that the Son was
Yahweh Himself? If he did, then Yahweh would be the
“firstborn” who was brought “into the world” by Yahweh
(Heb.1:6)! This answer does not work. The problem with our
inquiry lies in the way we framed our question, that is, with
the assumption that the OT verses quoted in Hebrews are
applied to the Son rather than to his coming or his appearing
or his manifestation in the world. The OT verses quoted in
Hebrews are applied to the coming of the Son, that is, to his
having been “brought into the world” (Heb.1:6). And the
coming of the Son into the world also involves the coming of
God into the world. Only with this understanding would the
catena or chain of OT verses on Yahweh make sense in the
book of Hebrews. Then we will see that Hebrews 1 echoes
the message proclaimed in John’s Prologue that God came
into the world and dwelled in Jesus.
From the train of thought presented in Hebrews 1, it is
clear that if Jesus is God, then the whole catena of OT quot-
ations would be redundant because they would be making
statements that are self-evident. If Jesus is God, it goes with-
out saying that his throne will be “forever and ever” (v.8) and
that he is superior to angels. In fact, trinitarianism faces the
conundrum that Jesus, who is supposedly God, was made
lower than the angels (2:9) but then “became” superior to
angels (1:4), implying prior inferiority. For similar reasons, it
is problematic to say that a divine Jesus has “inherited” a
more excellent name than the angels (v.4). Hebrews 1, far
from supporting the trinitarian idea of “God the Son,” effect-
ively serves to undermine it.
But if Jesus the Son of God is truly human like the rest of
humanity, then all that is written about him in Hebrews 1
would be of the highest significance. It is utterly astonishing
that Yahweh would exalt man to such heights of glory. Mortal
man is made immortal, and the gift of eternal life is given to
all who are in Christ. “For the perishable must clothe itself
with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality”
(1Cor.15:53). God’s people, the saints, will even reign with
Christ in glory and power:
The kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the

kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people
of the saints of the Most High; their kingdom shall be an ever-
lasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey them.
(Daniel 7:27; cf. Rev.1.6; 5:10)
The great blessings conferred on Jesus the Messiah-King will

be shared with his people. Jesus is the head of the body, and
the blessings poured on the head are also for the benefit of the
body. Such is God’s boundless love and generosity bestowed
on man in Christ. In fact Hebrews writes more about Jesus’
humanity than does any other New Testament letter.
With Jesus’ exaltation to the heavenly heights “far above
all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above
every name that is named” (Eph.1:21), and with Jesus’ place
at “the right hand of the Majesty on high” (Heb.1:3), one
might think that Jesus is now beyond the reach of humankind
in their pitiful and needy situations. Yet God and His Son
Jesus Christ have put us in their view, extending to us the
eternal blessings in Christ, including that of eternal life!
Hebrews 2: A spiritual reflection

Although the third pillar of trinitarianism is Hebrews chapter
1, we will say a few things about chapter 2 by way of spiritual
reflection. This chapter, like chapter 1, brings in a catena of
Old Testament verses that place strong emphasis on Jesus’
humanity:
Hebrews 2:6 It has been testified somewhere, “What is man,

that you are mindful of him, or the son of man, that you
care for him?”
Again we see the important place of man in God’s eternal

plan and outlook. Hebrews 2:6 is a quotation of several Old
Testament verses:
Psalm 8:4 …what is man that you are mindful of him, and
the son of man that you care for him?
Psalm 144:3 O Yahweh, what is man that you regard him, or

the son of man that you think of him?
Job 7:17 What is man, that you make so much of him, and
that you set your heart on him?
Hebrews continues:
Hebrews 2:7-8 You made him for a little while lower than
the angels; you have crowned him with glory and honor,
putting everything in subjection under his feet. (ESV)
This is a quotation of Psalm 8:5-6 in which we see something

striking when quoted from NASB and NIV (note the italics):
NASB Yet You have made him a little lower than God, and
You crown him with glory and majesty! You make him to
rule over the works of Your hands; You have put all things
under his feet.
NIV You have made them a little lower than the angels and
crowned them with glory and honor. You made them rulers
over the works of your hands; you put everything under their
feet.
These two renderings are startlingly different in their first

sentences: “a little lower than God” (NASB) versus “a little
lower than the angels” (NIV). The discrepancy arises from the
fact that in Psalm 8:5, the Hebrew Bible has Elohim (God)
whereas the Greek LXX has angelos (angel or messenger).
The next two verses in Hebrews repeat the point that Jesus
was for a while made lower than the angels:
Hebrews 2:8-9 At present, we do not yet see everything in
subjection to him. But we see him who for a little while was
made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with
glory and honor because of the suffering of death … (ESV)
In all the verses cited, we see not only the focus on man,
but also the fact that the writer to the Hebrews takes for
granted that Jesus is human (“What is man, that you are
mindful of him, or the son of man, that you care for him?”)
with no explanation given or required, and with no hint of
any alleged deity or preexistence.
The next verse, Hebrews 2:10, makes a distinction
between the One by whom all things exist (God) and the one
who was made perfect through suffering (Jesus). These are
two distinct persons, with the former making the latter
perfect:
For it was fitting that he (God), for whom and by whom all
things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the
founder of their salvation (Jesus) perfect through suffering.
(Heb.2:10)
The next four verses, Hebrews 2:11-14, have some striking

words:
2:11 For, indeed, he who makes holy and those made holy
are all from one (God). This explains why he is not ashamed
to identify with them as brothers. (ITNT)
2.12 “I shall proclaim your name to my brothers. Within the

congregation I shall sing hymns to you.” (ITNT)
2.13 And again, “I will put my trust in him.” And again,

“Behold, I and the children God has given me.” (ESV)
2.14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he

himself likewise partook of the same things (ESV)
The first of these verses, 2:11, says that the one who makes
holy (Jesus) and those who have been made holy (the believ-
ers) are all from one God. Jesus, the one who is perfect, is not
ashamed to accept as his brothers those who are not perfect at
the present time. The word “brothers” appears also in the sec-
ond of these verses, 2:12, which is a quotation of Psalm 22:22
(21:23 in LXX) which says: “I will tell of your name to my
brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will praise you”.
Since Jesus is true man, he is our brother. But trinitarians
say that Jesus is also God, thereby allowing for the possibility
of God being our brother! Because this is theologically
problematic and a uniquely trinitarian dilemma, trinitarians

tend to underemphasize the biblical fact that Jesus is our
brother.
In the fourth verse, 2:14, the words “share” and “partook”
are translated, respectively, from koinōneō and metechō, these
two words being “practically synonymous” (Moulton & Mill-
igan, Vocabulary of the Greek NT, koinōneō). Because Jesus
shares our humanity, he shares the “flesh and blood” of “the
children” (the believers), indeed the flesh and blood of all
humanity.
The third of these verses, 2:13, carries echoes of Psalm
16:1: “Keep me safe, my God, for in you I take refuge”. The
LXX (15:1) has, “Guard me, O Lord, because in you I
hoped” (ANETS). Similar sentiments of taking refuge in God
are seen in Psalm 18:2 (“my God, my rock, in whom I take
refuge); Psalm 36:7 (“the children of mankind take refuge in
the shadow of your wings”); and Psalm 91:2 (“I will say to
Yahweh: my refuge and my fortress, my God, in whom I
trust”). Why would Hebrews refer to these statements in the
Psalms but to show that Jesus shared the same kind of trust in
God as do “the children” (his disciples, cf. Isaiah 8:18)?
There is also Isaiah 12:2 (“God is my salvation: I will trust
and will not be afraid”) which carries overtones of the words
used for mocking Jesus at his crucifixion: “He trusts in God;
let God deliver him now, if he desires him” (Mt.27:43).
These were the hostile words of the religious leaders who
nonetheless acknowledged Jesus’ trust in God. What is
striking is their reason for acknowledging his trust in God:
“For he said, ‘I am the Son of God’” (v.43).
In our trinitarian days, we understood the claim to be the

Son of God as a claim to deity. In John’s Gospel, some have
used this unfounded connection to hurl an accusation at Jesus
(Jn.10:33-36; 19:7). But surprisingly or perhaps not, the
leaders of Israel did not recognize that connection (as we shall
see in a later chapter), but understood Jesus’ claim to be “Son
of God” as expressing his trust in God as his Father
(Mt.27:43; cf. Heb.2:13). Their understanding is correct, for
Jesus the Son of God addressed God as “Abba” (Mk.14:36)
like a child trusting in his father. Jesus taught his disciples to
address God as Father, and to trust Him completely as he did.
Chapter 6
The Fourth Pillar of

Trinitarianism: Revelation 1
R evelation chapter 1 is one of the four pillars of trinitar-

ianism that I, in my trinitarian days, pressed into service
for proving that Jesus is God, with the other three pillars
being John 1, Colossians 1, and Hebrews 1. But a careful stu-
dy of Revelation 1 will show that this chapter does not teach
trinitarianism or the deity of Christ. Our discussion will be
brief because we will be discussing related topics in the next
chapter on the New Testament doxologies. Here is the entire
Revelation 1:
1
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to
show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He
made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2
who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony
of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. 3 Blessed is the one
who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are
those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the
time is near.
4
John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you
and peace from him who is and who was and who is to
come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, 5
and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of
the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves
us and has freed us from our sins by his blood 6 and made us
a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory
and dominion forever and ever. Amen.
7
Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see
him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth
will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen. 8 “I am the
Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who
was and who is to come, the Almighty.”
9
I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation and the
kingdom and the patient endurance that are in Jesus, was on
the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and
the testimony of Jesus. 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s
day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet 11
saying, “Write what you see in a book and send it to the
seven churches, to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum
and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to
Laodicea.”
12
Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me,
and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and in the
midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with
a long robe and with a golden sash around his chest. 14 The
hairs of his head were white, like white wool, like snow. His
eyes were like a flame of fire, 15 his feet were like burnished
bronze, refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar
Chapter 6 — The Fourth Pillar of Trinitarianism 321
of many waters. 16 In his right hand he held seven stars, from

his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was
like the sun shining in full strength.
17
When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he
laid his right hand on me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first
and the last, 18 and the living one. I died, and behold I am
alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.
19
Write therefore the things that you have seen, those that
are and those that are to take place after this. 20 As for the
mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and
the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of
the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven
churches.” (ESV)
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him

As trinitarians, we failed to notice or to emphasize sufficiently
that the revelation of Jesus Christ did not originate from Jesus
himself but in fact came from God, who gave it to Jesus in
order that Jesus may show it to his servants (or slaves),
notably the apostle John:
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show
to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made
it known by sending his angel to his servant John.
(Revelation 1:1, ESV)
It is striking that the book of Revelation begins with a

clear distinction of persons, differentiating Jesus Christ from
God in the statement that God had given the revelation to
Jesus Christ. In language that offers no support for

trinitarianism, John simply says “God” instead of “God the
Father,” making Jesus distinct from God and not simply from
God the Father, who in any case is the only true God (John
17:3). Our conclusion is further strengthened by the fact that
this verse (Rev.1:1) speaks of “the God” (ho theos) rather than
“God” (theos).
The fact that the Revelation did not originate from Jesus
Christ but was something given to him by God the Father is
acknowledged by many trinitarians. For example, H.A.W.
Meyer says, “The revelation described in this book, Christ
received from the Father,” and J.P. Lange says, “[the revela-
tion] which God gave unto him—God, i.e., the Father”. 97
Expositor’s Bible Commentary, on Rev.1:1, delineates the
chain of authorship that started from God: “there are five
links in the chain of authorship: God, Christ, his angel, his
servant John, and the servants in the churches.” Similarly,
IVP New Testament Commentary, on Revelation 1:1, says:
If Jesus is the immediate source of the revelation, God is its
ultimate source. God gave the revelation to Jesus Christ to
show it in turn to his servants. The point is much the same
as in John’s Gospel, where Jesus insists again and again that
the words he speaks are not his own words, but the words of
“him who sent me” (e.g., Jn 7:16-17,28; 8:28; 12:49-50).
97
These two statements are quoted from H.A.W. Meyer’s Critical
and Exegetical Handbook to the Revelation of John (p.95), and Lange’s
Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (on Rev.1:1).
But as trinitarians, we overlooked what was clearly stated

in Revelation 1:1, and mistakenly thought that the Revelation
originated from Jesus. The fact is that even after his glorifica-
tion, Jesus is not an independent authority from God, for
even now he functions in submission to the Father as he
previously did on earth.
Who is and who was and who is to come

John’s salutation to the seven churches of Asia in verses 4 and
5 is remarkable for its use of terms that in the Bible are
unique to the book of Revelation:
John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and
peace from him who is and who was and who is to come,
and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, and
from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the
dead, and the ruler of kings on earth (Rev.1:4-5, ESV)
This greeting may be nothing more than a Johannine expan-

sion of a Pauline greeting that was familiar to the early
church: “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and
the Lord Jesus Christ”.98 But if we take John’s salutation more
literally, notably regarding the seven spirits who are before the
throne, it would be a message sent to the seven churches on
behalf of three parties: God “who is and who was and who is
98
This greeting occurs in Rom.1:7; 1Cor.1:3; 2Cor.1:2; Gal. 1:3;
Eph.1:2; Phil. 1:2; 2Thess.1:2; Phlm.1:3.
to come”; the seven spirits 99 who are before God’s throne;

and Jesus Christ. John again makes a distinction of persons,
this time differentiating Jesus Christ from the One “who is
and who was and who is to come,” a divine title that in the
Bible is unique to Revelation. The title occurs three times in
Revelation, the first time here (1:4) and repeated in 1:8 and
4:8, but also in shorter form in 11:17 and 16:5, for a total
five times:
99
If the seven spirits who are before God’s throne (Rev.1:4) are
understood literally as actual spirits, they may be “the seven angels who
stand before God” (8:2), with angels being “ministering spirits” (Heb.
1:14). In addition, Rev.3:1 speaks of “the seven spirits of God and the
seven stars,” where the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches
(Rev.1:20), suggesting that “the seven spirits of God” may also be
angelic. If this is so, there may be a parallel between the following three
sets of seven: the seven spirits before God’s throne (Rev.1:4), the seven
spirits of God (3:1), and the seven angels who stand before God (8:2),
with angels as ministering spirits (Heb. 1:14). Two more verses may be
relevant. Rev.4:5 equates “the seven spirits of God” with the seven
torches of fire before God’s throne, bringing to mind that angels are “a
flame of fire” (Heb.1:7). Rev.5:6 speaks of “the seven spirits of God
sent out into all the earth,” reminding us that angels (messengers) are
“sent” (Rev.22:6,16).
Most Bibles have “seven spirits” in Rev.1:4. One or two Bibles have
“sevenfold Spirit,” but this is highly interpretative. The Greek is tōn
hepta pneumatōn, literally “the seven spirits” (plural). In the same chap-
ter, in verse Rev.1:20, John speaks of the seven stars (tōn hepta asterōn),
not the sevenfold star; he also speaks of the seven churches (tōn hepta
ekklēsiōn), not the sevenfold church. BDAG takes hepta as numeral
seven, never sevenfold.
Rev.1:4 Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and
who is to come…
Rev.1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who
is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”
Rev.4:8 Day and night they never cease to say, “Holy, holy, holy, is
the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!”
Rev.11:17 We give thanks to you, Lord God Almighty, who is and
who was, for you have taken your great power and begun
to reign.
Rev.16:5 You are just, O Holy One, who is and who was, for you
brought these judgments (referring to God, v.1)
In none of these verses does the title “who is and who was
and who is to come” (or a shorter form) refer to Jesus Christ.
In each case, it refers to God, the Father of Jesus Christ, as
acknowledged by many trinitarians.
Some trinitarians say that the three clauses in “who is and
who was and who is to come” refer to the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Spirit, respectively, but this conclusion is so
bizarre and baseless that it is rejected even by trinitarian
works: Pulpit Commentary (Rev.1:4) says that “every clause
applies to the Father, not one to each Person”. Alford’s Greek
Testament (Rev.1:4) says that the “compound appellation” is
“to be applied to the Father”. Expositor’s Bible Commentary
(Rev.1:4) says that the title, “who is and who was and who is
to come,” refers specifically to “the Father”. It goes on to say
that this title expresses Yahweh’s timelessness:
The descriptive name of the Father [“who is and who was

and who is to come”] occurs nowhere else except in Revelat-
ion (4:8; cf. 11:17; 16:5). It is generally understood as a pa-
raphrase for the divine name represented throughout the OT
by the Hebrew tetragrammaton YHWH … The complete
combination of these three tenses [i.e., present, past, future]
occurs in a Palestinian Targum on Dt 32:39 … The tenses
indicate that the same God is eternally present with his
covenant people.
Commentary on the NT Use of the OT, on Rev.1:4, explains

that “who is and who was and who is to come” refers to
YHWH of Exodus 3:14, by pointing to John’s unusual use of
Greek grammar. Some readers may wish to skip the following
quotation because of its slightly technical nature:
The description of God as “the one who is and was and is to
come” is an interpretation of the name “YHWH,” based on
reflection on Exod.3:14 together with twofold and threefold
temporal descriptions of God in Isaiah (cf. Isa.41:4; 43:10;
44:6; 48:12), which themselves likely are reflections on the
divine name in Exod.3:14. The name in Exod.3:14 was also
expanded in a threefold manner by later Jewish tradition,
most notably Tg. Ps.-J. Deut.32:39, “I am he who is and
who was, and I am he who will be.” The first element, “the
one who is” (ho ōn), derives from Exod.3:14 LXX (egō eimi
ho ōn), and although the preposition apo calls for the genit-
ive, John keeps ho ōn in the nominative in order to highlight
it as an allusion to Exodus.
All in all, the eternal title, “who is and who was and who is
to come,” belongs to Yahweh God, not to Jesus, and expresses
God’s eternal timelessness (Ex.3:14, “I am who I am”), as also
brought out in Psalm 90:2: “Before the mountains were born
or You brought forth the earth and the world, from ever-
lasting to everlasting You are God”. The picture of Yahweh as
the One who extends His reach into the infinite past, through
the present, and into the future, is elaborated in verse 8:
“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who
is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”
(Rev.1:8)
Yahweh is the Alpha, the first letter, for all things originate
from Him. He is the Omega, the last letter, for all things re-
turn to Him in the glorious accomplishment of His purposes.
Jesus the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead

… Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead,
and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has
freed us from our sins by his blood. (Revelation 1:5)
Here is a beautiful portrait of Jesus Christ, who is the

“faithful witness” to his Father even unto death, just as it is
said of him in Phil.2:8 that he was obedient unto death, even
death on the cross. Hence, in Revelation, the first thing that
is said of Jesus’ earthly life is his absolute faithfulness to
Yahweh his Father, both by his life and by his death. Jesus’
perfection lies in his absolute faithfulness to his Father in
carrying out the work that had been entrusted to him, to

witness to the Father. Perfection is not an abstract ideal but
something which is displayed in Jesus’ matchless life quality.
Because of Jesus’ faithfulness unto death, the Father raised
him from the dead. Thus he is the firstborn of the dead (v.5)
who has the keys of Death and Hades (v.18). As the firstborn,
Jesus is the first and the last (v.17), both the beginning and
the goal of the new creation which effectively began with his
resurrection from the dead.
Although “the first and the last” refers to God in Isaiah
44:6 and 48:12, in the New Testament there are several ways
of reflecting on this title as applied to Jesus, not least from his
own life and teaching: “If anyone wants to be first, he must
be the last and the servant of all” (Mk.9:35). “The last will be
first, and the first will be last” (Mt.20:16).
Jesus is the first and the last as the Good Shepherd. The
shepherd is the first for leading the sheep forward, and the last
for looking back to see if any sheep is straggling behind, just
as a guide would lead a group of climbers up a mountain, yet
look back to see if anyone is left behind.
Finally, Jesus is the first for being “the firstborn of the
dead” but also the “firstborn of all creation” (Col.1:15), a
reference to the new creation rather than the old (as we saw in
chapter 4). In this new creation, Jesus is the author and
completer of our faith (Heb.12:2), hence the first and the last.
T he third element in Revelation 1:5, coming after “faith-

ful witness” and “firstborn of the dead,” is “ruler of kings
on earth,” an echo of the exaltation of Jesus in Phil.2:9. This
third element has not yet come into full force (“we do not yet
see everything in subjection to him,” Heb.2:8) but will be
fully realized at his “coming with the clouds,” at which time
“every eye will see him” (Rev.1:7).
As ruler of the kings on earth, Jesus has been given the
highest position in the human sphere. In an earthly war
waged against Jesus who is called the Lamb, he is also called
“Lord of lords and King of kings” (Rev.17:14). Unlike others
who are called “king of kings” (Artaxerxes in Ezra 7:12,
Nebuchadnezzar in Dan.2:37), Jesus has all authority in hea-
ven and on earth (Mt. 28:18), though not over God, for Jesus
will live in subjection to God for all eternity (1Cor.15:27-28).
Jesus also says, “I myself have received authority from my
Father” (Rev.2:27), implying that his supreme authority is
not an intrinsic authority but something given to him by the
Father.
The saints who are being persecuted (Rev.1:7) will look to
Jesus’ coming with eager expectation. They have much to be
grateful for amid their sufferings which are a consequence of
their following him on earth, and grateful above all for his
saving love: “To him who loves us and has freed us from our
sins by his blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God
and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever.”
(vv.5-6)
Priests to his God and Father

The verse just quoted says that Jesus has made us “priests to
his God and Father” (v.6), not priests to Jesus himself. He
redeemed us by his blood, not so that we may live for our-
selves or even ultimately for him, but that we may serve “his
God and Father” as priests. Jesus’ selflessness, yet another
aspect of his perfection, is seen powerfully in his self-giving
love by which “he freed us from our sins by his blood”(v.5).
The fact that Jesus has made us priests to his God and
Father offers nothing in support of Jesus’ alleged deity, but
instead tells us that God is also “his God and Father”. Later
on, in the space of one verse, Rev.3:12, Jesus speaks of God as
“my God” four times:
The one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the tem-
ple of my God. Never shall he go out of it, and I will write on
him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my
God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down from my God
out of heaven, and my own new name. (ESV)
In retrospect I wonder how as trinitarians we believed that

Revelation chapter 1 offers support for trinitarianism and the
deity of Christ. On the contrary, it reveals just the opposite:
Revelation 1 proclaims Jesus as man, through whose blood—
the essential element of human life—sinners are freed from
their sins (v.5). Man has sinned and it is by a man that he is
redeemed. Redemption is not carried out by means of a God
who cannot die but by means of a man who can die. This was
what Yahweh in His perfect wisdom had planned before the
ages (2Tim.1:9; 1Cor.2:7; Titus 1:2), having in view a perfect

man through whom He will save all who call on His name.
That Jesus has made us priests to his God and Father
implies that there is a temple in which to serve God, for
where do priests serve if not in a temple? And indeed, on the
Lord’s day (Rev.1:10), John sees “seven golden lampstands”
(v.12) which in the Bible always stand in the Holy Place of
the temple. In “the midst of the golden lampstands” John sees
“one like a son of man” (v.13), a clear reference to Daniel
7:13 (“one like a son of man”). The one standing in the midst
of the lampstands is “clothed with a long robe and with a
golden sash around his chest” (Rev.1:13). This is a picture of
the high priestly garments (Ex.28:4; 29:5), but the picture
alone is not sufficient to tell if Jesus is wearing high priestly
garments. That is because the seven angels in Rev.15:6 are
similarly clothed: “out of the sanctuary came the seven angels
with the seven plagues, clothed in pure, bright linen, with
golden sashes around their chests.”
What is more determinative of the priestly nature of the
one “like the son of man” is the fact that he stands in the
midst of the golden lampstands. Whereas household lamps
are found in ordinary homes (Mt.5:15; Lk.8:16), golden
lampstands are hardly household items, much less when seven
of them are standing together. The number seven points to
the perfect heavenly temple on which the earthly temple was
modeled (Num.8:4; Ex.25:9,37,40; Acts 7:44; Heb. 9:2).
Whereas Rev.11:4 depicts, in a different context, two
powerful prophets as “two olive trees and two lampstands that
stand before the Lord of the earth,” the seven lampstands in
Revelation represent the seven churches of Asia (Rev.1:20).

Standing amid the lampstands is “one like a son of man,” the
church’s high priest (Heb.2:17; 3:1; 4:14-15; 5:10; 8:1-3;
9:11). “It was fitting that we should have such a high priest,
holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted
above the heavens” (Heb. 7:26). Note the many adjectives
used of Jesus’ perfection: “holy, innocent, unstained, sepa-
rated from sinners” (ESV) or “holy, blameless, pure, set apart
from sinners” (NIV).
Jesus, the glorious and exalted one

There can be no doubt that this glorious divine-like “son of
man” (Rev.1:13) who stands among the lampstands is Jesus
himself, for he is the one who also says, “I died, and behold I
am alive forevermore” (v.18); verse 5 speaks of Jesus as “the
firstborn of the dead”.
Amazingly, the form and appearance of Daniel’s “son of
man” has, in the Revelation, changed to resemble that of the
Ancient of Days in Daniel: “The hairs of his head were white,
like white wool, like snow” (Rev.1:14). This is similar to the
picture of God in Daniel: “the Ancient of Days took his seat;
his clothing was white as snow, and the hair of his head like
pure wool” (Dan.7:9). Jesus the son of man has—after his
death, resurrection, and exaltation—become the image of the
Ancient of Days! God the Almighty now manifests Himself in
the man Jesus, the one who has been given all authority in
heaven and on earth! God’s glory shines in the face of Jesus
Christ (2Cor.4:6). Jesus perfectly fulfills God’s original pur-
pose in creating man as “the image of God” (Gen.1:27).

Because Jesus is the perfect image of the invisible God
(Col.1:15), to see Jesus is to see God. Even his voice which is
“like the roar of many waters” (Rev.1:15) is like God’s voice
(Ezek.43:2). The perfect man is a perfect reflection of God.
“In his right hand he held seven stars” (Rev.1:16) which
are “the angels of the seven churches” (v.20). And “from his
mouth came a sharp two-edged sword” (v.16), an allusion to
Isaiah 11:4: “he shall strike the earth with the rod of his
mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall kill the
wicked,” a reference to the Messiah king of the Davidic line.
Indeed, the word of God is sharper than any two-edged sword
(Heb.4:12).
The glorious picture of Jesus in Rev.1:16 (“his face was
like the sun shining in full strength”) is similar to that of the
mighty angel in Rev.10:1, “I saw another mighty angel com-
ing down from heaven, wrapped in a cloud, with a rainbow
over his head, and his face was like the sun, and his legs like
pillars of fire.”
Jesus’ glorious appearance brings to mind the transfigur-
ation which took place in his earthly life: “he was transfigured
before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes
became white as light” (Mt.17:2). Likewise, through redemp-
tion in Christ, “the righteous will shine like the sun in the
kingdom of their Father” (Mt.13:43).
When John saw Jesus in the Revelation, he saw what Paul
calls “the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2Cor.4:6).
Then John fell at Jesus’ feet (Rev.1:17) which is similar to
what Ezekiel did when he saw Yahweh’s glory: “Such was the
appearance of the likeness of the glory of Yahweh. And when

I saw it, I fell on my face” (Ezek.1:28). Similarly, Daniel said,
“I saw this great vision, and no strength was left in me … I
fell on my face in deep sleep with my face to the ground”
(Dan.10:8-9; cf. vv.17-19).
Jesus put his right hand on John and said, “Fear not, I am
the first and the last, and the living one. I died, and behold I
am alive forevermore” (Rev. 1:17-18).
Likewise Yahweh says, “I am the first and I am the last;
besides Me there is no god” (Isa.44:6; 48:12; cf. 41:4 and
43:10). Jesus now acts on Yahweh’s behalf as His only begot-
ten Son and regent over all creation, especially the new
creation consisting of true believers, and here specifically the
believers of the seven churches of Asia.
The monotheism of the Revelation

In this brief survey of Revelation 1, we have found nothing
that supports the deity of Christ. The trinitarian title “God
the Son” is found nowhere in it. What we see instead is the
glory of the Perfect Man, who is the perfect image of God; he
is God’s representative who shines forth God’s glory with
matchless power and splendor.
From the monotheistic character of the Revelation, we
should learn to be cautious about hastily assuming, as I had
done in the past, that what appears to be Old Testament titles
of God can simply be assumed to have the same meaning
when used of Christ. For example, “I am the first and the
last” in Rev.1:17 is also found in Isaiah 44:6 and 48:12 (cf.
41:4). Are we to assume without further ado that “first and

last” means the same in both cases, such that the one who
says, “I am the first and the last” in Rev.1:17 is one and the
same as Yahweh God?
In saying “I am the first and I am the last; besides Me
there is no god” (Isa.44:6), Yahweh reveals Himself as the
only God, an identification that cannot be applied to Jesus
because that would exclude His Father as God (contra John
17:3, which says that the Father is the only true God).
However, the truly divine title that expresses God’s eternal
timelessness, being rooted in God’s self-revelation to Moses at
the burning bush, is “who is and who was and who is to
come” (Rev.1:4,8; 4:8). This divine title is unique to Revelat-
ion and is never applied to Jesus, a fact that is consistent with
the uncompromising monotheism of the Revelation.
It is more in line with Scriptural teaching to say that God
has conferred on Christ some of His divine titles and attri-
butes. Christ acts as the Father’s plenipotentiary such that
when he speaks, it is God who speaks through him; when he
does something, it is the Almighty who works in him; and
when he comes in the name of his Father, the Lord God
comes in him (Rev.22:12-13).
The Lamb that was slain

By far the most frequent title of Jesus in Revelation is “the
Lamb”. It is used of him 28 times in the book of Revelation
(= 4 x 7; the spiritually significant numbers 4 and 7 appear
throughout Revelation).
In Rev.13:11 there is another “lamb” who makes his ap-

pearance in the world as an imitation of God’s Lamb with the
purpose of deceiving the world: “Then I saw another beast
rising out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb and it
spoke like a dragon.” This different lamb, by its appropriation
of the title “lamb,” is symbolic of a “different Christ” (cf.
2Cor.11:4).
The atoning death of Jesus the Lamb of God is central to
the New Testament from start to end, but is given heightened
focus in Revelation which, as the last book of the Bible, can
be said to be the climax and conclusion of the New Testa-
ment. It is the only book that gives a blessing to its readers
(Rev.1:3; 22:7). In Revelation, Jesus stands out as the slain
Lamb of God.
One third of each of the synoptics (Matthew, Mark, Luke)
is focused on Jesus’ final days, that is, on his suffering and
death. This theme is even more emphatic in John: almost half
of his gospel is focused on Jesus’ final days, his death, and his
resurrection.
Already at Jesus’ birth, his death was foreshadowed by the
imagery of a sword piercing his mother’s heart (Lk.2:35).
The title Lamb of God that is central to Revelation already
appears early in John’s Gospel (Jn.1:29,36). The theme of the
Lamb of God permeates the New Testament. It is the hub
from which every other teaching radiates, forming the circle
that encompasses NT teaching. Conversely, every teaching in
the NT is related to this hub, for inasmuch as it radiates from
it, it can be traced back to it.
In 1Cor.5:7 Paul invokes the imagery of the Lamb at the

Passover, though he would more often write instead of Jesus’
suffering, death, and resurrection by God’s power. Jesus’ suf-
fering is given much prominence in the book of Hebrews but
also in the apostolic preaching after Pentecost, in the book of
Acts.
Without the Lamb of God, there would be no regenerat-
ion, no renewal, and no perfection in the believer’s life. When
we see the deep things of the Lamb of God, we will under-
stand the deep things of the New Testament. The Lamb of
God is the fountain from which everything flows. It is the
center of the New Testament, the remainder of which constit-
utes its exposition and application.
The sacrificial lamb must be without spot or blemish
(1Pet.1:19). That is why only Jesus the perfect man can be
“the savior of the world” (Jn.4:42; 1Jn.4:14). “There is no
other name under heaven given among men by which we
must be saved” (Acts 4:12).
Jesus is never worshipped in the Revelation

The Greek word for “worship” is proskyneō, which occurs 60
times in the New Testament, with 24 of the occurrences
(40%) found in Revelation. That is a high number for one
book, yet none of the 24 occurrences of proskyneō in Revel-
ation refers to Jesus with one possible exception! The object
of worship in the Revelation is Yahweh alone and not Jesus
Christ.
This fact may be unsettling to Christians, yet it aligns with

the fact that the book of Revelation gives far less prominence
to Jesus than to God. The name “Jesus” occurs only 14 times
in Revelation, a small number given that “Jesus” occurs about
917 times in the NT (even Philippians, a short letter, has 22
occurrences). The word “Christ” occurs over 500 times in the
NT, but only 7 times in Revelation (versus 46 times in
Ephesians). Does it not indicate that Jesus Christ is not the
central figure in Revelation?
In BDAG and Thayer’s Greek-English lexicon, proskyneō
fundamentally means “bowing the knee” (see chapter 8 for
the full details). It can be used in the weak sense (bowing the
knee without worship) or in the strong sense (worship). An
instance of the weak sense is found in Rev.3:9: “I will make
them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I
have loved you” (NIV). Here the prostration is not an act of
worship but of submission before believers.
It will come as a surprise to trinitarians that the book of
Revelation never uses proskyneō of Jesus, neither in the weak
sense nor the strong sense, with the sole and limited exception
of Rev.5:14. To demonstrate this, we now do a quick
overview of proskyneō in Revelation. Along the way we will
encounter another word, piptō (to fall).
The word proskyneō is used twice of John’s bowing before
the angel who was showing him the heavenly things: “Then I
fell down at his feet to worship him” (Rev.19:10); “I fell
down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to
me” (22:8). John bowed before the angel, but the angel
stopped him and said, “You must not do that! I am a fellow
servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with
those who keep the words of this book. Worship God.”
(22:9)
In Rev.1:17, John collapsed at Jesus’ feet out of fear, but
this time the word used is not proskyneō but piptō (to fall):
When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he

placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I
am the First and the Last.” (Rev.1:17, NIV)
A few chapters later, in Rev.5:8, piptō is used again in relation

to Jesus: “the four living creatures and the 24 elders fell down
before the Lamb”. In all English Bibles, piptō is here rendered
“fell down” (or similar) rather than “worshiped”.
There is only one other similar use of piptō in Revelation.
In this instance the Lamb is not by himself but is at the right
hand of God who is seated on the throne:
13
“To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise
and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!” 14 The
four living creatures said, “Amen,” and the elders fell down
(piptō) and worshiped (proskyneō). (Rev.5:13-14, NIV)
The two passages just cited, Rev.5:8 and 5:13-14, are the only
ones in Revelation that come close to the worship of Jesus. In
5:8, the heavenly beings fall before Jesus but there is no men-
tion of worship. In 5:14, just quoted, we see the two afore-
mentioned Greek words: piptō (translated “fell down”) and
proskyneō (translated “worshiped”). Worship is mentioned
this time because it is directed mainly to the one “who sits on
the throne”—that is, to God.
Here is a crucial observation: In the book of Revelation

apart from 5:14, proskyneō always refers to God and never to
Jesus, without exception. 100 Hence it is clear that when
proskyneō is applied to both God and Jesus in the sole verse
Rev.5:14, it is God and not Jesus who is the principal reason
for the use of proskyneō. This is consistent with the fact that in
the immediate context of Rev.5:14, the central figure is God
seated on His throne.
We are reminded of the way the people of Israel bowed
before God and before King David (note the highlighted
words):
1 Chronicles 29:20 David then addressed the whole assembly:
“Now bless Yahweh your God!” And the whole assembly
blessed Yahweh, God of their ancestors, bowing down in
homage to Yahweh, and to the king. (NJB)
In the Hebrew text of this verse, YHWH occurs three

times. In the LXX of this verse, the word translated “bowing
down in homage” is proskyneō, the very word used in
Rev.5:14. The use of proskyneō in 1Chr.29:20 is crucial be-
cause it tells us that the LXX translators did not hesitate to
apply proskyneō to David when proskyneō is also applied to
Yahweh! The parallel between David in 1Chr.29:20 and Jesus
in Rev.5:14 is heightened by the fact that Jesus is the
prophesied Messiah from David’s line.
100
Excluding occurrences of proskyneō that speak of the worship of
the beast.
We note that in 1Chr.29:20 the main intended recipient

of the worship is not David but Yahweh by the fact that
David said, “Now bless Yahweh your God.” Yet that does not
rule out David participating with Yahweh as the recipient of
the proskyneō.
The combination of piptō and proskyneō appears also in
Rev.7:11, but not in reference to Jesus:
… They fell down on their faces before the throne and wor-
shiped God, saying: “Amen! Praise and glory and wisdom
and thanks and honor and power and strength be to our
God for ever and ever. Amen!” (Rev.7:11-12, NIV)
There is mention of God who is seated on His throne but

there is no mention of the Lamb. The combination of piptō
and proskyneō is seen also in the following:
And the twenty-four elders, who were seated on their thrones
before God, fell on their faces and worshiped God, saying:
“We give thanks to you, Lord God Almighty, the One who
is and who was, because you have taken your great power
and have begun to reign.” (Rev.11:16-17, NIV)
The 24 elders give thanks to the One “who is and who was,”
which, as we have seen, is a title of Yahweh. The elders fall on
their faces and worship God, but again there is no mention of
the Lamb.
The last verse in Revelation to have both piptō and pros-
kyneō is 19:4 which does not mention the Lamb at all: “And
the 24 elders and the four living creatures fell down and
worshiped God who was seated on the throne.”
In my trinitarian days, I saw Jesus as the central object of

worship in Revelation. Yet only one verse (Rev.5:14) has any
possible support for that, but it is weakened by the fact that
the Lamb appears not alone but alongside God who is seated
on His throne. The sole instance of the adoration of Jesus
alone is in Rev.5:8, but it is expressed not by proskyneō but by
piptō, a word that is not translated “worshiped” in English
Bibles. In fact, Rev.5:8 is sandwiched in between Revelation
chapters 4 and 6, both of which are centered on the worship
of Yahweh.
In Revelation, the central object of worship is not the
Lamb but the One who is seated on His throne. The Lamb is
not the main occupant of that throne for it belongs to God
who is mentioned about a dozen times as being seated on it.
Jesus has his own throne but it is distinct from God’s (Rev.
3:21). We are granted to sit with Jesus on his throne just as
Jesus is granted to sit with his Father on his Father’s throne.
Monotheism is powerfully entrenched in Revelation. In
John’s heavenly visions, no one but God is worshipped above
all else, and He is the One who sits on the central throne.
Appended Note: The coming again of Yahweh

Revelation 22:12-13 12
Behold, I am coming soon, bringing
my recompense with me, to repay everyone for what he has
done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the
last, the beginning and the end.
Here we cannot assume that just because v.12 has the

words “I am coming soon” that the passage refers to Jesus.
Owing to the trinitarian marginalization of Yahweh in the
church, it is not generally known that Yahweh’s glory will be
revealed at Jesus’ return. This is not to deny that Revelation
speaks of the return of Jesus (Rev.1:7; 22:20). Yet it is equally
important to note that many Bible verses outside Revelation
speak of Yahweh’s coming in various scenarios: “Yahweh
came from Sinai and dawned from Seir” (Dt.33:2); “Our
God comes” (Ps.50:3); “Yahweh my God will come”
(Zech.14:5); “Yahweh is riding on a swift cloud and comes to
Egypt” (Isa.19:1); “the glory of Yahweh shall be revealed, and
all flesh shall see it together” (Isa.40:5); “the Lord comes with
ten thousands of his holy ones” (Jude 1:14). We see this also
in Revelation:
Revelation 6:15-17 [the people of the world, great and lowly]
hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the
mountains, calling to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us
and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the
throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb, for the great day of
their wrath has come, and who can stand?” (ESV)
Here the plural “their” (“their wrath”) refers to two persons:

Yahweh God seated on His throne and Jesus Christ the
Lamb. If Yahweh is not manifested in some visible way (note
the word “face”), why would the people of the world try to
hide from Him? Yahweh, who is seated on His throne, is
mentioned before the Lamb, for the coming involves Yahweh
and then also the Lamb.
In Rev.22:7 is the declaration, “Behold, I am coming

soon”. Against our expectations, the two verses preceding this
verse speak of God: “the Lord God” (v.5) and “the God of
the spirits of the prophets” (v.6). Verse 3 speaks of “the
throne of God and of the Lamb,” again differentiating God
from the Lamb. There is no doubt that Yahweh is the one
who is speaking in verse 7 (“Behold, I am coming soon”), and
that He will return with the Lamb.
Chapter 7
Doxologies in
the New Testament
T he Greek word doxa (δόξα) means “glory”. Doxologies

are praises and attributions of glory to God. If the New
Testament is really as Christ-centered as trinitarians say it is,
why are there so many doxologies directed to God the Father
and almost none to Jesus Christ?
But notwithstanding this fact, Jesus has brought so much
glory to God that doxologies to God arose spontaneously to
proclaim Jesus’ wonderful work by the power of Yahweh who
indwelled him. This will become clearer when we look at the
powerful expressions of praise to God on account of Jesus. Let
us begin by looking at the New Testament doxological
expressions.
The doxological expression “to Him be glory

forever”
The doxological expression “to Him be glory forever” or
similar (e.g., Rom.11:36, autō hē doxa eis tous aiōnas) occurs
13 times in the New Testament (7 times in Paul’s letters) and
is always concluded with “Amen” (in the case of Rev.5:13, the
“Amen” is uttered by others). Contrary to what we might
expect, none of the 13 doxologies is directed to Christ except
in Rev.5:13 where the doxology is directed not to him alone
but to him and God the Father together (we have already
discussed this special case in the previous chapter). Here are
the 13 references:
Rom.11:36 To Him be the glory forever. Amen.

Rom.16:27 to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the
glory forever. Amen.
Gal.1:5 our God and Father, to whom be the glory forever and
ever. Amen.
Eph.3:21 to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus
to all generations forever and ever. Amen.
Phil.4:20 To our God and Father be the glory forever and ever.
Amen.
1Tim.1:17 Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only
God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.
2Tim.4:18 The Lord will rescue me from every evil deed and
bring me safely into his heavenly kingdom. To him be
the glory forever and ever. Amen.
Heb.13:21 that which is pleasing in His sight, through Jesus
Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen.
Chapter 7 — Doxologies in the New Testament 347
1Pet.4:11 in order that in everything God may be glorified

through Jesus Christ. To Him belong glory and
dominion forever and ever. Amen.
Jude 1:25 to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our
Lord, be glory, majesty … before all time and now and
forever. Amen.
Rev.1:6 and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father,
to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.
Rev.5:13 To Him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be
blessing and honor and glory and might forever and
ever!
Rev.7:12 … honor and power and might be to our God forever
and ever! Amen.
All these doxologies are directed to the Father and none to

Christ (with the sole and limited exception of Rev.5:13 in
which Christ is the second object of the doxology after God
the Father). And where Christ is mentioned, he is spoken of
as the one through whom (Rom.16:27; 1Pet. 4:11; Jude 1:25)
or in whom (Eph.3:21) God is glorified.
Some commentators see 2Tim.4:18 as referring to Christ,
but from the general nature of doxologies in Paul’s letters,
this is hard to see. Neither Jesus nor Christ is named in chap-
ter 4 except in verse 1, which belongs to a different section of
the letter. Jesus is not explicitly called “Lord” in this section,
and “Lord” could just as easily refer to God the Father as it
does in 2:19 (twice). Hence no absolute conclusion can be
made as to whether 2 Timothy 4:18 refers to Jesus or not; but
if it does refer to Jesus, it would be a departure from the other
doxologies in Paul’s writings.
Additional note: The special case of 2 Peter 3:18

The doxology in 2 Peter 3:18, which is not included in the
list above, is addressed to Christ:
But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior
Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of
eternity. Amen. (2 Peter 3:18, ESV)
This doxology does not stand on the same level as those listed
in the previous section, for two reasons. Firstly, it does not
have the same wording as the other doxologies. The word
“forever” that is used in the other doxologies is here replaced
with “both now and to the day of eternity”. The unusual
phrase “the day of eternity,” which commentators find diffi-
cult, is found nowhere else in the Bible, neither in the New
Testament nor the Old, but is found in the apocryphal book
Sirach, in 18:10. Even there it is not an exact match because
Sirach has the preposition en where 2 Peter 3:18 has eis:
What is man, and of what use is he? What is his good and
what is his evil? The number of a man’s days is great if he
reaches a hundred years. Like a drop of water from the sea and
a grain of sand, so are a few years in the day of eternity.
(Sirach 18:8-10, RSV)
It is believed that Sirach was written in the Hebrew lang-

uage around 180 BC and translated into Greek around 55
years later. It belongs to the tradition of the Jewish Wisdom
writings.
Secondly, although 2Pet.3:18 is concluded with “Amen”
in most Bibles, the UBS3 Greek text assigns “Amen” the
lowest degree of textual certainty {D} and encloses “Amen” in

square brackets to indicate that the reading is disputed. In
UBS4, “Amen” has been elevated to {C}, but is still enclosed
in brackets as also in NA27. Most significantly, “Amen” is
removed altogether from the main text of UBS5 and NA28,
as also in Westcott-Hort.
Since “Amen” appears in the 13 doxologies listed above
except Rev.5:13, the uncertain status of “Amen” in the doxol-
ogy of 2 Peter 3:18, in combination with other considerat-
ions, means that the doxology doesn’t stand on the same level
as the others.
Extended doxologies in the New Testament

We now briefly survey, with minimal commentary, the major
or extended doxologies in the New Testament outside Revel-
ation (those in Revelation will be covered in the next section).
The doxologies in this section include about half of those
listed in the previous section which are based on the doxo-
logical structure “to Him be glory forever”. Each doxology in
this section will be quoted in full from Scripture and then
briefly discussed. The first is:
Romans 11:33-36 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom
and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments
and how inscrutable his ways! “For who has known the mind
of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?” “Or who has
given a gift to him that he might be repaid?” For from him
and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory
forever. Amen. (ESV)
This doxology is addressed to God alone. Neither Jesus nor

Christ is mentioned by name in the whole chapter, though
v.26 (“the Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish
ungodliness from Jacob,” quoting Isaiah 59:20-21) refers to
God’s salvation through Christ.
In the next doxology, God is called “the eternal God” and
“the only wise God”:
Romans 16:26-27 has now been disclosed and through the
prophetic writings has been made known to all nations,
according to the command of the eternal God, to bring
about the obedience of faith—to the only wise God be glory
forevermore through Jesus Christ! Amen. (ESV)
Here the words “to the only wise God be glory forevermore”
conclude Romans chapter 16 just as the words “to him be
glory forever” in the preceding doxology, Romans 11:36, con-
cludes Romans 11. Similar language is used in the short but
magnificent doxology of 1 Timothy 1:17:
1 Timothy 1:17 To the king of ages, immortal, invisible, the
only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.
This doxology, located near the beginning of 1 Timothy, is

complemented by another near the end of 1 Timothy:
1 Timothy 6:15-16 … he who is the blessed and only
15
Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone

has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom
no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal
dominion. Amen. (ESV)
We cannot hastily suppose that this latter doxology refers

to Christ just because he is mentioned in v.14. A look at the
internal content of this doxology reveals that it cannot refer to
Christ. First, the term “only Sovereign” can hardly refer to
Christ since the earlier doxology, in 1:17, speaks of God as
“the only God”. Second, the earlier doxology, in 1:17, speaks
of God as “immortal,” a statement that is mirrored in “who
alone has immortality” in the later doxology. The fact that
Christ died means that he is not immortal. But if despite this
fact we still insist that Christ is immortal, we would make
Paul’s statement to say that Christ “alone” has immortality,
ruling out God the Father as immortal! Third, the clause
“whom no one has ever seen or can see” can hardly apply to
Jesus.
This doxology does not conclude with the familiar formula
“to whom be glory forever” but with the slightly different “to
him be honor and eternal dominion” (v.16).
The next doxology, in Hebrews 13:20-21, is not of the
Pauline model but a prayer for blessing. But insofar as it
speaks of God as “the God of peace” and as the one “who
brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus,” it does have
doxological elements.
Hebrews 13:20-21 Now may the God of peace who brought
again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the
sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant, equip you with
everything good that you may do his will, working in us that
which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom
be glory forever and ever. Amen. (ESV)
Our next passage, Jude 1:24-25, is not a doxology of the

Pauline type, but like Hebrews 13:20-21 it does have
doxological content in that it speaks of “His glory” and “the
only God, our Savior”. The concluding ascription of glory to
God, “before all time and now and forever,” corresponds to
the truth that God is the one “who is and who was and who is
to come” (Rev. 1:8).
Jude 1:24-25 Now to him who is able to keep you from stum-
bling and to present you blameless before the presence of his
glory with great joy, to the only God, our Savior, through
Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and auth-
ority, before all time and now and forever. Amen. (ESV)
For completeness we list the three instances of the express-

ion of praise, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ”. The following three verses (quoted from ESV)
all begin with the word “blessed” to express praise and
adoration:
2 Corinthians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort.
Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord

Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual
blessing in the heavenly places.
1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be
born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus
Christ from the dead.
These three belong to three different NT letters, and each

appears at the start of its respective letter. Yet they all use the
same doxology, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ,” indicating that it may have been crystalized into
a doxological form that is widely used in the early church,
perhaps at the commencement of house church meetings.
We note a few things: (i) These three NT letters begin by
saying that God is “blessed”—i.e., praised, glorified, adored—
before going on to other things. Thus Yahweh is the center
and focus of the letters. (ii) Christ is not included as the
object of the praise; rather, it is in Christ that Yahweh blesses
the believer with every spiritual blessing. (iii) Yahweh is, first
and foremost, “the God and Father” of our Lord Jesus Christ;
and it is in Christ that God also becomes our God and
Father. What stands out from these doxologies is that there is
only one God, namely, the God and Father of Jesus Christ.
Extended doxologies in Revelation

God, who is called “the Lord God Almighty” in Revelation
4:8, is always the focus of worship and adoration in Revelat-
ion:
8
And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings,
are full of eyes all around and within, and day and night they
never cease to say, “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God
Almighty, who was and is and is to come!” 9 And whenever
the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to him
who is seated on the throne, who lives forever and ever, 10
the twenty-four elders fall down before him who is seated on
the throne and worship him who lives forever and ever. They
cast their crowns before the throne, saying, 11 “Worthy are
you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and pow-
er, for you created all things, and by your will they existed
and were created.” (Revelation 4:8-11, ESV)
Revelation portrays God as the one who sits on the throne

(v.9; also 4:2; 5:1; 6:16; 7:15; 12:5). The 24 elders have their
own thrones, and these are placed “before God” (11:16; 4:4).
Jesus also has his own throne: “The one who conquers, I
will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also con-
quered and sat down with my Father on his throne” (Rev.
3:21). Within one sentence, Jesus speaks of “my throne” and
“his throne,” making a distinction between two thrones, one
belonging to God, the other to Jesus. At his Father’s throne,
Jesus is granted a place at His right hand, just as the victor-
ious saints will be granted to “sit with me on my throne”. Al-
though Jesus is granted to sit with the Father on the Father’s
throne, Jesus is not mentioned in the doxology of Rev.4:8-11
which we just quoted, a remarkable omission given that the
doxology gives much prominence to thrones and is replete
with emphatic references to God’s throne and to the worship
of God before His throne.
Revelation 11:17 is another paean of praise to God, yet
again there is no mention of Jesus:
“We give thanks to you, Lord God Almighty, who is and
who was, for you have taken your great power and begun to
reign.” (Rev.11:17)
In the following doxology of Revelation 14:7, an angel

commands those who dwell on earth to “fear God and give
Him glory” and to “worship Him”:
And he said with a loud voice, “Fear God and give him glo-
ry, because the hour of his judgment has come, and worship
him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of
water.” (Rev.14:7, ESV)
In the following doxology of Revelation 15:3-4, those who

have overcome the beast join in heaven to worship God by
singing the song of Moses and “the song of the Lamb”. Just as
Moses led the Israelites in the praise and worship of God
(Ex.15:1-21) after crossing the Red Sea, so Jesus leads the
heavenly multitudes in worshipping God!
And they sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and
the song of the Lamb, saying, “Great and amazing are your
deeds, O Lord God the Almighty! Just and true are your
ways, O King of the nations! Who will not fear, O Lord, and
glorify your name? For you alone are holy. All nations will
come and worship you, for your righteous acts have been
revealed.” (Rev.15:3-4, ESV)
The following doxology in Revelation 16:5-7 is offered to

God by an angel:
And I heard the angel in charge of the waters say, “Just are
you, O Holy One, who is and who was, for you brought these
judgments. For they have shed the blood of saints and pro-
phets, and you have given them blood to drink. It is what they
deserve!” And I heard the altar saying, “Yes, Lord God the
Almighty, true and just are your judgments!” (Rev. 16:5-7,

ESV)
In the following doxology of Revelation 19:1-8, praise and

worship is offered to God by a great multitude in heaven.
There is no mention of Christ apart from the marriage of the
Lamb. No worship is directed to the Lamb, yet the marriage
of the Lamb is presented as a cause for glorifying God who is
seated on the central throne.
After this I heard what seemed to be the loud voice of a great
multitude in heaven, crying out, “Hallelujah! Salvation and
glory and power belong to our God, for his judgments are
true and just; for he has judged the great prostitute who cor-
rupted the earth with her immorality, and has avenged on
her the blood of his servants.” Once more they cried out,
“Hallelujah! The smoke from her goes up forever and ever.”
And the twenty-four elders and the four living creatures fell
down and worshiped God who was seated on the throne,
saying, “Amen. Hallelujah!” And from the throne came a
voice saying, “Praise our God, all you his servants, you who
fear him, small and great.” Then I heard what seemed to be
the voice of a great multitude, like the roar of many waters
and like the sound of mighty peals of thunder, crying out,
“Hallelujah! For the Lord our God the Almighty reigns. Let
us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage
of the Lamb has come, and his Bride has made herself ready;
it was granted her to clothe herself with fine linen, bright
and pure”—for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the
saints. (Revelation 19:1-8, ESV)
Finally, in Revelation 21:23, in the heavenly city, “the glory

of God gives it light” (replacing the sun) and the Lamb is its
“lamp” (replacing the moon).
Conclusion so far
Our survey of the New Testament doxologies has shown that
Yahweh God is the sole object of worship. Just as there are no
doxologies to Jesus (apart from one or two uncertain verses),
so there are no prayers to Jesus in the New Testament, as we
shall see. This is a fundamental fact and it shows that there is
no basis for the trinitarian deification of Jesus. The few debat-
able verses that trinitarians use in their support cannot stand
by themselves when the whole New Testament context is
taken into account.
Trinitarians reject the plain fact that Jesus was neither
worshipped in the NT church nor the one to whom believers
prayed in their daily lives. On the contrary, Jesus places
himself among those who worship God: “You worship what
you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is
from the Jews” (Jn.4:22). As for prayer, Jesus prayed all night
to the Father (Lk.6:12). Even after his resurrection and
glorification, Jesus continues to intercede for us (Rom.8:34;
Heb.7:25; 1Jn.2:1).
J esus Christ, the one exalted to the zenith of creation, in-

deed to a position second to that of God Himself, is a real
human being like any of us. This is astonishing, even mind-
boggling. We now see how much more wonderful is the bib-
lical message about Jesus Christ than the trinitarian one. The
same is true of every New Testament passage in which Jesus is
eulogized in magnificent terms, though never as God.
In fact some of the adulations of Jesus in the Bible are
problematic to trinitarians because they make him less than
divine. For example, Christ is honored as “the firstborn of all
creation” (Col.1:15), an exalted title that no matter how we
interpret it refers to the eldest son. No son is equal to his
father in every respect, for a son, by definition, derives his
existence from his father in some way, otherwise he would
not be called a son except by adoption, an idea that would be
reprehensible to trinitarians if applied to Jesus. But if Jesus is
a true man as he is in Scripture, then the glorious attribution,
“firstborn of all creation,” would be an extraordinary pro-
clamation of the highest praise.
Because Jesus is man (“the man Christ Jesus,” 1Tim. 2:5),
the eulogies and adulations ascribed to him in the NT (e.g.,
his exaltation to God’s right hand) gain heightened signifi-
cance. Once we have been freed from trinitarian blindness,
these magnificent praises and glorifications stir us powerfully,
for they reveal the heights of Yahweh’s love and grace shown
to the man Christ Jesus, and through him to those who are in
Christ. Whereas in trinitarianism the praises are no more than
Jesus’ due as God, in biblical monotheism they are a
wondrous display of Yahweh’s boundless grace shown to man.
Hence all the praises poured forth on Jesus in the NT are “to
the glory of God the Father” (Phil.2:11; cf. 1Pet.4:11). This
is contrary to trinitarian thinking because it deflects the
accomplishments from the Son to the Father.
In the New Testament, Jesus is never the object of worship

in the way worship is offered to God. We read of people who
paid homage to Jesus, usually by kneeling before him. In the
ancient Near East, kneeling or bowing was a familiar gesture
of respect and courtesy, but was not in itself understood as an
act of divine worship. Abraham bowed before the Hittites
(Gen. 23:12), and David bowed before Saul (1Sam.24:8) des-
pite knowing that God had rejected Saul as king. Some
Christians would never kneel to anyone or anything except
before crucifixes or sacred statues because of the mistaken
notion that kneeling before someone is necessarily an act of
divine worship. (The next chapter has a discussion on the
meaning of proskyneō when the word is applied to Jesus.)
There is no worship of the Holy Spirit in the Bible

The Bible says absolutely nothing about the worship of the
Spirit. The total silence will come as a surprise to those who
believe that the Spirit is the third person of the Trinity and is
to be worshipped as God. That the Bible never speaks of wor-
shipping the Spirit is noted by ISBE, a trinitarian reference:
Evidence for the divinity of the Spirit is thinner and hazier
than symmetrical fifth-century trinitarian statements suggest
(cf. Athanasian Creed). The Spirit is called “God” at most
once (Acts 5:3). OT passages about Yahweh are not applied to
the Spirit. No ontological statements of divinity appear, as
they do with regard to Christ. And the Holy Spirit in the NT is
never an object of worship or prayer. (ISBE revised, vol.4,

“Trinity,” “Divinity of the Spirit”) 101
The only verse in the Bible that may give a hint of the
worship of the Spirit is John 4:24: “God is spirit, and those
who worship him must worship in spirit and truth”. But most
trinitarians (e.g., John Calvin) do not think that “spirit” in
this verse refers to the Holy Spirit. Rather, it is a statement of
God’s spirit nature; hence most Bibles have the lowercase
“spirit” (NASB, ESV, NIV, NJB, HCSB, NET, RSV),
though NKJV has “Spirit”.
Given the Bible’s total silence on worshipping the Holy
Spirit, the Nicene Creed is obviously wrong when it says that
the Spirit is one “who with the Father and the Son is wor-
shipped together.” It also explains why trinitarianism could
not be ratified until the late 4th century, at the First Council
of Constantinople of 381.
Most Christians don’t know that at the earlier and histor-
ically more important Council of Nicaea of 325 (whose im-
portance has since been equalled only by Chalcedon of 451),
101
By “symmetrical” ISBE is referring to the way the Athanasian
Creed uses symmetrical statements to assert the coequality of Father,
Son, and Spirit, as in the following excerpt: “Such as the Father is; such
is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son
uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the
Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the
Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three
eternals; but one eternal.” ISBE is saying that this formulation goes
beyond the biblical witness, for the Bible never teaches the worship of
the Spirit.
only the Son but not the Spirit was deified to coequality with
the Father. This reflects the church’s uncertainty about the
deity or even the separate personality of the Holy Spirit.
Because of this hesitation, the earlier binitarian creed of 325 is
actually a “better” creed (in an ironic sense) than the later
trinitarian creed of 381 for having one less error.
J.D.G. Dunn: Did the first Christians worship Jesus?

The question posed in the very title of James D.G. Dunn’s
book, Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? The New Testa-
ment Evidence, is answered by Dunn himself in the book’s
final chapter under the heading “The Answer”. Dunn’s ans-
wer to his own question is a qualified and nuanced “no”. The
following are the last two paragraphs of his answer to his own
question:
In the light of such reflection and conclusion the particular
question, ‘Did the first Christians worship Jesus?’, can be seen
to be much less relevant, less important and potentially mis-
leading. It can be answered simply, or simplistically, even
dismissively, with a mainly negative answer. No, by and large
the first Christians did not worship Jesus as such. Worship
language and practice at times do appear in the New Testa-
ment in reference to Christ. But on the whole, there is more
reserve on the subject. Christ is the subject of praise and
hymn-singing, the content of early Christian worship, more
than the one to whom the worship and praise is offered. More
typical is the sense that the most (only?) effective worship, the
most effective prayer is expressed in Christ and through
Christ. That is also to say that we find a clear and variously

articulated sense that Jesus enables worship—that Jesus is in a
profound way the place and means of worship. Equally, it has
become clear that for the first Christians Jesus was seen to be
not only the one by whom believers come to God, but also the
one by whom God has come to believers. The same sense of
divine immanence in Spirit, Wisdom and Word was exper-
ienced also and more fully in and through Christ. He brought
the divine presence into human experience more fully than
had ever been the case before.
So our central question can indeed be answered negatively,

and perhaps it should be. But not if the result is a far less ade-
quate worship of God. For the worship that really constitutes
Christianity and forms its distinctive contribution to the
dialogue of the religions, is the worship of God as enabled by
Jesus, the worship of God as revealed in and through Jesus.
Christianity remains a monotheistic faith. The only one to be
worshipped is the one God. But how can Christians fail to
honour the one through whom it believes the only God has
most fully revealed himself, the one through whom the only
God has come closest to the condition of humankind? Jesus
cannot fail to feature in their worship, their hymns of praise,
their petitions to God. But such worship is always, should al-
ways be offered to the glory of God the Father. Such worship
is always, should always be offered in the recognition that God
is all in all, and that the majesty of the Lord Jesus in the end
of the day expresses and affirms the majesty of the one God
more clearly than anything else in the world. (Did the Early
Christians Worship Jesus?, pp.150-151)
The Lamb in the midst of the throne

[This section may be skipped on a first reading]
“For the Lamb in the midst of the throne will be their

shepherd, and he will guide them to springs of living
water, and God will wipe away every tear from their
eyes.” (Revelation 7:17, ESV)
How do we understand the words “the Lamb in the midst of

the throne” in Revelation 7:17? The phrase “in the midst” has
the exact Greek form ana meson. A search for its root form
ana mesos shows that it is used three times in the NT outside
Rev.7:17, each in the same form ana meson (corresponding to
the highlighted words in the following):
Matthew 13:25 his enemy came and sowed weeds among the
wheat
Mark 7:31 in the midst of the region of Decapolis.
1 Corinthians 6:5 Can it be that there is no one among you

wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers?
These verses do not shed obvious light on the meaning of

“the Lamb in the midst of the throne”. Moreover, while there
are many references in the book of Revelation to God sitting
on His throne, there is no clear reference to the Lamb sitting
in the middle or the center of that throne.
To be specific, God is described 11 times in Revelation as
the One who “sits upon the throne” (Rev.4:9,10; 5:1,7,13;
6:16; 7:10,15; 19:4; 20:11; 21:5). In none of these is Christ
said to share the Father’s throne. Only in Rev.3:21 is there

any mention of Christ sitting on the Father’s throne (“as I
also conquered and sat down with my Father on His
throne”), but the same verse also says that Jesus has a throne
of his own (“I will grant him to sit with me on my throne”),
just as the 24 elders have their own thrones as we see five
verses later (4:4, also 11:16). These 24 thrones are arranged
“around” the throne of God, with Christ seated at God’s right
hand. This would locate Christ’s throne at the right-hand side
of God’s throne.
In the New Testament, the construction en mesos occurs
more often (26 times) than ana meson, the two being “loose
synonyms” (Expositor’s Greek Testament, vol.5, p.400). More
pertinent to our discussion is the fact that en mesos occurs sev-
en times in Revelation where in each instance the exact form
is en mesōi. Here are the seven verses in Revelation (all quoted
from ESV unless indicated otherwise):
Rev.1:13 in the midst of the seven lampstands one like a son of
man
Rev.2:1 who walks among the seven golden lampstands
Rev.4:6 “in the midst of the throne” (NKJV) or “in the center,
around the throne” (NIV)
Rev.5:6 “in the midst of the throne and of the four living
creatures” (NKJV) or “in the center of the throne,
encircled by the four living creatures” (NIV)
Rev.5:6 in the midst of the elders (NKJV)
Rev.6:6 a voice in the midst of the four living creatures
Rev.22:2 through the middle of the street of the city
Revelation 5:6 is listed twice because it has two occur-

rences of en mesos, both of which are explained by BDAG
(mesos): For the first instance, BDAG suggests, “on the center
of the throne and among the four living creatures”. BDAG
places the second instance under definition 2b (“as subst.
neuter ἀνὰ μέσον”), leading to “in the midst of, among,” that
is, in the midst of the elders.
Hence the most accurate translation of the Greek of
Rev.5:6 seems to be: “in the midst of the throne and of the
four living creatures and in the midst of the elders” (which
matches NKJV exactly). Why does John use “in the midst”
twice in this verse? Could it be that the four living creatures,
like the Lamb, are within the throne in some sense whereas
the elders are not within but around the throne? This seems
to find support in Revelation 6:6: “a voice in the midst of the
four living creatures”. In view of the foregoing, this voice
must be that of the Lamb.
But if the throne on which God sits is not viewed as a
quasi-material structure but the symbol of His authority (just
as “scepter” often carries this meaning, e.g. Gen.49:10; Ps.
45:6; 110:2), then the Lamb at its center would indicate that
Jesus has a central role in the governing of God’s universe. In
this government, the Lamb is assisted in some way by the four
living creatures. Because God has given the Lamb a central
role in the rule over His universe, His throne is appropriately
called “the throne of God and of the Lamb” (Rev.22:1).
Whatever else “in the midst of the throne” may mean, one
thing is certain: To be “in the midst of the throne” is to be
under the authority of “the One seated upon the throne”.
In his standard commentary on Revelation, R.H. Charles

comments on the Jewish antecedents of “the throne of God
and of the Lamb” (Rev.22:1). The commentary makes the
significant observation that in the Jewish concept of the
Messiah seated on the throne of God, worship is directed to
God, not to the Messiah (see the last sentence in the follow-
ing).
This idea [of sitting on God’s throne] with regard to the
Messiah is pre-Christian: cf. 1 Enoch 51:3, “And the Elect
One shall in those days sit on My throne.” Likewise the Elect
One is described as sitting on the “throne of glory,” 45:3,
55:4, and as sitting on “the throne of His glory (i.e., God’s
glory),” 62:3,5 (cf. 51:3). Similarly, the Lord of Spirits places
the Elect One “on the throne of glory” (61:8), “on the throne
of His glory,” 62:2. This throne is called the Son of Man’s
throne, 69:27,29. Finally, it is to be observed that though the
Lord of Spirits places the Elect One on the throne of glory in
61:8, and he judges all men, yet in 61:9, the praises of all are
directed to the Lord of Spirits. (Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on the Revelation of St. John, vol.2, pp.175-176)
Does Romans 9:5b Equate Christ with God?
Romans 9:5 says, “To them belong the patriarchs, and from
their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God
over all, blessed forever. Amen.” (ESV). There is disagreement
among Bibles on how the latter part of this verse before the
“Amen” should be translated, as seen in the following:
… Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. (ESV)

… Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. (KJV)
… Christ who is above all, God, blessed for ever. (NJB)
… the Messiah. God who is over all be blessed forever. (NAB)
… to Christ. May God who is over all be praised on into the
ages! (ITNT)
… the Messiah, who is over all. Praised be Adonai for ever! (CJB)
… the Messiah. May God, supreme above all, be blessed for ever!
(REB)
… Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! (NIV) 102
… the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. (RSV) 103
… the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever. (NRSV) 104
… Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed
forever. (NASB)
102
NIV alternative: Or Christ, who is over all. God be forever praised!
103
RSV alternative: Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever.
104
NRSV alternative: Or Messiah, who is God over all, blessed forever;
or Messiah. May he who is God over all be blessed forever.
The varying translations of the doxology in Romans 9:5b

fall into two main camps: those which identify Christ as God
(ESV, NIV, NJB) and those which do not (NAB, RSV, CJB,
ITNT, REB); included in the former are those (KJV, NASB,
NRSV) which imply that Christ is God but in language that,
to the English ear, might allow for slight ambiguity. Some
translations (NIV, RSV, NRSV) acknowledge both meanings
as being possible by giving alternative readings in footnotes.
The diversity of translation stems from one and only one
problem: The interpretation of Romans 9:5 depends largely
on what the translator thinks is the correct way of punctuating
the statement in the Greek text. It is not an issue of textual at-
testation (there is no problem with the manuscript evidence)
but of punctuation (the original Greek text had no punct-
uation). The ambiguous syntax of Romans 9:5 indicates that
this verse cannot, by itself, be used as a proof text for or
against trinitarianism.
In fact many trinitarian Bibles have chosen to translate
Romans 9:5 in the non-trinitarian way. One reason is that the
words “who is over all” can hardly be applied to Christ since
Paul elsewhere says that Christ will be subject to God in the
final eschatological state of affairs (1Cor.15:27-28).
NRSV’s rendering (“the Messiah, who is over all, God
blessed forever”) is the one closest to the syntax of the NA28
Greek text, but we should keep in mind that the punctuation
in the Greek was decided by the NA28 editorial committee
and that the original Greek does not have the punctuation
marks that we see in the following from NA28:
ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν

ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.
(Romans 9:5, NA28)
Nonetheless, NRSV’s use of “Messiah” rather than “Christ”

in Romans 9:5 is helpful for reminding us that “Christ” is not
fundamentally or originally a proper name but a title which
means the Messiah (the Anointed One). The notion that the
Messiah can be identified with God—or God with the Mess-
iah—as one and the same person, is foreign to the Old and
New Testaments. It was God Himself who anointed the Mes-
siah (Acts 4:27; 10:38), appointing him the deliverer of Israel,
the one whom David addresses as “my Lord” in Psalm 110:1.
H.A.W. Meyer 105 rules out equating Christ with God in
Romans 9:5 and points out that in 2 Corinthians 6:18, God
is said to be the pantokratōr or mighty ruler (this word is
defined by BDAG as “Almighty, All-Powerful, Omnipotent
One”). First Meyer says:
Paul has never [emphasis Meyer’s] used the expression theos of
Christ, since he has not adopted, like John, the Alexandrian
form of conceiving and setting forth the divine essence of
Christ, but has adhered to the popular concrete, strictly mono-
theistic terminology [italics mine], not modified by philoso-
phical speculation even for the designation of Christ; and he
always accurately distinguishes God and Christ.
105
H.A.W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Romans,
pp.361-362. His words are quoted with approval by James Denney,
Expositor’s Greek Testament, vol.2, p.658.
Meyer then elaborates on Paul’s distinction between God

and Christ and the implausibility of identifying Christ with
God in Romans 9:5:
John himself calls the divine nature of Christ theos only in
the introduction of his Gospel, and only in the closest
connection with the Logos-speculation. And thus there runs
through the whole New Testament a delicate line of separa-
tion between the Father and the Son; so that, although the
divine essence and glory of the latter is glorified with the
loftiest predicates in manifold ways, nevertheless it is only
the Father, to whom the Son is throughout subordinated,
and never Christ, who is actually called God [emphasis
Meyer’s] by the apostles (with the exception of John 1:1, and
the exclamation of Thomas, John 20:28)—not even in 1
John 5:20. Paul, particularly, even when he accumulates and
strains to the utmost expression, concerning the Godlike
nature of the exalted Christ (as in Philippians 2:6ff.; Colos-
sians 1:15ff., 2:9), does not call him theos, but sharply and
clearly distinguishes him as the kyrios [Lord] from theos even
in [Romans] 10:9, 1 Corinthians 12:3 …
Besides the inseparable difficulty [in equating Christ with

God in Romans 9:5] would be introduced, that here Christ
would be called not merely and simply theos, but even “God
over all,” and consequently, would be designated as theos
pantokratōr [God Almighty] which is absolutely incompa-
tible with the entire view of the New Testament as to the
dependence of the Son on the Father, and especially with
passages like 8:34 (entugchanei), 1 Corinthians 3:23, 8:6,
11:3; Ephesians 4:5,6, and notably 1 Corinthians 15:28. Ac-
cordingly, the doxology of our passage cannot be referred to

Christ, but must be referred to God. (Critical and Exegetical
Handbook to the Romans, p.362.)
James D.G. Dunn also concludes that Christ is not to be

identified with “God over all” in Romans 9:5 because an
“abrupt departure from Israel’s monotheism” cannot be
contemplated:
Again, while Paul was already well used to associating Christ
with God and attributing divine functions to Christ (1:7; 1
Cor 8:6), it is less likely that he would have intended Christ
to be hailed as “God over all” (contrast 1 Cor 15:24–28).
Just as unlikely is it that the juxtaposition of references to the
Messiah of Israel and “God over all” would be read as an
identity; the more conscious his readers were of the continui-
ty between Israel’s faith and Paul’s gospel the less likely they
would be to read the ambiguous phrasing as the abrupt
departure from Israel’s monotheism which the more straight-
forward syntax would imply. In fact it is probably Paul’s
desire to stress the universality of God’s embrace, Gentile as
well as Jew, which results in the unusual phrasing. Just as in
3:29-30 he used Jewish monotheism to make the same basic
point, so here rather than the more regular form of doxology
to the one God (“Blessed be God…”) he chooses to stress
that the God he adores is God over all: “he who is God over
all, may he be blessed for ever, Amen.” (Word Biblical
Commentary, Romans 9–16, vol.38B, p.536, on Romans 9:5)
Dunn’s statement and Meyer’s are both of a generalized

nature that applies to Paul’s teaching as a whole and is not
limited to Romans 9:5. The clear message is that Paul has
never left “Israel’s monotheism”.
God blessed forever

To gain a better understanding of the doxology of Romans
9:5, we compare it with two other Pauline statements which
have similar wording. In the following three verses (all from
ESV), the Greek text enclosed in parentheses corresponds to
the English words in italics:
Romans 9:5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their
race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all,
blessed forever. Amen. (theos eulogētos eis tous aiōnas, amēn)
Romans 1:25 because they exchanged the truth about God

for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than
the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. (hos [theos] estin
eulogētos eis tous aiōnas, amēn)
2 Corinthians 11:31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus,

he who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying. (ho ōn
eulogētos eis tous aiōnas)
The doxology in the second of these verses, Romans 1:25, is

obviously addressed to God. Nothing in the substance of this
verse or Paul’s teaching as a whole suggests that Paul would
suddenly address this doxology to Christ. Just now we saw
that Dunn speaks of “the continuity between Israel’s faith and
Paul’s gospel” which makes unlikely any “abrupt departure

from Israel’s monotheism”.
As for the doxology in the third verse, 2Cor.11:31, there is
no doubt that it is addressed to God and not to Jesus, as seen
in the nominative case of ho ōn which agrees with the nomin-
ative case of “God” and not the genitive case of “the Lord
Jesus”.
That the doxologies in these two verses, Rom.1:25 and
2Cor.11:31, are addressed to God rather than Christ gives
weight to the view that the doxology in Romans 9:5, which
has similar wording in the Greek, is likewise addressed to
God rather than Christ.
The word eulogētos (“blessed, praised”) that is used in
Romans 9:5 occurs eight times in the New Testament.
Significantly, in all eight occurrences, the object of praise is,
without exception, God the Father rather than Jesus Christ
(the words in italics correspond to eulogētos):
Mark 14:61 Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
Luke 1:68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel
Romans 1:25 the Creator, who is blessed forever
Romans 9:5 God who is over all be praised forever
2 Corinthians 11:31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus,

who is to be praised forever
2 Corinthians 1:3, Ephesians 1:3, 1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the

God and Father of our Lord Jesus
Overall conclusion
I have examined every doxology in the New Testament and
have confirmed that they are all directed to Yahweh alone as
the object of worship. There are one or two debatable or
limited exceptions to this, but there is not a single doxology
to Jesus that can be established with certainty. This indicates
that he was not an object of divine worship in the NT
church. For this and other reasons, I have said that what the
Gentile churches have done and are still doing is contrary to
what we find in the New Testament, and as such is unquest-
ionably idolatrous.
Our survey of the New Testament doxologies shows that
not a single doxology can with certainty be ascribed to Christ.
Romans 9:5 comes closest to this because it could, by its
ambiguous Greek syntax, refer to the Father or to Christ. But
when other factors are taken into account, notably the fact
that nowhere else in Paul’s writings is Christ ever spoken of as
“God,” scholars of the stature of H.A.W. Meyer, James
Denney, and James D.G. Dunn all reject ascribing the doxo-
logy to Christ.
Despite all these difficulties for the trinitarian reading of
Romans 9:5, some trinitarians are willing to make this verse
an exception to Paul’s entire teaching and ascribe its doxology
to Christ despite being fully aware that the meaning of
Romans 9:5 depends solely on how this verse is punctuated, as
decided by the Bible translator or exegete.
The line must not be crossed

For those of us who come from a trinitarian background,
what is shocking is that although Jesus has been exalted to the
highest imaginable place in the universe, seated next to
Yahweh Himself, not one doxology is unambiguously add-
ressed to Jesus out of the many in the New Testament. There
is also no prayer addressed to him, as we shall see. When Paul
speaks of prayer he says, “I bow my knees before the Father”
(Eph.3:14).
The point is clear: Jesus is never venerated as God. The
line between the finite and the infinite is never crossed. The
high veneration accorded the Lamb in Revelation 5:9-14 does
not change this fact but underlines it, since a careful reading
of Revelation 5 shows that the Lamb is venerated right in the
midst of the worship of “Him who sits on the throne”. This is
similar to the way Israel venerated Yahweh and David
together (1Chr.29:20).
To transgress the line is to cross it and overstep the esta-
blished limits, as did the angels who “did not stay within their
own position of authority” (Jude 1:6). Yahweh exalted Jesus
to the highest place in all of creation next to and second only
to Himself, but that is not good enough for trinitarians, so we
exalted Jesus to coequality with Yahweh in all things, and
flung aside the first commandment!
Death is the penalty for breaking any of the ten command-
ments. We can only hope that, like Paul in his persecution of
the church, we will receive mercy and forgiveness because we
disobeyed God in ignorance (1Tim.1:13). Whether the Fath-
ers of the Gentile church of the mid-second century onwards
could claim clemency on the grounds of ignorance, we won’t

know until the day of judgment. But those of us living in the
present age would be wise to seize the opportunity for forgive-
ness.
The fact that Yahweh is “the God of our Lord Jesus
Christ” (Eph.1:17) already draws a sharp line between “God”
and “Lord,” that is, between the Father and Jesus Christ. Yet
Yahweh was pleased to exalt Christ. Two verses later, Paul
says:
Ephesians 1:19b-23: (ESV)
19
… the working of his great might
20
that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the
dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places,
21
far above all rule and authority and power and dominion,
and above every name that is named, not only in this age but
also in the one to come.
22
And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head
over all things to the church,
23
which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.
This passage contains a lot of content that we need to “un-

pack,” and is more easily understood by looking at its flow:
Yahweh raised Jesus from the dead
and seated him at His right hand in the heavenly places
far above all rule and power and dominion
and above every name that is named
not only in this age but also in the one to come.
He put all things under his feet
and gave him to the church as head over all things.
Is Thanksgiving
Directed to Christ?
I t may come as a surprise, even a shock, to some trinitarians

that in all his letters, only once does Paul thank Jesus
Christ directly: “I thank him who has given me strength,
Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful, ap-
pointing me to his service.” (1Tim.1:12) It doesn’t mean that
Paul is ungrateful to Christ, or that we should be ungrateful
to Christ, for indeed Paul declares that Christ has loved us to
the utmost, even unto death as the sacrificial Lamb of God.
Yet the surprising fact remains that only once in his many
letters does Paul thank Jesus directly. On the other hand, Paul
gives thanks to God many times. A few times he gives thanks
to God through Jesus Christ in expressions such as “I thank
my God through Jesus Christ” (Rom.1:8) or “Thanks be to
God through Jesus Christ” (Rom.7:25).
This tells us, firstly, that thanksgiving is ultimately
directed to God, the Creator of all things. Indeed “every good
gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from
the Father of lights” (James 1:17). And God out of His love
has given us the greatest gift of all, Jesus Christ, His only Son
(John 3:16).
Secondly, just as Jesus constantly gave thanks to the Father
during his time on earth, so he wants us to direct our thanks-
giving to God. Since Jesus does all things to glorify his Father
and to set an example for us, it is fitting that we too should
glorify God through thanksgiving (“that it may increase

thanksgiving, to the glory of God,” 2Cor.4:15).
W e now survey the Greek words for “thanksgiving” or

“give thanks” in the New Testament: charis, euchar-
isteō, eucharistia, eucharistos. This will show us that in the
New Testament, thanksgiving is directed to God the Father
and not explicitly to Jesus Christ. It will also tell us where to
direct our thanksgiving: to the Father whom Jesus wants to
glorify.
Charis
The word charis (χάρις, grace, favor, gratitude) occurs fre-
quently in the New Testament and has several related mean-
ings. It occurs six times in the specific phrase “thanks be to,”
all occurring in Romans and Corinthians, and all used only of
God, specifically in the expression charis tō theōi or tō theōi
charis. These two phrases, which are identical apart from
word order, both mean “thanks be to God”:
Rom.6:17 “But thanks be to God”
Rom.7:25 “Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ”
1Cor.15:57 “But thanks be to God”
2Cor.9:15 “Thanks be to God for his indescribable gift”
In all six verses, the thanksgiving is addressed directly to God.

Other relevant statements involving charis are:
Col.3:16 “with thankfulness in your hearts to God”
2Tim.1:3 “I thank (charis) God whom I serve”
Heb.12:28 “Let us be thankful” (NIV) to God
Again it is God who is thanked, the One to whom gratitude is

directed.
Eucharisteō
The verb eucharisteō (εὐχαριστέω, be thankful, give thanks) is
used mainly by Paul. It occurs 24 times (in 23 verses) in his
letters, but only 14 times in the rest of the New Testament.
Of the 14 verses outside Paul’s writings, one has Jesus as the
object of thanksgiving (a leper thanks Jesus for healing him,
Lk.17:16); all the others have God the Father as the object of
thanksgiving, mainly in connection with the feeding of the
thousands or the institution of the Lord’s Supper.
All the 24 instances of eucharisteō in Paul’s letters have
God as the object of thanksgiving except in Romans 16:4
where thanks is given to Prisca and Aquila. The following are
the 24 instances of eucharisteō in Paul (the word occurs twice
in Rom.14:6):
Rom.1:8 “I thank my God through Jesus Christ”

Rom.1:21 “they did not give thanks to Him”
Rom.14:6 “give thanks to God” (twice, with identical wording)
Rom.16:4 “I give thanks” (to Prisca and Aquila)
1Cor.1:4 “I give thanks to my God always”
1Cor.1:14 “I thank God”
1Cor.10:30 “I take part in the meal with thankfulness”
1Cor.11:24 “when Jesus had given thanks” (to God for the bread)
1Cor.14:17 (God is not mentioned but implied)
1Cor.14:18 “I thank God”
2Cor.1:11 (God is not mentioned but implied)
Eph.1:16 (God is not mentioned but implied)
Eph.5:20 “give thanks always and for everything to God”
Phil.1:3 “I thank my God”
Col.1:3 “We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ”
Col.1:12 “giving thanks to the Father”
Col.3:17 “giving thanks to God the Father”
1Th.1:2 “we give thanks to God always”
1Th.2:13 “we also thank God constantly”
1Th.5:18 “give thanks in all circumstances for this is God’s will”
2Th.1:3 “we ought always to give thanks to God”
2Th.2:13 “we ought always to give thanks to God”
Phm.1:4 “I thank my God always”
In this list, only in Romans 16:4 is eucharisteō used of peo-

ple (Prisca and Aquila). All the other instances refer to God
the Father and none to Jesus Christ. This is not to say that we
cannot give thanks to anyone but God. Indeed Paul expresses
gratitude to Prisca and Aquila for risking their necks for him.
Paul also gives thanks on one occasion to Christ Jesus (1Tim.

1:12) for judging him to be faithful to his service. What is
surprising is that this is the only instance of thanks addressed
to Jesus in Paul’s letters, and it is in the third person. Thanks-
giving is, with few exceptions, always directed to God, the
Father of Jesus Christ and the object of our gratitude. In fact
there will be judgment and condemnation for those who do
not glorify God by rendering Him thanks (Rom.1:21-24).
The same word eucharisteō occurs eleven times in the
gospels: four times of Jesus’ giving thanks at the feeding of the
thousands (Mt.15:36; Mk.8:6; Jn.6:11; 6:23), and four times
of Jesus’ thanksgiving at the Last Supper (Mt.26:27; Mk.
14:23; Lk.22:17,19). The remaining three instances are in Lk.
17:16 (a Samaritan thanks Jesus for healing him), Lk.18:11 (a
Pharisee thanks God that he is not like the tax collector), and
John 11:41 (Jesus thanks his Father for hearing his prayer for
the raising of Lazarus).
Outside the gospels and Paul’s letters, eucharisteō occurs
three times: Acts 27:35 (Paul thanks God for the bread), Acts
28:15 (Paul thanks God for the encouragement of seeing the
brothers in Rome), and Rev.11:17 (“we give you thanks, O
Lord God Almighty”).
Praise and thanksgiving are among the basic ingredients of
worship. And the overwhelming evidence regarding these two
elements of worship is that they are consistently addressed
only to the Father.
Eucharistia
The word eucharistia (εὐχαριστία, thankfulness, gratitude,
rendering thanks) occurs 15 times in the New Testament:
once in Acts, 12 times in Paul, twice in Revelation. All these
15 instances, with the exception of Acts 24:3 (in which
Tertullus thanks Felix), refer to thanksgiving to God. Seven
of these refer to God explicitly:
2Cor.4:15 increase thanksgiving, to the glory of God

2Cor.9:11 thanksgiving to God
2Cor.9:12 many thanksgivings to God
Phil.4:6 with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to
God
1Th.3:9 what thanksgiving can we return to God
Rev.4:9 the living creatures give … thanks to him who is seated
on the throne
Rev.7:12 thanksgiving and honor and power and might be to
our God forever and ever
Seven of the occurrences refer to God implicitly:

1Cor.14:16 Amen to your thanksgiving
Eph.5:4 but instead let there be thanksgiving
Col.2:7 abounding in thanksgiving
Col.4:2 in prayer … with thanksgiving
1Tim.2:1 thanksgiving be made for all people
1Tim.4:3 to be received with thanksgiving
1Tim.4:4 if it is received with thanksgiving
To summarize: Of the 15 occurrences of eucharistia, 7 refer to

God explicitly, 7 refer to God implicitly, and one refers to
Tertullus’s gratitude to Felix.
Eucharistos
Finally, the word eucharistos (εὐχάριστος, thankful) occurs
only once in the New Testament, in Colossians 3:15: “And
let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed
you were called in one body. And be thankful.” Paul does not
explicitly say who the object of the thanksgiving is, but it is
most likely an implicit reference to God because Paul consist-
ently uses all the cognate words—charis (in the sense of
thanksgiving), eucharisteō, eucharistia—of God the Father and
never of Jesus Christ, with one exception.
On the other hand, although God is the sole object of
thanksgiving, it is through Christ that we give thanks to God
(Rom.1:8; 7:25; Col.3:17), for it is through Christ that God’s
promises are “yes” (2Cor.1:20), and through Christ that we
offer a sacrifice of praise to God (Heb. 13:15), and through
Christ that God reconciles all things to Himself (Col.1:20).
Chapter 8
Are Worship and Prayer

Directed to Jesus?
When Proskyneō is used of Jesus,

Does it Mean Divine Worship?
Worshipping Jesus or paying homage to Jesus?
I n Matthew 2:11, when the magi visited the infant Jesus,

did they “worship” Jesus (ESV) or did they pay him
“homage” (NJB)? Here we see two rather different ways of
translating the Greek word proskyneō.
As we shall see, Greek-English lexicons give two main
definitions of proskyneō, one of which is primary and funda-
mental, and the other of which is secondary and derivative.
The fundamental meaning is “to kneel before someone” or
“to prostrate oneself before someone”. This is a bodily
expression of paying homage to someone without necessarily
ascribing deity to him (e.g., bowing before a Roman
commander). But in some contexts, proskyneō can have the

derivative sense of worship. Whereas the first and fundamental
meaning does not necessarily involve the attribution of deity,
the second may involve divine worship.
When we encounter proskyneō in the New Testament, the
question of which is its intended meaning can often be settled
by seeing who the object of the proskyneō is. If God is the
object, then proskyneō would by definition mean divine wor-
ship (e.g., Mt.4:10, “You shall worship the Lord your God”).
But if the object of the proskyneō is a human dignitary, then
proskyneō would mean kneeling or paying homage without
the attribution of deity.
Hence the intended meaning of proskyneō is often gov-
erned by who the object of the proskyneō is, and whether he is
viewed as divine. The mere use of proskyneō does not, in itself,
confer deity on a person, for an act of kneeling does not
necessarily involve divine worship.
In the ancient Near East, kneeling or bowing was a com-
mon gesture of reverence and courtesy, and was not in itself
understood as divine worship. We see this not only in the NT
but also in the LXX (the Greek translation of the Hebrew
Bible). To give just two examples, Abraham bowed before the
Hittites (Gen.23:12) and David bowed before Saul (1Sam.
24:8; v.9 LXX). In the LXX of these two verses, proskyneō is
the word which is used. Hence it is erroneous to conclude
that Jesus is God solely by the fact that proskyneō is used of
him.
Chapter 8 — Are Worship and Prayer Directed to Jesus? 387
What does proskyneō mean when it is used of Jesus?

There are 60 instances of proskyneō in the New Testament, of
which 17 are used of Jesus (as the object of proskyneō in all 17
instances). A full list of the 60 instances will be given later.
Where proskyneō is used of Jesus, ESV would often trans-
late it as “worship” (e.g. the disciples “worshipped” Jesus after
he had calmed a storm, Mt.14:33) but sometimes as “kneel”
(e.g., the mother of the sons of Zebedee knelt before Jesus,
Mt.20:20). ESV, NIV, NASB tend to translate proskyneō as
“worship” when it is used of Jesus, presupposing his divinity.
But many other Bibles differ from ESV in the way they
tend to translate proskyneō when it is used of Jesus. Whereas
ESV says in Mt.2:11 that the magi “worshiped” the infant
Jesus, other translations give no indication of worship: “did
him homage” (NJB, NAB, NRSV, Darby); “honored him”
(CEB); “adored him” (Douay-Rheims); “bowed low in
homage to him” (REB); “prostrated themselves in reverence
to him” (ITNT). This is despite the fact that some of these
Bibles have trinitarian credentials, either by reputation or by
the Imprimatur, the Catholic Church’s seal of approval (for
NJB, NAB, Douay-Rheims).
Whereas ESV renders Matthew 2:11 to mean the worship
of the infant Jesus, this interpretation is rejected even by
many trinitarian commentaries in their analyses of Mt.2:11:
For example, Tyndale Commentary says that “the verb worship
(proskyneō) need mean no more than to pay homage to a
human dignitary”. John Calvin emphatically says that the
magi did not “come to render to Christ such pious worship as
is due to the Son of God,” but intended to salute him as “a
very eminent King”. Constable’s Expository Notes says that the

magi’s statement “does not necessarily mean that they re-
garded Him as divine” but “may have meant that they wanted
to do Him homage”. Expositor’s Bible Commentary says that
the magi’s “statement suggests homage paid to royalty rather
than the worship of Deity”.
The difference of opinion extends to other verses. Whereas
ESV says that the disciples “worshiped” Jesus after he had
calmed a storm (Mt.14:33), and that the women at the empty
tomb “worshiped” Jesus (Mt.28:9), most of the aforemen-
tioned Bibles speak of bowing to Jesus or paying homage to
him. For example, for Mt.14:33, NJB has “bowed down
before him,” and NEB and REB have “fell at his feet”.106
The crucial question

Since proskyneō can mean either “pay homage” or “worship,”
which is the intended meaning when it is used of Jesus? Is it
possible for us to arrive at a correct translation of proskyneō
that does not depend on doctrinal presuppositions? Can we
break the deadlock in which trinitarians interpret proskyneō to
mean worshipping Jesus, and non-trinitarians interpret to
mean kneeling before Jesus?
106
The Revised English Bible, largely unknown in USA, is a stand-
ard Bible in the United Kingdom, being the result of a collaborative
effort of the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church in Eng-
land and Wales, the Methodist Church of Great Britain, and others.
Compounding the problem is that Matthew 2:11 (in

which the magi “worshipped” the infant Jesus) has no ob-
vious internal evidence in favor of the one interpretation over
the other. If you presuppose that the magi worshipped Jesus,
then proskyneō would mean “worship” to you. But if you
believe that the magi paid homage to Jesus, then proskyneō
would mean “pay homage” to you. So are there external and
objective factors that can break the deadlock?
Fortunately, we do have a way of breaking the deadlock
because there are four verifiable facts at our disposal which do
not depend on doctrinal presuppositions. None is conclusive
by itself, but when the four are taken in combination, they
guide us to the correct meaning of proskyneō when it is used
of Jesus.
Fact #1: Worship is not the fundamental meaning of

proskyneō but a derivative meaning
Two standard Greek-English lexicons, BDAG and Thayer’s,
indicate that worship is only a secondary or derivative mean-
ing of proskyneō. BDAG gives the following glosses (summary
definitions), quoted here verbatim and in the same order as in
BDAG (the lone boldface is mine):
• to express in attitude or gesture one’s complete

dependence on or submission to a high authority figure
• (fall down and) worship
• do obeisance to
• prostrate oneself before

• do reverence to
• welcome respectfully
The other lexicon, Thayer’s, gives the following definitions of

proskyneō, quoted here verbatim and in the same order as in
the lexicon (citations omitted, the lone boldface is mine):
• to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence

• to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the
forehead as an expression of profound reverence
• kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make
obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to
make supplication
• It is used a. of homage shown to men of superior rank;
• b. of homage rendered to God and the ascended Christ,
to heavenly beings, and to demons: absolutely (or to
worship)
The striking fact is that in BDAG and Thayer, the two tiny
words shown in boldface are the only definitions of proskyneō
that have to do with worship. In both these lexicons, the idea
of worship is given far less prominence than the idea of
kneeling or paying homage. In fact, only one quarter of the
literary citations in BDAG’s entry are assigned to “worship,”
indicating that in New Testament, the fundamental meaning
of proskyneō is not worship but kneeling or paying homage.
The sense of “worship” is derivative though it is possible in
certain contexts. What it means is that we cannot simply

conclude that Jesus is God merely by the fact that proskyneō is
applied to him; we need more evidence beyond that bare fact.
Fact #2: Proskyneō is almost no longer used of Jesus

after his ascension despite its continued use in the
New Testament!
The word proskyneō occurs 60 times in the New Testament:
29 times in the four gospels and 31 times after the gospels.
Hence the use of proskyneō is about evenly divided between
the gospels and the rest of the NT. To show this, we include
two tables below, a shorter one and a longer one.
The near-equal split (29 versus 31) is significant because of
an astonishing fact: After the four gospels, proskyneō is no
longer used of Jesus (with two exceptions) despite the con-
tinued use of proskyneō in the New Testament! To be specific,
proskyneō is used of Jesus 17 times in the NT, namely, 15
times in the four gospels but only twice after the gospels. This
is seen in the following table (hereafter called the “shorter”
table):
The 17 occurrences of proskyneō applied to Jesus Christ

The Four Gospels (15x) After the Gospels (2x)
Matthew 2:2 Hebrews 1:6
Matthew 2:8 Revelation 5:14
Matthew 2:11
Matthew 4:9
Matthew 8:2
Matthew 9:18
Matthew 14:33
Matthew 15:25
Matthew 20:20
Matthew 28:9
Matthew 28:17
Mark 5:6
Mark 15:19
Luke 24:52
John 9:38
The next table—the longer one—lists all 60 occurrences of

proskyneō in the Greek New Testament (NA28). The table is
divided into two parts: the four gospels (29 occurrences) and
after the gospels (31 occurrences). The 17 occurrences shown
in boldface are the 17 that refer to Jesus, and correspond to
the same 17 listed in the shorter table above.
All the 60 occurrences of proskyneō in the Greek NT

Matthew 2:2 2:8 2:11 4:9 4:10 8:2 9:18
14:33 15:25 18:26 20:20 28:9 28:17
Mark 5:6 15:19
Luke 4:7 4:8 24:52
John 4:20 4:21 4:22 4:22 4:23 4:23 4:23
4:24 4:24 9:38 12:20
Acts 7:43 8:27 10:25 24:11
1 Corinth 14:25
Hebrews 1:6 11:21
Revelation 3:9 4:10 5:14 7:11 9:20 11:1 11:16 13:4
13:4 13:8 13:12 13:15 14:7 14:9 14:11 15:4
16:2 19:4 19:10 19:10 19:20 20:4 22:8 22:9
From these two tables, we see that proskyneō is no longer used

of Jesus after the four gospels, with two exceptions: Hebrews
1:6 and Revelation 5:14. But Hebrews 1:6 does not count as
post-Gospel because it is a reference to Jesus’ physical birth:
And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he
says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.” (Heb.1:6, quoting
Ps.97:7, LXX 96:7).
This verse is found in a passage in Hebrews which declares

Jesus’ superiority over the angels. But the idea of worship is
not entrenched in this verse. NJB avoids using the word
“worship” when it renders Hebrews 1:6 as, “Let all the angels
of God pay him homage”; ITNT has “All God’s angels must
revere him”; REB has “Let all God’s angels pay him homage”.
But the more significant verse for trinitarians is Revelation

5:14 because it is the only verse in the New Testament that
comes close to the explicit worship of Jesus, by the fact that
proskyneō is applied to Jesus together with God who is seated
on His throne. This verse will be discussed shortly.
Why the sudden drop?

What could account for the sudden drop—indeed, the near
disappearance—in the application of proskyneō to Jesus after
the gospels (only two instances, but in reality only one
instance, as opposed to 15 in the gospels) despite the contin-
ued use of proskyneō in the New Testament?
A clue lies in the fact that the dividing point between the
gospels and the rest of the New Testament also happens to be
the dividing point between the earthly Jesus and the ascended
Jesus. This explains why proskyneō is used of Jesus in his
earthly presence but not in his heavenly absence.107
This striking fact tells us that whenever proskyneō is used of
Jesus, it ought to be understood as paying homage to Jesus
rather than worshipping Jesus. After Jesus ascended into hea-
ven, he was no longer physically present on earth; this would
explain why people on earth no longer knelt to him.
107
When we speak of Jesus’ heavenly “absence,” it is from the
perspective of those living on earth, for Jesus is no longer on earth but
in heaven. But when proskyneō is used of Jesus in heaven (Rev.5:14), it
is in his physical presence—in heaven.
But if we take the trinitarian view that proskyneō means the

divine worship of Jesus, there would be no obvious reason for
the worship to stop after his ascension into heaven. For if
Jesus is God as he is in trinitarianism, then divine worship
ought to continue in Jesus’ absence, for an omnipresent God
can be worshipped anywhere in the universe. In fact, if Jesus
were God, we would expect an increase, not a decrease, in the
application of proskyneō to Jesus after his ascension, because
the risen Jesus is now the exalted Lord who has been given the
name above every name.
Chronologically, the very last time before Revelation 5:14
that proskyneō is used of Jesus is Luke 24:52, which is precisely
at the point of his ascension into heaven! This is not a coin-
cidence. Luke 24:52 is most significant for fixing the cutoff
point precisely at the demarcation of the earthly Jesus and the
ascended Jesus.
Fact #3: Proskyneō is used mainly by John, yet he

almost never applies it to Jesus!
Of the 60 occurrences of proskyneō in the NT, 35 are found
in John’s writings versus 25 in the rest of the NT, which
would make proskyneō a predominantly Johannine word. Yet
John applies this word to Jesus only twice in all his writings!
(See the longer table above.) These two are John 9:38 (the
formerly blind man bowed before Jesus) and Revelation 5:14
(the verse we have noted and will be discussing soon).
On the other hand, John applies proskyneō ten times—in

the full sense of worship—to the worship of Satan or the
beast or the image of the beast!108
Although proskyneō is a predominantly Johannine word,
John almost never uses it of Jesus, a fact that is surprising giv-
en that trinitarians regard John’s writings as espousing a high
Christology. But there is really nothing shocking about this at
all, since it is in John’s Gospel that Jesus declares that his
Father is the only true God (John 17:3). In this same gospel,
we see the intentions of Jesus’ heart when he exhorts us to
worship his Father: “worship the Father” (Jn.4:21); and “true
worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the
Father is seeking such people to worship him” (v.23).
Fact #4: The latreuein word group is never applied

to Jesus
We can explain this fourth point as follows:
• By “word group” we mean a group of words which

share a common Greek cognate. In our present case, we
now discussing the latreuein word group which consists
of three related words: latreuein, latreia, leitourgein.
• Respectively, these three words mean: (i) to serve or
minister as a cultic activity; (ii) cultic devotion; (iii) to
108
Revelation 13:4 (2x); 13:8; 13:12; 13:15; 14:9; 14:11; 16:2;
19:20; 20:4.
render cultic service. The word “cultic” pertains to

religious devotion to God.
• A crucial observation: The latreuein word group
expresses divine worship more strongly than any other
word group in the NT, yet it is never used of Jesus in
the NT!
This is explained in section 1.2 of James D.G. Dunn’s Did

the First Christians Worship Jesus? The following excerpts are
taken from pp.13-15 of the book (with his footnotes omitted;
note the boldface, which I added):
The most common of the other near synonyms is latreuein,
which basically means ‘to serve’. In biblical literature, how-
ever, the reference is always to religious service, the carrying
out of religious duties, ‘to render cultic service’.
.....
And in several passages latreuein is translated ‘worship’ in
English translations. It is noticeable that in each case the
object of the verb, the one who is (to be) served/worshipped,
is God. Apart from one or two references to false worship,
the reference is always to the cultic service/ worship of God.
In no case in the New Testament is there talk of offering cultic
worship (latreuein) to Jesus.
.....
As with latreuein, so also with the matching noun, latreia,
‘(cultic) service, worship’. It refers always to the worship of
God … Here we need simply note that the number of latreia
references is very limited, and here too the ‘service/worship’ is
never thought of as offered to Jesus.
.....
Bearing in mind that the latreuein word group is the nearest
expression for the offering of ‘cultic worship’, the fact that it
is never used for the ‘cultic devotion’ of Christ in the New Testa-
ment is somewhat surprising for Hurtado’s main thesis and
should be given some attention.
Conclusion of the four facts: Jesus is not

worshipped
We have presented four facts which can be verified objective-
ly, empirically, and independently. None of these four facts is
conclusive by itself, but when they are taken in combination,
they show beyond doubt that proskyneō, when used of Jesus,
means kneeling to Jesus, or reverencing him, or paying hom-
age to him—but not worshipping him as God. Indeed Jesus
exhorts us to worship the One whom he calls, “my Father and
your Father” and “my God and your God” (Jn.20:17). True
worship is not the worship of Jesus but worship with Jesus.
The special case of Revelation 5:14

[The following comes from an earlier discussion in chapter 6, but
is condensed in a way as to be a fitting conclusion to our present
discussion.]
The word proskyneō occurs 60 times in the New Testament,

with 24 of the instances (40%) found in Revelation. That is a
high percentage for one book, yet none of the 24 instances of
proskyneō in Revelation is used of Jesus with the sole except-

ion of Rev.5:14 where the 24 elders “worship” God and Jesus.
In this verse, the worship (proskyneō) is directed not to Jesus
alone but also to God who is seated on His throne.
Here is a crucial observation: In the book of Revelation
outside verse 5:14, proskyneō is always used of God and never
of Jesus, without exception (not counting the worship of the
beast or its image). Hence it is clear that when proskyneō is
applied to both God and Jesus in the sole verse Rev.5:14, it is
God and not Jesus who is the principal reason for the use of
proskyneō. This aligns with the fact that in the immediate
context of Rev.5:14, the central figure is God who is seated
on His throne.
We are reminded of the way the people of Israel bowed
before God and before King David (note the bolded words):
1 Chronicles 29:20 David then addressed the whole assembly:
“Now bless Yahweh your God!” And the whole assembly
blessed Yahweh, God of their ancestors, bowing down in
homage to Yahweh, and to the king. (NJB)
In the Hebrew Bible, YHWH occurs three times in this verse.

In the LXX of this verse, “bowing down in homage” corres-
ponds to proskyneō, the same word used in Revelation 5:14.
The use of proskyneō in 1Chr.29:20 is crucial because it
tells us that the LXX does not hesitate to apply proskyneō to
David when it is also applied to Yahweh! The parallel be-
tween David in 1Chr.29:20 and Jesus in Rev.5:14 is height-
ened by the fact that Jesus is the Messiah who comes from
David’s line.
We notice further that in 1Chr.29:20, the main intended

recipient of the worship is not David but Yahweh, by the fact
that David said, “Now bless Yahweh your God.” Yet that
does not rule out David (or Jesus in Rev.5:14) participating
with Yahweh as the recipient of the proskyneō!
In the New Testament, Prayer is

Addressed to God, not to Jesus Christ
I n the previous chapter, we surveyed the New Testament to

see if the doxologies and thanksgivings recorded in the NT
are directed to Jesus Christ in the same way they are directed
to God the Father. The overwhelming Scriptural evidence
shows that this is definitely not the case.
What about prayer? Are prayers addressed to Jesus in the
same way as they are addressed, or ought to be addressed, to
the Father? To answer this question, we now look at the range
of Greek words which cover the various aspects of prayer,
notably that of making a request to God in prayer.
The Greek words for making requests to God in

prayer
The verb erōtaō (ἐρωτάω, ask, request) occurs 63 times in the
NT, seven times with the meaning of making a request to
God in prayer. The seven instances are all found in John’s
writings: six times in John’s Gospel and once in 1 John. The
following is a list of the seven instances (two in John 17:9), all
quoted from ESV. In each and every case, the request is made
to God the Father and not to Jesus Christ:
John 14:16 I will ask the Father

John 16:26 I will ask the Father on your behalf
John 17:9 I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world
but for those whom you have given me.
John 17:15 I do not ask that you take them out of the world
John 17:20 I do not ask for these only
1 John 5:16 I do not say that one should pray for that
Another verb, aiteō (αἰτέω, ask), occurs 70 times in the

NT, 29 times with the meaning of making a request to God
in prayer. Of the 29 instances, eight are found in John’s
Gospel, all in chapters 14 to 16, and five are found in First
John. 109 This leaves 16 occurrences outside John’s writings.110
Again, all these have to do with making a request to God, not
to Jesus Christ, in prayer.
We mention two more words. The first is deomai (δέομαι,
ask, plead for, request, beseech), which occurs 22 times in the
NT, most often in Luke–Acts (15 times). It occurs once in
Matthew and never in the Johannine writings. It occurs six
times in Paul (Rom.1:10; 2Cor.5:20; 8:4; 10:2; Gal.4:12;
1Th.3:10), but it is only in Rom. 1:10 and 1Th.3:10 that the
word refers to praying.
109
The eight in John’s Gospel are 14:13,14; 15:7,16; 16:23; 16:24
twice; 16:26. The five in First John are 3:22; 5:14; 5:15 twice; 5:16.
110
The 16 instances are distributed as follows: Matthew 7 times,
Mark once, Luke 5 times, Paul’s letters 3 times (Eph.3:20; Col.1:9;
Phil.4:6 as cognate aitēma).
The other word is the noun deēsis (δέησις, entreaty, prayer)

which Paul often uses of prayer: of the 18 occurrences of this
word in the New Testament, 12 are found in Paul’s letters.
Regarding the words deomai or deēsis: when either is used
of prayer in the New Testament, it always refers to prayer to
the Father, without exception. In many cases, it is used of
Jesus praying to the Father. For example, in Lk.22:32, deomai
is used of Jesus praying to the Father for Peter. In Heb. 5:7,
deēsis is used of Jesus who “offered up prayers and supplicat-
ions, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save
him from death”.
Words for prayer

The word parakaleō (παρακαλέω, beseech, urge, exhort, com-
fort) occurs 109 times in the New Testament, but only twice
in the sense of prayer. It is not the usual word for prayer but
is one that carries the sense of “call for help” (BDAG). The
first instance of this word with the meaning of prayer is Mt.
26:53 in which Jesus, as he was being seized in Gethsemane,
rhetorically asked whether or not he could call to the Father
for help and He will send him twelve legions of angels.
The only other instance of parakaleō in the sense of prayer
is found in 2Cor.12:8 where Paul says that he pleaded with
the Lord, either Jesus or God, three times for the removal of
the thorn in the flesh. But because parakaleō is not the usual
word for prayer (used only twice in this sense) despite its
being a common word in the New Testament (109 times,
usually a plea for help), it is not determinative for our under-
standing of prayer. However, our overall examination of

prayer in the New Testament may require us to note, for the
sake of completeness, that this lone verse, 2Cor.12:8, does not
negate the consistent Biblical pattern that prayer is addressed
to the Father alone.
What then are the predominant words for prayer? In the
New Testament, the main words for prayer are the verb
proseuchomai (προσεύχομαι) and the noun proseuchē (προ-
σεύχη). These occur 85 and 36 times, respectively, for a total
of 121 times in the New Testament.111
Given the preponderance of these two words, it is striking
that there is no instance, or at most one or two debatable and
indirect instances, in the New Testament of proseuchomai or
proseuchē being used of prayer addressed to Christ. On the
other hand, these words are often used of Jesus praying to the
Father during his earthly ministry. Not even after his ascen-
sion and exaltation are we exhorted to address our prayers to
Jesus Christ. On the contrary, he continues to pray or
intercede for us:
Romans 8:34 Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one
who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the
right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. (ESV)
111
The verb occurs 35 times in Luke–Acts and 19 times in Paul,
whereas the noun occurs 9 times in Acts and 14 times in Paul. In the
synoptics, the verb is used 19 times and the noun twice of Jesus’
praying to the Father, for a total of 21 times in the synoptics. Neither
word is found in John’s Gospel.
Hebrews 7:25 Consequently, he is able to save to the utter-

most those who draw near to God through him, since he
always lives to make intercession for them. (ESV)
In both these verses, the word “intercede” or “intercession” is

translated from the verb entynchanō (ἐντυγχάνω, intercede,
appeal to). In the first verse, the word is used of Christ’s ap-
pealing to God on our behalf. It is also used in Romans 8:27
of the Spirit’s intercession for us.
Finally, the word enteuxis (ἐντευξις, petition, intercession)
is found in 1Timothy 2:1 and 4:5. In 2:1 the word is used
with three other words related to prayer (deēsis, proseuchē,
eucharistia, already examined). As expected, in both these
verses, enteuxis refers to prayers addressed to God by disciples
or believers.
Conclusion
Our survey of prayer in the New Testament has not shown
any specific exhortation to pray to Christ. Rather, in this age
Christ continues to pray to, and intercede with, the Father for
us.
In the post-resurrection, post-Pentecost age, the only
instance of a petition addressed to Jesus is Stephen’s commit-
ting of his spirit to Jesus (“Lord Jesus, receive my spirit,” Acts
7:59), followed by a plea for forgiveness for his persecutors
(“Lord, do not hold this sin against them,” v.60). But this is a
case of a disciple committing his spirit to his Lord at death—
like a sheep committing itself to its shepherd—and imitating
the Lord Jesus who likewise asked that his persecutors be

forgiven (Lk.23:34).
Another instance is found in Revelation 22:20 in which we
see the welcoming exclamation, “Amen. Come Lord Jesus!”
made in response to the announcement, “Surely I am coming
soon.” But this can hardly be classified as a prayer in the usual
sense of the word.
These are the only two “prayers” directed to Jesus in the
New Testament in the widest possible definition of the word
“prayer”. In fact these are more accurately described as
exclamations to Jesus, not prayers to Jesus.
Calling on the name of Jesus?

What about calling on the name of Jesus? Let us consider the
following:
To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified
in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who
in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
both their Lord and ours. (1Cor.1:2, ESV)
We note two things. First, as seen in this verse, for Paul the
church is not “the church of Jesus Christ” or “the church of
Christ” but “the church of God,” a term which occurs several
times in the NT (Acts 20:28; 1Cor.1:2; 10:32; 11:22; 15:9;
2Cor.1:1; Gal.1:13; 1Tim.3:5,15) whereas there is only one
instance of a similar term used in relation to Christ, namely,
“the churches of Christ” (Rom.16:16), a reference to some
regional churches that sent their greetings to Rome. But when
Paul refers to the church as a whole, he uses “the church of

God” and never “the church of Christ”.
Secondly, the title “Lord” that is used of Jesus in 1Cor.1:2
is hardly applicable to the eternally divine “God the Son,” the
second person of the Trinity, for it is a title that, in the
exalted sense, was conferred on Jesus only after he had been
raised from the dead. It was God who made Jesus “both Lord
and Christ” (Acts 2:36; cf. 5:31; Rom.14:9). This exalted title
“Lord” is not to be confused with “Lord” in the everyday
sense as used in the gospel narratives by people who addressed
Jesus as “Lord” in the sense of Sir or Master or Teacher.
The Greek word kyrios (“Lord”) was routinely used in
everyday speech as a respectful form of address similar to “Sir”
or “Mister” with no attribution of deity. The Pharisees used
kyrios of Pontius Pilate (Mt.27:63); the Samaritan woman
used it of Jesus before she knew that he was a prophet (Jn.
4:11); some Greeks used it of Philip (Jn.12:21); the Philip-
pian jailor used it of Paul and Silas (Acts 16:30); John used it
of one of the 24 elders in the heavenly vision (Rev.7:14).
In the Greek Old Testament (LXX), Sarah used kyrios of
Abraham (Gen.18:12). She did not of course speak Greek to
her husband; the point is that the Jewish translators of the
LXX (which predates Christianity) unhesitatingly applied
kyrios to human beings. In the book of Genesis alone, kyrios is
used by Ephron the Hittite (of Abraham, 23:11), Rebekah (of
Abraham’s servant, 24:18), Rachel (of her father, 31:35),
Jacob (of Esau, 33:13), Joseph’s brothers (of Joseph, 42:10),
Judah (of Joseph, 44:16), and Joseph (of himself, 45:8).
Because Jesus was obedient to his Father unto death, it

pleased God to exalt him to the highest degree such that
“every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of
God the Father” (Phil.2:11). This lordship does not amount
to any alleged deity. Paul is here speaking of Jesus’ exaltation
by God, to the glory of God. To confess that “Jesus is Lord”
is to acknowledge that Yahweh glorified him by this title
because of his unconditional devotion and obedience to his
Father (this will be discussed further in chapter 10).
With these NT background points in mind, we can better
understand the meaning of “call upon the name of our Lord
Jesus Christ” (1Cor.1:2), a phrase which incidentally occurs
only in this verse in the whole New Testament. In view of the
exaltation of Christ in Phil.2:9-11, it is remarkable that this
phrase does not occur more often than it does. Even parallels
to it are few, and most of them are found in Acts (the
following are from ESV):
Acts 9:14 And here (Saul) has authority from the chief priests
to bind all who call on your name.
Acts 9:21 And all who heard (Saul) were amazed and said, “Is
not this the man who made havoc in Jerusalem of those who
called upon this name?”
Acts 22:16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized
and wash away your sins, calling on his name.
Jesus is the image of God (Col.1:15) and Yahweh’s pleni-

potentiary and representative who comes in Yahweh’s name.
Calling on the exalted and glorified Jesus is to call on Yahweh
who sent him and dwells in him. Similarly, calling on “the

name of the Lord” in Romans 10:13 (a quotation of Joel
2:32) could refer to calling on Jesus through whom we call on
Yahweh.
We Can Pray Directly to

God the Father
A s trinitarians we worshipped and prayed to Jesus. Oc-

casionally we would pray to the anonymous “Father” of
the Trinity, but then always in Jesus’ name and with the
belief that we cannot pray to the Father except through the
Son. Our inattention to the Father didn’t trouble us because,
with Jesus supposedly being God, we didn’t feel that we were
being denied access to God. But when God in His great
mercy began to open my eyes to see the Scriptures in the
wonderful light of Biblical monotheism, I was surprised to
discover, upon looking anew at the Scriptures, that the NT
church did not worship or pray to Jesus as we trinitarians did.
The NT records no prayers to Jesus though trinitarians might
regard as prayers the exclamations in Acts 7:59 and Rev.
22:20, but that is possible only by stretching the definition of
prayer to include any one-sentence exclamation to Jesus.
After Jesus’ ascension and the outpouring of the Spirit on
the church at Pentecost, the prayers of the early believers were
addressed to God (Yahweh) whereas Jesus was mentioned as
His “servant” (pais, e.g., Acts 3:13,26; 4:27, 30). The rest of
the New Testament does not depart from this practice of
praying only to God. In spite of Phil.2:10 (“at the name of
Jesus every knee should bow”), Paul says, “I bow my knees
before the Father” (Eph.3.14).
The Psalmists prayed directly to Yahweh

The Psalms are a collection of 150 songs of prayer and praise
to Yahweh. Anyone who reads the Psalms would know that
the Psalmists would often acknowledge that Yahweh has
heard and answered their prayers, and for that reason much
praise and thanksgiving is offered to Him.
Christians who insist that we cannot pray to God except in
Jesus’ name could perhaps explain to us why the Psalms con-
tain no reference to Jesus or to the necessity of an intermed-
iary who makes possible such direct and magnificent com-
munication with Yahweh as is found in the Psalms. This is
less an issue of dogma than a matter of erecting spiritual
barriers in people’s lives. From the way some Christians ex-
plain prayer, one gets the impression that before Jesus came,
anyone could pray directly to Yahweh; but after Jesus came,
direct prayer to Yahweh was curtailed even for God’s people
by the necessity of praying in Jesus’ name.
Why is it that in the Old Testament, anyone could pray
directly to Yahweh the Most High God, yet this has sup-
posedly become impermissible after Jesus came? In the Old
Testament, Yahweh God was even willing to answer the pray-
ers of foreigners who did not belong to Israel:
When a foreigner, who is not of your people Israel, comes
from a far country for your name’s sake (for they shall hear
of your great name and your mighty hand, and of your out-
stretched arm), when he comes and prays toward this house,
hear in heaven your dwelling place and do according to all
for which the foreigner calls to you (1Kings 8:41-43, ESV)
This is just one of several hundred passages in the Old Testa-

ment that speak of God’s mercy to those who pray directly to
Him without an intermediary. Anyone who is tangentially
familiar with the Bible would know that the one who finds
himself or herself in distress or danger can call upon Yahweh
directly. Will Yahweh our Creator turn a deaf ear to His
creatures when they sincerely call to Him for help, even if
they haven’t yet known Him as their Savior? Indeed Psalm
36:7 speaks of God’s universal love for mankind: “The child-
ren of mankind take refuge in the shadow of your wings”.
God’s compassion is seen also in the thousands of real-life
stories outside the Bible. Many have testified of how God had
rescued them from calamity when they called out to Him
despite not knowing Him. I have several books on my shelf
that recount how God had delivered those who cried out to
Him despite having no claim to being Christians.
To close this section, here are a few verses in the Psalms in
which the psalmists pray directly to Yahweh without invoking
the name of Jesus or an intermediary, and quite often Yahweh
hears their prayers (all verses are from ESV, with “Yahweh” in
the original Hebrew restored):
Psalm 6:9 Yahweh has heard my plea; Yahweh accepts my
prayer.
Psalm 39:12 Hear my prayer, O Yahweh, and give ear to my

cry; hold not your peace at my tears! (cf. 17:1; 84:8; 86:6;
102:1; 143:1)
Psalm 69:13 But as for me, my prayer is to you, O Yahweh.

At an acceptable time, O God, in the abundance of your
steadfast love answer me in your saving faithfulness.
Psalm 88:13 But I, O Yahweh, cry to you; in the morning

my prayer comes before you.
Psalm 116:4 Then I called on the name of Yahweh: “O

Yahweh, I pray, deliver my soul!”
Psalm 118:25 Save us, we pray, O Yahweh! O Yahweh, we

pray, give us success!
Praying directly to our Father

The New Testament does not abolish direct one-to-one
communication between us and God. The “man Christ
Jesus” (1Tim.2:5) is indeed the mediator between us and
God, but his work of mediation was completed when he said,
“It is finished” (John 19:30). Then the veil in the temple was
torn in two (Mt.27:51; Mk.15:38; Lk.23:45). Jesus “has now
reconciled (aorist) you in his body of flesh by his death”
(Col.1:22), for God was in Christ reconciling the world to
Himself (2Cor.5:19, i.e., reconciled to God the Father, as
seen in v.18). And having been reconciled to the Father, we
can now pray directly to Him! Or do we insist that our
reconciliation with God our Father is partial and incomplete?
Or comes with conditions and restrictions that prevent direct
communication with Him without an intermediary?
Anyone who cares about prayer would sympathize with

the disciple who said to Jesus, “Lord, teach us to pray, as John
taught his disciples” (Lk.11:1). Then Jesus answered: “When
you pray, say, ‘Father, hallowed be your name…’” This pray-
er is so esteemed in Christendom that it is often called the
“model prayer” or “the Lord’s prayer,” and is recited regularly
in some churches. Here is Matthew’s account of the prayer:
Pray then like this: “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your
name. Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it
is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us
our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us
not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.” (Matthew
6:9-13, ESV).
We note two things from this passage, and these serve to

demonstrate the vast gulf between our traditional notions of
prayer and what the Bible says about prayer. Firstly, to the
question of how we ought to pray, the answer is found in two
powerful words, “Our Father”. We pray directly to the
Father, not to Jesus. This is also seen in the prelude to the
Lord’s prayer, in Mt.6:6, where Jesus directs us to pray to the
Father: “But when you pray, go into your room and shut the
door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your
Father who sees in secret will reward you.”
There is not one instance of prayer to Jesus in the whole
Bible unless we stretch the definition of prayer to include the
exclamations in Acts 7:59-60 and Rev.22:20 which are so
brief as to contain a combined total of only 17 words in the
Greek, even fewer than in a typical Bible verse (e.g., the well-
known John 3:16 has 25 words in the Greek). The absence of

prayer to Jesus in the New Testament is hardly surprising to
the monotheist, for prayers are by definition addressed to
God, whereas Jesus is not God.112
Secondly, the Lord’s prayer does not conclude with the
traditional closing words, “We pray for this in Jesus’ name,
Amen”—a formula which is universal in Christian practice
but is found nowhere in the Scriptures!
In teaching us to address God as Father, Jesus graciously
considers us to be on the same level as himself in terms of
family hierarchy. Jesus speaks of God as “my Father and your
Father, my God and your God” (Jn. 20:17), which means
that Jesus is our brother and shares the same Father with us.
In the same sentence, Jesus explicitly refers to his disciples as
“my brothers”.
Just as Jesus prayed directly to his God and Father, so we
are to pray directly to our God and Father. In a family, do the
younger siblings need to get authorization from the eldest
brother every time they approach their father? Do they say to
112
Historical note: “Some early theologians objected to [praying to
Jesus], among them Origen. He argued that though it is proper to
address requests and thanksgivings to saints or even ordinary human
beings, prayer in the proper sense—a request to God for something
which only God can grant, combined with praise—may be addressed
only to God the Father (On Prayer, 14-16) … Jesus cannot be the
object of such prayers because he himself offered them during his
earthly life … Perhaps as a result of criticisms like Origen’s, there is not
much evidence from the following centuries of early Christianity of
prayer directed to Jesus in baptismal and eucharistic liturgies.” (Jesus
Now and Then, Burridge and Gould, p.148)
the father, “I now come to you in the name of elder brother”?

We seem to have forgotten that we have been “born of God”
(1Jn.3:9; 4:7; 5:1,4,18). 1John 5:18 says that we are “born of
God” and that Jesus was “born of God”—in the same sen-
tence!
Jesus is our mediator and only way to the Father (John
14:6). But after he had completed his work of salvation and
reconciliation, we now have direct access to the Father. After
we have been fully reconciled with God, are we still under
obligation to say “in Jesus’ name” every time we communi-
cate with our Abba Father? In fact the exclamation “Abba!
Father” (Rom.8:15; Gal.4:6) is said directly to the Father.
But Christians reverse the matter, not realizing that it was
God who in the first place sent Jesus to reconcile us to God
Himself. Ultimately, the work of reconciliation is done not so
much by Christ as by God through Christ and in Christ
(2Cor.5:18-19).
Direct prayer requests

The hindering of direct communication with the Father by
imposing the condition of saying “in the name of Jesus” is yet
another consequence of the trinitarian error of sidelining the
Father by making Christ the focus of a “Christocentric” faith.
Where is the Scriptural evidence for saying that we cannot
approach the Father except in the name of Jesus? Why does
Jesus himself teach us to pray, “Our Father in heaven”? Some
trinitarians, in a disturbing effort to seek out ever more
restrictions, will point to John 15:16 in which Jesus says,
“Whatever you ask the Father in my name, He will give it”.

When trinitarians quote this verse, there is often the implica-
tion that the Father won’t hear our request unless it is orally
validated with Jesus’ authority. This interpretation flies in the
face of what Jesus himself says about how the Father relates to
His children: “If you, being evil, know how to give good gifts
to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven
give good things to those who ask him?” (Mt.7:11; cf.
Lk.11:13). Note the powerful words “your Father” and “ask
him” and “how much more”. Our heavenly Father is much
more willing than our earthly fathers to give us good things!
Yet in the trinitarian scheme of things, a child has more direct
access to his earthly father than a child of God has in relation
to his heavenly Father!
These two verses on asking the Father directly (Mt.7:11;
Lk.11:13) appear just after the Lord’s prayer (Mt.6:9-13;
Lk.11:2-4) which is notable for addressing the Father directly
(“Our Father in heaven, hallowed be Your name,” or in Luke
simply, “Father, hallowed be Your name”), but also notable
for the absence of the traditional formula, “In Jesus’ name we
pray, Amen”.
The two surrounding passages, Mt.7:7-8 and Lk.11:9-10,
bring out the threefold principle of asking (in order to
receive), seeking (in order to find), and knocking (in order to
have the door opened), all in relationship to the Father and
not Jesus Christ.
Jesus says, “the Father himself loves you” (Jn.16:27)—
beautiful words echoed in his words to the Father: “You loved
them just as you loved me” (17:23). In the light of all that
Jesus has said about the Father, how can anyone still insist
that the believer cannot approach the Father or ask Him for
something unless it is orally validated by Jesus?
In any case, who is entitled to act in Jesus’ name? Do most
Christians live under his authority? Is the average Christian of
such spiritual caliber that he or she can rightly ask for
anything or do anything “in the name of Jesus”? Given the
mediocre spiritual condition of most Christians today, why
do they suppose that they can use Jesus’ name to get whatever
they want from the Father, unashamedly quoting the words,
“whatever you ask the Father in my name” (Jn.15:16)?
In the first place, those who live mediocre Christian lives
would hardly seek spiritual things yet wholeheartedly pursue
things that cater to their self-interests. Don’t we hear this
kind of selfish prayer all the time? “God, bless me and grant
me good grades and a high-paying job”. This way of thinking
is breeding a selfishness that has crept into the lives of many
Christians.
And why do trinitarians think that this lone verse in John
is sufficient justification for their blanket statement that no
prayer is acceptable to God unless it is made in Jesus’ name?
If they had looked more closely at the context of this verse,
they would have seen that the whole passage, John 14 to 16,
is about the gift of the Holy Spirit (Jn.14:17,26; 15:26;
16:13) which at that time had not yet been given. The
disciples had to wait for the day of Pentecost for the arrival of
that gift. At Pentecost, the church in Jerusalem asked the
Father for the gift of the Spirit as they met together with one
heart and one mind in prayer, and they did receive the Spirit
(Acts 2:1-21).
As regards asking for the Spirit, let us take Jesus’ statement
to heart: “If you, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to
your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give
the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?” (Lk.11:13). No one
can take the gift of the Spirit for granted; we must ask “the
heavenly Father” for this precious gift. The early church
prayed together for this gift and waited for it. But once the
Spirit had been given to the church at Pentecost, did the
church as a whole keep on asking for the Spirit again and
again in all the days that followed as if they had never
received it? From the scriptural data, clearly not. If a believer
had prayed for and then received the gift of the Spirit, does he
have to keep on asking for the gift of the Spirit “in Jesus’
name” again and again? Evidently not, for why would we
keep on praying for the Spirit in Jesus’ name again and again
as if the prayer has never been answered? In fact the Spirit is
meant to be with the believer “forever” (Jn.14:16).
It is of course possible that one’s prayer for the gift of the
Spirit has not been heard, for the Holy Spirit is given to those
who obey God (Acts 5:32). In any case, most Christians say
prayers that have nothing to do with the gift of the Spirit.
Such Christians should heed what Paul says: If anyone does
not have the Spirit, he does not belong to Christ (Rom.8:9).
The tragedy of the church today is that it is full of believers
who pray in Jesus’ name, yet do not belong to God. Then
they wonder why their prayers are not heard despite the use of
the formula “in Jesus’ name”.
Learning prayer from the Psalms

We reap much spiritual benefit when we read the Psalms as
an instruction guide to prayer. The book of Psalms is the
prayer book of God’s people. The psalms come in various
types: psalms of supplication, psalms of thanksgiving, and
psalms of praise. Some people are dismayed when they read a
psalm that prays for God’s severe judgment on slanderers,
evildoers, and persecutors. This is believed to be contrary to
the forgiving spirit of the New Testament. But that impress-
ion is incorrect, for the concern for justice is not any weaker
in the New Testament than in the Old Testament, as can be
seen in Revelation, especially in regard to the martyrs (cf.
Paul’s concern for retributive justice, 2Tim.4:14-16).
The great value of the Psalms lies in the repeated assurance
that Yahweh answers prayer, a truth that brings forth much
thanksgiving from the psalmists. This is a much needed cor-
rective to the trinitarian notion that for a prayer to be heard,
it needs to be concluded in Jesus’ name. No such formula is
ever uttered in the Psalms, yet that doesn’t stop Yahweh from
hearing our prayers.
Proverbs, too, testifies to the fact that “Yahweh is far from
the wicked but hears the prayer of the righteous” (15:29).
The key to answered prayers is not some kind of trinitarian
formula but righteousness. The notion that God hears us
because we utter “in Jesus’ name” as a formula is one of the
many errors we have inherited from our trinitarian back-
ground. Yet in Psalms and other books of the Bible, the pre-
requisite to answered prayer is righteousness. And Yahweh in
His grace makes that righteousness available to us in Christ.
“In my name”
In the whole New Testament, the phrase “in my name” in
relation to asking for something from God occurs only in
John chapters 14 to 16, a section that is about the coming of
the Holy Spirit. In these three chapters, “in my name” occurs
7 times (John 14:13,14,26; 15:16; 16:23,24,26). Here is John
16:23:
In that day you will ask nothing of me. Truly, truly, I say to
you, whatever you ask of the Father in my name, he will give
it to you.
The two occurrences of “ask” in this verse represent two

different Greek words. The first “ask” (erōtaō) usually has to
do with asking a question.113 The second “ask” (aiteō) usually
has to do with asking for something.
The disciples may have asked Jesus many questions, but
when it comes to asking for something, Jesus would guide
them to the Father, not to himself (with one possible except-
ion, discussed later). Likewise, Mt.7:11 teaches us to direct
our requests to the Father: “How much more will your Father
in heaven give good things to those who ask him?”
When Jesus says, “whatever you ask the Father in my
name,” he is not referring to things like cars and houses that
prosperity preachers like to bring up. The “whatever you ask”
is qualified by the words “in my name”. And what is his
name? His name is not “God” which in any case is not a
113
It can occasionally refer to asking for something, as in Jn.14:16;
16:26; 17:9. But in these instances, it is Jesus who is asking the Father.
name but a term of description. His name is Jesus which

means “Yahweh saves” or “Yahweh is salvation” whereas
Christ means Yahweh’s anointed Messiah-King, the savior of
the world. Here we see the motifs of salvation, suggesting that
“whatever you ask” has mainly to do with salvation.
Since the whole section John 14 to 16 is about the coming
of the Spirit called the “comforter” (14:16), therefore “what-
ever you ask” has to do with God’s power for salvation in the
age following Jesus’ departure at the completion of his earthly
ministry, after which everything is governed by Yahweh’s
Spirit operating in the church. Jesus is telling his disciples that
they can receive whatever they need in the spiritual life by
asking the Father for the Spirit in his name and authority.
And when the gift arrived at Pentecost, the disciples
proclaimed the message of salvation to the nations.
The Holy Spirit was well known to the Jews. But in the
Old Testament the Spirit of Yahweh did not indwell people,
not even the great prophets and servants of God, but was
depicted as “coming upon” people (e.g., upon Jahaziel who
prophesied before King Jehoshaphat, 2Chr. 20:14), empow-
ering them to fulfill a task that Yahweh had sent them to do.
The situation changed with the coming of Jesus and the
establishing of the new covenant in which the Spirit of
Yahweh plays a central role. This was prophesied in Joel 2:8-
32 (“I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh,” v.28) and fulfilled
in Acts 2:16-22. The Spirit is poured out, yet we are still to
ask the Father for the Spirit (Lk.11:13). The Spirit won’t be
given until Jesus has been glorified in his death, resurrection,
and ascension (Jn.7:39). This fact, in combination with Luke

11:13, clarifies much of what Jesus teaches about the Spirit.
An important theme in these three chapters, John 14 to
16, is the mutual indwelling that is so central to John 15 and
is the key to life under the new covenant. The mutual
indwelling is seen in: John 15:4 (“abide in me, and I in you”);
14:20 (“I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you”);
and 14:10 (“I am in the Father and the Father is in me”); also
17:21.
Is John 14:14 an exception to Jesus’ teaching?

In John’s Gospel, “in my name” occurs only in John 14 to
16, which are precisely the three chapters in which Jesus talks
about the Holy Spirit. This indicates that asking “in my
name” must somehow relate to the Spirit. In these three
chapters, “in my name” occurs seven times and always in con-
nection with praying to (or asking) the Father, with the possi-
ble but uncertain exception of 14:14: “If you ask me anything
in my name, I will do it”.
The crucial difference in this verse is that the asking is
directed not to the Father but to Jesus himself. Hence it is
hermeneutically difficult to reconcile Jn.14:14 with the other
verses in John where “in my name” has to do with asking the
Father. Taken at face value, Jn.14:14 does not make obvious
sense, not only because the other similar verses speak of ask-
ing the Father, but also because if we are asking Jesus directly,
what is the point of asking him in his own name? As for the
words “I will do it” in 14:14, it ought to be remembered that
it is ultimately the Father who is doing it through Jesus, as we

see four verses earlier: “The words that I say to you I do not
speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me
does his works” (Jn.14:10). So when Jesus says “I will do it,”
it is the Father who is doing the work through him. Jesus
does nothing of his own (Jn.5:19), can do nothing on his own
(5:30), and speaks nothing of his own authority (8:28), but
does the work of his Father (14:10).
Not surprisingly, John 14:14 has significant textual issues.
It is uncertain if the word “me” in “if you ask me” is in the
original Greek of John 14:14. It does not appear in some
important ancient uncials such as A D K L Q Ψ (see NA28’s
critical apparatus). UBS3 (p.390) classifies its uncertainty at
level {B}, indicating “some degree of doubt”. The degree of
doubt remains at {B} in UBS4/ UBS5.
There is even doubt about the whole verse itself, which is
omitted by some important manuscripts, as seen in the UBS5
footnote to John 14:14 (“omit verse 14 ƒ1 157 565 l 761/2 l
761/2 l 2111/2 l 10741/2 itb vgms syrs,pal arm geo”). UBS4’s com-
panion volume, A Textual Commentary on the Greek NT, says,
“Ver.14 is omitted by a scattering of witnesses, including sev-
eral important ancient versions,” though the commentary
ultimately accepts the verse as part of the original text.
For similar reasons, the United Bible Societies NT Hand-
books (vol.4, on Jn.14:14) arrives at the conclusion that the
asking is directed to the Father:
… this verse [Jn.14:14] is entirely omitted by some Greek

manuscripts, though the evidence favors its inclusion … Some
manuscripts do not have me in the phrase if you ask me … The
Father could be assumed as the one to whom the prayer is
directed.
The uncertainty over the word “me” in “if you ask me” is
documented in many Bibles. ESV says in a footnote to
Jn.14:14 that “some manuscripts omit me”. HCSB likewise
says, “other mss omit Me”. KJV, NKJV, RSV, REB omit
“me” even in the main text, as does the French Louis Segond
Bible.
John 14:14 is not otherwise problematic. The insertion of
“me” into the Greek text is likely the work of a trinitarian or
proto-trinitarian. A few late manuscripts have “the Father” in-
stead of “me” but this could be an interpretive addition in the
opposite direction, perhaps to harmonize this verse with the
other similar verses in John chapters 14 to 16.
The Expositor’s Greek Testament (vol.1, p.824) omits “me”
in its Greek text. Regarding “in my name” in Jn. 14:13, EGT
says, “The name of a person can only be used when we seek
to enforce his will and further his interests.” Jesus always seeks
to do his Father’s will; hence invoking Jesus’ name must
always be done in conformity with the Father’s will or else it
would be a serious misuse of the name.
Many Christians invoke “in Jesus’ name” as a magic form-
ula to be used in prayer to get God to grant them what they
ask, reducing Christianity to pious superstition with little
connection to biblical teaching. The guiding principle that
Jesus intends for invoking “in my name” is seen in the previ-

ous verse: “Whatever you ask [the Father] in my name, this I
will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son”
(Jn.14:13). Jesus’ desire that the Father be glorified in the Son
is the guiding principle of Jesus’ life and ministry, and ought
to be ours too.
Chapter 9
The Humanity of Jesus Christ
I n this chapter we reflect on the humanity or humanness of

Jesus Christ who in Scripture is called the Son of Man, or
the Son of God, or the man Christ Jesus, but never the
trinitarian “God the Son”. Some of the material will overlap
slightly with my earlier book, TOTG, but presented in a
somewhat different way, and often by way of spiritual reflect-
ion, in order to appreciate the implications of Christ’s
humanity for our lives.
For anyone who studies the Scriptures, and has had some
real experience of the living God, it shouldn’t be hard to see
that God simply cannot become a man. The gap between the
divine and the human is simply unbridgeable in terms of
nature. God is immortal, man is mortal. To become mortal,
God would have to change His nature so as to cease to be
God, which would be impossible. In the Scriptures, a funda-
mental truth about God is that He is unchanging. He is “the
eternal God” (Dt.33:27; Rom.16:26) and God from “ever-
lasting to everlasting” (Ps.90:2). It is written of God that “you
are the same, and your years have no end” (Ps.102:27;
Heb.1:12), and “I, Yahweh, do not change” (Mal.3:6). “God
is not man” (Num.23:19) that He should change His mind

(1Sam.15:29), much less change His nature. Yet trinitarian-
ism says that in the case of Jesus Christ, God became a man,
which is impossible because that would involve the most
fundamental change of all, and God would cease to be what
He is. Yet this is the kind of absurdity and unintentional
blasphemy that we preached in our trinitarian days.
If we proclaim the biblical truth that Jesus is not God,
then in the view of trinitarians, we are making him “mere
man”. But in the Bible, Jesus is a true man, and like all
human beings was “born of a woman” (Gal.4:4). Do trinitar-
ians regard this as degrading? Trinitarians prefer a Jesus who
is more than man; they want a divine being called “God the
Son,” a term that is not found in the Bible. As trinitarians, we
had little concern for Jesus’ humanity, and the same could be
said of most of the bishops at Nicaea.
By the time Jesus had been deified by the Gentiles, the
gospel that once met strong resistance among them and was
rejected by them as “foolishness” would soon become the
state religion of Rome. Gone was the shame of preaching a
crucified Jewish king as the Savior of the world; now you
need only believe in an Almighty Creator who became incar-
nate as Jesus Christ. Where in this is the “offense of the cross”
(Gal.5:11) or the one “despised and rejected of men”
(Isa.53:3; 1Pet.2:4)? What is there to despise about a divine
man? The point is that the basic character of the “gospel” had
changed when the man Jesus was elevated to God.
Did the church leaders at Nicaea think that the divine
“God the Son” could save mankind? On the contrary, it is the
Chapter 9 — The Humanity of Jesus Christ 429
“man Christ Jesus” (1Tim. 2:5) who saves us to the

“uttermost” (Heb.7:25). Do trinitarians think that in God’s
plan of salvation, the sacrifice of a divine being would provide
mankind with a more secure salvation? And where is the
scriptural support for their concept of a divine Son who is the
emanation of God? Doesn’t it alarm them that no such being
is found in the Scriptures? Yet they place their faith in a non-
existent being as their savior!
In contrast to this absurdity, the psalmist rejoices in the
wonderful privilege of being God’s creature. Man was exquis-
itely created by God, formed by God’s own fingers. Then
God breathed into him the breath of life (Gen. 2:7). The
psalmist praises God for having created him so wonderfully:
For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in
my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and won-
derfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it
very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was
being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the
earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book
were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for
me, when as yet there was none of them. How precious to me
are your thoughts, O God! (Psalm 139:13-17, ESV)
The obedience of the one man

It is hard to overstate the crucial importance of Romans 5:19
for the soteriology of Romans and the New Testament. As
trinitarians we expended much time and effort trying to prove
the deity of Jesus but did not realize that our search for the
supporting proof texts in the New Testament was undermin-

ing its doctrine of salvation.
Romans 5:19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many
were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many
will be made righteous.
Is Paul speaking of the obedience of God or of man? Since

Paul is speaking explicitly of the obedience of the “one man”
Jesus Christ—the counterpart of the “one man” Adam—why
are we so keen to prove that this “one man” is God? What is
behind our determined efforts? The obedience of God to God
is not what matters for our salvation, nor the obedience of the
second person to the first person of the Godhead who are
coequal and share a common substance.
The obedience of God to God bears no relevance to the
most important issue for man: his salvation. To get what
Romans 5:19 is saying, let us look at it again: It was by one
man’s disobedience (Adam’s) that “the many” (a metaphor
for all men) were made sinners. Hence it is necessary that
“through the obedience of the one man (not the obedience of
God or the obedience of a person of the Trinity) the many
will be made righteous.”
The usual trinitarian reply—that the second person of the
Trinity became man by incarnation—is, first of all, an ad-
mission that it is man’s obedience that matters for salvation.
It also does not solve the problem because to bring up incar-
nation is to admit that Jesus was not originally or essentially
man; he had to become man, which he was not before. Trini-
tarians say that God the Son acquired a “human nature”
through incarnation. But a human nature is not a whole hu-

man being, which means that Jesus is not “fully man” as po-
sited in trinitarianism. If we say that Jesus’ human nature
with a human body is a whole person, another problem arises:
God the Son would then be united to a whole human person,
making Jesus two persons.
The early trinitarians were aware of these problems when
they condemned Nestorius as a heretic for promoting a
teaching that the trinitarians understood to mean an amalgam
of two distinct persons, an idea they rightly rejected.114 But
Nestorius was merely taking the trinitarian idea to its logical
conclusion of two persons in the God-man. The trinitarians
of the 4th and 5th centuries stepped back from that con-
clusion, and condemned it.
But in refusing to take the God-man concept to its logical
conclusion (in order to avoid the untenable idea that Jesus is
two persons), they went for the alternative: Jesus is God with
a human nature. But how can this “God + human nature”
construct be a true human being? The Jesus of trinitarianism
is not a human being in any sense of the word “human”; he
only possesses a human nature as if it is something that can
exist independently of a whole human person. This exposes
the utterly confused trinitarian concept of the God-man, an
idea that does not stand up to elementary analysis.
114
It is unclear from the history of dogma if this was what Nestorius,
archbishop of Constantinople, really taught, for most of his writings
have been lost, and most of what we know of his teachings have come
to us from his enemies.
The concept of Jesus as God-man, which makes it impos-

sible for him to be a true human being, will come at the
unspeakable cost of eternal salvation. It was in the light of
Romans 5:19 that I wrote in TOTG that we don’t need
another God for salvation. What we need is a perfect man,
one who is perfectly obedient to God.
To resolve the incongruity of the trinitarian Jesus with the
biblical Jesus, we must first grasp that the former is not a
human being like any human being who has ever lived on the
face of the earth since the creation of Adam. He is not like
Adam at all, and therefore not like any human being at all.
This is no trifling theological issue because our salvation
hangs on it, a fact that we failed to see as trinitarians. If Jesus
is not a true human being like Adam (or like us, Adam’s
descendants) but is the God-man, then the crucial words of
Romans 5:18-19 cannot apply to him. As death came into the
world through the transgression of the first Adam (adam
means “man”), so in God’s plan of redemption, atonement
was made through the blood of the last Adam.
The importance of the last Adam in New Testament
teaching was not something that we in our trinitarian days
cared to expound. I confess that in my several decades of
ministry, I had never, as a trinitarian, preached a message on
the important place of the last Adam in the New Testament.
The three phases of Jesus’ ministry of salvation

The New Testament is fundamentally concerned with salva-
tion, and places Jesus Christ in the framework of God’s plan
for the salvation of humankind (even Jesus’ God-given name
means “Yahweh is salvation”). The plan is rolled out in three
phases, corresponding to the three phases of salvation spoken
of in the New Testament: past, present, and future.
The first phase is from Jesus’ birth to his death, resur-
rection, and ascension. With the completion of his earthly
ministry, he “sat down at the right hand of God” (Mk.16:19;
Heb.1:3; 10:12). His sitting down signifies the completion of
that ministry. The completion is also signified by Jesus’ use of
the word “remembrance” at the Last Supper. This word
(Greek anamnēsis) occurs only four times in the NT, with
three of the occurrences pertaining to the Lord’s Supper
(Lk.22:19; 1Cor. 11:24,25) and explained by BDAG as “in
remembrance (or memory) of me”. The word “remembrance”
points to a past event that carries significance for the present.
The first phase of salvation was completed with the
declaration, “It is finished” (Jn.19:30), but also with, “I have
brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave
me to do” (Jn.17:4).
What was achieved in the first phase of salvation was
reconciliation with God in Christ (2Cor.5:19). Through the
atoning blood of Jesus the Lamb of God shed on the altar of
the cross, humankind could now be reconciled with God.
The barrier between God and man was torn down, as vividly
expressed in the rending of the veil (recorded in all three
synoptics, Mt.27:51; Mk.15:38; Lk.23:45) that had closed off
the holiest place in the temple from the rest of the temple. In
the temple services, the high priest as the people’s represent-
ative would enter this holiest place, called the Holy of Holies,
once a year (Heb.9:7) to come into God’s presence, but never
without the blood of sacrifice.
In Matthew 27:51, the word schizō which is translated
“torn apart” with reference to the temple curtain is also used
in the same verse of the splitting of rocks. The barrier
between God and man that was created by man’s sins and
represented by the curtain, is as impenetrable as rock in terms
of spiritual reality, as anyone trying to reach God would soon
discover. It is not something that could be pushed aside as
easily as a physical curtain.
But to achieve reconciliation, God has to come to us in
Christ before we can go to Him. In Christ, Yahweh answered
the plea so poignantly expressed in Isaiah 64:1, “Oh that you
would rend the heavens and come down,” a verse that depicts
the heavens as a veil or a garment that hides Yahweh from our
sight. Here, too, the picture is that of a veil being torn apart
and Yahweh coming down to us. It is also a picture of the
coming of the Spirit of God upon Jesus at his baptism
(“immediately he saw the heavens being torn apart and the
Spirit descending on him like a dove,” Mk.1:10), signifying
God’s presence with Jesus and in him.
The second phase of salvation has to do with the present
time in which Jesus is in heaven at the right hand of the
Father: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a
footstool for your feet” (Heb.1:13). In this phase it is the
Spirit of Yahweh, the Holy Spirit, who is working in “the
church of God” (a term used in Acts 20:28; 1Cor.1:2; 10:32;

11:22; 15:9; 2Cor.1:1; Gal.1:13; 1Tim.3:5,15), drawing peo-
ple to a saving faith in Christ. God does this work through
His people and His church, the body of Christ.
The third phase of salvation has to do with Jesus’ return to
earth as King and Messiah, regarding which the angels had
told the disciples: “This Jesus, who was taken up from you
into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go
into heaven” (Acts 1:11).
T he three phases of salvation can be portrayed in another

way, from Yahweh’s perspective:
First phase: Yahweh came to dwell in a man, Jesus Christ,
such that God’s fullness dwelled in him bodily (Col.2:9). God
was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (2Cor.5:19).
In the New Testament, this phase is recorded in the four
gospels.
Second phase: Yahweh is now in the world dwelling in His
church, the body of Christ and temple of God, and through
the church is continuing His work of reconciliation. This
phase is the main focus of the section from Acts to Jude.
Since this section of Scripture has to do with the present time,
it is important for us to understand it correctly, for any error
here will have serious spiritual consequences. Yahweh now
dwells in His church “bodily” in much the same way He
dwelled in Christ (now the head of the church) when Christ
was on earth. The church’s message to the world is, “Be re-
conciled to God” (2Cor.5:20,18; Rom.5:10), just as Christ

came in order to “bring us to God” (1Pet.3:18).
The body of Christ is now in the world in the way that the
head, Jesus Christ, was in the world. In other words, the
church is now as Christ in the world, not only as a commun-
ity or a spiritual organism but also as individuals. The body of
each individual believer who has received the Spirit of God is
now the temple of the Holy Spirit, that is, the temple of God,
in basically the same way that Jesus was the temple of God,
except for the crucial difference that whereas Jesus attained
absolute perfection through Yahweh’s indwelling, we have not
(yet) attained to the “stature of Christ”. Even so, we can
experience Christ in ourselves and not just in some abstract
intellectual way. Hence Paul is able to say, “For me to live is
Christ”; it is for this reason that “to die is gain” (Phil.1:21).
Third phase: Yahweh will return to earth in Christ. Yahweh’s
Christ (“the Christ of God,” Lk.9:20) and Yahweh’s church
(“the church of God,” Acts 20:28) will rule the earth. All who
had refused to be reconciled with God will be judged. This
third phase, the final phase of the present age, is the focus of
the book of Revelation, but also of a few chapters in the
synoptic gospels and some passages in the NT letters, notably
2 Thessalonians.
In this phase, Christ will “subject all things to himself”
(Phil.3:21), fulfilling the purpose of the third phase of God’s
plan of salvation in Christ. The transformation of the body
mentioned in this verse is the defeat of death and mortality.
In putting on immortality, the bodies of the redeemed will be
transformed into glorious and incorruptible bodies like that

of Christ. The subjection of all things to Christ will include
the defeat of death and its elimination from redeemed creat-
ion.
There is also the subjection of spiritual powers hostile to
God which are called “principalities and powers” (KJV) or
“rulers and authorities” (ESV): “He disarmed the rulers and
authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over
them in him” (Col.2:15). We see something similar in the
following passage:
It has been testified somewhere (viz., Psa.8:4-6), “What is
man, that you are mindful of him, or the son of man, that
you care for him? You made him for a little while lower than
the angels; you have crowned him with glory and honor,
putting everything in subjection under his (man’s) feet.”
Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left
nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see
everything in subjection to him. But we see him who for a
little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus,
crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of
death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for
everyone. (Heb.2:6-9, ESV)
God’s eternal purposes for creation include putting all

things in subjection to man’s feet. After Adam’s fall, Yahweh
carried out His eternal plan through the redemption that is in
the “man Christ Jesus,” the only mediator between God and
men (1Tim.2:5). But if Christ is divine as he is in trinitarian-
ism, then God’s plan would not have been carried out, but
would have been subverted, for it would be to the “second

person of the Godhead” and not to man that all things will be
subjected.
Job is puzzled by the value that Yahweh attaches to man
and the attention that He gives him (“What is man, that you
make so much of him, and that you set your heart on him,”
Job 7:17). God’s care for man is seen in His intention “before
the foundation of the world” to “put all things under his
feet,” that is, all things in subjection to man. It is man—
preeminently Jesus Christ, seated at the Father’s right hand—
who will rule over God’s creation as His representative and
plenipotentiary.
1 Corinthians 15:24-27 Then comes the end, when he deli-
vers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every
rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until
he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to
be destroyed is death. For “God has put all things in subject-
ion under his feet.” (ESV)
Ephesians 1:18-23 having the eyes of your hearts enlightened,

that you may know what is the hope to which he (God,
v.17) has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inher-
itance in the saints, and what is the immeasurable greatness
of his power toward us who believe, according to the
working of his great might that he worked in Christ when he
raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in
the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and pow-
er and dominion, and above every name that is named, not
only in this age but also in the one to come. And he put all
things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to
the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills
all in all. (ESV)
God who is immortal cannot die

God is immortal, which means that God cannot die and does
not die. But this truth is lost on many speakers of English be-
cause the word “immortal” does not, to most people, clearly
or unambiguously convey the sense of “cannot die” or “does
not die”. One reason is that the words “mortal” and “immor-
tal” are less concrete to most people than “die” and “death”.
Another reason is that “immortal” is often used in the sense of
“deserving to be remembered forever” (Oxford Dictionary) as
in “the immortal Shakespeare”. Yet another reason is that
“mortal” is sometimes used generically of people as in “the
ambassador had to live in a style that was not expected of
lesser mortals” (an example from Oxford).
But in Greek, the meaning “cannot die” comes out unmis-
takably in the word athanasia (immortality), which is a com-
bination of the alpha privative “a” and thanatos (“death”)—
basically “no death”.
The English mortal is related to the French mort and Latin
mortuus, both of which mean “dead”. In fact some Bibles
render 1Tim.6:16a to explicitly say that God cannot die: “He
is the only One who never dies” (Expanded Bible); “God is
the only one who can’t die” (NIRV); and “He alone can
never die” (NLT). This is seen in Bibles of other languages. A
French Bible has, “Il est le seul qui ne meurt pas” (“he is the
only one who does not die,” La Bible: Parole de Vie). The
Chinese Union Bible is equally explicit: 就是那独一不死

(“the only one who does not die”).
We trinitarians did not grasp that if Jesus is God, then by
definition he would be immortal and could not have died. So
either Jesus is not God and can die for the sins of mankind,
or he is God and cannot die. I know of no theologian who
has given a plausible solution to this conundrum. The
German theologian Jürgen Moltmann even flaunts this issue
by giving one of his books the title “The Crucified God”.
The concept of a god who dies and rises again was familiar
to the pagan world in which the Gentile church took root.
Little wonder that some scholars have portrayed Christianity
as preaching a pagan Christ (e.g., Tom Harpur’s The Pagan
Christ). Their criticism is not without basis because the God
of the Bible is indisputably immortal. Pagan gods, by
contrast, are said to die and rise again because they personify
those aspects of nature that die in winter and rise in spring.
There were many fertility gods in the ancient pagan cultures,
a well-known example of which is Baal who was worshipped
in the Canaanite nations and later by many in Israel. 115
It can be said that the Gentile church has not raised Jesus
to equality with the immortal God of the Bible, but to the
level of the mortal pagan gods!
115
The Greek world at the time of the Council of Nicaea was
familiar with the deities who are said to have died and come back to
life, e.g., Attis (of Greek origin), Dionysus (Greek), Adonis (Greek
with Semitic antecedents), Osiris (Egyptian), Ra (Egyptian), Tammuz
(Sumerian and Babylonian), and Zalmoxis (Greek). See the respective
Wikipedia articles under these names.
In contrast to the Canaanite concept of gods, Greek myth-

ology presents an alternative pagan worldview: the immortal-
ity of gods. In Greco-Roman culture there is a pantheon of
“gods many and lords many” (1Cor.8:5) who are called gods
because they are said to be immortal. Immortality is an in-
alienable attribute of Greek deities.116 Anyone who dies is not
a god. By this criterion, Jesus is unquestionably human, un-
less Christians (unwittingly) classify him with the “dying and
rising” agricultural gods whose existence is paralleled in the
seasons (they die in autumn and rise in spring).117 Unlike the
dying and rising gods, the Greek gods are more like deified
human beings. They behave like humans, and in some cases
are more depraved than humans.
Ancient Greek culture, in contrast to the Hebrew Bible,
has no overarching creation myth or narrative. In Greek
mythology, some aspects of the natural world are emanations
from, or domains of, the gods, e.g., Gaia is the goddess or the
personification of earth, and Eurynome is that of the oceans.
There is no ultimate creator and no attempt to explain the
ultimate origin of all things.
116
Wikipedia, Greek Mythology, citing H.W. Stoll’s Religion and
Mythology of the Greeks: “The Ancient Greek gods have many fantastic
abilities; most significantly, the gods are not affected by disease, and
can be wounded only under highly unusual circumstances. The Greeks
considered immortality as the distinctive characteristic of their gods”.
117
For a scholarly work on the dying and rising gods, see T.N.D.
Mettinger’s The Riddle of Resurrection: Dying and Rising Gods in the
Ancient Near East.
How could Jesus have died on the cross if he is God, and

God is by nature immortal? There are no two ways about it.
Scripture is clear that immortality is an intrinsic attribute of
Yahweh, the Biblical God. A God who can be put to death by
crucifixion is simply not the God of the Bible but is one of
the pagan dying-and-rising gods familiar to the church
fathers. But trinitarianism wants to have it both ways in the
well-practiced art of doublespeak. Little wonder that books
with titles like The Pagan Christ have sold in quantity.
In the present age, a reality of human existence is man’s
mortality. “It is appointed for men to die once, and after that
comes judgment” (Heb.9:27). Man is not innately immortal
but will be made immortal at the resurrection of the dead
(1Cor.15:53-54). Our future immortality is not an intrinsic
immortality but a conferred one. Man has to be given immor-
tality because his life, just as Christ’s life, ultimately comes
from God’s life. Jesus says, “I live because of the Father”
(Jn.6:57); “For as the Father has life in himself, so he has
granted the Son also to have life in himself” (5:26).
And sure enough, when we are granted immortality, we
will never die again, and death will be defeated (“death is
swallowed up in victory,” 1Cor.15:54). God on the other
hand is eternally immortal. He cannot die, has never died,
and will never die.
Death is not the end of the story for us, for the next verse,
Heb.9:28, has some good news: “Christ, having been offered
(by God) once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second
time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly
waiting for him” (RSV).
As a man, Jesus Christ could die. But being without sin,

he did not by law have to die. Yet he voluntarily offered his
life for our salvation: “No one takes my life from me, I lay it
down of my own accord” (Jn.10:18). Death came into the
world through Adam’s sin, and with it pain and suffering, but
Christ gave himself as a ransom for man’s redemption
(Mt.20:28).
If Jesus Christ were God, he could not have died for us,
and we would be left in our sins without the hope of salvat-
ion. An inalienable attribute of God is that He is eternal (“the
eternal God,” Dt.33:27) and therefore immortal (1Tim.1:17).
God had to bring about our salvation through the only means
possible: the death of the perfect man, Jesus Christ. The sal-
vation through Christ was not an afterthought, for Yahweh
had worked out His marvelous plan of salvation “before the
foundation of the world” (Eph.1:4; 1Pet.1:20).
An attempt to get around “immortality”

This section will be brief. Some trinitarians are aware that the
word “immortality” is problematic to their doctrine, so they
try to get around it by saying that immortality is to be under-
stood as the immutability of the soul rather than the inability
to die. The end result is that a person who dies can still be
said to be immortal. But this view of immortality is dissonant
with the biblical view as put forth by Paul:
When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the

mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the
saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”
“O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your
sting?” (1Cor.15:54-55, ESV)
When mortal man puts on immortality, he is no longer

perishable but imperishable, for death is swallowed up in vic-
tory (cf. Isaiah 25:8, “He will swallow up death forever”).
Hence when a person becomes immortal, he will never die!
Romans 2:7 links immortality to eternal life when it says that
God will give eternal life to those who “seek for glory and
honor and immortality”. Our immortality does not make us
divine, for it is a gift that is conferred on us. Only God is
intrinsically immortal, as explained in Holman Illustrated
Bible Dictionary (“Immortality”):
In the true sense of the word, only God is immortal (1Tim.
6:16; 1:17; 2Tim.1:10), for only God is living in the true
sense of the word. Humans may be considered immortal only
insofar as immortality is the gift of God. Paul points us in this
direction. In Rom.2:7 Paul says, “To those who by patiently
doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will
give eternal life” (NRSV). Paul also explained that the perish-
able nature of human life will put on the imperishable and
that the mortal nature of human life will put on immortality.
When that happens, the saying concerning victory over death
will have been fulfilled (1Cor.15:53-55; Isa.25:8; Hos. 13:14).
Paul says, “None of the rulers of this age understood this,

for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of
glory” (1Cor.2:8). Here the word “crucified” points to Jesus’
death on the cross. As trinitarians we ignored the unjettison-
able truth that God is immortal and cannot be killed by
crucifixion. God’s immortality is an inalienable divine attri-
bute, and is not open to negotiation or compromise (e.g., by
saying that God “died for a few minutes at the cross”). God
who is “from everlasting to everlasting” is immortal, whereas
mortality is a stark reality that confronts all human beings.
God is invisible, man is visible

It is scripturally natural to go from God’s immortality to
God’s invisibility, in that order, because the two are linked in
the following statement:
… he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of
kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality, who
dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or
can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen. (1
Timothy 6:15-16, ESV)
Paul makes two crucial points: Only God is immortal (“who

alone has immortality”) and God is invisible (“whom no one
has ever seen or can see”). God’s intrinsic invisibility rules out
Jesus as God because Jesus is visible. The additional fact that
God “alone has immortality” rules out everyone else, includ-
ing Jesus, as being immortal and therefore divine. If we apply
the words “alone has immortality” to Jesus, we would be rul-
ing out God the Father as immortal on the basis of the word
“alone”.
In an attempt to rescue Jesus’ deity from this passage, a
popular commentary makes the bizarre statement that “Jesus
is ascribed immortality, unapproachable light, and invisibil-
ity.” Invisibility? Jesus is invisible? Here we see Paul’s wisdom
in interlocking the clause “who alone has immortality” with
“whom no one has ever seen or can see” such that they cannot
be separated, forcing us to choose between a visible and
mortal Jesus (the biblical Jesus) and an invisible and immortal
Jesus (an impossible Jesus).
Jesus is eminently visible. Paul says that he has seen Jesus:
“Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus
our Lord?” (1Cor.9:1). The answer is “yes” to all three rhetor-
ical questions. Even if we take Paul’s statement as metaphor,
the visibility of the risen Jesus was not in doubt when he
appeared to Cephas, to the Twelve, and to over 500 brothers
(1Cor.15:5-6).
How do we know that Jesus is a human being? Or that
anyone is a human being? Scripture describes mortal man as
“flesh and blood” (Mt.16:17; 1Cor.15:50; Eph.6:12;
Heb.2:14). It brings out man’s frailty and mortality, but also
the fact that man, being a physical being, is visible to the
human eye. But God is spirit (Jn.4:24) and inherently invisi-
ble. Invisibility is one of Yahweh’s attributes (1Tim. 1:17),
though from the epiphanies of God recorded in the Old
Testament, we know that He can, and sometimes does, make
Himself visible in order to fulfill a specific purpose. He
appeared to Adam and Eve in the Garden and talked with
them. He appeared to people in human form, sometimes

mediated through the angel of the Lord (literally “angel of
Yahweh”) such that some have mistaken him for a man.
The point is that Yahweh is inherently invisible though He
can become visible in order to fulfill a specific purpose. But
man has no say regarding his own visibility, and the closest he
can get to invisibility is to hide himself as in the case of Adam
and Eve who, after they had sinned, sought “invisibility” by
trying to hide from God. Sinners try to run from God, but
unhappily for them, being human means that they cannot
make themselves invisible, and certainly not to God.
Like all human beings, Jesus is visible to the physical eye.
Like all human beings, he can go to a place that is out of the
range of our sight, as in the present age when he is in heaven
at the right hand of the Father. But the whole world will see
Jesus when he comes again.
It is because Jesus is visible that he can be “the image of
the invisible God” (Col.1:15). If God were inherently visible,
He wouldn’t need Jesus or anyone else to make Him visible,
nor would He need to reveal His own glory “in the face of
Jesus Christ” (2Cor.4:6). Conversely, if Jesus is God, he too
would be inherently invisible, in which case it would be
redundant for God the Son to make God the Father visible.
At the final resurrection of the dead, the perishable body
will be raised an imperishable body; the body lacking honor
will be raised in glory; the weak body will be raised in power;
and the natural body will be raised a spiritual body
(1Cor.15:42-44). Our “lowly body” will be transformed to be
like the “glorious body” of Jesus Christ (Phil.3:21). When
Jesus was raised from the dead, his body was transformed into
a spiritual body while remaining a physical body. Now he can
be visible or invisible as he chooses, as seen in the gospel ac-
counts of his post-resurrection appearances. The transforma-
tion of the body for believers will take place at the resurrect-
ion of the saints. “For the trumpet will sound, and the dead
will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.” (1Cor.
15:52)
“Ben Adam” (Son of Man) means a human being

When I was doing Divinity studies (theological studies) in
England, I stayed in Jerusalem for a time to take a course on
modern conversational Hebrew.
A few months into my studies there, I took a trip north to
Galilee by bus. The bus was crowded and already full, yet
people were still clamoring to get on board, with passengers
standing in whatever aisle space was available amid the suit-
cases. An elderly man got on the bus and had no place to sit.
Someone seeing that two children were occupying two seats,
asked one of them to move over and let the old man sit. But
immediately one of their parents shouted, “Yeladim gam ben
Adam,” which means, “Children are also human beings.”
The term that the parent used, ben Adam (son of Adam,
son of man), is precisely the term used in the Bible to refer to
a man or a human being. The word “adam” means “man,”
but so does the term “son of Adam” (“son of man”). That bus
incident impressed itself on my mind: biblical language was
being spoken in my hearing!
This incident shows that “son of man” is still used in

modern Hebrew to mean “human being”. It doesn’t have to
be translated as “son of man” since it can be translated simply
as “man”.
The equivalence of “man” and “son of man” is seen in the
Hebrew parallelism of Numbers 23:19: “God is not man that
he should lie, or a son of man that he should change his
mind”. Also Psalm 8:4: “What is man that you are mindful of
him, and the son of man that you care for him?”
The equivalence is seen also in the NT, for example, by
comparing the parallel passages Matthew 12:31 (tois anthrō-
pois, “the men”) and Mark 3:28 (tois huiois tōn anthrōpōn,
“the sons of men”).
The interchangeability between “man” and “son of man”
in modern Hebrew (ben Adam, son of Adam) is seen in
Grammar of Modern Hebrew (Lewis Glinert, Cambridge
University Press, 1989, p.390) in the way it takes for granted
that ben adam means “person” and can be treated syntact-
ically as one compound term that means man. The following
quotation from this book is technical and may be skipped:
Many constructions can become ‘compounds’, being felt to
refer to a single concept, and thus become more rigid syn-
tactically. For example, construct ‫אדם‬-‫אדם ~ בני‬-‫ בן‬ben-adam
~ (pl.) bney-adam ‘person(s)’ is a compound in casual usage
in the way it becomes definite: ‫אדם‬-‫ הבן‬ha-ben-adam ‘the
person’, rather than ‫האדם‬-‫ בן‬ben ha-adam.
The semantic equivalence of “son of man” and “human

being” is seen in sources other than Hebrew grammars. The
Google Translate facility at http://translate.google.com (May
18, 2013) translates the English “human beings” into Israeli
Hebrew ‫“( בני אדם‬sons of adam”). If you enter “human being”
(singular), Google Translate will return ‫( אדם‬adam), accom-
panied by an alternative translation ‫( בּן אדם‬ben adam, son of
Adam), defined by Google Translate as “person, man, human
being, mortal”.
A different type of Jewish source is the Wikipedia article
Mensch (Yiddish for “human being”) which says: “In modern
Israeli Hebrew, the phrase Ben Adam ‘Son of Adam’ (‫)בן אדם‬
is used as an exact translation of Mensch (human being)”.
The Common English Bible consistently translates “Son of
Man” as “the Human One” (e.g., “Whoever is ashamed of me
and my words, the Human One will be ashamed of that per-
son,” Lk.9:26). We personally feel that it is unnecessary for
CEB to discard the well-established Jewish idiom “son of
man,” yet at the same time we are sympathetic to their
concern that the true meaning of the idiom is lost on most
Christians today.
Jesus calls himself the Son of Man

In the synoptics (Matthew, Mark, Luke), the title that Jesus
uses of himself above all others, indeed almost to the exclu-
sion of all others, is “the Son of Man”. Trinitarians place little
emphasis on this title, even less on its fundamental meaning
that would explain why Jesus chose it above all others for
himself. In fact Jesus never calls himself “Son of God” in the

synoptics.
In Aramaic, which was the main language spoken by Jesus
and was the common language of Israel in his day, “son of
man” simply means a man, as it does in Hebrew.
The fact that “son of man” is the predominant title that
Jesus applies to himself shows that he identifies himself expli-
citly and unequivocally as man. For this reason, Paul calls
Jesus the “last Adam” and the “second man” (1Cor.15:45,
47).
When Jesus was about to heal a paralyzed man in the
presence of an agitated crowd that included hostile religious
leaders, he declared to them that he was the Son of Man:
“But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority
on earth to forgive sins”—he then said to the paralytic—
“Rise, pick up your bed and go home.” And he rose and
went home. When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and
they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.
(Mt.9:6-8, ESV)
The people’s reaction to the healing tells us that they took the
term “son of man”—which Jesus applied to himself in their
presence—to mean that Jesus represented mankind when he
received from God the authority to heal (“they glorified God
who had given such authority to men”). Unless Jesus the Son
of Man and the Last Adam represented mankind, the people
would have no reason to glorify “God who had given such
authority to men”. Their notion of God giving authority to
men aligns with what Jesus said to his disciples: “Whatever
you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever

you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Mt.18:18).
“Son of Man” in the synoptic gospels

The following are excerpts of the article “Son of Man” in the
revised ISBE (vol.4, pp.574-581). The article, right from its
first sentence, says that “son of man” is often translated in
English simply as “man,” and that Aramaic was the “major
spoken language of Palestine in the 1st cent A.D.”
These excerpts give useful data on the frequency of the
term “the son of man” (ho huios tou anthrōpou) in the synop-
tic gospels. We quote them for the benefit of those who are
interested in the statistics and the categories of meaning, but
some other readers may wish to skip them on a first reading.
The title “Son of man” occurs 82 times in the Gospels; 69
times (in 39 pericopes) in the Synoptics (14 times in Mark,
30 times in Matthew and 25 times in Luke), and 13 times
(in 11 pericopes) in John. In the Gospels the designation is
used only by Jesus Himself except in one text, where His
words are quoted. In Jn.12:34 the crowd responds to Jesus
by asking, “How can you say that the Son of man must be
lifted up? Who is this Son of man?” In addition, “Son of
man” occurs once in Acts, where it is attributed to the dying
Stephen (Acts 7:56) …
No attempts are made in the Gospels to explain the meaning

of the phrase. This absence of any definition or explanation
may imply that the designation was so well known to Jesus’
contemporaries that any such explanation would be super-

fluous. Alternately, the same phenomenon may be explained
by supposing that the title was so familiar to the Evangelists
that they assumed that their readers would not require ex-
planation or definition …
Mark In Mark the Son of man designation is used fourteen

times, including two earthly sayings (2:10,28), nine suffering
sayings (8:31; 9:9,12,31; 10:33,45; 14:21 [twice], 41), and
three future sayings (8:38; 13:26; 14:62). Twelve of these
sayings are placed after the episode of the confession of Peter
at Caesarea Philippi (8:27-30), when Jesus begins to predict
His suffering and death …
Matthew The phrase “Son of man” occurs thirty times in

Matthew, including seven earthly sayings (8:20; 9:6; 11:19;
12:8,32; 13:37; 16:13), ten suffering sayings (12:40;
17:9,12,22f; 20:18f,28; 26:2, 24 [twice], 45), and thirteen
eschatological sayings (10:23; 13:41; 16:27,28; 19:28; 24:27,
30 [twice],37,39,44; 25:31; 26:64). Two additional sayings
are found in variant readings (18:11; 25:13). Six occurrences
of Son of man are unique to Matthew (10:23; 13:37,41;
24:30a; 25:31; 26:2). Matthew obviously understands the
Hebrew idiom, for he changes the phrase “sons of men” in
Mk.3:28 to “men” in Mt.12:31 …
Luke The Son of man designation occurs twenty-five times

in Luke, including eight earthly sayings (5:24; 6:5,22; 7:34;
9:58; 12:10; 17:22; 19:10), seven suffering sayings (9:22,44;
11:30; 18:31; 22:22,48; 24:7), and ten eschatological sayings
(9:26; 12:8,40; 17:24,26,30; 18:8; 21:27, 36; 22:69). Seven
Son of man sayings are unique to Luke (17:22,30; 18:8;

19:10; 21:36; 22:48; 24:7; cf. Acts 7:56).
The second man and the last Adam

1 Corinthians 15:45-49 45
Thus it is written, “The first man
Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-
giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the
natural, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the
earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was
the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as
is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 Just
as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also
bear the image of the man of heaven. (ESV)
The contrast between Adam and Christ is developed further

not in Romans but in 1 Corinthians 15 where Paul discusses
it from a different perspective: Adam the first man versus
Jesus the second man. This is a remarkable way of expressing
the contrast because speaking of Jesus as the second man rules
out anyone from coming in between the two as being relevant
for man’s salvation. Mankind’s destiny therefore hangs on
these two men and their actions. Whereas the first man
brought death through disobedience, the second man brought
life through obedience. The first man is called in Judaism
“the firstborn of the world” 118 whereas the second is called by
118
The Last Adam: A Study in Pauline Anthropology, Robin Scroggs,
page 38 (Fortress Press, 1966).
Paul “the firstborn of creation” (Col.1:15)—referring to the

new creation.
Jesus is not only the second man but also the last Adam
who became “a life-giving spirit” (1Cor.15:45). Since “adam”
means “man,” Jesus is both the second man and the last man.
Paul’s description of Jesus as the last man rules out anyone
coming after him as being relevant for mankind’s salvation.
The man of heaven

As trinitarians, we took the term “man of heaven” in v.48
(bolded in the quotation above) to mean that the preexistent
God the Son came down physically from heaven. This is to
misunderstand Paul because in the same verse, he uses the
same title—“those who are of heaven”—of God’s people,
linking the two concepts with the connecting word “also”. If
“man of heaven” is taken in the spatial sense as trinitarians
have taken it, how would they explain Paul’s statement that
all believers “are of heaven” (present tense, not future tense)?
The term “of heaven” is not about the origin of one’s exist-
ence but points to the contrast in v.48 between the earthly
(“man of dust”) and the spiritual (“man of heaven”). This
contrast is reaffirmed in verse 46: “It is not the spiritual that is
first but the natural, and then the spiritual”.
This verse (v.46) offers no support for Christ’s preexist-
ence because it says that the natural man comes “first” before
the spiritual man. The precedence expressed in the word
“first” makes sense only in terms of chronology (Adam came
earlier in time than Jesus), not in terms of preeminence
(which would make Adam greater than Jesus). Hence this

verse offers no support for Jesus’ preexistence. The chrono-
logy also comes out in Paul’s contrast between the “first man”
and the “last man”.
Jesus says of his disciples that “they are not of the world,
just as I am not of the world” (Jn.17:16). He also says, “If you
were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but
because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the
world, therefore the world hates you” (Jn.15:19, cf. 1Jn.3:13).
But if the disciples are not of the world, what realm do they
belong to? The answer is that they are “of heaven”. Just as
Jesus is not of the world, so his disciples are not of the world
but of heaven. This we saw in 1Cor.15:48 and is reinforced
by verse 49 which says that believers will “also bear the image
of the man of heaven”.
Heaven is a familiar metonym of God. When Jesus asked
the religious leaders whether John’s baptism was “from
heaven or from man” (Mt.21:25; Mk.11:30; Lk.20:4), he was
really asking whether John’s baptism received its authority
from God or from man. A man who is “from heaven” is a
man who is “from God”.
Jesus, a real man in heaven

“See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me,
and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see
that I have.” (Luke 24:39)
The risen Jesus says to his disciples that he is not a spirit

for “a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I
have”. Underlying these striking words is the presupposition
that man is not a “spirit,” in contrast to God’s spirit nature:
“God is spirit” (Jn.4:24). Just as striking, Jesus puts himself
on the human side of the contrast (“flesh and bones”) rather
than the divine side (“spirit”) even after his resurrection.
Right now in heaven, Jesus is sitting at the right hand of
God not as a “spirit” but as a man with flesh and bones! The
Bible gives no indication that Jesus was ever transformed into
a “spirit” at some point prior to his ascension into heaven. It
is true that Jesus could in his glorified body walk through
walls and doors after he had been raised from the dead, yet at
the same time he was still “flesh and bones”.119 The fact is
that the man Jesus, existing in a physical body, is sitting right
next to the Father in heaven, and is interceding for us. I pre-
viously had never thought of anything “physical” existing in
heaven, but this is perhaps another case of truth being
stranger than fiction.
In the New Testament, the more common similar term for
a human being is “flesh and blood”. Jesus uses it in Mt.16:17
when he says to Peter, “Flesh and blood has not revealed to
you [that I am the Christ], but my Father who is in heaven.”
In John 6:53-56, Jesus speaks of his own flesh and blood as
vital spiritual realities that believers must feed on as food and
119
A physicist friend of mine who completed his doctoral studies in
England once explained to me that Jesus’ body could penetrate walls
and other obstacles in terms of quantum probability and frequency
functions, but this is going beyond my knowledge of physics.
drink, not in a material sense but as spiritual sustenance. This

teaching proved to be too hard for some of his disciples to
take, so they left him (Jn.6:66).
“Flesh and blood” is perishable and impermanent whereas
the kingdom of God is imperishable and eternal, which is
why flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God
(1Cor.15:50). That being the case, how could Jesus have
taken his place in heaven in a physical body? His being in
heaven would indicate that his body has been “spiritualized”
or “glorified” in some sense (Phil. 3:21), but not in a way that
the body has become “spirit” (Jesus denies he is “spirit” even
after his resurrection). He can still be touched, which would
not be the case with a person who is “spirit”.
Luke 24:39 is the only place in the New Testament where
the term “flesh and bones” occurs. In the story surrounding
this verse, not only could Jesus be touched, he also ate fish
(v.43) to prove to his disciples that he was functional as a
human being even after having been “raised from the dead by
the glory of the Father” (Rom. 6:4). His own humanity was
evidently something that Jesus considered important to im-
press upon his disciples before he ascended to heaven. So it is
worthwhile to read this remarkable account:
As they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood
among them, and said to them, “Peace to you!” But they
were startled and frightened and thought they saw a spirit.
And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do
doubts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that
it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have
flesh and bones as you see that I have.” And when he had
said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. And while
they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling, he said to
them, “Have you anything here to eat?” They gave him a
piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate before them.
(Luke 24:36-43, ESV)
This is the first half of the account. Interestingly, the second

half continues without interruption to Jesus’ ascent into hea-
ven, which means that Jesus entered heaven with the same
body of flesh and bones! I have never heard anyone mention
this astonishing fact. Therefore let us read the rest of this am-
azing account. The following is the uninterrupted narrative
starting from the time Jesus ate broiled fish to the time he
ascended into heaven:
They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate
before them. Then he said to them, “These are my words
that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything
written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and
the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Then he opened their minds to
understand the Scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it is writ-
ten, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise
from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins
should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning
from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And
behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you.
But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on
high.” Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up
his hands he blessed them. While he blessed them, he parted
from them and was carried up into heaven. (Luke 24:42-51,
ESV)
This is an uninterrupted train of events leading up to

Jesus’ ascension into heaven. The narrative continues into the
book of Acts and is concluded in Acts 1:9 with the words, “as
they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him
out of their sight”. His disciples were looking on while Jesus
was ascending to heaven, until they could see him no longer
because of the cloud that was taking him up. But all along,
Jesus remained visible to the human eye. It is never said that
the disciples were having some kind of spiritual vision, for
they were looking at him with their physical eyes. Jesus clearly
entered heaven not as a spirit but as the same Jesus whom the
disciples were able to touch and who ate with them. Even if
there was a change in quantum frequency (which in any case
would remain in the realm of natural phenomena), his body
remained a physical body that could be touched. There is a
“flesh and bones” man in heaven!
Most appropriately, Luke’s Gospel ends with the words,
“they stayed continually at the temple, praising God” (Lk.
24:53).
The conclusion is inescapable that the body of Jesus which
could eat fish and which his disciples could touch was the
same body that was taken up into heaven where he is right
now. There is a real man in heaven! The man who walked on
earth is now among the multitudes of heavenly beings above.
This is undoubtedly the message that Luke wants to convey
to us.
Christ is now seated in his “glorious body” (Phil.3:21) at
the right hand of the Father. It is in this body that Jesus will
return to earth in the same way he left earth (Acts 1:11).
“Flesh and blood” points to the impermanent elements of

the human body. The term is sometimes reduced to one word
“flesh”: “All flesh is like grass” (Isa.40:6; 1Pet. 1:24). Bone,
on the other hand, is the most enduring component of the
human body. Archaeologists often find bones dating back
thousands of years. This may be the reason Jesus used the un-
usual term “flesh and bones” in referring to his body. Another
reason could be that he had already poured out all his blood
for the forgiveness of sins (Mt.26:28), so what remained in
him after his blood had been poured out was “flesh and
bones”.
The Bible proclaims Jesus the man. There is no biblical
support for saying that he is God, contrary to the bold but
baseless assertion of his deity by the Gentiles from about the
middle of the second century, more than a hundred years
after the time of Jesus.
A vivid portrayal of Jesus’ humanity came at a climactic
moment at his trial: “Jesus came out, wearing the crown of
thorns and the purple robe. The Roman governor Pilate said
to them, ‘Behold the man!’” (John 19:5). Pilate’s words are
better translated, “Look! The man!” Whatever Pilate may
have meant by these words, he had probably said more than
he understood. In the New Testament, it is the man Jesus
whom humanity must look to for salvation. “There is salva-
tion in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven
given [by God] among men by which we must be saved.”
(Acts 4:12)
The usual response to the assertion that Jesus is not God
is: So Jesus is “just” a man? Or “What then would be special
about him beyond his being the Messiah, a prophet, and a

great teacher?” This way of thinking shows what little value
that we, even as Christians, place on man, and how shallow is
our understanding of how much a human being is worth to
God.
We evaluate a person’s worth in various ways. Many
evaluate a person’s worth by the level of friendship with him.
If he is not our good friend, he is worth little in our eyes.
Some evaluate people according to their income. And to
some, a human life is not worth the price of a bullet.
Every Christian is familiar with the truth that “God so
loved the world that He gave His only Son”. Doesn’t that
already tell us something about man’s worth in God’s eyes?
God values man in a way that we don’t understand. We do
not see man the way God sees man. “For my thoughts are not
your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares
Yahweh (Isa.55:8).
“Just a man”? What is that supposed to mean? That he is
nothing more than a real man? That he didn’t come from an
otherworldly realm like outer space? What is wrong with his
being a real human? Are we not all human beings? Is there a
problem with his being one of us? In the New Testament,
“the man Christ Jesus” (1Tim.2:5) is one of us, and he is not
“ashamed” to call us his brothers even though we are far from
being perfect like him.
This issue is problematic only to trinitarians because they
don’t think of Jesus as wholly one of us, for according to their
doctrine, Jesus is composed of two natures, divine and
human. It is clear that anyone who has a divine nature is not
human as we are. None of us has two natures in us, or else we

would be considered schizophrenic, to put it mildly!
A person’s nature is not equal to the person himself, but is
only an essential element of the person. This is implicitly ac-
knowledged by trinitarians when they say that Jesus has two
natures, divine and human, yet is one person, not two.
What kind of person is Jesus if he is a composite of the
divine and the human? This is an inherently difficult and in-
tractable issue that raged on for years in what is known as the
Christological controversies. In the end, all that trinitarianism
could say about Jesus is that he is a God-man by virtue of the
union of the two natures. But a God-man is obviously not a
person like any of us. Since the God-man constitution doesn’t
make Jesus true man, wouldn’t it also prevent him from being
true God?
God by definition possesses a divine nature, not a human
nature. But trinitarians will argue that Jesus’ divine nature is
that of the second person of the Trinity incarnate as Jesus.
But why stop at his divine nature which only confuses the
issue? If the entire second person of the Trinity is in Jesus,
what do we make of Jesus’ human nature? Is Jesus still a
whole human person? Are there two persons in Jesus? The
idea of two persons is rightly abhorrent to trinitarians, so they
say that Jesus is a divine person to whom is added a human
nature, not a human person. But how is this still-divine
person a true man?
The biblical Jesus, on the other hand, is a true man like
any of us. Most significantly, Yahweh, the only true God, has
chosen to dwell in this man. God’s entire “fullness” lives in
Jesus “bodily” (Col.2:9), with the two united in “one spirit”

(1Cor.6:17). This is the correct New Testament picture of
the union of true God and true man.
The trinitarian error has conditioned us to think that if
Jesus is not God, then the New Testament has no message
about him that is worth proclaiming. To the trinitarian, the
value of Christ lies in his being God or God-man, not mere
man. But the plain truth is that the glory of the biblical
Christ far outshines the glory we ascribed to the trinitarian
God-man. We have been misled into believing that the New
Testament is centered on Christ the God-man when in fact
we could not demonstrate that such a person even exists in
the New Testament. It is a plain fact, verifiable by a computer
search, that the central trinitarian term “God the Son” does
not exist in the Bible.
“He who has seen me has seen the Father”

Paul speaks of “the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ”
(2Cor.4:6). God’s glory is revealed in Jesus; even Jesus’ words
and deeds originate from the Father who lives in him. Jesus is
like a transparent window to God: “he who has seen me has
seen the Father” (John 14:9).
But this statement would mean something different if
Jesus is coequal with the Father in every respect and is of one
substance with Him. Since Jesus is God in trinitarianism, to
see Jesus is to see God the Son, not God the Father. In trin-
itarianism, it is not necessary for us to see the Father because
the equivalent of God the Father is seen in God the Son. In
this subtle way, the Father is eliminated in trinitarianism for

all intents and purposes. For most trinitarians, Jesus is the
only God they worship and pray to, though Christians from
charismatic groups put the Holy Spirit, the third person, at
the center of their faith. God the Father is of no real interest
to most trinitarians. Apart from sending His Son into the
world and raising him from the dead, what has He done? As a
song sums it up, “Jesus did it all”!
Jesus did not say, “He who has seen me has seen God,” a
statement that some might take as an equation of identity,
Jesus = God. What Jesus actually said was, “He who has seen
me has seen the Father.” We cannot take this as an equation
of identity (Son = Father) unless we are willing to understand
it modalistically (which trinitarians would not do). Hence,
when we see Jesus, we do not literally see the person of the
Father in front of us (this would be modalism). What we do
see is the Father’s fullness dwelling in Jesus bodily (Col.2:9);
this is what makes Jesus the image of God. Jesus reveals the
Father transparently because he is “the image of the invisible
God” (Col.1:15).
The virgin birth of Jesus and the new creation

The virgin birth of Jesus is recorded in Matthew and in Luke
(Mt.1:18-25; Lk.1:26-38; 2:1-38), but neither gospel explains
its meaning. The lack of explanation is surprising given that
the virgin birth was no ordinary event. How ought we to un-
derstand it if no explanation is given for it? In Luke’s account
of the virgin birth, one verse stands out, however:
Luke 1:35 And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will
come upon you, and the power of the Most High will over-
shadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called
holy—the Son of God” (ESV).
Genesis 1:2 The earth was without form and void, and dark-
ness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was
hovering [or brooding] over the face of the waters. (ESV)
The Holy Spirit’s overshadowing of Mary in Luke 1:35

has a parallel in Genesis 1:2 which says that at the creation of
the world, “the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of
the waters”. Many OT scholars note that in the Hebrew text,
“hovering over” literally means “brooding over” (the word
“brooding” refers to a bird’s sitting on eggs to hatch them).120
The two parallels between Luke 1:35 and Genesis 1:2
(namely, Holy Spirit // Spirit of God, and overshadowing //
hovering/brooding) bring out a vital truth: The overshadow-
ing of Mary by the Holy Spirit has to do with the new creat-
ion whereas in Genesis, the Spirit’s brooding over the as yet
120
Keil and Delitzsch (Gen.1:2): “‫ רחף‬in the Piel is applied to the
hovering and brooding of a bird over its young, to warm them, and
develop their vital powers (Dt.32:11). In such a way as this the Spirit of
God moved upon the deep, which had received at its creation the
germs of all life, to fill them with vital energy by His breath of life.”
Also John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis,
pp.17-18 (“… the divine Spirit, figured as a bird brooding over its nest,
and perhaps symbolizing an immanent principle of life and order in the
as yet undeveloped chaos”); also Farrar and Cotterill, The Pulpit
Commentary: Genesis (“the Spirit of God moved (literally, brooding)
upon the face of the waters”).
unformed earth has to do with the “old” (physical or mat-

erial) creation. The overshadowing of Mary by God’s Spirit
indicates that the new creation is primarily a spiritual creation
brought into being by being “born of the Spirit.”
The meaning of the virgin birth is brought out not only in
Jesus’ teaching of being “born of the Spirit” (John 3:5) but
also in Paul’s teaching of the “new creation” (2Cor.5:17; Gal.
6:15), a term that, like the virgin birth, would be unintelli-
gible if it were given “out of the blue” without explanation or
precedent.
There is no doubt that the word “overshadow” (episkiazō)
in the account of the virgin birth points back to the Spirit’s
involvement in the Genesis creation (“the Spirit of God was
hovering over the face of the waters,” Gen.1:2). Here the
word “hovering” (Hebrew rachaph, used elsewhere only in
Dt.32:11) brings out the idea of “overshadowing”. 121
The Spirit of God brought into being a new creation in
Mary, replacing a sperm from Adam’s descendants. In this
way Jesus is a descendant of Adam via Mary but also the be-
ginning of a new creation by the creative power of the Spirit of
Yahweh. This would explain Paul’s teaching of the “new
creation” in Christ (2Cor.5:17; Gal.6:15; cf. Rev.21:5) and of
Jesus as “the man from heaven” or “the spiritual man” (1Cor.
15:45-49).
121
Pulpit Commentary says that Luke 1:35 “reminds us of the open-
ing words of Genesis, where the writer describes the dawn of life in
creation in the words, ‘The Spirit of God moved (or brooded) over the
face of the deep.’” Also H.A.W. Meyer’s commentary on Luke 1:35.
Jesus came into being by the creative power of God’s

Spirit. Hence believers are, as a result of being in Christ,
incorporated into the new creation, becoming new persons
through God’s transforming power. Just as Jesus was born of
the Spirit at his birth, so everyone needs to be born of the
Spirit, as is stated in the well-known words to Nicodemus:
“You (plural) must be born again” (Jn.3:7), and “Unless one
is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (3:3)—that
is, he cannot inherit eternal life.
What God has accomplished in Jesus, He intends to
reproduce in every human being such that he or she becomes
a new creation or a new creature by being born of the Spirit
into a new life that is lived by the power of God’s indwelling
Spirit (1Cor.3:16; 2Cor.6:16). God has in view that we grow
into a “mature manhood, to the stature of the fullness of
Christ” (Eph.4:13). In the New Testament, being a Christian
is not just a matter of believing in Jesus or believing that he
died for us, but is crucially a matter of becoming a new
person who is like Jesus in the way he lives and thinks. This is
what constitutes true believing or what Paul calls “the obe-
dience of faith” (Rom.1:5; 16:26). True faith includes an
obedience to the Father that mirrors the way Jesus lived in
perfect obedience to Him. In the New Testament, any claim
to faith is spurious if it is not accompanied by wholehearted
obedience.
The gospels speak of our being disciples of Jesus. But Jesus
is now in heaven at the right hand of the Father, so how do
we follow him now? In this age, to follow Jesus means to live
in relation to the Father as Jesus lived in relation to the

Father: “as he is, so are we in this world” (1 John 4:17).
As trinitarians we thought of Jesus as God who attached to
himself a human nature. We humans cannot identify with
this divine Jesus as being one of us. If Jesus is the divine “God
the Son,” not only would we be unable to identify with him
as being one of us, it wouldn’t even be permissible to do so
when he is God and we are not. Identifying ourselves with a
divine person would practically amount to the blasphemy of
equating ourselves with God, since God is not to be counted
as one of us but as the object of our worship.
As trinitarians we failed to see the connection between
Jesus’ being born of the Spirit at the virgin birth and our need
to be born of the Spirit. We also failed to see the connection
between Jesus’ being the head of the new creation and our
being partakers of the new creation. Likewise, we failed to see
the connection between Jesus’ being indwelled by the “whole
fullness of God” (Col.1:19) and our being indwelled by the
Spirit such that we are “filled with all the fullness of God”
(Eph.3:19).
As a result we failed to see that God intends that our spir-
itual lives be a reproduction of Jesus’ life. We similarly failed
to see that the goal of the believer’s life is to be an image of
the living God as Jesus is the image of God, in order that
God’s life may be manifested through us in fundamentally the
same way it is manifested through Jesus. It is a failure to see
that it is in the Father’s eternal plan that we “be conformed to
the image of His Son” (Romans 8:29).
Our failure to see these vital realities has resulted in a

Christianity that is defined more in terms of creedal assent,
giving rise to a hollow faith that does not see the necessity of
living our lives as Jesus lived his life. Today it is hard to find a
wholehearted follower of Jesus who is filled with dynamic
power and spirit. Yet Paul says, “This is the will of God, your
sanctification” (1Th.4:3). And what is this sanctification but
the whole process of becoming like Jesus—the biblical
Jesus—by being “born of the Spirit” and then being perfected
by Yahweh’s indwelling Spirit?
A ccounts of the virgin birth are given by Matthew and

Luke, but for an event that is of considerable importance
for understanding the person of Jesus Christ, it is remarkable
that the virgin birth is not mentioned anywhere else in the
New Testament. In an important statement in Gal.4:4 where
Paul could have mentioned the virgin birth, he does not. He
simply says that Jesus was “born of a woman” using the com-
mon Greek word for “woman” (gynē, cf. gynecology). Paul
evidently does not consider it necessary to say “born of a
virgin”.
But the fact that the virgin birth appears in two of the
gospels means that it cannot be ignored. It undoubtedly un-
derlies Paul’s teaching of Jesus as the last Adam (1Cor.15:45)
and of the new creation in Christ (2Cor. 5:17). To see what
the new creation is about, we take a look at the accounts of
the virgin birth. Matthew’s account is concise:
This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother
Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they
came together, she was found to be with child through the
Holy Spirit. (Mt.1:18, NIV)
Mary became pregnant through (Greek ek) the Holy Spirit

and not through Joseph, for Joseph and Mary had not yet
“come together”. In verse 20 is an elaboration: “she has
conceived what is in her by the Holy Spirit” (NJB). Here
“conceived” is to be understood as biological conception. In
fact the word “womb” appears in verse 18, but it is not trans-
lated in most English Bibles because it would make for
unnatural English if translated literally.122
Mary conceived in her womb as women do, to begin the
process of giving birth (cf. Gal.4:4, “born of a woman”). In
Mary’s case, the Holy Spirit is the source of the conception.
Some elaboration is given in Luke 1:35:
The angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon
(epeleusetai epi) you, and the power of the Most High will
overshadow (episkiasei) you; therefore the child to be born
will be called holy—the Son of God. (ESV)
122
Mt.1:18 has ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου; word for word
this is “in womb she had out of Spirit Holy”. Here the Greek for
“womb” (gastēr) is also found in Luke 1:31 (“you will conceive in your
womb and bear a son”) where the sentence structure allows for a natur-
al translation into English, with “womb” appearing in most English
translations.
The Bible speaks of the Spirit coming upon God’s people

in phrases such as “the Spirit of God came upon” (Num.24:2;
1Sam.19:20,23; 2Chr.15:1); or “the Spirit of Yahweh came
upon” (2Chr.20:14); or “the Holy Spirit came upon” (Acts
19:6). God’s Spirit came upon people to empower them to do
a task that God had assigned them. The Greek for “come
upon” is used also in Acts 1:8 of the Spirit’s coming upon the
disciples at Pentecost, empowering them to fulfill the epoch-
making mission of bringing salvation to the world.
The “overshadowing” (episkiazō) in Lk.1:35 brings out
God’s presence. The same word is used in Ex.40:35 (LXX) of
the cloud of God’s presence that overshadowed the tent of
meeting, the tabernacle. The word “overshadow” is elsewhere
used of the cloud that overshadowed Peter, James and John at
the transfiguration of Jesus (Mk. 9:7; Mt.17:5; Lk.9:34). It is
used in Ps.91:4 (90:4 LXX) of Yahweh who will, like an eagle,
“cover” and protect His people.
The virgin birth and the genealogies

Geza Vermes 123 points out that the crucial problem of the
two genealogies of Jesus as given in Matthew and Luke (Mt.
1:1-17; Lk.3:23-38) lies in the fact that both these genealogies
are based on Joseph’s lineage, not Mary’s. But if Joseph is not
the biological father of Jesus, these genealogies would not be a
123
The Nativity: History and Legend, pp.26-47. Vermes is an eminent
authority on the Dead Sea Scrolls and Jesus’ Jewish background.
basis for Jesus’ descent from David. What then is the point of
these lengthy genealogies?
If the genealogies are to have any meaning at all, the virgin
birth cannot be simply understood in a way that excludes
Joseph from being Jesus’ father in some significant way. Sug-
gestions such as that Joseph was the adoptive father of Jesus,
i.e., father in a legal but not biological sense, are unconvinc-
ing. Vermes points out that this kind of “fatherhood” is not
recognized in Jewish laws on lineage. Such a recognition
would be crucial in the case of Matthew’s gospel because it
was written to demonstrate to its Jewish readers the Davidic
credentials of Jesus the Messiah.
If the virgin birth is to have any significant meaning, it
must first be understood in spiritual terms. God’s intention
for the virgin birth is to bring about a new creation in which
Jesus is the firstborn (cf. “the firstborn of all creation,”
Col.1:15) to mark him as the eldest son of the new creation.
The new creation stands in contrast to the old creation which
culminated in the creation of Adam, the first man, the count-
erpart of whom is Jesus the last Adam (1Cor.15:45).
Adam was not created ex nihilo (out of nothing) but out of
dust. Or rather, he was made, formed, and shaped out of the
dust of the earth. On the other hand, Eve was not created out
of dust in the same manner as Adam, but was created from
Adam’s rib. Here are two human beings who were formed in
different ways, yet both are fully and equally human.
The point of saying this is to show that the birth of Jesus,
insofar as he is related to Joseph (assuming there is a relation),
raises the possibility that in the new creation in Mary’s womb,
some element of Joseph was “extracted” which formed a basis

for Jesus’ physical body in a manner similar to the creation of
Eve from Adam’s rib.
We present this as a possibility without being dogmatic
about it, and welcome other explanations that may deepen
our understanding of the virgin birth. But this explanation
seems to align with the biblical data without violating any
biblical principle. It immediately solves the conundrum of
Jesus’ descent via Joseph and gives rationale to the lengthy
genealogies. This is all the more so because to my knowledge,
no better or more cogent alignment of the facts has been
found so far.
This thesis resolves the question: If there is no relation be-
tween Jesus and Joseph, how can Jesus the “Son of David”
(Mt.1:1) be said to have descended from the royal line of
David? Any alternative explanation of the virgin birth will
have to address this question of Davidic descent.
But in trinitarianism how can the divine God the Son, the
one who descended from heaven and is the prime mover in
Jesus the God-man, possibly have an earthly genealogy that
can be traced back to Adam or even the royal line of David?
Genealogies trace the line of descent back to humans rather
than to the eternal God of heavenly origin. If Jesus Christ is
“God the Son” of trinitarianism, he cannot have a genealogy.
The fact that the two genealogies are given to us in a
manner that is plain and matter-of-fact, as well as human and
down-to-earth, is further indication that the biblical Jesus is
unlike the trinitarian Jesus. Moreover, a genealogy cannot be
established just for the “human nature” of Christ because a

nature does not represent the whole person.
The genealogies in Matthew and Luke declare that the
biblical Jesus is truly human in every sense of the word. At the
same time, they rule out the trinitarian Christ as being a true
human, for God the Son even with a human nature cannot
possibly have a human genealogy. So right from the start of
the New Testament, the trinitarian Jesus is demonstrably not
a true human being.
Luke’s genealogy concludes with Adam “the son of God”
(Lk.3:38). This is the only place in the four gospels where
Adam is called by this title. Yet it is in Luke’s gospel (1:35)
that Jesus is also called “the son of God” by virtue of his being
born of the Spirit. Luke evidently sees no problem in calling
both Adam and Christ by the same title “son of God”.
Believers who are born of the Spirit are also sons of God
(Gal.4:6; Rom.8:14). Hence there is no New Testament basis
for inverting “Son of God” to “God the Son” as a title of
Jesus Christ. Not all trinitarians are so bold as to say that
“God the Son” is a valid reformulation of “Son of God,” yet
their silence on the issue is a tacit admission that the inversion
is doctrinally motivated.
Adam’s sharing of the title “son of God” with Jesus does
not make Adam equal to Jesus. Jesus is far greater than Adam
because he alone is perfect man, yet they do share something
in common: both are truly human and both are in God’s
image. But whereas Adam is the head of humanity in the
physical sphere, Jesus is the head of the new humanity—the
new creation—in which God’s people participate in Jesus
Christ by faith and by being born of the same Spirit of

Yahweh as was Jesus.
Mary’s song: The Magnificat
Luke 1:46-55 (The Magnificat, ESV)

46
And Mary said, “My soul magnifies the Lord,
47
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48
for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant. For
behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed;
49
for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and
holy is his name.
50
And his mercy is for those who fear him from generation
to generation.
51
He has shown strength with his arm; he has scattered the
proud in the thoughts of their hearts;
52
he has brought down the mighty from their thrones and
exalted those of humble estate;
53
he has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he
has sent away empty.
54
He has helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his
mercy,
55
as he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his offspring
forever.”
M ary’s well-known song begins with the words, “My

soul magnifies the Lord.” Several points emerge from a
consideration of this song, the most important of which is
that Yahweh “the Most High” (as He is called in the song,
vv.32,35; cf. v.76) is the absolute center of Mary’s praises.
Secondly, the song overflows with gratitude to Yahweh, the
God of Israel, the Most High, for the fact that an omnipotent
God had taken notice of Mary, a lowly woman with no social
standing. Thirdly, what is remarkable for an expectant moth-
er is that nowhere in her song does she mention the baby who
is to be born to her. A pregnant woman would usually focus
her attention on her baby to come, yet her song makes no
explicit reference to Jesus. Instead the song is focused on
Yahweh. What an amazingly God-centered woman Mary is,
and this goes some way in explaining Yahweh’s choice of her
as Jesus’ mother in the flesh. We see that Yahweh’s choice of
Mary is not random or arbitrary.
What emerges from these observations is Mary’s remark-
able understanding of Yahweh’s character that draws her into
a profound devotion to Him. She knows Yahweh as the living
God who relates to human life in a most practical manner.
When theologians speak theoretically of God’s omnisci-
ence, omnipresence, and omnipotence, what do these divine
attributes mean in real life? To Mary, God’s omniscience
means that amid the multitudes who inhabit the earth and in
particular Israel, He takes notice of a young woman who is a
nobody in society. That He takes notice of the nobodies of
the world, Mary among them, is for her the real meaning of
God’s omniscience. Not just omniscience but also omnipre-
sence: God reaches out to Mary not from a remote place in

heaven but down below in Israel where she is. That she speaks
directly to God in her prayer-song indicates that she is aware
of His presence and is confident that He inclines His ear to
her.
In Mary’s song, God’s omnipotence is seen in His power
to bring about the birth of a human being through a virgin,
and in so doing is fulfilling His promises made long ago to
Abraham, whom she mentions by name. Her experiential
knowledge of Yahweh’s love is far greater than the theoretical
grasp of God’s attributes by theologians who have no exper-
iential knowledge of Him.
There are other statements in Mary’s short but profound
song that reveal her insight into Yahweh’s omnipotence such
as His bringing down the mighty and the exalted of the
world, and raising up the poor and the lowly. Who but the
Spirit of Yahweh could have taught her such truths and given
her such an excellent understanding of the one true God?
Though Jesus is not given so much as a mention in her
song, it is clear from the context that the song is oriented to-
wards Jesus as Yahweh’s chosen instrument. Yet all the while,
it is Yahweh and not Jesus who remains central in Mary’s
song of devotion. But trinitarians have gone in an opposite
direction by sidelining Yahweh and exalting Jesus to coequal-
ity with Him. Mary would surely have found this to be
abhorrent, and it shows how far Christianity has diverged
from the faith of God’s people such as Mary.
The devotion that is given to Mary in the Catholic church,
even naming her the mother of God, would be even more ab-
horrent to this godly and humble woman, who is “blessed

among women” (vv.42,48).
Today’s “Christ-centered” Christians do not belong to the
same spiritual family as Mary—that is, the family of those
who are Yahweh-centered, while giving Jesus his due honor.
Mary’s “exposition” of Yahweh’s attributes which reach
out in practical ways to the situations of the world, even by
exalting the poor and bringing down the proud, is reflected in
the Sermon on the Mount which Jesus would later give at the
start of his ministry.
Mary’s upbringing of Jesus

In Judaism it is the mother who is responsible for bringing up
the children in her family. And because of the importance
placed on the religious upbringing of a child in Judaism, a
child is considered to be Jewish if his or her mother is Jewish,
whereas the ethnicity, nationality, race, etc. of the father do
not count.
Here is where Mary’s extraordinary spirituality is of vital
importance in Jesus’ upbringing. But this is rendered mean-
ingless in trinitarianism because if Jesus is indeed the God-
man of trinitarianism, he wouldn’t need to be taught by his
mother, and Mary would have been made redundant in a
matter of such importance in Judaism as the upbringing of
children.
The early church had apocryphal tales of Jesus’ childhood
such as the one about how he made birds from mud, breathed
life into them, and released them to fly away. This is the kind
of fanciful narrative that some Gentile believers delighted in,

reducing the idea of creation to the level of childish play-
fulness.
But if we grasp the scriptural concept of the family, we
would appreciate Mary’s important role in the early life of
Jesus, that is, up to the time he was 13 years old, the age from
which he would be regarded as an adult. In the incident of
twelve-year-old Jesus at the temple (Lk.2:41-52), his discuss-
ions with the learned men trained in the Scriptures owed a lot
to his mother’s influence, for Jesus could hardly have
interacted meaningfully with the learned men in the temple if
he didn’t have an excellent grasp of the Scriptures. But in
trinitarian doctrine, Jesus had already possessed a perfect
knowledge of the Scriptures from the very start by virtue of
his God-man constitution, making the whole incident in the
temple so inevitable, pointless, and frankly boring, since it
would prove nothing beyond the all-too-obvious point that a
divine Jesus would know everything.
The fact that a twelve-year-old boy could discuss deep
biblical questions would prove, at the very least, that he is of
above average intelligence for a boy of his age, though he is
not necessarily unique in that respect.
Jesus our brother

To gain a deeper understanding of Jesus the man, a study of
his titles in the New Testament would be helpful, but one
title is likely to stand out by its absence: brother. Not absence
in the New Testament but absence in books on the titles of
Christ. I have in my possession a book called The Titles of

Jesus written by the scholar Vincent Taylor. In fact there are
many books with the same title which in most cases are
devotional books and not scholarly works. But whether it is
scholarly or devotional, you will have a hard time finding a
book on the titles of Jesus that includes the title “brother”.
The reason is obvious: As trinitarians we shied away from
thinking of Jesus the God-man as our brother. Trinitarianism
has blinded us to the wonderful privilege of relating to Jesus
as our brother, and robbed us of the intimacy of our relation-
ship with him. Taylor’s book meticulously lists some 42 titles
of Jesus in the New Testament, but “brother” is not one of
them. We would have thought that “brother” is one of the
most precious titles that would endear him to us, yet the doc-
trine of God the Son has hindered us from thinking of Jesus
as our brother except in theory, robbing us of the realization
of the relationship with Jesus that Yahweh has established for
us. We become spiritually impoverished by this loss of prox-
imity. It is true that Jesus is our Head and Master, but if we
stress these titles to the exclusion of other important ones, we
will set up a distance between Jesus and ourselves, to our great
spiritual loss. Most Christians have never been taught the
biblical basis for Jesus as our brother, so what is the biblical
evidence for it?
We are explicitly called the brothers of Jesus. It is said of
believers that Jesus “is not ashamed to call them brothers”
(Heb.2:11); this is despite Jesus’ being the perfect man in
contrast to the imperfection of his believers, including Paul.
This reveals Jesus’ magnanimity which is yet another element
of his perfection. Jesus is the only begotten or unique Son of

God because he alone is perfect. Yet we too are sons of God,
and are therefore brothers of Jesus, as seen in the following
verses (all ESV unless otherwise indicated):
Romans 8:29 those whom he (God) knew in advance, he also
determined in advance would be conformed to the pattern of
his Son, so that he (Jesus) might be the firstborn among
many brothers (CJB)
Matthew 25:40 “As you did it to one of the least of these my

brothers, you did it to me”
Matthew 28:10 “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to

go to Galilee”
John 20:17 Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have
not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and
say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father,
to my God and your God.’”
Even after his resurrection and after he had gained a glorif-

ied body that could pass through walls and closed doors, Jesus
still spoke of his disciples as his brothers. I previously did not
realize how often Jesus referred to his disciples—and those
who do God’s will—as brothers, either Jesus’ own brothers
(Mt.12:49,50; 25:40; 28:10; Mk.3:33,34,35; Lk.8:21; Jn.
20:17) or brothers to one another (Mt.5:47; 7:3,4,5; 18:15,
35; 23:8; Lk.6:41,42; 17:3; 22:32). Jesus speaks of older
women as his “mothers” and younger ones as his “sisters”:
But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my moth-

er, and who are my brothers?” And stretching out his hand
toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my
brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is
my brother and sister and mother.” (Mt.12:48-50)
There is a hymn that beautifully affirms Christ as our brother.

The famous hymn, “Joyful, Joyful, We Adore Thee,” with
lyrics by Henry van Dyke and music by Beethoven, says in
the third stanza:
Thou our Father, Christ our Brother,
All who live in love are Thine.
Filled with the Spirit from birth

Jesus was conceived in Mary through the Holy Spirit, and was
filled with the Spirit from his birth. Does it mean that it was
easier for Jesus to be sinless than for the rest of humanity who
have no such advantage? But there was one person, John the
Baptist, who was also filled with the Spirit from birth:
… for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink
wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy
Spirit, even from his mother’s womb. (Luke 1:15, ESV)
John the Baptist pointed the people of Israel to Jesus, pro-

claiming him “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of
the world” (John 1:29). But later, when he was languishing in
prison for denouncing Herod Antipas’s sin, John was so bold
as to question whether Jesus was the Messiah. Having been

filled with the Spirit from birth did not give him any appar-
ent advantage in regard to being sinless or perfect.
Being filled with the Spirit is not a once and for all exper-
ience but is ongoing; we need to keep on being filled: “Don’t
get drunk with wine, because it makes you lose control.
Instead, keep on being filled with the Spirit” (Eph.5:18). This
rendering by CJB brings out the present continuous aspect of
“filled” in the Greek; most other translations simply render
the phrase as, “be filled with the Spirit”.
The Spirit of Jesus

Many are confused by the equation, Holy Spirit = Spirit of
Jesus = Spirit of Christ = Spirit of Jesus Christ. Some trinit-
arians take this equivalence to mean that Jesus is God, but is
this a valid conclusion?
These are rare terms. “Spirit of Jesus” occurs only in Acts
16:7; “Spirit of Christ” only in Rom.8:9 and 1Pet. 1:11;
“Spirit of Jesus Christ” only in Phil. 1:19; “Spirit of His Son”
only in Gal.4:6. These combine for a total of five occurrences
in the whole Bible.
Acts 16:6-7 draws a parallel between the Holy Spirit and
the Spirit of Jesus: Paul was “forbidden by the Holy Spirit to
speak the word in Asia” (v.6) and “the Spirit of Jesus did not
allow” Paul to go to Bithynia (v.7).
Strikingly, “the Spirit of Jesus” has an exact parallel in “the
Spirit of Elijah” (2 Kings 2:15) in that both refer unquestion-
ably to the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Yahweh. Hence it comes
as no surprise that an angel of the Lord ascribes “the spirit

and power of Elijah” (Lk.1:17) to John the Baptist, the one
who was “filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother’s
womb” (v.15).
In his day, Elijah was well known in Israel as a man in
whom the Spirit of Yahweh worked powerfully. That power is
seen, for example, in the parting of the river Jordan 124 when
Elijah struck its waters with his cloak (2Ki.2:8). His disciple
Elisha knew that the parting was done by Yahweh’s Spirit and
not by Elijah’s own human spirit, as seen in the fact that
Elisha, soon after Elijah’s departure, duplicated the parting of
the Jordan by calling on “Yahweh, the God of Elijah”
(2Ki.2:14).
Before Elijah was taken up to heaven by a whirlwind
(2Ki.2:1), Elisha, his most outstanding disciple, asked him for
a double portion of his spirit:
Elijah took his cloak, rolled it up and struck the water with it.
The water divided to the right and to the left, and the two of
them crossed over on dry ground. When they had crossed,
Elijah said to Elisha, “Tell me, what can I do for you before I
am taken from you?” “Let me inherit a double portion of
your spirit,” Elisha replied. “You have asked a difficult thing,”
Elijah said, “yet if you see me when I am taken from you, it
will be yours—otherwise, it will not.” (2 Kings 2:8-10, NIV)
124
We won’t discuss the spiritual meaning of the parting of the Jor-
dan. A similar parting took place earlier in history when the Israelites
crossed the Jordan into the Land of Promise (Joshua 3:13-17).
A double portion is what the eldest son receives as his

share of the inheritance (Dt.21:17). What was Elisha asking
for when he requested a “double portion of your spirit”?
Elijah’s human spirit? But Scripture nowhere allows for the
possibility of a man giving his own spirit to someone else.
The context indicates that Elisha was focused on the Spirit of
Yahweh (e.g., 2 Kings 2:14, “Where is Yahweh, the God of
Elijah?”). What he requested from Elijah was that he may
inherit the portion given to the eldest son among “the sons of
the prophets” (a familiar term in 2 Kings) so that he may
serve as Elijah’s successor.
Shortly before he was taken up by a whirlwind, Elijah
struck the Jordan with his cloak, and the river parted, so
Elijah and Elisha crossed over on dry land. Later on, after
Elijah’s departure, Elisha had to confirm whether his request
for a double portion of the Spirit of Elijah had been granted,
so he struck the Jordan with the cloak as he spoke the words,
“Where is Yahweh, the God of Elijah?” (2Ki.2:14). His focus
was on Yahweh, not Elijah. In the next two verses (vv.15,16),
the sons of the prophets spoke of “the Spirit of Elijah” in
connection with “the Spirit of Yahweh”.
If we insist that Jesus is God by the equation “Holy Spirit
= Spirit of Jesus,” would we likewise accept that Elijah is God
by the equation “Spirit of Yahweh = Spirit of Elijah”?
When Elisha asked for a double portion of Elijah’s spirit,
he was not asking for Elijah’s human spirit but for the Spirit
of Yahweh that empowered Elijah. In the end, Elisha was
granted his request, and from then on people recognized him
as a man who functioned in the same power of Yahweh that
had earlier worked in his master Elijah (2Ki.2:15; 3:11-12).

As a result, Elisha’s ministry mirrored Elijah’s. Both raised the
dead (1Ki.17:21-22; 2Ki.4:33-34), and both functioned
under Yahweh’s power (“as Yahweh lives, before whom I
stand,” 1Ki.17:1; 18:15; 2Ki.3:14; 5:16).
Paul possibly had Elijah and Elisha in mind when he said
that if we are God’s children, then we are “heirs of God and
fellow heirs with Christ” (Rom.8:17). As the firstborn of
creation (Col.1:15), Christ has the double portion; but we as
God’s children also have a portion. Christ’s double portion of
glory and preeminence doesn’t mean that we get only half the
fullness of the Spirit. The Spirit of God that dwells in Christ
is the undivided Spirit that dwells in us and empowers us to
live a victorious life.
Miracles
Yahweh, the central figure of the Bible, has displayed His
power of miracles in countless events right from the start of
Bible history (in Genesis, Abraham and Sarah had a child in
their old age; in Exodus, God delivered Israel out of Egypt
with mighty acts), and this will continue right up to
Revelation, the last book of the Bible, in which are seen God’s
mighty acts at the conclusion of the present phase of human
history.
It is often supposed that a person who performs miracles
must be divine or superhuman; and many trinitarians have
pointed to Jesus’ miracles as evidence of his deity. Yet Elijah
and Elisha performed miracles similar to those Jesus did,
including raising the dead and causing food to multiply. In all

these incidents, the power to perform miracles came from
Yahweh even in the case of Jesus: “The Son can do nothing
by himself” (Jn.5:19), and “the Father who dwells in me does
His works” (Jn.14:10).
Likewise, Peter says that God performed miracles through
the man Jesus: “Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by
God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did
among you through him” (Acts 2:22, NIV).
Not all miracles are done by Yahweh’s power. Evil beings
also have the power of miracles: “For false christs and false
prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as
to lead astray, if possible, even the elect” (Mt.24:24).
In the book of Exodus, the magicians of Egypt duplicated
some of the miracles done by Moses and Aaron (Ex.7:9-13).
Fast forward to the future, to the time of the Antichrist who
is called the “beast” in Revelation, notably in chapters 13 to
17. The beast will imitate what Elijah did on Mount Carmel:
“It performs great signs, even making fire come down from
heaven to earth in front of people” (Rev.13:13; cf. 1Kings
18:38). His Satanic activity is described further: “The second
beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first
beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused
to worship the image to be killed” (Rev.13:15, NIV).
The power of miracles comes either from Yahweh, the
Creator of heaven and earth, or from the Evil One, namely
the devil or Satan (a name which means “adversary” or
“enemy”). In the end, Yahweh’s adversary will be cast into the
lake of fire (Rev.20:10). Because Satan’s miracles tend to
imitate those of Yahweh, it takes spiritual discernment to tell

which miracles are from Yahweh and which are from Satan.
The Bible knows of no one called “God the Son” or “the
second person of the Trinity,” much less any such person who
did miracles. But Yahweh did wonderful miracles through the
biblical Jesus, not just acts of mighty power but also deeds of
compassion expressed in: feeding the people in the wilderness
where food was hard to get; healing those afflicted with dis-
ease; setting free the demon-possessed; and raising the dead as
in the case of a young man who had died, leaving a grieving
mother with no financial means (Lk.7:12-15). Compassion is
fundamental to Yahweh’s character and it shone beautifully in
Jesus. Yet the Pharisees brazenly said that Jesus performed
miracles by the power of Satan whom they called Beelzebul,
the prince of demons:
22
Then a demon-oppressed man who was blind and mute
was brought to him, and he healed him, so that the man
spoke and saw. 23 And all the people were amazed, and said,
“Can this be the Son of David?” 24 But when the Pharisees
heard it, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of
demons, that this man casts out demons.” 25 Knowing their
thoughts, he said to them, “Every kingdom divided against
itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself
will stand. 26 And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided
against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? 27 And if I
cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast
them out? Therefore they will be your judges. 28 But if it is by
the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom
of God has come upon you.” (Matthew 12:22-28, ESV)
There are several points to observe from this passage:
1. A miracle is a sign that proclaims a spiritual message. In

the casting of demons, the message is that God has sent
Jesus to release prisoners from the powers of darkness.
Jesus’ ministry is to proclaim a message of liberty to
mankind: “He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the
captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at
liberty those who are oppressed” (Lk. 4:18).
2. When the people in awe and wonderment saw the mira-
cle Jesus had done, their reaction was not to exclaim that
he is God or God the Son, but to ask if he might be “the
Son of David” (Mt.12:23), that is, the Messiah, the
promised King of Israel and Savior of the world. It
demonstrates how starkly different is Jewish thinking
from Gentile thinking. That is why trinitarianism could
not have come from the Jews, but was the product of the
Gentile mindset.
3. The passage speaks of two kingdoms opposed to each
other: Satan’s and Yahweh’s (vv.26,28). Jesus was
intensely committed to establishing God’s kingdom on
earth, so he taught his disciples to pray to the Father,
“Your kingdom come” (Mt.6:10). But in the present
passage, Mt.12:28, Jesus says something more: the
miracles he performs reveal that “the kingdom of God
has come upon you”. The coming of the kingdom has
already begun. God’s kingship on earth is already seen in
the mighty works that Jesus did by the Spirit of Yahweh.
When some of the Jews attributed Jesus’ miracles to Satan

whom they called Beelzebul (Mt.12:24,31,32 = Mk.3:22f,
28,29), Jesus told them that whereas speaking against Jesus is
pardonable (e.g., “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?”
Jn.1:46), attributing to Satan what the Spirit of God had
done through Jesus is unpardonable, for that is surely the
worst blasphemy.
The important subject of Jesus’ miracles is beyond the
scope of our book. There are many works on this subject, one
of which is the careful study by Graham H. Twelftree, Jesus
the Miracle Worker, which has an extensive bibliography. I
quote two of his many perceptive comments (italics mine):
… any critical reconstruction of the historical Jesus must not
only include but also, indeed, emphasize that he was a most
powerful and prolific wonder worker, considering that in his
miracles God was powerfully present ushering in the first stage
of the longed-for eschaton of the experience of his powerful
presence. (p.358)
What is now seen as Christianity, at least in Western traditi-

onal churches, as primarily words and propositions requiring
assent and further propagation will have to be replaced by a
Christianity that involves and is dominated by understanding
God’s numinous power to be borne uniquely in Jesus and also in
his followers in the working of miracles. (p.359)
“Greater than”
As trinitarians we thought that Jesus’ claim to be “greater
than” a specified person or thing amounts to a claim to deity.
An example is Jesus’ statement about himself, “I tell you that
something greater than the temple is here” (Mt.12:6). So the
reasoning goes like this: Who can be greater than God’s
temple but God Himself?
The earthly temple was where atonement for sin took
place. But being a temple made by human hands, it could not
provide the true and necessary atonement but foreshadowed
another temple—Jesus Christ, the temple of God (Jn.2:21)—
in which mankind’s vast spiritual need could be met. The
letter to the Hebrews explains in detail why Jesus is greater
than the earthly temple and its priesthood. Neither the earth-
ly temple, nor the high priesthood, nor the blood of sacrificial
bulls and goats, can truly atone for man’s sins. Only the
perfect sacrifice of Jesus the perfect man can achieve eternal
salvation. Hence there is no salvation in any name under
heaven among men but that of Jesus (Acts 4:12,10). Salvation
is the central concern of Jesus’ “greater than” declarations.
The focus on salvation is seen again in the very same
chapter, Matthew 12, where Jesus says that he is greater than
Jonah and Solomon:
The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this
generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching
of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here. The Queen
of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and
condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen
to Solomon’s wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is

here. (Mt.12:41-42, NIV 1984; cf. Lk. 11:31-32)
Jonah was not a significant OT prophet. He didn’t even

want the Ninevites, the enemies of Israel, to come to repent-
ance, but wished that they would perish by Yahweh’s judg-
ment. He couldn’t endure the thought of Yahweh forgiving
them, or their eventual repentance that moved God to spare
them from destruction. The Ninevites had the good sense to
repent at the preaching of a minor prophet who didn’t even
want them to be saved.
King Solomon prayed for wisdom rather than riches or
long life, and God was pleased to grant him incomparable
wisdom (1Ki.3:5-15). Many had traveled from afar, notably
the Queen of the South with her royal retinue, to listen to
Solomon’s priceless wisdom. But later, in the time of Jesus,
some people rejected the wisdom of someone greater than
Solomon. By rejecting Jesus and his message, they rejected the
life-giving wisdom that imbues his life and his teachings, and
turned away from the path of eternal life; hence Jesus’ pain-
laden lament over Jerusalem (Mt.23.37).
The examples of Jonah and Solomon show that the
“greater than” statements have to do with salvation. In these
statements, Jesus is not elevating his own greatness as an end
in itself, for that would be self-exaltation. But Jesus has to be
greater than all mankind, even reaching the level of absolute
perfection, to achieve mankind’s salvation as no one else can.
But Jesus does not glorify himself: “If I glorify myself, my
glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me” (Jn.8:54).
Does Jesus have anything he did not receive from

God?
As trinitarians we elevated Jesus to deity, but didn’t realize
that if he is both God and man, he could not be properly
classified as a human being. Just as our humanity prevents us
from being divine, so Jesus’ supposed deity will prevent him
from being true man.
What is the definition of being human? It is not relevant
to our discussion to define man in physiological terms, so our
definition must be couched in spiritual terms. An important
aspect of being human is seen in Paul’s words, “What do you
have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do
you boast as if you did not receive it?” (1Cor.4:7) The Greek
word for “receive” (lambanō) occurs three times in this verse.
What characterizes man is that he possesses nothing that
has not been given to him by God. The only one who is
different in this respect is God Himself, the giver of every-
thing we have, the one from whom we receive “every good
and perfect gift” (James 1:17).
In this light we ask: Does the New Testament ever say that
Jesus possesses something that he had not received from God?
Jesus himself says, “All things have been handed over to me
by my Father” (Mt.11:27; cf. Jn.17:7). Even his own life was
granted to him by the Father (Jn.5:26; 6:57), as also his
supreme authority in heaven and on earth (Mt.28:18).
The Ancient of Days in Daniel 7:13

Daniel 7 is the only place in the Bible in which God is called
“the Ancient of Days” (three times, vv.9,13,22). He is also
called “the Most High” 14 times in Daniel, far more fre-
quently than in any other book of the Bible except the much
longer Psalms (17 times). Then in verse 13 we see someone
“like a son of man” who appears before the Ancient of Days:
I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of
heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the
Ancient of Days and was presented before him. (Daniel
7:13, ESV)
What would be the purpose of depicting God as the Ancient

of Days but to show that the Son of Man is, by contrast, a
much younger person? The title Ancient of Days also means
that God is qualitatively different from the Son of Man: the
Son of Man is mortal, not immortal; human, not divine. The
Hebrew idiom “son of man” means “man” in Israel even to
this day.
Why is the difference in age between the Ancient of Days
and the Son of Man put so picturesquely? Was it not in
God’s wisdom that this may counter the teaching of the deity
of Jesus Christ? If the Son of Man is divine as he is in trinitar-
ianism, then the contrast in Daniel 7:13 would be an im-
probable one: that between a young God and an ancient God,
the Ancient of Days.
The scene in Daniel 7:13 is that of the Son of Man, who is
not called by this title anywhere else in Daniel, being received
into the presence of the Ancient of Days. When Daniel saw
this in heaven, it hadn’t yet taken place because it was given

to him in “a dream and visions” (v.1). Since Daniel is an
important prophet, his vision would be a messianic prophecy
of Jesus, the Son of Man, who one day will be taken into the
presence of Yahweh, the Ancient of Days. It is a prophecy of
Jesus’ ascent into heaven, to be received into the Father’s
presence and to be seated at His right hand. This event hadn’t
yet happened during Jesus’ earthly ministry (“I have not yet
ascended to the Father,” Jn.20:17), but came shortly after-
wards (Acts 1:9-11).
Without following a strict chronology, the vision in
Daniel 7:13 has parallels that go beyond Jesus’ ascension into
heaven. The words “with the clouds of heaven” are alluded to
by Mt.26:64 and Mk.14:62 in which Jesus says, “you will see
the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and
coming with the clouds of heaven” (cf. Mt.24:30; Mk.13:26).
This will take place at the second coming of Jesus.
I n any case, we see nothing in Daniel 7 that suggests that

the Son of Man is a divine being or a “second god” unless
one reads divinity into it. In his book, The Jewish Gospels: The
Story of the Jewish Christ, Daniel Boyarin argues on dubious
grounds that the person described in Daniel 7:13 as “one like
a son of man” is, by that description, a divine being and a
second god. Yet Boyarin fails to mention that in the book of
Ezekiel, the prophet Ezekiel, a true human being, is addressed
over 90 times as “son of man,” a striking omission in an
academic work that talks a lot about “son of man”. In the
book of Daniel, “son of man” occurs twice, in 7:13 (“one like
a son of man”) and in 8:17 where “son of man” refers this

time to the thoroughly human Daniel, another fact that
Boyarin fails to mention.
Daniel 7:13 is central to Boyarin’s thesis that the “son of
man” is a divine being and a second god. His conclusion is
based mainly on the one statement in this verse that the son
of man came to the Ancient of Days “with the clouds of
heaven,” which according to Boyarin is the usual means of
conveyance by God or gods. On Boyarin’s logic, Joseph
would be another Pharaoh because he rode on Pharaoh’s
second chariot (Gen.41:43).
Boyarin says that the idea of two gods (binitarianism) is
Jewish, going as far back as almost two centuries before Christ
when the book of Daniel was written (c. 161 BC). Boyarin
even says that the idea of the Trinity originated from within
the orbit of Jewish ideas!
But after having said all this, Boyarin effectively nullifies
his own thesis by saying that he does not really mean that the
“son of man” is ontologically divine but only functionally
divine, presumably as the Ancient of Days’ regent or viceroy!
This important caveat or proviso is placed in a footnote on
p.55! The reader who doesn’t read the footnotes wouldn’t
know of this limitation of intent. But if it is an intended
limitation, surely it ought to be placed in the introduction of
the book or some other prominent place rather than in a foot-
note one third of the way through the book.
The two parties mentioned in Daniel 7:13—“one like the
son of man” and the Ancient of Days—show no evidence of
prior familiarity with each other on their first encounter, con-
trary to what might be expected if they were indeed “of the

same substance” (homoousios) or if they were Father and Son
in the triune Godhead. The Son of Man was formally “pre-
sented before Him” (NASB), that is, taken into the presence
of the Ancient of Days, or “was led into his presence” (NIV).
The picture is not that of the Son of Man presenting himself
in Yahweh’s presence, but that of his being brought into
Yahweh’s presence. This scenario would make sense if the Son
of Man is a true and perfect man, who in the hour of his
triumph is led into the presence of his God and Father,
coming before Him in humility and thanksgiving, and
accompanied by a host of heavenly beings. It is the Father
who exalts him, for the Son of Man does not exalt himself.
Central to Boyarin’s thesis is the assertion that the Son of
Man in Daniel 7 is a divine being, a “second god” (but not
ontological god), a younger god relative to the Ancient of
Days. Boyarin says that because “thrones” (plural) are men-
tioned in Daniel 7:9, there must have been a throne for the
Son of Man and another for the Ancient of Days. For
Boyarin, this implies that both are God or god. Yet there are
many thrones in Revelation (24 thrones in Rev.4:4), so the
presence of thrones does not in itself mean a multiplicity of
divine beings. Human kings also sit on thrones.
Since great authority is granted to the Son of Man at the
end of Daniel 7, there is no doubt that he too has a throne,
but this is not a proof of his ontological deity. If all that
Boyarin wanted to say was that the Son of Man functions as
God’s regent, his conclusion would be valid (Dan.7:14), but
it is far from being a proof of a “second god,” much less a

proof of trinitarianism.
That this Son of Man is a true man and not God is
confirmed by the remarkable parallel between his being
granted (by the Ancient of Days) “dominion and glory and a
kingdom” which is everlasting (7:14) and the fact that the
“saints of the Most High” are similarly exalted as to “possess
the kingdom forever, forever and ever” (7:18,22,27). In fact,
verse 27 describes the saints in lofty, almost-divine terms:
And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the
kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the
people of the saints of the Most High; their kingdom shall be
an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and
obey them. (Daniel 7:27, ESV)
Hence a near-identical attribution of glory and power and

dominion is given to the Son of Man and to the saints. Most
significantly, the word “given” is used of both the Son of Man
and the saints alike: Just as the Son of Man is “given” dom-
inion and glory and a kingdom (Dan.7:14), so the saints are
given “the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of
the kingdoms under the whole heaven” (v.27). This parallel
undermines trinitarianism not only because it makes the Son
of Man thoroughly human but also because it cannot possibly
apply to the trinitarian Christ who as God Almighty cannot
be “given” what he already possesses from eternity past.
Since both the Son of Man and the saints are given power
and glory and the kingdom, it is clear that he is the head and
representative of the saints. Likewise, in the New Testament,
Christ is the head of his body, the church, which is composed

of the saints.
The nature of Jesus’ “blasphemy”

Trinitarians argue that Jesus did in fact claim to be God be-
cause the Sanhedrin, the Jewish supreme court, condemned
him to death on the charge of blasphemy, specifically the
blasphemy of claiming to be God. It is evident that they have
not looked carefully at the accounts of Jesus’ trial as given in
the gospels. It also shows that they don’t know the full range
of the meaning of the word “blasphemy,” for they limit its
meaning to the act of claiming to be God. It can be easily
verified that in the New Testament, the Greek word for “blas-
phemy” is almost never used in the sense of claiming to be
God, but more frequently refers to reviling a person. The
evidence for this is overwhelming, and is summarized in this
footnote.125
125
The term “blasphemy” is not limited to claiming to be God or to
be equal with God. In fact it is almost never used in this sense, but is
more commonly used of insulting or reviling God or people. In the
Greek of Mt.26:65, the high priest uses both the verb blasphēmeō and
the noun blasphēmia of Jesus (“He has uttered blasphemy” and “You
have now heard his blasphemy”). BDAG defines the first word as “to
speak in a disrespectful way that demeans, denigrates, maligns”; and the
second word as “speech that denigrates or defames, reviling, denigration,
disrespect, slander”. Surprisingly, BDAG never uses the word “God” in
any of its definition glosses, but only in citations. That is because
blasphemy can be used against all categories of beings, e.g., against Paul
(Acts 13:45; 18:6; Rom.3:8; 1Cor.10:30); against people in general
In the gospel accounts of Jesus’ trial, Jesus never claimed

to be God nor did the court ever accuse him of making such a
claim. Here is the account in Mark chapter 14:
60
And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus,
“Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men
testify against you?” 61 But he remained silent and made no
answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ,
the Son of the Blessed?” 62 And Jesus said, “I am, and you will
see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and
coming with the clouds of heaven.” 63 And the high priest
tore his garments and said, “What further witnesses do we
need? 64 You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decis-
ion?” And they all condemned him as deserving death. 65 And
some began to spit on him and to cover his face and to strike
him, saying to him, “Prophesy!” (Mark 14:60-65, ESV)
In v.62, Jesus acknowledged to the high priest that he is

the Christ who will be seated at the right hand of “Power” (a
metonym of God). He then declared himself to be “the Son
of Man” prophesied in Daniel 7:13.
But in this account of Jesus’ trial that ended in a death
sentence, where exactly did Jesus claim to be God, and where
was he accused of making such a claim? Since such a claim is
found nowhere in the account, what then was the nature of
his blasphemy, as understood by his accusers?
(Tit.3:2); against Christians (1Pet.4:4); against angels (2Pet.2:10; Jude

1:8); and against God (many references). The word blasphēmeō is used
in all these verses.
If we stop reading things into the text, we would see that

he was charged with blasphemy as soon as he admitted to
being the Christ or Messiah (vv. 61-64). His admission was
compounded by his description of himself as the Son of Man
seated at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds
of heaven, which was understood as a claim to be God’s
anointed King, the Messiah. His claim to be the Messiah was
the direct reason he was charged with blasphemy. We seem to
forget that he was answering the question, “Are you the
Christ (the Messiah), the Son of the Blessed?” He answered in
the affirmative, declaring himself to be the Christ, Yahweh’s
appointed King of Israel and ruler of the world, the son of
God mentioned in Psalm 2. To the high priest and the San-
hedrin, this was an outrageous claim that, if true, would make
them subject to him!
The accounts of Jesus’ trial in the three synoptic gospels
closely parallel each other, notably in sharing a common per-
spective of Jesus as the Son of Man. In all three synoptics, it is
precisely at the point where Jesus spoke of himself as the Son
of Man of Daniel 7:13 that he was charged with blasphemy
(Mt.26:64; Mk.14:62; Lk.22:69). Jesus never claimed equal-
ity with God; in fact the word “blasphemy” almost never
carries this meaning in the Bible (see the previous footnote).
Finally, what is the significance of the hostile taunt “Pro-
phesy!” at the end of his trial? This is recorded in all three
synoptics (Mt.26:68; Mk.14:65; Lk.22:64), and has an
important OT connection. The Jews believe that the coming
Messiah will be the prophet foretold by Moses: “Yahweh your
God will raise up a prophet like me” (Dt.18:15)—that is, a
prophet like Moses who is human and not divine. This

prophet is mentioned by the Jewish people in several places in
John’s Gospel:
John 1:21,25 “Are you the Prophet?” And (John the Baptist)
answered, “No” … “Then why are you baptizing, if you are
neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?”
John 6:14 When the people saw the sign that (Jesus) had
done, they said, “This is indeed the Prophet who is to come
into the world!”
John 7:40 When they heard these words, some of the people
said, “This really is the Prophet.” (cf. 4:19 and 9:17)
Accusation by a mob: Is Jesus making himself

God?
Recorded in John’s Gospel is a very public accusation of blas-
phemy hurled at Jesus (Jn.10:33): “It is not for a good work
that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because
you, being a man, make yourself God.” This is the only place
in John where Jesus was accused of blasphemy by a mob. The
accusation was made on the “street level” and not in a court
of law:
John 10:30-38 30
“I and the Father are one.” 31 The Jews
picked up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them,
“I have shown you many good works from the Father; for
which of them are you going to stone me?” 33 The Jews
answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to
stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make
yourself God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in
your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If he called them gods to
whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be
broken— 36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated
and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I
said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37 If I am not doing the works of
my Father, then do not believe me; 38 but if I do them, even
though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you
may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am
in the Father.” (ESV)
To understand this incident, we first note its highly public

nature: The crowd consisted of “Jews” (plural, v.31) who
were gathered at the most important site in Jerusalem (the
Temple, v.23) during an important Jewish feast (of Dedicat-
ion, v.22). This would more than qualify the crowd to meet
the minimum requirement of two or three witnesses to
establish an accusation. If Jesus really did claim to be God in
their presence, there would have been far more than two or
three witnesses, easily dozens of witnesses, who could have
truthfully confirmed this in a court of law.
More significantly, if Jesus is really claiming to be God in
their presence, he would have truthfully and joyfully and
fervently concurred with them since his deity was precisely
what he wanted to tell them, according to trinitarians. Yet
Jesus was never charged with claiming to be God at his trial!
In the mob incident, the violent hostility to Jesus (they
were ready to stone him, v.31) meant that it would have been
easy for the Sanhedrin to gather hostile witnesses to accuse
Jesus of the specific blasphemy of claiming to be God. Yet

this never happened even though the trial was elaborately set
up with many false witnesses (Mt.26:60). In fact, no false
witnesses would have been necessary if Jesus had actually told
the street mob that he is God; in this case, he would have
declared his deity openly to the Sanhedrin!
Why was Jesus never accused of claiming to be God at his
trial? Was it another instance of the witnesses failing to agree,
or was it because Jesus’ reply at the mob incident was so
cogent that no case could be built against him? In fact Jesus
explicitly rejected his coequality with the Father when he said
to a mob on a different occasion, “Truly, truly, I say to you,
the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he
sees the Father doing.” (John 5:19)
In the end no formal charge was levelled against him for
claiming to be God. Strangely enough, trinitarians agree with
the mob accusers that Jesus had indeed made such a claim
and was therefore guilty of blasphemy according to Jewish
law! And this is despite the fact that the high priest and the
Sanhedrin did not bring such a charge against him!
Some church fathers taught that Christ’s deification

has as its objective man’s deification
For some early binitarians and trinitarians, including some
well-known church fathers, the deification of Christ has as its
objective the deification of believers as gods. Here are some
examples:
• Augustine: “If we have been made sons of God, we have

also been made gods.”
• Athanasius: “Therefore He was not man, and then
became God, but He was God, and then became man,
and that to deify us.”
• Justin Martyr: “Let the interpretation of the Psalm [82]
be held just as you wish, yet thereby it is demonstrated
that all men are deemed worthy of becoming gods.”
• Irenaeus: “We have not been made gods from the be-
ginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods.”
• Clement of Alexandria (three separate quotations): “The
Word of God became man, that you may learn from
man how man may become God”; “For if one knows
himself, he will know God; and knowing God, he will
be made like God”; “man becomes God, since God so
wills.”
These are quoted from Wikipedia, “Divinization (Christian),”

as it was on April 9, 2013. I confirmed that these quotations
are accurate word for word, and have not been pulled out of
context, by consulting The Ante-Nicene Fathers (10 vols.) and
The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (28 vols.).126
126
Here are the references: Augustine (NPNF1, vol.8, Psalm L,
para.2); Athanasius (NPNF2, vol.4, Texts Explained, chap.XI, para.39);
Justin Martyr (ANF, vol.1, chap. CXXIV, Christians are the Sons of
God); Irenaeus (ANF, vol.1, chap. XXXVIII, Why Man was not Made
Perfect From the Beginning, para.4); Clement of Alexandria (ANF,
vol.2, Exhortation to Abandon the Impious Mysteries of Idolatry, chap.I;
On the True Beauty, chap.I). ANF denotes Ante-Nicene Fathers (10
What can we conclude from these enigmatic statements?

There are probably three things we can take away from them.
Firstly, these statements reveal the Gentile propensity for
the deification of man and supremely the man Christ Jesus.
Even if the church fathers whom we quoted (Augustine, Ath-
anasius, Justin, Irenaeus, Clement) did not mean what they
seem to mean, the fact that such statements could be made
uncontroversially in their time, indicates a general tolerance,
even within the church, for the language of the deification of
man, all the more so of Christ.
Secondly, even if these church fathers did not intend to
deify man in their statements (what they meant by the idea
of divinization is that man partakes of the divine nature in the
process of being saved), the fact remains that their statements
do literally speak of the deification of man. In fact, the lan-
guage of deification that they used is only slightly weaker than
the language of deification that many use to deify Jesus.
Thirdly, even if these church fathers did not intend to
deify man, the fact that they nonetheless used the language of
deification will serve to moderate the standard trinitarian
interpretation of John 10:33-36 (the mob incident previously
discussed) which is taken (incorrectly) by some trinitarians to
say that Jesus equated himself with God:
volumes), NPNF1 denotes Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Series 1, 14

volumes), and NPNF2 denotes Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Series
2, 14 volumes).
The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are
going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a
man, make yourself God.” Jesus answered them, “Is it not
written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? [Psalm 82:6] If he
called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scrip-
ture cannot be broken—do you say of him whom the Father
consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’
because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?” (John 10:33-36, ESV)
John MacArthur, trinitarian, says regarding this passage:

Jesus’ argument is that [Ps.82:6] proves that the word “god”
can be legitimately used to refer to others than God Himself.
His reasoning is that if there are others whom God can add-
ress as “god” or “sons of the Most High,” why then should the
Jews object to Jesus’ statement that He is “the Son of God”
(v.36)?’ (MacArthur Study Bible, p.1571, on Jn.10:34-36).
Chapter 10
Philippians 2:
The Name Above Every Name
T wo of the major New Testament passages that trinitar-

ians appeal to for establishing the deity of Christ are
recognized by scholars to be poems or hymns. Most people
are unfamiliar with poetry, much less poetry of a biblical and
spiritual nature. This unfamiliarity gives trinitarians an
opportunity to interpret poetic words and expressions in a
way that suits their doctrines.
Besides John’s Prologue (Jn.1:1-18), the other poetic pass-
age that trinitarians appeal to is Philippians 2:5-11, especially
verse 6 which says that Jesus “was in the form of God”:
5
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ
Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count
equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but made himself
nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the like-
ness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled
himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even
death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and
bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so

that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven
and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue con-
fess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
(Philippians 2:5-11, ESV)
There is general agreement that Philippians 2:6-11 is a

hymn or a part of a hymn that was written in poetic language
and used in the early church. New Jerusalem Bible says in a
note that this passage is “probably an early Christian hymn
quoted by Paul”. Many single-column Bibles arrange this
passage in stanza format. Its hymnic nature is noted by many
scholars, e.g., the ten contributors to Where Christology Began:
Essays on Philippians 2. In fact Phil.2:6-11 is often called
Carmen Christi (Latin, “Christ Hymn”).
Trinitarians seize upon the poetic expression “in the form
of God” (v.6) as proof that Jesus is God even though every
Greek-English lexicon says that the Greek word for “form”
has to do with external shape. But God has no “form” (Dt.
4:15) because God is “spirit” (Jn.4:24). Hence Paul is using
the word “form” not in a literal manner but as a metaphor.
Later we will see that the word “form” in this hymn is a
poetic synonym of “image,” for Jesus is “the image of God”
(2Cor.4:4; Col.1:15).
Chapter 10 — The Name Above Every Name in Philippians 2 511
Paul is describing how Jesus became the perfect

man
As I reflect on my half century as a trinitarian, and on my
ardent devotion to Christ, I now realize ever more clearly that
the Christ I was devoted to was not someone I had truly
regarded as a human being. In reality I saw him as “God the
Son,” the second person of the Godhead. In trinitarianism,
the preexistent God the Son acquired a human nature
through incarnation, and gained a human body. But to trinit-
arians there is never any doubt that the real person in the
human body of Jesus is the divine “God the Son”. Trying to
see Jesus as both God and man is like trying to see something
in double vision, so we resolved the problem by thinking of
Jesus primarily as God and secondarily as man.
Despite our firm and committed trinitarian belief, we still
felt it necessary to prove from Scripture that Jesus is God. For
some reason we could never conclusively prove that he is
God, so we constantly returned to the same few Bible texts
such as John 1 and Philippians 2 to “prove” that Jesus is God.
The issue never seems to be concluded, so books and articles
continue to be written on these same texts again and again
over the centuries. Yet there is no similar need or effort to
prove the deity of Yahweh, that is, the God and Father of
Jesus Christ.
Recently it came to me as a flash of insight that the very
verses we put into service for proving Jesus’ deity actually
proved something different: how Jesus became the perfect
man. And because of this magnificent attainment, he was
exalted by God. When Philippians 2:6-11 is read anew from

this angle, fresh insights into the truth begin to emerge, illu-
minating what trinitarianism has obscured, hidden, and side-
tracked over the years.
Here is a summary of how Jesus became the perfect man as
seen in Philippians 2:6-11:
1. Jesus, like Adam, was in the form of God (the image of
God, the likeness of God)
2. Jesus, unlike Adam, did not seek to grasp at equality
with God by force (that is, by disobedience, which is an
act of rebellion)
3. Jesus humbled himself, embracing his humanity rather
than seeking the glory of deity
4. Jesus sought servitude rather than dominance among his
fellow men
5. Jesus determined to be faithful to God in every aspect of
his life
6. Jesus was faithful unto death
7. … even death of the most ignominious type: death on a
cross.
If anyone could follow this path of life without commit-

ting a single sin (“without sin,” Heb.4:15) starting from the
age of responsibility (which the Jews set as 13 years and one
day), empowered by the ever-present indwelling of Yahweh,
such a person could in theory also attain perfection. But any-
one who has ever tried to live for one day without commit-
ting one sin in deed or thought would know that this is prac-
tically impossible even though believers are also the temple of

God’s Spirit (1Cor.6:19). From one’s own effort to live with-
out sin, one comes to appreciate the matchless wonder of
Jesus the perfect man, and to realize that God’s bringing into
being a new man is a miracle beyond imagination, a feat of
creation that is far more impressive than the magnificence of
the physical universe.
On the other hand, we cannot overlook the voluntary side
of Jesus’ becoming the perfect man even though we know
that the miracle of perfection could not have been achieved
apart from God’s sustaining power in him. Jesus’ self-giving
love, though inspired and empowered by God who is love,
had nonetheless, by Jesus’ own choice, become truly and fully
his own. “He loved me and gave himself for me” (Gal.2:20) is
one of the most precious statements about Jesus in the Bible.
Without this deep genuine love, Jesus could never have
become the perfect man.
But the situation is different with the Jesus of trinitarian-
ism, called God the Son. Since God is love in His very nature
(1Jn.4:8,16), it would be impossible for a divine Jesus, God
the Son, not to love. This greatly diminishes the stupendous
wonder of God’s achievement in “the man Christ Jesus”.
Anyone who has ever tried to love others continuously and
in every situation, especially those who are hard to love,
would appreciate the unspeakable magnificence of Jesus’ love,
for Jesus perfectly embodied God’s love as expressed in the
well-known statement, “For God so loved the world that He
gave His only son, that whoever believes in him should not
perish but have eternal life” (Jn.3:16).
Because of Jesus’ perfect sinlessness, and because he loved

us to the end in his self-giving death, God exalted him to the
highest conceivable position in all of creation: the place at His
right hand (Acts 2:33; 5:31; Eph.1:20). In this glorious ex-
altation, vividly described in Phil.2:8-11, Jesus was given the
most exalted name in the universe, at which name every knee
shall bow to him and every tongue confess that he is Lord, to
the Father’s glory. But how can bowing the knee to Jesus be
to the Father’s glory? It can be so because “the glory of God
was made visible in the face of Jesus Christ” (2Cor.4:6).
The “form of God”

To see what Paul means when he says that Christ Jesus “was
in the form of God,” we briefly consider the matter in four
points.
Point #1: God is invisible

The New Testament consistently portrays God as invisible.
He is “immortal, invisible, the only God” (1Tim. 1:17). God
is inherently invisible also for the reason that “God is spirit”
(Jn.4:24). But the same cannot be said of Christ, for he is
eminently visible and is the “image of the invisible God”
(Col.1:15). Christ has fulfilled the purpose that man was
created to fulfill—making visible the invisible God—but man
has failed to do this for the most part.
John hints at God’s invisibility in one sense or another
when he says that “no one has ever seen God” yet Jesus “has
made Him known” (Jn.1:18). Because Jesus has made God

known, there is a qualified sense in which we see God: by
spiritual perception and not by physical sight. It is said of
Moses that he, with eyes of faith, “saw Him who is invisible”
(Heb.11:27).
Although God is invisible, at times He makes Himself visi-
ble in order to accomplish a specific purpose as in the divine
epiphanies recorded in the Old Testament. At times He
shows His glory to His people: the Israelites saw “the glory of
Yahweh” in a cloud (Ex.16:10), and Ezekiel saw “the likeness
of the glory of Yahweh” (Ezek.1:28).
God’s invisibility is noted by trinitarian references, e.g.,
New Dictionary of Theology, article “Anthropomorphism”:
God is invisible, infinite and without a body, but human
characteristics are frequently ascribed to God in order to com-
municate information about his nature or acts. Illustrations
abound in Scripture. Though God is without a body, his acts
are said to be the result of ‘his mighty arm’ (Ex 15:16).
Point #2: The word “form” in Philippians 2:6 means external,

visible form
In Philippians 2:6 (“though he was in the form of God”), the
Greek word for “form” is morphē, a word that is also seen in
English.127 Morphē is consistently defined by Greek-English
lexicons as outward, external, and visible form or appearance.
127
For example, morphē is found in the English words morphology
(the study of the form of words or of organisms) and morph (to change
shape or appearance in a smooth and gradual manner).
For example, Thayer’s Greek-English lexicon defines morphē

as “the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision;
external appearance”.
The word morphē doesn’t have many meanings, and is giv-
en only one definition in BDAG: “form, outward appearance,
shape generally of bodily form”. BDAG says that the use of
morphē in Phil.2:6 stands “in contrast to expression of
divinity in the preëxistent Christ”. This is a most remarkable
statement. Despite BDAG’s trinitarian presuppositions which
underlie this statement, it correctly assigns a non-divine and
non-trinitarian meaning to morphē in “the form of God”!
Point #3: “Form of God” means “image of God”

But there is a problem. Since God is invisible (1Tim.1:17)
and is spirit (Jn.4:24), He cannot have external shape or
form. This is confirmed by Moses’ warning to the Israelites:
“Watch yourselves carefully since you saw no form on the day
that Yahweh spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the
fire.” (Dt.4:15) If God has no form, how can Paul speak of
“the form of God” in Phil.2:6?
Since morphē (“form”) has to do with external appearance,
and since God being spirit has no such form (at Horeb He
was not seen with the human eye), Paul is obviously using the
word “form” as a metaphor.
The problem is resolved when we understand that “form
of God” means “image of God”. Just as our being in the
“image of God” doesn’t mean that God is visible, so Jesus’
being in the “form of God” doesn’t mean that God is visible.
Just as Christ is the “image of the invisible God” (Col.1:15),

so Christ is in the “form of God” who is invisible. God is
invisible, yet is made visible through Christ who is the image
of God and in the form of God.
The equivalence of “form of God” and “image of God”
can be established both biblically and lexically.
Biblically, “form” and “image” are used synonymously in
the Old Testament, notably of idols. For example, the three
words “image” and “form” and “likeness” are used synonym-
ously in Deuteronomy 4:16: “Beware lest you act corruptly by
making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any
figure, the likeness of male or female” (ESV; cf. vv.23,25).
The functional equivalence of the three words in boldface—
image, form, likeness—brings out the functional equivalence of
“image of God,” “form of God,” and “likeness of God”.
When God created man, He said, “Let us make man in
our image, after our likeness” (Gen.1:26). Because we were
created in the “likeness” of God, we bear the image of God
just as Christ is the image of God. This tells us that Genesis
1:26 is the basis for understanding “form of God” in Phil.
2:6.128
128
Most trinitarians agree that “image” and “likeness” are synonym-
ous in Gen. 1:26 (“Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”).
One of them says that “image” and “likeness” in this verse are
“synonymous terms” (Constable’s Expository Notes). NIV Study Bible, on
Genesis 1:26, says: “No distinction should be made between image and
likeness, which are synonyms in both the OT (5:1; 9:6) and the NT
(1Cor. 11:7; Col. 3:10; James 3:9).”
Lexically, the equivalence of “form of God” and “image of

God” is seen in HALOT (Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the
OT, the foremost Hebrew lexicon for biblical studies). The
two key words in Genesis 1:26 are “image” (tselem, ‫ )צֶ לֶם‬and
“likeness” (dmut, ‫)דּמוּת‬.
ְ HALOT defines the former as “like-
ness, shape, representation,” and the latter as “likeness, form,
shape”; hence the two words are basically synonymous (note
also the word “form”). This is the lexical basis for taking
“form of God” to mean “likeness of God” or “image of God”.
In Gen.1:26, the use of “image” and “likeness” within one
sentence gives double emphasis to the fact that God made
man to be the visible image of the invisible God, that is, to be
the “likeness, shape, representation” (HALOT) of God. 129
129
The word “likeness” in Gen.1:26 doesn’t mean that when God
created man, He made a physical copy of Himself. On the contrary,
man is more properly understood as a representation of the invisible
God (“representation” is one of HALOT’s definitions of tselem). Man
is a representation of God, but not in physical shape or external form.
In creating man with eyes, God indicates that God sees; man’s ears
indicate that God hears; the arms indicate that He acts, and so on. To
properly represent God, man is given a will, emotions, and the capacity
to think.
The ancient Near East was populated with idols and statues of gods
(cf. “gods many,” 1Cor.8:5). Those who worshipped these idols were
not so naïve as to think that the spirits they were worshipping actually
looked like the statues of wood or stone. Some idols have multiple
heads and arms, symbolizing the power and intelligence of the spirits
being worshipped.
Not only in Hebrew but also in Greek there is strong lex-

ical affinity between “form” and “image,” as seen in BDAG’s
three definitions of eikōn (the standard Greek word for
“image,” as in “the image of God”):
1. an object shaped to resemble the form or appearance of
something, likeness, portrait
2. that which has the same form as something else, living
image
3. that which represents something else in terms of basic
form and features, form, appearance
The crucial thing to notice is that the word “form” (see

boldface) appears in all three definitions of eikōn. In other
words, BDAG has no definition of eikōn (“image”) that does
not involve form. This establishes the equivalence of “image
of God” and “form of God”.
From the lexical equivalence, in both Greek and Hebrew,
it is clear that since Jesus Christ is in the “form of God”
(Phil.2:6), he is also the “image of God” (2Cor. 4:4) and the
“image of the invisible God” (Col.1:15).
The “form of God” in Phil.2:6 is derived from the concept
of Adam as the “image of God” in Gen.1:26,27. In fact, Jesus
is called the last Adam and the second man (1Cor.15:45,47,
“adam” is Hebrew for “man”), and shares the same “form of
God” as the first Adam. This is a poetic way of describing the
image and likeness of God (Gen.1:26-27) in which Adam was
created.
The remarkable fact that “form of God” is found nowhere

in the Bible outside Phil.2:6 makes it likely that it is just a
poetic expression of a concept already well established in
Scripture such as that of man being in the image of God or
the likeness of God. This is reinforced by the fact that Philip-
pians 2:6-11 is regarded as poetry even by trinitarians. Poetic
language is rich in symbolism and allusion, so the hymn’s use
of a different metaphor—the form of God for the image of
God—is hardly anything remarkable.
In fact the word “formed” is used of the creation of man in
Genesis 2:7: “Yahweh God formed the man from the dust of
the earth”. In other words, when man was created in the
image of God, he was at the same time “formed” by God.
The Hebrew word for “formed” (yatsar) is elsewhere used of a
potter who forms a vessel out of clay (Isa.29:16).
There is no biblical basis for the trinitarian use of “form of
God” (image of God or likeness of God) as an argument for
Jesus’ deity. Any attempt to go in this direction should be
tempered with Yahweh’s words in Isa.43:10: “Before me no
god was formed, nor shall there be any after me” (ESV).
Yahweh is saying that no god has ever been “formed” or ever
will be. Hence no one who is in “the form of God” can be
Deity. Jesus is in the form of God in the same sense as Adam
was created or “formed” (Gen.2:7) in the “image” or “like-
ness” of God (Gen. 1:26).
For a theological discussion on this topic, see Appendix 6
(“Karl-Josef Kuschel on Christ and Adam”) of the present
book.
Point #4: Worshipping an image is idolatry

Christ is the “image of God” (2Cor.4:4; Col.1:15). We too
are in the image of God, but Christ is the image of God par
excellence because he is the only perfect man who has ever
lived. When we see Jesus the perfect image of God, we see
God in all His glory, beauty, and magnificence.
In point #3, we saw that BDAG’s three definitions of
eikōn (“image”) all have the word “form,” giving further
lexical evidence that “the form of God” really means “the
image of God”. This goes a long way towards explaining the
meaning of “he was in the form of God”.
From eikōn we get the English word “icon”. The use of
this word in computers is impressive for its insight into the
fundamental meaning of an icon. The Microsoft Excel 2010
program is an executable file of 20,000,000 bytes whereas its
icon is a tiny file of 3,000 bytes. The program is distinct from
the icon that points to it, yet the icon is so representative of
the program that we click on it as if it were the program itself,
and it is through the icon that we gain access to the program.
The word eikōn is used of the image stamped on a coin,
e.g., the portrait of Caesar stamped on a coin that Jesus
showed the Pharisees, as recorded in Mt.22:20 where eikōn is
rendered “likeness” (ESV) or “image” (NIV) or “portrait”
(NJB). This eikōn is an image or portrait of Caesar that bears
his likeness. What we see on the coin is not literally or
physically the person of Caesar but an image of Caesar. In the
same way, Christ as the image of God is not God Himself.
But as trinitarians we couldn’t even tell an image from the
person represented by the image, so we didn’t hesitate to wor-
ship Jesus, the image of God, as God. We must bear in mind

that man too is in the image of God, but man is not to be
worshipped as God.
Scripture strictly forbids the worship of images. Moses
warned the Israelites: “Since you saw no form on the day that
Yahweh spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire,
beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for
yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or
female.” (Dt.4:15-16; cf. Ezek.16:17). Here the prohibition
against worshipping an image is all-encompassing, covering
everything related to “image” or “form” or “figure” or
“likeness”.
Despite the prohibition against the worship of images,
trinitarians do not hesitate to worship “the man Christ Jesus”
(as he is called in 1Tim.2:5), the visible and human image of
God. In this case, on what grounds do we prohibit the
worship of an ordinary man, who is also in the image of God?
(New Bible Dictionary, article “Image,” citing Gen.9:6 and
James 3:9, says correctly that “man is still spoken of as the
image of God after the Fall”.)
In the first of the Ten Commandments, Yahweh strictly
prohibits the worship of anyone (this would include Jesus)
besides or before Yahweh, as well as the worship of any image
(including Jesus the image of God):
You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make
for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that
is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is
in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to
them or serve them; for I Yahweh your God am a jealous

God. (Dt.5:7-9)
We close this section with a statement by James D.G. Dunn

against worshipping Jesus the image of God:
It is this danger [of worshipping Jesus instead of God] that
helps explain why the New Testament refers to Jesus by the
word ‘icon’ (eikōn)—the icon of the invisible God. For, as
the lengthy debate in Eastern Christianity made clear, the
distinction between an idol and an icon is crucial at this
point. An idol is a depiction on which the eye fixes, a solid
wall at which the worship stops. An icon on the other hand is
a window through which the eye passes, through which the
beyond can be seen, through which divine reality can be
witnessed. So the danger with a worship that has become too
predominantly the worship of Jesus is that the worship due
to God is stopping at Jesus, and that the revelation of God
through Jesus and the worship of God through Jesus is being
stifled and short-circuited.” (Did the First Christians Worship
Jesus?, p.147)
Trinitarian idolatry and the golden calf

The trinitarian fabrication and worship of a divine Jesus has
several parallels with the fashioning and the worship of the
golden calf by the Israelites:
Exodus 32:3-4 So all the people took off their earrings and
brought them to Aaron. He took what they handed him and
made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it
with a tool. Then they said, “These are your gods, Israel,
who brought you up out of Egypt.” (NIV)
Acts 7:41 “And they made a calf in those days, and offered a
sacrifice to the idol and were rejoicing in the works of their
hands.” (ESV)
There are several parallels between the worship of Jesus

and the worship of the golden calf: Both were the results of
foreign polytheistic influences, Egyptian in one case, Greek in
the other. One was established after Moses had gone up to
meet with Yahweh on Mount Sinai; the other was established
after Jesus had ascended to the Father. Just as the golden calf
displaced Yahweh as the object of worship, so God the Son of
trinitarianism displaced Yahweh in trinitarian Christianity.
The fury of Moses at his descent from the mountain will be
more than matched by the wrath of Jesus at his second com-
ing.
A consequence of Nicaea is that trinitarianism morphed
into “Jesusism,” giving the other two persons, God the Father
and God the Spirit, a lesser place in the Gentile church. This
is similar to what James D.G. Dunn calls “Jesus-olatry”
though he applies that term to the modern church rather than
the early church: “I use the term ‘Jesus-olatry’ in an important
sense as parallel or even close to ‘idolatry’” (Did the First
Christians Worship Jesus?, p.147).
The approximately 300 bishops who convened at Nicaea

under the direction and auspices of the as yet non-Christian
emperor Constantine, had exalted the man Jesus to coequality
with God, after which Jesus became the central object of
worship in the church, with little notice paid to the Father
and the Spirit. This situation remains to this day in the
Catholic church and the Protestant churches.
In the Catholic church, another development followed on
the heels of the deification of Jesus, namely, the exaltation of
Mary who had been given the title theotokos or “God bearer,”
that is, mother of God. Hence one idolatrous step was soon
followed by another, in this case towards Mariolatry, the idol-
atrous cult of Mary. It is in human nature to feel that Mary
has a mother’s power of persuasion over her son such that our
prayers stand a better chance of being answered if they are
addressed to Mary rather than to Jesus. What was being done
to the Father by the deification of Jesus was now being done
to Jesus by the elevation of Mary as an object of worship in
the Catholic church.
As we shall see, Jesus certainly has a most exalted place in
the Bible, but not in a way that eclipses the glory of the
Father, Yahweh. On the contrary, all that Jesus is and does is
“to the glory of the Father” (Phil.2:11, etc.).
Christ did not strive for equality with God

Paul draws a connection between Jesus’ being in the form of
God and his not striving for equality with God: “who, though
he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a
thing to be grasped” (Phil.2:6). What is the logical connect-
ion between the two? At first glance, there seems to be no
inherent or causal link, for why would anyone who is in the
form or image of God contemplate grasping at equality with
God? Every human being is already in the image of God and
has never lost that image. This is taught by Paul (1Cor.11:7)
and James (3:9), and affirmed in the Old Testament even
after Adam had sinned (Gen.9:6). It also remains the theolo-
gical position of Judaism. Our own experience as human
beings made in the image of God tells us that we don’t have
any particular desire or innate reason to claim equality with
God unless we are deranged or do so for political purposes as
in the case of the Roman Caesars.
If there is no obvious connection between these two things
in Philippians 2:6 (having the form of God and grasping at
equality with God), why does Paul link them? It is because
Philippians 2:6ff is a deep spiritual echo of the Genesis
creation of man.
As we have seen, “form of God” already has a Genesis con-
nection (the image and likeness of God, and the fact that
Adam was “formed” by God’s own hands). The connection is
deepened when we bring in the element of grasping at equal-
ity with God: Philippians 2:6 takes us back to the Genesis
account of the temptation, which is the momentous event in
Adam’s spiritual life and by parallel also in Jesus’ (though in a

different time and place, and with a different outcome).130
In the similarity but also the contrast between Adam and
Christ, we see a sharp delineation: one is the first man, the
other the second man; one is the first Adam, the other the last
Adam (1Cor.15:47,45). Yet they both started out as sinless
men. Unique in human history, Adam and Jesus both faced
the ultimate temptation to grasp at equality with God.
Though we human beings face various temptations along the
path of life, these are unlike the kind that Adam and Jesus
faced as sinless men. Because we have sinned, we do not even
think of grasping at equality with God. We have not exper-
ienced and can never experience temptation on the same level
as Adam and Jesus in their encounters with temptation.
Adam was initially sinless by the mere fact of not having
sinned, but he was not morally perfect because moral per-
fection cannot in its nature be created by divine fiat, but must
be attained through the test of faith. Adam was sinless in
much the same way an infant is sinless, in that the infant has
not yet committed sin, being incapable of discerning right
from wrong. In this last respect, however, Adam and Eve are
different from an infant, for they fully understood that they
130
The connection between Philippians 2 and Genesis is not lost on
trinitarians. The trinitarian reference, Commentary on the NT Use of the
OT, on Phil.2:6-8, says “there is an undeniable network of associations
between Philippians 2 and Genesis 1 to 3”. Dictionary of Biblical
Imagery, in “Philippians,” says, “The claim that Christ Jesus did not
grasp after equality with God (Phil.2:6) may even be an allusion to the
sin of Adam, who did make a grab for deity (Gen.3:4-6).”
are to obey God’s command not to eat the forbidden fruit.

Hence their sin amounts to willful disobedience and is not
like an ignorant act of a child. Adam’s disobedience and Jesus’
obedience are the crucial elements pertaining to mankind’s
salvation: “For as by the one man’s disobedience the many
were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many
will be made righteous.” (Rom.5:19)
The stark contrast between Adam’s disobedience and
Christ’s obedience is brought out in their respective encount-
ers with Satan’s temptations. In the case of Jesus, the import-
ance of the temptation (Mt.4:1-11; Lk.4:1-13) lies in the fact
that it took place at the commencement of his ministry,
which is parallel to the fact that Adam and Eve were tempted
soon after their introduction into the Garden.
Philippians 2:6-9 is a portrait of Jesus Christ the perfect
man who did not grasp at equality with God. His obedience
to God is a resolute rejection of sin just as sin is, in turn, a
rejection of God’s lordship and an assertion of equality with
God. Adam’s sin constitutes “transgression” (Rom.5:14), the
“disregarding, violating” of God’s command (Thayer, paraba-
sis), and is rooted in disobedience (“every transgression or
disobedience,” Heb.2:2).
Jesus, unlike Adam, “humbled himself and became
obedient to death, even death on a cross” (Phil.2:7). His per-
fection lies in his resolute obedience to the Father all through
his life, remaining faithful right up to an excruciating and
humiliating death on the cross. His refusal to grasp at equality
with God was not a once-for-all struggle but something that
continued through his earthy life as he was being confronted
by one temptation after another, even from the start of his

ministry.
Whereas the first man clutched for equality with God
(Gen.3:5, “you will be like God”), the second man, Jesus
Christ, rejected any such thought.
Trinitarians read Philippians 2:6ff to mean that Christ was
already the divine “God the Son” at the time he refused to
grasp at equality with God. But if Jesus was already God, why
would he need to grasp at equality with God if he was already
God’s coequal in every respect according to trinitarianism?
Arguing that he was willing to give up his coequality with
God is unconvincing because it is impossible for anyone to
discard his own essential nature. For example no man can
humble himself to become a dog. He can imitate a dog by
barking like one but no man can ever become a dog. And
since God cannot stop being God, the trinitarian interpretat-
ion of Philippians 2:6 does not make sense. We must bear in
mind that trinitarians do not believe that Jesus has ever lost
his deity even in his death and suffering.
ESV’s translation of this verse (“who, though he was in the
form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be
grasped”) is representative of English Bibles, but NIV aban-
dons translation and ventures into theological interpretation
when it says: “Who, being in very nature God, did not consi-
der equality with God something to be grasped”. The words
“in very nature God” are simply not found in the Greek text
of Philippians 2:6. This shows that the NIV translators
probably did not think that Paul’s words are clear enough and
explicit enough to establish Christ’s deity.
Has it not occurred to trinitarians that if Jesus is God, why

would he even need to “consider equality with God some-
thing to be grasped”? The trinitarian interpretation of Philip-
pians 2:6 violates good sense, insults our intelligence, and
attributes to Scripture a nonsensical statement.
In the past, our minds were so attuned to trinitarian error
that this interpretation didn’t seem nonsensical to us. In
retrospect I now see that one of the frightening aspects of
habituation to error is the inability to see the obvious. This is
what Scripture calls blindness, since it robs us of the ability to
see the simple truth. As a result of trinitarian blindness, the
beauty of this verse and of the whole passage, Philippians 2:6-
11—in which Paul recounts Jesus’ humility and obedience to
God, and his consequent glorification by the Father—is des-
troyed. This is the kind of thing that trinitarianism has done
to many passages in the Bible.
The trinitarian interpretation runs into a similar problem
at the end of the hymn (verses 8 to 11) which says that God
exalted Jesus to the highest place among all living beings, such
that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow and every
tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.
But how can this statement apply to the trinitarian God
the Son? If Jesus is already God, then every knee would
already bow to him and every tongue confess that he is Lord.
Exactly how does Philippians 2 enhance the divine glory that
Jesus, as the eternal God, had already had in trinitarianism?
Can anyone be more highly exalted than by the mere fact of
being Almighty God? But in Paul’s teaching, the exaltation of
Jesus was something that God conferred on him. Yet no such
conferring would have been needed if Jesus had already

possessed innate divine glory. The trinitarian interpretation
simply does not make sense.
New Jerusalem Bible, the official English-language Catholic
Bible outside the United States, says something that is im-
pressive for its deep insight but even more impressive for its
willingness to discard the standard trinitarian interpretation
of Philippians 2:6-11. It also recognizes the equivalence of the
form of God and the image of God. In the following excerpt
from NJB, the word kenosis means the act of emptying
oneself:
[Philippians 2:6-11] has been understood as Christ’s kenosis
in emptying himself of his divine glory in order to live a
human life and undergo suffering. More probably Jesus is
here contrasted as the second with the first Adam. The first
Adam, being in the form or image of God, attempted to
grasp equality with God and, by this pride, fell. By contrast,
Jesus, through his humility, was raised up by God to the div-
ine glory. In the traditional but less probable interpretation,
this emptying or kenosis expressed Jesus’ voluntary self-de-
privation, during his earthly life, of the divine glory. But this
interpretation is not only less scriptural but also anachronistic
for the development of christology at this moment of Paul’s
thinking. (NJB, footnotes Phil.2:5d and Phil.2:7g)
The king of Tyre boasted of being a god

Yahweh’s judgment against the king of Tyre gives us an idea
of what it means for a person to desire to be like God. The
following passage is hard to follow because it uses four levels
of quotation. To grasp the general idea, it is sufficient to read
the three clauses shown in italics:
The word of Yahweh came to me: “Son of man, say to the
prince of Tyre, Thus says the Lord Yahweh: ‘Because your
heart is proud, and you have said, “I am a god, I sit in the seat
of the gods, in the heart of the seas,” yet you are but a man, and
no god, though you make your heart like the heart of a god …
you have increased your wealth, and your heart has become
proud in your wealth—therefore thus says the Lord Yahweh:
Because you make your heart like the heart of a god, therefore,
behold, I will bring foreigners upon you, the most ruthless of
the nations; and they shall draw their swords … They shall
thrust you down into the pit, and you shall die the death of
the slain in the heart of the seas. Will you still say, “I am a god,”
in the presence of those who kill you, though you are but a man,
and no god, in the hands of those who slay you?’” (Ezekiel
28:1-9, ESV, “Yahweh” in the original Hebrew restored)
The king of Tyre is described poetically as a quasi-divine

being, yet he is only a man presuming to be a god. This is
similar to the boasting in Isaiah 14:13-14 (“I will ascend to
heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on
high … I will make myself like the Most High”) and the
idolatry seen in Acts 12:22-23 (Herod Agrippa I was struck
down by an angel for accepting idolatrous adulation from the

crowd who declared him a god).
From these examples we see that man, especially in situa-
tions of earthly power, aspires to be like God. This was Adam
and Eve’s ambition. Despite being made in the likeness of
God, they wanted to gain the knowledge—and knowledge is
power—to be “like God” (Gen.3:5). It is always man who
wants to be equal with God.
Taking the form of a servant

The events in Jesus’ life as outlined in Philippians 2 took
place on earth and not in some preexistent (pre-human or
pre-birth) realm imagined by trinitarians. Jesus’ being in the
form or image of God is something that every human being
experiences as he or she enters into the world at birth (or, in
the case of Adam and Eve, at their creation). Like us human
beings, Jesus was “born of a woman” (Gal.4:4). Though he
was also “born of the Spirit” at his birth (Lk.1:35; cf.
Jn.3:5,6,8), he was no less human because of that. Likewise,
when we are born of the Spirit, we do not become less
human. Nowhere in the New Testament is Jesus’ virgin birth
used as an argument for his alleged deity. It is interesting that
the Qur’an of Islam has a large portion devoted to the topic
of Jesus’ virgin birth without ever taking this as evidence of
his deity.
That the other events in the hymn of Philippians 2 took
place on earth is obvious enough, such as Jesus’ death on the
cross. The poetic language of this hymn, reflected in words
such as “form” and “likeness,” recurs in verse 7: “taking the

form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.” The
language of “form” appears in yet the next verse: “And being
found in human form” (v.8). The repeated use of “form” has
a purpose beyond mere repetition, for the language of “form”
or “human form” is meant to resonate with the Genesis ac-
count of Adam’s creation (Adam was “formed” by God).
Jesus’ willingness to be a lowly servant is the key to his
whole ministry. The decision to be a lowly servant is a decis-
ion to be obedient to God. The highest expression of Jesus’
obedience brings this section of the hymn to a climax: “he
was obedient unto death, even death on a cross”. He was will-
ing to suffer and to die as a common criminal without a vest-
ige of honor. “No one takes my life from me but I lay it down
of my own accord” (Jn.10:18).
By his total obedience, Jesus left Adam so far behind lan-
guishing in disobedience that Adam would scarcely have
caught a glimpse of the cloud of Jesus’ victory chariot mount-
ing into heaven (to use the picture of Elisha watching Elijah
taken up into heaven).
What Adam failed to attain—to become “like God”—is
now granted to Jesus by God the Father. What does it mean
to become like God? It would certainly include “participating
in the divine nature” (cf. 2Pet.1:4). It would also include
being given all authority in heaven and on earth (Mt.28:18).
Jesus’ humility is a reflection of God’s humility as
expressed in God serving His people. How many of us can
envisage God doing the work of a servant or laborer? I have
described this aspect of God in some detail in TOTG chapter
5, pointing to the menial work He was willing to do for man:

God planted a garden in Eden for man, prepared animal skins
to clothe Adam and Eve after they had sinned, and even
buried the lifeless body of Moses on Mount Pisgah! These
menial chores, notably the burial of Moses, are regarded as
unbecoming of God by many religious thinkers whose hearts
and minds are not big enough to accommodate the idea that
a “transcendent” God would be willing to “dirty His hands”
with menial jobs, even unclean jobs such as burying Moses.
Though angels do not appear in the accounts of God’s menial
work from Genesis to Deuteronomy, some commentators
have said without biblical support that God had in fact com-
manded the angels to perform these tasks. From all this, we
see that Yahweh is more magnificent in His matchless glory
and humility than our puny minds can ever imagine.
Isn’t this the same wonderful servant’s attitude that we see
in the risen Jesus, when he sat by a fire which he had started
in order to cook breakfast for his disciples at Galilee (Jn.21:9-
13)? How true is Paul’s statement that Jesus makes visible the
invisible God. Would those who downplay the Old Testa-
ment accounts of Yahweh doing menial work also downplay
the cooking of breakfast at Galilee or the events outlined in
Philippians 2 of Jesus’ life by which he makes visible the
invisible God? If we remove the events in Philippians 2 from
his life, what would be left of it? Is Philippians 2 not a sum-
mation of Jesus’ whole life and ministry? Are not all aspects of
his life and his death perfectly summed up in this wonderful
hymn, in which Jesus manifests Yahweh’s glory such that we
see “the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (the subtitle
of this book)?
The Lord of glory

Philippians 2 portrays the exaltation of Jesus as being the
result of his absolute obedience. God the Father elevates him
to a place alongside Himself such that Jesus shares His glory
at His right hand. And since it is Yahweh’s own glory that is
beamed forth from Christ, all this is “to the glory of the
Father” (v.11).
The title “Lord” has been given specially to Jesus the
Messiah: “God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both
Lord and Messiah” (Acts 2:36). “Lord” as applied to Jesus is
not a divine title but a title of exaltation specially given to
him by the Father. “Lord” as applied to Jesus must not be
confused with LORD in small capitals which is used in place
of YHWH in most Bibles. In many Bibles today, the OT
passages quoted in the NT often have “LORD” in the OT
(when it should be rendered YHWH or “Yahweh”) and
“Lord” in the NT, a confusion that suits trinitarianism. False-
hood thrives on conflation and ambiguity, but the truth does
not.
Jesus is called “the Lord of glory” (1Cor.2:8; James 2:1)
because of his exaltation by the Father. This title is not used
of Yahweh in the Old Testament and does not even appear in
the Old Testament. Although Yahweh is not called “the Lord
of glory,” He is called “the King of Glory” in these beautiful
lines of Psalm 24:7-10:
Lift up your heads, O gates! And be lifted up,

O ancient doors that the King of glory may come in.
Who is this King of glory?
Yahweh, strong and mighty, Yahweh, mighty in battle!
Lift up your heads, O gates! And lift them up,
O ancient doors, that the King of glory may come in.
Who is this King of glory?
Yahweh of hosts, he is the King of glory!
Jesus, on the other hand, is called the Lord of glory who

was crucified: “None of the rulers of this age understood this,
for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of
glory” (1Cor.2:8). In our trinitarian days, we saw no problem
in believing that it was God who was crucified, not realizing
that since God is immortal and is “from everlasting to ever-
lasting,” He could not possibly have died by crucifixion or by
any other means of execution.
Trinitarians are in line with Scripture when they say that
Jesus was given honor and glory because he had been obed-
ient unto death. But they seem to have overlooked a funda-
mental tenet of trinitarian dogma: the preexistence of Christ.
If Christ is a preexistent divine figure as trinitarians believe
him to be in Philippians 2:6 (“though he was in the form of
God”), then this person must, by reason of his deity, be
immortal, and therefore could not have died on the cross.
Continuing this line of reasoning, the exaltation that was a
consequence of his obedience unto death could not have been
awarded him if he could not die. Then there are two possibil-
ities before us: Either Jesus is a true man (and not merely God
with a physical body) and was able to die on the cross, or
Jesus is God as trinitarians say he is, in which case Jesus could
not have been crucified or depicted as being obedient “unto
death”. We cannot have it both ways.
If we say that it was only Jesus’ physical body that died,
that doesn’t solve the problem, for his physical body was not
preexistent, not even in trinitarianism, in which case the one
who died on the cross was not the supposedly preexistent per-
son of Phil.2:6. If it was only the human nature that died,
who will Yahweh glorify such that every knee will bow to him
or “it”? Will God glorify the body of Jesus that actually died
or the divine person living in that body, namely, the pre-
existent God the Son who became incarnate in Jesus? Here
trinitarianism is caught in a conundrum of its own making,
with its falsity exposed to all who are open to the truth.
The name above every name

The magnificent poem in Philippians 2 is concluded with the
words, “to the glory of God the Father” (v.11). But how does
the exaltation of Jesus bring glory to God the Father rather
than divert our attention to Jesus, as has happened in trin-
itarianism?
A conclusive answer to this question lies in the fact that, as
we have seen in chapter 7, there are many doxologies to God
in the New Testament, but at most one or two to Jesus (e.g.,
the debated Romans 9:5). Jesus is not worshipped as God in
the New Testament (though he is highly honored), not even

after he had been resurrected and given “the name above
every name” (Phil.2:9). But in giving Jesus the name above
every name, Yahweh has made Jesus’ name the highest in the
universe after His own name, such that at the name of Jesus
every knee shall bow. Let us now look at the latter part of the
hymn in Philippians 2.
Philippians 2:9-11
9
Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on
him the name that is above every name,
10
so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in
heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the
glory of God the Father. (ESV)
God has given Jesus “the name that is above every name”
(v.9). 131 What is this name that God has given him? Is it
God’s own name Yahweh? If so, there would be two persons
called Yahweh. But Phil.2:9 does not say that God gave His
own name Yahweh to Jesus. A name identifies a specific
person and cannot be given to someone else.
“Yahweh” is a personal name as well as a titular name, so it
is not merely a title like “Lord” or “King” which can be be-
stowed on multiple persons. A personal name, when it is
meant to function referentially, identifies a specific person. In
131
The Majority Text lacks the article in “the name that is above
every name”. Hence KJV, which is based on this text, has “a name
which is above every name …”
this case, a name is also an identity. A person cannot give his

own identity to someone else, or else there would be two per-
sons referred to by the same name, when in fact there is only
one who is rightly the referred person (the referent). More-
over, whereas there are many Davids and Peters and Mat-
thews in human society, there is only one Yahweh (Dt.6:4).
Yahweh’s name cannot be given or transferred to someone
else because a name refers to a particular individual. I cannot
bestow my name Eric Chang on someone else (who in any
case already has his own name), not even if his name happens
to be Eric Chang by coincidence. In other words, I cannot be-
stow on someone else my own name that is meant to function
as a reference to me. My name is the means by which I am
identified, so how can it be given to someone else? More im-
portantly, Yahweh is a name with a unique meaning that
applies only to Him and no one else, so it is not transferable.
All living beings have names by which they are identified
whether they are human beings on earth or spiritual beings in
the heavenly realm. Scripture mentions, for example, the
names of the archangels Michael and Gabriel (Jude 1:9; Luke
1:19). Jesus even asked a demon its name (Mk.5:9).
We ask again: When Yahweh gave Jesus “the name that is
above every name,” what was that name? In grappling with
this question, we are confronted with the fact that, strictly
speaking, the divine name “Yahweh” is the only name that
could be said to be “above every name”. Do we then try to get
around this by saying that the name given to Jesus was indeed
“Yahweh,” but embedded in the name “Jesus”? The problem
with this explanation is that the name “Jesus” (which means
“Yahweh saves” or “Yahweh is salvation”) was given to Jesus

at his birth, not at his exaltation in Philippians.
We have been asking, What name besides “Yahweh” is
above every other name? That is perhaps the wrong question
to ask because the passage is really about the exaltation of the
person of Jesus himself, and thereby also the exaltation of his
name. The exaltation of Jesus’ name above every other name
means that the very person of Jesus is exalted above all of
creation such that all creation will “confess that Jesus Christ is
Lord” (cf. Acts 10:36, “Lord of all”).
Philippians 2:10-11 is an echo of Isaiah 45:23 which
speaks of Yahweh: “To me every knee shall bow, every tongue
shall swear allegiance”. Does it mean that Jesus has been given
the name “Yahweh”? If so, it would mean that Jesus has
somehow become Yahweh. But this is impossible for it would
mean either that Yahweh has lost His identity or that there
are two Yahwehs whereas Scripture says there is only one
Yahweh (Dt.6:4). Again we are forgetting that Phil.2:6-11 is
poetry. Paul is merely affirming in poetic language that God
has exalted Jesus and Jesus’ name above all living beings to
the extent that Jesus exercises Yahweh’s authority as His
representative. In fact, Paul explicitly says it is at the name of
“Jesus” that every knee will bow; Jesus therefore retains his
own name “Jesus” but that name has now been exalted above
all names.
In Jesus’ time, “Jesus” was a common name equivalent to
Joshua. Even though it was a common name in Israel, God
bestowed it on Jesus at his birth because its meaning—
“Yahweh is salvation”—reveals what Yahweh will accomplish
through him. And because Jesus remained “obedient unto

death, even death on a cross,” Yahweh soon exalted his name
“Jesus” above every other name such that at his name every
knee shall bow, to Yahweh’s glory. Yahweh is glorified
because, among other reasons, it was through Jesus’ death and
resurrection that God has become our salvation (“Behold,
God is my salvation; I will trust and not be afraid,” Isaiah
12:2).
Jesus as the exalted Lord

The bestowing of the name above every name in Philippians
is an event that took place after Jesus’ death and resurrection.
That is why prior to his death and resurrection, Jesus was not
called “Lord” except in the following three senses:
1. A polite and respectful way of addressing Jesus, equiva-

lent to “Sir” or “Mister” (Mt.8:6,8,21; 15:22, 25,27;
Jn.4:11,15,19,49; etc.)
2. Jesus as a teacher or rabbi, with disciples and followers
under him (Jn.6:68; 13:13,14).
3. Indirect reference to Jesus as Lord by way of a NT quot-
ation of the OT such as, “The LORD said to my Lord”
(Mt.22:44, a quotation of Psalm 110:1; the first “Lord”
refers to Yahweh, the second to Christ).
The title “Lord” applied to Jesus prior to his death and

resurrection does not carry the same exalted sense as “Lord”
applied to him after his resurrection, as can be confirmed by
checking the word kyrios (Lord) in a concordance or a Bible

program. It will soon be apparent that the title “Lord” as ap-
plied to Jesus before his resurrection is fundamentally differ-
ent from that after.
In Acts, Jesus is called “Lord” in the exalted sense of
Phil.2:9 (“the name that is above every name”). Peter is so
ecstatic about this in his preaching that he bursts out with the
declaration “he is Lord of all” in the middle of a sentence
(Acts 10:36). Because this joyous outburst disrupts the flow
of the sentence, it is enclosed in parentheses in most translat-
ions. In the New Testament after the book of Acts, Jesus is
spoken of as Lord in this exalted sense.
Surprisingly, “Lord” in the exalted sense of Phil.2:9 is
never applied to Jesus in John’s Gospel, and only once in the
entire corpus of John’s writings (Rev.17:14). But in the
ordinary sense of “Sir,” the word kyrios (Lord) is used of Jesus
in John’s Gospel by: the Samaritan woman (Jn.4:11,15,19);
an official whose son is sick (4:49); a lame man by the Sheep
Gate (5:7); an adulterous woman (8:11); Mary (11:32); and
Martha (11:27). Jesus’ disciples addressed him as “Lord” in
the sense of “teacher” (Jn.6:68; 13:13,14).
The fact that in John’s writings Jesus is almost never add-
ressed as “Lord” in the exalted sense of Phil.2:9 is all the more
remarkable because the Johannine writings make up a signifi-
cant proportion of the NT. By contrast, a short letter like
Jude, which has only 25 verses, refers to Jesus as “Lord” four
times in the exalted sense. One can only wonder why John
avoids applying to Jesus the title “Lord” in the exalted sense,
this being all the more puzzling because the Johannine liter-
ature is regarded by trinitarians as espousing a high Christ-

ology. This surprising fact should determine our understand-
ing of John 20:28.
The title “Lord God” is not found in John’s Gospel or his
letters, yet it occurs eight times in Revelation, all referring in-
stead to the “LORD God” (Yahweh God) of the Old Testa-
ment (Rev.1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7; 18:8; 21:22; 22:5).
An example of “Lord” referring to Yahweh is Revelation
11:15: “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom
of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign for ever and
ever.” Here “Lord” clearly refers to Yahweh (LORD), not to
Christ, and the same could be said of “he” in “he will reign
forever and ever”. Not only is Yahweh the subject of this verse
and of the remaining verses in the chapter, a clear distinction
of persons is being made here between God on the one hand
and Christ on the other.
As trinitarians we overlooked the distinction between the
ordinary and the exalted senses of “Lord” because we regarded
Jesus as God the Son, and took any reference to Jesus as
“Lord” in the divine sense. This prevented us from seeing that
if Jesus is indeed God, he would already have “a name that is
above every name”. What sort of glorification could the
Father have given him by bestowing on him something that
he had already had as God?
But in the Bible, the man Christ Jesus was elevated not to
coequality with Yahweh but to sit at His right hand, a posit-
ion second only to Yahweh’s in the universe. Yet we felt that
this wasn’t good enough for “God the Son” whom we re-
garded as coequal with the Father in every respect even prior
to his exaltation. The fact is that trinitarians have already

exalted Jesus to so high a position that no further elevation is
possible! To be granted a place at the Father’s right hand is
actually a demotion from Jesus’ position of trinitarian coequal-
ity. The king’s right hand is the highest place of honor and a
place where a queen would sit (Ps.45:9; 1Ki.2:19), but it is
not a place equal to that of the king himself. The position at
his left hand is accorded less honor than that at his right
hand, but it is still a seat of great honor because of its
proximity to the king (Mt.20:21,23).
That Jesus is seated at God’s right hand is a prominent
theme in the New Testament, as seen in the following verses
among many other verses 132 (all quoted from ESV):
Romans 8:34 Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than
that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who
indeed is interceding for us.
Colossians 3:1 If then you have been raised with Christ, seek
the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right
hand of God.
Hebrews 8:1 we have such a high priest, one who is seated at

the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven.
Hebrews 10:12 But when Christ had offered for all time a
single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God
132
Mt.22:44; 26:64; Mk.12:36; 14:62; Lk.20:42; 22:69; Acts
2:33,34; 5:31; 7:55,56; Rom.8:34; Eph.1:20; Col.3:1; Heb.1:3,13; 8:1;
10:12; 12:2; 1Pet.3:22.
1 Peter 3:22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand
of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been sub-
jected to him.
The exaltation of Jesus has already taken place in history

(the words “exalted” and “bestowed” in Phil.2:9 are in the
aorist). In his exalted position over the world, Jesus must
reign until he has put all of God’s enemies under subjection
(1Cor.15:25-28). We join this battle by bringing every lofty
thing into subjection to Christ (2Cor.10:4-5). Christ funct-
ions as God’s visible representative, hence the subtitle of this
book: “The Glory of God in the Face of Jesus Christ” (2Cor.
4:6). This helps us to understand the following passage:
… he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right
hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority
and power and dominion, and above every name that is
named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And
he (God) put all things under his feet and gave him as head
over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness
of him who fills all in all. (Ephesians 1:20-23)
Yahweh has placed a man—a true human being—at the

pinnacle of all creation by seating him at His own right hand.
He has bestowed on Jesus, the perfect man, a position above
all created beings at the apex of the universe. It reminds us of
the wonderful words, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard,
nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for
those who love him” (1Cor.2:9, a quotation of Isa.64:4).
Jesus, God’s plenipotentiary

The elevation of Jesus to a position over everyone else, even
lords and kings, means that God has made him “Lord of
lords”. Revelation 17:14 says, “They will wage war against the
Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of
lords and King of kings.” The title “Lord of lords” is also
applied to Yahweh (1Tim.6:15; cf. v.16; Psa.136:3; Dt.
10:17).
Yahweh has made Christ His plenipotentiary and repre-
sentative invested with His supreme and universal authority,
and has put everything in subjection to him (the following
verses are from ESV):
Psalm 8:6 You have given him dominion over the works of
your hands; you have put all things under his feet
Matthew 11:27 “All things have been handed over to me by

my Father”
Matthew 28:18 “All authority in heaven and on earth has

been given to me.”
John 3:35 “The Father loves the Son and has given all things
into his hand” (also 13:3)
Hebrews 2:5-8 Now it was not to angels that God subjected

the world to come, of which we are speaking. It has been
testified somewhere (Psalm 8:4-6), “What is man, that you
are mindful of him, or the son of man, that you care for
him? You made him for a little while lower than the angels;
you have crowned him with glory and honor, putting every-
thing in subjection under his feet.” Now in putting every-

thing in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his
control.
It was not to angels but to man (also called “son of man”)

that God subjected all things. As trinitarians we didn’t see the
wonderful extent of God’s love for a man, so we ascribed the
rule over all things to a non-existent person called “God the
Son” who is found nowhere in the Bible. Ironically, the rule
and authority that we trinitarians ascribed to the non-existent
trinitarian Jesus is, in Scripture, conferred on the biblical
Jesus (all verses from ESV):
Colossians 2:10 [Christ] is the head of all rule and authority
1 Peter 3:22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand
of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been
subjected to him.
1 Corinthians 15:27-28 For “God has put all things in subject-

ion under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in
subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in
subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him,
then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all
things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.
Daniel 7:13-14 I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the
clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he
came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.
And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom,
that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his
dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass

away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.
Jesus Comes in Yahweh’s Name

The following verses, one from the OT and five from the
NT, contain the well-known words, “Blessed is he who comes
in the name of Yahweh (or the LORD),” an exclamation of
praise that originally appeared in Psalm 118:26. In the
following verses, we replace “the Lord” with “Yahweh” to
conform to the Hebrew of Psalm 118:26, in which are rooted
the five NT verses:
Psalm 118:26 Blessed is he who comes in the name of Yahweh!
We bless you from the house of Yahweh.
Matthew 21:9 And the crowds that went before him and that
followed him were shouting, “Hosanna to the Son of David!
Blessed is he who comes in the name of Yahweh! Hosanna in
the highest!”
Mark 11:9 Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of

Yahweh!
John 12:13 So they took branches of palm trees and went out
to meet him, crying out, “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes
in the name of Yahweh, even the King of Israel!”
Matthew 23:39 For I tell you, you will not see me again, until
you say, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of Yahweh.”
Luke 13:35 Behold, your house is forsaken. And I tell you, you
will not see me until you say, “Blessed is he who comes in the
name of Yahweh!”
In John’s Gospel, Jesus repeatedly says that he comes not

by his own initiative and authority, but had been sent by the
Father (“I came not of my own accord, but he sent me,”
Jn.8:42; cf. 5:36-38; 8:16-18; 10:36; 12:49). He comes in
Yahweh’s name, not in his own name, which is to say that he
does not act on his own authority but does all things as
Yahweh’s representative.
The authority of the Name

What is the link between Jesus’ coming in his Father’s name
and the Father’s bestowing on him the name above every
name (Phil.2:9)? As we have seen, Jesus’ name has not been
changed to “Yahweh” which in any case cannot be given to
someone else insofar as a name identifies a person and insofar
as there is only one Yahweh (Dt.6:4). In fact Jesus retains his
own name “Jesus” but it is now invested with the authority of
Yahweh’s Name. As Yahweh’s representative, Jesus is the
bearer of Yahweh’s Name even though he keeps his own
identity as Jesus.
There is an Old Testament parallel to this: the angel who
was appointed by Yahweh to lead the Israelites through the
wilderness to the land of promise. Yahweh says of this angel
that “My Name is in him”:
Behold, I send an angel before you to guard you on the way

and to bring you to the place that I have prepared. Pay
careful attention to him and obey his voice; do not rebel
against him, for he will not pardon your transgression, for
my name is in him.” (Exodus 23:20-21, ESV)
This angel has the authority to pardon or not to pardon, and

therefore has the power of life and death, for he is the bearer
of Yahweh’s Name. Although he bears Yahweh’s Name and is
invested with His authority, the angel was not worshipped by
the Israelites.
Another parallel is seen in the story of Pharaoh and
Joseph. Pharaoh, by placing his signet ring (which bore his
name and emblem) on Joseph’s hand, made Joseph the bearer
of his name and authority. It does not mean that Joseph
could now be called Pharaoh (he is still called Joseph) but
that he could now act with Pharaoh’s full authority:
38
And Pharaoh said to his servants, “Can we find a man like
this, in whom is the Spirit of God?” 39 Then Pharaoh said to
Joseph, “Since God has shown you all this, there is none so
discerning and wise as you are. 40 You shall be over my house,
and all my people shall order themselves as you command.
Only as regards the throne will I be greater than you.” 41 And
Pharaoh said to Joseph, “See, I have set you over all the land
of Egypt.” 42 Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his
hand and put it on Joseph’s hand, and clothed him in gar-
ments of fine linen and put a gold chain about his neck. 43
And he made him ride in his second chariot. And they called
out before him, “Bow the knee!” Thus he set him over all the
land of Egypt. 44 Moreover, Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I am
Pharaoh, and without your consent no one shall lift up hand

or foot in all the land of Egypt.” (Genesis 41:38-44, ESV)
The similarities between this story and Philippians 2:9-11

are striking, even down to the command that everyone shall
“bow the knee” when Joseph rides in a chariot called
Pharaoh’s “second chariot” (v.43). By Pharaoh’s command,
everyone in Egypt must submit to Joseph’s authority
(vv.40,44). But the throne, the emblem of supreme authority
over all Egypt, remained with Pharaoh: “Only as regards the
throne will I be greater than you” (v.40; cf. Jn.14:28, “the
Father is greater than I”). Joseph was second only to Pharaoh
in the land of Egypt, which was a great country at that time.
To obey Jesus is to obey Yahweh, not because Jesus (or the
angel in Ex. 23:20) is God, but because Jesus is the bearer of
Yahweh’s Name. Likewise, to love Jesus is to love Yahweh.
The more we love Jesus (not the Jesus of trinitarianism but
Yahweh’s Christ, the anointed man), the more we will love
Yahweh. To live for Christ the bearer of Yahweh’s Name is to
live for Yahweh. To receive Jesus is to receive Yahweh who
sent him (Mt.10:40; Jn.13:20). To reject Jesus is to reject
Yahweh (Lk.10:16). If we are Jesus’ disciples who follow his
teaching, notably his explicit monotheism (Mk.12:28-29;
Jn.5:44; 17:3) which is enshrined in the first commandment,
then those who reject us reject Jesus and ultimately reject
Yahweh.
Yahweh raised Jesus from the dead and exalted him to His
right hand. Jesus was given a position in heaven and on earth
second only to Yahweh Himself. God has made a human be-
ing—the second man and the last Adam (1Cor.15:47,45)—

second to Himself in the whole universe!
Yahweh will rule the universe through Jesus Christ. He has
empowered Jesus to rule in His Name, giving him all author-
ity in heaven and on earth (Mt.28:18). “All things have been
committed to me by my Father” (Lk. 10:22, cf. Mt.11:27);
“He has put everything under his feet” (1Cor. 15:27).
Jesus has nothing that came from himself, for everything
that he possesses had been given to him by God his Father.
God has given Jesus everything that Jesus needs to rule as the
Messiah-King over all the kingdoms of the earth, and to reign
until he has put under subjection every power opposed to
God. When all that has been done, Jesus himself will be
subject to Yahweh so that “God will be all in all”:
When all things are subjected to him (Jesus), then the Son
himself will also be subjected to him (God) who put all
things in subjection under him (Jesus), that God may be all
in all. (1Corinthians 15:28, ESV)
The word “subjected” is a passive of hupotassō, which

BDAG defines as “to be in a submissive relationship, to
subject, to subordinate”. Here we see the subordination of the
Son to the Father, which is a common teaching in the New
Testament, including Jesus’ own teaching, and which was the
standard teaching of the early church prior to Nicaea. Jesus’
whole life was governed by the desire to do the Father’s will,
not his own (Jn.5:30; 6:38; 4:34; Rom.15:3; Heb.10:7,9, cf.
Ps.40:7,8).
Chapter 11
Further Reflections
on Trinitarianism
M y earlier book, The Only True God, dealt with the

subject of biblical monotheism, and for the most part
in contradistinction to trinitarianism. Much of what I have to
say about trinitarianism has already been covered in that book
and in the earlier chapters of the present book, notably those
on the four pillars of trinitarianism. In this chapter, I reflect
on a few more things about trinitarian teaching.
How long did it take for the church to move from

true monotheism to pagan polytheism?
Scholars speak of the “parting of the ways” between the
church and Judaism as being around A.D.135, that is, around
the time of Bar Kochba’s failed revolt against Roman rule, a
tragic uprising that had received the blessing of the famous
rabbi Akiba. But this “parting of the ways” is basically a
historically convenient way of referring to the separation of
the church from Judaism, the tragic result of which was that
the church would soon lose its connection to its Jewish roots,
notably the Jewish commitment to monotheism.
But well before that separation, pagan polytheism had
already begun to influence the message of the gospel almost as
soon as the gospel had landed on pagan soil. Early signs of
this process are seen in the book of Acts. In the early stages of
their gospel ministry, Paul and Barnabas were adhering to the
principle of “to the Jews first”. But when the Jews rejected
their message, they declared to them that from then on, they
will proclaim the gospel to the Gentiles (13:46). Yet in 14:1
we find them preaching to the Jews again, this time in a
synagogue in Iconium. Their preaching elicited such hostility
from both Jews and Gentiles that Paul and Barnabas had to
flee to Lystra (14:5-6). There in Lystra, Paul healed a man
who had been lame from birth (v.10). The healing drew the
attention of the people but not of the kind that Paul wel-
comed, for the people were soon rushing out to worship
Barnabas as Zeus and Paul as Hermes (v.12).
Zeus is no minor god. The Greeks revered him as the
father of gods whereas Hermes was believed to have healing
powers. 133 Barnabas was evidently the older looking of the
two and probably wore a full beard that made him look like
the Zeus portrayed on coins and statues. Hermes, on the
other hand, was usually pictured as beardless, and this evid-
ently matched Paul’s appearance. Even the priest of the tem-
133
See Wikipedia articles “Zeus” and “Hermes” for masterly dis-
cussions on these two well-known Greek gods.
Chapter 11 — Further Reflections on Trinitarianism 557
ple of Zeus believed that Barnabas was Zeus, and came out to
offer him a sacrifice (v.13)!
The point is this: The Gentiles of the city of Lystra,
located in modern-day southern Turkey, were more than will-
ing to deify Barnabas and Paul, and to worship them as gods.
We can now see why Gentiles would later in history so readily
deify Jesus and believe in him as God. The events in Lystra
took place even before the council of the apostles (Acts 15)
held in Jerusalem around the year 60, some 30 years after
Jesus’ earthly ministry. It therefore comes as no surprise that
by the end of the second century, the leaders of the western
church were already proclaiming Jesus as God.134
The official deification of Jesus did not come until the
fourth century, probably because for a long time the Jews
were still a considerable force in the churches of the major
cities such as Rome, and were still a strong voice for mono-
theism. They were a declining majority and later minority in
the churches, yet they could not be ignored. By the end of the
third or the start of the fourth century, the Jews were no
longer a voice for monotheism in the western churches, hence
the bold assertions of Christian pagan polytheism as repre-
sented in the Nicene creed of 325 and the Niceno-
Constantinopolitan creed of 381. While holding to a token
134
Examples of the early deification of Jesus in the second century:
“Yet, nevertheless, He is God, in that He is the First-Begotten of all
creatures” (Justin Martyr, c.160); “God was put to death” (Melito,
c.170); “He is God, for the name Emmanuel indicates this” (Irenaeus,
c.180). A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, pp.94,95, ed. David W.
Bercot.
and nominal monotheism, these creeds were in reality pro-

mulgating a distortion of Biblical monotheism.
Anachronistic use of “God the Son”

It was not until the Council of Nicaea of 325 that Jesus was
officially declared to be coequal with God the Father. Hence
it was only after Nicaea that Jesus could be spoken formally as
“God the Son,” a reversal of the biblical “Son of God”.
Therefore applying the term “God the Son” to any period
before Nicaea would be anachronistic. Furthermore, it was
not until half a century later, in 381, that the Holy Spirit was
declared to be coequal with the Father and the Son by the
bishops at the First Council of Constantinople summoned by
another Roman emperor, Theodosius I, who in addition de-
creed that trinitarian Christianity be the sole religion of the
Roman Empire. Since trinitarianism was not formally and
officially established until 381, applying the term “trinity” to
the New Testament is likewise anachronistic.
What does this mean for our study of the New Testament
Jesus? Any attempt to do a comparative study of the biblical
Christ vis-à-vis the trinitarian Christ who wasn’t even heard
of in the time of the New Testament, having come into
official existence some 300 years later, would be an absurd
exercise in anachronism. What is the basis for comparing the
Christ of the NT with the deified Christ of the western
Hellenistic church some 300 years later? How can a Christ
who was fabricated centuries after the NT be legitimately
compared with the wonderful and unique Christ revealed in

the NT?
What we did as trinitarians, including myself for many de-
cades, was to search for some legitimation or justification for
the trinitarian Christ of a later century, in the New Testament.
But the New Testament “evidence” that we pressed into
service for supporting the much later trinitarian model of
Christ proved to be so meager and exegetically untenable that
I now feel conscience-bound to declare publicly that the
trinitarian Christ is biblically false. Trinitarians constantly
harp on the same few proof texts such as John 1:1-18, Philip-
pians 2:6-11, and what little else in the New Testament they
can fall back on.
It is time that we recognize, though this may be hard for
those of us who have zealously promoted trinitarianism for
much of our lives, that trinitarian doctrine is simply false and,
even worse, has concealed the glory of the biblical Christ in
such a way that it could put our salvation at risk.
Another injurious effect of trinitarian dogma is that it has
sidelined, marginalized, and practically eliminated the one
true God of the Bible to the extent that most Christians don’t
know who Yahweh is. By contrast, when a Jew speaks of God
as Adonai, he is aware that he is referring to YHWH. He may
be unsure of the exact pronunciation of YHWH but he
knows that the four letters of the Tetragrammaton represent
the name of the one true God. But the Christian has no idea
of who the Father is, for in trinitarianism, God the Father is
not the one and only God, but is one of three persons in the
Godhead, and therefore has a vague and largely unknown

identity.
Why a triplicate God?

What sense does it make to have God in triplicate? The God
revealed in the Bible is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent,
and eternal. Then trinitarians came along and declared that
there are three such persons. No, they declared two, then
three. This took place early in church history because of the
polytheistic influence of the Greeks and Romans who wor-
shipped many gods. By their polytheistic standards, Jesus is
eminently qualified to be a god. So in Nicaea in 325, they
officially deified him. Up to that point in time, the church as
a whole had managed with having one divine person—God
—but now they had two. A few decades later, they realized
that they had omitted “God the Spirit,” so at Constantinople
they included the Spirit as a third divine person. Notice that
it was a decision made by a council! So we are talking about
man-made gods who are not gods in Scripture.
What is the point of deifying the one called “the man
Christ Jesus” (1Tim.2:5)? If God is omnipotent, omniscient,
omnipresent, and eternal, what difference does it make to
have two such persons, much less three? If one is omnipotent,
God is already omnipotent. If one is omniscient, the other
two won’t know anything beyond what the first already
knows. If one is omnipresent, the other two cannot be at a
place where the first is not. As for omnipotence, what differ-
ence does it make to have one or two or three? Multiplying
omnipotence by three equals omnipotence; multiplying infin-

ity by three equals infinity.
That the church had managed without an official second
or third person until the 4th century raises a few questions. If
the church had been managing without the two additional
persons, why were they added in the first place? And if the
church could add a person to the Godhead as it wishes by
decree, what in principle would prevent another from being
added in the future? The one who comes to mind is the
Virgin Mary who in Catholicism is worshipped by many and
is known as the Mediatrix just as Christ is the Mediator. 135
With the rising status of women in modern society, the clam-
oring for the inclusion of a woman in the Godhead might not
be farfetched.
The theological basis for adding a female divine person
might be found in James D.G. Dunn’s comment (NIGTC,
Col.1:16) that Sophia (wisdom) is a principle equivalent to
Logos (word) insofar as they are the means by which the
universe came into being (cf. Proverbs 8 and Philo’s De
135
Most non-Catholics are unaware of the high status of the title
Mediatrix. It is competently explained in the Wikipedia article
“Mediatrix”: “The title Mediatrix is used in Roman Catholic Mariology
to refer to the intercessory role of the Virgin Mary as a mediator in the
salvific redemption by her son Jesus Christ, and that he bestows graces
through her.” The same article cites a statement on the “Mediatrix of
Mercy” made by Pope John Paul II: “Thus there is a mediation: Mary
places herself between her Son and mankind in the reality of their
wants, needs and sufferings. She puts herself in the middle, that is to
say she acts as a mediatrix, not as an outsider, but in her position as
mother.”
Cherubim). If the Logos could be deified, and indeed has been

deified, why not Sophia? Could she not also be of the
substance of God? If trinitarians see no problems with having
two gods and later three gods called persons, why should there
be a problem with having a fourth? In any case, many
Catholics already worship Mary. Already since ancient times,
churches have been built for her. If she is de facto an object of
worship, the next “logical” step would be to deify her, which
is in fact what many Catholics have done even if official
Catholic doctrine has not gone that far. Thus trinitarianism
moves inexorably from one error to another. It has eliminated
the one true God, Yahweh, and replaced Him in stages by
other gods who are called “persons”.
The trinitarian brand of “monotheism” has one God in
triplicate. But if the one and the three are coequal, there
would be no real difference between them except in name and
function. To have one is to have all. Giving a different name
to each person changes nothing in reality. What advantage do
trinitarians have with their three gods, or three who are each
fully God, over the one true God of the Bible? None what-
soever! Worse, they have misrepresented the glorious God as
revealed in the Scriptures. What they teach is a lie about the
living God, the creator of all things, and they will have to
answer for it on the day of judgment.
But the situation is even more dire for mankind’s
salvation. Trinitarianism has three persons in one God who
are coequal, coeternal, and immortal. How then can “God the
Son” die for our sins if he is immortal? In trinitarian dogma,
God the Son took on Jesus’ human body by incarnation, yet
in the teaching that prevailed at early trinitarian councils, the

human spirit of Jesus was effectively that of God the Son
(even if it is said to be “human”), supposedly resulting in one
who is true God and true man. But a true man cannot simply
be a human body without a true and independent human
spirit. The trinitarian reason for rejecting an independent
human spirit in Jesus is that if it existed, there would be two
persons in Jesus, a notion that even trinitarians agree would
be untenable. (It is also an admission that Jesus’ body alone or
his human nature alone does not make a person, otherwise
the two natures would mean two persons in Christ.) Hence
trinitarianism does not allow the human part of Jesus to have
a true human spirit. But a human body without a true human
spirit cannot atone for our sins. Adam and Eve’s sin was not
committed primarily by the body but by the heart and mind.
Since the trinitarian Jesus is not a true man but is “God
the Son” who, being God, is immortal, how could he die for
man’s sins? Thus trinitarianism leaves man without salvation,
without the forgiveness of sin, without the hope of eternal
life. This is the wretched truth about trinitarianism. The issue
that confronts us is not just a debate over doctrine but a
matter of eternal life and eternal death.
If there is any trinity in the New Testament, it would be
the unholy trinity of the dragon (Satan), the beast, and the
false prophet (Rev.16:13; 20:10). Coming out of the mouths
of the unholy trinity are three unclean spirits (Rev.16:13)
who form their own unholy trinity; these spirits are described
as “demonic spirits” who have the power to perform impress-
ive signs. Their power is so great that they are able to
convince the world leaders to fight the Almighty God at

Armageddon (16:14,16). United in force and purpose, they
wage war against the one true God Yahweh. The fact that the
only trinity in the Bible is the unholy trinity, reveals the
depth and scale of the trinitarian deception.
Trinitarians constantly search for any scrap of evidence for
the deity of Christ, yet all they really need is one or preferably
two incontrovertible and unambiguous statements from the
Bible such as “Jesus Christ is God from everlasting to ever-
lasting” or “Jesus is the only true God” or “Jesus is the eternal
God of Israel” or “Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob” or “Christ Jesus is Yahweh God” or “Truly, truly, I say
to you, I am the second divine person of the triune God-
head,” and that would have settled the matter. But the solid
fact is that there are no such statements about Jesus, yet there
are hundreds and hundreds of such statements about Yahweh
God (except, of course, the last statement about the triune
Godhead). Why don’t we see this fact? If facts don’t matter,
then something else must be motivating trinitarian doctrine.
What is it that causes us to reject the plain teaching of Script-
ure? Perhaps it is spiritual blindness, or a blind loyalty to a
tradition which we have been taught and which we uphold
even at the cost of nullifying God’s word (cf. Mt.15:3,6;
Mk.7:9,13).
Trinitarian errors in regard to the Holy Spirit

From what Father John L. McKenzie, a trinitarian, admits
about trinitarianism—namely, that the trinitarian terms used
of God are Greek philosophical terms rather than biblical
terms, and that terms such as “essence” and “substance” were
“erroneously” applied to God by the early theologians—it is
clear that the God of trinitarianism is not the God of the
Bible. When trinitarians speak of God, they are not talking
about the one true God of the Bible but a trinity of three
coequal persons whose existence cannot be found in the Old
or New Testament except by twisting a few Scripture verses.
In trinitarianism, God the Father is the first person of the
Trinity whereas in the Bible, He is the one and only God
whose name is Yahweh (rendered LORD in most Bibles). The
only person in the Trinity who has a name is the second
person, Jesus Christ, also called “God the Son” (an inversion
of the biblical “Son of God”). The name “Jesus” in Hebrew
means “Yahweh saves” or “Yahweh is salvation,” yet the bib-
lical Yahweh has no place in trinitarianism! Who is Yahweh?
Some have gone so far as to say that Jesus is Yahweh. But this
would mean that Jesus is God to the exclusion of the Father,
for there is no God besides Yahweh: “I am Yahweh, and there
is no other, besides me there is no God” (Isa.45:5).
The trinitarian distortion of words extends to the word
“spirit”. In trinitarianism, the Holy Spirit is the third person.
But since “God is spirit” (John 4:24), where is the necessity of
positing a third person called “God the Spirit” (yet another
title not found in Scripture)? Paul doesn’t think of the Spirit
of God as a separate divine person but as the very spirit of

God Himself:
For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that
person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the
thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. (1Cor.2:11, ESV)
Paul is saying that “the Spirit of God” relates to the person

of God in the same way that the human spirit relates to the
human person. For this verse, most Bibles (ESV, NASB,
NIV, NJB, HCSB) capitalize “Spirit” in “Spirit of God,” in-
dicating that they take this as a reference to the Holy Spirit,
the third person of the Trinity. If this is the case, then,
according to Paul, God’s thoughts would be hidden from the
other two persons in the Trinity—God the Father and God
the Son—for Paul specifically says that no one knows God’s
thoughts except the Spirit of God! But the problem disap-
pears once we understand that the Holy Spirit is the very
spirit of God, just as the human spirit is the very spirit of a
human being.
We need to be aware that the Bible uses the word “spirit”
in several related senses. But when portrayed in personal
terms, the Holy Spirit is not a third person distinct from God
the Father, but is the Spirit of the Father, as seen in the
following parallel which is highlighted in boldface:
… do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say, but say
whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who
speak, but the Holy Spirit. (Mk.13:11, ESV)
… do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are

to say, for what you are to say will be given to you in that
hour. For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your
Father speaking through you. (Mt.10:19-20, ESV)
This vital connection between the Father and the Spirit is

also brought out in an important verse, John 15:26, in which
Jesus speaks of “the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the
Father” (or “goes out from the Father,” NIV). In the Greek,
“proceeds” is in the present continuous tense, a nuance that is
captured in the Complete Jewish Bible (“the Spirit of Truth,
who keeps going out from the Father”). Hence the Father is
the constant source of the Spirit much like a fountain is a
constant source of water (cf. Jn.7:38-39, a passage which
speaks of the Spirit as “rivers of living water”). It means that
the Spirit has no independent existence apart from the Father
who is constantly sending forth the Spirit. Jesus doesn’t say
that the Spirit goes out from “God” but from “the Father”.
Hence there is no biblical basis for the trinitarian assertion
that “God the Spirit” is ontologically a separate person from
God the Father.
The Old Testament often depicts the Spirit as God’s
power in action, e.g., Zech.4:6 (“not by might nor by power,
but by my Spirit, says Yahweh of hosts”) and Micah 3:8 (“I
am filled with power, with the Spirit of Yahweh”). This fact is
known to many trinitarian scholars.136 The New Testament
136
Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (1984), article Holy Spirit, says:
“In the OT the spirit of the Lord (ruach yhwh; LXX, to pneuma kyriou)
is generally an expression for God’s power, the extension of himself
whereby he carries out many of his mighty deeds.”
often portrays the Holy Spirit in terms of God’s power.137 Je-

sus himself functioned “in the power of the Spirit” (Lk.4:14).
The trinitarian Jesus is “another Jesus”

Trinitarianism distorts biblical terms (e.g., by inverting the
biblical “Son of God” into the unbiblical “God the Son”) and
borrows terms from philosophy and theosophy (e.g.,
homoousios, a term from Gnosticism). It is not surprising,
therefore, that trinitarian teaching is of a different spirit from
Biblical teaching, and that the trinitarian Jesus is of a different
spirit from the New Testament Jesus.
Having a “different spirit” is something that the Bible
attaches great importance to, and it can be a good thing or a
bad thing. It is a good thing if the different spirit is different
from the ways of the world, and a bad thing if different from
the ways of God. In the positive sense of the term, Yahweh
says, “But my servant Caleb… has a different spirit and has
followed me fully” (Num.14:24). In the negative sense, Paul
speaks of a “different spirit” in connection with “a different
gospel” and “another Jesus”:
For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the
one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from
the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from
the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.
(2Cor.11:4, ESV)
137
Lk.1:35; 4:14; Acts 1:8; 10:38; Rom.15:13,19; 1Cor.2:4; Eph.
3:16; 1Th.1:5.
Why were the Corinthians so susceptible to accepting

“another Jesus” that they would put up with the deception so
“readily”? Here the Greek for “another” means “different in
kind” (BDAG, allos).
We see an even worse situation in the Galatian church—
worse because what was dangerously imminent among the
Corinthians had already become a reality among the
Galatians (Gal.1:6-9). They were deserting God and turning
to a different gospel: “I am astonished that you are so quickly
deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are
turning to a different gospel” (v.6). Evidently this hadn’t yet
happened in Corinth but only in Galatia, hence the triple if
in 2 Corinthians 11:4. But Paul foresaw that if and when a
different Christ is preached among the Corinthians, they
would accept him as readily as had the Galatians. It is
something that could happen to any church over time. Paul’s
concern over this is expressed in the word “afraid” in verse 3:
2 Corinthians 11:2-3 2
For I feel a divine jealousy for you,
since I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a
pure virgin to Christ. 3 But I am afraid that as the serpent
deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray
from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.” (ESV)
Paul sees the Corinthians as a church betrothed to Christ that

is on the brink of turning away from him. It is a warning that
applies not only to the church in Corinth but to the universal
church of God, for it too is betrothed to Christ. The church
in Corinth, like the seven churches in Revelation, is a repres-
entative church in the Bible. In Paul’s analogy, Eve is parallel
to the church, the bride of Christ, and Adam is parallel to

Jesus, whom Paul calls the last Adam a few chapters later
(1Cor.15:45).
Paul’s dire statement about the church in Corinth was
eventually fulfilled in Christendom as a whole. As might be
foreseen in the statement, “you put up with it easily,” the
serpent’s deception eventually became a reality among the
Gentile believers in Christendom. Paul’s fear that what had
happened to Eve might also happen to the church at large was
prophetic. The final outcome was inescapable given that the
Corinthians were so inclined to put up with a different
Christ, a different spirit, and a different gospel. If that was
already true in Paul’s time, how much more so a century later
when Gentile believers began to outnumber Jewish believers
(the true monotheists), reducing them to a small minority?
Why did the Corinthians and the Galatians so readily
accept a different Christ, a different gospel, and a different
spirit (that is, different from the Spirit of Yahweh) from those
Paul had preached to them? Was it not because they, like Eve,
had allowed themselves to be deceived by the cunning of “the
serpent” (Satan) and to be led “astray” (v.3)?
Something must have convinced them that the different
Jesus was better than the one Paul had preached to them.
Given the pagan background of most Gentile believers (who,
in Paul’s time, were a sizable minority in the churches outside
Palestine, e.g., Corinth in Greece and Galatia in Asia), this
could prove to be easier than expected. As for the Galatians,
Paul was “astonished” at how quickly they were deserting
God who had called them, and were turning to another
gospel—a gospel that, like the different Jesus, is different in

essence. Paul saw that the Galatians had apostatized and that
the Corinthians were going the same way. Apostasy is princi-
pally a sign of the last days, yet it was a reality as early as 30
years after Jesus’ earthly life (cf. Hebrews 6:4-6; 10:26-31).
Many equate the act of deserting God with abandoning
the Christian faith to become an atheist or agnostic, but that
is not what we see here. In Galatians 1:6, “deserting him who
called you” is defined as “turning to a different gospel” and
accepting “another Jesus” (2Cor. 11:4). It shows that those
who desert God would usually remain religious and not be-
come atheists.
We don’t know the specifics of this different Jesus apart
from his being the central figure of a different gospel. Since
the Galatians had turned to this other Jesus, they would have
some idea of what he was. The same could be said of the
Corinthians who found this different Jesus more appealing
than the one Paul had preached to them. In the case of the
Corinthians, we can, from hindsight and from looking back
at church history, surmise that this different Jesus, in contrast
to the biblical Jesus, was probably a divine being because the
divinity of persons was something that appealed strongly to
the Gentile mindset. If the Roman emperors could be
worshipped as gods, why not Jesus? In fact, within a hundred
years after Paul, a divine Jesus was being boldly preached in
the Gentile world.
Putting one’s faith in a different Jesus means a change of
allegiance, commitment, and loyalty. Paul was astonished that
the Galatians were “deserting” God who had called them in
the grace of Christ (Gal.1:6). The Greek word for “desert-

ing,” metatithēmi, is defined by BDAG as “to have a change
of mind in allegiance, change one’s mind, turn away, desert”.
Paul feared that just as Eve was deceived by Satan, so the
church will be led away from a pure and sincere devotion to
Christ. To grasp the deception, we need to see its content.
What is the nature of the deception of Eve by Satan the
“serpent”? To answer this question, we look at the Genesis
account of the temptation. Here is Yahweh’s command to
Adam:
And Yahweh God commanded the man, saying, “You are
free to eat of every tree in the garden, but of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day
that you eat of it you shall surely die.” (Genesis 2:16-17)
In the next chapter is Eve’s recounting of what God had said

about the fruit of the tree, and the serpent’s reply to her:
And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit
of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of
the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither
shall you touch it, lest you die.’” But the serpent said to the
woman, “You will not surely die.” (Genesis 3:2-4, ESV)
Satan flatly contradicted God’s declaration “you will surely

die” with the counter-declaration “you will not surely die,”
forcing Eve to choose between two conflicting statements,
and between believing God and believing Satan. In the end
she chose to believe Satan!
More than that, in choosing to believe Satan, Eve was

implying that God was withholding something good from her
that Satan wanted her to have. “For God knows that when
you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like
God, knowing good and evil” (Gen.3:5). The serpent
switched between the physical and the spiritual, knowing that
Adam and Eve will not die physically, at least not right away.
What was Satan’s bait? “You will be like God”. But
weren’t Adam and Eve already created in God’s image? Yes,
but Eve wanted to “grasp” for something greater: equality
with God. By contrast, it is said of Jesus in Philippians 2:6
that he did not consider equality with God a thing to be
“grasped,” an action word that might describe the plucking of
fruit from a tree. Equality with God is much more than
having the “form of God” (Jesus) or being created in the
“image of God” (Adam). Adam and Eve wanted to gain the
knowledge (“the tree of the knowledge of good and evil”) that
would make them “like God” at a deeper level. Hence the
fundamental allure of the temptation is the deification of man,
and this gives us some idea of the nature of “another Jesus”.
Adam, unlike Eve, was not deceived (1Tim.2:14). What
could this mean but that Adam deliberately grasped for
equality with God? In contrast to this rebellious act is Christ’s
attitude described in Phil.2:6 (“did not regard equality with
God a thing to be grasped”), which means that Philippians 2
cannot be understood in isolation from the events in Genesis
2 and 3. But whether deceived or not, Adam and Eve had
taken a significant step towards deifying themselves by dis-
obedience. God Himself says that they had indeed acquired

the knowledge of good and evil (Gen.3:22).
Barabbas at the trial of Jesus

When Paul told the Galatians that they were deserting God,
he didn’t mean that they had stopped believing in God to
become atheists or agnostics, but that they were following a
different Jesus and believing a different gospel. In the case of
the Corinthians, this gospel was preached by “false apostles”
who were not appointed by God (2Cor.11:13). Apostasy is
seldom the outright rejection of religion and belief, but is
often a rejection of the biblical Jesus.
Something of a similar nature took place at Jesus’ trial at
which the Roman governor Pontius Pilate did not find Jesus
guilty of any indictable offence, much less an offence worthy
of crucifixion. Barabbas, a violent criminal, was also at the
trial (Mt.27:16). The crowds, stirred up by the religious lead-
ers, demanded that Jesus be crucified even if it meant the re-
lease of Barabbas.
It is noteworthy that Barabbas is called “Jesus Barabbas”
according to an ancient textual tradition of Mt.27:16,17, as
noted in ISBE.138 Attributing the words “Jesus Barabbas” to
138
ISBE, article “Barabbas,” says: “Origen [the greatest textual critic
of the early church] knew and does not absolutely condemn a reading
of Mt 27:16,17, which gave the name ‘Jesus Barabbas’ … it is also
found in a few cursives and in the Aramaic and the Jerusalem Syriac
versions.”
scribal or copying error is unconvincing. It is more likely that

the word “Jesus” was struck out.
The textual evidence for “Jesus Barabbas” in Mt.27:16 is
strong enough for the name to be included in a few modern
Bibles such as NRSV (“Jesus Barabbas”), NET (“Jesus Barab-
bas”), Complete Jewish Bible (“Yeshua Bar-Abba”), and NIV
2011 (“Jesus Barabbas,” but not NIV 1984).
When Jesus was put on trial before Pontius Pilate, the Jews
had chosen “another Jesus” though for reasons different from
those for the Gentile choice of another Jesus. It seems that
everyone, Jew or Gentile, wants a Jesus other than the one
Yahweh God has provided. The rejection of Jesus in favor of
Barabbas is recorded in all four gospels, indicating its spiritual
importance, and is condemned by Peter (Acts 3:14).
But the comparison doesn’t stop there. “Barabbas” comes
from Aramaic “Bar-abba” which means “son of the father”.
Irrespective of who the “father” may be in the case of “Barab-
bas” (the aforementioned ISBE article suggests “master or
teacher”), the parallel between “son of the father” and Jesus
“Son of God” is unmistakable. Is this pure coincidence?
There are no coincidences in God’s word. Through Jesus’
trial at which the Jews chose another “son of the father” over
the one divinely appointed, Yahweh God had foretold that
the church will one day choose a different Jesus from the one
He had chosen to be His Christ, the Savior-King of the
world.
Antichrists in John’s letters; the Gnosticism factor

It is not only in Paul’s letters that we see references to enemies
of the church who operate within the church such as those
who teach another Jesus or a different gospel. John too had to
confront a different Christ who functioned as “antichrist,” a
term that also includes those who proclaim the antichrist and
his different gospel (all verses from ESV):
1 John 2:18 Children, it is the last hour, and as you have
heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have
come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour.
1 John 2:22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is
the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father
and the Son.
1 John 4:2-3 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit
that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from
God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from
God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was
coming and now is in the world already.
2 John 1:7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world,
those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the
flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.
A generation ago, some scholars believed that these

“deceivers” came from the ranks of Jewish and non-Jewish
Gnostics who were active before, during, and after the time of
the apostolic church. Gnosticism—which is theosophical
speculation driven by Greek philosophy, and teaches a gospel
based on secret “knowledge” (gnōsis)—attracted a large

following and became a threat to the church.
The so-called “super apostles” at Corinth (2Cor.11:5;
12:11) were challenging the authority of the apostle Paul, and
gained the support of many. The German scholar Walter
Schmithals wrote, “There can be hardly any doubt that the
Gnostic opponents and the ‘superlative apostles’ are identical”
(The Office of Apostle in the Early Church, p.178). But scholars
today are less confident about the exact nature of Gnosticism
during the time of the apostolic church.
Many commentators say that those who deny that Jesus
Christ has come in the flesh (1Jn.4:2-3) are the “docetists,”
that is, those who teach that Jesus only had the appearance of
being a human but was not human. But the word “docetist”
is just a descriptive term that does not name or identify any
specific group. Who exactly were these alleged “docetists” in
John’s day? The Gnostics? Who was John describing with
such strong words as “deceivers” and “antichrist”?
But did the Jesus of trinitarian dogma really “come in the
flesh”? In other words, is he a true human being? How can he
be a true man if he is “God the Son” who is coequal with
God the Father? How can a preexistent Christ be a true
human being? That is possible only by reincarnation. The on-
ly fundamental difference between preexistence in reincarnat-
ion and preexistence in trinitarianism is that of hope and pur-
pose: In the case of reincarnation, one hopes to go from lower
to higher in the ladder of existence; in the case of trinita-
rianism, the purpose is to go from higher to lower in order to
be a servant.
Gnosticism’s later connection with trinitarianism lies not

only in the fact that the originally Gnostic term homoousios
(one in substance) had become the pivotal word of Nicaea
over the objections of some bishops, but also in the Gnostic
denial that Christ is a true human being who had come “in
the flesh”. Gnosticism, like what is called docetism, teaches
that Jesus’ body had the illusion of being flesh, but was not
flesh. For this reason, Gnosticism had little use for the teach-
ing of the cross.
But Paul says, “We preach Christ crucified, a stumbling
block to Jews and folly to Gentiles” (1Cor.1:23), indicating
that those who preach a “different gospel” do not preach the
message of the cross, in contrast to Paul’s emphatic teaching
on the cross: “God forbid that I should glory except in the
cross of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Gal. 6:14).
Gnosticism’s appeal in the early church lies in the fact that
although its teaching is fundamentally in conflict with New
Testament teaching, it uses terms which come directly from
the vocabulary of the New Testament: knowledge (gnōsis,
1Cor.8:1,7), wisdom (sophia, 1Cor.2:7), fullness (plērōma,
Eph.1:23), philosophy (philosophia, Col.2:8, a verse that ac-
cording to ISBE article Philosophy indicates “the first begin-
nings of Gnosticism in the Christian church”; cf. 1Tim.1:4).
The infamous name of Simon Magus is historically asso-
ciated with Gnosticism. A Bible encyclopedia says, “The
name of Simon Magus occurs frequently in the early history
of ‘Christian’ Gnosticism, and there has been much debate as
to whether the Simoniani, a sect that lasted well into the 3rd
century, had its origins in the magician of Acts 8.” 139 Simon
Magus, who associated himself with the apostolic church and
even got baptized in it, was a miracle worker or “magician”
who is mentioned in early extra-biblical documents. His
prominence in his day can be seen in the book of Acts:
9
Now there was a man named Simon, who formerly was
practicing magic in the city and astonishing the people of
Samaria, claiming to be someone great; 10 and they all, from
smallest to greatest, were giving attention to him, saying,
“This man is what is called the Great Power of God.” 11 And
they were giving him attention because he had for a long time
astonished them with his magic arts. 12 But when they
believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom
of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being bap-
tized, men and women alike. 13 Even Simon himself believed;
and after being baptized, he continued on with Philip, and as
he observed signs and great miracles taking place, he was con-
stantly amazed. (Acts 8:9-13, NASB)
Here Simon is called the “Power of God” (v.10) which in

Luke 22:69 is a metonym of God. This is probably because of
the signs and wonders that Simon performed through
“magic” (v.9) and “magic arts” (v.11), by which he was
regarded as a manifestation of God. This shows how easily a
human being can be deified or seen as an epiphany of a god.
139
Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, “Simon Magus”. For Simon
Magus as a prominent Gnostic in early church tradition, see Wikipedia
articles “Simon Magus” and “Gnosticism and the New Testament”.
The trinitarian Jesus is different from the biblical

Jesus
Nicaea, the crowning triumph of Gentile polytheism, was a
radical departure from the spirit and character of the New
Testament, and culminated in the deification of Christ. In
stark contrast, the Jesus of the New Testament does not seek
equality with God. But the Gentiles, in defiance of the mind
of Christ, triumphantly declared him to be coequal with God.
It was a direct defiance of the spirit of the biblical Jesus, who
at no time ever claimed equality with his Father, but said to
the contrary that “the Father is greater than I” (Jn.14:28).
This is a statement that I, in my trinitarian days, was anxious
to explain away despite several other NT passages that express
the same truth. But because the Gentile Christians were so
keen to make Jesus the central object of worship, they were
driven in their idolatrous zeal to exalt “the man Christ Jesus”
(1Tim.2:5) to the level of deity.
Jesus even rejected for himself any attribution of good:
“Why do you call me good? No one is good except God
alone.” (Mk.10:18; Lk.18:19; cf. Mt. 19:17). Jesus bluntly
told the rich young ruler that “good” is an attribute that
belongs only to God, and can be used of others only in a
derivative and non-absolute sense. From this we see that Jesus
would not accept an attribute that rightly belongs to God
alone (“No one is good except God alone”).
Trinitarians cannot and do not deny that Jesus is a man, so
what is their problem? Their problem is that they want to say
that Jesus is “not just” a man but is “God the Son,” the sec-
ond person of the Godhead who became incarnate in Jesus.

That is because in trinitarianism, the real person functioning
in Jesus is “God the Son” (the reversal of “Son of God”)
whereas the man Jesus is just the human nature that was
attached to God the Son by incarnation. This is one of the
reasons why, as trinitarians, we didn’t really care much about
Jesus as man. To our minds, God the Son—the real person in
Jesus—is everything that we needed or wanted Jesus to be.
But we overlooked something fundamentally important: a
God who can die is not the God of the Bible, for Yahweh
God is immortal and can never die. This means that the God
of trinitarianism cannot possibly be Yahweh, the God of the
Bible. A God who dies and rises again has more in common
with the dying-and-rising gods of the pagan beliefs that were
prevalent in the world of the early church.
Nicaean formulations such as “God of God, Light of
Light” and other lofty descriptions are nothing more than
direct echoes of Greek philosophy and religion. A central con-
cept in Gnosticism is the emanation of divine beings, usually
of the lesser from the greater. Yet at Nicaea it was decreed on
pain of anathema that the Second Person emanates from the
First Person, much as light emanates from a source of light.
This teaching comes directly from Greek philosophy.
If “God the Son” of trinitarianism is to have a plausible
connection to “God the Father” within the framework of
eternity, we cannot avoid the conclusion that the Son derives
his existence from the Father in some way or else there would
be no reason for him to be called the Son. This genuine
difficulty, acknowledged by some trinitarians, has led to the
concept of eternal generation, by which the Son eternally pro-

ceeds from the Father, much as light is emitted continuously
by the sun. But this philosophical concept doesn’t solve the
problem because it still doesn’t explain the use of the word
“son”. The fact remains that the Son derives his existence
from the Father in some significant way, and this is true even
if we bring in eternal generation. Therefore, in this important
sense, the Son is not equal to the Father.
According to scientific cosmology, in the distant future the
sun will collapse and no longer emit light as it does now.
Hence it is possible for the sun to exist as a singularity 140
without emitting light. In view of the finite life of the sun, the
analogy of the sun is inadequate to establish the doctrine of
“eternal generation” or the concept of Jesus as “Light of
Light” especially in this age of scientific knowledge but also in
the time of the early church (in view of 2Pet.3:10, “the
heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved”). God is
certainly light, but that is principally in terms of moral purity
and spiritual enlightenment. God’s moral character is not
something that can be properly compared to the light that
radiates from a burning object such as the sun. But in the
end, what really matters is that the doctrine of eternal gener-
ation is based on concepts that are foreign to Scripture.
140
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (p.66) and The Uni-
verse in a Nutshell (pp.23-23), two-in-one edition, Bantam Books, New
York, 2010.
Christ’s subjection to God

Jesus says, “My Father, who has given them to me, is greater
than all” (John 10:29). Here he specifically says that God the
Father is “greater than all” (cf. “greater than all gods,”
Ps.95:3). This would mean that the Father is greater than
Jesus, for the word “all” would include Jesus who is a distinct
person from the Father even in trinitarianism (cf. Athanasian
Creed). This is not an isolated statement but is confirmed by
other statements such as “the Father is greater than I” (Jn.
14:28). God is greater than Jesus for the fundamental reason
that God is greater than man.
“A slave is not greater than his master, nor is the one who
is sent greater than the one who sent him” (Jn.13:16). In
speaking of himself as slave and messenger, Jesus is explaining
how he functions in relation to the Father, for he repeatedly
speaks of himself as his Father’s slave (doulos) but also as the
one sent by the Father. 141 Jesus uses the word “greater” to
explain both connections to the Father.
What does Jesus mean when he says, “the Father is greater
than I”? That statement cannot possibly be true in trinitarian-
ism in which “God the Son” is coequal in every respect with
God the Father. Jesus’ statement, together with similar state-
ments such as “the head of Christ is God” (1Cor.11:3), was
an embarrassment to me as a trinitarian because it directly
contradicts the central tenet of trinitarianism: the coequality
141
The declaration “he who sent me” occurs many times in John’s
gospel, including 10 times in chapters 6 to 8 alone: 6:38,39,44; 7:16,
28,33; 8:16,18,26,29.
of the Son with the Father. But the doctrine of coequality is

patently false according to the statement, “the Father is
greater than I”. Jesus refused to grasp at or seize equality with
God (Phil.2:6), yet we trinitarians are spiritually deaf in our
determination to crown Jesus as Almighty God.142
Elihu’s reminder to Job that “God is greater than man”
(Job 33:12) is so obvious that it is just a platitude. Yet this
platitude seems to be the only reasonable way of understand-
ing Jesus’ statement, “the Father is greater than I”. It amounts
to an assertion that Jesus is man and not God. The trinitarian
argument that Jesus’ divine side is greater than Jesus’ human
side entirely misses the point because the comparison is not
between the alleged “two natures” of Jesus but between Jesus
and “the Father”!
The statement “the Father is greater than I” is a clear
rejection of the coequality of the Son and the Father. Against
the trinitarian claim that Christ is God and coequal with the
Father, the New Testament affirms that the head of the post-
resurrection Christ is God: “the head of every man is Christ,
the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is
God” (1Cor. 11:3, ESV). There is no mention whatsoever of
any coequality of the three persons of the Trinity. Paul says
that Christ is subject to God (Yahweh) just as believers are
subject to Christ. Paul doesn’t simply say that the head of
142
Compare John 6:15, “perceiving that they were about to come
and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the
mountain”.
Christ is “God the Father” but that the head of Christ is

“God”.
In saying that Christ is subject to God, we are not denying
Christ’s supreme and universal authority. Indeed he himself
says, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to
me” (Mt.28:18). But note the tiny but mighty word “given”.
Someone had given him his supreme authority in the first
place. Hence there is one exception to his supreme authority,
and it lies in the fact that Christ has no authority over God:
For he has put everything in subjection under his feet. But
when it says “everything” has been put in subjection, it is
clear that this does not include the one who put everything
in subjection to him. (1Cor.15:27, NET)
Trinitarians and non-trinitarians agree on what Paul is

saying here, that God is the exception to Christ’s authority
over all things. This is not debated and is even made explicit
by NIV’s translation of this verse, “it is clear that this does
not include God himself, who put everything under Christ”.
From the immediate context of this verse, we know that
Paul is speaking of two persons: “God the Father” (v.24) and
“the Son” (v.28). Hence it is specifically God the Father who
has put everything (except God himself) under the feet of the
Son.
We note three things from this verse (15:27). Firstly,
Christ’s authority is not an innate authority but is something
that was conferred on him, that is, “given” to him by God
(Mt.28:18). Secondly, Paul uses language that makes a clear
distinction of persons, God on the one hand and Christ on
the other, indicating that God and Christ are two different
persons. Thirdly, the word “everything” which occurs twice
in this verse, 1Cor.15:27, goes a long way towards explaining
the meaning of the word “all” in “all authority in heaven and
on earth has been given to me” (Mt.28:18), namely, by qual-
ifying that the “all authority” given to Jesus does not include
authority over God. In other words, what is implicit in
Matthew 28:18—that Christ is subject to the Father because
of the word “given”—is made explicit in 1Cor.15:27, as also
made explicit by the risen Jesus in Rev.2:27: “I myself have
received authority from my Father”.
In the next verse, Paul says again that Christ will be
subject to God:
When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself
will also be subjected to him (God) who put all things in
subjection under him, that God may be all in all. (1Cor.
15:28, ESV)
Paul is not merely saying that Christ has no authority over

God (a statement that could theoretically allow for coequa-
lity), but more forcefully that Christ will be subject to God,
which is a clear rejection of the supposed coequality of Jesus
and his Father.
Finally, a striking conclusion can be derived from verse 24:
Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God
the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and
power. (1Cor.15:24)
Here “the end” is an eschatological reference to a future

point in time. When in the future? The context (vv.21-23)
makes it clear that “the end” (v.24) will come only after “the
resurrection of the dead” (v.21), a glorious event that has not
yet taken place in our time. But when the end comes, Christ
will hand the kingdom over to his God and Father (v.24), to
be followed by the subjection of the Son to the Father (v.27).
The chronology is crucial because it tells us that the end will
inaugurate a permanent state of affairs in which the subject-
ion of the Son to God (v.27) will continue for all eternity!
Even the fervently trinitarian ESV Study Bible concedes that
“this verse (1Cor.15:28) shows that his subjection to the
Father will continue for all eternity.”
Frédéric Louis Godet, Swiss theologian and trinitarian, re-
bukes those who use “ingenious methods” to evade Paul’s
plain teaching of the subjection of the Son to the Father.
Some readers may wish to skip the following:
“Then shall the Son also himself be subject,” etc. The words
can only be taken as they stand. The attempts to explain
them have usually been nothing but ingenious methods of
explaining them away. Of these the one usually adopted by
the Fathers is limiting the statement to Christ’s human
nature (Jn.5:26,27,30) and mediatorial kingdom (1Cor.11:3,
“the head of Christ is God”). In dealing with this subject, we
can easily “darken counsel by words without knowledge,” and
hide an absolute ignorance under a semblance of knowledge;
but everything we can say in “explanation” of this self
subjection of the Son to the Father is simply involved in the
words that follow, “that God may be all in all”. All things …
shall be subordinated to the Son, and the Son to the Father.

(Corinthians, vol.1, on 1Cor.15:28, from the French).
The rise of trinitarianism and the confusion in

“Lord”
In New Testament times, the Jews living in Palestine spoke
mainly Aramaic along with Hebrew. There were also Jews
who spoke mostly or even exclusively Greek; these Greek-
speaking Jews are called “Hellenists” in Acts 6:1; 9:29; 11:20.
Many of them used the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translat-
ion of the Hebrew Bible. Most of the quotations of the Old
Testament in the New Testament are taken from the LXX,
the main Scripture of the Greek-speaking believers of the
early church. A result of this development, along with the
LXX’s suppression of the name Yahweh, is the eventual
disappearance of Yahweh’s name in the church.
Fortunately, the Aramaic-speaking and Hebrew-speaking
Jews who were acquainted with the Hebrew Bible were aware
of the name YHWH. But this was not necessarily the case
with the Greek-speaking believers. Even so, this was not yet a
serious problem because the church was still rooted in biblical
monotheism, notwithstanding the replacement of “Yahweh”
with “the Lord” in the LXX. Most Jewish believers, whether
they were Aramaic-speaking or Greek-speaking, knew that
“the Lord” in the New Testament writings would sometimes
refer to Yahweh, notably in quotations from the Old Testa-
ment, but also in many other contexts. They also knew that
Jesus was “Lord” in a different sense after he had been raised
from the dead by God’s power. Peter proclaimed in his

Pentecost message: “Let all the house of Israel therefore know
for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this
Jesus whom you crucified” (Acts 2:36). Since it was God who
made Jesus “Lord,” Jesus is Lord indeed.
A serious problem arose in the mid-second century when
the deification of Jesus began to take root in the Gentile
churches, as reflected in statements by Melito of Sardis, and
not long afterwards in the better known figure of Tertullian
from the start of the 3rd century. Once Jesus had been deif-
ied, some Gentile believers started putting their faith in two
Gods (ditheism) or two divine persons in one God (binitar-
ianism), these being intrinsically the same. This created much
confusion in the use of the word “Lord,” which was applied
indiscriminately to Yahweh and to Jesus. Ironically, later trin-
itarians would use the title “Lord” as applied to Jesus to prove
that he is God! By circular reasoning, trinitarians are using the
trinitarian error they created in the first place to prove the
same trinitarian error.
The Gentile church eliminated the name “Yahweh”
because the name does not fit into the trinitarian scheme of
things. In trinitarianism, God the Father is one of three
persons whereas in the Bible there is no God besides Yahweh
(Isa.45:5). The trinitarian elevation of Jesus to Almighty God
has eliminated any practical need for a God other than Jesus.
Moreover, Jesus has a name, but God the Father and God the
Spirit do not. God the Father is simply the Father of Jesus
Christ, and His role is defined by his relationship to God the
Son. And since the Son is said to be coequal with the Father
in every respect, if we already have the Son why do we need

the Father? As trinitarians, we paid our respects to the Father
but did not really need Him, for Jesus is all-sufficient. In
English-language Bibles, with a few exceptions such as NJB
and HCSB, Yahweh’s name has disappeared altogether.
Given the confusion in the church over the conflating use
of “Lord,” it is best to return to speaking of God as Yahweh
instead of simply Lord. There is no prohibition in the Bible
against speaking of the one true God as Yahweh.
That Jesus has a Father already rules him out as God

The New Testament speaks of Yahweh as the Lord, the God,
and the Father of believers. Significantly, Yahweh is all of
these things to Jesus, e.g., “I am ascending to my Father and
your Father, to my God and your God” (John 20:17). There
is no biblical problem in referring to Yahweh by these three
titles (Lord, God, Father) even in relation to Jesus.
Paul likewise speaks of “the God and Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ” (Rom.15:6; 2Cor.1:3; 11:31; Eph.1:3; cf.
1Pet.1:3). If Jesus is really God, then God would be the God
of God.
The very fact that Jesus has a Father already rules him out
as God. That is because Paul speaks of “one God and Father
of all” (Eph.4:6). In other words, there is only one God, and
that God is the Father of all. Therefore anyone who is not the
Father of all is not God. But Jesus is certainly not the Father
(not even in trinitarianism), much less the Father of all. God’s
people are not called “sons of Jesus” or “children of Christ,”
nor do they cry out, “Abba Christ!” On the contrary, 1John

5:18 says that we are “born of God” and that Jesus was “born
of God”—in the same sentence!
Melito of Sardis, early precursor of trinitarianism

Only a hundred years after Barnabas and Paul were wor-
shipped as gods in Gentile country (Acts 14:12), Melito of
Sardis was already halfway to trinitarianism. Given the pagan
polytheistic culture in which he grew up, Melito could talk of
“God put to death” without the slightest realization that to
speak of the death of the one true God is to commit blas-
phemy.
Melito of Sardis was not a trinitarian but a binitarian (one
who believes that there are two persons in one God), for he
did not view the Holy Spirit as a third person. Melito also
taught that there are two “natures” in Jesus, the human and
the divine. This makes Melito one of the early forerunners of
the trinitarian creeds of the 4th and 5th centuries.
Melito lived around mid-second century and died c.190.
He was the bishop of Sardis in the Greek-speaking province
of Asia, located in today’s Turkey. His voluminous writings,
most of them lost, are clear evidence that the deification of
Jesus had already started by the 2nd century, indeed only
slightly more than a hundred years after the death of Christ,
and certainly well before the Council of Nicaea in 325.
The following two excerpts from the writings of Melito, as
compiled at http://www.cogwriter.com/melito.htm, are taken
from Ante-Nicene Fathers (vol.8). In the following excerpt,
Melito teaches the deity of Christ, and that Christ was God
put to death:
God who is from God; the Son who is from the Father; Jesus
Christ the King for evermore… He that bore up the earth was
borne up on a tree. The Lord was subjected to ignominy with
naked body—God put to death, the King of Israel slain! (The
Discourse on the Cross, verses IV, VI)
In the next excerpt, Melito says that Jesus is true God, that
Jesus is at once God and perfect man, and that his deity is
hidden in his flesh of humanity:
For the deeds done by Christ after His baptism, and especially
His miracles, gave indication and assurance to the world of
the Deity hidden in His flesh. For, being at once both God
and perfect man likewise, He gave us sure indications of His
two natures: of His Deity, by His miracles during the three
years that elapsed after His baptism; of His humanity, during
the thirty similar periods which preceded His baptism, in
which, by reason of His low estate as regards the flesh, He
concealed the signs of His Deity, although He was the true
God existing before all ages. (The Nature of Christ, 760)
Bob Theil, who compiled the above information, says:

Melito was not a unitarian. He considered that Jesus was God
(though a God who hid some signs of His deity) and the
Father was God—this is a binitarian view. It should be noted
that Melito never referred to the Holy Spirit as God … Since
all legitimate scholars recognize that early Christian leaders
did not support modern trinitarianism, those interested in the
faith that was once for all delivered for the saints, would not
accept the idea of that the true faith was gradually revealed.
(italics Theil’s)
Bart Ehrman, in the eighth of his Great Courses lectures, refers

to Melito of Sardis and his Easter homily. The deification of
Christ was fully established in Melito’s teaching, indicating
that by the mid-second century, the deified Jesus had become
entrenched in the Gentile church. Thus “the parting of the
ways” must have begun earlier than had previously been sup-
posed.
The deification of Jesus and anti-Semitism

A fearful consequence of Jesus’ deification is a rabidly anti-
Semitic charge that Melito of Sardis had hurled against the
Jews: that of the murder of God. It is not hard for us to
imagine the consequences of this accusation made by Melito
and some other early church fathers, notably the hatred and
violence against the Jews it later incited in Europe. The deifi-
cation of Christ with its radical departure from Jewish mono-
theism became a breeding ground for anti-Semitism. Surely
the early roots of the Holocaust are to be found here.
Some have noted that anti-Semitism among the early
church fathers grew markedly more hostile starting from the
4th century.143 This was the century in which took place the
143
David Rokeah’s Antisemitism Through the Ages (p.57) and Robert
Michel’s Holy Hatred: Christianity, Antisemitism, and the Holocaust
(p.19).
Council of Nicaea of 325 (which decreed binitarianism) and

the Council of Constantinople of 381 (which decreed trinit-
arianism, the first time in history such a thing had happened).
Whether there were other reasons for the increase in anti-
Semitism can only be surmised, but there is nothing else of
historical or religious import in the 4th century that could
plausibly account for the marked rise in anti-Semitism.
Some early trinitarians and church fathers, both Ante-
Nicene and Post-Nicene (“Ante-Nicene” means before Nic-
aea), made strongly anti-Semitic statements in their writings
and public declarations. An important work on the anti-
Semitism of the early church fathers is Robert Michel’s Holy
Hatred: Christianity, Antisemitism, and the Holocaust. Here are
a few excerpts from the book regarding some of the pro-
minent church fathers of that period:
… [to most of the early church fathers] all Jews were forever
responsible for murdering God. And so the Jewish people
were abhorrent and any injustice done to them, short of mur-
der, according to Augustine, was justified—and even murder
was sometimes justified. (p.2)
Jerome claimed that all Jews were Judas and were innately evil
creatures who betrayed the Lord for money. John Chrysostom
called Jews deicides [murderers of God] with no chance for
“atonement, excuse, or defense.” (p.5)
The fourth-century theologian Ephraem of Syria called the

Jews circumcised dogs; John Chrysostom called them circum-
cised beasts… Tertullian suggested that God intended that the
circumcision would identify the Jews so that they could never

reenter Jerusalem. (p.22)
Like most of the fathers, Tertullian’s anti-Jewish conclusions

were often both emotional and cruel. In his De Spectaculis, he
gloated and exulted, imagining how Jesus would punish the
Jews. (p.26)
[Jerome] argued that God had given the Jews their Law delib-
erately to deceive them and lead them to their destruction.
(p.26)
One Sunday, Ambrose [4th century archbishop of Milan, one

of the four original doctors of the Catholic Church] preached
a sermon on the Church and Synagogue attended by Emperor
Theodosius, who had recently been excommunicated by him
and was now repentant and very much open to his influence.
Face to face with the emperor, Ambrose reproached him for
his action in support of the Jewish claims, arguing that it was
a moral act to burn synagogues and if the laws forbade it, then
the laws were wrong. Refusing him communion, he threat-
ened that the emperor and his sons would be excommunicated
again unless he rescinded his penalties against the incendiary
bishop. In the end, Theodosius promised to do what Ambrose
demanded. (p.33)
John Chrysostom was an enormously influential preacher.

Hitler expressed his admiration for the anti-Jewish ideas of
“all genuine Christians of outstanding calibre,” among whom
he counted John Chrysostom. (p.35)
Chrysostom wanted these useless Jews killed. Just as animals

that refuse to pull the plow are slaughtered, so Jews “grew fit
for slaughter. This is why Christ said: ‘As for these enemies of
mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them
here and slay them before me.’” Lest we miss his point about
murdering the “useless” Jews, Chrysostom repeats it, adding a
reference to Luke 19:27, which, he claims, refers specifically to
a command of Jesus that the Jews be murdered. Chrysostom
later justified such an atrocity by arguing that “what is done in
accordance with God’s will is the best of all things even if it
seems bad… Suppose someone slays another in accordance
with God’s will. This slaying is better than any lovingkind-
ness.” (p.35)
It should be noted that the author of this book, Robert

Michel, bears no hostility to Jesus Christ, and in fact speaks
positively of him, expressing high admiration for his teaching
of the cross, self-denial, and love for fellow man:
… the theology of the cross (theologia crucis) is based on Jesus’
statement in the Gospel of Matthew (16:24–5): “If any man
would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his
cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose
it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” This
belief required the Christian faithful to follow the moral
teachings of Jesus concerning all human beings even at the
risk of their own lives … the theology of the cross underscores
the solidarity of suffering among all human beings, Gentile
and Jew. Analysis of Christians who helped Jews during the
Holocaust, for instance, reveals many different motivations for
their behavior, but most of these motives derive from the
model of human behavior found in the Judeo-Christian

morality of Jesus of Nazareth.
The anti-Semitic statements of the early church fathers can be

found in scattered places in Ante-Nicene Fathers (10 vols) and
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (28 vols). A few anti-Semitic
statements, expressing mainly theological hostility, are
included on pages 375-378 of David Bercot’s Dictionary of
Early Christian Beliefs; here are a few statements by the early
church fathers (with volume and page numbers from Ante-
Nicene Fathers):
The Jews had formerly been in covenant with God. But
being afterwards cast off on account of their sins, they began
to be without God. Tertullian (c.197), 3.247
A sign that she [Israel] has received the bill of divorcement

[from God] is this: that Jerusalem was destroyed along with
her what they called the sanctuary. Origen (c.245), 9.507
Since the coming of Christ, no prophets have arisen among

the Jews. For they have confessedly been abandoned by the
Holy Spirit. Origen (c.248) 4.614
The wicked synagogue is now cast off by the Lord God. He

has rejected His own house. As He says: “I have forsaken my
house; I have left my inheritance.” Apostolic Constitutions
(c.390), 7.451
The temptation of Jesus

As regards the crucial topic of temptation, trinitarianism
reduces it to meaninglessness in the case of Jesus because
Jesus, who is supposedly God, cannot be tempted to sin at all.
As James 1:13 states unequivocally, “God cannot be tempted
by evil”. The trinitarian understanding of the temptation of
Jesus collides with the biblical fact that he was “tempted in all
respects as we are” (Heb.4:15). In making the temptation of
Jesus meaningless, even farcical, we were so blinded by trinit-
arianism that we could not see the obvious.
But the New Testament declares that Jesus is a man, a true
human being who was tempted like us in every respect. That
being so, how could Jesus have faced every temptation in life
without having once failed? The trinitarian’s answer to this
question has the effect of reducing it—and the central
struggle of human life—to meaninglessness, for if Jesus is
God, then he cannot be tempted, much less succumb to sin.
It would be unconvincing to say that Jesus empathizes with
our moral and spiritual struggles, or with our painful defeats
in these struggles, when he himself can never fall and doesn’t
even need to struggle, since no temptation can ever bring
down God. This makes Jesus’ humanity irrelevant for us.
The protestations of trinitarians notwithstanding, their
Jesus is really nothing more than a human body taken over by
the second person of the Trinity. The Jesus of trinitarianism
has no human will, but even if he had one, it would have
been so dominated by the will of “God the Son” that the hu-
man will can only operate within the divine will. So even if
Jesus had an independent human will (which in any case is
generally denied in trinitarianism), it would make no

difference because it is impossible, within the same person,
for the human will to operate independently of the divine will
of the second person of the Trinity. In church history,
theological problems such as this arose from the supposed
God-man constitution of Jesus, and led to bitter conflicts
within trinitarianism, notably over Nestorius’ teaching of two
persons, human and divine, in Christ.
But temptation—a life and death struggle with sin—is an
inescapable part of the believer’s daily life. It is when we
triumph over sin by the power of God’s indwelling Spirit that
we move towards the perfection to which we have been
called. And Jesus is the perfect man precisely because of his
total victory over sin.
But this powerful truth is reduced to shambles in trinitar-
ianism. If the Christian is asked why Jesus is perfect and
sinless, the usual answer would be, “Because he is God, and
God is perfect”. No matter how hard trinitarians try to decor-
ate Jesus’ humanity to make it look more like ours, the fact
remains that in trinitarian dogma, the human Jesus is really
the human body of the incarnate God the Son. If asked whet-
her this sinless Jesus could in theory have sinned as a human
being, most trinitarians would say “no” because it is imposs-
ible for God to be tempted, much less to sin. In any case,
Jesus is already perfect in both his natures because of his God-
man union, so any attempt to spoil his perfection by tempt-
ing him to sin would be futile and pointless. Satan must have
been stupid even to try! That is why we say that trinitarianism
reduces the temptation account into something farcical.
But the real Jesus—the biblical Jesus—is very different

because he battled sin to the point of sweat and tears, which
wouldn’t have been necessary if he were the God-man of
trinitarianism.
The biblical Jesus, in his pleas to his Father Yahweh, “was
heard in that he feared” (Heb.5:7, KJV). What did he fear?
Physical death? Certainly not, for Jesus was the one who said,
“Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.
Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”
(Mt.10:28) What Jesus feared was not death but the mortal
danger of succumbing to sin and thus failing the mission of
redeeming mankind from sin. I am confident that whatever
fear Jesus had, it was not for himself, just as Paul (who had
the mind of Christ, 1Cor.2:16) was willing to be accursed for
the sake of his fellow Jews, exchanging his soul for theirs
(Rom.9:3).
But with the weight of mankind’s redemption resting on
his shoulders, Jesus could still fail on his part, notwithstand-
ing the benefit of Yahweh’s indwelling presence in him. We
might not be able to understand the weight of responsibility
that rested on his soul, but we are fully aware of the frighten-
ing possibility of moral failure even in the case of one who is
indwelt by Yahweh’s Spirit and can therefore avail of God’s
power for victory over sin. We thus have a glimpse of the
wonder and magnificence of Jesus’ triumph over sin. It was
through the sufferings from many trials and temptations over
the years that he attained perfection to become the perfect
man.
Jesus is the victorious Last Adam in contrast to the First

Adam. His victory over sin secured the redemption of man-
kind, hence the resurrected Jesus became a “life-giving spirit”
(1Cor.15:45).
Finally, to appreciate the confusion typical of the trinitar-
ian understanding of the temptation of Jesus, here is an eye-
opening excerpt from Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology:
An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (which has the distinction
of being the top selling systematic theology in the world
today).
Excerpt from Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology, chapter

26, section A4:
We also must affirm with Scripture that “God cannot be

tempted with evil” (James 1:13). But here the question be-
comes difficult: if Jesus was fully God as well as fully man …
then must we not also affirm that (in some sense) Jesus also
“could not be tempted with evil”?
… At this point we are faced with a dilemma similar to a

number of other doctrinal dilemmas where Scripture seems to
be teaching things that are, if not directly contradictory, at
least very difficult to combine together in our understanding.
For example, with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity, we
affirmed that God exists in three persons, and each is fully
God, and there is one God … The Bible tells us that “Jesus
was tempted” and “Jesus was fully man” and “Jesus was fully
God” and “God cannot be tempted.”
… the following solution is more in the nature of a suggested

means of combining various biblical teachings and is not
directly supported by explicit statements of Scripture. With

this in mind, it is appropriate for us to say: (1) If Jesus’ human
nature had existed by itself, independent of his divine nature,
then it would have been a human nature just like that which
God gave Adam and Eve. It would have been free from sin
but nonetheless able to sin. Therefore, if Jesus’ human nature
had existed by itself, there was the abstract or theoretical
possibility that Jesus could have sinned, just as Adam and
Eve’s human natures were able to sin. (2) But Jesus’ human
nature never existed apart from union with his divine nature.
From the moment of his conception, he existed as truly God
and truly man as well. Both his human nature and his divine
nature existed united in one person. (3) Although there were
some things (such as being hungry or thirsty or weak) that
Jesus experienced in his human nature alone and were not
experienced in his divine nature (see below), nonetheless, an
act of sin would have been a moral act that would apparently
have involved the whole person of Christ. Therefore, if he had
sinned, it would have involved both his human and divine
natures. (4) But if Jesus as a person had sinned, involving both
his human and divine natures in sin, then God himself would
have sinned, and he would have ceased to be God. Yet that is
clearly impossible because of the infinite holiness of God’s
nature. (5) Therefore, if we are asking if it was actually possi-
ble for Jesus to have sinned, it seems that we must conclude
that it was not possible. The union of his human and divine
natures in one person prevented it.
But the question remains, “How then could Jesus’ temptat-

ions be real?” The example of the temptation to change the
stones into bread is helpful in this regard. Jesus had the abili-
ty, by virtue of his divine nature, to perform this miracle, but

if he had done it, he would no longer have been obeying in
the strength of his human nature alone, he would have failed
the test that Adam also failed, and he would not have earned
our salvation for us. Therefore, Jesus refused to rely on his di-
vine nature to make obedience easier for him. In like manner,
it seems appropriate to conclude that Jesus met every temptat-
ion to sin, not by his divine power, but on the strength of his
human nature alone (though, of course, it was not “alone” be-
cause Jesus, in exercising the kind of faith that humans should
exercise, was perfectly depending on God the Father and the
Holy Spirit at every moment). The moral strength of his div-
ine nature was there as a sort of “backstop” that would have
prevented him from sinning in any case (and therefore we can
say that it was not possible for him to sin), but he did not rely
on the strength of his divine nature to make it easier for him
to face temptations, and his refusal to turn the stones into
bread at the beginning of his ministry is a clear indication of
this …
What then do we say about the fact that “God cannot be

tempted with evil” (James 1:13)? It seems that this is one of a
number of things that we must affirm to be true of Jesus’
divine nature but not of his human nature. His divine nature
could not be tempted with evil, but his human nature could
be tempted and was clearly tempted. How these two natures
united in one person in facing temptations, Scripture does not
clearly explain to us.
[End of excerpt from Grudem’s Systematic Theology]
What more can we say? In the final analysis, Grudem’s

attempt to arrive at a solution to the problem that he himself
raises is not really a solution at all but merely an extended de-
lineation of the nature of the problem itself. In other words,
the more Grudem tries to resolve the problem, the more he
exposes the irresolvable nature of the problem. The illustrat-
ions that he uses, such as that of the human Jesus struggling
by himself with some assistance from the divine Jesus who
serves as a backstop, still portray Jesus as two persons, human
and divine, even if Grudem uses the language of “two
natures” rather than “two persons” in conformity with
trinitarian orthodoxy.
The Son does not know the time of his coming

What about Jesus’ supposed omniscience? As God the Son,
does he know everything? Questions have actually been raised
in Bible studies as to how Jesus might sit for a university
exam on physics or chemistry without studying (to use a
modern-day scenario) or whether an omniscient Jesus would
need to learn anything at all. Did the baby Jesus know
Sanskrit, Ugaritic and ancient Chinese? Or a future language
such as English? We must bear in mind that in trinitarian
dogma, the infant Jesus was fully God and fully man. Wayne
Grudem says, “From the moment of his conception, he
existed as truly God and truly man” (Systematic Theology,
26A4). But how can one who knows everything be a true hu-
man being when it is impossible for any man to know every-
thing? Jesus himself provides a clear answer to our question:
“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the
angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Mt.
24:36, NIV, also Mk.13:32)
The Son doesn’t even know the time of his own coming! If
Jesus is indeed “God the Son” who is coequal in every respect
to the Father and is therefore omniscient, this verse would be
inexplicable.
Only the Father knows the day and the hour because He is
the one who determines Jesus’ coming. This fact presents no
difficulty to those who understand that Jesus is true man, but
is problematic to those who insist that Jesus is God. If there is
just one detail that Jesus doesn’t know, then he is not omni-
scient and not God. The trinitarian argument that this is
some kind of internal arrangement within the Godhead for
the passing of knowledge does not make sense. It also makes
no sense to say that Jesus’ human nature does not know
everything his divine nature knows, within the same person!
This explanation is common in trinitarianism. For example,
Wayne Grudem in Systematic Theology (section 26C3a) says:
On the one hand, with respect to his human nature, he had
limited knowledge (Mark 13:32; Luke 2:52). On the other
hand, Jesus clearly knew all things (John 2:25; 16:30; 21:17).
Now this is only understandable if Jesus learned things and
had limited knowledge with respect to his human nature but
was always omniscient with respect to his divine nature, and
therefore he was able any time to “call to mind” whatever
information would be needed for his ministry. In this way we
can understand Jesus’ statement concerning the time of his
return: “But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even
the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Mark
13:32). This ignorance of the time of his return was true of
Jesus’ human nature and human consciousness only, for in his
divine nature he was certainly omniscient and certainly knew
the time when he would return to the earth.
The fatal problem with Grudem’s argument is that Jesus

specifically said “only the Father” knows. Jesus wasn’t talking
about his own divine nature versus his human nature. His
declaration that he does not know the day or the hour would,
in trinitarianism, be true of both his natures—divine and
human—since “only” the Father knows. The word “only” is
problematic to trinitarians for yet another reason: It rules out
the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, as one who
knows the day and the hour.
We are then left with two possibilities: either Jesus is not
God, or God is not omniscient! The former is biblically
correct but unacceptable to trinitarians, whereas the latter is
blasphemous.
Moreover, in the way Grudem depicts Jesus’ two natures,
the human and the divine, they are functionally two separate
persons, even two separate spirits, within the one Christ.
Although Grudem speaks of two natures, the more accurate
term for his depiction of Christ is “two persons”. The manner
in which trinitarians switch back and forth so glibly between
Jesus’ human nature (which can be tempted and does not
know the hour) and his divine nature (which cannot be
tempted and knows the hour) is clear proof that Jesus cannot
be both God and man simultaneously. But in trinitarianism,
the two natures coexist in Jesus continuously without inter-

ruption.
If the Father knows the hour, why shouldn’t the Son also
know? It is not just a question of why Jesus functionally
doesn’t know, but why he shouldn’t know. But the biblical
picture clarifies everything. Just as the Father determined
when Jesus will be born into the world in “the fullness of
time” (Gal. 4:4) and in accordance with God’s promise
(v.23), so Jesus’ return will be at a time the Father determines
according to His own eternal purposes; it is not a matter of
the Son coming to earth whenever he chooses.
Communicatio idiomatum: an attempt to explain

the God-Man
To understand the trinitarian idea of the incarnation by
which the second person became the God-man, we need to
give a brief account of the trinitarian attempt to explain how
a person who is both God and man at the same time can even
be functional. This question had led to much debate and con-
troversy, even violence, in the early days of the church. The
history of this conflict is not directly relevant to our discuss-
ion; we will only say that in the end, one side defeated the
other, but not without entailing considerable conflict. 144
144
For an account of this protracted conflict, see Philip Jenkin’s Jesus
Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided
What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 Years. The book’s
long subtitle is not meant to be facetious or comical but factual; the
author holds professorships at two universities.
We now briefly examine the idea, proposed by some early

church leaders, of communicatio idiomatum, a Latin term
which means “the communication of idioms,” with “idioms”
meaning the innate or essential characteristics of a person.145
J.N.D. Kelly says that communicatio idiomatum is the means
by which “human and divine attributes and experiences, etc.
might properly be exchanged” (Early Christian Doctrines,
p.143).
How do God and man relate to each other within the
God-man Jesus Christ? How do they identify with each other
if they are different in essence or substance or nature, since
one of them is divine and the other is human, the two united
as one person? The idea has been proposed that the character-
istics of the one nature are transferred or “communicated” to
the other nature in this union, reciprocally.
It is hard to arrive at a precise definition of communicatio
idiomatum because the ancient writings which originally
proposed the concept gave little explanation of it beyond the
bare statement that the divine attributes of God the Son are
communicated to the human Jesus in whom he is incarnate,
and also in the reverse direction from the man Jesus to the
divine Christ. If one is pressed for the specifics of the
communication of attributes, one can say at most that the
qualities (“idioms”) of the second person of the Trinity are
145
Some theologians define communicatio idiomatum as “the
communication of the properties or predicates” (e.g., Westminster
Dictionary of Theologians, ed. Justo L. González, p.256), which is
equivalent to “the communication of idioms”.
transferred to the human Jesus, including qualities such as

God’s power, wisdom, justice, and so on.
But one of the inalienable attributes of the divine essence
is immortality. This fundamental attribute would have to be
transferred to the man Jesus, for is it possible to communicate
only some of the divine qualities and not the others? From
what is known of the communication of idioms, there is no
suggestion that only some of the qualities are transferred
while the others are not, if this is even possible in one
integrated person.
We see ever more clearly the problems of the idea of the
communication of idioms. For example, if the man in whom
the second person is incarnate was made immortal by that
union, then obviously he could not have died for our sins, in
which case God’s plan of salvation would have been sub-
verted. In the attempt to resolve the contradiction of death
and immortality in the same person, the Gentile church lead-
ers went so far as to say that the second person of the Trinity,
who is fully God, died for our sins in any case. It turns out
that to these Christians, the immortal God is not so immortal
after all!
Another example: Since God Almighty is omnipotent,
would it not be blasphemous to speak of Him as weak?
Conversely, if God the Son is of the same substance as God
the Father, he would also be omnipotent and could not in
any sense be described as weak. The point is simple: If Jesus is
weak, he is not God. If Jesus is Almighty, he is not man. If he
is mortal, he is not God. If he is immortal, he is not man.
In the skewed logic of trinitarianism, God the Son is really

two incompatible opposites thrown together into a bipolar
Jesus who is both mortal and immortal, both man and God,
and therefore both mortal man and immortal God. Anyone
who can believe this twisted and contradictory doctrine will
not find it hard to believe any error that comes along his way.
It must have taken an impressive power of persuasion to pull
off this deception, not just on a few individuals but on great
multitudes throughout church history. This causes one to
wonder if the persuasiveness of the deception comes from
some supernatural force. We are reminded of the words in
Revelation: “that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and
Satan, the deceiver of the whole world” (Rev.12:9). What it
means is that no one, no matter how intelligent or educated,
can escape from the paralyzing grip of spiritual deception.
Spiritual perception, on the other hand, involves “having the
eyes of your hearts enlightened” by God (Eph.1:18), enabling
the heart to see the liberating light of His truth.
The second person of the Trinity—the one who sup-
posedly died on the cross—clearly cannot be God who in
Scripture is most definitely immortal. That being the case,
who exactly is this God called the second person of the Trinity?
And who have trinitarians been worshipping ever since their
dogma became the official doctrine of the church in the
fourth century? This question is becoming ever more fright-
ening.
Few Christians know anything about the frightening theo-
logy that undergirds trinitarianism. There are other aspects of
this theology that make little or no sense, but I won’t go into
them at this time except to ask: In the exchange or

intercommunication of qualities, which human attributes can
be transferred from man and added to God? Does man have
any quality in his essence and nature to communicate to the
essence and nature of God? Can anything be added to God in
any way? How can man’s weakness, for example, be trans-
ferred to an omnipotent God whose very omnipotence
would, in any case, neutralize the weakness? This is an exam-
ple of what I mean by the absurd nature of the doctrine of the
communicatio idiomatum.
The idea of the God-man was frankly unintelligible even
to the trinitarians who proposed it, and who then tried to
explain the relationship of Jesus’ two natures with concepts
such as hypostatic union and communicatio idiomatum to make
sense of the contradiction. This is the sort of thing that we
trinitarians vainly expended much time and effort in.
But the nature of the biblical Jesus makes perfect sense. He
is someone we can identify with and look up to as our trium-
phant example who inspires us. Weak though we are, God
will strengthen us in the inner man, and empower us to
triumph over all obstacles through Jesus Christ even though
given our many weaknesses, we will not attain perfection in
this life as Jesus did. Even the great apostle Paul acknow-
ledges, “Not that I am already perfect … but I press on
toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in
Jesus Christ” (Phil.3:12,14).
From all this, we can only stand in awe at the magnificent
triumph of Yahweh in Christ, who attained what was hitherto
impossible to any human. While all believers, through God’s
mercy, have been given the privilege in Christ of becoming

the sons and daughters of God, only Jesus can be rightly
called “the only Son of God.”
The distinction of wills within the Trinity

Whereas the self-giving love of the biblical Jesus is straight-
forward in terms of his voluntary act of the will, the same
cannot be said of the Jesus of trinitarianism. It would, for
example, be problematic if it is the trinitarian Jesus who says
in Gethsemane, “Not my will but yours be done.” Who is the
one uttering the words? The divine God the Son in speaking
to God the Father? If so, this would create the problem of a
distinction of wills within the Trinity, where the second
person submits to the will of the first person after an intense
struggle. With such a sharp distinction of wills within the
Trinity, how can we still speak of the three persons as being
of one essence when there are three distinct wills that are not
necessarily in perfect alignment until an inner struggle unites
them as at Gethsemane? By contrast, the words “Not my will
but yours be done” would be easy to understand if they had
come from the non-divine, wholly human Jesus in speaking
to his Father who had sent him to accomplish the salvation of
mankind.
The problem doesn’t stop there because in trinitarianism,
the obedience of “God the Son” to God the Father is strictly
internal to the one-essence God, and cannot be properly
described as “obedience to God”. This internal obedience has
no bearing on the important statement in Romans 5:18-19
that what is crucial for man’s salvation is an obedience in

man’s relationship to God rather than an internal relationship
within the Trinity.
If trinitarians say that the one speaking at Gethsemane is
the human Jesus in whom “God the Son” is incarnate, the
result is equally disastrous: Who is Jesus speaking to when he
says “Your will be done,” God the Son or God the Father? In
either case, there are two distinct wills within Jesus: the will of
the man who said “Your will be done” and the will of God
representing Jesus’ divine nature, leading to the impossible
situation of two independent wills within the God-man. And
since the will cannot exist without a person, this would mean
that Jesus is not one person but two. 146
This is precisely one of the intractable problems that the
early trinitarians got entangled in and tried to get out of. To
146
The Third Council of Constantinople (680-681) says that Jesus
has two wills, the divine and the human, and condemned monothe-
litism, the doctrine of one will in Christ (The Popular Encyclopedia of
Church History, p.129, Ecumenical Councils). For an in-depth account
of this council, see chapter 7 of Truly Divine and Truly Human: The
Story of Christ and the Seven Ecumenical Councils. But from the official
creeds (see Creeds, Councils and Controversies: Documents Illustrating the
History of the Church, AD 337-461), it is hard to see how Jesus’ human
will can function independently of his divine will. The difficulty with
the doctrine of two wills in Christ (dyothelitism) is that it implies either
two persons in Christ or one schizophrenic person in Christ. This may
be why dyothelitism is rarely mentioned today outside history books on
the church councils.
avoid the unacceptable idea of two independent wills (where

the human will is not subsumed in the divine will) and
therefore two persons in the God-man, which would create a
schizophrenic Jesus, it was decreed that it is the divine God
the Son rather than the man Jesus who is central to the God-
man constitution and whose will was dominant in Jesus at
Gethsemane. This doesn’t solve the dilemma because it would
mean that Jesus’ human nature lacks a true operative will, in
which case he (or it) would not be a complete human being
since every human being has a true and independent human
will. (Trinitarians say that Jesus Christ is fully man, an
assertion that requires him to have a human body, a human
spirit, and an independent human will.) This illustrates what
we have been saying all along, that the trinitarian Jesus is not
a human being as we know human beings to be. This takes us
back to our observation that the obedience of God the Son to
God the Father is internal to the Trinity, and has no bearing
on the crucial matter of man’s salvation that is said in Ro-
mans 5:18-19 to hinge on man’s obedience to God.
In the Alexandrian theology which triumphed over the
Antiochene theology in the early church, there is no separat-
ion within the God-man between the divine God the Son and
the human Jesus.147 Yet in trinitarianism, it is God the Son
who constitutes the real person in the God-man whereas the
147
“Eutychianism and Nestorianism were finally condemned at the
Council of Chalcedon (451) which taught one Christ in two natures
united in one person or hypostasis, yet remaining ‘without confusion,
without conversion, without division, without separation.’” (Evangeli-
cal Dictionary of Theology, article Christology, p.225).
man does not represent the will of the God-man. As a fervent

trinitarian puts it, “He had the appearance and flesh of a
man, but the characteristics, power and nature of God.”148
Again trinitarianism is caught on the horns of a dilemma
for which there is no resolution, thereby exposing the falsity
of the doctrine, for all falsehood contains within itself the
inevitable self-contradiction that becomes the seed of its own
destruction once it is examined and brought to light.
The tragedy is that most Christians don’t know that the
trinitarian Jesus, the God-man, is a man-made fabrication
constructed from bits and pieces of the New Testament,
creating a divine person who does not exist in the Bible,
namely, God the Son which is “Son of God” violently turned
upside down or the wrong way around. In short, trinitarians
have constructed a theological idol that they bow to in wor-
ship, and demand that others do the same.
Dear trinitarians, if Jesus Christ is God as you say he is,
then you and I are still in our sins without the hope of salvat-
ion, for an essential attribute of God is immortality, which
means that he cannot die for our sins. But if God could die,
he would not be God. Yet he cannot be true man because you
say that he is also God, in which case Jesus’ death cannot
atone for your sins or mine.
148
Clarence M. Beard, The Only True God, p.179, 1956. This book,
which is written from a trinitarian perspective, is largely concerned
with the issues of science and religion that were current more than half
a century ago.
Why are so few saved?

After having taught the Bible for several decades, one day it
came to me as a shock to realize that neither I nor any other
trinitarian could quote one verse from the New Testament or
the Bible as a whole, in which the central trinitarian title of
Jesus, “God the Son,” is found—not one verse! The same is
true of the other major trinitarian title of Jesus: the second
person of the Trinity. That this title is not found in the Bible
is to be expected since the word “Trinity” itself does not exist
in the Bible. In short, the very existence of “God the Son”
cannot be demonstrated from the pages of the Bible. Yet the
amazing thing is that we could talk about, preach about,
teach about, think about, and write volumes about, a person
whose very existence in the pages of Scripture we could not
demonstrate!
How had this come about? I was wondering about this
when I looked back at a long career of preaching and teaching
and writing. It is said that hindsight is 20/20, and this
particular instance of hindsight sends a chill down one’s spine
when one looks back at the pages of history. Looking at the
early centuries of the church, we see a faith being built on a
Jesus who exists nowhere in the Bible and who was subtly
fabricated in a manner that steadily strips him of his Jewish
monotheistic roots. It reminds us of what Jesus said about the
last days, that believers must be on their guard because even
the elect, the chosen ones, will be deceived (Mt.24:24).
There are approximately two billion Christians in the

world today, and they make up one third of the world’s pop-
ulation. 149 Given the triumph of Christianity in the world, at
least in terms of the number of adherents, why does Jesus say
that only a “few” will be saved (Lk.13:23-24)? How do we
understand his statement? For all the talk of the dominance of
trinitarian Christianity, I have never heard any trinitarian
address this spine-chilling question: Why of all the billions
will only a “few” be saved?
The question is not hard to answer if we grasp the appall-
ing fact that the vast majority of believers in the world today
have been deceived in a most tragic way. Is there any other
answer to this dreadful question that aligns with Jesus’ state-
ment that only a few will be saved? How can the multitudes
be saved or go through the narrow gate of life if they place
149
This number comes from two encyclopedias of religion, both
dated 2007. The Encyclopedia of World Religions (p.87) says: “At the
beginning of the 21st century, Christianity was the world’s largest relig-
ion. Some 2 billion people, about a third of the world’s population,
were at least nominally Christian or of Christian cultural background.”
World Religions: Almanac (vol.1, p.119) says: “In addition to being
possibly the most divided religion in the world, Christianity is the
world’s largest religion, with 2.1 billion followers. Believers live around
the globe, but the heaviest concentration of Christians is in Europe and
North and South America. The United States contains the most num-
ber of Christians, with 85 percent of the population, or 225 million
people, who claim to be Christians. Other major areas of Christian
population include Europe, with about 550 million; Latin America,
with about 450 million; Africa, with about 350 million; and Asia, with
about 310 million.”
their faith, their trust, their hope, on a trinitarian Jesus, God

the Son, whose existence cannot be found in the Scriptures of
life?
Faith in the trinitarian Jesus will nullify the hope of salva-
tion. This is not a blanket statement to say that all trinitarians
will be condemned and all non-trinitarians will be saved, for
there are other spiritual principles involved in divine judg-
ment (e.g., Lk.12:48). Yet it would be foolhardy to ignore the
biblical fact that idolatry—including trinitarian idolatry—will
have spiritual consequences.
Our present discussion is not just an academic debate over
doctrines that have no bearing on our eternal welfare; we are
dealing with a vital spiritual matter in which one small error
will have eternal consequences. The fearful truth about trini-
tarian error, properly called heresy, is that it diverges com-
pletely from the biblical truth.
All the fullness of the deity

In trinitarianism, God the Son, the second person of the
Trinity, became incarnate as Jesus Christ. But God the Son is
only one of three persons and therefore cannot embody “all
the fullness of the Deity” which is mentioned in Colossians
2:9: “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily
form” (NIV).
Only the biblical Yahweh, the one true God, has “all the
fullness of the Deity”. And only the indwelling of Yahweh in
the man Christ Jesus correctly explains Colossians 2:9. Once
again the trinitarian error is exposed.
Paul’s statement that the fullness of God—indeed all the

fullness of the Deity—dwells in Christ bodily, is paralleled in
the fact that God’s people are also filled with God’s entire
fullness: “that you may be filled with all the fullness of God”
(Eph.3:19). God’s dwelling or indwelling in Christ is “in
bodily form,” a remarkable truth that comes out also in Col-
ossians 1:19: “For in him all the fullness of God was pleased
to dwell”.
The “bodily” indwelling of God in Christ is totally differ-
ent from the hypostatic union of the two natures of Christ,
the divine and the human, in one person. The latter concept
has led to the problem of how a God-man can even be
functional, a difficulty that in turn led to the doctrine of the
communicatio idiomatum, a highly philosophical concept that
attempts to explain how the two natures interrelate with each
other. This doctrine is not based on anything in the Bible but
is a man-made concept invented to solve a man-made
dilemma.
Scripture offers no support for the doctrine of the two na-
tures, the divine and the human, united inseparably in Christ,
by which Jesus is true God and true man. In 451, this un-
biblical doctrine was promulgated by the creed of the Council
of Chalcedon (the town of Chalcedon was located in the
region of Bithynia, in today’s Turkey). The attempt to prove
this idea using John 1:14 (“and the Word became flesh”) is
erroneous because trinitarians assume without basis that the
Word (logos) refers to the supposedly preexistent Christ. The
fact is that the logos is never identified with Jesus in either
John’s Prologue or the rest of the New Testament. 150 The

supposed equivalence of the logos and Jesus is simply forced
on the word of God.
The concept of the hypostatic union of Christ’s two
natures, the divine and the human, is not only unbiblical but
also unintelligible. Wikipedia article “Hypostatic Union” puts
it politely: “this union is held to defy finite human compre-
hension”. But nonsense in its formal sense also defies compre-
hension, for if something makes logical sense, it can be com-
prehended. But the incomprehensibility of the hypostatic
union is not something that would seriously trouble the
trinitarian because he would usually shunt the issue into the
150
Not even in Rev.19:13 where the “Word of God” refers not to
Christ but to God in the familiar OT picture of God as the “Lord of
Hosts” or “Lord of Armies”. The word “blood” in the same verse refers
not to Christ’s blood but the blood of God’s vanquished enemies. In
fact, the next two verses (14,15) portray the Word of God as the One
who leads “the armies of heaven” and whose sword is used to “strike
down the nations,” culminating in the corpses of kings, captains,
mighty men, and horses (v.18). The title “Lord of Hosts” (literally
“Yahweh of Armies”) occurs about 240 times in the OT, and in each
case “the LORD” is literally “Yahweh”. (On Rev. 19:13, see TOTG,
Appendix 6.)
I.H. Marshall, trinitarian, suggests that “the Word of God” in
Rev.19:13 does not refer to Christ: “After [John’s] prologue, Jesus is no
longer referred to as ‘the Word’” (A Concise New Testament Theology,
p.187). On p.220, Marshall says: “The unique use of the title the Word
of God (Rev 19:13) reminds us of John 1:1-14 and 1 John 1:1-4, but it
is not clear whether the rich background of these two verses is needed
to understand the usage in Revelation.”
realm of “mystery” despite the fact that unintelligibility is not

the biblical meaning of mystery. Paul uses the term “mystery”
to speak of things hidden in the past but which are now re-
vealed by God clearly.
Only two types of union of persons are found in the Bible:
the marriage union of man and woman by which they be-
come one flesh, and the spiritual union of God and man by
which they become one spirit (1Cor.6:17). The Bible never
speaks of a hypostatic union, a trinitarian invention that in
itself created much bitter conflict in the early church over
what it means.
Scripture, on the other hand, gives us a wonderful vision
of God dwelling in His people, whose bodies serve as His
temple on earth. God is found in His people, for the fullness
of Yahweh that indwells Jesus also indwells His people: “to
know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you
may be filled with all the fullness of God” (Eph.3:19). As is
often the case in Paul’s teaching, what is true of Jesus is also
true of God’s children.
“I am”
In our trinitarian days, when we saw the “I am” sayings of
Jesus in John’s Gospel, we immediately assumed that Jesus
was declaring himself God. In our minds there is no need to
prove that Jesus is God, for Jesus declared it himself. Of
course none of us thought that the blind man healed by Jesus
was claiming to be God when he said “I am” to those who
asked him if he was the blind man they had known all along
(John 9:9). The most discussed “I am” statement in John’s

Gospel is the one in the last verse of the following passage:
51
“Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he will
never see death.” 52 The Jews said to him, “Now we know that
you have a demon! Abraham died, as did the prophets, yet you
say, ‘If anyone keeps my word, he will never taste death.’ 53
Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the
prophets died! Who do you make yourself out to be?” 54 Jesus
answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my
Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’ 55
But you have not known him. I know him. If I were to say
that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you, but I do
know him and I keep his word. 56 Your father Abraham
rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” 57
So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and
have you seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly,
I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” (John 8:51-58, ESV)
The disputation with the Jews 151 started with Jesus’ declarat-
ion, “Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he
151
Thayer’s Greek-English lexicon, Ioudaios (Jewish, Judean), says
that John “ascribes to Jesus and his apostles language in which they
distinguish themselves from the Jews, as though the latter sprang from
an alien race”. We need to be careful about making excessive statements
of this kind which can have undesirable and even dangerous ethnic and
religious implications. We should bear in mind something that Jesus
said about the Jews: “You worship what you do not know; we worship
what we know, for salvation is from the Jews” (Jn.4:22)—hardly a
statement that is hostile to the Jews. Paul evidently did not see any-
thing in Jesus’ teaching that was hostile to the Jews, for in Paul’s think-
will never see death” (v.51). The key statement is, “if anyone
keeps my word”. The word which Jesus spoke, as he pointed
out many times, was not his own but the Father’s. To obey
God’s word is life, to disobey it is death, as the Jews would
know from their own Law. In Jesus’ discussion with the Jews,
the key message was the keeping of God’s word. Jesus had the
authority to proclaim God’s word because he kept it: “I do
know Him and I keep His word” (v.55). Like Moses, Jesus
proclaimed God’s word, but at a higher level than Moses.
Jesus’ age, which the Jews overestimated to be nearly fifty,
was irrelevant to the issue; Moses was around eighty when he
confronted Pharaoh (Ex.7:7).
The main theme of this incident is God’s word delivered
to the Jews through Jesus. Yet trinitarians are interested only
in what they suppose are the key words, “Before Abraham
was, I am”.
A proper reading of John 8:58 would take into considerat-
ion the fact that the standalone “I am” in John 8:58 (without
an explicit predicate nominative) is also found in verses 24
and 28 of the same chapter. In the following verses (all from
ESV), the underlined word “he” is not in the Greek text.
ing it is always “the Jews first” (Rom.1:16; 2:9,10), both in reward and
in punishment.
Verse 24: I told you that you would die in your sins, for
unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins
Verse 28: When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you
will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own
authority, but speak just as the Father taught me
Verse 58: Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I

am.
In verses 24 and 28, the word “he” (see the underlined) is not
in the Greek. Hence all three verses here have the standalone
“I am” in the Greek. Most Bibles (ESV, KJV, NET, NIV,
NRSV) legitimately and plausibly add “he” to verses 24 and
28 to complete the intended meaning of the “I am” state-
ments (“I am he”). Yet these Bibles don’t do the same for
verse 58.
What is Jesus saying about himself when he says “I am he”
in verses 24 and 28? A few trinitarians take it to mean “I am
God,” but others are aware that this reading would be prob-
lematic in v.28 because it would make the “I AM” come un-
der the “authority” of another person, which cannot possibly
be true of the Almighty “I AM”. Hence some trinitarians
(plausibly) read verses 24 and 28 to mean, “I am the Mess-
iah,” which would align with the explicitly stated objective of
John’s Gospel, “that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ”
(Jn.20:31). John Calvin, a trinitarian, says that it would be a
“mistake” to take “I am” in v.24 as a reference to “the divine
essence of Christ”; Calvin emphatically takes it as “I am the
Messiah”.
If in fact verses 24 and 28 declare Jesus to be the Messiah,

what about verse 58 (“before Abraham was, I am”)? Could it
likewise be a declaration that Jesus is the Messiah? This is
reinforced by the immediate context: “your father Abraham
rejoiced that he would see my day” (v.56), a statement which
most trinitarians take to mean that Abraham had a vision of
the future Messiah.
B ut if we take John 8:58 as a reference to Yahweh, name-

ly, the “I AM” of Exodus 3:14, then there would be two
main ways of understanding this. One way is to say that Jesus
is identical with Yahweh the “I AM”. But this would be
problematic to those trinitarians who rightly see Yahweh as
being God the Father and not God the Son. If Jesus is indeed
Yahweh, that would exclude the Father as Yahweh (in view of
Dt.6:4 which says there is only one Yahweh) and even as God
(in view of Isa.45:5, which says there is no God besides
Yahweh).
“I AM” is not a general name of God but the specific
name of Yahweh (“I AM has sent me to you,” Ex.3:14). If
Jesus claimed to be the I AM, he would be claiming to be
Yahweh God. Jesus who did not grasp at equality with God
(Phil.2:6) would now be publicly declaring himself the only
true God of Israel! Any such intention on the part of Jesus
can be ruled out by Phil.2:6, but equally by the fact that only
Yahweh is God (Isa.45:5).
The other way of explaining the “I am” of John 8:58 as a
reference to Yahweh is one that harmonizes with the entire
John’s Gospel: In John 8:58, Yahweh is speaking directly
through Jesus to say to the Jews, “Before Abraham was, I AM”.

This is a direct reference to what Yahweh had earlier said to
Moses about His Name:
God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Say
this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”
(Ex.3:14)
In John 8:58, Yahweh spoke His Name to Israel, not from

a burning bush but through Jesus the one sent by God. This
is strengthened by v.28 of the same chapter in which Jesus
says that he “speaks just as the Father taught me”. This is
similar to the case of John 2:19 in which God spoke directly
through Jesus: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will
raise it up” (this special case will be discussed in the next
chapter).
All this harmonizes with the fact, repeated many times in
John’s Gospel, that Jesus speaks the very words of the Father:
“The word that you hear is not mine but the Father’s who
sent me.” (John 14:24, ESV)
“For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father

who sent me has himself given me a commandment—what
to say and what to speak. And I know that his command-
ment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father
has told me.” (John 12:49-50, ESV)
T he Jews misunderstood the Lord Jesus when he said to

them, “Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see
my day. He saw it and was glad.” (Jn.8:56) So they asked
him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen
Abraham?” (v.57)
But Jesus never said he had seen Abraham, but that
“Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day”—namely, the
day of Jesus’ exaltation as God’s Messiah (a view that is held
by many trinitarians). Abraham was given a glimpse of the fu-
ture Messiah and rejoiced at what he saw. Abraham was, after
all, a man who looked “to the city with foundations, whose
architect and builder is God” (Heb.11:10). This is the hea-
venly city from which Jesus Christ will reign over the universe
as Yahweh’s regent.
Jesus never said that Abraham had seen him with his
physical eyes but that Abraham saw “my day,” which is taken
uncontroversially by trinitarians and non-trinitarians alike to
mean that Abraham, by faith, caught a glorious vision of the
coming Messiah’s ministry of salvation.152
152
Most trinitarians hold this view of John 8:56. NIV Study Bible
says, “Jesus probably was not referring to any one occasion but to Abra-
ham’s general joy in the fulfilling of God’s purposes in the Messiah, by
which all nations on earth would receive blessing.” Thomas Constable
says that Jesus “fulfilled what Abraham looked forward to” and that
Abraham’s vision was a “prediction that God would bless the whole
world through Abraham”. Expositor’s Bible Commentary says, “Abraham
had a preview of Jesus’ ministry and rejoiced in it.”
A comparison of “before Abraham was, I am” with the

other “I am” sayings in John’s Gospel 153 shows that the form-
er is fundamentally different from the latter. The general “I
am” sayings are portraits of Jesus as the light, the door, the
resurrection, and so on, but the “I AM” statement in John
8:58 is unique and stands on its own.
Supplementary comment (optional reading)

Many take Jesus’ “I am” declaration in John 8:58 as a claim
to deity because of its similarity to the words, “I am who I
am,” spoken by Yahweh in Exodus 3:14. If we limit our anal-
ysis to the Greek text (the NT and LXX) and not the Hebrew
(the MT), then the equating of the “I am” of John 8:58 (“be-
fore Abraham was, I am”) with the “I AM” of Exodus 3:14
cannot be sustained purely on the basis of similar vocabulary.
Among the many instances of “I am” in John’s Gospel,
one was spoken by the blind man who had been healed by
Jesus. When the people asked him if he was the blind man
they had known all along, he answered, “I am” (John 9:9).
Most English translations expand this into something like “I
am he” or “I am the one” or “I am the man”. In the Greek,
egō eimi (ἐγώ εἰμι) which the man spoke is the same as the “I
am” spoken by Jesus in John 8:58. In the LXX, a similar use
153
I am the bread of life (John 6:35), the light of the world (8:12),
the door of the sheep (10:7), the good shepherd (10:11), the resur-
rection and the life (11:25), the way and the truth and the life (14:6),
the true vine (15:1).
of the standalone egō eimi is found in 2Sam.2:20 (Asahel said

“I am” to Abner).
But there is another Greek construction for “I am”—ho ōn
(ὁ ὤν)—which is different from the egō eimi spoken by Jesus.
In Ex.3:14 of the LXX, when Yahweh said “I am who I am,”
the first “I am” is egō eimi whereas the second “I am” is ho ōn.
Yahweh did not simply say egō eimi (“I am”), He said egō eimi
ho ōn, usually translated as “I am that I am” or “I am who I
am,” i.e. “the existing One”. In other words, Yahweh’s “I am
who I am” in Ex.3:14 is longer than Jesus’ “I am” in Jn.8:58.
In the “I am who I am” of Ex.3:14, the first “I am” (egō eimi)
merely introduces the second and definitive “I am” (ho ōn).
Historically it is the second “I am” (ho ōn) and not the first
(egō eimi) that was apparently a byword for “God” among
some Greek-speaking Jews (e.g., Philo’s Life of Moses, and
Cambridge Companion to Philo, p.198).
Similarly, in Exodus 3:14, when Yahweh instructed Moses
to say to the Israelites, “I AM has sent me to you,” the “I
AM” is the definitive ho ōn rather than the egō eimi that Jesus
spoke in John 8:58.
Since our distinction between egō eimi and ho ōn is based
on the Greek and not the Hebrew, does it have any relevance
for Exodus 3:14 (“I am who I am”)? Perhaps, and for an un-
expected reason. In Revelation 1:4 (“who is and who was and
who is to come,” which is uttered by God and not by Jesus),
John appends ho ōn in the nominative to the preposition apo
even though apo calls for the genitive. This striking gramma-
tical anomaly may be an intended allusion to Exodus 3:14.
The possibility that John is making a heightened distinction
between the common egō eimi and the (possibly) theologically

significant ho ōn in Revelation 1:4 means that Jesus’ use of egō
eimi rather than ho ōn in John 8:58 may be significant, and
may give less support to the trinitarian view of this verse than
is supposed by trinitarians.
Chapter 12
Yahweh and His

Relationship to Jesus
The beauty of Yahweh: A meditation

The first part of this chapter is meditative. Let us begin with
the beauty and splendor of Yahweh our God:
One thing I ask of Yahweh, one thing I seek:

to dwell in Yahweh’s house all the days of my life,
to enjoy the sweetness of Yahweh, to seek out his temple.
(Psalm 27:4, NJB)
The Psalmist speaks of “the sweetness of Yahweh” (NJB) or

“the beauty of the LORD” (ESV). And where is His beauty
seen? Most wonderfully in His love and concern for His
people, notably the afflicted and the destitute, as seen in His
taking care of their physical and spiritual needs:
Isaiah 63:9 In all their affliction He was afflicted. (ESV)
Exodus 3:7-8 Yahweh said, “I have surely seen the affliction of

my people which are in Egypt, and have heard their cry by
reason of their taskmasters; for I know their sorrows; and I
am come down to deliver them.” (KJV, “Yahweh” in the
Hebrew restored)
Titus 3:4-6 But when the goodness and loving kindness of

God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works
done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy,
by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy
Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ
our Savior. (ESV)
1 John 4:9-10 This is how God showed his love among us: He
sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live
through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he
loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.
(ESV)
The Old Testament portrays Yahweh as the perfect embodi-

ment of goodness, lovingkindness, and compassion. This
picture is carried over into the New Testament in which it is
said of Him: “For God so loved the world that He gave His
only Son” (Jn.3:16).
Yahweh’s lovingkindness is exemplified in Jesus in his
encounter with a Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well (Jn.4:7ff).
Jesus was a total stranger to her, yet she wasn’t intimidated by
his presence. He confronted her about her sins, yet without
humiliating her or driving her away, but in a way that liber-
Chapter 12 — Yahweh and His Relationship to Jesus 633
ated her from her sins. That is the kind of spiritual help that
she, a sinner, would welcome.
One of the verses we just quoted, 1 John 4:9-10, brings
out the vastness of God’s love for us in His plan of salvation
through Jesus Christ. But just a few verses later, John inverts
the matter and talks about our love for God and His people:
If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a
liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen
cannot love God whom he has not seen. (1 John 4:20)
The one who is loved by God must love His children. But
how do we apply this teaching? It is familiar enough to us, yet
many are troubled by it, for the faults and failings of some
brothers and sisters are all too obvious. They are hard to love,
yet God has no problem loving them. He dwells in believers,
the temple of God (1Cor.3:16), and that would include the
brother or sister we find hard to love. We are happy to love
God whom we cannot see, and also Jesus Christ whom we
don’t see because he is at the right hand of God.
Yet many believers love God and Christ more than them-
selves and their loved ones even though they cannot see God.
Although most unbelievers pay no attention to God because
they don’t see Him, yet all believers were at one time unbe-
lievers. What had caused them to change their hearts towards
God whom they cannot see? How can God who was not real
to them suddenly become real? Is this a shift in intellectual
belief or is it a spiritual transformation that had caused them
to say with Paul, “I know whom I have believed” (2Tim.
1:12)?
True believers experience God’s transforming work in

their hearts and minds, the radicalness of which is expressed
in the words, “Formerly you were darkness but now you are
light in the Lord” (Eph.5:8). His transforming power gives us
life, and changes the world around us.
Salvation is from Yahweh, the Rock of my salvation

The foundation stone on which to build a comprehensive
understanding of salvation is the truth that salvation is from
Yahweh. It runs through the Bible and is seen in the following
Old Testament statements (all from NJB):
Psalm 27:1 Yahweh is my light and my salvation, whom shall
I fear?
Psalm 68:20 This God of ours is a God who saves; from Lord
Yahweh comes escape from death.
Jonah 2:9 Salvation comes from Yahweh!
Salvation, like truth and light, is embodied in Yahweh. He

saves us because He is salvation and He is love. He alone is
our Savior: “There is no other god except me, no saving God,
no Saviour except me!” (Isaiah 45:21, NJB) “You know no
God but me, and besides me there is no savior” (Hosea 13:4).
This statement is meaningful in the light of the Father’s
unchanging perfection. God’s perfection is constant because
He is “the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or
shadow due to change” (James 1:17), as seen also in the Old
Testament: “I Yahweh do not change” (Mal.3:6).
The meaning of “Yahweh” has been the topic of much

scholarly discussion (see Appendix 3) and is well expressed in
the description, “He who is, who was, and who is to come”
(Rev.1:4,8; 11:17; 16:5), and “from everlasting to everlasting
you are God” (Psa.90:2), and “the living God” (Josh.3:10;
Psa.42:2; Jer.10:10; Mt.16:16; Rom.9:26; 1Tim.4:10).
To the eternal God, there is neither past nor future. He
always is. By contrast, we finite beings perceive time as past,
present, and future. In the blink of an eye, one second in the
future is one second in the past. The present is the constant
flux of the future moving to the past, and we are like fish
swimming in a stream. We live in the flow of time and aim to
make the most of it.
Because a rock symbolizes stability and unchangeableness,
God is said to be our Rock and our Savior:
2 Samuel 22:2-4 Yahweh is my rock and my fortress and my
deliverer, my God, my rock, in whom I take refuge, my
shield, and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold and my
refuge, my savior; you save me from violence. I call upon
Yahweh, who is worthy to be praised, and I am saved from
my enemies. (ESV, “Yahweh” in the Hebrew restored)
Verse 47 Yahweh lives, and blessed be my rock, and exalted

be my God, the rock of my salvation.
Yahweh is called the Rock some 30 times in the Psalms.

To rest upon the Rock is to take shelter in it. Yahweh saves
those who put their trust in Him, “the rock of my salvation”
(Psa.89:26; 95:1). The Rock is not a static object but the liv-
ing God: “Yahweh lives, and blessed be my rock, and exalted

be the God of my salvation” (Psa.18:46; 2Sam.22:47). This is
the basis of the oath “as Yahweh lives” which occurs some 28
times in the OT. Yahweh would often make an oath or de-
claration on the basis of His being alive: “As I live, declares
Yahweh,” a declaration that occurs 14 times in Ezekiel alone.
Because of God’s rock-like, unchanging quality, He
doesn’t change His mind about the promises He has made:
Numbers 23:19 God is not man, that he should lie, or a son
of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and
will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?
(ESV)
Psalm 110:4 Yahweh has sworn and will not change his mind
(cf. Heb.7:21)
The gospel of God

Yahweh is the center of the Old and New Testaments. Hence
Paul speaks of the gospel as “the gospel of God” (Rom.1:1;
15:16; 2Cor.11:7; 1Th.2:2,8,9) or “the gospel of the grace of
God” (Acts 20:24). Jesus likewise preached the “gospel of
God” (Mk.1:14), the good news of Yahweh.
But Yahweh’s gospel focuses on Jesus the Messiah (the
Christ), for God was in Christ reconciling the world to Him-
self (2Cor.5:19). Hence the New Testament also proclaims
the gospel of Jesus Christ the perfect man, for it is through
this perfect man that God reconciles the world to Himself. It
is as perfect man that Jesus Christ is the savior of the world.
Mark speaks of “the gospel of Jesus Christ” (Mk.1:1). Paul

speaks of “the gospel of our Lord Jesus” (2Th.1:8); in the
next chapter he says that God “called you through our gospel
so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ”
(2:14). God’s intention is that through the gospel, the believ-
er may participate in Jesus’ glory. God does not glorify Jesus
only for Jesus’ sake but for ours as well.
The spiritual union of Yahweh and Jesus

It is crucial for us to understand the nature of the spiritual
union of Yahweh and Jesus, the unique Son and perfect man.
Jesus speaks of this union when he says, “Just as you, Father,
are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us” (John
17:21). The last clause, “that they also may be in us,”
indicates that this union is meant to include believers. This is
seen in Paul’s statement, “He who is joined to the Lord is one
spirit with Him” (1Cor.6:17).
But in reality, because of our imperfection, our union with
God is less intimate than the union of God and Christ as
expressed as “you in me, I in you”—a union that is not to be
understood in terms of a common substance within the
Trinity, a quasi-material concept fabricated by the Gentile
church but is found nowhere in the Bible. The spiritual union
of Yahweh and Jesus means that they cannot be separated in
God’s plan of salvation. In the work of salvation, Jesus’ role as
the Lamb of God is crucial, for by it he becomes the expiation

that atones for man’s sins.154
Through atonement in Christ, God reconciles man to
Himself and gives him the priceless gift of eternal life by
which redeemed man becomes a new creation in Christ. The
sacrifice of Jesus negates the death-dealing effects of sin, and
gives life to all who believe. Christ is a life-giving spirit (1Cor.
15:45) to those who have faith and are members of his body,
the church, of which he is the head. They partake of God’s
divine nature (2Pet.1:4) and become His people and special
possession. Such are the rich blessings that Yahweh has
bestowed on believers through Christ.
Yahweh as Father
In the New Testament, Yahweh is spoken of as “Father”. This
was how Jesus addressed God in prayer, and he would some-
times use a more intimate term of address, “Abba,” which is
the Aramaic equivalent of Papa or Daddy.
The Greek for “father” (patēr) occurs 413 times in the
New Testament. About 60% of the occurrences refer to God
as Father, with 136 of these found in John’s Gospel.
154
As seen in: “whom God put forward as a propitiation by his
blood” (Rom. 3:25); “to make propitiation for the sins of the people”
(Heb.2:17); “he is the propitiation for our sins” (1Jn.2:2); “he loved us
and sent his Son to be the propitiation for your sins” (1Jn.4:10). The
Greek for “propitiation” (more accurately “expiation”) is hilastērion in
the first verse, hilaskomai in the second, and hilasmos in the last two.
In the Old Testament, the Israelites addressed Yahweh as

Father (“You, Yahweh, are our Father,” Isa.63:16) but often
in a formal manner, e.g., to say that Yahweh is our Father on
account of His being our Creator: “Is He not your Father
who created you, who made and established you?” (Dt. 32:6);
“Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us?”
(Mal.2:10). This formality is bridged over in the New Testa-
ment yet without diminishing our reverence for God. The
essence of NT spirituality lies in a new way of relating to
Yahweh as our Father, who loves and cares for His people.
The intimacy with God our Father is the dynamic force in
the believer’s life in Christ, and is achieved through mutual
indwelling: “I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you”
(Jn.14:20). Since we are in Christ and Christ is in the Father,
we are in the Father (“that they also may be in us,” Jn.17:21).
For this to be a reality, we must experience it and not just
analyze it intellectually. This intimacy is made possible by the
indwelling Spirit who moves God’s people to cry out “Abba”
(Rom.8:15; Gal.4:6). If anyone does not relate to God as
Abba, he is not one of God’s people.
It is our relationship with Yahweh the living God that
makes the gospel the good news it really is. Neither Judaism
nor Islam speaks of a relationship with God in a way that is as
intimate, yet the sad truth is that even among Christians, few
experience this kind of intimacy. For most Christians, the
religion called Christianity is as formal and external as any
other, sometimes more so. Worse yet, the heresy of trinitar-
ianism has removed Yahweh, whom Jesus calls the only true
God, from our focus and line of sight.
But if we are united with God, what is amazing, even

sublime, is the conjoining of the majestic name of Yahweh
with the loving respect we show Him by calling Him “Abba”
or “Papa”. It is a remarkable juxtaposition of opposites: the
omnipotent God and a helpless child; the Almighty and the
weak; the Most High and the most lowly; the infinite and the
finite; the Everlasting God and the one whose “days are like
grass and the flower of the field” (Ps.103:15).
This gives new perspective to the words, “Unless you
change and become like little children, you will never enter
the kingdom of heaven” (Mt. 18:3). It is young children who
call their fathers “Papa” or “Daddy” or, in Aramaic, “Abba”.
Anyone who thinks he has been a Christian long enough to
outgrow addressing Yahweh as “Papa” has not yet understood
the intimacy of this living relationship. In the final days of
Jesus, in the crisis in which he found himself, Jesus still add-
ressed Yahweh as “Abba, Father” (Mk. 14:36). We likewise
call God “Abba” because of the deep work of the Spirit within
us:
Romans 8:15 You have received the Spirit of adoption as
sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” (ESV)
Galatians 4:6 Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his
Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.”
(NIV)
God wants us to call Him “Abba” and to have a living

relationship with Him. This is established when Yahweh
reaches out to us in love, and we respond to Him with all our
heart, soul, and strength (Dt.6:5; Mt.22:37).
Jewish piety has moved towards a less intimate relationship
with God by adopting a degree of formality in relating to
Him even to the extent of not pronouncing the name
Yahweh. This name has been replaced with Adonai, a formal
and distant form of address equivalent to “Lord” or “Sir”. It is
only natural to have hesitations about addressing one’s Lord
and Master by his personal name. So over time it was taught
that the name Yahweh must never be uttered even though the
Bible encourages God’s people to proclaim the name and
even to make an oath by it (Dt.10:20; Jer.12:16). The pro-
hibition of uttering the name Yahweh was a later, post-exilic
development in Judaism. In early Jewish history, Yahweh’s
name was “regularly pronounced with its proper vowels,”
according to the Jewish work, Encyclopedia Judaica (see
Appendix 1 of the present book). But irrespective of what we
have done to God’s name, the fact remains that Jesus taught
his disciples a new way of relating to God, namely, addressing
Him as Abba, Daddy.
I am the way, the truth, and the life

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life.
No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John
14:6)
Trinitarians take this verse, John 14:6, as providing evidence

for the deity of Jesus. But the meaning of these words is al-
ready explained by Jesus himself, and we don’t need to make
them mean what they don’t mean. Nothing in this verse says
that Jesus is God. What Jesus does instead is to declare that
the threefold function of his work—as the way, the truth, and
the life—is summed up in the concluding words, “No one
comes to the Father except through me”. Our final desti-
nation and objective is not Jesus Christ but God the Father,
and we come to Him through Jesus who is “the way”—thus
ruling out any other way.
Truth and life are also mentioned because they are linked
to the way: Jesus is the true and living way. The words
“truth” and “life” cannot be plucked out of this context to
make the claim that since Jesus is the truth and the life, he is
God.
The fact that “truth” and “life” are vital concepts in John’s
Gospel can be seen in the following statistics. John’s Gospel
has 20 instances of the Greek word alētheia (“truth”), the
highest in the New Testament, the next highest being Rom-
ans and First John (8 times each). The word zōē (“life”) in
decreasing order of frequency: 32 times in John’s Gospel, 17
times in Revelation, 14 times in Romans, 10 times in 1 John.
These are from John’s writings except those in Romans.
These statistics confirm what we have just said, that truth

and life are fundamental concepts in John’s Gospel. Hence
their appearance in John 14:6 is not something that can be
torn out of the broader context and made to prove Jesus’
deity. A look at the other instances of “truth” and “life” in the
Bible will negate the misuse of these two important and ubi-
quitous words. Yahweh’s truth and life—which are embodied
in Jesus—will bring the one who believes in Jesus into a
dynamic faith that includes truth and life. The believer part-
icipates in these spiritual realities that are ultimately found in
Yahweh, the “living and true God” (1Thess.1:9).
John the Baptist draws from Isaiah 40:3 (“the way of
Yahweh”) his proclamation of “the way of the Lord” in John
1:23. Jesus later speaks of “the way” to his disciples: “You
know the way to where I am going” (Jn.14:4). Then Thomas
says, “We do not know where you are going,” and this leads
to John 14:6, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life.” To
know Jesus is to know him who is the way. The “way” is not
a teaching derived from the various sects in the time of Jesus
but something embodied in the person of Jesus, who is the
way, and in whom the truth and the life will empower with
new life those who believe in him.
The three principles—the way, the truth, and the life—are
inseparably linked. It is the integration of the three that takes
us to the Father, who is the source of all three. Truth and life
are not independent of each other, but are integral elements
of the way. Yet trinitarians pull this verse apart, out of con-
text, and make it mean “I am the truth and the life” in some
absolute divine sense.
But Jesus cannot possibly be “the life” in the absolute

sense because his own life depends on the Father’s: “I live
because of the Father” (Jn.6:57); “For as the Father has life in
himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself”
(5:26).
When we see that the message of John 14:6 is our coming
to the Father, we are left wondering why this verse is even
taken as a proof text of Jesus’ deity. Jesus is not the final
destination but the way to the destination.
But for us to go to the Father, it is not enough to know
our destination. We must first deal with the sin that is im-
peding our progress. Sin is a fearful reality both in the world
around us and within our hearts. All around us is a famine of
spiritual truth, and within us is the lack of life, for man is
“dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph.2:1). But Jesus draws us
into God’s truth and life, for Jesus the perfect man embodies
these qualities in himself even if his own life is derived from
the Father’s (“I live because of the Father,” Jn.6:57). Jesus is
the way to the Father, for his life is wholly focused on God
and he is the only mediator between God and man
(1Tim.2:5).
The three elements in “I am the way, the truth, and the
life” are prominent in Psalms and Proverbs. In the LXX (the
Greek Old Testament), “way” (hodos, ὁδός) occurs 94 times
in Proverbs and 79 times in Psalms, more than in any other
book; “truth” (alētheia, ἀλήθεια) occurs 59 times in Psalms,
more than in any other book; “life” (zōē, ζωή) occurs 38 times
in Proverbs and 25 times in Psalms, more than in any other
OT book. Hence the way, the truth, and the life are three key
concepts in the wisdom books of Psalms and Proverbs, as also

in John’s Gospel. These three principles (the way, the truth,
the life) link the three books—Psalms, Proverbs, John —
together, giving us new insight into Jesus’ statement that the
Scriptures testify about him (Jn.5:39). Vincent Taylor makes
a helpful comment on John 14:6:
The full force of these names is perceived only when they are
taken together, as the Evangelist (John) uses them … Jesus is
“the Way,” through whom, as “the Truth,” we receive the
knowledge of God, and in whom, as “the Life,” we have here
and now eternal life. The words which follow the three
names, “no one comes to the Father, but by me” (14:6b),
refer, not only to the first, but to all. Christ is “the Way” to
the Father because he is also “the Truth” and “the Life” …
for of whom else can it be said that he is the way to the
Father, the perfect revelation of God, and the giver of
fullness of life? (Names of Jesus, p.145f.)
No one knows the Son except the Father, and the

Father except the Son
No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows
the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son
chooses to reveal him. (Matthew 11:27, parallel Luke 10:22)
When we look at the intimate union of the Father and the

Son, we cannot help but reflect on our own situation and
confess that sin does indeed separate the sinner from God:
“But your iniquities have separated you from your God; your
sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear”
(Isa.59:2, NIV). But Jesus who is perfectly sinless and obed-
ient to the Father is able to have unhindered fellowship with
Him as no one else can. Jesus is the only person in humanity
who through perfect sinlessness and doing the things pleasing
to God (Jn.8:29) has this unique communion with Yahweh.
The wonderful message of the closeness between God the
Father and the man Christ Jesus is lost to the trinitarian for
whom such intimacy is thought to be possible only between
two divine persons and not between God and man. In
trinitarianism, the intimacy between God the Father and God
the Son is taken for granted because it is internal to the triune
Godhead. The wonderful truth that God and man can have a
relationship as deep as that between God and Christ is
rejected by trinitarians at an enormous spiritual loss. The
sweetness of the communion between Yahweh and the man
Christ Jesus ought to inspire every believer to a closer walk
with God. Yet trinitarianism robs the believer of that inspira-
tion by suppressing the wonderful truth that we can enter
into the same communion with the Father if we follow in
Jesus’ steps.
The closeness between God and Jesus, and that between
Jesus and his disciples, are expressed in the Greek word kolpos:
John 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in
the bosom (kolpos) of the Father, he has made him known.
(RSV)
John 13:23 One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was lying
close to the breast (kolpos) of Jesus. (RSV)
On kolpos BDAG says, “apart from the idea of dining

together on the same couch [Jn.13:23], ‘being in someone’s
bosom’ denotes the closest association” (italics mine).
Inner communication between the Father and the

Son
To appreciate Jesus as the only perfect man, we need to un-
derstand his inner communication with Yahweh his Father.
To our surprise, God intends that the same kind of intercom-
munication be established between God and us, made poss-
ible through the work of Christ. The failure to see this will
rob us of the riches of the good news of Jesus Christ and what
he had come to accomplish for us. What is the purpose of the
death of the Lamb of God if not to open a new and living
way to Yahweh our Father?
But the problem for the Bible scholar is that the intercom-
munication between Yahweh and Jesus and the believer is not
amenable to the type of analysis demanded by “scientific
theology”. If anyone tries to learn more about this intercom-
munication by consulting the Bible commentaries, he or she
will soon be disappointed. That is because the commentator
who doesn’t communicate with God in daily life won’t be
able to give much illumination on this vital subject. Inner
communication with God has to do with life, spiritual life,
eternal life. Life has to be lived, not talked about or analyzed.
Those who don’t live this kind of life won’t know much
about it except by hearsay or intellectual analysis. The highest
academic qualifications do not qualify anyone to speak on the

topic of intercommunication with “the Living God” (Heb.
9:14).
In theological institutes today, there are academics who are
teaching a subject—knowing God—which in terms of their
life experience they are not qualified to teach. How can any-
one lecture on the spiritual dynamics of Jesus’ life if his own
life is not driven by the same dynamics? The only things that
academics can discuss are the external issues of the gospels:
date, author, genre, etc.
Theological colleges generally don’t ask their academic
staff about their spiritual lives, much less whether they com-
municate with God. The most important requirements for
employment are their academic credentials and doctrinal pos-
ition. It seems that everyone has forgotten that neither Jesus
nor the apostles had any academic credentials. What God
looks for in a person is not his academic qualifications but
whether he knows the living God.
The problem surfaces again when we come to the subject
of the present book: Jesus the Only Perfect Man. Anyone
who doesn’t have a living relationship with God won’t be able
to understand this topic, for he won’t be able to identify with
Jesus who maintains a continuous inner communication with
the Father, as expressed in, “You, Father, are in me, and I in
you, that they also may be in us” (John 17:21).
The mutual indwelling, whether between God and Jesus
or between God and His people, is ultimately between God
and man, not between God and God, that is, not between
“God the Father” and “God the Son” as in trinitarianism.
The Bible nowhere speaks of a mutual indwelling of God in

God. Just as Jesus is God’s temple (John 2:19), so believers
are a temple of God (1Cor.3:16).
The failure to see that intercommunication with the
Father is possible not only for Jesus but also for us, is a failure
to see that many statements about Jesus in the Bible have
parallel statements about believers. “As he is, so are we in the
world” (1Jn.4:17; NIV 2011 has, “in this world we are like
Jesus”). Jesus repeatedly says that his Father lives in him, as
seen in the following verses from John’s Gospel (both ESV).
John 14:20 “In that day you will know that I am in my
Father, and you in me, and I in you.” (also John 10:38;
14:10-11)
John 17:21 “that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are
in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the
world may believe that you have sent me.”
The latter verse, John 17:21, reveals an additional principle:

we are in God and in Christ. Conversely, God is in us
because the believer’s body is the temple of God:
1 Corinthians 3:16-17 Do you not know that you are God’s
temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? If anyone des-
troys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple
is holy, and you are that temple. (ESV)
1 Corinthians 6:19 Or do you not know that your body is a

temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from
God? (ESV)
Jesus also speaks of his body as the temple of God:

John 2:19-22 19
Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple,
and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “It
has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you
raise it up in three days?” 21 But he was speaking about the
temple of his body. 22 When therefore he was raised from the
dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this …
(ESV)
Here Jesus refers to his coming death (“destroy this temple,”

v.19) and resurrection (“raised from the dead,” v.22). But we
also see something anomalous in the words, “In three days I
will raise it up,” for they seem to contradict the consistent
NT teaching that it is God the Father who raises Jesus from
the dead. In fact, apart from John 2:19, every reference to
Jesus’ resurrection in the NT speaks of God the Father as the
one who raises Jesus from the dead, without exception.155 But
here in John 2:19, Jesus says, “I will raise it up”; this time, it
is not the Father who raises Jesus from the dead but Jesus
who raises himself.
How do we handle this sole exception to the consistent
New Testament teaching that it is the Father who raises Jesus?
Sweep it under the carpet by letting it go? The key to
resolving this is found in Jesus’ repeated declaration in the
very same gospel (of John) that he does everything, says every-
thing, and teaches everything as commanded by the Father.
When we realize that Jesus speaks only what the Father com-
155
Acts 2:24,32; 3:15,26; 13:30; Rom.4:24; 6:4; 8:11; 1Cor.15:4,12
(divine passive, as in Jn.2:22); Gal.1:1; Eph.1:20; Col.2:12; 1Pet.1:21.
mands him to speak, we will see that it must have been the
Father Himself who is speaking through Jesus in John 2:19
(“I will raise it up”). This conclusion is strengthened by the
words that appear just three verses later: “when therefore he
was raised from the dead”. The words “he was raised” are
translated from the Greek ēgerthē, the aorist passive of egeirō,
confirming that Jesus did not raise himself up.
God works and speaks through Jesus

Before we can identify with Jesus our Lord, we need to see
that he is like us, the people of the world. Trinitarianism got
us started on the wrong foot by describing Jesus as “God-
man” or “God incarnate,” making him a person we cannot
understand, let alone identify with. Trinitarianism has placed
Jesus, right from his birth, on a different level from us such
that he could only be regarded as an object of worship and
not as a human like us, which puts the reality of his humanity
in question. So we read about Jesus in the gospels with tinted
glasses, and view his activities as being those of a God-man
and not a human being like us. As a result we cannot relate to
the gospel narratives about Jesus in the important sense of
emulating his life, which is what we are called to do.
It is crucial to keep in mind that the works which Jesus
does are done by the Father through him, and that the words
which Jesus speaks are the words of the Father, the One who
sent him and dwells in him. The following are from John’s
Gospel (ESV unless otherwise noted):
John 14:10 “The words that I say to you I do not speak on

my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his
works.”
John 3:34 “For he whom God has sent utters the words of
God.”
John 7:16 “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me.”
John 8:28 “I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just

as the Father taught me.”
John 5:19 “The Son can do nothing by himself; he can do

only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the
Father does the Son also does.” (NIV)
John 12:49-50 “For I did not speak of my own accord, but

the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and
how to say it. I know that his command leads to eternal life,
so whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say.”
(NIV 1984)
In the last of these verses, Jesus says that the Father “com-
manded me what to say and how to say it”. 156 So complete is
156
NIV 1984 and CJB have “what to say and how to say it”. In the
Greek text, “what” and “how” are translated from the same interroga-
tive pronoun “tis” (τίς, not to be confused with τὶς). A common mean-
ing of “tis” is the interrogative “what” though the exclamatory “how” is
also possible (BDAG). By rendering the two instances of “tis” differ-
ently as “what” and “how,” both of which are lexically valid, NIV 1984
and CJB avoid the repetitious and redundant “what to say and what to
speak” found in other translations.
Jesus’ submission to the Father that he says exactly what his

Father wants him to say, even in the tone and manner in-
tended by God.
In John’s Gospel, Jesus repeatedly says that his Father
works and speaks through him in everything he does and says.
This is linked to the fact that the Father has given His works
to Jesus to complete and to perfect:
For the works that the Father has given me to accomplish
(teleioō, to complete, perfect), the very works that I am doing,
bear witness about me that the Father has sent me. (John
5:36, ESV)
Jesus’ perfect completion of the works that the Father had

sent him to do is crucial for mankind’s salvation, for these
works include the teaching of God’s life-giving word and the
sacrificial giving of himself on the cross as a “ransom for
many” (Mt.20:28; Mk.10:45).
Yet we are to do greater works than Jesus! “Whoever
believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater
works than these will he do, because I am going to the
Father” (Jn.14:12, ESV). This creates a conundrum for trinit-
arianism: Since trinitarians argue for Jesus’ deity on account
of the works that he does, how shall we regard those who do
even greater works by the same power of God that worked
through Jesus and is available to all who believe in him? Trin-
itarianism attributes Jesus’ miracles such as healing the sick
and raising the dead to his divinity. If that were so, why
would Jesus tell his followers, none of whom is divine, that
they will do greater works than he, or replicate what he has

done but with greater power?
It is by God’s indwelling that Jesus functions moment by
moment in all that he does, and this ought to be the life prin-
ciple for his disciples. The logic underlying this connection is
uncomplicated, yet has vital spiritual consequences, for if the
Father does all these things through Jesus, would He not do
the same through those who respond to Jesus’ call to follow
him? This line of spiritual logic would be broken if Jesus is
utterly different from his disciples as he is in trinitarian dog-
ma. Trinitarianism thus destroys a vital principle which Jesus
taught in John’s Gospel, suppressing the truth that the believ-
er will do greater works than Jesus (with the important ex-
ception of being an atonement for sin) by God’s power that is
available to those who have faith in Jesus.
When we read the New Testament without the distorting
trinitarian concepts of a later era, we will look to Jesus as the
one we can emulate and identify with, and from whom we
can learn to let Yahweh dwell in us as He dwelled in Jesus.
When Yahweh lives in us day by day, we will know the truth
of what Jesus said about Yahweh’s power working in the
believer, whether it is in our preaching or teaching, or in acts
of healing and casting out demons.
Jesus and the Old Testament prophets

Jesus describes himself as “a man who has told you the truth
that I heard from God” (Jn.8:40). Note the sharp distinction
between “man” and “God,” and how Jesus puts himself
squarely on the side of humanity. The fact that Jesus is a man
who is given the truth by God collides with the trinitarian
notion of the God-man. The words “I heard from God” mir-
ror what every prophet in Israel experienced in their declar-
ation, “Thus says the LORD” (literally, “Thus says Yahweh”).
The Old Testament prophets did not speak their own
thoughts but would speak forth whatever Yahweh told them
to say. Hence they would usually preface their pronounce-
ments with, “Thus says Yahweh” (or in most Bibles, “thus
says the LORD”). Similarly, the things that Jesus said were not
his own words but those of his Father (Jn.12:49). Jesus did
not use the prefatory words, “Thus says the Lord,” because
Yahweh, by His dwelling in Jesus, would simply speak
through Jesus either directly (e.g., “destroy this temple and in
three days I will raise it up,” Jn.2:19) or indirectly (e.g., where
Jesus speaks of the Father in the third person).
False prophets in the Old Testament also prefaced their
pronouncements with “Thus says Yahweh”. So how are they
to be identified? Jesus says, “Beware of false prophets … by
their fruits you will know them” (Mt. 7:15-16). We discern
their falsehood if holiness, a vital element of perfection, is
lacking in their lives.
In his time Jesus was recognized as a prophet of Israel, and
some have compared him to Elijah (Mt.16:14). Prophets not
only foretold the future but were also teachers of the nation.
Jesus himself was called “teacher” (in Matthew alone: 8:19;

12:38; 19:16; 22:16,24,36), and his wisdom was admired
even by his enemies (they marveled at his answer to the
question of paying taxes to Caesar, Mt.22:17-22). But unlike
the prophets of old, Jesus doesn’t just speak the truth, his life
perfectly embodies it. He doesn’t just say “I live the truth”
but says, “I am the truth.” That is the beauty and power of
Jesus, the only perfect man.
Jesus, sent by the Father

Reflected in John’s vocabulary is the emphatic teaching—in
terms of preponderance and in terms of strong statements by
Jesus—that Jesus is sent by God. For example, pempō (πέμπω,
send) occurs 79 times in the New Testament, with 32 of the
occurrences in John’s Gospel and 5 in Revelation. No other
NT book comes close to John in terms of frequency. The
three synoptics—Matthew, Mark, Luke—have only 15 occur-
rences combined. Acts, with 11 occurrences, comes in at a
distant second after John.
A study of how pempō is used in John’s Gospel will lead to
the discovery that it is often used in the statement “the One
who sent me” or equivalent statements such as “the Father
who sent me” or “He who sent me”. Of the 32 instances of
pempō in John, a surprisingly large majority, 26 to be exact,
are found in such phrases. 157 This practically makes “the
Father who sent me” a title of God in John’s Gospel!
157
The remaining six instances of pempō in John’s Gospel are used
Another word, apostellō (ἀποστέλλω, send), with 132

occurrences in the NT, is evenly distributed among the four
gospels and Acts: Matthew 22 times, Mark 20 times, Luke 26
times, John 28 times, Acts 24 times, and the rest of the New
Testament 12 times.
Of the 28 occurrences in John’s Gospel, 17 refer to God
the Father as the one who sent Jesus into the world.158 Com-
bining these 17 instances of apostellō and the 26 instances of
pempō which carry this meaning, we have a total of 43 state-
ments about Jesus as the one sent by the Father—in John’s
Gospel alone! This works out to an average of two such state-
ments per chapter. There are in addition three instances of
apostellō in First John (4:9,10, 14) which speak of the Father
sending the Son. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that Heb-
rews 3:1 speaks of Jesus as the “apostle (apostolos) and high
priest of our confession”.
The chief mission of the one who is sent is to do the will
of the one who sent him. In the case of Jesus, this is stated in
John 4:34, “My food is to do the will of Him who sent me.”
It would therefore be expected that thelēma (θέλημα, the will)
is a significant word in John. A quick check confirms that
thelēma, when referring to God’s will, occurs in Matthew 5
times, Mark once, and Luke once. It occurs 8 times in John’s
Gospel which is 20% shorter than Matthew.
in the following ways: the sending of the Spirit (14:26; 15:26; 16:7);
some priests and Levites were sent by the Jews (Jn.1:22); Jesus sent the
disciples (13:20; 20:21).
158
The 17 occurrences are John 3:17,34; 5:36,38; 6:29,57; 7:29;
8:42; 10:36; 11:42; 17:3,8,18,21,23,25; 20:21.
As the one sent by the Father, Jesus comes in his Father’s

name (Jn.5:43; 10:25), acts as his Father’s representative, and
does everything on God’s behalf as the one authorized to act
in His name. Only the one who has been sent by another can
act in that person’s name. We may legitimately baptize a
person in accordance with Mt.28:19 only if we ourselves have
been sent by God as His servants.
The trinitarian Jesus makes every God-appointed

ministry redundant, including that of being the
Messiah
In John’s Gospel, the way Jesus functioned is similar to the
way the Old Testament prophets functioned. The Jews who
spoke with Jesus immediately saw the striking similarities
between him and the prophets of old, notably Elijah, who is
mentioned many times in the gospels (Matthew 9 times,
Mark 9 times, Luke 8 times, John twice).
There was nothing that Jesus did in his earthly ministry,
with the crucial exception of being an atonement for sin, that
was not paralleled by the prophets. The main difference
between Jesus and the prophets lies in the unsurpassed level of
Jesus’ communion with the Father (Yahweh), which was
made possible by his being sinless all his life. Even Isaiah, the
greatest of the OT prophets, confessed his sinfulness: “I am a
man of unclean lips” (Isa. 6:5). There is hardly a person who
has not sinned in this way (“if anyone does not stumble in
what he says, he is a perfect man,” James 3:2). It doesn’t
mean that God didn’t communicate with Isaiah, otherwise,

with no one perfect in the world, there would be no one with
whom God could communicate! In fact the vision granted to
Isaiah, that of God in His glory, is perhaps the most magni-
ficent in the Old Testament.
“The Son can do nothing of his own but only what he sees
the Father doing” (Jn.5:19). The words “sees the Father”
indicate that visions of God are a common experience for
Jesus. Jesus “is in the bosom of the Father” (Jn.1:18), living in
the closest possible communion with God. In a statement
famously known as “a bolt from the Johannine blue,” Jesus
says: “All things have been handed over to me by my Father,
and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one
knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the
Son chooses to reveal him.” (Mt.11:27, parallel Lk.10:22)
The intimacy between Jesus and his Father is so deep that
Jesus is handed all things by the Father, whom Jesus addresses
as “Lord of heaven and earth” (Mt.11:25).
But trinitarianism makes all this superfluous, for if Jesus is
God the Son, he would “automatically” have the closest poss-
ible relationship with God the Father by virtue of a common
divine substance. The beauty of the intimate relationship be-
tween God and man, expressing the heights of what is possi-
ble for man by God’s love, is simply wiped out by the trinita-
rian teaching of Jesus as the God-man. Is there anything im-
pressive about a communion between “God the Father” and
“God the Son,” two consubstantial persons?
The problem goes beyond that, for trinitarian doctrine
makes redundant every God-appointed ministry and office
bestowed on man such as the office of priest or king, since it

would be God (as Jesus) who takes up the work that God has
assigned man to do.
In trinitarianism, it is the God-man rather than man who
says, “the Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has
anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor” (Lk.4:18). This
goes against the principle that the preaching of the gospel is a
task assigned to human preachers and evangelists. What hap-
pens in trinitarianism is that God the Son is anointed with
God the Spirit to be the Messiah, the Anointed One, whom
God the Father sends into the world. Why does God the
Father have to send a divine person as the Messiah? Is it be-
cause no human Messiah is allowed? Why does God as God
the Son do the work that God has appointed man to do? The
whole matter is becoming incomprehensible. In biblical
teaching, God came into the world to dwell in the man Jesus,
not a divine Jesus. Does God dispense with man in the minis-
try of salvation? Can God who is immortal die for man’s sins?
If there is nothing else that man can do, at the very least he
can die! And dying on the cross for man’s sin was indeed what
Jesus did.
Jesus’ chief earthly ministry at the present time

After Jesus had been taken up into heaven, he was seated at
the right hand of the Father. Since he is now in heaven, what
is his present earthly ministry? One of the chief of his
ministries is that of intercession for God’s people:
Romans 8:34 Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than

that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who
indeed is interceding for us.
Hebrews 7:25 He is able to save to the uttermost those who

draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make
intercession for them (cf. Isa.53:12)
Hebrews 9:24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places
made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but
into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on
our behalf.
1 John 2:1 My dear children, I write this to you so that you

will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who inter-
cedes before the Father —Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.
Interceding for God’s people seems to be Christ’s chief

ministry, or one of his chief ministries, at the present time.
But if Christ has authority over the church as the head of the
body, why would he need to plead with the Father on behalf
of the church? It is because the church is not the church of
Christ but the “church of God” (Acts 20:28; 1Cor.1:2; 10:32;
11:22; 15:9; 2Cor.1:1; Gal.1:13; 1Tim.3:5,15). God by His
Spirit indwells, empowers, and leads the church. We are
reminded of Moses who repeatedly interceded for Israel.
Although Moses was appointed the head of Israel by God, it
was God who dwelled in the midst of Israel, in tent or tem-
ple, and who led Israel to the land of promise.
If Jesus must dedicate himself wholly to the work of inter-

ceding for the church, this would indicate how precarious and
imperiled is the survival of the church in the world. The fact
that the church, in spite of Jesus’ intercession for it, could
have strayed by its own choice into serious error over the past
1,800 years, is cause for dismay. Yahweh has allowed this to
happen for some purpose we don’t understand. Yet through
these centuries of darkness, thanks to Jesus’ intercession, there
has always been a faithful remnant, just as there is a faithful
remnant among the Jews (Romans 9 to 11). While Jesus’
intercession for God’s people has not been in vain, few
Christians are even dimly aware of the enormity and intensity
of the spiritual battle that rages in and around the church of
God.
That Jesus is now in heaven and not on earth raises the
question of who is directing the church on earth, and whose
presence is it that sustains the faithful remnant—who are
called the “few” in Mt.7:14 (cf. Lk.13:23) and who by
Yahweh’s grace gain entrance into life. It is undoubtedly the
Spirit of Yahweh who upholds God’s people every day in the
spiritual battle against the evil one, the ruler of the world
(Jn.12:31; 14:30; 16:11). But the majority of Christians
today are so engaged in their own lives and earthly affairs that
they, sadly, are lovers of self rather than lovers of God (2Tim.
3:2-4). The importance of Jesus’ unceasing intercession for
the members of his body, the church, again impresses itself
upon our hearts and minds.
What was Jesus’ earthly ministry two millennia ago?

If intercession is one of Jesus’ chief ministries in the present
age, what was his earthly ministry two thousand years ago and
what meaning does it have for us today? From the portrait of
Jesus given in the gospels, his earthly ministry had two central
elements.
One element was the teaching of God’s word, the word of
Yahweh, with particular focus on the kingdom of God (or
kingdom of heaven), a key concept that few Christians are
familiar with. To most people, “kingdom” implies a territory
ruled by a monarch (e.g., “Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,” the
official name of Saudi Arabia) or a country with a constitut-
ional monarchy (e.g., “The United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland,” the official name of the United
Kingdom).
But the Greek word for “kingdom” (basileia) has the
primary meaning of the kingship and the royal rule of a king
rather than the territory he rules over, though the latter sense
is not excluded. BDAG gives two main definitions of this
word: (1) the act of ruling; a. kingship, royal power, royal rule;
b. the royal reign; (2) territory ruled by a king, kingdom. The
sense of territory is listed as the second rather than the first
definition, but more telling is that BDAG gives ten times as
many biblical and extra-biblical citations for the first defin-
ition (kingship and royal rule) than for the second definition
(a king’s territory). The kingdom of God is first and foremost
God’s rule in the lives of His people.
The kingdom of God is also called “the kingdom of

heaven,” a term that is used only in Matthew’s Gospel.159 The
equivalence of the kingdom of God and the kingdom of
heaven is seen in the fact that in Mt.19:23-24, Jesus uses both
terms to refer to the same thing. To the Jews, heaven is a
metonym of God in much the same way that to the Chinese,
heaven (天) is a metonym of God (神 or 上帝).
B esides the kingdom, the other central element in Jesus’

earthly ministry is his atoning death which is mentioned
many times in the synoptic gospels using language similar to
that used in plain-facts reporting. The most explicit statement
about his death and its purpose is found in Mark 10:45 (and
its parallel Mt.20:28) in which Jesus says that he came “not to
be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.”
In the parables, Jesus gives broad hints of his death, but there
is nothing as explicit as in the verse we just quoted.
It is in John’s Gospel that we see particularly deep empha-
sis on Jesus’ death, beginning with John the Baptist’s declar-
ation that Jesus is “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin
of the world” (Jn.1:29). No statement about the purpose of
159
Matthew uses “kingdom of heaven” 32 times and “kingdom of
God” 4 times (or 5 times, cf. manuscript variation in 6:33). By con-
trast, the rest of the NT uses “kingdom of God” 62 times and never
“kingdom of heaven”. The 62 occurrences are distributed as follows:
Mark 14x, Luke 32x, John 2x, Acts 6x, Paul’s letters 8x. These num-
bers do not include the shorter term “the kingdom” found in phrases
such as “the gospel of the kingdom” (Mt.4:23) or “the sons of the king-
dom” (8:12).
his death can be more explicit than that. The rest of John’s
Gospel elaborates on that crucial declaration about the Lamb
of God. The passion narrative, which covers the final week of
Jesus’ earthly life, takes up about one third of John’s Gospel
versus one quarter in the synoptics.
Thus the four gospels, as a unity, delineate the two focal
points of Jesus’ earthly ministry: In the synoptic gospels, the
focal point is his teaching ministry and its principal content,
the kingdom of God, which is also an important theme in the
Old Testament prophets. The other focal point, prominent in
all four gospels but especially in John, is the redemptive or
atoning work of Jesus’ life and death.
In the New Testament letters we find both these elements.
The principle of the kingdom is now operating in the life of
the church, hence the explicit term “the kingdom” appears
less frequently in the NT letters. The Sermon on the Mount,
which is central to life in the kingdom of God, is now imple-
mented in the spiritual life of the church of God, the body of
Christ.
Jesus’ earthly ministry has crucial meaning for us today.
His redeeming death and resurrection have a powerful life-
changing effect on believers:
Romans 9:26 And in the very place where it was said to
them, “You are not my people,” there they will be called
“sons of the living God.”
Ephesians 5:8 For at one time you were darkness, but now
you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light.
No greater or more startling transformation can be imagined

than what is described in these statements.
The time-limited nature of Jesus’ work

Having been nurtured in trinitarianism with its divine Jesus,
we read the Bible without realizing that his ministry in God’s
plan of salvation is time limited. Jesus’ work is not eternally
ongoing and interminable, but concludes with its successful
and triumphant completion. Jesus says it is not the healthy
but the sick who need a doctor. So what happens when the
doctor has successfully healed a sick person? The patient is
now one of the healthy ones who no longer need a doctor. In
other words, a good doctor is one who puts himself out of
business! It is the bad doctors who consume all the money of
the sick without healing them, as in the case of a woman with
an issue of blood for twelve years who “had spent all that she
had, and was no better but rather grew worse” (Mk.5:25-26).
At the cross, Jesus completed his work as the sacrificial
Lamb of God when he declared, “It is finished” (Jn.19:30).
He later ascended into heaven and was seated at the right
hand of God; his act of sitting down signified that he had
completed the work of atonement entrusted to him by the
Father. This point comes out strongly in the letter to the
Hebrews (“once for all,” 7:27; 9:12,26; 10:10). The sacrifice
of Jesus is “once for all” in contrast to the never-ending sacri-
fices offered in the Jerusalem temple which could never satis-
factorily atone for sin and had to be repeated perpetually. But
the sacrifice of Jesus is forever effective for the remission of
the sins of those who put their trust in him, the Lamb of God
slain for their salvation.
Jesus’ mission is to bring us to God, and once that has
been achieved, his mission has fulfilled its purpose. What
happens after Jesus has brought us to God? Does it not mean
that we can now fellowship directly with God? Once Jesus has
brought us into communion with Yahweh, his work is done,
and like the good doctor, his intervention is no longer needed
—unless, of course, we sin and need an advocate (1Jn.1:9;
2:1).
Is it not the same with mediation? What is a mediator’s
role but to reconcile two parties? And what happens after re-
conciliation has been achieved? The services of the mediator
are no longer needed. Paul says, “For there is one God, and
there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ
Jesus” (1Tim.2:5). The error of trinitarianism is to portray
Christ Jesus as the one who, instead of reconciling God and
man once and for all, is made the center of the whole affair by
reconciling man to himself, even standing in the middle
between God and man!
In the verse just quoted, 1Tim.2:5, Paul upholds biblical
monotheism in his affirmation that “there is one God” as a
clear contrast to the humanity expressed in the words “the
man Christ Jesus”. The only mediator between God and man
is not God or God-man but “the man Christ Jesus” (a literal
word-for-word translation of the Greek). Some Bibles (NET,
HCSB, NAB, NRSV) weaken it to “Christ Jesus, himself
human”. The Chinese Union Bible even manages to mis-
translate “the man Christ Jesus” as “Christ Jesus, the one who
came down into the world to become man” (降世为人的基督

耶稣 )! Just as puzzling, Dr. Constable’s Expository Notes
replaces “man” with “God-man” in the statement, “the God-
man is the only mediator of the New Covenant between God
and man”!
As in the case of the competent doctor, when a mediator’s
work has been completed once and for all, he has no further
mediating function to fulfill. Is he then sad about losing his
job (or the doctor his patient’s business) on account of his
competent and successful work? Certainly not. Why would
anyone think that Jesus has suffered some kind of loss for
having reconciled us to God so successfully and triumphantly
that he no longer needs to stand between God and us as a
mediator? Much less is it conceivable, except in the trinitarian
mindset, that Jesus would use the situation to make himself
the center of attention and devotion.
The same can be said of Jesus’ task of subduing God’s ene-
mies. In the eschatological future, after his work has been
done victoriously and triumphantly, Jesus will hand his king-
ship back to the Father and take a position that is subordinate
to God for all eternity (1Cor.15:24-28).
Chapter 13
Jesus the
Only Perfect Man
This final chapter, “Jesus the Only Perfect Man,” takes as its title
the main title of the book, plus one word (“Jesus”). Its subject-
matter has been touched on in the previous chapters, and is inter-
woven here and there with our earlier discussions on the human-
ity of Jesus, the exaltation of Jesus, and God’s work in him. This
final chapter serves as a continuation of what we have already said
about Jesus the only Perfect Man. It is part continuation of, part
summary of, and part conclusion of the theme “Jesus the only
Perfect Man,” the complement of “Yahweh the only true God.”
E ver since the Genesis creation and the fall of Adam and
Eve, there has been “none righteous, not even one”
among all the human beings who have ever lived on the face
of the earth (Rom.3:10). Eliphaz invoked this truth to reject
Job’s claim to innocence: “What is man, that he can be pure?
Or he who is born of a woman, that he can be righteous?”
(Job 15:14) Jesus was of course the sole exception to this gen-
eral statement.
In the Old Testament of some Bibles, a few people are said

to be perfect, but in these cases, the Hebrew word rendered
“perfect” is more appropriately understood as “blameless,” a
rendering that is seen in some other Bibles. In the Old Test-
ament, the term “perfect” or “blameless” or “wholly com-
mitted” is used of a few rare individuals (e.g., Noah in
Genesis 6:9 or Asa in 1Kings 15:14). But the perfection they
achieved falls well short of God’s absolute standards. No
human being apart from Jesus has ever attained to absolute
perfection, yet we could still say that these blameless men and
women have attained to a relative perfection or a relative
blamelessness in comparison to mankind in general.
But when we speak of Jesus as the only perfect man, we are
talking about absolute sinlessness, absolute love, absolute
righteousness—an absolute perfection with no ifs or buts.
This amazing achievement is the greatest miracle Yahweh
God has ever done, for no one can attain to absolute perfect-
ion unless Yahweh empowers him every moment of his life.
The other side of the coin is that Jesus lived every moment of
his earthly life in total obedience to his Father.
The Scriptures mention a few outstanding men of God.
Moses came closer to perfection than have most of the godly
people in the OT, yet he still failed grievously on one occa-
sion (Num.20:7-12). The great prophet Isaiah, when granted
a vision of Yahweh, confessed that he was a man of “unclean
lips” (Isa.6:5).
There is “none righteous, not even one” (Romans 3:10).
But not being righteous is not the same as being wicked, so
Paul is not saying that all humanity is wicked as we under-
Chapter 13 — Jesus the Only Perfect Man 671
stand that term, but that no one has ever attained to absolute
righteousness and an unbroken record of obedience to God.
Can man arrive at perfect righteousness in his own
strength and will power? The Bible’s dire record of human
history shows that this is impossible. Hence Jesus’ being the
perfect man is a most astonishing and unprecedented miracle.
But as trinitarians, we weren’t really interested in his human-
ity or perfection, for our dogmatic interests were focused on
proving that he is God. In theory we accepted the idea of
Jesus’ perfection, but in practice we didn’t give it much
thought, for we simply assumed that Jesus is perfect by reason
of his deity, not realizing that the divine God-man of trinit-
arianism is not human in the way that every human being is
human.
Obeying God: The Garden of Eden

Let’s begin with Genesis. What did God require of Adam in
terms of obedience? Why was it even necessary to impose
requirements in the first place? And wasn’t there only one re-
quirement for Adam and Eve, namely, that they shall not eat
the fruit of a tree called the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil, located in the middle of the Garden of Eden (Gen.
2:8,9,17)?
We are not told how big the garden was, but we can sur-
mise that it was not like the average home garden that we see
in places like North America. It was evidently an immense
garden because the Bible says that it was situated between the
rivers Tigris and Euphrates.
Why are we talking about the size of the garden? Because

if it was a small garden containing a few dozen or even a few
hundred trees, that forbidden tree would be in regular view of
those who walked around in the garden. But that would not
be so if the garden was a vast stretch of land planted with
millions and millions of trees, and populated with every
species of animal that God had created and brought to Adam
to name.
In a vast forest containing millions of trees and animals,
we might think that the power of temptation posed by this
lone forbidden tree would be proportionally reduced by the
vastness of the garden. The point is that in this test of
obedience, God had made it as easy as possible for Adam and
Eve to stay away from temptation. Yet it was also necessary
that man’s obedience be tested in order that he may learn to
obey God. In placing Adam in the garden, Yahweh in His
mercy did what He had to do in order to teach him obed-
ience and moral responsibility, yet at the same time He made
it as easy as possible for him. In this thoughtful arrangement
for Adam, Yahweh’s wisdom and compassion are clearly
displayed.
But the problem of sin and evil existed long before Adam,
as seen in the fact that the serpent (the devil, Rev.12:9; 20:2)
was already present in the garden (Gen. 3:1,2,3). Paul speaks
of creation’s bondage to corruption (decay), yet also of the
future glorious hope of emancipation: “Creation itself will be
set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the free-
dom of the glory of the children of God” (Rom.8:21, ESV).
Obeying God: The Law given to Israel

The next time in the Bible that we see Yahweh imposing
commands is in relation to a nation of slaves that had been
captive in Egypt for four centuries. They had been living un-
der constant oppression, and were groaning for freedom. In
an act of grace, Yahweh chose the people of this slave nation,
who had by then experienced much suffering, to make them
His own people and “special possession” (Ex.19:5; Dt.7:6).
In Egypt and other ancient civilizations, slaves were at the
bottom rung of society. They had no social standing and
enjoyed no rights or special protection; they could be bought
and sold like livestock. Yet it was this very nation of slaves,
the “non-entities” of society, which Yahweh had chosen from
among all the peoples of the earth to be His own people. He
established a covenant with them and gave them the Ten
Commandments as the moral basis of the covenant.
Whereas Adam had only one command to obey, the
standard was raised to ten for Israel. But it is important to see
what these commandments have in common: With one or
two exceptions, they are all of a negative character and begin
with the words, “You shall not”. An exception to this is the
fifth commandment, “Honor your father and your mother,”
which does not contain a negative. Although the fourth com-
mandment, “Keep the Sabbath day holy,” does not conform
to the negative formulation of the other commandments, it is
still essentially a negative command because it prohibits all
regular work on the day of rest; the Sabbath was a prescribed
holiday for the people to rest from the work of their regular
occupations.
It is in the Sabbath commandment that the word “holy”

appears for the first time in the Ten Commandments. But
how does one become holy by not doing any work? The
point, of course, is that on the day of rest, everyone is to turn
his or her attention wholly to Yahweh. With this comes the
call to “be holy as I am holy” (Lev.11:44).
This people—an erstwhile nation of slaves whom God had
called out of slavery, a people with no earthly piece of land to
call their own—God had called to become a holy people
wholly dedicated to Himself. Yahweh called to Himself the
nobodies of the world to become His special people.
In view of the laws that Yahweh had given the people of
Israel, but also in view of the largely negative formulation of
these laws, it would seem that as in the case of Adam, Yahweh
had made it as easy as possible for the Israelites to be holy,
because what was required of them was not the attainment of
high and lofty moral goals but merely abstaining from doing
certain things. Even so, like Adam they failed. They could not
even keep the negative laws, that is, they could not refrain
from doing the things they were forbidden to do. It would
appear that the things prohibited or forbidden by God are
precisely the things that man wants to do.
We cannot simplistically assume that the commandments
given in negative form, such as the one given to Adam or
most of the Ten Commandments given to Israel, are any
easier to obey than those stated in positive form. A command
that forbids one from doing what one desires is not any easier
to keep than a command to do what one doesn’t want to do.
Eve looked at the forbidden fruit and found it irresistibly
attractive, and this led to an act of disobedience that proved

fatal for her, for Adam, and for mankind.
Is the commandment, “You shall love Yahweh your God
with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your
might” (Dt.6:5; Mk.12:30), any easier to keep? When we
reflect on it, we will see that in practice, this commandment is
no easier to keep than the others, as seen in the tragic fact that
Israel and all mankind in general have found themselves
unable to keep both the positive and the negative commands.
Given the mostly negative formulation of the Ten
Commandments, it would seem that it should not be difficult
to be blameless. Yet it is also evident that it is impossible for
man to be perfect, and this is because of his human nature.
The immense challenges that Jesus faced

It is against this backdrop of Israel’s and mankind’s long
history of spiritual failure that we strive to understand the
challenges Jesus faced when Yahweh sent him into the world
to become the perfect man and perfect sacrifice for mankind’s
salvation. The more we think about his mission in the context
of mankind’s moral failure as reflected in the words “there is
none righteous, not even one” (Psa.14:3; Rom.3:10), the
more we will wonder how it was ever possible that Jesus could
have triumphed when no one else could.
Not even the great prophets of old could claim perfection.
Probably no Old Testament prophet is more esteemed than
Isaiah. Yet when he received a vision of Yahweh, he contritely
confessed, “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of
unclean lips.” (Isa.6:5) What Isaiah meant by “unclean lips” is

not explained, but anyone who has ever tried to live a holy life
would have an idea of what he meant. One wrong or inappro-
priate word makes us unclean and negates perfection. If we
imagine perfection as a spotless white sheet, that sheet would
become imperfect as soon as a tiny speck lands on it.
The one who bridles his tongue is a perfect man (James
3:2). Few can bridle their tongues for a day, refraining from
saying a wrong word for 24 hours, much less a stretch of 30
years as in the case of Jesus. The amazing fact that Jesus
attained perfection—even allowing for Yahweh’s sustaining
power in him (which is also available to all believers through
God’s indwelling presence)—is beyond the powers of our
imagination to envisage.
The perfecting of Jesus is Yahweh’s greatest miracle, ex-
ceeding the splendor of the creation of the universe. Dealing
with inanimate things such as quarks and neutrinos cannot
compare with relating to a living being who has his own will
and freedom of choice.
Jesus’ perfection was attained after the Fall which had
brought sin and death into the world, creating a hostile spir-
itual environment inimical to righteousness and perfection.
What Adam and Eve failed to attain in a favorable environ-
ment, Jesus attained in a hostile one. Not surprisingly, from
the time of Adam to the time of Jesus, no one had ever at-
tained perfection. The stupendous fact that Jesus became the
perfect man for the salvation of the world makes the trinitar-
ian Jesus, the God-man, pale by comparison.
Apart from Jesus there has been no perfect man among the
billions who have passed through the world, not even among
the great servants of God. Abraham, despite his outstanding
qualities and his standing as “God’s friend” (2Chr.20:7;
Isa.41:8; James 2:23), was not an exception (cf. the conflict
surrounding Sarah and Hagar). Moses, regarded by many as
the greatest of God’s servants, was not allowed to enter the
land of promise because of an outburst of anger (Num.20:7-
12).
How difficult is perfection? That is not even the right
question to ask, for it is simply impossible to attain to perfect-
ion in this life. Yet that was what Jesus achieved through a
mutual indwelling with Yahweh: “I am in the Father and the
Father is in me” (Jn.14:10). This relationship with the Father
is meant to be inclusive, not exclusive, for we are to live in the
world as Jesus lived (“as he is, so also are we in this world,”
1Jn.4:17).
Jesus’ perfection: a model for God’s people

The picture of a lifelong and arduous process of attaining
perfection—to which every believer born of the Spirit is
called—is drawn out in great detail in the New Testament.
By contrast, the Jesus of trinitarianism, who is intrinsically
perfect because he is God, is not a model that we can follow
in our striving for the perfection to which we have been
called: “Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Mt.
5:48).
What does Jesus mean by “be perfect”? It is explained in

the Sermon on the Mount and illustrated in his teachings.
Jesus is the very example and model of the perfection of
which he speaks. And has he ever told us how he had attained
perfection? Yes he has, and in detail! But blinded by
trinitarian dogma, we failed to see the spiritual dynamics of
how Jesus functioned in relation to the Father all through his
life in the attainment of perfection. The fact is that Jesus has
already told us how he lived in relation to the Father, and in
such a way that we can follow in his steps and live as he lived.
Jesus has made many statements to the effect that the
things that are true of him are also true of his followers. Just
as he was born of the Spirit of God (Lk.1:35; Acts 10:38), so
everyone must be born of the Spirit (Jn.3:5,6,8) and of God
(1Jn.3:9; 4:7; 5:1,4,18); hence Paul’s constant emphasis on
life in the Spirit (Rom.8:9; Eph.6:18; Phil.2:1; Col.1:8).
Just as Jesus did nothing of his own will (Jn.4:34; 5:30;
6:38; 8:28), so every believer is to do God’s will (Mt.7:21;
Jn.8:51; 14:21; 1Jn.5:3). Believers are to abide in Jesus and in
the Father in the way that Jesus abides in the Father and in
believers (Jn.15:1-10; 1Jn.2:24,27; 4:13). Just as the world
hated and rejected Jesus, so the world will hate and reject us
his followers (Jn.15:18-19). Just as Jesus will be glorified, so
those in Christ will be glorified with him (Jn.17:1,5,10;
Rom.8:17).
These spiritual dynamics stem from the spiritual union
that Jesus repeatedly speaks of: the Father is “in me” (Jn.
10:38; 14:10,11; 17:21), that is, the Father lives in him and
does His works through him (Jn.14:10). Jesus is Yahweh’s
temple (Jn.2:19) as are his believers (1Cor.3:16-17; 6:19).

The way Jesus lives in relation to the Father is exactly how the
believer is to live.
A thought exercise: a sinless and perfect society

Because there has never been a sinless person in humanity
apart from Jesus, it would be hard for us to understand what
sinlessness is. We know that it is, by definition, the absence of
sin, but that is a negative definition. What then are the posit-
ive qualities of a sinless character? It would certainly include
purity and perfection, but these are abstract concepts to us.
It may help to think of a country in which there is no
crime, no discord, and no corruption. It would be an ideal
country, a utopian state. How will such a country be estab-
lished and governed? A crime-free country would probably
have an economic system in which there is near equality of
wealth and in which no one is compelled to steal out of the
distress of poverty. But stealing and robbery are not always
motivated by poverty, but often by the desire to possess some-
thing that is obtainable only by crime, perhaps a work of art
that is not for sale. The root problem is not poverty but greed
and selfishness.
A perfect country cannot be established merely with a
good economic system in which there is near-equal distribu-
tion of wealth because such a society would still require of
each citizen an excellence of character that would eliminate
the common malaise of selfishness, greed, and lust. In short,
nothing less than the inner moral purity of each citizen is re-
quired. A perfect crime-free country would require that each

citizen be sinless. Thus it comes back full circle from the
external conditions of a nation to the moral state of the
individual.
This thought exercise shows that establishing a sinless so-
ciety takes more than the containment or elimination of what
is negative; it requires a range of positive qualities needed for
establishing sinlessness: the wisdom to discern right from
wrong, the courage to do what is right in the face of what is
wrong, and adhering to righteousness when the pull or
attraction of unrighteousness is strong.
All these qualities are found in Yahweh and ultimately in
Him alone. Yet He generously makes them available to all
who would obey and follow Him. This has been fully realized
in Jesus Christ, and so far in him alone. When it is said that
Jesus is without sin, the absence of sin is not something stated
in negative form, but signifies that every positive spiritual
quality exists in him in perfect completeness.
In the New Testament, the hope of a perfect, crime-free
country is not a pipe dream but a reality that Jesus pro-
claimed as the kingdom of God. The kingdom is a central
theme of Jesus’ teaching in the synoptic gospels. The pro-
clamation by both Jesus and John the Baptist is, “The king-
dom of God is at hand” (Mt.3:2; 4:17), that is, God’s king-
dom is about to be established. It is this high goal that Jesus
had in view, notably in the call, “Be perfect as your heavenly
Father is perfect” (Mt.5:48). A perfect kingdom, preemin-
ently God’s kingdom, can be established only if every one of
its citizens is perfect.
In God’s plan, Jesus’ becoming the perfect man is not the

end of the matter but only the start, in order “that he might
be the firstborn among many brothers” (Rom. 8:29). The
brothers coming after him are to be perfected just as he had
been perfected. The same verse says that all believers are to be
“conformed to the image of His Son.” This is another way of
saying that they are to attain to the “stature of the fullness of
Christ” (Eph.4:13). To make this a reality, Yahweh appointed
Jesus the Messiah to be the king of His kingdom. That Jesus
is king in God’s Kingdom is seen for example in Mt.25:34:
“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you
who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared
for you from the foundation of the world.’”
The deceitfulness of sin

To appreciate the magnitude of Jesus’ attainment of sinless-
ness, we notice that not even the mighty angels are immune
to sin. Jude 1:6 speaks of angels who had left their proper sta-
tion, and are now kept in eternal chains awaiting judgment.
The meaning of “left their proper station” is not explained,
but it is clear that the angels had encroached on, or attempted
to take possession of, something they were not entitled to.
The most shocking display of this is seen in Revelation 12
which says that as many as one third of the angels in heaven
will be enticed by that old enemy of God—the dragon or
Satan, the “deceiver of the whole world” (v.9)—into fighting
Yahweh the Most High (Rev.12:4,7-9). The consequences of
their madness can only be imagined or perhaps not imagined.
It is baffling that one would choose to sin even when he is

aware of the terrifying consequences. Why does he do it? Is it
because there is something reckless in the psyche of every
person? Or the misguided belief that one might just get away
with it? Did the angels who rebelled against God believe that
they could defeat Him because of their strength in numbers?
Or were they bewitched by Satan’s enchanting powers as in
the case of the Galatians (Gal.3:1)? These are the questions
that come to mind when we read news reports of mindless
deeds of violence for which there is no rational explanation.
We are baffled that a cultured and generally well-intent-
ioned people like the Germans could have been enticed by
Adolf Hitler, a charismatic madman, into committing them-
selves inextricably to a course of action that proved fatal to
themselves and the countless victims of their dreadful deeds.
As human beings, we know full well that this kind of irration-
ality could happen to any people and not just the German
people.
The Scriptures speak of “the deceitfulness of sin” (Heb.
3:13) which can entrap anyone who is not alert. Not even the
mighty angels, great in knowledge and power, are immune to
the deceitfulness of sin. Paul probably had in mind this
frightening aspect of sin when he wrote, “Work out your own
salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil.2:12). But the popu-
lar teaching of “eternal security” in the church will only en-
courage believers to throw all caution to the wind, believing
that once they have become Christians, they are eternally
secure no matter how they live.
To attain sinless perfection, Jesus had to battle the many

fearsome aspects of sin and above all its deceitful aspects
which have caused the downfall of many Christians. And
because of its deceitfulness, sin has been given a free run in
ensnaring its victims long before they realize what has hap-
pened to them. We now see ever more clearly the need for
wisdom and discernment in the battle against sin. The magni-
ficence of Jesus’ triumph over this multifaceted enemy now
stands out, bringing salvation to mankind.
Sin is not confined to humanity but is something that
operates in the entire cosmos of living beings, human and
angelic. Jesus’ triumph over sin has immense consequences
not only for mankind but the entire cosmos. With anticipa-
tion and groaning, the whole creation awaits the salvation to
come (Rom.8:22).
The root cause of sin, as Paul points out, is not God’s
commandments but man himself. Man acknowledges that
God’s commandments are good but our fundamental prob-
lem is the one portrayed in Paul’s poignant words: “the good
I want to do, I don’t do; the evil I don’t want to do, I do”
(Rom.7:19). Paul teaches that the root of sin lies in man’s
“flesh”. This does not imply any intrinsic sinfulness of the
physical body but that our thinking is influenced by desires,
which in turn are controlled by “bodily lusts”. These cover
many elements of the human psyche, starting with needs and
appetites, whether for food or sexual gratification, and then
moving on to a greed for power as a means of gratifying these
desires, which often begin as something legitimate but is
pushed to depraved extremes. When a desire reaches this
state, it can grow into a greed or covetousness that compels

man to get what he wants by robbery or murder, and on a
wider social scale by wars and acts of aggression, many of
which fill the pages of history.
If man is enslaved to his flesh, how will he ever attain to
the good, let alone the perfect? But there is hope.
Yahweh, the Holy One of Israel

The concept of holiness runs through the Old and New
Testaments, and is seen in the repeated affirmation that
Yahweh is holy. He is called “the Holy One of Israel” 25
times in Isaiah alone. The shorter form, “the Holy One,” is
used of Yahweh in verses such as Isa.40:25; Hab.1:12; 3:3;
Prov.9:10 (cf. 1Jn.2:20). In fact, only Yahweh is holy in the
absolute sense: “For you alone are holy” (Rev.15:4).
Yahweh’s holiness is also derived from His uniqueness as
God: “There is none holy like Yahweh; there is none besides
you; there is no rock like our God” (1Sam.2:2; cf. Isa.40:25).
Verses such as Dt.4:35 and Isa.45:21-22; 46:9 similarly bring
out Yahweh’s uniqueness that sets Him apart from false gods.
Jesus is called “the holy one of God” (Mk.1:24; Lk.4:34;
Jn.6:69) and the “holy and righteous one” (Acts 3:14).
Jesus’ perfection and sinlessness

Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable
to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every
respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.
The reality of sin and temptation that confronts us every day

is brought out in the book of Hebrews in the striking state-
ment that Jesus is a high priest who sympathizes with our
weaknesses, for he too had been tempted in every respect as
we, yet without having ever sinned. His sympathetic under-
standing stands in sharp contrast to the condemning attitude
of the religious leaders towards an adulterous woman, and is
summed up in a statement about the pervasiveness of sin:
“Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw
a stone at her” (John 8:7).
Jesus’ sympathetic understanding is all the more admirable
in view of the contrast between his sinlessness and our sinful-
ness, the latter of which is brought out in Romans 3:10, a
verse derived from Psalm 14:1-3:
Romans 3:10 “None is righteous, not even one.”
Psalm 14:1-3 They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds,

there is none who does good. The LORD looks down from
heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who
understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside;
together they have become corrupt; there is none who does
good, not even one. (ESV)
In contrast to our sinfulness is Jesus’ sinlessness, righteous-

ness, and innocence, as seen in the following verses (all ESV):
John 8:46 Which one of you convicts me of sin?
John 14:30 the ruler of this world is coming. He has no

claim on me.
2 Corinthians 5:21 … he made him to be sin who knew no

sin
Hebrews 4:15 (quoted)
Hebrews 7:26 … a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained,

separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens.
Hebrews 9:14 … the blood of Christ, who through the

eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God
1 Peter 1:19 … with the precious blood of Christ, like that of

a lamb without blemish or spot.
1 Peter 2:22 He committed no sin, neither was deceit found

in his mouth.
Jesus is called “holy” or “the holy one” in Acts 2:27 and

13:35, which are quotations of Psalm 16:10:
Acts 2:27 For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let
your Holy One see corruption.
Acts 13:35 Therefore he says also in another psalm, “You will

not let your Holy One see corruption.”
Psalm 16:10 For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol, or

let your holy one see corruption.
Jesus, who is perfect and sinless, will bear the sins of many
and make them righteous:
Isaiah 53:9-12 ... he had done no violence, and there was no
deceit in his mouth. Yet it was the will of Yahweh to crush
him; he has put him to grief … Out of the anguish of his
soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the
righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted
righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities … he poured out
his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors;
yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the
transgressors. (ESV, “Yahweh” in the original Hebrew
restored)
Jesus’ attainment of perfection through suffering is crucial for

our salvation because atonement requires the perfect sacrifice
and the perfect high priest. In the Law, no sacrifice is accept-
able to God unless it is perfect and without defect or blemish:
Whatever has a defect, you shall not offer, for it will not be
acceptable for you. And when a man offers a sacrifice of
peace offerings to Yahweh … it must be perfect to be
accepted; there shall be no defect in it. (Lev.22:20-21; cf.
Dt.15:19,21; 17:1)
Christ is the perfect and sinless sacrifice: “you were re-

deemed … with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without
blemish or defect” (1Pet.1:18-19). He is not only a perfect
sacrifice but also “a high priest after the order of Melchi-
zedek” (Heb.5:10). In the Law, the high priest, too, has to be

perfect: “No man of the descendants of Aaron the priest who
has a blemish shall come near to offer the LORD’s food
offering” (Lev.21:21, ESV).
Perfection in reality
We sinners can hardly fathom what it is like to be sinless. It
might help if we could try for one day! Then imagine what it
would be like to be sinless for some 20 years of adulthood
(from the ages of 13 to 33, in Jesus’ case). Little wonder that
at the age of thirty, Jesus looked like a man approaching fifty
(Jn.8:57). Although he maintained communion with God
every moment of every day, the mere thought that the salva-
tion of the world could be lost in one careless second must
have been heavy to bear. It is this suffering above all else, even
the relatively brief suffering on the cross, that constitutes the
true suffering he took up for the sake of our salvation.
The perfection of Jesus is the greatest miracle Yahweh has
ever done. Jesus Christ is Yahweh’s new creation, the pinnacle
of God’s glorious work from all eternity, the likes of which
has never been seen and will never be surpassed in all eternity.
For this reason God has exalted Jesus “above the heavens”
(Heb.7:26) to a position at His right hand.
By comparison, the trinitarian fiction of Jesus the God-
man is unmarvellous. The Jesus of trinitarianism is God
Almighty who created all things whereas the Jesus of the Bible
possesses nothing that came from himself. Even his name
“Jesus” was given to him by Yahweh. If the key word for the
trinitarian Jesus is homoousios, the key word for the biblical

Jesus is obedience.
The Jesus of trinitarianism, with his supposed coequality
with God, cannot secure mankind’s salvation; only the
obedience of the biblical Jesus, the Lamb of God, can secure
it. It is “the obedience of the one man” that makes the many
righteous (Rom.5:19).
That obedience must be perfect, not partial. James ex-
presses it from another angle: “For whoever keeps the whole
law, yet fails in one point, is guilty of breaking it all”
(James 2:10). The one who has broken one commandment
has broken all ten.
Jesus the perfect man fulfilled the law perfectly, notably
the law of love, for “love is the fulfillment of the law”
(Rom.13:10). He did not abolish the law or teach anyone to
do so, but in fact said that “not one jot or tittle of the law
shall pass away until all is fulfilled” (Mt.5:18). He came to
fulfill the law, and as perfect man “gave his life a ransom for
many” (Mk.10:45).
In our trinitarian days, we thought of Jesus’ perfection as a
byproduct of his deity. But the notion that one can be perfect
or sinless by a hypostatic union—a concept found in some
forms of mysticism—is a myth that even few practicing
mystics believe. In real life there is no shortcut to perfection.
Just as Jesus was made perfect through suffering all through
his life and not just in the final week, so perfection for the
believer is a life-long process. Not even Paul saw himself as
having attained perfection (Phil.3:12). He wrestled with pride
to the extent that the Lord had to place a “thorn in the flesh”
to keep him from being proud (2Cor.12:7).
We now appreciate the immense achievement of Jesus the
perfect man. His final three years were the most difficult. The
40 days of temptation in the wilderness without food, inten-
sified by Satan’s relentless attacks, would exceed what most
people can endure for one day. This was followed by two or
three years of slandering by the religious leaders who accused
him of just about everything. He was labelled a rabble-rouser,
a false messiah, a blasphemer, and a man who functioned by
the power of the chief of demons. It seems that no one is
more adept at slander and character assassination than the
religious people, especially religious leaders whom the people
learn from by emulation. Little wonder that many turn away
from religion. We need only go to the Internet to see the
slandering that some religious people excel in. Jesus warned
his disciples about such zealots, who will kill you for what
they think will glorify God.
Jesus’ attainment of perfection is beyond imagination even
given God’s indwelling presence in him. And God has made
that indwelling available to all believers! It is those who have
tried with all their hearts to live righteously who understand
how amazing is Jesus’ attainment of perfection. Such people
will grow in their love and devotion to him, acknowledging
him as their Lord and Savior.
T he crime of trinitarianism is the obscuring of the marvel

of Jesus the sinless and perfect man, reducing this won-
derful truth to the superficial and trite notion that since Jesus
is God, he is automatically sinless, his perfection being a
product of his deity.
Instead of marvelling at the stupendous wonder of the
perfect man, trinitarians sidetrack the issue with lengthy dis-
cussions on whether the divine Jesus is capable of sinning. It
is hard to understand why this question is even raised, for if
Jesus is God, then obviously he cannot sin. In fact he cannot
even be tempted (“God cannot be tempted by evil,” James
1:13). The real reason for their question is that they cannot
deny that Jesus wrestled with sin to the point of appearing to
sweat drops of blood (Lk.22:44). This has caused some trinit-
arians to pull back from concluding that Jesus could not have
sinned. But this is a contradictory position to take, for a God
who can be tempted to sin is not the God of the Bible.
In trinitarianism, Jesus’ perfection comes packaged with
his deity. Since Jesus is God, and God is perfect, therefore
Jesus’ human nature is perfect through the hypostatic union
with his divine nature. But can divine qualities such as holi-
ness and wisdom be transferred? Can anyone be perfected in
the blink of an eye, bypassing a long and arduous process of
spiritual growth and learning?
No one, not even Jesus, is born or created perfect, for we
are talking about moral perfection. Hebrews says that Jesus
became perfect through suffering (2:10), learned obedience
through suffering (5:8), and was made perfect (5:9). When
Adam was created by God, he was perfect in every sense phy-
sical and mental. He was sinless in the sense that he, like an
infant, had not yet had occasion to sin. But the fact that
Adam soon failed is clear evidence that he was not created
morally perfect.
When did Jesus begin walking on the road to

perfection?
When did Jesus begin to live a life of obedience to the Father?
We don’t have a precise answer to the question because the
Bible provides no record—apart from one incident—of his
“hidden years,” that is, the period from his infancy to the
time he burst onto the scene in Israel at around the age of
thirty.
There is one notable exception to the silence of those
years: the account in Luke 2:41-50 of 12-year-old Jesus who
visited Jerusalem with his family for the Passover. At the con-
clusion of the feast, his family started returning home only to
discover, after having travelled some distance, that Jesus was
not with them. So they returned to Jerusalem to look for him,
and eventually found him in the temple engaging in deep
discussions with the learned men there.
Asked to account for what he had done, Jesus simply said,
“Did you not know that I must be about my Father’s
business?” (Lk.2:49). Most modern Bibles (ESV, NASB,
NIV) have “my Father’s house” rather than “my Father’s
business” (KJV, NKJV), but this would make his statement
superfluous, for was it not precisely the temple (“my Father’s
house”) to which his parents returned in searching for him?

With neither “house” nor “business” appearing in the Greek
text, the statement is translated more literally as: “Did you
not know that I must be in those (things) of my Father?”
After this incident, the Bible is silent on the next 18 years
of Jesus’ life. So why was this solitary event recorded in Luke’s
Gospel? Because it reveals not only Jesus’ precociousness in
his understanding of the Scriptures at a young age, but also
that he had already seen himself as being involved in, and
committed to, his Father’s work. This was undoubtedly part
of the whole process of his being perfected.
In Judaism, a boy is not considered accountable before the
Law until he becomes Bar Mitzvah (“son of commandment”)
on his 13th birthday plus one day. From then on, he is
morally responsible to keep the commandments. 160
When we grasp the significance of Jesus’ visit to Jerusalem
at the age of 12, we can give a more precise answer to the
question, When did Jesus begin his life of obedience to his
Father? Even before he had reached the age of 13, he had
160
Article “Bar Mitzvah, Bat Mitzvah” in Encyclopaedia Judaica,
vol.3, p.164: “term denoting both the attainment of religious and legal
maturity as well as the occasion at which this status is formally assumed
for boys at the age of 13 plus one day… Upon reaching this age a Jew
is obliged to fulfill all the commandments… According to Eleazar b.
Simeon (second century C.E.), a father was responsible for the deeds of
his son until the age of 13. For example the vows of a boy 13 and a day
old are considered valid vows (Nid.5:6). From then on a person can
perform acts having legal implications, such as… buying and selling
property.”
already been engaged in his “Father’s business.” How much

earlier he had been doing this is not recorded for us; he may
have started earlier. But one thing is clear: From the moment
Jesus was capable of responsible obedience to the Father, he
had always lived to please Him. This carried on to the end
when he hung on the cross and said with his last breath, “It is
finished” (accomplished).
Jesus, made perfect

Jesus’ perfection was not derived from his supposed deity but
was something he had learned through suffering:
7
In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and suppli-
cations, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save
him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. 8
Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what
he suffered. 9 And being made perfect, he became the source
of eternal salvation to all who obey him, 10 being designated
by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.
(Hebrews 5:7-10, ESV)
Jesus attained perfection by Yahweh’s indwelling presence,

but not without “loud cries and tears” (v.7). Scripture does
not teach an inherent or automatic perfection, or that Jesus
was born perfect. It was with loud cries and tears that he
offered up prayers and supplications to God. His fragile hu-
manity is displayed for all to see. As trinitarians we ignored
this verse because we found it problematic, yet it cannot be
swept under the carpet so easily because it is located in the
middle of a crucial discussion on God’s appointment of Jesus

as high priest.
Jesus came from the tribe of Judah, not the priestly tribe of
Levi, so how could he have been appointed a high priest? It is
crucial to note that it was only after Jesus had “learned obe-
dience through what he suffered” (v.8) and only after he had
been “made perfect” (v.9) that he was “designated by God a
high priest after the order of Melchizedek” (v.10). Little is
known of Melchizedek beyond that he was “king of Salem,
priest of the Most High God” (Heb.7:1; Gen.14:18). Because
Melchizedek’s priesthood answers directly to Yahweh the
Most High God, it is a spiritual priesthood. Similarly, Jesus
“has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement
concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indes-
tructible (perfect) life” (Heb.7:16).
With loud cries and tears, Jesus prayed to God to save him
from death. It was not physical death that he feared, for his
aim was to “give his life as a ransom for many” (Mt.20:28).
We can be sure that he would never pray for the nullification
of this glorious mission. What he truly feared was the death
that comes from disobedience, for that would nullify and des-
troy God’s plan of salvation for mankind. Hence he prayed to
God with such intensity that it was expressed in loud cries
and tears.
Obedience to God must be voluntary, for what is coerced
or compelled is not obedience. True obedience comes from
the moral decisions made by one’s own free will, as was the
case with Jesus when he said, “I lay down my life of my own
accord and nobody takes it from me” (Jn.10:18). His com-
mitment was powerfully expressed at Gethsemane when he

was facing suffering and death. There he said to his Father,
“Not my will but yours be done” (Lk.22:42), even as he was
pondering the horrific things that lay ahead of him, and his
heart shuddered at what he saw. But he voluntarily offered
himself as the sacrificial Lamb of God for the blood atone-
ment that secures mankind’s salvation. So it could truly be
said that this was done out of love: “The Son of God who
loved me and gave himself for me” (Gal.2:20).
Jesus was “made perfect” (Heb.5:9), indicating that his
perfection was something acquired. This cannot be true of the
trinitarian Jesus who, as God the Son, is inherently perfect
and doesn’t have to be “made perfect” or “become perfect”
(both meanings are valid in the Greek text of v.9).
Jesus’ prayers and supplications were “heard because of his
reverence” (v.7). Here the Greek for “reverence” is eulabeia,
defined by BDAG as “reverent awe in the presence of God,
awe, fear of God”. 161 Because reverence is something expressed
to God, it is a human rather than a divine quality. KJV gives
an alternative rendering of eulabeia in Heb.5:7:
Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers
and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that
was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he
feared. (Heb.5:7)
161
The word is used in Heb.12:28 and Prov.28:14 of the believer’s
reverence. Proverbs 9:10 says, “The fear of Yahweh is the beginning of
wisdom.”
Here the word “feared” (eulabeia) means reverent fear and

awe in God’s presence. Exegetical Dictionary of the NT
explains the meaning of this word in Hebrews 5:7 (Greek
transliterated):
Thus eulabeia (fear) in v.7 involves a “once-for-all” (cf. 4:15)
devotion to God or piety. Because of this he was heard by God
and as teleiōtheis (perfection) was made the basis of salvation
and true high priest for all obedient persons (vv.9f.).
EDNT is saying that Jesus, with a perfection derived from his

piety and fear of God, was “made the basis of salvation”.
Whereas Jesus’ perfection includes the fear or reverence of
Yahweh, this attitude is woefully rare in North American
society today. “God!” or “O my God!” or worse exclamations
and expletives are often heard in restaurants, schools, and
television programs. It is not hard to see their corrupting
effect on children who grow up in this ungodly environment.
“There is no fear of God before their eyes” (Rom.3:18;
Psa.36:1).
What is the fear of God? “To fear Yahweh is to hate evil”
(Prov.8:13). It doesn’t mean that we hate evil people. Jesus
hates evil yet gave his life to save every evildoer who repents
and trusts in him for salvation.
Jesus’ prayers were heard because of his fear and reverence.
If our prayers are not heard, we do well to ask ourselves
whether we have an attitude of reverence to God. I have
heard many “prayers” that make me shudder. I recently heard
a pastor “pray” with loud demands to God to do this and do
that, treating God as his servant and not his Master!
Perfection is stressed in the Scriptures

Perfection is a completeness beyond which there is nothing
more to attain because nothing is lacking. It is the end (telos)
of attainment, the pinnacle of achievement; beyond this one
cannot go because there is nothing beyond it.
1Corinthians 13:10 draws a contrast between the perfect
and the partial: “When the perfect (teleios) comes, the partial
(meros) will pass away.” Verse 9 says, “We know in part
(meros)”—that is, our knowledge at this time is incomplete.
Among believers there are spiritual infants who, being
spiritually immature, need to grow up to maturity and to
Christ’s perfection:
… until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the
knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the mea-
sure of the stature of the fullness of Christ (Ephesians 4:13).
Here the term “perfect man” (andra teleion) refers to Christ

because of the reference to “Son of God” and “Christ” in the
same sentence. Here the word is not anthrōpos, the general
word for a human being, but anēr, the word for a male
human being. Hence it is invalid to render “perfect man” in a
generalized way as “mature manhood” as is done in ESV and
RSV (but not HCSB, NASB, NIV). It is lexically invalid to
reduce anēr to the abstract concept of “manhood,” a render-
ing that has no lexical support in any of the standard Greek-
English lexicons. Believers are not called to an abstract man-
hood but specifically to the “perfect man” who is Jesus Christ.
This is stated two verses later: “we are to grow up in every
way into him who is the head, into Christ” (Eph.4:15). Paul
reiterates this vital truth in Col.1:28: “We proclaim him, ad-

monishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we
may present everyone perfect in Christ.” (NIV)
The perfection of the believer is an unfamiliar concept to
most Christians. Could this be the result of the church’s
unbalanced emphasis on grace? The average church minister
doesn’t know what he needs to do to “present everyone per-
fect in Christ”. Yet this is the supreme goal of Paul’s ministry,
as seen in the next verse: “For this I toil, struggling with all
his energy that he powerfully works within me” (Col.1:29).
The church is not on the same wavelength as Paul. Have
we ever heard a sermon on perfection in Christ? The lopsided
stress on being saved by the death of Christ has made our
perfection in Christ redundant. But the stress in Paul’s
teaching and the New Testament is different: Christ’s death is
meant to cleanse us from sin and to “purchase” (redeem) us
for God so that we may be holy. “Without holiness no one
will see the Lord” (Heb.12:14). Yet we are taught in much of
Protestantism that we need only believe that Jesus died for us
and we will be saved; and once we are saved, we are always
saved. With this kind of teaching, who needs perfection or
holiness?
Paul’s intense concern that Christ’s perfection should take
shape in the believer’s life is expressed by the imagery of the
pain of childbirth: “My little children, for whom I am again
in the anguish of childbirth until Christ is formed in you!”
(Gal.4:19) The parallel between this verse and Col.1:28-29 is
seen in the correspondence between “Christ in you” and
“Christ is formed in you”.
“Perfect” in the Old and New Testaments

Genesis 17:1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old Yah-
weh appeared to him and said, “I am El Shaddai (Almighty
God). Live in my presence, be perfect” (NJB)
Deut.18:13 “Thou shalt be perfect with the LORD thy God.”

(KJV)
In the latter verse, KJV preserves the word “perfect” whereas

most other Bibles use the weaker word “blameless,” revealing
a reluctance in modern Bibles to use the word “perfect”. This
makes it harder for the reader to know what the text is saying.
There are 99 occurrences of “perfect” in KJV and only 41 in
ESV. There are 36 in NIV, about one-third the number in
KJV; of these 36 occurrences, only a few refer to the perfect-
ion of people, yet these few instances are significant (the fol-
lowing are from NIV 1984):
Colossians 1:28 … that we may present everyone perfect in

Christ.
Hebrews 2:10 …it was fitting that God, for whom and
through whom everything exists, should make the author of
their salvation perfect through suffering.
Hebrews 5:9 and, once made perfect, he became the source of

eternal salvation for all who obey him.
Hebrews 7:28 … the Son, who has been made perfect forever.
Hebrews 10:14 because by one sacrifice he has made perfect

forever those who are being made holy.
The familiar command, “Be perfect as your heavenly

Father is perfect” (Mt.5:48) is not found in the Old
Testament. Instead there is the parallel command, “Be holy
for I am holy”:
Leviticus 11:44-45 I am Yahweh your God. Consecrate your-
selves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy … I am Yahweh
who brought you up out of the land of Egypt to be your
God. You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy. (ESV,
“Yahweh” in the Hebrew restored; also Lev.20:26)
Similarly, the New Testament calls us to be holy and blame-

less (all ESV):
Ephesians 1:4 … that we should be holy and blameless
Ephesians 5:27 So that he might present the church to

himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such
thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.
1Peter 1:15-16 But as he who called you is holy, you also be

holy in all your conduct, since it is written, “You shall be
holy, for I am holy.”
These verses, notably in the light of Hebrews 10:14, show

that “perfect” and “holy” share common meaning.162
162
BDAG defines hagios (holy) as: “of human beings consecrated to
God, holy, pure, reverent”; BDAG explains that consecrated to God
means “dedicated to God, holy, sacred, i.e., reserved for God and God’s
service”.
The parallel between “be perfect as your heavenly Father is

perfect” and “be merciful as your Father is merciful”
(Mt.5:48; Lk.6:36) shows that perfection includes mercy and
compassion (cf. Ex.34:6, Yahweh is merciful and gracious).
These are the constituents of love, and God in His nature is
love (1Jn.4:8; 2Cor.13:11; Eph.2:4).
The following verses show what perfection is like and
therefore what Jesus is like:
Perfection as endurance: “And let endurance have its perfect
result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in
nothing.” (James 1:4)
Perfection as spiritual perception: “But solid food is for the

mature (perfect), for those who have their powers of discern-
ment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from
evil.” (Heb.5:14)
Perfection as self-control and control of the tongue: “And if

anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man,
able also to bridle his whole body.” (James 3:2)
Perfection as being meek and lowly in heart: “Take my yoke

upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in
heart, and you will find rest for your souls.” (Mt.11:29)
Jesus’ weakness exposes the falsity of trinitarianism

The Bible characterizes man as weak. Paul speaks of “the
weakness of the flesh” (Rom.6:19), a statement that “denotes
the weakness of human nature” (Thayer, astheneia) and “the
frailty to which all human flesh is heir” (BDAG, astheneia
2b).
Jesus himself “was crucified in weakness” (2Cor.13:4).
Regarding this statement, BDAG says that “he was crucified
as a result of his weakness (his vulnerability as a human
being)”. Like all human beings, Jesus has no inherent power
of life but depends on his Father for his existence: “I live
because of the Father” (Jn.6:57); “For as the Father has life in
himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself”
(Jn.5:26). On John 6:57, C.K. Barrett, The Gospel According
to St. John, says, “he has no independent life”.
Because the Bible depicts man as innately weak, the eleva-
tion of Jesus to God Almighty is a denial of this fundamental
attribute of his humanity. If Jesus is God, how could any
weakness be ascribed to him?
Human beings don’t have a choice as to be weak or strong
despite the delusion of strength that one may gain when he is
tall, or healthy, or intelligent, or rich, or esteemed in society.
Human weakness and helplessness is the reality of human
existence in the present age though the situation will change
in the age to come when we will be “clothed” with a new
body in such a way that the “body of our humiliation” (Phil.
3:21, NRSV) will be changed into an immortal body.
How can a divine Jesus be weak? If he is God, he is strong

and omnipotent. If he is weak, he is not God, for God cannot
dispose of His attributes. They are inherent to His very
person as God; they define what He is. If He lacks even one
of His attributes, He would not be God. Again the falsity of
the trinitarian doctrine of Jesus’ deity is exposed.
Trinitarians argue that Jesus as God has chosen to put on a
human body with its limitations. That he had such a choice
in the first place shows that he was not a human being. In
deifying Jesus, trinitarians have put him outside the pale of
humanity, being neither God nor man.
The argument of Jesus’ voluntary self-limitation doesn’t
make sense because God is not like a boxer who has one hand
tied behind his back as a handicap against a weaker opponent.
The argument that Jesus put aside his divine power in order
to depend on God’s power doesn’t make sense either, for how
can one who is innately omnipotent and infinitely powerful,
but then suppresses his own divine power, be weak in any real
sense? If I refrain from exercising my great power, does that
make me weak? No, I am still strong and powerful—actually
and inherently.
In trinitarianism, Jesus is the omnipotent second person of
the Godhead who is coequal with the Father. His acquiring a
human body does not reduce his omnipotence by one iota,
for how can flesh suppress omnipotence if omnipotence is by
definition infinite power? In trinitarianism, Jesus is not just
God but “fully God” even while he was on earth.
The Jesus of the 4th-century trinitarian creeds does not

match Yahweh’s signature and is therefore false. The biblical
Jesus, by contrast, is weak and can do nothing of his own. He
carries Yahweh’s signature that marks him as one who is
wholly dependent on God and has no extraordinary human
abilities that are not already available to other human beings.
The Bible does not say that Jesus was a different kind of
man from other human beings. He was born into an ordinary
Jewish family. Some scholars think that his family may have
been among the poorest of the Jews because artisans such as
carpenters generally owned no land, and were financially
worse off than those who owned land. (In general, landown-
ers would not take up carpentry as a trade, but would derive
their livelihood from agriculture which has the dual advantage
of ensuring their own food supply and, in a good season, of
having a surplus crop that could be sold or traded.)
Paul says of believers that not many are wise by human
standards, or powerful, or of noble birth, for God has chosen
the foolish in the world to shame the wise, and the weak to
shame the strong (1Cor.1:26-27). The most significant of
Paul’s statements that express this truth is 2Cor.12:9 in which
he recounts what the Lord had said to him: “My power is
made perfect in weakness”.
This statement calls for deep reflection. It plainly says that,
contrary to human thinking, any strength in man will hinder
God’s power from manifesting itself in perfection. A moment
of reflection tells us that if Jesus is the perfect man as
Scripture declares him to be, how could his total perfection
have been attained except through total weakness? We now
understand what Jesus meant when he said, “The Son can do

nothing by himself” (Jn.5:19). This is not a statement of
modesty but a declaration of solid fact, that without Yahweh’s
power Jesus would not be able to function at all.
This brings us to the crucial event of Gethsemane 163
where Jesus’ heart-wrenching struggle exposed his utter
weakness and anguish as the gripping reality of his imminent
death on the cross loomed before him. He did not face the
cross like a heroic warrior rushing headlong into the thick of
battle. There are many heroes in the history of empires and
civilizations, but Jesus was not empowered by human courage
or driven by a desire for earthly acclaim. He did not seek out
death, much less engineer his own death as some scholars
believe, suggesting that he was motivated by the figure of the
suffering servant of Isaiah 53 whose death brought atonement
to God’s people. The plan to redeem the “many” (Mt.20:28;
Mk. 10:45) came originally from Yahweh and not from Jesus.
In the following verses, we see the intensity of the Gethsema-
ne event:
Luke 22:44 And being in agony he prayed more earnestly; and
his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the
ground. (ESV)
Hebrews 5:7 In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers

and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was
able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his
reverence. (ESV)
163
Mt.26:36-45; Mark 14:32-41; Luke 22:39-44 (cf. Jn.18:1-12).
The intensity of Jesus’ anguish shortly before his death for

mankind could hardly be more poignantly displayed. Surely
this is not the way a hero is portrayed in biographies. A hero
is supposed to stand tall and meet death head-on, but Jesus is
presented as utterly weak. Paul’s enigmatic statement that
Jesus “was crucified in weakness but lives by the power of
God” (2Cor. 13:4) makes sense only in the light of a funda-
mental principle that the Lord had given to Paul: “My power
is made perfect in weakness” (2Cor.12:9). This is the princi-
ple by which all believers are to live. Paul himself says, “For
when I am weak, I am strong” (v.10; cf. v.9b).
The words “my power is made perfect in weakness” cannot
be true of the trinitarian Jesus because as God he cannot be
weak. How can God Almighty be weak? To argue that Jesus
made himself weak is a case of special pleading. We are
talking about true and actual weakness, not the appearance of
weakness. At Gethsemane, did the trinitarian Jesus only ap-
pear to be weak when in fact he was infinite and omnipotent?
Are we dealing with make-belief acting? If not, then a vital
element in the perfection of Jesus is his utter human weakness
by which God’s power was made perfect in him.
Jesus’ utter weakness is seen in details such as that “his
sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the
ground” (Lk.22:44), and that he was so weakened that he had
to be strengthened by an angel (v.43). Just how utterly hu-
man Jesus can be is seen in his blood, sweat, and tears (“loud
cries and tears,” Heb.5:7). Jesus’ greatness lies not in his sup-
posed deity but in his weakness and helplessness of such a de-
gree that it took nothing less than God’s power to carry him
through to victory just when he was in danger of collapsing.
All in all, the Gethsemane portrayal of Jesus collides with
the trinitarian portrayal of Jesus as God omnipotent and
Almighty.
“My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?”
(Mt.27:46; Mk.15:34) is another statement I wrestled with in
my trinitarian days but without arriving at a resolution. It is
impossible for God to forsake God (in trinitarianism this can
only be done by dividing their essence), so why did Jesus
shout out the words of anguish found in Psalm 22:1? Where-
as the words of Psalm 22:1 (“My God, my God, why have
You forsaken me?”) cannot apply to a divine Jesus, they are
eminently applicable to the man Jesus in his utter weakness
on the cross. At the cross, Yahweh’s power sustained Jesus’
spirit and upheld him through this dangerous crisis, to
achieve the victory by which Jesus could declare that his work
is “finished”—successfully completed.
God’s signature by which God’s works are

recognized as His
God’s way of doing things in the human world is stated in
1Cor.1:27: “But God chose what is foolish in the world to
shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to
shame the strong”. This principle runs through what is called
salvation history (Heilsgeschichte) which spans the Old and
New Testaments. Instances of this principle are too numerous

to cite exhaustively, but we can mention a few.
God the creator of heaven and earth, in His plan of salva-
tion, chose a particular nation for the redemption of mankind
that had fallen into sin and death through the failure of Adam
and Eve. Yahweh did not choose a world power such as the
culturally advanced nation of Egypt that by comparison made
Israel look like a nation of primitive tribes, nor did He choose
the great empires of Mesopotamia. The relics of these ancient
civilizations on display in the great museums today still kindle
awe and admiration.
None of these great and advanced nations was chosen by
Yahweh. Instead He chose an obscure nation of twelve tribes
that were in frequent conflict with one another. The nation of
Israel did not originally have the advanced weaponry such as
war chariots that their formidable neighbors to the southwest,
the Egyptians, wielded in vast numbers, nor did Israel attain
to anything like Egypt’s cultural and organizational achieve-
ments. It comes as no surprise that this tiny nation of relative-
ly primitive hill tribes ended up being enslaved in Egypt for
some 430 years (Ex.12:40-41). In the end, how did God
rescue Israel, a nation enslaved by a great world power for so
many generations?
The story of Moses is well known and will not be repeated
here except in outline. Moses, whose mother was an Israelite
slave woman, was providentially plucked out of the Nile and
adopted by one of Pharaoh’s daughters (Ex.2:1-10). Years lat-
er, Moses saw an Israelite being beaten by an Egyptian guard;
he impulsively killed the guard and had to flee from Pharaoh
as a fugitive (2:11-15). He took refuge in the desert mount-

ains of Midian where he married a daughter of Jethro, the
local priest and tribal chief, and became a sheep herder (2:16-
21). He lived many years in the wilderness and became ac-
quainted with the ways of the desert, accumulating know-
ledge and experience that would later prove valuable for lead-
ing the Israelites out of Egypt. During the long preparatory
years in the desert, Yahweh was building up his character and
preparing this otherwise ordinary man (who had not attained
to any distinction in Egypt apart from acquiring some educat-
ion) to become someone with whom Yahweh could commun-
icate, starting from their encounter at the burning bush
(Exodus 3).
Here we see God’s signature in His choosing an insignifi-
cant and enslaved people, and then choosing from them a
leader in the person of Moses who apart from having a meek
and righteous character is not portrayed as having any out-
standing ability or characteristic.
In both the Old and New Testaments, God chooses the
weak things of the world to confound the strong. In this
world, meekness is not regarded as a trait of the strong but of
the weak. Do slaves have a choice other than to be meek
before their masters, as any display of assertiveness could cost
them their lives?
The way God chooses people is seen again and again at
significant moments in biblical history. When Yahweh sent
Samuel the prophet to Jesse to appoint one of Jesse’s sons
king of Israel, Yahweh had in mind an unlikely candidate, a
young David who was overlooked even by his own parents
(1Sam.16:1-13). Yet David was chosen by Yahweh in a choice

that is consistent with His way of doing things, indeed con-
sistent with God’s signature.
Perfection and suffering

The New Testament teaches a lot about suffering, not only
that of Christ but also of believers in Christ, and imbues it
with spiritual meaning. Just as Jesus was made “perfect
through suffering” (Heb.2:10), so those in Christ who have
suffered in the flesh have “ceased from sin” (1Pet.4:1).
The gospels seldom mention Jesus’ age, but when they do,
they offer insight into his life and even his sufferings. Jesus
began his ministry at around the age of thirty (Lk.3:23), yet
some Jews estimated his age to be nearly fifty (Jn.8:57). In an
era in which the male life expectancy was around 35 years, a
man approaching 50 would be considered old. Why did the
Jews think that Jesus was close to 50 when he was about 30?
He obviously looked older than his age. The gospels nowhere
suggest that he was in poor health or had a disease that made
him look older than normal for his age.
Jesus’ aged appearance may reveal something about the
years prior to his public ministry. We know that suffering,
especially inner suffering, can age a person rapidly. The inten-
sity of his suffering at Gethsemane was of a depth that is hard
for us to fathom, yet this was surely not his only occasion of
suffering. The life-and-death issue that confronted him at
Gethsemane was not a new or unfamiliar one, but was the
culmination of his lifelong struggles; and now he was about to

“drink of the cup” (Mt.20:22; Jn.18:11).
Jesus had earlier said, “For this purpose I have come to this
hour” (Jn.12:27). The mission to be the sacrificial Lamb of
God must have been on his mind ever since John the Baptist
announced it at the start of Jesus’ ministry. Jesus probably
knew about his role even earlier, though we don’t know how
much earlier. So he must have struggled with his will for a
considerable time until his final declaration of assent: “Not
my will but Yours be done”. The intense suffering in his heart
and mind shortly before his being “made sin who knew no
sin” (2Cor.5:21) can hardly be imagined. It would be incor-
rect to suppose that his suffering for the salvation of human-
kind was confined to the few hours on the cross, or the few
days preceding it. On the contrary, Jesus went through a
lifetime of suffering, excluding perhaps the years prior to his
attaining adulthood at the age of 13.
Do we likewise have a role in the work of salvation by
following in his steps and enduring sufferings to “make up
what is lacking in Christ’s sufferings for the sake of his body”
(Col.1:24)? This is not to suggest anything inadequate in the
atoning efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice. Yet that doesn’t rule out
further sufferings for the body of Christ, the church, to bear.
Whereas Paul says that Christ “our Passover lamb has been
sacrificed” (1Cor.5:7), he also says of himself that he has been
“poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrifice of your
faith” (Phil.2:17). One chapter earlier, Paul says:
For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you
should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake,
engaged in the same conflict that you saw I had and now
hear that I still have. (Phil.1:29-30)
Jesus’ call to us to take up our cross and follow him

(Mt.16:24; Mk.8:34; Lk.9:23) is a call to suffer for the sake of
God’s kingdom.
Most Bibles do not convey God’s perfecting work

in Luke 13:32
And He said to them, “Go, tell that fox, ‘Behold, I cast out
demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third
day I shall be perfected.’” (Luke 13:32, NKJV)
KJV and NKJV correctly translate the last words of this verse
as, “I shall be perfected”. Here “perfected” (a passive form of
teleioō, to perfect) is a divine passive: It is implicitly God who
brought to completion His perfecting work in Jesus at the
cross.
Modern Bibles render “I shall be perfected” as something
else, usually by changing the passive into an active: “I finish
my course” (ESV), “I reach my goal” (NASB), or “I attain my
end” (NJB). These fail to convey Yahweh’s perfecting of Jesus
through suffering (Heb.2:10), an unfortunate omission given
that Jesus’ death on the cross was the climax and completion
of his sufferings, the event where his perfection was achieved
and completed.
“Faith in Jesus Christ” or “Faith of Jesus Christ”?

In our search for a deeper understanding of Jesus’ perfection,
sooner or later we will have to confront the striking fact that
Paul would sometimes speak of “the faith of Jesus Christ”—
that is, the faith exercised by Jesus Christ. This unusual word-
ing collides with trinitarian dogma by implying that Jesus put
his faith in God. This would be inconceivable if Jesus is
himself God as he is in trinitarianism. This would explain
why fervently trinitarian Bibles such as ESV have chosen to
render the phrase as “faith in Jesus Christ” rather than “faith
of Jesus Christ”.
Already in my student days when I was a trinitarian, I
noticed an unusual translation in several verses in KJV: “the
faith of Jesus Christ” (Rom. 3:22; 3:26; Gal.2:16a; 3:22) or
“the faith of Christ” (Gal.2:16b; Phil. 3:9) or “the faith of the
Son of God” (Gal.2:20); Gal.2:16 is listed twice here because
it has two such occurrences. These unusual KJV renderings
are in fact correct and literal translations of the Greek. These
verses are also translated correctly in the NET Bible, the
Complete Jewish Bible, and the International Standard
Version. Here are the relevant verses from KJV, NET, and
CJB:
Rom.3:22 by faith of Jesus Christ (KJV)

through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ (NET)
through the faithfulness of Yeshua the Messiah (CJB)
Rom.3:26 the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus
the one who lives because of Jesus’ faithfulness
righteous on the ground of Yeshua’s faithfulness
Gal.2:16a by the faith of Jesus Christ
by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ
through the Messiah Yeshua’s trusting faithfulness
Gal.2:16b by the faith of Christ
by the faithfulness of Christ
on the ground of the Messiah’s trusting faithfulness
Gal.2:20 I live by the faith of the Son of God
I live because of the faithfulness of the Son of God
I live by the same trusting faithfulness that the Son of
God had
Gal.3:22 by faith of Jesus Christ
because of the faithfulness of Jesus Christ
Yeshua the Messiah’s trusting faithfulness
Eph.3:12 by the faith of him
because of Christ’s faithfulness
through his faithfulness
Phil.3:9 through the faith of Christ
by way of Christ’s faithfulness
through the Messiah’s faithfulness
The literal rendering—“faith of Christ”—is called the

subjective genitive (i.e. Christ is the subject, the one who
exercises faith) whereas “faith in Christ” is called the objective
genitive (Christ is the object of faith). The NET Bible, in a
footnote on Romans 3:22, offers a strong reason for choosing
“faith of Jesus Christ” (subjective genitive) over “faith in Jesus

Christ”. The following quotation may be skipped:
Noteworthy among the arguments for the subjective genitive
view is that when πίστις (pistis, “faith”) takes a personal geni-
tive it is almost never an objective genitive (cf. Mt.9:2,22,29;
Mk.2:5; 5:34; 10:52; Lk.5:20; 7:50; 8:25,48; 17:19; 18:42;
22:32; Rom.1:8;12; 3:3; 4:5,12,16; 1Cor.2:5; 15:14,17;
2Cor.10:15; Phil.2:17; Col.1:4; 2:5; 1Thess.1:8; 3:2,5,10;
2Thess.1:3; Titus 1:1; Phlm 6; 1Pet.1:9,21; 2Pet.1:5).
This explanation may seem technical but its point is

straightforward. Take the case of Matthew 9:29, one of the
verses listed here. In Mt.9:29, Jesus says to some blind men
who were about to be healed: “It shall be done to you accord-
ing to your faith” (“faith of you”; pistin humōn, personal geni-
tive). What is this faith? It is obviously the faith that the blind
men had exercised (subjective genitive), not the faith that
others had put in the blind men (objective genitive). In other
words, the blind men were healed because they trusted in
Jesus, not because the onlookers trusted in the blind men!
For a discussion on this issue from a grammatical
perspective, see Daniel Wallace’s Greek Grammar Beyond the
Basics, pp.115-116, which says that “the grammatical argu-
ment for the objective genitive, then, has little to commend
it,” and that “grammatical considerations seem to be in favor
of the subjective genitive”.
In my student days, the unusual words “the faith of Jesus
Christ” in KJV left a question in my mind, but being ex-
tremely busy at the time, I could only leave it to a later date
to examine the question. Some years later, a book appeared

with the title The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative
Substructure of Galatians 3:1-4:11, by Richard B. Hays, an
eminent NT scholar at Duke Divinity School. His work,
which argues for the faith of Jesus Christ, immediately caught
my attention.164
It has been noted that prior to the 1970s, pistis Iēsou
Christou was almost universally understood to mean “faith in
Jesus Christ” (objective genitive), but in recent decades many
scholars have argued that it should be rendered literally as
“faith/faithfulness of Jesus Christ” (subjective genitive).165 A
scholar who himself prefers the objective genitive admits that
the subjective genitive (the faith of Jesus Christ) has become
the majority view among NT scholars.166
The issue is not whether Jesus is the object of saving faith
(this is not denied) but whether Jesus himself also exercised
faith in God in his salvific work. If the answer is yes, then the
believer’s exercise of faith would be a most significant act of
following in the steps of Jesus, who himself also exercised
164
See also The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Pistis Christou Debate,
Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle, ed. The 17 essays in this
book represent both sides of the debate. See also “2 Corinthians 4:13:
Evidence in Paul that Christ Believes,” Douglas A. Campbell, JBL,
vol.128, no.2, 2009, pp.337–356.
165
Commentary on the NT Use of the OT, on Galatians 2:16.
166
The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Pistis Christou Debate, p.34. Also
Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p.115: “more and more scholars are
embracing these texts as involving a subjective genitive (thus, either
‘Christ’s faith’ or ‘Christ’s faithfulness’)”.
faith. What is crucial here is that faith is not just a believing

in Jesus but also a believing with Jesus; it is a vital step of
identifying with Jesus in our relationship with God and the
pursuit of perfection. The exercise of faith then binds us into
a deeper fellowship with Jesus when we follow him as his
disciples. Salvation is not just creedal belief in Christ but
participation with Christ, both in his faith and in his suffer-
ings, for we are called not just to believe in Christ but also to
“suffer for his sake” (Phil.1:29) and to participate in the
“fellowship of his sufferings” (3:10).
But the problem for me when I was a trinitarian was that if
Jesus is God, then Jesus wouldn’t need to have faith, for he
himself is the object of faith. Is Jesus so utterly human that he
needs to have faith? Why would the human part of “God the
Son” need to have faith in God when his divine part does
not? It was a hopeless contradiction as is the case with many
other things in trinitarianism. Many of these issues are ad-
dressed in Hays’s detailed work but those without basic theo-
logical training may find his book difficult to read.
Because the Jesus of trinitarianism doesn’t need to have
faith as humans do, he is denied a most vital element of the
spiritual life. How then could Jesus have been tested “in every
respect” as other humans when our most severe trials are
precisely the test of our faith? What then was the test that
Jesus endured in Gethsemane if not the test of faith and
obedience? What were the loud cries to God that were heard
because of his fear of God? What about the impending death
that caused him to cling to God in faith—the faith of Jesus
Christ?
I n discussing faith, we need to see its inner connection to

obedience. This is brought out in the account of Adam’s
disobedience. If death is the outcome of disobeying Yahweh,
why did Adam and Eve disobey God despite having been told
of the consequences (Genesis 3:3, “You shall not eat of the
fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall
you touch it, lest you die”)? What could account for their act-
ions but that they did not believe God’s word? Had they
believed God, they would not have taken the forbidden fruit.
But in ignoring God’s warning, they showed contempt for
Him and regarded Him as a liar and a weakling. How could
they not have believed God given that they were not stupid or
irrational? Obviously someone was clever enough to convince
them that God didn’t mean what He said. They not only
thought that they won’t die, but that they would become like
God, knowing good and evil (Gen.3:4-5). Adam and Eve
believed the serpent (the devil) and disobeyed God.
This shows the nexus or inner connection between
obedience and belief, and thereby between disobedience and
unbelief. Adam did not believe what God had told him but
believed the devil, hence the fatal consequences. Adam’s death
was not immediately apparent because it was not primarily on
the physical level.
But Jesus obeyed God with an absolute obedience rooted
in faith. In our trinitarian days, the faith of Jesus was not
something that crossed our minds, for if Jesus is God, why
would he need to have faith? Or submit to anyone? But if he
is man, he would certainly need to believe in God and obey
Him. If it was by Adam’s unbelief and disobedience that all
men died, then it was by Jesus’ faith and obedience that “the
many will be made righteous” (Rom. 5:19). Here we see the
crucial importance of the faith of Jesus Christ, but trinita-
rianism has suppressed this truth.
Epilogue
The Glory of God in the

Face of Jesus Christ
T he unparalleled event of the transfiguration of Jesus is

recorded for us in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but its
meaning is not explained in these gospels. The following is
Matthew’s account of the transfiguration, followed by a brief
excerpt from Luke’s account:
Matthew 17:1-12 1 And after six days Jesus took with him Pet-
er and James, and John his brother, and led them up a high
mountain by themselves. 2 And he was transfigured before
them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became
white as light. 3 And behold, there appeared to them Moses
and Elijah, talking with him. 4 And Peter said to Jesus, “Lord,
it is good that we are here. If you wish, I will make three tents
here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah.” 5 He
was still speaking when, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed
them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my beloved
Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him.” 6 When the
disciples heard this, they fell on their faces and were terrified. 7
But Jesus came and touched them, saying, “Rise, and have no
fear.” 8 And when they lifted up their eyes, they saw no one
but Jesus only. 9 And as they were coming down the mount-
ain, Jesus commanded them, “Tell no one the vision, until the
Son of Man is raised from the dead.” 10 And the disciples
asked him, “Then why do the scribes say that first Elijah must
come?” 11 He answered, “Elijah does come, and he will restore
all things. 12 But I tell you that Elijah has already come, and
they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they
pleased. So also the Son of Man will certainly suffer at their
hands.” (ESV)
Luke 9:30-32 And behold, two men were talking with him,
30
Moses and Elijah, 31 who appeared in glory and spoke of his

departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. 32
Now Peter and those who were with him were heavy with
sleep, but when they became fully awake they saw his glory
and the two men who stood with him. (ESV)
The transfiguration of Jesus is an event unprecedented in

Israel despite its similarity to what took place when Moses
came down from Mount Sinai after meeting with God:
Moses’s face shone so brightly that the people could not bear
to look at him, so a veil was put over his face (Ex.34:29-35).
Yet a greater display of glory took place at the transfiguration,
with Jesus’ face shining like the sun and his clothes becoming
luminous. The glory shining through Jesus was far greater
than that through Moses on Sinai, though in both cases it was
undoubtedly Yahweh’s glory that was shining forth.
It is gratuitous and without scriptural basis for BDAG,
under metamorphoō (be transfigured), to make the trinitarian
Epilogue: The Glory of God in the Face of Jesus Christ 723
comment that the transfigured Jesus was manifesting his own

preexistent glory. The fact is that the “glory” (doxa, Lk.9:32)
manifested in Jesus at the transfiguration was not his alleged
preexistent glory, just as the “glory” (doxa, v.31) manifested
in Moses and Elijah at the transfiguration was not a preexist-
ent glory. Jesus repeatedly says that he has nothing except
what has been given to him by the Father, and this would cer-
tainly include Jesus’ glory which had all along been Yahweh’s
glory shining through him in his words and deeds.
Years later, Peter, an eyewitness of the transfiguration,
explicitly says that Jesus’ glory at the transfiguration “came
from God the Father”:
… we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. He received honor and
glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from
the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love;
with him I am well pleased.” (2 Peter 1:16-17, NIV)
At the transfiguration, Yahweh’s glory shone also through

Moses and Elijah. Moses was the one through whom Yahweh
had given His word as the Law, and Elijah was the one who
raised the dead and thus revealed Yahweh’s power as the Life-
giver.
Although God’s glory shone more powerfully in Jesus than
in Moses and Elijah, it did not occur to Peter to set up just
one tent for Jesus only, but to set up three tents for the three.
Though Jesus was his teacher and master, there was no
“Jesusism” in Peter’s mind! Moses as the law giver and Elijah
as the representative prophet of Israel were accorded the same
honor as Jesus in terms of being offered tents. This is not to
deny that God’s glory shining through Jesus was greater than
that through the other two, but it is to deny that Jesus is to be
exalted as the sole object of veneration by his disciples.
The brilliance of Jesus’ face, shining like the sun with
God’s glory, left the disciples overwhelmed and prostrate on
the mountain. If they ever had any doubts about Yahweh’s
indwelling presence in Jesus, these would have evaporated at
the sight of the brilliance of God’s divine light.
The transfiguration was not the only time that Jesus’ face
shone like the sun in John’s presence. Later on, in the Revela-
tion, Jesus appeared to John in a manner similar to his trans-
figuration:
In his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth came a
sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining
in full strength. (Rev. 1:16, ESV)
In the Revelation, John saw a similar manifestation of glory in

a mighty angel with his face shining with the intensity of the
sun.
Then I saw another mighty angel coming down from
heaven, wrapped in a cloud, with a rainbow over his head,
and his face was like the sun, and his legs like pillars of fire.
(Rev.10:1, ESV)
No one who reads this verse would for a moment think that
this angel is a divine being coequal with God the Father.
Hence there is no Scriptural basis for making Jesus divine on
the basis of his transfigured appearance.
J tion.
esus took only three disciples with him to the transfigura-
Why were the other nine excluded from this remark-
able revelation? The gospels give no clues beyond the fact that
the three formed Jesus’ inner circle of disciples. But we can
consider one or two possibilities without arriving at any
dogmatic conclusions.
One possible reason is that Judas, the one who was to be-
tray Jesus, was one of the Twelve. So if the other eleven were
included in the event of the transfiguration, there would be
no way of excluding Judas without drawing attention to him.
Moreover, since the transfiguration was a secret that Jesus
instructed the three not to share with the others, it is clear
that Judas, the disciple who was about to betray him, should
hardly be given this secret revelation. Peter, James and John
formed Jesus’ inner circle of disciples, so in this momentous
event of the transfiguration, they were granted to witness an
extraordinary revelation about him.
But even if we don’t take Judas into account, why restrict
the number to three? One possible reason is that God’s revel-
ations are granted to those who have an attitude of heart and
mind that is rare even among the chosen ones. This is some-
thing that experienced teachers of the Scriptures, the word of
God, would have firsthand knowledge of. In the course of my
teaching and preaching ministry, I have not infrequently seen
how some can understand a spiritual truth almost immed-
iately upon hearing it, while others who hear the same truth
at the same time and at same place either struggle for a long
time to perceive it or never at all. From the gospel accounts, it
would seem that John was exceptionally perceptive in spirit-
ual matters. As for Peter, even if he was slightly slower than

John, it would seem that his level of spiritual perception was
well above average (e.g., Mt. 16:15-17). As for James, we
know little about him from the gospel accounts, but his in-
clusion in the inner circle would indicate that he was prob-
ably around the level of Peter.
P aul speaks of “the glory of God in the face of Jesus

Christ” (2Cor.4:6). This profound statement says every-
thing there is to be said about the person, life, and ministry of
Jesus Christ. God’s glory in the face of Jesus Christ is perfect-
ly mirrored in the extraordinary event of the transfiguration.
What is the “secret” of the transfiguration that the three
are to keep for a time? There is the significant reference to
Jesus’ death and resurrection: “Tell no one the vision until the
Son of Man is raised from the dead” (Mt.17:9), and “the Son
of Man will certainly suffer at their hands” (v.12). In Lk.9:31,
Moses and Elijah speak of Jesus’ “departure” (NIV) or
“death” (HCSB).
Years later, Jesus appeared to John at the Revelation and
said to him, “I was dead, and behold, I am alive forever”
(Rev.1:18), a striking commentary on what he had said on
the mount of transfiguration. The dual themes of Jesus’ death
and Jesus’ resurrection form the foundational message of “the
gospel of God” (Mk.1:14; Rom.1:1; 15:16; 1Th.2:2,8,9;
1Pet.4:17), so called because through Jesus’ death and resur-
rection, Yahweh reconciled the world to Himself (2Cor.5:19-
20). Jesus is the Lord of glory (1Cor.2:8) not because of his
supposed preexistence but because by his blood at the cross,
mankind was redeemed for God. It was because of his obed-

ience unto death at the cross that he was exalted to receive the
glory of God:
Therefore God has highly exalted him and

bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
— End —
Appendixes
Appendix 1
Encyclopaedia Judaica
on YHWH
The following is the entire section “YHWH” of the article

“Names of God” in Encyclopaedia Judaica (2nd ed., vol.7,
p.675). This extract, from an esteemed 22-volume authority on
Judaism, makes some important points: (i) the name YHWH
was regularly pronounced with its proper vowels before 586
BCE; (ii) the proper pronunciation of YHWH is “Yahweh”; (iii)
the true pronunciation of YHWH has never been lost; (iv) the
rendering “Jehovah” in contrast to “Yahweh” arose from a
misunderstanding of the reasons for inserting the vowels in
YHWH; (v) the prohibition against uttering the name YHWH
was the result of a misunderstanding of the Third Command-
ment.
[Start of extract]
T he personal name of the God of Israel is written in the

Hebrew Bible with the four consonants YHWH and is
referred to as the “Tetragrammaton.” At least until the
destruction of the First Temple in 586 B.C.E. this name was
regularly pronounced with its proper vowels, as is clear from
the *Lachish Letters, written shortly before that date. But at
least by the third century B.C.E. the pronunciation of the
name YHWH was avoided, and Adonai, “the Lord,” was

substituted for it, as evidenced by the use of the Greek word
Kyrios, “Lord,” for YHWH in the Septuagint, the translation
of the Hebrew Scriptures that was begun by Greek-speaking
Jews in that century. Where the combined form Adonai
YHWH occurs in the Bible, this was read as Adonai Elohim,
“Lord God.” In the early Middle Ages, when the consonantal
text of the Bible was supplied with vowel points to facilitate
its correct traditional reading, the vowel points for ’Adonai
with one variation—a sheva with the initial yod of YHWH
instead of the ḥataf-pataḥ under the aleph of ’Adonai—were
used for YHWH, thus producing the form YeHoWaH.
When Christian scholars of Europe first began to study
Hebrew, they did not understand what this really meant, and
they introduced the hybrid name “Jehovah.” In order to avoid
pronouncing even the sacred name ’Adonai for YHWH, the
custom was later introduced of saying simply in Hebrew ha-
Shem (or Aramaic Shemā’, “the Name”) even in such an ex-
pression as “Blessed be he that cometh in the name of
YHWH” (Ps.118:26). The avoidance of pronouncing the
name YHWH is generally ascribed to a sense of reverence.
More precisely, it was caused by a misunderstanding of the
Third Commandment (Ex.20:7; Deut. 5:11) as meaning
“Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy God in vain,”
whereas it really means either “You shall not swear falsely by
the name of YHWH your God” (JPS) or more likely, “Do
not speak the name of YHWH your god, to that which is
false,” i.e., do not identify YHWH with any other god.
Appendix 1 — Encyclopedia Judaica on YHWH 733
The true pronunciation of the name YHWH was never

lost. Several early Greek writers of the Christian Church
testify that the name was pronounced “Yahweh.” This is con-
firmed, at least for the vowel of the first syllable of the name,
by the shorter form Yah, which is sometimes used in poetry
(e.g., Ex.15:2) and the -yahu or -yah that serves as the final
syllable in very many Hebrew names. In the opinion of many
scholars, YHWH is a verbal form of the root hwh, which is an
older variant of the root hyh “to be.” The vowel of the first
syllable shows that the verb is used in the form of a future-
present causative hiph‘il, and must therefore mean “He causes
to be, He brings into existence.” The explanation of the name
as given in Exodus 3:14, Eheyeh-Asher-Eheyeh, “I-Am-Who-I-
Am,” offers a folk etymology, common in biblical explanation
of names, rather than a strictly scientific one. Like many other
Hebrew names in the Bible, the name Yahweh is no doubt a
shortened form of what was originally a longer name. It has
been suggested that the original, full form of the name was
something like Yahweh-Asher-Yihweh, “He brings into
existence whatever exists”; or Yahweh Ẓeva’ot (1Sam.1:3,11),
which really means “He brings the hosts [of heaven—or of
Israel?] into existence.” “The Lord of Hosts,” the traditional
translation of the latter name, is doubtful.
According to the documentary hypothesis, the literary
sources in the Pentateuch known as the Elohist and the
Priestly Document never use the name Yahweh for God until
it is revealed to Moses (Ex.3:13; 6:2-3); but the Yahwist
source uses it from Genesis 2:4 on and puts the name in Eve’s
declaration, “I along with Yahweh have made a man,” thus
implying that it was known to the first human generation

(Gen.4:1; cf. 4:26). The apparent purpose of Exodus 6:2-3 is
to glorify Moses at the expense of the patriarchal traditions.
Appendix 2
Jewish Encyclopedia on Yahweh
The following extract is from the article “Names of God” in

The Jewish Encyclopedia, Isidore Singer (ed.), volume IX,
pages 160-161.
[Start of extract]
O f the names of God in the Old Testament, that which

occurs most frequently (6,823 times) is the so-called
Tetragrammaton, YHWH (‫)יהוה‬, the distinctive personal
name of the God of Israel. This name is commonly repres-
ented in modern translations by the form “Jehovah,” which,
however, is a philological impossibility (see JEHOVAH). This
form has arisen through attempting to pronounce the conso-
nants of the name with the vowels of Adonai (‫“ = אדני‬Lord”),
which the Masorites have inserted in the text, indicating
thereby that Adonai was to be read (as a “ḳeri perpetuum”)
instead of YHWH. When the name Adonai itself precedes, to
avoid repetition of this name, YHWH is written by the
Masorites with the vowels of Elohim, in which case Elohim is
read instead of YHWH. In consequence of this Masoretic
reading the authorized and revised English versions (though
not the American edition of the revised version) render

YHWH by the word “Lord” in the great majority of cases.
This name, according to the narrative in Ex. iii. (E), was
made known to Moses in a vision at Horeb. In another,
parallel narrative (Ex. vi. 2, 3, P) it is stated that the name was
not known to the Patriarchs. It is used by one of the docu-
mentary sources of Genesis (J), but scarcely if at all by the
others. Its use is avoided by some later writers also. It does not
occur in Ecclesiastes, and in Daniel is found only in ch. ix.
The writer of Chronicles shows a preference for the form
Elohim, and in Ps. xlii.-lxxxiii. Elohim occurs much more
frequently than YHWH, probably having been substituted in
some places for the latter name, as in Ps. liii. (comp. Ps. xiv.).
In appearance, YHWH (‫ )יהוה‬is the third person singular
imperfect “ḳal” of the verb ‫“( הוה‬to be”), meaning, therefore,
“He is,” or “He will be,” or, perhaps, “He lives,” the root idea
of the word being, probably, “to blow,” “to breathe,” and
hence, “to live.” With this explanation agrees the meaning of
the name given in Ex.iii.14, where God is represented as
speaking, and hence as using the first person—“I am” (‫אהיה‬,
from ‫היה‬, the later equivalent of the archaic stem ‫)הוה‬. The
meaning would, therefore, be “He who is self-existing, self-
sufficient,” or, more concretely, “He who lives,” the abstract
conception of pure existence being foreign to Hebrew
thought. There is no doubt that the idea of life was intimately
connected with the name YHWH from early times. He is the
living God, as contrasted with the lifeless gods of the heathen,
and He is the source and author of life (comp. I Kings xviii.;
Isa. xli. 26-29, xliv. 6-20; Jer. x. 10, 14; Gen. ii. 7; etc.). So
Appendix 2 — Jewish Encyclopedia on Yahweh 737
familiar is this conception of God to the Hebrew mind that it

appears in the common formula of an oath, “ḥai YHWH” (=
“as YHWH lives”; Ruth iii.13; I Sam. xiv.45; etc.).
If the explanation of the form above given be the true one,
the original pronunciation must have been Yahweh (‫ )יַהְ וֶה‬or
Yahaweh (‫)יַהְ ַוֶה‬. From this the contracted form Jah or Yah
(‫ )יָהּ‬is most readily explained, and also the forms Jeho or Yeho
(‫)יַהְ וְ = יְ הַ ו = יְ הוֹ‬, and Jo or Yo (‫יוֹ‬, contracted from ‫)יְ הוֹ‬, which
the word assumes in combination in the first part of com-
pound proper names, and Yahu or Yah (‫ )וַהְ וְ = יָהוּ‬in the sec-
ond part of such names. The fact may also be mentioned that
in Samaritan poetry ‫ יהוה‬rimes with words similar in ending
to Yahweh, and Theodoret (“Quæst. 15 in Exodum”) states
that the Samaritans pronounced the name ’Iαβέ. Epiphanius
ascribes the same pronunciation to an early Christian sect.
Clement of Alexandria, still more exactly, pronounces ’Iαουέ
or ’Iαουαί, and Origen, ‘Iαη. Aquila wrote the name in
archaic Hebrew letters. In the Jewish-Egyptian magic-papyri
it appears as Ιαωουηε. At least as early as the third century
B.C. the name seems to have been regarded by the Jews as a
“nomen ineffabile,” on the basis of a somewhat extreme inter-
pretation of Ex. xx. 7 and Lev. xxiv. 11 (see Philo, “De Vita
Mosis,” iii. 519, 529). Written only in consonants, the true
pronunciation was forgotten by them.
Appendix 3
The Meaning of “I am who I am”
The following extract is from the article “Calling God names:

an inner-biblical approach to the Tetragrammaton,” William
M. Schniedewind, in Scriptural Exegesis: The Shapes of Culture
and the Religious Imagination: Essays in Honour of Michael
Fishbane, Oxford, 2009. When the author mentions the
Hebrew phrase Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh, he is referring to the
declaration, “I am who I am” (Ex.3:14), Yahweh’s famous self-
description revealed to Moses.
[Start of extract]
S econd, it has been pointed out by many that Ehyeh-Asher-

Ehyeh [Exodus 3.14,15] seems to be connected with verse
12, in which God promises ‘I shall be with you’ (‫)אהיה עמד‬.
The connection with verse 12 was already recognized by
ancient Jewish interpreters. Independently, many modern
readers have seen the same connection. A later interpreter
may be playing on the promise, ‘I shall be with you’. We do
well to remember that this connection does not merely derive
from the immediate context, though that might have been the
trigger. The promise ‘I shall be with you’ (‫ )אהיה עמד‬is found
frequently in the Hebrew Bible; God promises that He will be
Appendix 3 — The Meaning of “I Am Who I Am” 739
with Abraham, with Isaac, with Jacob, with Moses, with

Joshua, with Gideon, with David, with the people of Israel,
and so on. Thus, the exegetical rumination would result not
only from the immediate context, but also from the broader
cultural and religious horizon of ancient Israel. We arrive at
interpretations of the name of God based on the LORD’s
presence—some have suggested translating Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh
as something like ‘I am the one who shall surely be with you’.
While there may be an intuitive connection here, the problem
with this interpretation is that it is not what the text literally
says. Ehyeh is an imperfect, or a future; it should mean
something like ‘I shall be whom I shall be’—but that does not
suit our religious sensibilities. ‘I shall be whom I shall be’
makes the LORD seem capricious, whereas (paradoxically) ‘I
am who I am’ can assert God’s unchanging nature. Perhaps
both seemed like good answers during the Babylonian exile or
in the postexilic community, as well as at other times of crisis.
Although the proximity of Ehyeh-‘Immakh and Ehyeh-
Asher-Ehyeh almost demands some relationship between the
two, the meanings of the two are not naturally connected. We
must assume that Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh (‫ )אהיה אשר אהיה‬is an
interpretation of ‫אהיה עמד‬, ‘I shall be with you’, in order to
make the connection. And, we may ask, why stress that God’s
name—His very essence—points to God’s presence? Perhaps
because God’s presence was challenged and questioned—as it
was by the exile and during the postexilic period. Certainly,
there was a need to reassert God’s presence in the Jerusalem
temple, especially in the postexilic period when the former
symbol of God’s presence—the ark—was absent. The divine
name could serve as a new symbol of God’s physical presence

in Jerusalem and in the temple.
In sum, the early history of the ineffable name of God
seems to be closely associated with the Jerusalem temple.
References to the building of a temple ‘for the name’ can be
compared with the rather mundane Near Eastern parallels in
which such statements merely indicate exclusivity of owner-
ship. In the exilic period, however, the fact that the temple
was ‘for the name of God’ could be understood to mean that
only the name of God, and not God himself, resided in the
temple. When the temple was rebuilt in the postexilic period,
the fact that the name of God resided in the temple increas-
ingly was understood literally to imply God’s physical pres-
ence with his people and in the temple. Ehyeh, for example,
was an interpretation of the Tetragrammaton that played on
the promise of God’s presence and reassured the people of
His immanence. When the former symbol of God’s physical
presence on earth, the ark of the covenant, had disappeared,
the name became a convenient surrogate as a symbol of God’s
presence with His people, and especially in the Jerusalem
temple.
Appendix 4
Jewish Encyclopedia on Memra
The following is the entire article “Memra” from Jewish

Encyclopedia as it was found at
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10618-memra
This article is technical, so most readers may wish to skip it.
Those who take the time to read it will discover that the
equation Memra = Yahweh is beyond doubt.
Everything in the original article has been preserved except
for two typographical changes: (i) The verse numbering for-
mat has been modernized (e.g., Ps.xxxiii.6 is now Ps.33:6);
(ii) the Hebrew letter “het” is transliterated “ch” rather than
“h”+underdot, for font reasons.
A few Bible verse numbers in this article are incorrect,
possibly the result of typing errors in the original article, but
more likely because of errors in the OCR conversion from
the print edition to the web edition.
[Start of article]
MEMRA (= “Ma’amar” or “Dibbur,” “Logos”)

“The Word,” in the sense of the creative or directive word or speech of
God manifesting His power in the world of matter or mind; a term
used especially in the Targum as a substitute for “the Lord” when an
anthropomorphic expression is to be avoided.
—Biblical Data:
In Scripture “the word of the Lord” commonly denotes the speech add-
ressed to patriarch or prophet (Gen.15:1; Num.12:6, 23:5; 1Sam.3:21;
Amos 5:1-8); but frequently it denotes also the creative word: “By the
word of the Lord were the heavens made” (Ps.33:6; comp. “For He
spake, and it was done”; “He sendeth his word, and melteth them [the
ice]”; “Fire and hail; snow, and vapors; stormy wind fulfilling his
word”; Ps.33:9, 147:18, 148:8). In this sense it is said, “For ever, O
Lord, thy word is settled in heaven” (Ps.119:89). “The Word,” heard
and announced by the prophet, often became, in the conception of the
seer, an efficacious power apart from God, as was the angel or messeng-
er of God: “The Lord sent a word into Jacob, and it hath lighted upon
Israel” (Isa.9:7 [A.V. 8], 55:11); “He sent his word, and healed them”
(Ps.107:20); and comp. “his word runneth very swiftly” (Ps. 147:15).
Personification of the Word.
—In Apocryphal and Rabbinical Literature:

While in the Book of Jubilees, 12:22, the word of God is sent through
the angel to Abraham, in other cases it becomes more and more a
personified agency: “By the word of God exist His works” (Ecclus.
[Sirach] 42:15); “The Holy One, blessed be He, created the world by
the ‘Ma’amar’” (Mek., Beshallach, 10, with reference to Ps.33:6). Quite
frequent is the expression, especially in the liturgy, “Thou who hast
made the universe with Thy word and ordained man through Thy
wisdom to rule over the creatures made by Thee” (Wisdom 9:1; comp.
“Who by Thy words causest the evenings to bring darkness, who
openest the gates of the sky by Thy wisdom”; … “who by His speech
created the heavens, and by the breath of His mouth all their hosts”;
through whose “words all things were created”; see Singer’s “Daily
Prayer-Book,” pp. 96, 290, 292). So also in IV Esdras 6:38 (“Lord,
Thou spakest on the first day of Creation: ‘Let there be heaven and
Appendix 4 — Jewish Encyclopedia on Memra 743
earth,’ and Thy word hath accomplished the work”). “Thy word, O
Lord, healeth all things” (Wisdom 16:12); “Thy word preserveth them
that put their trust in Thee” (l.c. 16:26). Especially strong is the
personification of the word in Wisdom 18:15: “Thine Almighty Word
leaped down from heaven out of Thy royal throne as a fierce man of
war.” The Mishnah, with reference to the ten passages in Genesis
(ch.1) beginning with “And God said,” speaks of the ten “ma’amarot”
(= “speeches”) by which the world was created (Abot 5:1; comp. Gen.
R. 4:2: “The upper heavens are held in suspense by the creative
Ma’amar”). Out of every speech [“dibbur”] which emanated from God
an angel was created (Hag. 14a). “The Word [“dibbur”] called none
but Moses” (Lev. R. 1:4,5). “The Word [“dibbur”] went forth from the
right hand of God and made a circuit around the camp of Israel”
(Cant. R. 1:13).
—In the Targum:

In the Targum the Memra figures constantly as the manifestation of
the divine power, or as God’s messenger in place of God Himself,
wherever the predicate is not in conformity with the dignity or the
spirituality of the Deity.
Instead of the Scriptural “You have not believed in the Lord,” Targ.
Deut.1:32 has “You have not believed in the word of the Lord”; instead
of “I shall require it [vengeance] from him,” Targ. Deut.18:19 has “My
word shall require it.” “The Memra,” instead of “the Lord,” is “the
consuming fire” (Targ. Deut.9:3; comp. Targ. Isa.30:27). The Memra
“plagued the people” (Targ. Yer. to Ex.32:35). “The Memra smote
him” (2Sam.6:7; comp. Targ. 1Kings 18:24; Hos.13:14; et al.). Not
“God,” but “the Memra,” is met with in Targ. Ex.19:17 (Targ. Yer.
“the Shekinah”; comp. Targ. Ex.25:22: “I will order My Memra to be
there”). “I will cover thee with My Memra,” instead of “My hand”
(Targ. Ex.33:22). Instead of “My soul,” “My Memra shall reject you”
(Targ. Lev.26:30; comp. Isa.1:14, 42:1; Jer.6:8; Ezek.23:18). “The
voice of the Memra,” instead of “God,” is heard (Gen.3:8; Deut.
4:33,36; 5:21; Isa.6:8; et al.). Where Moses says, “I stood between the
Lord and you” (Deut.5:5), the Targum has, “between the Memra of
the Lord and you”; and the “sign between Me and you” becomes a
“sign between My Memra and you” (Ex.31:13,17; comp. Lev.26:46;
Gen.9:12; 17:2,7,10; Ezek.20:12). Instead of God, the Memra comes
to Abimelek (Gen.20:3), and to Balaam (Num.23:4). His Memra aids
and accompanies Israel, performing wonders for them (Targ.
Num.23:21; Deut.1:30, 33:3; Targ. Isa.63:14; Jer.31:1; Hos.9:10
[comp. 11:3, “the messenger-angel”]). The Memra goes before Cyrus
(Isa.45:12). The Lord swears by His Memra (Gen.21:23, 22:16, 24:3;
Ex.32:13; Num.14:30; Isa.45:23; Ezek.20:5; et al.). It is His Memra
that repents (Targ. Gen.6:6, 8:21; 1Sam.15:11, 35). Not His “hand,”
but His “Memra has laid the foundation of the earth” (Targ.
Isa.48:13); for His Memra’s or Name’s sake does He act (l.c. 48:11;
2Kings 19:34). Through the Memra God turns to His people (Targ.
Lev.26:90; 2Kings 13:23), becomes the shield of Abraham (Gen.15:1),
and is with Moses (Ex.3:12; 4:12,15) and with Israel (Targ. Yer. to
Num.10:35,36; Isa.63:14). It is the Memra, not God Himself, against
whom man offends (Ex.16:8; Num.14:5; 1Kings 8:50; 2Kings 19:28;
Isa.1:2,16; 45:3,20; Hos.5:7, 6:7; Targ. Yer. to Lev.5:21; 6:2; Deut.
5:11); through His Memra Israel shall be justified (Targ. Isa.45:25);
with the Memra Israel stands in communion (Targ. Josh.22:24,27); in
the Memra man puts his trust (Targ. Gen.15:6; Targ. Yer. to Ex.14:31;
Jer.39:18, 49:11).
Mediatorship
Like the Shekinah (comp. Targ. Num.23:21), the Memra is accord-
ingly the manifestation of God. “The Memra brings Israel nigh unto
God and sits on His throne receiving the prayers of Israel” (Targ. Yer.
to Deut.4:7). It shielded Noah from the flood (Targ. Yer. to Gen.7:16)
and brought about the dispersion of the seventy nations (l.c. 11:8); it is
the guardian of Jacob (Gen.28:20-21; 35:3) and of Israel (Targ. Yer. to
Ex.12:23,29); it works all the wonders in Egypt (l.c. 13:8, 14:25);
Appendix 4 — Jewish Encyclopedia on Memra 745
hardens the heart of Pharaoh (l.c. 13:15); goes before Israel in the wild-
erness (Targ. Yer. to Ex.20:1); blesses Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num.23:8);
battles for the people (Targ. Josh.3:7, 10:14, 23:3). As in ruling over
the destiny of man the Memra is the agent of God (Targ. Yer. to Num.
27:16), so also is it in the creation of the earth (Isa. 45:12) and in the
execution of justice (Targ. Yer. to Num.33:4). So, in the future, shall
the Memra be the comforter (Targ. Isa. 66:13): “My Shekinah I shall
put among you, My Memra shall be unto you for a redeeming deity,
and you shall be unto My Name a holy people” (Targ. Yer. to
Lev.22:12). “My Memra shall be unto you like a good plowman who
takes off the yoke from the shoulder of the oxen”; “the Memra will roar
to gather the exiled” (Targ. Hos.11:5,10). The Memra is “the witness”
(Targ. Yer.29:23); it will be to Israel like a father (l.c. 31:9) and “will
rejoice over them to do them good” (l.c. 32:41). “In the Memra the
redemption will be found” (Targ. Zech.12:5). “The holy Word” was
the subject of the hymns of Job (Test. of Job, 12:3, ed. Kohler).
The Logos
It is difficult to say how far the rabbinical concept of the Memra, which
is used now as a parallel to the divine Wisdom and again as a parallel to
the Shekinah, had come under the influence of the Greek term
“Logos,” which denotes both word and reason, and, perhaps owing to
Egyptian mythological notions, assumed in the philosophical system of
Heraclitos, of Plato, and of the Stoa the metaphysical meaning of
world-constructive and world-permeating intelligence (see Reizenstein,
“Zwei Religionsgeschichtliche Fragen,” 1901, pp. 83-111; comp. Aall,
“Der Logos,” and the Logos literature given by Schürer, “Gesch.” i. 3,
542-544). The Memra as a cosmic power furnished Philo the corner-
stone upon which he built his peculiar semi-Jewish philosophy. Philo’s
“divine thought,” “the image” and “first-born son” of God, “the
archpriest,” “intercessor,” and “paraclete” of humanity, the “arch type
of man” (see Philo), paved the way for the Christian conceptions of the
Incarnation (“the Word become flesh”) and the Trinity. The Word
which “the unoriginated Father created in His own likeness as a mani-

festation of His own power” appears in the Gnostic system of Marcus
(Irenæus, “Adversus Hæreses,” i. 14). In the ancient Church liturgy,
adopted from the Synagogue, it is especially interesting to notice how
often the term “Logos,” in the sense of “the Word by which God made
the world, or made His Law or Himself known to man,” was changed
into “Christ” (see “Apostolic Constitutions,” vii. 25-26, 34-38, et al.).
Possibly on account of the Christian dogma, rabbinic theology, outside
of the Targum literature, made little use of the term “Memra.”
Bibliography:
Bousset, Die Religion des Judenthums im Neutestamentlichen Zeitalter,

1903, p. 341; Weber, Jüdische Theologie, 1897, pp. 180-184.
Appendix 5
Jesus’ Sinless Perfection is Rejected by

Many Scholars as Impossible
The following extract is from International Standard Bible

Encyclopedia, article “Jesus Christ,” by John J. Maclaren. It gives
helpful insight into the supremely miraculous nature of Christ’s
perfection and sinlessness, and how it is regarded as impossible by
many scholars (but not by Maclaren).
[Start of extract]
IV. The Character and Claims.
1. Denial of Christ’s Moral Perfection:

Where the Gospels present us in Jesus with the image of a
flawless character—in the words of the writer to the Hebrews,
“holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners” (Heb
7:26)—modern criticism is driven by an inexorable necessity
to deprive Jesus of His sinless perfection, and to impute to
Him the error, frailty, and moral infirmity that belong to

ordinary mortals. In Schweitzer’s portraiture (compare op.
cit.), He is an apocalyptic enthusiastic, ruled by illusory
ideals, deceiving Himself and others as to who He was, and as
to the impending end of the world. Those who show a more
adequate appreciation of Christ’s spiritual greatness are still
prevented by their humanitarian estimate of His person and
their denial of the supernatural in history from recognizing
the possibility of His sinlessness. It may confidently be said
that there is hardly a single writer of the modern school who
grants Christ’s moral perfection. To do so would be to admit
a miracle in humanity, and we have heard that miracle is by
the highest rational necessity excluded. This, however, is pre-
cisely the point on which the modern so-called “historical-
critical” mode of presentation most obviously breaks down.
The ideal of perfect holiness in the Gospels which has fasci-
nated the conscience of Christendom for 18 centuries, and
attests itself anew to every candid reader, is not thus lightly to
be got rid of, or explained away as the invention of a church
gathered out (without the help of the ideal) promiscuously
from Jews and Gentiles. It was not the church—least of all
such a church—that created Christ, but Christ that created
the church.
(1) The Sinlessness Assured

The sinlessness of Jesus is a datum in the Gospels. Over
against a sinful world He stands as a Savior who is Himself
without sin. His is the one life in humanity in which is pre-
Appendix 5 — Jesus’ Perfection is Rejected as Impossible 749
sented a perfect knowledge and unbroken fellowship with the

Father, undeviating obedience to His will, unswerving devot-
ion under the severest strain of temptation and suffering to
the highest ideal of goodness. The ethical ideal was never
raised to so absolute a height as it is in the teaching of Jesus,
and the miracle is that, high as it is in its unsullied purity, the
character of Jesus corresponds with it, and realizes it. Word
and life for once in history perfectly agree. Jesus, with the
keenest sensitiveness to sin in thought and feeling as in deed,
is conscious of no sin in Himself, confesses no sin, disclaims
the presence of it, speaks and acts continually on the assump-
tion that He is without it. Those who knew Him best de-
clared Him to be without sin (1 Pet 2:22; 1 Jn 3:5; compare
2Cor 5:21). The Gospels must be rent in pieces before this
image of a perfect holiness can be effaced from them.
(2) What This Implies

How is this phenomenon of a sinless personality in Jesus to be
explained? It is itself a miracle, and can only be made credible
by a creative miracle in Christ’s origin. It may be argued that
a Virgin Birth does not of itself secure sinlessness, but it will
hardly be disputed that at least a sinless personality implies
miracle in its production. It is precisely because of this that
the modern spirit feels bound to reject it. In the Gospels it is
not the Virgin Birth by itself which is invoked to explain
Christ’s sinlessness, but the supernatural conception by the
Holy Spirit (Lk 1:35). It is because of this conception that the
birth is a virgin one. No explanation of the supernatural
element in Christ’s Person is more rational or credible (see

below on “Nativity”).
2. Sinlessness and the Messianic Claim

If Jesus from the first was conscious of Himself as without sin
and if, as the converse of this, He knew Himself as standing
in an unbroken filial fellowship with the Father, He must
early have become conscious of His special vocation, and
learnt to distinguish Himself from others as one called to
bless and save them. Here is the true germ of His Messianic
consciousness, from which everything subsequently is un-
folded. He stood in a rapport with the Father which opened
His spirit to a full, clear revelation of the Father’s will regard-
ing Himself, His mission, the kingdom He came to found,
His sufferings as the means of salvation to the world, the
glory that awaited Him when His earthly work was done. In
the light of this revelation He read the Old Testament Script-
ures and saw His course there made plain. When the hour
had come He went to John for baptism, and His brief, event-
ful ministry, which should end in the cross, began. This is the
reading of events which introduces consistency and purpose
into the life of Jesus, and it is this we mean to follow in the
sketch now to be given.
Appendix 6
Karl-Josef Kuschel on
Christ and Adam
The following extract is from pp.251-252 of Karl-Josef Kuschel’s

Born Before All Time? The Dispute Over Christ’s Origin
(Crossroad, NY, 1992, translated from the German). It touches
on several related topics: Christ and Adam; Christ as “the form of
God”; and Christ’s preexistence. The value of Kuschel’s book is
evident from its high scholarship and the fact that its Foreword
was written by Hans Küng.
[Start of extract]
A lready in the 1960s and 1970s Anglo-Saxon exegetes had

paid more attention than representatives of German exe-
gesis to the basic alternative that in this text Christ is not
celebrated as a pre-existent heavenly being, but in good
Jewish fashion as a human counterpart to Adam.29 That view
cannot be completely false, simply because in other passages
in his correspondence Paul also compares Christ with Adam
(Rom.5:12-21; I Cor. 15:21f., 45-47). In fact we can ask: is
not Adam, the first, original man, here replaced and surpassed
by Jesus as the definitive, ultimately valid man? In that case
we should regard Gen.1-3, the creation and fall of the first
man, as the traditio-historical background.
Linguistically, this seems to be supported simply by the

fact that one can virtually identify ‘form of God’ (morphē
theou)—thus literally, and better than ‘he was like God’—
with doxa (glory) or eikōn (image) of God.30 The same holds
for the Greek word homoioma (‘and in the likeness of men’)
of v.7, which, moreover, is occasionally translated ‘in form
like a man’.31 So the first line of the hymn would speak of
Christ, who like Adam was created ‘in the image’ of God and
like Adam participated in the ‘glory’ of God before his fall.
The contrasting term to ‘form of God’ would further confirm
this derivation: ‘form of a slave’ is evidently an allusion to
Adam’s fate after the fall. The second contrasting pair at the
beginning of the text would point in the same direction:
‘likeness of God’ probably alludes to Adam’s temptation (he
wanted to be like God, Gen.3:5) and ‘likeness of men’ in turn
to Adam’s state after succumbing to sin.
The phrase ‘being like God’ (Greek isa theou), too, may
not simply be translated with terms like ‘equality to God’,
‘being like God’, as often happens. That would require the
form isos theos. What we have in the text is the adverb isa, and
that merely means ‘as God’, ‘like God’. So there is no state-
ment about Christ being equal to God, and this in turn tells
against an interpretation in terms of pre-existence. So on both
traditio-historical and linguistic grounds, according to the
Catholic exegete and Jerusalem Dominican Jerome Murphy-
O’Connor there is ‘no justification for interpreting the phrase
of the hymn in terms of being of Christ’.32
So this text would be a piece of Adam christology, of the
kind that also emerges in other contexts in the New Testa-
Appendix 6 — Karl-Josef Kuschel on Christ and Adam 753
ment. It would be a further example of the widespread two-

stage christology of the earliest Jewish-Christian communities
(life-death/resurrection-exaltation of Jesus Christ) which we
have already analyzed, and thus would not be in the context
of mythical tradition, but of Old Testament tradition. So
there is no question here of a pre-existent heavenly figure.
Rather, Christ is the great contrasting figure to Adam. To be
specific, was it not Adam who wanted to become even more
like God and thus succumbed to hubris and the primal sin?
Was it not Adam who then as punishment had to live a kind
of slave’s existence? And is not the Christ of this hymn pre-
cisely the opposite? Did he not give up his being in the image
of God voluntarily? Did he not take on the form of a slave,
not as a punishment, but voluntarily and obediently, so that
he was then appointed by God to his heavenly dignity? That,
then, would be the contrast, the great antithesis in this hymn:
Adam the audacious man—Christ the man who humbled
himself; Adam the one who was humbled forcibly by God—
Christ the man who voluntarily humbled himself before God;
Adam the rebellious man—Christ the man who was utterly
obedient; Adam the one who was ultimately cursed—Christ
the one who was ultimately exalted; Adam who wanted to be
like God—and in the end became dust; Christ, who was in
the dust and indeed went to the cross—and is in the end the
Lord over the cosmos?
Thus in this hymn Christ seems to be the new Adam who
has finally overcome the old Adam. There is no question of a
pre-existence of Christ with the scheme of a three-stage
christology: pre-existence, humiliation, post-existence. Instead
of this, the author celebrates the whole earthly-human life of

Christ as a life of voluntary self-surrender to lowliness, as obe-
dience which extends to the existence of a slave and a
shameful death. In so doing he makes two things clear. It is
only because of, only through lowliness that Jesus could also
become the pantocrator; and conversely, the pantocrator bears
for ever the features of the humbled man, indeed the crucified
slave.
Jerome Murphy-O’Connor can therefore draw the basic
conclusion:
‘Strophe 1: As the Righteous Man par excellence Christ was
the perfect image (eikon) of God. He was totally what God
intended man to be. His sinless condition gave him the right
to be treated as if he were God, that is, to enjoy the incor-
ruptibility in which Adam was created. This right, however,
he did not use to his own advantage, but he gave himself over
to the consequences of a mode of existence that was not his
by accepting the condition of a slave which involved suffering
and death.
Strophe 2 : Though in his human nature Christ was identical

with other men, he in fact differed from them because, unlike
them, he had no need to be reconciled with God. None-
theless, he humbled himself in obedience and accepted death.
Strophe 3: Therefore, God exalted him above all the just who
were promised a kingdom, and transferred to him the title
and the authority that had hitherto been God’s alone. He is
the Kyrios whom every voice must confess and to whom every
knee must bow.
Appendix 6 — Karl-Josef Kuschel on Christ and Adam 755
Thus understood, the original hymn represents an attempt to

define the uniqueness of Christ considered precisely as man.
This is what one would expect at the beginning of Christian
theology.’33
[Endnotes 29 to 33 in the excerpt from Professor Kuschel’s book]

29. This position is represented by J. Harvey, ‘A New Look at the Christ Hymn in
Phil.2.6-11’, Expository Times 76, 1964/65, 337-9; C.H. Talbert, ‘The Problem of
Pre-existence in Phil.2.6-11’, Journal of Biblical Literature 86, 1967, 141-53; J.M.
Furness, ‘Behind the Philippian Hymn’, Expository Times 79, 1967/68, 178-82;
Dunn, Christology in the Making, 114-21; R. Brown, The Community of the Beloved
Disciple. The Life, Loves and Hates of an Individual Church in New Testament Times,
New York 1979, 45f. Among the German exegetes is H.-W. Bartsch, Die konkrete
Wahrheit und die Lüge der Spekulation. Untersuchung über den vor-paulinischen
Christushymnus und seine gnostische Mythisierung, Frankfurt am Main 1974. More
recently in Catholic American theology, T.N. Hart, To Know and Follow Jesus, New
York 1984, 93-100; L.Swidler, Yeshua. A Model for Moderns, Kansas City 1988, 23-
6.
30. Cf. F.-W. Eltester, Eikon im Neuen Testament, Berlin 1958, who draws the
parallel to II Cor.4.4 (133). Cf. similarly J. Behm, ‘morphe’, TDNT IV, Grand
Rapids 1967, 742-52, esp.751 : ‘The morphe theou in which the pre-existent Christ
is simply the divine doxa: Paul’s en morphe theou hyparchon corresponds exactly to
John 17.5.’
31. Thus e.g., Neues Testament, translated U. Wilckens, Hamburg, Cologne and
Zurich 1970, 1971
32. J.Murphy-O’Connor OP, ‘Christological Anthropology in Phil.2.6-11’, Revue

Biblique 93, 1976, 25-50: 39.
33. Ibid, 49f. Against the theses of Murphy-O’Connor: G. Howard, ‘Phil.2.6-11

and the Human Christ’, CBQ 40, 1978, 356-76; I.H. Marshall, ‘Incarnational
Christology in the NT’, in Christ the Lord. Studies in Christology presented to D.
Guthrie, ed. H.H. Rowdon, Leicester 1982,1-16; L.D. Hurst, ‘Re-enter the Pre-
existent Christ in Phil. 2.5-11’, NTS 32, 1986, 449-57; C.A. Wanamaker, Phil.2.6-
11: Son of God or Adamic Christology?’, NTS 33, 1987, 179-93.
Appendix 7
The Gnostic Origins of “Homoousios”
H undreds, possibly thousands, of academic works and

articles have been written on the subject of Gnosticism,
an esoteric movement that was a grave threat to the early
church. It suffices for our purposes to give two brief explan-
ations of Gnosticism from two references:
Oxford Dictionary of English (2010): “GNOSTICISM, a

prominent heretical movement of the 2nd-century Christian
Church, partly of pre-Christian origin. Gnostic doctrine
taught that the world was created and ruled by a lesser
divinity, the demiurge, and that Christ was an emissary of
the remote supreme divine being, esoteric knowledge (gnosis)
of whom enabled the redemption of the human spirit.”
Encarta 2007 Encyclopedia: “GNOSTICISM, esoteric religious

movement that flourished during the 2nd and 3rd centuries
AD and presented a major challenge to orthodox Christian-
ity. Most Gnostic sects professed Christianity, but their be-
liefs sharply diverged from those of the majority of Christ-
ians in the early church (see Heresy). The term gnosticism is
derived from the Greek word gnosis (‘revealed knowledge’).
To its adherents, Gnosticism promised a secret knowledge of
the divine realm. Sparks or seeds of the Divine Being fell
from this transcendent realm into the material universe,
Appendix 7 — The Gnostic Origins of Homoousios 757
which is wholly evil, and were imprisoned in human bodies.

Reawakened by knowledge, the divine element in humanity
can return to its proper home in the transcendent spiritual
realm.” (“Gnosticism,” paragraph 1, Encarta 2007)
Various sources, both ancient and modern, have touched

on the Gnostic origins of the word homoousios (ὁμοούσιος,
one in substance) that was controversially adopted by the
Council of Nicaea to assert that the Father and the Son are of
“one substance” or the “same essence”. Its Gnostic origins was
one of the reasons that made the word suspect and the target
of criticism, even by some who later acceded to the Nicene
creed, in the debates leading up to the Nicene formulation.167
A masterly and meticulously documented discussion of the
Gnostic origins of homoousios is found in a paragraph of the
Wikipedia article Homoousian under the heading “Pre-Nicene
use of the term”: 168
167
The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Contro-
versy 318-381, R.P.C. Hanson, chapter 7, pp.190-202.
168
We quote the 2nd paragraph of Wikipedia article Homoousian as
it was on Feb 20, 2013, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoousian.
The four footnotes in this excerpt are here included in their entirety
and without alteration except for a change in footnote numbers, origin-
ally 1 to 4, but changed to higher footnote numbers to conform to the
footnote numbering sequence of the present book.
From Wikipedia article “Homoousian”:
Pre-Nicene use of the term
The term ὁμοούσιος (homoousios) had been used before

its adoption by the Nicene theology. The Gnostics were
the first theologians to use the word homoousios, while
before the Gnostics there is no trace at all of its
existence.169 The early church theologians were probably
made aware of this concept, and thus of the doctrine of
emanation, by the Gnostics.170 In Gnostic texts the word
homoousios is used with these meanings: (1) identity of
substance between generating and generated; (2) identity
of substance between things generated of the same sub-
stance; (3) identity of substance between the partners of
a syzygy. For example, Basilides, the first known Gnostic
169
Adolf von Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, 1:284-85, n.3; 2:232-34, n.4.
Ignacio Ortiz de Urbina, “L’homoousios preniceno,” Orientalia Christiana
Periodica 8 (1942): 194-209; Ignacio Ortiz de Urbina, El Simbolo Niceno
(Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1947), 183-202.
Luis M. Mendizabal, “El Homoousios Preniceno Extraeclesiastico,” Esthdios
Eclesiasticos 30 (1956): 147-96. George Leonard Prestige, God in Patristic
Thought (London: SPCK, 1936; 2d ed., 1952), 197-218. Peter Gerlitz,
Aufierchristliche Einflilsse auf die Entwicklung des christlichen. Trinitatsdogmas,
zugleich ein religions- und dogmengeschichtlicher Versuch zur Erklarung der
Herkunft der Homousie (Leiden: Brill, 1963), 193-221. Ephrem Boularand,
L’heresie d’Arius et la “foi” de Nicke, vol. 2, “La “foi” de Nicee” (Paris:
Letouzey & Ane, 1972), 331-53. J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 3d ed.
(London: Longman, 1972), 245. Frauke Dinsen, Homoousios. Die Geschichte
des Begriffs bis zum Konzil von Konstantinopel (381), Diss. Kiel 1976, 4-11.
Christopher Stead, Divine Substance, 190-202.
170
Aloys Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, vol. 1, From the
Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451) (London: Mowbrays, 1975), p.109.
Appendix 7 — The Gnostic Origins of Homoousios 759
thinker to use homoousios in the first half of the 2nd cen-

tury, speaks of a threefold sonship consubstantial with
the god who is not. 171 The Valentinian Gnostic Ptolemy
claims in his letter to Flora that it is the nature of the
good God to beget and bring forth only beings similar
to, and consubstantial with himself. 172 Homoousios was
already in current use by the 2nd-century Gnostics, and
through their works it became known to the orthodox
heresiologists, though this Gnostic use of the term had
no reference to the specific relationship between Father
and Son, as is the case in the Nicene Creed.
171
According to Hippolytus: “Υἱότης τριμερής, κατὰ πάντα τῷ οὐκ
ὄντι θεῷ ὁμοούσιος”. (Refutatio omnium haeresium 7:22) See also, for
the Gnostic use of the term, Miroslav Marcovich in Patristische Texte
und Studien, 25 (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1986), 290f. V,8,10 (156);
V,17,6.10 (186 f.).
172
According to Epiphanius: “Τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ φύσιν ἔχοντος τὰ ὅμοια
ἑαυτῷ καὶ ὁμοούσια γεννᾶν τε καὶ προφέρειν”. (Panarion 33:7,8)
Appendix 8
The Irresolvable Problems

of Trinitarian Christology
In his manuscript notes, Eric Chang included an article,

Was Jesus Perfect God and Perfect Man at the Same Time?,
which he said was taken from the Internet. A subsequent
web search located the article at:
http://www3.sympatico.ca/shabir.ally/new_page_26
The following is quoted word for word from the article
as it was on March 26, 2013, though the extremely low
resolution diagram that came with the article has been
redone (by Bentley Chan) at higher resolution.
We won’t express agreement or disagreement with the
article, leaving it to the reader to come to his or her con-
clusion about its correctness. It is included here solely for
the purpose of seeing a Muslim’s informed perspective
on the issue.
Appendix 8 — The Irresolvable Problems of Trinitarianism 761
[Start of the Internet article, as it was on March 26, 2013]
Was Jesus Perfect God and Perfect Man at the Same

Time?
A ccording to Orthodox Christian belief, Jesus was perfect

man and perfect God at the same time. This belief is
necessary for salvation according to the Athanasian creed held
dear by most Christians. Modern Christian scholars reject this
idea not because it is difficult to understand but because it
cannot be meaningfully expressed. The doctrine cannot be
stated in any way that is free from contradictions. It is
impossible for Jesus to have been perfect man and perfect
God at the same time, for this would mean that he was finite
and infinite at the same time, and that he was fallible and
infallible at the same time. This cannot be.
What the creed denies is also quite significant. The creed
was formulated in response to the claims of various early
Christian groups, and so includes clauses that deny the beliefs
of those groups. In response to the Arians who believed that
Jesus was not God, the Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325) decreed
that he was fully God. In response to the Apollinarians who
believed Jesus was God but not fully human, the council of
Constantinople (A.D. 381) decreed that Jesus was fully
human.
Then there was Nestorianism, the belief that started when
Nestorius denied that Mary could be called “Mother of God.”
To him, Mary was mother of the human Jesus only. This
implied that there were two Christs: one divine, the other
human. Against Nestorius, the council of Ephesus (A.D. 431)
decreed that the two natures of Jesus cannot be separated.
Everything Jesus does is done by both the humanity and
divinity in him. Likewise, everything that happened to him
happened to both the man and God that he is. Therefore
Mary gave birth to both, both died on the cross, etc.
At yet another council, the council of Chalcedon (A.D.
451), the creed received some finishing touches and the
Athanasian creed was declared official church teaching. Most
Christians are not familiar with the detailed implications of
the creed, and in their own minds conceive of Jesus in the
very ways the creed was formulated to deny. This tendency
results from the fact that the creed’s definition of Jesus is im-
possible for any human mind to comprehend. One can only
repeat the words, but cannot grasp the meaning of the re-
quired belief. Therefore most just repeat the creed with their
lips but in their minds turn to views of Jesus that are less
taxing on the intellect, even though those views were declared
by the Church to be heretical.
The orthodox doctrine is logically impossible. As Huston
Smith, scholar of comparative religion, points out, it would
not have been logically impossible if the creed had only said
that Jesus was somewhat divine and somewhat human. But
this is expressly what the creed denies. For orthodox Christ-
ians, Jesus cannot possess only some human qualities; he must
possess all. He must be fully human. At the same time, he
cannot possess only some divine qualities; he must have all.
He must be fully divine. This is impossible because to be fully
divine means one has to be free of human limitations. If he

has only one human limitation then he is not God. But
according to the creed he has every human limitation. How,
then, can he be God? Huston Smith calls this a blatant
contradiction. In his book The World’s Religions, he writes:
We may begin with the doctrine of the Incarnation, which
took several centuries to fix into place. Holding as it does
that in Christ God assumed a human body, it affirms that
Christ was God-Man; simultaneously both fully God and
fully man. To say that such a contention is paradoxical seems
a charitable way to put the matter—it looks more like a
blatant contradiction. If the doctrine held that Christ was
half human and half divine, or that he was divine in certain
respects, while being human in others, our minds would not
balk. (The World’s Religions, p. 340).
If it was said that Jesus was partly human and partly divine
that would not be logically impossible but only scripturally
impossible. The Bible nowhere teaches that Jesus was divine
in any way. Furthermore, if he was only partly divine then he
was not the One True God of the Old and New Testaments.
God is All-Powerful, not somewhat all-powerful; God is All-
Knowing, not somewhat all-knowing.
C. Randolph Ross is a Christian. In his book Common
Sense Christianity he debunks the orthodox view “not because
it is difficult to understand,” he says, but because “it cannot
meaningfully be said.” He rejects it because “it is impossible,”
he says. (Common Sense Christianity, p.79). His arguments are
so persuasive that I can do little better than just repeat them.
To be human means to be limited, lacking in knowledge,

prone to mistakes, imperfect. To be God means just the op-
posite: unlimited, complete in knowledge, infallible, perfect.
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say of one person
that he was both. Either he was one or the other.
This is no Paradox
To those who say this is a paradox, Ross answers nicely. It is
important to understand first of all what is a paradox. A para-
dox is something that seems impossible but can be demon-
strated to be true. On the other hand, the creedal statement
may seem true to some people but logic demonstrates it to be
false. Ross argues with an example that makes the point suc-
cinct:
“Ah!” some will say. “That’s the paradox!” No, it isn’t a
paradox. This is a very important point, so please take special
note: a paradox is something which seems impossible but
which is demonstrably true. Thus, it was a paradox when
some scientist carefully analyzed bumblebees and concluded
that according to the laws of physics they couldn’t fly. There
was contradiction and apparent impossibility, but bumble-
bees kept on flying. However, for an individual to be both
perfect and imperfect is the reverse of this: it may seem true
to some, but it is demonstrably impossible. And not just im-
possible according to our understanding of the laws of
nature, which can be wrong (as with the bumblebee), but
impossible according to the rules of logic upon which all our
reasoning is based. (p.82)
Let me elaborate this last point. Human observation and

analysis can turn out to be incorrect. This was the case with
the scientist who figured that according to the laws of Physics
bumblebees could not fly. The flaw in his procedure is that
our understanding of the laws of nature is always improving.
New knowledge often declare old to be false. But with the
rules of logic things are different. What is true by definition
will always remain true unless we start redefining things. For
example, 2+2=4. This equation will always remain true. The
only way this can ever become false is if we decide to change
the definitions of the component parts. Now, by definition, a
thing cannot be the opposite of itself. A thing cannot be
perfect and imperfect at the same time. The presence of one
of these qualities implies the absence of the other. Jesus was
either one or the other. He cannot logically be both. Ross is
very eloquent on this:
To say someone is perfect and imperfect is like saying that
you saw a square circle. This is an impossibility. Are you
saying the circle was not round, in which case it was not a
circle? Or are you saying the square was circular? This is not
a paradox; this is meaningless nonsense, however imaginative
it might be. (p. 82)
To develop this point further, I tried to relate it to what

can and cannot be said about Jesus according to the creed. In
the diagram below, we see a figure that is somewhat round
and somewhat square. It is unorthodox to say that Jesus was
somewhat man and somewhat God. Even the models that
combine a circle and a square one inside the other do not
work, for in each case you have two objects clearly separable.
Orthodoxy does not allow this for the two natures of Jesus.
To satisfy the requirements of orthodoxy we must find an
object which is at once a circle and a square. By definition,
such an object cannot exist (see accompanying diagram).
The difficulty is not with believing what the creed says.

The problem is that the creed in effect says nothing. When
we are told two opposites what then are we to believe? Ross
puts it nicely:
To say that someone is perfect and imperfect at the same

time is to say that “X” and “not-X” can both be true. This is
either to abandon the meaning of these words or else to
abandon logic, and in either case this means we are speaking
nonsense that can have no meaning for us. (p.82)
The orthodox say that Jesus was imperfect with regards to

his human nature but perfect with regards to his divine
nature. The problem with this position is that it implies the
existence of two persons occupying the one body of Jesus: one
perfect, the other imperfect. You need for this two minds,
two wills, two characters. But the creed does not allow this
necessary conclusion and insists that Jesus was not two
persons but one only. Now, this one person had to be either
perfect or not, infallible or not, unlimited in knowledge or
not. You cannot say of the same person that he was both.
When Jesus faced death on the cross according to Christ-
ian belief, either he faced it with the human belief that he
would be raised on the third day, or he faced death with the
infallible knowledge that he would be so raised. If he believed
with human faith in God’s power to raise him then he
himself was not God. If, on the other hand, he faced death
with infallible divine knowledge that he would be resurrected,
then he was not taking any real risk in letting himself die. If
the divine nature in him knew he would be raised, but he did
not know this, then it was not his divine nature. If the divine
nature knew something he did not, we are back to two
persons.
This could get more difficult to explain as we look at the

deeds reported of Jesus in the gospels and ask whether the
divine or human nature or both performed those deeds. Let
us consider the episode where Jesus curses the fig tree. First,
the account as it appears in Mark:
Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he
went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he
found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for
figs. Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit
from you again.” (Mark 11:12-14, NIV)
As a result, the tree withered from the roots (v.20). Now, a

few things are clear from this episode.
1. Jesus did not know the tree had no fruit until he went
up to the tree and found nothing but leaves.
2. When Jesus saw leaves from a distance he hoped to find
fruit on the tree.
3. It was not fig season, and this is why the tree had no figs.
This comment from Mark clearly implies that it was a
perfectly good tree. If the tree was barren, Mark’s com-
ment about the season would have been pointless and
misleading.
4. Jesus did not know it was not fig season. If he had
known this, he would not have expected the tree to have
fruit, and he would not have cursed the tree for having
no fruit.
5. The whole thing began when Jesus felt hungry.
Now it is easy to understand that the human Jesus felt

hunger, and that the human Jesus did not know it was not fig
season and so mistakenly expected the tree to have fruit. A
divine Jesus would have known all these, and would not have
to go to the tree to discover it had no fruit; he would not have
been hungry in the first place.
Now the cursing of the tree is a little more difficult for
those who assert the divinity of Jesus. His miracles, they say,
are performed by his divine nature. Okay, so the divine Jesus
cursed the tree. But why? Why ruin a tree which in Mark’s
view was a perfectly good tree? Come fig season this tree
would have had fruit and others could have eaten from it.
The reason was that the human Jesus made a mistake. But
why did the divine Jesus act upon the mistake of the human
Jesus? Does the human mind in Jesus guide the divine nature
in him? Actually, there is no warrant for all this speculation,
for scripture nowhere says that Jesus has two natures. Those
who want to believe contrary to scripture that Jesus was fully
human yet fully divine can go on speculating.
Some will say that everything is possible with God, and
that we are using words here with their human meanings.
This is true. Everything is possible with God. We believe that.
If you tell me God did such and such and He is such and
such I cannot say it is impossible. But what if you say “God
did and did not,” or “He is and is not?” Your statements are
meaningless. When you say that Jesus is perfect God and
perfect man at the same time you are saying two opposite
things. Therefore, I reply, “Impossible!”
So what we need here is to hear it said with meaning. If

you think that the words have a different or deeper meaning,
when applied to God I cannot help agreeing with you. But I
would like to know with what meaning you are using those
words. Ross explains:
If you wish to redefine some of these words, that’s fine, as
long as you can tell us the new meanings that you are using.
The usual practice, however, seems to be to say that while
one cannot say precisely what these new meanings are, one is
nevertheless sure that they fit together in a way that makes
sense. This, of course, is simply an effort to duck the require-
ments of logic. But if you do not know the meanings of the
words which you are applying to Jesus, then you are simply
saying “Jesus is X” and “Jesus is Y,” X and Y being
unknowns. This, of course, is to say nothing at all. (p. 83)
As a result of this confusion, many Christians revert to the

idea that Jesus had two natures that are separable. Sometimes
he acts as a human and sometimes he acts as God. This, of
course, is not supported by scripture, and it would have been
wiser to move to the scriptural position that Jesus was a man
and a servant of God (See Matthew 12:18, Acts 3:13, Acts
4:27 in the Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version). ]
[End of excerpt from the Internet article]

Appendix 9
What Philo Teaches, and Why

He Cannot be Used in Support
of Trinitarianism
T his appendix continues our discussion started in chapter

3 on Philo and his teachings. It is somewhat detailed, so
some readers may wish to skip it. It consists of two parts. The
first part points to the fact that scholars who specialize in
Philo are aware that Philo’s logos is not a real person, much
less a divine person; hence there is no basis for the trinitarian
use of Philo’s logos for interpreting “the Word” in John’s
Prologue.
The second part is a compilation of Philo’s own statements
on the logos (“the Word”). These statements show us what
Philo really means by logos, and that his logos, which he some-
times calls “the second god,” is not really a person, much less
a divine person. Hence Philo’s logos offers no help to the
trinitarian interpretation of “the Word” in John’s Prologue.
What Philo means by logos

Earlier we mentioned Kenneth Schenck’s A Brief Guide to
Philo. On pages 58-62, Schenck explains in seven points, un-
der seven headings, what Philo means by the logos. Here are
the seven headings, quoted verbatim:
1. The logos as God’s directive force in the world

2. The logos as the image of God
3. The logos as the instrument of creation
4. The logos as the container of the world of ideas
5. The logos as the glue/prop of creation
6. The logos as the soul’s guide to God
7. The logos: A second god?
The first six points are not directly useful for the trinitar-
ian interpretation of John 1:1 despite some tangential rele-
vance. Only point #7 offers something that may be of use.
The question mark in point #7 is Schenck’s. So what does he
say in point #7 regarding the “second god”? We now quote in
full his discussion on point #7 (omitting a few sentences near
the end, due to their technical nature). From Schenck’s ex-
planation of what Philo means by the logos, we see that Philo
offers nothing that is useful for trinitarianism but in fact
offers much that can be used against the trinitarian appropria-
tion of Philo.
Appendix 9 — What Philo Teaches 773
[Start of Schenck’s seventh point (pp.61-62)]
Philo somewhat startlingly could refer to the logos as a

“second God”:
“I am the God who appeared to you in the place of

god” [Gen.31:13] … Inquire carefully if there are
two gods in what it says … For in truth God is one,
even if there are many whom people improperly
call “gods”. Therefore, the sacred word [logos] in
this case has revealed who is truly God by way of
the articles. It states in the one place, “I am the
God.” But in the other instance it indicates the one
we should not call god by omitting the article: “the
one who appeared to you in the place” not “of the
God” but only “of god.” Here it calls God’s oldest
Word [logos] “god.” (Somn. 1:227-230)
In this passage, Philo speaks of how many mistake God’s

governor and representative, the logos, for him. Those with-
out wisdom cannot understand God without some sense of
him having a body and being like humans. These understand
God by way of him having a body and being like humans.
These understand God by way of his angel or messenger, his
Word (logos).
The distinction between God, whose essence is unknow-
able, and the logos is significant for Philo. When he is speak-
ing imprecisely, he can speak of the logos as if it were simply
God’s reason in action (e.g., Opif. 36). But when he is in
technical philosophy mode, he draws an important distinct-
ion between God and his reason (logos):
To his chief messenger [=archangel] and oldest word

[logos] the father who gave birth to everything gave a special
gift to stand on the boundary and separate what has come
into existence from the one who has created. And this same
logos is a constant suppliant to the immortal for the dis-
turbed mortal and an ambassador of the ruler to the subject.
And he rejoices in the gift and tells us the whole story with
pride as he says, “I stood in the middle between the Lord and
you,” neither being uncreated like God nor created like you.
I was between the extremes. (Her. 205-206)
In this passage Philo puts the logos on the created side of
the creation. In the end, a comparison of Philo with the phil-
osophical traditions he utilizes points us toward seeing the
logos as something with independent existence from God.
But we probably should not understand it to be a person
either.
[7 sentences omitted]
Because the Monad was a distinct entity from God for Philo,
it would appear that we must consider the logos a hypostasis,
although not a personal one.
[End of Schenck’s discussion]
The scholarly ISBE article “Philo, Judaeus” says that the

fluidness of Philo’s language has given rise to terms such as
“second God” that are often misunderstood:
While, therefore, Philo thinks in a cultural perspective akin

to that characteristic of the author of the Fourth Gospel, two
vast differences sway his doctrine. On the one hand, it is
speculative, not ethically personal. On the other hand, it fails
completely to determine the nature of his mediator [the
Logos] in itself, vacillating in a manner which shows how
vague and fluid the conception really was …
[Philo’s thought is] a strange mixture of philosophy and

religion, of rationalism and piety, of clear Greek intellectual-
ism and hazy oriental [middle-eastern] mysticism.
The following is a statement on Philo by Eusebius of

Caesarea, with my explanations enclosed in brackets. It is
included here to show that even in the early church, Philo was
known as a pious Jewish monotheist:
I will produce a man [Philo] who is a Hebrew, as the inter-
preter for you of the meaning of the Scripture; a man who
inherited from his father a most accurate knowledge of his
national customs and laws, and who had learnt the doctrines
contained in them from learned teachers; for such a man was
Philo. Listen then, to him, and hear how he interprets the
words of God.
Why, then, does he use the expression, “In the image of God
I made man,” as if he were speaking of [the image of] some
other God, and not [speaking] of having made [man] in the
likeness of himself? This expression is used with great beauty
and wisdom. For it was impossible that anything mortal [i.e.,
man] should be made in the likeness of the most high God
the Father of the universe; but it could only be made in the
likeness of the second God, who is the Word of the other

[i.e., the Word of God] …
This is what I wish to quote from the first book of the quest-
ions and answers of Philo. (Eusebius, On Providence, Frag-
ment I, P.E. 7.21.336b -337a, translated by C.D. Yonge)
Scholarship is aware that Philo’s Logos is not a

person
The following excerpt from Catholic Encyclopedia says that: (i)
Philo’s Logos is an intermediary between God and the world;
(ii) Philo calls the Logos “God” in three places; (iii) Philo says
that the word “God” as applied to the Logos is often mis-
understood; (iv) Philo does not regard the Logos as a person
but as a concept and a power.
… the Logos is an intermediary between God and the world;
through it God created the world and governs it; through it
also men know God and pray to Him (“De Cherub.”, 125;
“Quis rerum divin. haeres sit”, 205-06.) In three passages the
Logos is called God (“Leg. Alleg.”, III, 207; “De Somniis”, I,
229; “In Gen.”, II, 62, cited by Eusebius, “Praep. Ev.”, VII,
13); but, as Philo himself explains in one of these texts (De
Somniis), it is an improper appellation and wrongly
employed, and he uses it only because he is led into it by the
Sacred Text which he comments upon. Moreover, Philo
does not regard the Logos as a person; it is an idea, a power,
and, though occasionally identified with the angels of the
Bible, this is by symbolic personification. (Catholic
Encyclopedia, “The Logos”)
Two other authorities, ISBE and Encyclopedia Judaica,

agree with Catholic Encyclopedia that Philo’s logos is not a per-
son. See the following four excerpts, the last of which shows
that Philo’s logos is not a person despite early Gnostic depict-
ions of logos as a “hypostasis” (an approximate equivalent of
“person”). In the following excerpts, the italics are added:
Philo applies the term logos, or the holy logos, to Scripture
itself, i.e., the Law. It is not a person, according to Philo, nor is
it an intermediary between God and man, although it is
identified with the biblical angel of the Lord (Mig. 174,
etc.). Rather, it is sometimes the same as wisdom (I LA 65,
etc.), because it is the most inclusive expression of the
thoughts and ideas of God, which in turn are identified with
the Law, or the Torah. (Encyclopedia Judaica, 2nd ed.,
vol.13, p.174-175)
Concerned with the problem of the relation of a perfect God

to an imperfect world, Philo proposed a series of intermed-
iate causes, of which the main one is the Logos, described
variously as the word of God, the supreme manifestation of
divine activity, and as moral law. (Encyclopedia Judaica, 2nd
ed. vol. 13, p.88)
After all has been said, his Logos really resolves itself into a
group of Divine ideas, and is conceived, not as a distinct
person, but as the thought of God which is expressed in the
rational order of the visible universe. (ISBE, “Logos,” section
3, subheading “Philo”)
Some accounts of Gnosticism, whose doctrine implies a logos-

hypostasis, would even date gnostic sources before John.
(Encyclopedia Judaica, 2nd ed., vol.13, p.175)
Philo’s own words

The remainder of this appendix contains direct quotations of
Philo on various topics, as taken from The Works of Philo, a
translation of Philo’s works by C.D. Yonge. The text of this
book, which is in the public domain, was republished in 1993
by Hendrickson Publishers. The Scripture verses in brackets
were inserted by Yonge, and are not part of the original words
of Philo.
The quotations are grouped under three headings to show
that Philo: (i) believes in one and only God; (ii) does not be-
lieve that the Logos of God is a real divine person; (iii) speaks
of the “second deity” as the words, thoughts, or intentions
emanating from a divine Being. For those who do not wish to
read the quotations, here are three representative quotations
illustrating points (i), (ii), and (iii), respectively (note the
words in boldface):
“so there must also be a ruler and lord in the universe, and
he must be the true real ruler and lord, the one God, to whom
it was becoming to say, that ‘All things belong to him.’” Of
Cain and his Birth, Part 2, XXIV (77)
“God is represented in another passage as saying, ‘Abraham

has kept all my law.’ [Gen.26:5] And law is nothing else but
the word of God, enjoining what is right and forbidding
what is not right, as he bears witness, where he says, ‘He re-

ceived the law from his words.’ [Dt.33:4] If, then, the divine
word [Logos] is the law, and if the righteous man does the
law, then by all means he also performs the word of God.”
On the Migration of Abraham, XXIII (130)
“Why is it that he speaks as if of some other god, saying that

he made man after the image of God, and not that he made
him after his own image? (Genesis 9:6). Very appropriately
and without any falsehood was this oracular sentence uttered
by God, for no mortal thing could have been formed on the
similitude of the supreme Father of the universe, but only
after the pattern of the second deity, who is the Word of the
supreme Being; since it is fitting that the rational soul of man
should bear it the type of the divine Word; since in his first
Word God is superior to the most rational possible nature.
But he who is superior to the Word holds his rank in a better
and most singular pre-eminence, and how could the creature
possibly exhibit a likeness of him in himself?” Questions and
Answers on Genesis, II (62)
These three quotations show that trinitarianism has no

basis for the view that John was inspired by Philo’s logos to
use the logos (“the Word”) in John 1:1 as a reference to a
second divine person, namely, Jesus Christ. On the contrary,
when Philo speaks of the “divine word,” it often means the
word or teaching that proceeds from God. For example, the
second of the above quotations says that “the divine word is
the law”; it does not refer to a divine person called “the
Word”.
For those who want to read Philo further, we include more

statements from Philo in the following three sections which
correspond to the same three categories (i), (ii), (iii), already
mentioned.
1. Philo’s monotheism and belief in God as the only

creator
“Therefore God exists according to oneness and unity; or we
should rather say, that oneness exists according to the one
God, for all number is more recent than the world, as is also
time. But God is older than the world, and is its Creator.”
Allegorical Interpretation, II, I (3) (p.63)
“It told me that in the one living and true God there were
two supreme and primary powers—goodness and authority;
and that by his goodness he had created every thing, and by
his authority he governed all that he had created.” The
Cherubim, Part 1, IX (27) (p.120)
“so there must also be a ruler and lord in the universe, and
he must be the true real ruler and lord, the one God, to
whom it was becoming to say, that ‘All things belong to
him.’” Of Cain and his Birth, Part 2, XXIV (77) (p.129)
“When, therefore, the soul that loves God seeks to know

what the one living God is according to his essence, it is en-
tertaining upon an obscure and dark subject of investigation,
from which the greatest benefit that arises to it is to compre-
hend that God, as to his essence, is utterly incomprehensible
to any being, and also to be aware that he is invisible.” On

the Posterity of Cain and his Exile, V (14) (p.186)
“he [Abraham] is assigned to the one only God, whose

minister he becomes, and so makes the path of his whole life
straight, using in real truth the royal road, the road of the
only king who governs all things” On the Giants, XIV (64)
(p.216)
“… the one wise God” Concerning Noah’s Work as a Planter,

IX (38) (p.264)
“for it is not becoming for hearing to have leisure to attend

to anything except to that speech alone which sets forth in a
suitable manner the virtues of the one and only God” On
Mating with the Preliminary Studies, XX (113) (p.419)
“On this account, I imagine it is, that when Moses was

speaking philosophically of the creation of the world, while
he described everything else as having been created by God
alone, he mentions man alone as having been made by him
in conjunction with other assistants; for, says Moses, ‘God
said, Let us make man in our image.’ The expression, ‘let us
make,’ indicating a plurality of makers.
“Here, therefore, the Father is conversing with his own

powers, to whom he has assigned the task of making the
mortal part of our soul, acting in imitation of his own skill
while he was fashioning the rational part within us, thinking
it right that the dominant part within the soul should be the
work of the Ruler of all things, but that the part which is to
be kept in subjection should be made by those who are

subject to him.
“And he made us of the powers which were subordinate to

him, not only for the reason which has been mentioned, but
also because the soul of man alone was destined to receive
notions of good and evil, and to choose one of the two, since
it could not adopt both. Therefore, he thought it necessary
to assign the origin of evil to other workmen than himself,—
but to retain the generation of good for himself alone.
“On which account, after Moses had already put in God’s

mouth this expression, ‘Let us make man,’ as if speaking to
several persons, as if he were speaking only of one, ‘God
made man.’ For, in fact, the one God alone is the sole
Creator of the real man, who is the purest mind; but a
plurality of workmen are the makers of that which is called
man, the being compounded of external senses; for which
reason the especial real man is spoken of with the article; for
the words of Moses are, ‘The God made the man;’ that is to
say, he made that reason destitute of species and free from all
admixture. But he speaks of man in general without the
addition of the article; for the expression, ‘Let us make man,’
shows that he means the being compounded of irrational
and rational nature.” On Flight and Flying, XIII (68) to XIV
(72) (p.435)
“[God, in ‘his sacred legislation’, i.e., the law] has invited

men to the honour of the one true and living God; not in-
deed that he has any need himself to be honoured; for being
all-sufficient for himself, he has no need of any one else; but
he has done so, because he wished to lead the race of man-
kind, hitherto wandering about in trackless deserts, into a

road from which they should not stray, that so by following
nature it might find the best and end of all things, namely,
the knowledge of the true and living God, who is the first
and most perfect of all good things; from whom, as from a
fountain, all particular blessings are showered upon the
world.” The Decalogue, XVI (81) (p.692)
“And there are some of the Gentiles, who, not attending to

the honour due to the one God alone, deserve to be pun-
ished with extreme severity of punishment, as having for-
saken the most important classification of piety and holiness,
and as having chosen darkness in preference to the most
brilliant light” The Special Laws, I, IX (54) (p.710)
“… the one sole Governor of the world alone” On the Life of

Moses, I, LI (284) (p.641)
“the one only and truly living God” The Special Laws, I,
LVII (313) (p.743)
“the one and truly living God” The Special Laws, I, LX (331)
(p.745)
“the one only true and living God” The Special Laws, II,
XLVI (255) (p.780)
“the one true and living God” The Special Laws, III, XXII
(125) (p.798)
“the one true and living God, who is the Creator and the
father of the universe?” On the Virtues, X (64) (p.850)
“the one only and true ruler, the Holy One of holies” On the
Virtues, XX (123) (p.888)
“to look upon the nature of the One as the only supreme
God” On the Virtues, XXVII (162) (p.893)
“the one real creator of the whole world” Questions and

Answers on Genesis, I (34) (p.1082)
“There is no existing thing equal in honour to God, but he is

the one Ruler, and Governor, and King.” A Treatise Concern-
ing the World, I (p.1132)
“the one first cause, the uncreated God, the Creator of the
universe” A Treatise Concerning the World, I (p.1132)
“God is both the Father, and the Creator, and the Governor,
in reality and truth, of all the things that are in heaven and
in the whole world” A Treatise Concerning the World, VII
(p.1136)
2. The Word of God in Philo’s teachings

“for you will find that God is the cause of it [the world], by
whom it was made. That the materials are the four elements,
of which it is composed; that the instrument is the word of
God, by means of which it was made; and the object of the
building you will find to be the display of the goodness of
the Creator.” Of Cain and his Birth, Part 2, XXXV (127)
(p.134)
“the law calls the word and reason of God; for it is written,
‘Thou shalt not turn aside from the word which I command
thee this day, to the right hand nor to the left,’ So that it is
shown most manifestly that the word of God is identical
with the royal road.” On the Posterity of Cain and his Exile,
XXX (102) (p.197)
“At all events, God is represented in another passage as

saying, ‘Abraham has kept all my law.’ [Gen.26:5] And law is
nothing else but the word of God, enjoining what is right
and forbidding what is not right, as he bears witness, where
he says, ‘He received the law from his words.’ [Dt.33:4] If,
then, the divine word is the law, and if the righteous man
does the law, then by all means he also performs the word of
God.” On the Migration of Abraham, XXIII (130) (357)
[NOTE: Philo equates “law” = “the word of God”= “the

divine word”; there is no suggestion that any of these is a
divine entity or being.]
“the powers of Him who utters the word, the chief of which
is his creative power, according to which the Creator made
the world with a word.” On Flight and Flying, XVIII (95)
(p.438)
“for there is a passage in the word of God [Lev.26:3], that,

on those who observe the sacred commands of God, the
heaven will shower down seasonable rains, and the earth will
bring forth for them abundance of all kinds of fruits.” On
Rewards and Punishments, XVII (101) (p.885)
“As therefore the uncreated God outstrips all creation, so

also does the word of the uncreated God outrun the word of
creation, and is borne on with exceeding swiftness in the
clouds. On which account God speaks freely, saying, ‘Now
you shall see, because my word shall overtake you.’
[Num.11:23, LXX]” On the Birth of Abel and the Sacrifices
Offered by Him and His Brother Cain, XVIII (66) (p.147)
“for the one raises his eyes to the sky, beholding the manna,
the divine word, the heavenly, incorruptible food of the soul,
which is food of contemplation: but the others fix the eye on
garlic and onions, food which causes pain to the eyes, and
troubles the sight, and makes men wink.” Who is the Heir of
Divine Things? XV (79) (p.378)
“the merciful power of God is the covering of the ark, and he

calls it the mercy-seat. The images of the creative power and
of the kingly power are the winged cherubim which are
placed upon it.” On Flight and Flying, XIX (100) (p.438)
“But the divine word which is above these does not come
into any visible appearance, inasmuch as it is not like to any
of the things that come under the external senses, but is itself
an image of God, the most ancient of all the objects of
intellect in the whole world, and that which is placed in the
closest proximity to the only truly existing God, without any
partition or distance being interposed between them: for it is
said, ‘I will speak unto thee from above the mercy seat, in the
midst, between the two cherubim.’ [Ex.25:22] So that the
word is, as it were, the charioteer of the powers, and he who
utters it is the rider, who directs the charioteer how to
proceed with a view to the proper guidance of the universe.”

On Flight and Flying, XIX (101) (p.438)
“they have abandoned all connections with pride, and having

connected themselves with lawful persuasion, choosing to
become a portion of the sacred flock, of which the divine
word is the leader, as his name shows, for it signifies the
pastoral care of God.” On the Change of Names, XIX (114)
(p.464)
“But while he is taking care of his own flock, all kinds of

good things are given all at once to those of the sheep who
are obedient, and who do not resist his will; and in the
Psalms we find a song in these words, ‘The Lord is my
shepherd, therefore shall I lack nothing’ [Ps.23:1].” On the
Change of Names, XX (115)
“therefore the mind which has had the royal shepherd, the
divine word, for its instructor.” On the Change of Names, XX
(116) (p.464)
“But he who was conducted by wisdom comes to the former

place, having found that the main part and end of propitia-
tion is the divine word, in which he who is fixed does not as
yet attain to such a height as to penetrate to the essence of
God, but sees him afar off; or, rather, I should say, he is not
able even to behold him afar off, but he only discerns this
fact, that God is at a distance from every creature, and that
any comprehension of him is removed to a great distance
from all human intellect … he came to the place, and
looking up with his eyes he saw the very place to which he
had come, which was a very long way from the God who
may not be named nor spoken of, and who is in every way
incomprehensible.” On Dreams, that They are God-Sent, XI
(1.66 and 1.67) (p.491)
[NOTE: Here Philo says that the function of the divine

word (God’s self-revelation, God’s image) is to impart a
glimpse of God who is a “very long way” away, who is “at a
great distance from every creature” and “who is in every way
incomprehensible”.]
“the intermediate divine word… For God, not condescend-

ing to come down to the external senses, sends his own
words or angels for the sake of giving assistance to those who
love virtue. But they attend like physicians to the disease of
the soul, and apply themselves to heal them, offering sacred
recommendations like sacred laws, and inviting men to
practice the duties inculcated by them, and, like the trainers
of wrestlers, implanting in their pupils strength, and power,
and irresistible vigour. Very properly, therefore, when he has
arrived at the external sense, he is represented no longer as
meeting God, but only the divine word.” On Dreams, that
They are God-Sent, XII (1.68 to 1.70) (p.491)
“For there are, as it seems, two temples belonging to God;

one being this world, in which the high priest is the divine
word, his own firstborn son. The other is the rational soul,
the priest of which is the real true man …” On Dreams, that
They are God-Sent, XXXVII (1.215) (p.508)
“And the divine word, like a river, flows forth from wisdom
as from a spring, in order to irrigate and fertilize the celestial
and heavenly shoots and plants of such souls as love virtue, as
if they were a paradise.” On Dreams, that They are God-Sent,

XXXVI (2.243) (p.536)
“‘The river of God was filled with water;’ [Ps.65:10] and it is

absurd to give such a title to any of the rivers which flow
upon the earth. But as it seems the psalmist is here speaking
of the divine word…” On Dreams, that They are God-Sent,
XXXVII (2.245) (p.536)
“For, in good truth, the continual stream of the divine word,

being borne on incessantly with rapidity and regularity, is
diffused universally over everything, giving joy to all.” On
Dreams, that They are God-Sent, XXXVII (2.247) (p.537)
3. “The second deity”

“Why is it that he speaks as if of some other god, saying that
he made man after the image of God, and not that he made
him after his own image? (Genesis 9:6). Very appropriately
and without any falsehood was this oracular sentence uttered
by God, for no mortal thing could have been formed on the
similitude of the supreme Father of the universe, but only
after the pattern of the second deity, who is the Word of the
supreme Being; since it is fitting that the rational soul of
man should bear it the type of the divine Word; since in his
first Word God is superior to the most rational possible
nature. But he who is superior to the Word holds his rank in
a better and most singular pre-eminence, and how could the
creature possibly exhibit a likeness of him in himself?”
Questions and Answers on Genesis, II (62) (p.1095)
Note: Philo is saying that man is the image of the image of

the “pattern” or “type,” that is, the image of the divine word.
Compare:
“And the invisible divine reason, perceptible only by
intellect, he calls the image of God. And the image of this
image is that light, perceptible only by the intellect, which is
the image of the divine reason…” On the Creation, VIII (30)
(p.20)
“the divine word is full of instruction, and is a physician of

the infirmity of the soul.” Questions and Answers on Genesis,
III (28) (p.1116)
“God is willing to do good, not only to the man who is en-

dued with virtue, but he wishes that the divine word should
regulate not only his soul but his body also, as if it had
become its physician.” Questions and Answers on Genesis, III
(51) (p.1127)
Appendix 10
All Instances of “In Christ”

in Paul’s Letters
I n this appendix we tabulate all instances in Paul’s letters of

the term “in Christ” and variations such as “in the Lord
Jesus”. Also included are equivalent pronominal references to
Christ such as “in him” or “in whom”.
More precisely, the following table includes every instance
of the ἐν+dative (en+dative) construction in the Greek text
which refers to Christ by name or pronominal reference.
Verses are quoted in full from the NA27 Greek text and
NASB, the most literal of mainstream English translations.
The data was compiled by Agnes Lim and Lee Sen Siow at
the request of Eric Chang. He requested their help probably
because of the quality of their earlier work for a study
included in TOTG. Many thanks to Agnes and Lee Sen for
their work, the value of which lies in two areas.
Firstly, in the New Testament, the term “in Christ” is
uniquely Pauline (apart from 1Peter 3:16; 5:10; 5:14, where
“in Christ” nonetheless has the Pauline meaning), and carries
a meaning not found in the other NT writings: “in Christ” is
the specific sphere of God’s work of salvation and the new
creation. When we examine the table entries, we will see the

rich expressions and diverse aspects of “in Christ”.
Secondly, the data show that in no instance of “in Christ”
and its variations is it ever necessary—grammatically, seman-
tically, or lexically—to render “in Christ” as “by Christ”.
Therefore any attempt to render “in Christ” as “by Christ”
may be influenced by doctrine. This is clearly seen in the case
of Colossians 1:16 which is rendered in some Bibles as “by
him all things were created …” in order to assert that Jesus is
the Creator of the universe.
In fact NASB never uses the English preposition “by” to
translate any en+dative construction that refers to Christ (“in
Christ”)—with the sole and glaring exception of Colossians
1:16!
Explanation of Table
• Each entry is displayed in English (NASB) and Greek
(NA27).
• The term “in Christ” (ἐν Χριστῷ) and its variations are
shown in boldface, both in NASB and NA27.
• In NASB, the words enclosed in curly brackets { } point
to what is “in Christ”. These words are repeated in the
third column, sometimes verbatim, sometimes in sum-
mary. For example, in the first entry of the table,
“redemption” is enclosed in curly brackets since Paul is
here talking about redemption in Christ.
Appendix 10 — All Instances of “In Christ” in Paul 793
• The symbol ☐ in the third column indicates a reference

to Christ that does not name “Christ” explicitly (e.g.,
“in the Lord”).
• The symbol ✳ in the third column indicates that “in
Christ” contains the Greek article (“in the Christ”).
• The Majority Text was also consulted. No semantic
difference between NA27 and the Majority Text was
found for the en+dative construction except in
Phil.4:13.
NASB 1977 Edition Nestle-Aland 27th Ed. … in Christ
Romans 3:24 being justified as Romans 3:24 δικαιούμενοι Redemption

a gift by His grace through the δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι διὰ
{redemption} which is in τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν
Christ Jesus; Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ·
Romans 6:11 Even so consider Romans 6:11 οὕτως καὶ Alive to God
yourselves to be dead to sin, ὑμεῖς λογίζεσθε ἑαυτοὺς
but {alive to God} in Christ [εἶναι] νεκροὺς μὲν τῇ
Jesus. ἁμαρτίᾳ ζῶντας δὲ τῷ θεῷ ἐν
Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.
Romans 6:23 For the wages of Romans 6:23 τὰ γὰρ ὀψώνια Eternal life
sin is death, but the free gift of τῆς ἁμαρτίας θάνατος, τὸ δὲ
God is {eternal life} in Christ χάρισμα τοῦ θεοῦ ζωὴ
Jesus our Lord. αἰώνιος ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ
κυρίῳ ἡμῶν.
Romans 8:1 There is therefore Romans 8:1 Οὐδὲν ἄρα νῦν Those who
now no condemnation for κατάκριμα τοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ are
{those who are} in Christ Ἰησοῦ.
Jesus.
Romans 8:2 For the {law of the Romans 8:2 ὁ γὰρ νόμος τοῦ Law of the
Spirit of life} in Christ Jesus πνεύματος τῆς ζωῆς ἐν Spirit of life
has set you free from the law of Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ἠλευθέρωσέν
sin and of death. σε ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου τῆς
ἁμαρτίας καὶ τοῦ θανάτου.
Romans 8:39 nor height, nor Romans 8:39 οὔτε ὕψωμα Love of God
depth, nor any other created οὔτε βάθος οὔτε τις κτίσις
thing, shall be able to separate ἑτέρα δυνήσεται ἡμᾶς
us from the {love of God}, χωρίσαι ἀπὸ τῆς ἀγάπης τοῦ
which is in Christ Jesus our θεοῦ τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ
Lord. τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν.
Romans 9:1 I am {telling the Romans 9:1 Ἀλήθειαν λέγω Telling the
truth} in Christ, I am not ἐν Χριστῷ, οὐ ψεύδομαι, truth
lying, my conscience bearing συμμαρτυρούσης μοι τῆς
me witness in the Holy Spirit, συνειδήσεώς μου ἐν πνεύματι
ἁγίῳ,
Romans 12:5 so we, who are Romans 12:5 οὕτως οἱ One body
many, are {one body} in πολλοὶ ἓν σῶμά ἐσμεν ἐν
Christ, and individually Χριστῷ, τὸ δὲ καθ᾿ εἷς
members one of another. ἀλλήλων μέλη.
Romans 14:14 I know and am Romans 14:14 οἶδα καὶ Convinced

{convinced} in the Lord Jesus πέπεισμαι ἐν κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ ☐
that nothing is unclean in ὅτι οὐδὲν κοινὸν δι᾿ ἑαυτοῦ,
itself; but to him who thinks εἰ μὴ τῷ λογιζομένῳ τι
anything to be unclean, to him κοινὸν εἶναι, ἐκείνῳ κοινόν.
it is unclean.
Romans 15:17 Therefore in Romans 15:17 ἔχω οὖν [τὴν] Found reason
Christ Jesus I have {found καύχησιν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ for boasting
reason for boasting in things τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεόν· in things
pertaining to God}. pertaining to
God
Romans 16:2 that you {receive Romans 16:2 ἵνα αὐτὴν Receive her
her} in the Lord in a manner προσδέξησθε ἐν κυρίῳ ἀξίως ☐
worthy of the saints, and that τῶν ἁγίων καὶ παραστῆτε
you help her in whatever mat- αὐτῇ ἐν ᾧ ἂν ὑμῶν χρῄζῃ
ter she may have need of you; πράγματι· καὶ γὰρ αὐτὴ
for she herself has also been a προστάτις πολλῶν ἐγενήθη
helper of many, and of myself καὶ ἐμοῦ αὐτοῦ.
as well.
Romans 16:3 Greet Prisca and Romans 16:3 Ἀσπάσασθε Fellow

Aquila, my {fellow workers} in Πρίσκαν καὶ Ἀκύλαν τοὺς workers
Christ Jesus, συνεργούς μου ἐν Χριστῷ
Ἰησοῦ,
Romans 16:7 Greet Romans 16:7 ἀσπάσασθε Who also

Andronicus and Junias, my Ἀνδρόνικον καὶ Ἰουνιᾶν τοὺς were
kinsmen, and my fellow συγγενεῖς μου καὶ συναιχμα-
prisoners, who are outstanding λώτους μου, οἵτινές εἰσιν
among the apostles, {who also ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις,
were} in Christ before me. οἳ καὶ πρὸ ἐμοῦ γέγοναν ἐν
Χριστῷ.
Romans 16:8 Greet Ampliatus, Romans 16:8 ἀσπάσασθε My beloved

{my beloved} in the Lord. Ἀμπλιᾶτον τὸν ἀγαπητόν ☐
μου ἐν κυρίῳ.
Romans 16:9 Greet Urbanus, Romans 16:9 ἀσπάσασθε Fellow

our {fellow worker} in Christ, Οὐρβανὸν τὸν συνεργὸν worker
and Stachys my beloved. ἡμῶν ἐν Χριστῷ καὶ Στάχυν
τὸν ἀγαπητόν μου.
Romans 16:10 Greet Apelles, Romans 16:10 ἀσπάσασθε The approved

{the approved} in Christ. Ἀπελλῆν τὸν δόκιμον ἐν
Greet those who are of the Χριστῷ. ἀσπάσασθε τοὺς ἐκ
household of Aristobulus. τῶν Ἀριστοβούλου.
Romans 16:11 Greet Herod- Romans 16:11 ἀσπάσασθε Who are

ion, my kinsman. Greet those Ἡρῳδίωνα τὸν συγγενῆ μου. ☐
of the household of Narcissus, ἀσπάσασθε τοὺς ἐκ τῶν
{who are} in the Lord. Ναρκίσσου τοὺς ὄντας ἐν
κυρίῳ.
Romans 16:12 Greet Romans 16:12 ἀσπάσασθε The beloved,

Tryphaena and Tryphosa, Τρύφαιναν καὶ Τρυφῶσαν who has
workers in the Lord. Greet τὰς κοπιώσας ἐν κυρίῳ. worked hard
Persis {the beloved, who has ἀσπάσασθε Περσίδα τὴν ☐
worked hard} in the Lord. ἀγαπητήν, ἥτις πολλὰ
ἐκοπίασεν ἐν κυρίῳ.
Romans 16:13 Greet Rufus, {a Romans 16:13 ἀσπάσασθε A choice man

choice man} in the Lord, also Ῥοῦφον τὸν ἐκλεκτὸν ἐν ☐
his mother and mine. κυρίῳ καὶ τὴν μητέρα αὐτοῦ
καὶ ἐμοῦ.
Romans 16:22 I, Tertius, who Romans 16:22 ἀσπάζομαι Greet you

write this letter, {greet you} in ὑμᾶς ἐγὼ Τέρτιος ὁ γράψας ☐
the Lord. τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ἐν κυρίῳ.
1Cor.1:2 to the church of God 1Cor.1:2 τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ Sanctified

which is at Corinth, to those θεοῦ τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Κορίνθῳ,
who have been {sanctified} in ἡγιασμένοις ἐν Χριστῷ
Christ Jesus, saints by calling, Ἰησοῦ, κλητοῖς ἁγίοις, σὺν
with all who in every place call πᾶσιν τοῖς ἐπικαλουμένοις τὸ
upon the name of our Lord ὄνομα τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν
Jesus Christ, their Lord and Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐν παντὶ
ours: τόπῳ, αὐτῶν καὶ ἡμῶν·
1Cor.1:4 I thank my God 1Cor.1:4 Εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ Grace of God

always concerning you, for the μου πάντοτε περὶ ὑμῶν ἐπὶ which was
{grace of God which was τῇ χάριτι τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ given
given} you in Christ Jesus, δοθείσῃ ὑμῖν ἐν Χριστῷ
Ἰησοῦ,
1Cor.1:5 that in everything 1Cor.1:5 ὅτι ἐν παντὶ Enriched

you were {enriched} in Him, in ἐπλουτίσθητε ἐν αὐτῷ, ἐν ☐
all speech and all knowledge, παντὶ λόγῳ καὶ πάσῃ γνώσει,
1Cor.1:30 But by His doing 1Cor.1:30 ἐξ αὐτοῦ δὲ ὑμεῖς You are

{you are} in Christ Jesus, who ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ὃς
became to us wisdom from ἐγενήθη σοφία ἡμῖν ἀπὸ
God, and righteousness and θεοῦ, δικαιοσύνη τε καὶ
sanctification, and redemption, ἁγιασμὸς καὶ ἀπολύτρωσις,
1Cor.3:1 And I, brethren, 1Cor.3:1 Κἀγώ, ἀδελφοί, Babes

could not speak to you as to οὐκ ἠδυνήθην λαλῆσαι ὑμῖν
spiritual men, but as to men of ὡς πνευματικοῖς ἀλλ᾿ ὡς
flesh, as to {babes} in Christ. σαρκίνοις, ὡς νηπίοις ἐν
Χριστῷ.
1Cor.4:10 We are fools for 1Cor.4:10 ἡμεῖς μωροὶ διὰ Prudent

Christ’s sake, but you are Χριστόν, ὑμεῖς δὲ φρόνιμοι
{prudent} in Christ; we are ἐν Χριστῷ· ἡμεῖς ἀσθενεῖς,
weak, but you are strong; you ὑμεῖς δὲ ἰσχυροί· ὑμεῖς
are distinguished, but we are ἔνδοξοι, ἡμεῖς δὲ ἄτιμοι.
without honor.
1Cor.4:15 For if you were to 1Cor.4:15 ἐὰν γὰρ μυρίους Tutors;

have countless {tutors} in παιδαγωγοὺς ἔχητε ἐν I became
Christ, yet you would not have Χριστῷ ἀλλ᾿ οὐ πολλοὺς your father
many fathers; for in Christ πατέρας· ἐν γὰρ Χριστῷ through the
Jesus {I became your father Ἰησοῦ διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου gospel
through the gospel}. ἐγὼ ὑμᾶς ἐγέννησα.
1Cor.4:17 For this reason I 1Cor.4:17 Διὰ τοῦτο ἔπεμψα Faithful child;
have sent to you Timothy, who ὑμῖν Τιμόθεον, ὅς ἐστίν μου ☐
is my beloved and {faithful τέκνον ἀγαπητὸν καὶ πιστὸν
child} in the Lord, and he will ἐν κυρίῳ, ὃς ὑμᾶς ἀναμνήσει My ways
remind you of {my ways} τὰς ὁδούς μου τὰς ἐν
which are in Christ, just as I Χριστῷ [Ἰησοῦ], καθὼς
teach everywhere in every πανταχοῦ ἐν πάσῃ ἐκκλησίᾳ
church. διδάσκω.
1Cor.7:22 For {he who was 1Cor.7:22 ὁ γὰρ ἐν κυρίῳ He who was
called} in the Lord while a κληθεὶς δοῦλος ἀπελεύθερος called
slave, is the Lord’s freedman; κυρίου ἐστίν, ὁμοίως ὁ ☐
likewise he who was called ἐλεύθερος κληθεὶς δοῦλός
while free, is Christ’s slave. ἐστιν Χριστοῦ.
1Cor.7:39 {A wife is bound as 1Cor.7:39 Γυνὴ δέδεται ἐφ᾿ A wife is

long as her husband lives; but ὅσον χρόνον ζῇ ὁ ἀνὴρ bound as
if her husband is dead, she is αὐτῆς· ἐὰν δὲ κοιμηθῇ ὁ long as her
free to be married to whom she ἀνήρ, ἐλευθέρα ἐστὶν ᾧ θέλει husband
wishes}, only in the Lord. γαμηθῆναι, μόνον ἐν κυρίῳ. lives...
☐
1Cor.9:1 Am I not free? Am I 1Cor.9:1 Οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐλεύθερος; Are you not
not an apostle? Have I not seen οὐκ εἰμὶ ἀπόστολος; οὐχὶ my work
Jesus our Lord? {Are you not Ἰησοῦν τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν ☐
my work} in the Lord? ἑόρακα; οὐ τὸ ἔργον μου
ὑμεῖς ἐστε ἐν κυρίῳ;
1Cor.9:2 If to others I am not 1Cor.9:2 εἰ ἄλλοις οὐκ εἰμὶ The seal of

an apostle, at least I am to you; ἀπόστολος, ἀλλά γε ὑμῖν my
for you are {the seal of my εἰμι· ἡ γὰρ σφραγίς μου τῆς apostleship
apostleship} in the Lord. ἀποστολῆς ὑμεῖς ἐστε ἐν ☐
κυρίῳ.
1Cor.11:11 However, in the 1Cor.11:11 πλὴν οὔτε γυνὴ Man and

Lord, {neither is woman χωρὶς ἀνδρὸς οὔτε ἀνὴρ woman are
independent of man, nor is χωρὶς γυναικὸς ἐν κυρίῳ· not inde-
man independent of woman}. pendent of
each other ☐
1Cor.15:18 Then those also 1Cor.15:18 ἄρα καὶ οἱ Fallen asleep

who have {fallen asleep} in κοιμηθέντες ἐν Χριστῷ
Christ have perished. ἀπώλοντο.
1Cor.15:19 If we have {hoped} 1Cor.15:19 εἰ ἐν τῇ ζωῇ Hoped

in Christ in this life only, we ταύτῃ ἐν Χριστῷ ἠλπικότες
are of all men most to be ἐσμὲν μόνον, ἐλεεινότεροι
pitied. πάντων ἀνθρώπων ἐσμέν.
1Cor.15:22 For as in Adam all 1Cor.15:22 ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐν τῷ Made alive

die, so also in Christ all shall Ἀδὰμ πάντες ἀποθνῄσκου- ✳
be {made alive}. σιν, οὕτως καὶ ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ
πάντες ζῳοποιηθήσονται.
1Cor.15:31 I protest, brethren, 1Cor.15:31 καθ᾿ ἡμέραν Boasting in

by the {boasting in you}, which ἀποθνῄσκω, νὴ τὴν ὑμετέραν you
I have in Christ Jesus our καύχησιν, [ἀδελφοί,] ἣν ἔχω
Lord, I die daily. ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ κυρίῳ
ἡμῶν.
1Cor.15:58 Therefore, my 1Cor.15:58 Ὥστε, ἀδελφοί Your toil is

beloved brethren, be steadfast, μου ἀγαπητοί, ἑδραῖοι not in vain
immovable, always abounding γίνεσθε, ἀμετακίνητοι, ☐
in the work of the Lord, περισσεύοντες ἐν τῷ ἔργῳ
knowing that {your toil is not τοῦ κυρίου πάντοτε, εἰδότες
in vain} in the Lord. ὅτι ὁ κόπος ὑμῶν οὐκ ἔστιν
κενὸς ἐν κυρίῳ.
1Cor.16:19 The churches of 1Cor.16:19 Ἀσπάζονται Greet you

Asia greet you. Aquila and ὑμᾶς αἱ ἐκκλησίαι τῆς Ἀσίας. heartily
Prisca {greet you heartily} in ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς ἐν κυρίῳ ☐
the Lord, with the church that πολλὰ Ἀκύλας καὶ Πρίσκα
is in their house. σὺν τῇ κατ᾿ οἶκον αὐτῶν
ἐκκλησίᾳ.
1Cor.16:24 {My love be with 1Cor.16:24 ἡ ἀγάπη μου My love be

you all} in Christ Jesus. Amen. μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν ἐν with you all
Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.
2Cor.1:19 For the Son of God, 2Cor.1:19 ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ γὰρ Yes
Christ Jesus, who was preached υἱὸς Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ὁ ἐν ☐
among you by us— by me and ὑμῖν δι᾿ ἡμῶν κηρυχθείς, δι᾿
Silvanus and Timothy—was ἐμοῦ καὶ Σιλουανοῦ καὶ
not yes and no, but is {yes} in Τιμοθέου, οὐκ ἐγένετο ναὶ
Him. καὶ οὒ ἀλλὰ ναὶ ἐν αὐτῷ
γέγονεν.
2Cor.1:20 For as many as may 2Cor.1:20 ὅσαι γὰρ They are yes
be the promises of God, in ἐπαγγελίαι θεοῦ, ἐν αὐτῷ τὸ ☐
Him {they are yes}; wherefore ναί· διὸ καὶ δι᾿ αὐτοῦ τὸ
also by Him is our Amen to the ἀμὴν τῷ θεῷ πρὸς δόξαν δι᾿
glory of God through us. ἡμῶν.
2Cor.2:12 Now when I came 2Cor.2:12 Ἐλθὼν δὲ εἰς τὴν A door was
to Troas for the gospel of Τρῳάδα εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον opened for
Christ and when {a door was τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ θύρας μοι me
opened for me} in the Lord, ἀνεῳγμένης ἐν κυρίῳ, ☐
2Cor.2:14 But thanks be to 2Cor.2:14 Τῷ δὲ θεῷ χάρις God’s

God, who always leads us in τῷ πάντοτε θριαμβεύοντι triumph
{His triumph} in Christ, and ἡμᾶς ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ καὶ τὴν ✳
manifests through us the sweet ὀσμὴν τῆς γνώσεως αὐτοῦ
aroma of the knowledge of φανεροῦντι δι᾿ ἡμῶν ἐν
Him in every place. παντὶ τόπῳ·
2Cor.2:17 For we are not like 2Cor.2:17 οὐ γάρ ἐσμεν ὡς Speak

many, peddling the word of οἱ πολλοὶ καπηλεύοντες τὸν
God, but as from sincerity, but λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς ἐξ
as from God, we {speak} in εἰλικρινείας, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς ἐκ θεοῦ
Christ in the sight of God. κατέναντι θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ
λαλοῦμεν.
2Cor.3:14 But their minds 2Cor.3:14 ἀλλὰ ἐπωρώθη τὰ Veil is

were hardened; for until this νοήματα αὐτῶν. ἄχρι γὰρ removed
very day at the reading of the τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας τὸ αὐτὸ
old covenant the same {veil} κάλυμμα ἐπὶ τῇ ἀναγνώσει
remains unlifted, because it {is τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης μένει,
removed} in Christ. μὴ ἀνακαλυπτόμενον ὅτι ἐν
Χριστῷ καταργεῖται·
2Cor.5:17 Therefore if {any 2Cor.5:17 ὥστε εἴ τις ἐν Any man

man} is in Christ, he is a new Χριστῷ, καινὴ κτίσις· τὰ
creature; the old things passed ἀρχαῖα παρῆλθεν, ἰδοὺ
away; behold, new things have γέγονεν καινά·
come.
2Cor.5:19 namely, that {God} 2Cor.5:19 ὡς ὅτι θεὸς ἦν ἐν God,

was in Christ {reconciling the Χριστῷ κόσμον reconciling
world to Himself}, not count- καταλλάσσων ἑαυτῷ, μὴ the world to
ing their trespasses against λογιζόμενος αὐτοῖς τὰ Himself
them, and He has committed παραπτώματα αὐτῶν καὶ
to us the word of θέμενος ἐν ἡμῖν τὸν λόγον
reconciliation. τῆς καταλλαγῆς.
2Cor.5:21 He made Him who 2Cor.5:21 τὸν μὴ γνόντα Righteous-

knew no sin to be sin on our ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ness of God
behalf, that we might become ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν, ἵνα ἡμεῖς ☐
the {righteousness of God} in γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ
Him. ἐν αὐτῷ.
2Cor.12:2 I know {a man} in 2Cor.12:2 οἶδα ἄνθρωπον ἐν A man

Christ who fourteen years Χριστῷ πρὸ ἐτῶν δεκατεσ-
ago—whether in the body I do σάρων, εἴτε ἐν σώματι οὐκ
not know, or out of the body I οἶδα, εἴτε ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματος
do not know, God knows-- οὐκ οἶδα, ὁ θεὸς οἶδεν,
such a man was caught up to ἁρπαγέντα τὸν τοιοῦτον ἕως
the third heaven. τρίτου οὐρανοῦ.
2Cor.12:19 All this time you 2Cor.12:19 Πάλαι δοκεῖτε Speaking

have been thinking that we are ὅτι ὑμῖν ἀπολογούμεθα.
defending ourselves to you. κατέναντι θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ
Actually, it is in the sight of λαλοῦμεν· τὰ δὲ πάντα,
God that we have been ἀγαπητοί, ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑμῶν
{speaking} in Christ; and all οἰκοδομῆς.
for your upbuilding, beloved.
2Cor.13:4 For indeed He was 2Cor.13:4 καὶ γὰρ Weak

crucified because of weakness, ἐσταυρώθη ἐξ ἀσθενείας, ☐
yet He lives because of the ἀλλὰ ζῇ ἐκ δυνάμεως θεοῦ.
power of God. For we also are καὶ γὰρ ἡμεῖς ἀσθενοῦμεν ἐν
{weak} in Him, yet we shall αὐτῷ, ἀλλὰ ζήσομεν σὺν
live with Him because of the αὐτῷ ἐκ δυνάμεως θεοῦ εἰς
power of God directed toward ὑμᾶς.
you.
Gal.1:22 And I was still Gal.1:22 ἤμην δὲ Churches of

unknown by sight to the ἀγνοούμενος τῷ προσώπῳ Judea
{churches of Judea} which ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Ἰουδαίας
were in Christ; ταῖς ἐν Χριστῷ.
Gal.2:4 But it was because of Gal.2:4 διὰ δὲ τοὺς Liberty which

the false brethren who had παρεισάκτους we have
sneaked in to spy out our ψευδαδέλφους, οἵτινες
{liberty which we have} in παρεισῆλθον κατασκοπῆσαι
Christ Jesus, in order to bring τὴν ἐλευθερίαν ἡμῶν ἣν
us into bondage. ἔχομεν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ἵνα
ἡμᾶς καταδουλώσουσιν,
Gal.2:17 But if, while seeking Gal.2:17 εἰ δὲ ζητοῦντες Justified

to be {justified} in Christ, we δικαιωθῆναι ἐν Χριστῷ
ourselves have also been found εὑρέθημεν καὶ αὐτοὶ ἁμαρ-
sinners, is Christ then a minis- τωλοί, ἆρα Χριστὸς ἁμαρτίας
ter of sin? May it never be! διάκονος; μὴ γένοιτο.
Gal.3:14 in order that in Gal.3:14 ἵνα εἰς τὰ ἔθνη ἡ The blessing

Christ Jesus {the blessing of εὐλογία τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ γένηται of Abraham
Abraham might come to the ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ἵνα τὴν might come
Gentiles}, so that we might ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πνεύματος to the
receive the promise of the λάβωμεν διὰ τῆς πίστεως. Gentiles
Spirit through faith.
Gal.3:26 For you are all sons of Gal.3:26 Πάντες γὰρ υἱοὶ Faith
God through {faith} in Christ θεοῦ ἐστε διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν
Jesus. Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ·
Gal.3:28 There is neither Jew Gal.3:28 οὐκ ἔνι Ἰουδαῖος One

nor Greek, there is neither οὐδὲ Ἕλλην, οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος
slave nor free man, there is οὐδὲ ἐλεύθερος, οὐκ ἔνι
neither male nor female; for ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ· πάντες γὰρ
you are all {one} in Christ ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ
Jesus. Ἰησοῦ.
Gal.5:6 For in Christ Jesus Gal.5:6 ἐν γὰρ Χριστῷ In Christ

neither circumcision nor Ἰησοῦ οὔτε περιτομή τι
uncircumcision means ἰσχύει οὔτε ἀκροβυστία ἀλλὰ
anything, but faith working πίστις δι᾿ ἀγάπης
through love. ἐνεργουμένη.
Gal.5:10 I {have confidence in Gal.5:10 ἐγὼ πέποιθα εἰς Have

you} in the Lord, that you will ὑμᾶς ἐν κυρίῳ ὅτι οὐδὲν confidence in
adopt no other view; but the ἄλλο φρονήσετε· ὁ δὲ you
one who is disturbing you shall ταράσσων ὑμᾶς βαστάσει τὸ ☐
bear his judgment, whoever he κρίμα, ὅστις ἐὰν ᾖ.
is.
Eph.1:1 Paul, an apostle of Eph.1:1 Παῦλος ἀπόστολος Faithful

Christ Jesus by the will of God, Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ διὰ
to the saints who are at θελήματος θεοῦ τοῖς ἁγίοις
Ephesus, and who are {faithful} τοῖς οὖσιν [ἐν Ἐφέσῳ] καὶ
in Christ Jesus: πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ,
Eph.1:3 Blessed be the God Eph.1:3 Εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς Blessed us

and Father of our Lord Jesus καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν with every
Christ, who has {blessed us Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὁ εὐλογήσας spiritual
with every spiritual blessing in ἡμᾶς ἐν πάσῃ εὐλογίᾳ blessing in
the heavenly places} in Christ, πνευματικῇ ἐν τοῖς the heavenly
ἐπουρανίοις ἐν Χριστῷ, places
Eph.1:4 just as He {chose us} Eph.1:4 καθὼς ἐξελέξατο Chose us

in Him before the foundation ἡμᾶς ἐν αὐτῷ πρὸ ☐
of the world, that we should be καταβολῆς κόσμου εἶναι
holy and blameless before ἡμᾶς ἁγίους καὶ ἀμώμους
Him. In love κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ ἐν ἀγάπῃ,
Eph.1:7 In Him we have Eph.1:7 Ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν τὴν Redemption

{redemption} through His ἀπολύτρωσιν διὰ τοῦ ☐
blood, the forgiveness of our αἵματος αὐτοῦ, τὴν ἄφεσιν
trespasses, according to the τῶν παραπτωμάτων, κατὰ τὸ
riches of His grace, πλοῦτος τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ
Eph.1:9 He made known to us Eph.1:9 γνωρίσας ἡμῖν τὸ His kind in-

the mystery of His will, accord- μυστήριον τοῦ θελήματος tention which
ing to {His kind intention αὐτοῦ, κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν He purposed
which He purposed} in Him αὐτοῦ ἣν προέθετο ἐν αὐτῷ ☐
Eph.1:10-11 with a view to an Eph.1:10-11 εἰς οἰκονομίαν The summing

administration suitable to the τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν up of all
fulness of the times, that is, καιρῶν, ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι things;
{the summing up of all things} τὰ πάντα ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ, τὰ ✳
in Christ, things in the ἐπὶ τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ
heavens and things upon the τῆς γῆς ἐν αὐτῷ. Ἐν ᾧ καὶ We have
earth. In Him also {we have ἐκληρώθημεν προορισθέντες obtained an
obtained an inheritance}, κατὰ πρόθεσιν τοῦ τὰ πάντα inheritance
having been predestined ἐνεργοῦντος κατὰ τὴν ☐
according to His purpose who βουλὴν τοῦ θελήματος
works all things dafter the αὐτοῦ
counsel of His will,
Eph.1:12 to the end that we Eph.1:12 εἰς τὸ εἶναι ἡμᾶς εἰς Hope
who were the first to {hope} in ἔπαινον δόξης αὐτοῦ τοὺς
Christ should be to the praise προηλπικότας ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ. ✳
of His glory.
Eph.1:13 In Him, you also, Eph.1:13 Ἐν ᾧ καὶ ὑμεῖς In him;

after listening to the message ἀκούσαντες τὸν λόγον τῆς ☐
of truth, the gospel of your ἀληθείας, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς
salvation—having also σωτηρίας ὑμῶν, ἐν ᾧ καὶ You were
believed, {you were sealed} in πιστεύσαντες ἐσφραγίσθητε sealed
Him with the Holy Spirit of τῷ πνεύματι τῆς ἐπαγγελίας ☐
promise, τῷ ἁγίῳ,
Eph.1:15 For this reason I too, Eph.1:15 Διὰ τοῦτο κἀγὼ The faith
having heard of {the faith} in ἀκούσας τὴν καθ᾿ ὑμᾶς ☐
the Lord Jesus which exists πίστιν ἐν τῷ κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ καὶ
among you, and your love for τὴν ἀγάπην τὴν εἰς πάντας
all the saints, τοὺς ἁγίους
Eph.1:20 {which He brought Eph.1:20 Ἣν ἐνήργησεν ἐν [The

about} in Christ, when He τῷ Χριστῷ ἐγείρας αὐτὸν ἐκ strength]
raised Him from the dead, and νεκρῶν καὶ καθίσας ἐν δεξιᾷ which He
seated Him at His right hand αὐτοῦ ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις brought
in the heavenly places, about
✳
Eph.2:6 and raised us up with Eph.2:6 καὶ συνήγειρεν καὶ Seated us

Him, and {seated us with Him συνεκάθισεν ἐν τοῖς with him in
in the heavenly places], in ἐπουρανίοις ἐν Χριστῷ the heavenly
Christ Jesus, Ἰησοῦ, places
Eph.2:7 in order that in the Eph.2:7 ἵνα ἐνδείξηται ἐν Show the

ages to come He might {show τοῖς αἰῶσιν τοῖς surpassing
the surpassing riches of His ἐπερχομένοις τὸ ὑπερβάλλον riches of His
grace in kindness toward us} in πλοῦτος τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ grace in kind-
Christ Jesus. ἐν χρηστότητι ἐφ᾿ ἡμᾶς ἐν ness toward
Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. us
Eph.2:10 For we are His work- Eph.2:10 αὐτοῦ γάρ ἐσμεν Created
manship, {created} in Christ ποίημα, κτισθέντες ἐν
Jesus for good works, which Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ἐπὶ ἔργοις
God prepared beforehand, that ἀγαθοῖς οἷς προητοίμασεν ὁ
we should walk in them. θεὸς, ἵνα ἐν αὐτοῖς
περιπατήσωμεν.
Eph.2:13 But now in Christ Eph.2:13 νυνὶ δὲ ἐν Χριστῷ In Christ

Jesus you who formerly were Ἰησοῦ ὑμεῖς οἵ ποτε ὄντες
far off have been brought near μακρὰν ἐγενήθητε ἐγγὺς ἐν
by the blood of Christ. τῷ αἵματι τοῦ Χριστοῦ.
Eph.2:15 by abolishing in His Eph.2:14-15 Αὐτὸς γάρ Make the two

flesh the enmity, which is the ἐστιν ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν, ὁ into one new
Law of commandments ποιήσας τὰ ἀμφότερα ἓν καὶ man
contained in ordinances, that τὸ μεσότοιχον τοῦ φραγμοῦ ☐
in Himself He might {make λύσας, τὴν ἔχθραν ἐν τῇ
the two into one new man}, σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ, τὸν νόμον τῶν
thus establishing peace, ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν
καταργήσας, ἵνα τοὺς δύο
κτίσῃ ἐν αὐτῷ εἰς ἕνα καινὸν
ἄνθρωπον ποιῶν εἰρήνην
Eph.2:21 in whom {the whole Eph.2:21 ἐν ᾧ πᾶσα The whole

building}, being fitted together οἰκοδομὴ building is
{is growing into a holy temple συναρμολογουμένη αὔξει εἰς growing into
in the Lord}; ναὸν ἅγιον ἐν κυρίῳ a holy temple
in the Lord
☐
Eph.2:22 in whom {you also Eph.2:22 ἐν ᾧ καὶ ὑμεῖς You also are
are being built together into a συνοικοδομεῖσθε εἰς being built
dwelling of God in the Spirit}. κατοικητήριον τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν together into
πνεύματι. a dwelling of
God in the
Spirit ☐
Eph.3:6 to be specific, that the Eph.3:6 εἶναι τὰ ἔθνη Fellow

Gentiles are fellow heirs and συγκληρονόμα καὶ σύσσωμα partakers of
fellow members of the body, καὶ συμμέτοχα τῆς the promise
and {fellow partakers of the ἐπαγγελίας ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ
promise} in Christ Jesus διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου,
through the gospel,
Eph.3:11 This was in Eph.3:11 κατὰ πρόθεσιν τῶν Eternal

accordance with the {eternal αἰώνων ἣν ἐποίησεν ἐν τῷ purpose
purpose which He carried out} Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ κυρίῳ which He
in Christ Jesus our Lord, ἡμῶν, carried out
✳
Eph.3:12 in whom {we have Eph.3:12 ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν τὴν We have

boldness and confident access} παρρησίαν καὶ προσαγωγὴν boldness and
through faith in Him. ἐν πεποιθήσει διὰ τῆς confident
πίστεως αὐτοῦ. access
☐
Eph.3:21 {to Him be the glory} Eph.3:21 αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα ἐν τῇ To him be the
in the church and in Christ ἐκκλησίᾳ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ glory
Jesus to all generations forever Ἰησοῦ εἰς πάσας τὰς γενεὰς
and ever. Amen. τοῦ αἰῶνος τῶν αἰώνων,
ἀμήν.
Eph.4:1 I, therefore, the {pri- Eph.4:1 Παρακαλῶ οὖν ὑμᾶς Prisoner

soner} of the Lord, entreat you ἐγὼ ὁ δέσμιος ἐν κυρίῳ ☐
to walk in a manner worthy of ἀξίως περιπατῆσαι τῆς
the calling with which you κλήσεως ἧς ἐκλήθητε,
have been called,
Eph.4:17 This I say therefore, Eph.4:17 Τοῦτο οὖν λέγω Affirm

and {affirm together} with the καὶ μαρτύρομαι ἐν κυρίῳ, together
Lord, that you walk no longer μηκέτι ὑμᾶς περιπατεῖν, ☐
just as the Gentiles also walk, καθὼς καὶ τὰ ἔθνη περιπατεῖ
in the futility of their mind, ἐν ματαιότητι τοῦ νοὸς
αὐτῶν,
Eph.4:21 if indeed you have Eph.4:21 εἴ γε αὐτὸν Taught;

heard Him and have been ἠκούσατε καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ ☐
{taught} in Him, just as {truth ἐδιδάχθητε, καθώς ἐστιν Truth is
is} in Jesus, ἀλήθεια ἐν τῷ Ἰησοῦ, ☐
Eph.4:32 And be kind to one Eph.4:32 γίνεσθε [δὲ] εἰς God also has
another, tender-hearted, ἀλλήλους χρηστοί, forgiven you
forgiving each other, just as εὔσπλαγχνοι, χαριζόμενοι
{God} in Christ {also has ἑαυτοῖς, καθὼς καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἐν
forgiven you}. Χριστῷ ἐχαρίσατο ὑμῖν.
Eph.5:8 for you were formerly Eph.5:8 ἦτε γάρ ποτε Light
darkness, but now you are σκότος, νῦν δὲ φῶς ἐν κυρίῳ· ☐
{light} in the Lord; walk as ὡς τέκνα φωτὸς περιπατεῖτε
children of light
Eph.6:1 Children, {obey your Eph.6:1 Τὰ τέκνα, Obey your

parents} in the Lord, for this is ὑπακούετε τοῖς γονεῦσιν parents
right. ὑμῶν [ἐν κυρίῳ]· τοῦτο γάρ ☐
ἐστιν δίκαιον.
Eph.6:10 Finally, {be strong} Eph.6:10 Τοῦ λοιποῦ, Be strong

in the Lord, and in the ἐνδυναμοῦσθε ἐν κυρίῳ καὶ ☐
strength of His might. ἐν τῷ κράτει τῆς ἰσχύος
αὐτοῦ.
Eph.6:21 But that you also Eph.6:21 Ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε καὶ Beloved
may know about my circum- ὑμεῖς τὰ κατ᾿ ἐμέ, τί πράσσω, brother and
stances, how I am doing, πάντα γνωρίσει ὑμῖν Τύχικος faithful
Tychicus, the {beloved brother ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἀδελφὸς καὶ minister
and faithful minister} in the πιστὸς διάκονος ἐν κυρίῳ, ☐
Lord, will make everything
known to you.
Phil.1:1 Paul and Timothy, Phil.1:1 Παῦλος καὶ Saints

bond-servants of Christ Jesus, Τιμόθεος δοῦλοι Χριστοῦ
to all the {saints} in Christ Ἰησοῦ πᾶσιν τοῖς ἁγίοις ἐν
Jesus who are in Philippi, Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν
including the overseers and Φιλίπποις σὺν ἐπισκόποις καὶ
deacons: διακόνοις,
Phil.1:13 so that my Phil.1:13 ὥστε τοὺς δεσμούς Imprison-

{imprisonment} in the cause of μου φανεροὺς ἐν Χριστῷ ment
Christ has become well known γενέσθαι ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ
throughout the whole πραιτωρίῳ καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς
praetorian guard and to πάσιν,
everyone else,
Phil.1:14 and that most of the Phil.1:14 καὶ τοὺς πλείονας Trusting
brethren, {trusting} in the τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἐν κυρίῳ ☐
Lord because of my πεποιθότας τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου
imprisonment, have far more περισσοτέρως τολμᾶν
courage to speak the word of ἀφόβως τὸν λόγον λαλεῖν.
God without fear.
Phil.1:26 so that {your proud Phil.1:26 ἵνα τὸ καύχημα Your proud

confidence in me may abound} ὑμῶν περισσεύῃ ἐν Χριστῷ confidence in
in Christ Jesus through my Ἰησοῦ ἐν ἐμοὶ διὰ τῆς ἐμῆς me may
coming to you again. παρουσίας πάλιν πρὸς ὑμᾶς. abound
Phil.2:1 If therefore there is Phil.2:1 Εἴ τις οὖν Encourage-

any {encouragement} in παράκλησις ἐν Χριστῷ, εἴ τι ment
Christ, if there is any conso- παραμύθιον ἀγάπης, εἴ τις
lation of love, if there is any κοινωνία πνεύματος, εἴ τις
fellowship of the Spirit, if any σπλάγχνα καὶ οἰκτιρμοί,
affection and compassion,
Phil.2:5 Have this {attitude} in Phil.2:5 Τοῦτο φρονεῖτε ἐν Attitude

yourselves {which was also} in ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, which was
Christ Jesus, also
Phil.2:19 But I {hope} in the Phil.2:19 Ἐλπίζω δὲ ἐν Hope

Lord Jesus to send Timothy to κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ Τιμόθεον ☐
you shortly, so that I also may ταχέως πέμψαι ὑμῖν, ἵνα
be encouraged when I learn of κἀγὼ εὐψυχῶ γνοὺς τὰ περὶ
your condition. ὑμῶν.
Phil.2:24 and I {trust} in the Phil.2:24 πέποιθα δὲ ἐν Trust

Lord that I myself also shall be κυρίῳ ὅτι καὶ αὐτὸς ταχέως ☐
coming shortly. ἐλεύσομαι.
Phil.2:29 Therefore {receive Phil.2:29 προσδέχεσθε οὖν Receive him

him} in the Lord with all joy, αὐτὸν ἐν κυρίῳ μετὰ πάσης ☐
and hold men like him in high χαρᾶς καὶ τοὺς τοιούτους
regard; ἐντίμους ἔχετε,
Phil.3:1 Finally, my brethren, Phil.3:1 Τὸ λοιπόν, ἀδελφοί Rejoice

{rejoice} in the Lord. To write μου, χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ. τὰ ☐
the same things again is no αὐτὰ γράφειν ὑμῖν ἐμοὶ μὲν
trouble to me, and it is a οὐκ ὀκνηρόν, ὑμῖν δὲ
safeguard for you. ἀσφαλές.
Phil.3:3 for we are the true Phil.3:3 ἡμεῖς γάρ ἐσμεν ἡ Glory
circumcision, who worship in περιτομή, οἱ πνεύματι θεοῦ
the Spirit of God and {glory} in λατρεύοντες καὶ καυχώμενοι
Christ Jesus and put no ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐν
confidence in the flesh, σαρκὶ πεποιθότες,
Phil.3:9 and may be {found} in Phil.3:9 καὶ εὑρεθῶ ἐν αὐτῷ, Found

Him, not having a right- μὴ ἔχων ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην ☐
eousness of my own derived τὴν ἐκ νόμου ἀλλὰ τὴν διὰ
from the Law, but that which is πίστεως Χριστοῦ, τὴν ἐκ
through faith in Christ, the θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην ἐπὶ τῇ
righteousness which comes πίστει,
from God on the basis of faith,
Phil.3:14 I press on toward the Phil.3:14 κατὰ σκοπὸν The prize of

goal for {the prize of the διώκω εἰς τὸ βραβεῖον τῆς the upward
upward call of God} in Christ ἄνω κλήσεως τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν call of God
Jesus. Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.
Phil.4:1 Therefore, my beloved Phil.4:1 Ὥστε, ἀδελφοί μου Stand firm

brethren whom I long to see, ἀγαπητοὶ καὶ ἐπιπόθητοι, ☐
my joy and crown, so {stand χαρὰ καὶ στέφανός μου,
firm} in the Lord, my beloved. οὕτως στήκετε ἐν κυρίῳ,
ἀγαπητοί.
Phil.4:2 I urge Euodia and I Phil.4:2 Εὐοδίαν παρακαλῶ Live in

urge Syntyche to {live in καὶ Συντύχην παρακαλῶ τὸ harmony
harmony} in the Lord. αὐτὸ φρονεῖν ἐν κυρίῳ. ☐
Phil.4:4 {Rejoice} in the Lord Phil.4:4 Χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ Rejoice

always; again I will say, rejoice! πάντοτε· πάλιν ἐρῶ, χαίρετε. ☐
Phil.4:7 And {the peace of Phil.4:7 καὶ ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ The peace of
God}, which surpasses all θεοῦ ἡ ὑπερέχουσα πάντα God shall
comprehension, {shall guard νοῦν φρουρήσει τὰς καρδίας guard your
your hearts and your minds} in ὑμῶν καὶ τὰ νοήματα ὑμῶν hearts and
Christ Jesus. ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. minds
Phil.4:10 But I {rejoiced} in Phil.4:10 Ἐχάρην δὲ ἐν Rejoiced

the Lord greatly, that now at κυρίῳ μεγάλως ὅτι ἤδη ποτὲ ☐
last you have revived your ἀνεθάλετε τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ
concern for me; indeed, you φρονεῖν, ἐφ᾿ ᾧ καὶ
were concerned before, but ἐφρονεῖτε, ἠκαιρεῖσθε δέ.
you lacked opportunity.
Phil.4:13 I {can do all things} NA27 Phil.4:13 πάντα ἰσχύω Can do all
through Him who strengthens ἐν τῷ ἐνδυναμοῦντί με. things
me.
Majority Text: Πάντα ἰσχύω
ἐν τῷ ἐνδυναμοῦντί με
χριστῷ.
Phil.4:19 And my God shall Phil.4:19 ὁ δὲ θεός μου Supply all

{supply all your needs πληρώσει πᾶσαν χρείαν your needs
according to His riches in ὑμῶν κατὰ τὸ πλοῦτος according to
glory} in Christ Jesus. αὐτοῦ ἐν δόξῃ ἐν Χριστῷ his riches in
Ἰησοῦ. glory
Phil.4:21 Greet every {saint} in Phil.4:21 Ἀσπάσασθε πάντα Saint

Christ Jesus. The brethren ἅγιον ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.
who are with me greet you. ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς οἱ σὺν ἐμοὶ
ἀδελφοί.
Col.1:2 to the {saints and Col.1:2 τοῖς ἐν Κολοσσαῖς Saints and

faithful brethren} in Christ ἁγίοις καὶ πιστοῖς ἀδελφοῖς faithful
who are at Colossae: Grace to ἐν Χριστῷ, χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ brethren
you and peace from God our εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς
Father. ἡμῶν.
Col.1:4 since we heard of your Col.1:4 ἀκούσαντες τὴν Faith

{faith} in Christ Jesus and the πίστιν ὑμῶν ἐν Χριστῷ
love which you have for all the Ἰησοῦ καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην ἣν
saints; ἔχετε εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους
Col.1:14 in whom we have Col.1:14 ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν τὴν Redemption

{redemption}, the forgiveness ἀπολύτρωσιν, τὴν ἄφεσιν ☐
of sins. τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν·
Col.1:16 For by Him {all Col.1:16 ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη All things
things were created}, both in τὰ πάντα ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς were created
the heavens and on earth, καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ ☐
visible and invisible, whether τὰ ἀόρατα, εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε
thrones or dominions or rulers κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε
or authorities—all things have ἐξουσίαι· τὰ πάντα δι᾿ αὐτοῦ
been created by Him and for καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται·
Him.
Col.1:17 And He is before all Col.1:17 καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ All things
things, and in Him {all things πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν hold together
hold together}. αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν, ☐
Col.1:19 For it was the Father’s Col.1:19 ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ All the ful-
good pleasure for {all the εὐδόκησεν πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα ness (of God)
fulness to dwell} in Him, κατοικῆσαι to dwell ☐
Col.1:28 And we proclaim Col.1:28 ὃν ἡμεῖς καταγγέλ- Present every

Him, admonishing every man λομεν νουθετοῦντες πάντα man
and teaching every man with ἄνθρωπον καὶ διδάσκοντες complete
all wisdom, that we may πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐν πάσῃ
{present every man complete} σοφίᾳ, ἵνα παραστήσωμεν
in Christ. πάντα ἄνθρωπον τέλειον ἐν
Χριστῷ·
Col.2:3 in whom {are hidden Col.2:3 ἐν ᾧ εἰσιν πάντες οἱ All the

all the treasures of wisdom and θησαυροὶ τῆς σοφίας καὶ treasures of
knowledge}. γνώσεως ἀπόκρυφοι. wisdom and
knowledge
are hidden
☐
Col.2:6 As you therefore have Col.2:6 Ὡς οὖν παρελάβετε Walk

received Christ Jesus the Lord, τὸν Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν τὸν ☐
so {walk} in Him, κύριον, ἐν αὐτῷ περιπατεῖτε,
Col.2:7 having been firmly Col.2:7 ἐρριζωμένοι καὶ Being built

rooted and now {being built ἐποικοδομούμενοι ἐν αὐτῷ up
up} in Him and established in καὶ βεβαιούμενοι τῇ πίστει ☐
your faith, just as you were καθὼς ἐδιδάχθητε,
instructed, and overflowing περισσεύοντες ἐν εὐχαριστίᾳ.
with gratitude.
Col.2:9 For in Him {all the Col.2:9 ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ All the ful-
fulness of Deity dwells in πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς ness of Deity
bodily form}, θεότητος σωματικῶς, dwells in
bodily form
☐
Col.2:10 and in Him {you Col.2:10 καὶ ἐστὲ ἐν αὐτῷ You have
have been made complete}, πεπληρωμένοι, ὅς ἐστιν ἡ been made
and He is the head over all rule κεφαλὴ πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ complete
and authority; ἐξουσίας. ☐
Col.2:11 and in Him {you Col.2:11 Ἐν ᾧ καὶ You were also

were also circumcised with a περιετμήθητε περιτομῇ circumcised
circumcision made without ἀχειροποιήτῳ ἐν τῇ with a
hands}, in the removal of the ἀπεκδύσει τοῦ σώματος τῆς circumcision
body of the flesh by the σαρκός, ἐν τῇ περιτομῇ τοῦ made without
circumcision of Christ; Χριστοῦ, hands
☐
Col.2:15 When He had dis- Col.2:15 ἀπεκδυσάμενος τὰς Triumphed

armed the rulers and authori- ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς ἐξουσίας over them
ties, He made a public display ἐδειγμάτισεν ἐν παρρησίᾳ, ☐
of them, having {triumphed θριαμβεύσας αὐτοὺς ἐν
over them} through Him. αὐτῷ.
Col.3:18 Wives, be subject to Col.3:18 Αἱ γυναῖκες, Fitting

your husbands, as is {fitting} in ὑποτάσσεσθε τοῖς ἀνδράσιν ☐
the Lord. ὡς ἀνῆκεν ἐν κυρίῳ.
Col.3:20 Children, be obedient Col.3:20 Τὰ τέκνα, Well-pleasing

to your parents in all things, ὑπακούετε τοῖς γονεῦσιν ☐
for this is {well-pleasing} to the κατὰ πάντα, τοῦτο γὰρ
Lord. εὐάρεστόν ἐστιν ἐν κυρίῳ.
Col.4:7 As to all my affairs, Col.4:7 Τὰ κατ᾿ ἐμὲ πάντα Fellow bond-

Tychicus, our beloved brother γνωρίσει ὑμῖν Τύχικος ὁ servant
and faithful servant and {fellow ἀγαπητὸς ἀδελφὸς καὶ ☐
bond-servant} in the Lord, will πιστὸς διάκονος καὶ
bring you information. σύνδουλος ἐν κυρίῳ,
Col.4:17 And say to Col.4:17 καὶ εἴπατε The ministry

Archippus, “Take heed to {the Ἀρχίππῳ· Βλέπε τὴν which you
ministry which you have διακονίαν ἣν παρέλαβες ἐν have received
received} in the Lord, that you κυρίῳ, ἵνα αὐτὴν πληροῖς. ☐
may fulfill it.”
1Thess.2:14 For you, brethren, 1Thess.2:14 ὑμεῖς γὰρ Churches of

became imitators of the μιμηταὶ ἐγενήθητε, ἀδελφοί, God
{churches of God} in Christ τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν τοῦ θεοῦ τῶν
Jesus that are in Judea, for you οὐσῶν ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ ἐν
also endured the same Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ὅτι τὰ αὐτὰ
sufferings at the hands of your ἐπάθετε καὶ ὑμεῖς ὑπὸ τῶν
own countrymen, even as they ἰδίων συμφυλετῶν καθὼς καὶ
did from the Jews, αὐτοὶ ὑπὸ τῶν Ἰουδαίων,
1Thess.3:8 for now we really 1Thess.3:8 ὅτι νῦν ζῶμεν ἐὰν Stand firm
live, if you {stand firm} in the ὑμεῖς στήκετε ἐν κυρίῳ. ☐
Lord.
1Thess.4:1 Finally then, bre- 1Thess.4:1 Λοιπὸν οὖν, We request

thren, {we request and exhort ἀδελφοί, ἐρωτῶμεν ὑμᾶς καὶ and exhort
you} in the Lord Jesus, that, as παρακαλοῦμεν ἐν κυρίῳ you
you received from us Ἰησοῦ, ἵνα καθὼς ☐
instruction as to how you παρελάβετε παρ᾿ ἡμῶν τὸ
ought to walk and please God πῶς δεῖ ὑμᾶς περιπατεῖν καὶ
(just as you actually do walk), ἀρέσκειν θεῷ, καθὼς καὶ
that you may excel still more. περιπατεῖτε, ἵνα περισσεύητε
μᾶλλον.
1Thess.4:16 For the Lord 1Thess.4:16 ὅτι αὐτὸς ὁ The dead

Himself will descend from κύριος ἐν κελεύσματι, ἐν
heaven with a shout, with the φωνῇ ἀρχαγγέλου καὶ ἐν
voice of the archangel, and σάλπιγγι θεοῦ, καταβήσεται
with the trumpet of God; and ἀπ᾿ οὐρανοῦ καὶ οἱ νεκροὶ ἐν
{the dead} in Christ shall rise Χριστῷ ἀναστήσονται
first. πρῶτον,
1Thess.5:12 But we request of 1Thess.5:12 Ἐρωτῶμεν δὲ Have charge

you, brethren, that you appre- ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, εἰδέναι τοὺς over you
ciate those who diligently labor κοπιῶντας ἐν ὑμῖν καὶ ☐
among you, and {have charge προϊσταμένους ὑμῶν ἐν
over you} in the Lord and give κυρίῳ καὶ νουθετοῦντας
you instruction, ὑμᾶς
1Thess.5:18 in everything give 1Thess.5:18 ἐν παντὶ God’s will for

thanks; for this is {God’s will εὐχαριστεῖτε· τοῦτο γὰρ you
for you} in Christ Jesus. θέλημα θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ
Ἰησοῦ εἰς ὑμᾶς.
2Thess.1:12 in order that the 2Thess.1:12 ὅπως ἐνδοξασθῇ You may be

name of our Lord Jesus {may τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν glorified
be glorified} in you, and {you} Ἰησοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν, καὶ ὑμεῖς ἐν ☐
in Him, according to the grace αὐτῷ, κατὰ τὴν χάριν τοῦ
of our God and the Lord Jesus θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ
Christ. Χριστοῦ.
2Thess.3:4 And we have 2Thess.3:4 πεποίθαμεν δὲ ἐν Confidence

{confidence} in the Lord κυρίῳ ἐφ᾿ ὑμᾶς, ὅτι ἃ ☐
concerning you, that you are παραγγέλλομεν [καὶ] ποιεῖτε
doing and will continue to do καὶ ποιήσετε.
what we command.
2Thess.3:12 Now such persons 2Thess.3:12 τοῖς δὲ We

{we command and exhort} in τοιούτοις παραγγέλλομεν command
the Lord Jesus Christ to work καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν ἐν κυρίῳ and exhort
in quiet fashion and eat their Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ, ἵνα μετὰ
own bread. ἡσυχίας ἐργαζόμενοι τὸν
ἑαυτῶν ἄρτον ἐσθίωσιν.
1Tim.1:14 and the grace of our 1Tim.1:14 ὑπερεπλεόνασεν Faith and

Lord was more than abundant, δὲ ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν love
with the {faith and love} which μετὰ πίστεως καὶ ἀγάπης τῆς
are found in Christ Jesus. ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.
1Tim.3:13 For those who have 1Tim.3:13 οἱ γὰρ καλῶς Faith

served well as deacons obtain διακονήσαντες βαθμὸν
for themselves a high standing ἑαυτοῖς καλὸν περιποιοῦνται
and great confidence in the καὶ πολλὴν παρρησίαν ἐν
{faith} that is in Christ Jesus. πίστει τῇ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.
2Tim.1:1 Paul, an apostle of 2Tim.1:1 Παῦλος Promise of

Christ Jesus by the will of God, ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ life
according to the {promise of διὰ θελήματος θεοῦ κατ᾿
life} in Christ Jesus, ἐπαγγελίαν ζωῆς τῆς ἐν
Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ
2Tim.1:9 who has saved us, 2Tim.1:9 τοῦ σώσαντος Grace which
and called us with a holy ἡμᾶς καὶ καλέσαντος κλήσει was granted
calling, not according to our ἁγίᾳ, οὐ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα ἡμῶν us
works, but according to His ἀλλὰ κατὰ ἰδίαν πρόθεσιν
own purpose and {grace which καὶ χάριν, τὴν δοθεῖσαν ἡμῖν
was granted us} in Christ Jesus ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ πρὸ
from all eternity, χρόνων αἰωνίων,
2Tim.1:13 Retain the standard 2Tim.1:13 Ὑποτύπωσιν ἔχε Faith and

of sound words which you ὑγιαινόντων λόγων ὧν παρ᾿ love
have heard from me, in the ἐμοῦ ἤκουσας ἐν πίστει καὶ
{faith and love} which are in ἀγάπῃ τῇ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ·
Christ Jesus.
2Tim.2:1 You therefore, my 2Tim.2:1 Σὺ οὖν, τέκνον The grace

son, be strong in {the grace μου, ἐνδυναμοῦ ἐν τῇ χάριτι that is in
that is} in Christ Jesus. τῇ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ,
2Tim.2:10 For this reason I 2Tim.2:10 διὰ τοῦτο πάντα The salvation
endure all things for the sake ὑπομένω διὰ τοὺς ἐκλεκτούς,
of those who are chosen, that ἵνα καὶ αὐτοὶ σωτηρίας
they also may obtain {the τύχωσιν τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ
salvation} which is in Christ Ἰησοῦ μετὰ δόξης αἰωνίου.
Jesus and with it eternal glory.
2Tim.3:12 And indeed, all who 2Tim.3:12 καὶ πάντες δὲ οἱ Live godly
desire {to live godly} in Christ θέλοντες εὐσεβῶς ζῆν ἐν
Jesus will be persecuted. Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ
διωχθήσονται.
2Tim.3:15 and that from 2Tim.3:15 καὶ ὅτι ἀπὸ Faith which is
childhood you have known the βρέφους [τὰ] ἱερὰ γράμματα
sacred writings which are able οἶδας, τὰ δυνάμενά σε
to give you the wisdom that σοφίσαι εἰς σωτηρίαν διὰ
leads to salvation through πίστεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ
{faith which is} in Christ Jesus. Ἰησοῦ.
Philemon 1:8 Therefore, Philemon 1:8 Διὸ πολλὴν ἐν Confidence

though I have enough {confi- Χριστῷ παρρησίαν ἔχων
dence} in Christ to order you ἐπιτάσσειν σοι τὸ ἀνῆκον
to do that which is proper,
Philemon 1:16 no longer as a Philemon 1:16 οὐκέτι ὡς Beloved

slave, but more than a slave, a δοῦλον ἀλλ᾿ ὑπὲρ δοῦλον, brother
{beloved brother}, especially to ἀδελφὸν ἀγαπητόν, μάλιστα ☐
me, but how much more to ἐμοί, πόσῳ δὲ μᾶλλον σοὶ καὶ
you, both in the flesh and in ἐν σαρκὶ καὶ ἐν κυρίῳ.
the Lord.
Philemon 1:20 Yes, brother, Philemon 1:20 ναὶ ἀδελφέ, Let me bene-
{let me benefit from you} in ἐγώ σου ὀναίμην ἐν κυρίῳ· fit from you;
the Lord; {refresh my heart} in ἀνάπαυσόν μου τὰ σπλάγχνα ☐
Christ. ἐν Χριστῷ. Refresh my
heart
Philemon 1:23 Epaphras, my Philemon 1:23 Ἀσπάζεταί σε Fellow

{fellow prisoner} in Christ Ἐπαφρᾶς ὁ συναιχμάλωτός prisoner
Jesus, greets you, μου ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ,
Bibliography
Attridge, Harold W. (general ed.), HarperCollins Study Bible: New

Revised Standard Version, HarperCollins Publishers, New York,
1993.
Bainton, Roland H., Hunted Heretic: The Life and Death of Michael
Servetus, 1511-1553, Blackstone Editions, Carol Stream, Illinois,
reprinted 2005.
Balz, Horst and Schneider, Gerhard (eds.), Exegetical Dictionary of the
New Testament, translated from Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen
Testament, T&T Clark, Edinburgh.
Barker, Kenneth et al (eds.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Two-
Volume Abridged Edition, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 2004.
Barrett, C.K., The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with
Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text, 2nd edition, The
Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1978.
Bauer, Walter and Danker, F.W. (eds.), A Greek-English Lexicon of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd edition,
The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 2000.
Beale, G.K. and Carson, D.A. (eds.), Commentary on the New
Testament Use of the Old Testament, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids,
2007.
Beard, Clarence M., The Only True God, originally published in 1956,
facsimile edition, Kessinger Publishing, Whitefish, Montana, 2009.
Bercot, David W. (ed.), A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs,
Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts, 1998.
Bird, Michael F. and Sprinkle, Preston M. (eds), The Faith of Jesus
Christ: The Pistis Christou Debate, Paternoster and Hendrickson
Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts, 2009.
Bowman, Robert M., Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of
John, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1989.
Boyarin, Daniel, The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ, The
New Press, New York, 2011.
Bratcher, Robert and Reyburn, William, The United Bible Societies’ Old
Testament Handbook Series, Psalms, United Bible Societies,
Stuttgart.
Bromiley, Geoffrey W., The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia,
revised edition, William B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1986.
Brown, Colin (ed.), New International Dictionary of New Testament
Theology, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1986.
Bruce, F.F. (ed.), Zondervan Bible Commentary: One-Volume Illustrated
Edition, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 2008.
Burridge, Richard and Gould, Graham, Jesus Now and Then,
Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Cambridge, UK, 2004.
Calvin, John, Calvin’s Commentaries, Baker Books, Grand Rapids,
2009.
Cameron, Averil and Hall, Stuart G., Eusebius, Life of Constantine,
Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1999.
Campbell, Douglas A., “2 Corinthians 4:13: Evidence in Paul that
Christ Believes,” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol.128, no.2, 2009.
Carson, D.A. et al (ed.), New Bible Commentary, 21st Century Edition,
Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship, Leicester, 1994.
Chang, Eric H.H., Becoming a New Person: What the Bible Teaches
About Regeneration, Renewal, and Christ-Likeness, Xulon Press,
Maitland, Florida, 2004.
Chang, Eric H.H., How I Have Come to Know God, OM Authentic
Books, Andhra Pradesh, India, 2000.
Chang, Eric H.H., The Only True God: A Study of Biblical Monotheism,
Xlibris, Bloomington, Indiana, 2009.
Chang, Eric H.H., Totally Committed: The Importance of Commitment
in Biblical Teaching, Guardian Books, Belleville, Ontario, 2001.
Charles, R.H., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation
of St. John, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1920.
Bibliography 821
Comfort, Philip W., The New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament,

Tyndale House Publishers, Wheaton, Illinois, 1990.
Comfort, Philip W., A Commentary on the Manuscripts and Text of the
New Testament, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, 2015.
Constable, Thomas, Dr. Constable’s Expository Notes, 2010 Edition.
Cross, F.L. and Livingstone, E.A. (eds.), The Oxford Dictionary of the
Christian Church, Third Edition, Oxford University Press, 1997.
Darton, Michael (ed.), Modern Concordance to the New Testament,
Doubleday & Company, New York, 1976.
Davis, Stephen; Kendall, Daniel; O’Collins, Gerald; The Incarnation,
Oxford University Press, 2002.
Denney, James, The Expositor’s Greek Testament, volume 2, George H.
Doran Company, New York, 1902.
Douglas, J.D., New Bible Dictionary, 3rd edition, InterVarsity Press,
Leicester, England, 1996.
Dunn, James D.G., Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? The New
Testament Evidence, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, 2010.
Dunn, James D.G., New International Greek Testament Commentary,
The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, Wm. B. Eerdmans,
Carlisle, 1996.
Dunn, James D.G., Romans 9-16, Word Biblical Commentary, Word,
Incorporated, 1988.
Dunn, James D.G., The Parting of the Ways: Between Christianity and
Judaism and their Significance for the Character of Christianity, 2nd
ed., SCM Press, 2006.
Dunn, James D.G., The Theology of Paul the Apostle, Wm. B.
Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Cambridge, UK, 1998.
Edersheim, Alfred, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, various
publishers (it was originally published in 1883).
Ehrman, Bart D., Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the
Bible and Why, HarperCollins, New York, 2005.
Ellwood, Robert and Alles, Gregory (eds.), The Encyclopedia of World
Religions, Revised Edition, DWJ Books, New York, 2007.
Elwell, Walter A. (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Baker Book

House Company, Grand Rapids, 1984.
Epstein, Rabbi Dr. Isidore (ed.), The Soncino Talmud, Soncino Press,
London.
Erickson, Millard J., God in Three Persons: A Contemporary
Interpretation of the Trinity, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, 1995.
Ermatinger, James W., The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut and London, 2004.
Farrar, F.W. et al, The Pulpit Commentary: Genesis, Funk & Wagnalls
Company, London and New York.
Gaebelein, Frank E., The Expositor Bible Commentary: Ephesians
through Philemon, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1978.
Gibbon, Edward, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, various
editions.
Glinert, Lewis, The Grammar of Modern Hebrew, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 1989.
Goldstone, Lawrence and Nancy, Out of the Flames, Broadway Books,
New York, 2002.
González, Justo L., The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the
Present Day, Prince Press (Hendrickson Publishers), Peabody,
Massachusetts, 1984.
González, Justo L. (ed.), The Westminster Dictionary of Theologians,
Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky, 2006.
Gowan, Donald E. (ed.), The Westminster Theological Wordbook of the
Bible, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky, 2003.
Green, Deborah and Lieber, Laura (eds.), Scriptural Exegesis: The
Shapes of Culture and the Religious Imagination, Oxford University
Press, Oxford, 2009.
Greenlee, J. Harold, A Concise Exegetical Grammar of New Testament
Greek, 5th ed., Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids,
Michigan, 1986.
Grudem, Wayne, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical
Doctrine, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1995.
Bibliography 823
Hanson, R.P.C., The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The
Arian Controversy 318-381, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, 2005.
Harn, Roger E. Van (ed.), The Lectionary Commentary: Theological
Exegesis for Sunday’s Texts; The First Readings: The Old Testament
and Acts, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids and
Cambridge U.K., 2001.
Harpur, Tom, For Christ’s Sake, McClelland & Stewart, Toronto,
1993.
Hartman, Lars, Into the Name of the Lord Jesus: Baptism in the Early
Church, T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1997.
Hawking, Stephen, A Brief History of Time and The Universe in a
Nutshell, two-in-one edition, Bantam Books, New York, 2010.
Hays, Richard, The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of
Galatians 3:1-4:11.
Herbermann, Charles G., The Catholic Encyclopedia, 15 volumes,
Robert Appleton Company, New York, 1909.
Hindson, Ed, and Mitchell, Dan, The Popular Encyclopedia of Church
History: The People, Places, and Events That Shaped Christianity,
Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, Oregon, 2013.
Ho, Ahuva, The Targum of Zephaniah: Manuscript and Commentary,
Brill, Leiden and Boston, 2009.
Jastrow, Marcus (ed.), A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli
and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, G.P. Putnam’s Sons,
New York, 1903.
Jenkins, Philip, Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and
Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next
1,500 Years, HarperCollins, New York, 2010.
Jones, Timothy Paul, Christian History Made Easy, Rose Publishing,
Torrance, California, 2009.
Kaiser, Walter C. (ed.), NIV Archaeological Study Bible, Zondervan,
Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2005.
Kamesar, Adam (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Philo, Cambridge
University Press, New York, 2009.
Keil, C.F. and Delitzsch, F., Commentary on the Old Testament,

Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts, reprinted 2006.
Kelly, J.N.D., Early Christian Creeds, 3rd edition, Longman Group
Limited, 1972.
Kelly, J.N.D., Early Christian Doctrines, 2004 reprint of the 5th edition
of 1978, Prince Press (of Hendrickson Publishers).
Klostemaier, Klaus, A Concise Encyclopedia of Hinduism, Oneworld
Publications, Oxford, England, 1998.
Klostemaier, Klaus, A Survey of Hinduism, State University of New
York Press, Albany, 2007.
Koehler, Ludwig and Baumgartner, Walter (eds.), The Hebrew and
Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden,
1994-2000.
Küng, Hans, The Catholic Church: A Short History, Modern Library,
Random House, New York, 2003.
Kuschel, Karl-Josef, Born Before All Time? The Dispute over Christ’s
Origin, The Crossroad Publishing Company, New York, 1992.
Lenski, Noel, The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine,
Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Lewis, C.S., Christian Reflections, Geoffrey Bles Ltd., London, 1967.
Liddell, Henry G.; Scott, Robert; Jones, Henry Stuart, A Greek-English
Lexicon, 9th ed. with supplement, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1996.
McGrath, Alister E. and Packer, James I., Zondervan Handbook on
Christian Beliefs, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2005.
McGrath, James F., The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in
Its Jewish Context, University of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago,
2009.
McKenzie, John L., Dictionary of the Bible, Macmillan, New York,
1965.
McNamara, Martin, Targum and Testament, Irish University Press,
Shannon, Ireland, 1972.
Marshall, I. Howard, A Concise New Testament Theology, InterVarsity
Press, Nottingham, England, 2008.
Bibliography 825
Martin, Ralph and Dodd, Brian (eds.), Where Christology Began: Essays
on Philippians 2, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville,
Kentucky, 1998.
Martin, Sean, The Gnostics: The First Christian Heretics, Pocket
Essentials, Harpenden, UK, 2006.
Metropolitan Maximos, The Orthodox Study Bible, Thomas Nelson,
Nashville, 2008.
Mettinger, T.N.D., The Riddle of Resurrection: Dying and Rising Gods
in the Ancient Near East, Coniectanea Biblica, Almqvist & Wiksell
International, Stockholm, 2001.
Metzger, Bruce M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New
Testament, 2nd Edition, United Bible Societies, Stuttgart, 1997.
Meyer, H.A.W., Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistles to the
Philippians and Colossians, and to Philemon, Alpha Publications,
1979, reprint of the 6th edition of 1884.
Meyer, H.A.W., Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Romans, Alpha
Publications, 1979, reprint of the 6th edition of 1884.
Meyer, H.A.W., Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Revelation of
John, Funk & Wagnall, New York, 1886.
Michel, Robert, Holy Hatred: Christianity, Antisemitism, and the
Holocaust, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2006.
Mitchell, Margaret M. and Young, Frances M., The Cambridge History
of Christianity: Origins to Constantine, volume 1, Cambridge
University Press, 2006.
Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament.
Narbonne, Jean-Marc, Plotinus in Dialogue with the Gnostics, Brill,
Leiden, The Netherlands, 2011.
Need, Stephen W., Truly Divine and Truly Human: The Story of Christ
and the Seven Ecumenical Councils, SPCK (London) and
Hendrickson Publishers (Peabody, Massachusetts), 2008.
Nicoll, W. Robertson, The Expositor’s Greek Testament, Dodd, Mead
and Company, New York, 1910.
Niskanen, Paul, The Poetics of Adam: The Creation of Adam in the

Image of Elohim, Journal of Biblical Literature, vol.129, no.3, 2009.
Odahl, Charles, Constantine and the Christian Empire, Routledge, New
York, 2004.
Ogilvie, Lloyd J. (ed.), The Preacher’s Commentary, 35 volumes,
Thomas Nelson, Nashville, 2002.
O’Neal, Michael and Jones, J. Sydney (eds.), World Religions: Almanac,
Thomson Gale, Farmington Hills, Michigan, 2007.
Orr, James (ed.), International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, The
Howard-Severance Company, Chicago, 1915.
Osborne, Grant R. (ed.), The IVP New Testament Commentary Series,
InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, and Leicester, England.
Pelikan, Jaroslav, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development
of Doctrine, Volume 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-
600), The University of Chicago Press, 1971.
Pelikan, Jaroslav, Whose Bible is It? A Short History of the Scriptures,
Penguin Books, New York and London, 2005.
Phan, Peter C. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Trinity,
Cambridge University Press, 2001, New York.
Plummer, Alfred, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel
According to St. Luke, 5th Edition, T&T Clark, London.
Reyburn, William et al, The United Bible Societies’ Old Testament
Handbook Series, Genesis, United Bible Societies, Stuttgart.
Rienecker, Fritz and Cleon, Rogers, Linguistic Key to the Greek New
Testament, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1980.
Rogerson, J.W. and Lieu, Judith M., The Oxford Handbook of Biblical
Studies, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, 2006.
Ronning, John, The Jewish Targums and John’s Logos Theology, Baker
Academic, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2010.
Rosen, Steven, Essential Hinduism, Praeger Publishers, Westport,
Connecticut, 2006.
Ross, C. Randolph, Common Sense Christianity, Occam Publishers,
Cortland, New York, 1989.
Bibliography 827
Rubenstein, Richard E., When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define
Christianity During the Last Days of Rome, Harcourt Inc., Orlando,
1999.
Ryrie, Charles C., Basic Theology, Moody Press, 1999.
Sawyer, John F.A., Isaiah, Vol.2, The Daily Study Bible Series, WJK
Press, Louisville, Kentucky, 1986.
Schaff, Philip (ed.), Ante-Nicene Fathers (10 volumes), Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers (28 volumes).
Schaff, Philip (ed.), Creeds of Christendom.
Schenck, Kenneth, A Brief Guide to Philo, Westminster John Knox
Press, 2005.
Schroeder, Gerald L., God According to God: A Physicist Proves We’ve
Been Wrong About God All Along, HarperCollins, New York, 2009.
Scroggs, Robin, The Last Adam: A Study in Pauline Anthropology,
Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 1966.
Singer, Isidore (ed.), The Jewish Encyclopedia, Volume IX, Funk and
Wagnalls Company, New York and London, 1912.
Sivananda, Sri Swami, All About Hinduism, The Divine Life Society,
Uttar Pradesh, India, 1997.
Skinner, John, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis,
Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1910.
Skolnik, Fred and Berenbaum, Michael (ed.), Encyclopedia Judaica, 2nd
edition, 22 volumes, MacMillan Reference and Keter Publishing
House Ltd. and Thomson Gale, Farmington Hills, MI, 2007.
Snyder, Arnold and Hecht, Linda (eds.), Profiles of Anabaptist Women:
Sixteenth-Century Reforming Pioneers, Wilfred Laurier University
Press, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 1996.
Spence, H.D.M. and Exell, Joseph (eds.), The Pulpit Commentary,
Funk and Wagnalls, London and New York.
Stevenson, J. and Frend, W.H.C., Creeds, Councils and Controversies:
Documents Illustrating the History of the Church, AD 337–461, Baker
Academic, Grand Rapids, 2012.
Tenney, Merrill C. and Silva, Moisés (eds.), The Zondervan

Encyclopedia of the Bible, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 2009.
Thayer, Joseph Henry, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament,
Corrected Edition, Harper and Brothers, 1886.
Tomkins, Stephen, A Short History of Christianity, Lion Hudson,
Oxford, 2005.
Tuckett, Christopher M., Christology and the New Testament: Jesus and
His Earliest Followers, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville,
Kentucky, 2001.
Twelftree, Graham H., Jesus the Miracle Worker, InterVarsity Press,
Downers Grove, Illinois, 1999.
Vermes, Géza, The Nativity: History and Legend, Penguin Books, 2006.
Wallace, Daniel, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical
Syntax of the New Testament, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1996.
Walton, John H. (ed.), Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds
Commentary, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 2009.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, New World Translation of the
Holy Scriptures, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York,
Inc., 2013.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, What Does the Bible Really
Teach?, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.,
2005.
White, James R., The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of
Christian Belief, Baker, Grand Rapids, 1998.
White, Newport J.D., The Expositor’s Greek Testament, volume 4,
Dodd, Mead and Company, New York, 1910.
Wright, David F. (ed.), New Dictionary of Theology, IVP Academic,
Nottingham, England, 1997.
Wuest, Kenneth S., The New Testament: An Expanded Translation,
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1961.
Yonge, C.D. (ed.), The Works of Philo, Hendrickson Publishers,
Peabody, Massachusetts, 1993.
Scripture Index
Gen 1 166, 186, 196, 197, 198, Gen 17:1 700

199, 209, 527 Gen 17:10 293
Gen 1:1 150, 184, 185, 195, 200 Gen 18:12 407
Gen 1:1-2,4 188 Gen 20:3 744
Gen 1:2 466, 467 Gen 21:33 210
Gen 1:2-3 154 Gen 22 75
Gen 1:3 155, 217, 751 Gen 22:2,12,16 74
Gen 1:16 209 Gen 23:12 359, 386
Gen 1:26 187, 188, 517, 518, 520 Gen 26:5 778, 785
Gen 1:26-27 519 Gen 31:13 773
Gen 1:27 333 Gen 35:23 272
Gen 1:31 33 Gen 41:38-44 552
Gen 2 573 Gen 41:43 497
Gen 2:4 185, 733 Gen 49:10 365
Gen 2:7 155, 429, 520 Ex 2:1-10 709
Gen 2:8,9,17 671 Ex 2:24; 6:5 293
Gen 2:16-17 572 Ex 3 710
Gen 3:1,2,3 672 Ex 3:7-8 632
Gen 3:2-4 572 Ex 3:12; 4:12,15 744
Gen 3:3-5 719 Ex 3:13; 6:23 733
Gen 3:4-6 527 Ex 3:14 79, 326, 327, 625, 626,
Gen 3:5 529, 533, 573, 752 628, 629, 733, 738
Gen 3:8 743 Ex 3:14,15 738
Gen 3:22 574 Ex 3:15 42, 45, 146
Gen 4:1 734 Ex 4:16 307
Gen 6:6,8:21 744 Ex 4:16; 7:1 44, 305
Gen 6:9 670 Ex 6:23 734
Gen 7:16 744 Ex 7:1 307
Gen 9:6 522, 526, 779, 789 Ex 7:7 623
Gen 9:9-17 293 Ex 7:9-13 488
Gen 14:18 695 Ex 9:16 146
Gen 15:1 742, 744 Ex 10:19 76
Gen 15:6 744 Ex 12:12 44
Gen 15:18 293 Ex 12:23,29 744
Ex 12:40-41 709 Num 8:4 331
Ex 14:31 744 Num 10:35,36 744
Ex 15:1-21 355 Num 11:14 297
Ex 15:2 733 Num 11:23 786
Ex 15:8; 33:11 151 Num 12:6,23:5 742
Ex 15:16 515 Num 14:5,30 744
Ex 16:8 744 Num 14:24 568
Ex 16:10 515 Num 15:37-41 146
Ex 19:5 673 Num 20:7-12 670, 677
Ex 19:17 743 Num 23:4,21 744
Ex 20:1 745 Num 23:8 745
Ex 20:2,3 79 Num 23:19 428, 449, 636
Ex 20:7 42, 147, 732 Num 24:2 472
Ex 21:6 305 Num 27:16 745
Ex 23:20 552 Num 33:4 745
Ex 23:20-21 551 Dt 1:9 297
Ex 25:9,37,40 331 Dt 1:30,33:3 744
Ex 25:22 743, 786 Dt 1:32 743
Ex 28:4; 29:5 331 Dt 4:7 744
Ex 31:13,17 744 Dt 4:15 510, 516
Ex 32:3-4 524 Dt 4:15-16 522
Ex 32:4 44 Dt 4:16 517
Ex 32:13 744 Dt 4:35 684
Ex 32:35 743 Dt 5:5 744
Ex 33:22 743 Dt 5:6,7 79
Ex 34:6 702 Dt 5:7-9 523
Ex 34:29-35 722 Dt 5:11 42, 147, 732, 744
Ex 40:35 472 Dt 6:4 63, 68, 69, 70, 76, 77,
Lev 5:21; 6:2 744 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84,
Lev 11:44 674 146, 540, 541, 550, 625
Lev 11:44-45 701 Dt 6:4-5 10
Lev 15:31 216 Dt 6:4-9 70, 146
Lev 19:12 146 Dt 6:5 31, 641, 675
Lev 20:26 701 Dt 7:6 673
Lev 21:21 688 Dt 9:3 743
Lev 22:12 745 Dt 10:17 547
Lev 22:20-21 687 Dt 10:20 641
Lev 24:12 151 Dt 18:13 700
Lev 26:3 785 Dt 18:15 40, 502
Lev 26:30 743 Dt 18:19 743
Lev 26:46,90 744 Dt 21:17 486
Scripture Index 831
Dt 28 46 2Ki 2:8-10 485
Dt 29:17 62 2Ki 2:14 485, 486
Dt 32:3 26, 147 2Ki 2:15 484
Dt 32:6 45, 639 2Ki 3:14; 5:16 487
Dt 32:11 466, 467 2Ki 4:33-34 487
Dt 32:39 79, 326 2Ki 13:23 744
Dt 32:43 299, 300, 301 2Ki 19:15,19 67
Dt 33:2 343 2Ki 19:28,34 744
Dt 33:4 779, 785 1Chr 22:10 299
Dt 33:27 427, 443 1Chr 28:6 299
Josh 3:10 635 1Chr 29:20 340, 341, 375, 399, 400
Josh 22:24,27 744 2Chr 15:1 472
Jdgs 11:34 74, 232 2Chr 20:7 677
1Sam 1:3,11 733 2Chr 20:14 422, 472
1Sam 2:2 684 2Chr 36:21 145
1Sam 2:25 305 Ezra 7:12 329
1Sam 3:21 742 Neh 9:6 200
1Sam 5:3 62 Job 1:6 231
1Sam 11:7 77 Job 7:17 314, 438
1Sam 15:11,35 744 Job 15:14 669
1Sam 15:29 428 Job 33:12 584
1Sam 16:1-13 711 Job 33:28,30 217
1Sam 19:20,23 472 Ps 2 502
1Sam 24:8 359, 386 Ps 2:1-12 38
1Sam 28:13 44 Ps 2:7 233, 299
2Sam 2:20 629 Ps 6:9 412
2Sam 6:7 743 Ps 8:3 200
2Sam 22:2-4 635 Ps 8:4 314, 449
2Sam 22:47 636 Ps 8:4-6 437, 547
1Ki 2:19 545 Ps 8:5 315
1Ki 3:5-15 493 Ps 8:5-6 314
1Ki 8:41-43 411 Ps 8:6 547
1Ki 8:50 744 Ps 14:1-3 685
1Ki 11:33 44 Ps 14:3 675
1Ki 15:14 670 Ps 16:1 317
1Ki 17:1; 18:15 487 Ps 16:10 686, 687
1Ki 17:21-22 487 Ps 18:2 317
1Ki 18:1 41 Ps 18:46 636
1Ki 18:24 743 Ps 19:1 200
1Ki 18:38 488 Ps 21 232
2Ki 2:1 485 Ps 22:1 708
Ps 22:20 74 Ps 102:25 200, 305, 309, 311
Ps 22:22 316 Ps 102:25-27 310
Ps 23:1 41, 787 Ps 102:27 427
Ps 24:7-10 536 Ps 103:15 640
Ps 25:16 74 Ps 105:1 147
Ps 27:1 218, 634 Ps 107:20 742
Ps 27:4 631 Ps 110:1 369, 542
Ps 33:6 154, 741, 742 Ps 110:4 636
Ps 33:8-9 199 Ps 116:4 413
Ps 35:17 74 Ps 118:17-19 47
Ps 36:1 697 Ps 118:25 413
Ps 36:7 317, 412 Ps 118:26 549, 732
Ps 36:9 217 Ps 119:89 742
Ps 39:12 412 Ps 129:8 51, 52
Ps 40:7,8 553 Ps 130:8 51, 52
Ps 42:2 635 Ps 133:1 69
Ps 45:6 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, Ps 136:3 547
308 Ps 139:13-17 429
Ps 45:6; 110:2 365 Ps 144:3 314
Ps 45:7 305 Ps 147:15 742
Ps 45:9 545 Prov 3:19 237
Ps 50:3 343 Prov 4:3 74
Ps 56:13 217 Prov 8 235, 561
Ps 65:10 789 Prov 8:13 697
Ps 68:6 74 Prov 8:22 237, 238
Ps 68:20 634 Prov 8:22-31 236
Ps 69:13 413 Prov 8:30 158, 166
Ps 82:6 44, 226, 303, 304, 508 Prov 8:31-36 239
Ps 84:11 218 Prov 9:10 684, 696
Ps 86:10 67 Prov 16:20 152
Ps 88:13 413 Prov 28:14 696
Ps 89:26 299 Isa 1:14,42:1 743
Ps 89:26; 95:1 635 Isa 2:5 218
Ps 89:27 277, 278 Isa 2:8 62
Ps 89:36 306 Isa 6:5 658, 670, 676
Ps 90:2 210, 327, 427, 635 Isa 6:8 744
Ps 91:2 317 Isa 8:18 317
Ps 91:4 472 Isa 9:6 304
Ps 95:3 583 Isa 9:7 306, 742
Ps 96:7 299, 300 Isa 11:4 333
Ps 97:7 299, 300, 301, 393 Isa 12:2 317, 542
Scripture Index 833
Isa 12:4 26 Isa 60:1,19 218
Isa 14:13-14 532 Isa 63:9 632
Isa 19:1 343 Isa 63:14 744
Isa 25:8 444 Isa 63:16 32, 45, 639
Isa 29:16 520 Isa 64:1 434
Isa 30:27 743 Isa 64:4 546
Isa 37:16,20 67 Isa 66:3 63
Isa 40:3 214, 643 Isa 66:13 745
Isa 40:3-5 213 Jer 6:8 743
Isa 40:3-5,10 153 Jer 6:26 74
Isa 40:5 343 Jer 10:10 210, 635
Isa 40:6 461 Jer 10:12 155, 201
Isa 40:13 206 Jer 11:13 62
Isa 40:25 684 Jer 12:16 641
Isa 40:28 201, 210 Jer 19:5 63
Isa 41:8 677 Jer 20:9 6
Isa 42:5 202 Jer 23:18 206
Isa 42:8 43 Jer 27:5 201
Isa 42:16 108 Jer 29:10 145
Isa 43:10 520 Jer 31:1 744
Isa 44:6 305, 328, 334, 335 Jer 32:17 201, 309
Isa 44:6; 48:12 334 Jer 39:18,49:11 744
Isa 44:8; 45:5 79 Jer 51:19 201
Isa 44:24 45, 202, 249, 255, 265 Ezek 1:28 334, 515
Isa 45:5 45, 46, 55, 78, 167, 565, Ezek 11:5 41
589, 625 Ezek 14:3 63
Isa 45:12 201, 744, 745 Ezek 16:17 522
Isa 45:21 634 Ezek 16:36 63
Isa 45:23 541, 744 Ezek 20:5,12 744
Isa 45:25 744 Ezek 23:18 743
Isa 48:12-13 201 Ezek 28:1-9 532
Isa 48:13 744 Ezek 33:24 68, 77
Isa 51:13 201 Ezek 37:24-25 306
Isa 53 706 Ezek 43:2 333
Isa 53:3 428 Dan 2:37 329
Isa 53:9-12 687 Dan 7:9 332, 498
Isa 53:12 661 Dan 7:13 331, 495, 496, 497, 501,
Isa 55:8 462 502
Isa 55:10-11 154 Dan 7:13-14 548
Isa 59:2 646 Dan 7:14 306, 498, 499
Isa 59:20-21 350 Dan 7:27 313, 499
Dan 10:8-9 334 Mt 6:6 414
Hos 5:7,6:7 744 Mt 6:9-13 414, 417
Hos 9:10 744 Mt 6:10 490
Hos 11:5,10 745 Mt 7:1 141
Hos 13:4 634 Mt 7:7-8 417
Hos 13:14 444, 743 Mt 7:11 417, 421
Joel 2:8-32 422 Mt 7:14 662
Joel 2:25 10 Mt 7:15-16 655
Joel 2:32 147, 409 Mt 7:21 678
Amos 5:1-8 742 Mt 8:2 392
Amos 8:10 74 Mt 9 658
Jonah 2:9 634 Mt 9:2,22,29 716
Mic 3:8 567 Mt 9:6-8 451
Hab 1:12; 3:3 684 Mt 9:18 392
Zeph 3:15 305 Mt 9:29 716
Zech 4:6 567 Mt 10:19-20 567
Zech 12:1 202, 309 Mt 10:28 600
Zech 12:5 745 Mt 10:40 552
Zech 12:10 74 Mt 11:19 239
Zech 14:5 343 Mt 11:25 659
Mal 2:10 45, 639 Mt 11:27 494, 547, 553, 645, 659
Mal 3:1 153 Mt 11:29 702
Mal 3:6 427, 634 Mt 12:6 492
Mt 1:1 474 Mt 12:18 770
Mt 1:1-17 472 Mt 12:22-28 489
Mt 1:18 471 Mt 12:23,28 490
Mt 1:18-25 465 Mt 12:24,31,32 491
Mt 1:21 50, 51, 52 Mt 12:31 449, 453
Mt 2:2,8 392 Mt 12:32 291
Mt 2:11 301, 385, 387, 389, 392 Mt 12:41-42 493
Mt 3:2; 4:17 680 Mt 12:45 294
Mt 3:3 214 Mt 12:48-50 483
Mt 4:1-11 528 Mt 13:13 54
Mt 4:9 392 Mt 13:25 363
Mt 4:10 386 Mt 13:43 333
Mt 4:23 664 Mt 13:54 239
Mt 5 657 Mt 14:33 387, 388, 392
Mt 5:9 231 Mt 15:3,6 564
Mt 5:15 331 Mt 15:14 107
Mt 5:18 689 Mt 15:25 392
Mt 5:48 677, 680, 701, 702 Mt 15:36 381
Scripture Index 835
Mt 16:14 655 Mt 26:28 461
Mt 16:15-17 726 Mt 26:36-45 706
Mt 16:16 35, 37, 635 Mt 26:53 403
Mt 16:17 446, 457 Mt 26:60 505
Mt 16:24 713 Mt 26:63 35
Mt 17:1-12 721 Mt 26:64 148, 156, 496, 502
Mt 17:1-9 218 Mt 26:65 500
Mt 17:2 333 Mt 26:68 502
Mt 17:5 472 Mt 27:16 575
Mt 17:9 726 Mt 27:16,17 574
Mt 17:12 109 Mt 27:30 267
Mt 18:3 640 Mt 27:43 317, 318
Mt 18:18 452 Mt 27:46 149, 708
Mt 19:4 204 Mt 27:51 413, 433, 434
Mt 19:17 580 Mt 27:63 407
Mt 19:23-24 664 Mt 28:9 388, 392
Mt 20:16 328 Mt 28:10 482
Mt 20:20 387, 392 Mt 28:17 392
Mt 20:21,23 545 Mt 28:18 329, 494, 534, 547, 553,
Mt 20:22 712 585, 586
Mt 20:28 443, 653, 664, 695, 706 Mt 28:19 142, 658
Mt 21:9 549 Mt 28:20 292
Mt 21:25 456 Mark 1:1 37, 637
Mt 22 657 Mark 1:3 214
Mt 22:17-22 656 Mark 1:10 267, 434
Mt 22:20 521 Mark 1:14 636, 726
Mt 22:37 641 Mark 1:24 684
Mt 22:44 542 Mark 3:14 295
Mt 22:44; 26:64 545 Mark 3:22 491
Mt 23 141 Mark 3:28 449, 453
Mt 23:37 493 Mark 3:33,34,35 482
Mt 23:39 549 Mark 5:6 392
Mt 24:13 16 Mark 5:9 540
Mt 24:14 15 Mark 5:25-26 666
Mt 24:24 488, 616 Mark 5:41 149
Mt 24:30 496 Mark 6:2 239
Mt 24:36 605 Mark 7:9,13 564
Mt 25:34 156, 279, 681 Mark 7:31 363
Mt 25:40 482 Mark 8:6 381
Mt 25:40; 28:10 231, 256 Mark 8:34 713
Mt 26:27 381 Mark 9 658
Mark 9:2-9 218 Luke 2:35 336
Mark 9:7 472 Luke 2:40,52 239
Mark 9:35 328 Luke 2:41-50 692
Mark 10:18 580 Luke 2:41-52 480
Mark 10:45 653, 664, 689, 706 Luke 2:49 692
Mark 11:9 549 Luke 2:52 605
Mark 11:12-14 768 Luke 3:4 214
Mark 11:30 456 Luke 3:15 36
Mark 12:12 163 Luke 3:23 711
Mark 12:28-29 552 Luke 3:23-38 472
Mark 12:28-34 82 Luke 3:38 231, 475
Mark 12:29 68 Luke 4:1-13 528
Mark 12:29-31 9 Luke 4:14 568
Mark 12:30 675 Luke 4:18 490, 660
Mark 12:36; 14:62 545 Luke 4:34 684
Mark 13:11 566 Luke 4:41 37
Mark 13:13 16 Luke 6:12 357
Mark 13:26 292, 496 Luke 6:36 702
Mark 13:32 605, 606 Luke 6:39 107
Mark 14:23 381 Luke 7:12 229
Mark 14:32-41 706 Luke 7:12-15 489
Mark 14:36 318, 640 Luke 7:35 239
Mark 14:60-65 501 Luke 8 658
Mark 14:61 373 Luke 8:11 155
Mark 14:62 496, 502 Luke 8:16 331
Mark 14:65 502 Luke 8:21 482
Mark 15:19 392 Luke 8:42 229
Mark 15:34 149, 708 Luke 9:20 436
Mark 15:38 413, 433 Luke 9:23 713
Mark 15:39 35 Luke 9:26 450
Mark 16:19 433 Luke 9:28-36 218
Luke 1:15 483 Luke 9:30-32 722
Luke 1:17 485 Luke 9:31 726
Luke 1:19 540 Luke 9:32 723
Luke 1:31 471 Luke 9:34 472
Luke 1:35 148, 466, 467, 471, 472, Luke 9:38 229
533, 678, 749 Luke 10:16 552
Luke 1:35; 4:14 568 Luke 10:22 553, 645, 659
Luke 1:46-55 476 Luke 11:1 414
Luke 1:68 373 Luke 11:2-4 417
Luke 2:7 272, 278 Luke 11:9-10 417
Scripture Index 837
Luke 11:13 417, 419, 422, 423 208, 218, 227, 370, 772,
Luke 11:29 294 779
Luke 11:31-32 493 John 1:1-18 2, 509, 559
Luke 12:48 618 John 1:1-21 184
Luke 13:23 662 John 1:1-3 184, 185, 186, 196
Luke 13:23-24 617 John 1:2 157, 197
Luke 13:32 713 John 1:3 186, 200, 205, 206, 207,
Luke 13:35 550 208
Luke 17:16 379, 381 John 1:4 218
Luke 18:11 381 John 1:6-8 213
Luke 18:19 580 John 1:14 153, 213, 214, 215, 216,
Luke 19:8 275 217, 219, 224, 225, 282,
Luke 19:27 596 619
Luke 20:4 456 John 1:16 282
Luke 21:15 239 John 1:17 263
Luke 22:17,19 381 John 1:18 220, 223, 224, 225, 226,
Luke 22:19 433 227, 228, 229, 230, 231,
Luke 22:32 403 232, 515, 646, 659
Luke 22:39-44 706 John 1:19 226
Luke 22:42 696 John 1:21,25 503
Luke 22:44 691, 706, 707 John 1:23 214, 643
Luke 22:64 502 John 1:29 310, 483, 664
Luke 22:69 502, 579 John 1:29,36 336
Luke 23:15 246 John 1:46 491
Luke 23:26 297 John 2:15 16
Luke 23:34 406 John 2:19 2, 215, 626, 649, 650,
Luke 23:45 413, 433 651, 655, 679
Luke 24:36-43 459 John 2:19-22 650
Luke 24:39 183, 456, 458 John 2:21 492
Luke 24:42-51 459 John 2:22 650
Luke 24:52 392, 395 John 3:3,7 234, 282
Luke 24:53 460 John 3:3-8 198
John 1 143, 199, 235, 319, 511 John 3:5 467
John 1:1 66, 144, 150, 151, 153, John 3:5,6,8 533, 678
154, 156, 157, 158, 160, John 3:7 468
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, John 3:8 155
166, 167, 168, 169, 170, John 3:16 53, 224, 232, 377, 415,
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 513, 632
176, 177, 178, 179, 180, John 3:16,18 229
181, 185, 187, 189, 190, John 3:17 263
192, 194, 195, 196, 198, John 3:18 224
John 3:31 234 John 8:29; 16:32 66
John 3:34 155, 652 John 8:40 655
John 3:35 547 John 8:42 550
John 4:7 632 John 8:46 686
John 4:11 407 John 8:51-58 622
John 4:11,15,19 543 John 8:51; 14:21 678
John 4:21 396 John 8:54 493
John 4:22 357, 622 John 8:56 627
John 4:24 107, 155, 360, 446, 457, John 8:57 688, 711
510, 514, 516, 565 John 8:58 623, 625, 626, 628, 629,
John 4:34 657 630
John 4:42 337 John 9:9 622, 628
John 5:19 424, 488, 505, 652, 659, John 9:38 392, 395
706 John 10:18 443, 534, 695
John 5:26 103, 703 John 10:29 583
John 5:26,27,30 587 John 10:30 132
John 5:26; 6:57 494 John 10:30-38 503
John 5:36 653 John 10:33 226, 227, 503
John 5:39 645 John 10:33-36 507, 508
John 5:43 39 John 10:34 303
John 5:43; 10:25 658 John 10:34-36 508
John 5:44 55, 65, 226, 227 John 11:4 265
John 5:44; 17:3 552 John 11:27 38
John 6:11; 6:23 381 John 11:41 381
John 6:14 503 John 12:11 267
John 6:15 584 John 12:13 549
John 6:35 628 John 12:21 407
John 6:53-56 457 John 12:27 712
John 6:57 442, 644, 703 John 12:34 306, 452
John 6:63 155 John 12:49 655
John 6:66 458 John 12:49-50 626, 652
John 6:69 684 John 13:3 164
John 7:16 652 John 13:16 583
John 7:17 12 John 13:20 552
John 7:38-39 567 John 13:23 646, 647
John 7:39 423 John 14 418, 422
John 7:40 503 John 14:4 643
John 8:7 685 John 14:6 416, 642, 643, 644, 645
John 8:12 218 John 14:9 464
John 8:28 109, 652 John 14:10 2, 153, 265, 424, 488,
John 8:29 646 652, 677, 678
Scripture Index 839
John 14:12 653 Acts 1:9 460
John 14:13 425, 426 Acts 1:9-11 496
John 14:14 423, 424, 425 Acts 1:11 292, 435, 460
John 14:16 402, 419 Acts 2:1-21 419
John 14:20 257, 639, 649 Acts 2:16-22 422
John 14:24 626 Acts 2:22 216, 294, 488
John 14:28 552, 580, 583 Acts 2:27 686
John 14:30 686 Acts 2:33; 5:31 514
John 15 423 Acts 2:36 28, 295, 407, 536, 589
John 15:1-10 678 Acts 3:13 770
John 15:4 423 Acts 3:14 575, 684
John 15:16 416, 418 Acts 4:12 337, 461
John 15:18-19 678 Acts 4:12,10 492
John 15:19 456 Acts 4:24 202
John 15:26 567 Acts 4:27 770
John 16:23 421 Acts 4:27; 10:38 369
John 16:26 402 Acts 5:3 359
John 16:27 417 Acts 5:12 265
John 17:1,5,10 678 Acts 5:32 419
John 17:3 46, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, Acts 7:37 40
60, 65, 176, 221, 302, Acts 7:41 524
322, 335, 396 Acts 7:44 331
John 17:4 154, 433 Acts 7:48-50 203
John 17:5 755 Acts 7:56 452, 454
John 17:7 494 Acts 7:59 405, 410
John 17:9 401, 402 Acts 7:59-60 414
John 17:15 402 Acts 8:9-13 579
John 17:16 456 Acts 8:10 156
John 17:20 402 Acts 9 7
John 17:21 262, 637, 639, 648, 649 Acts 9:14,21 408
John 18:1-12 706 Acts 10:36 298, 541, 543
John 18:11 712 Acts 10:38 678
John 19:5 461 Acts 12:22-23 532
John 19:30 413, 433, 666 Acts 13:33 233
John 20:17 46, 231, 256, 398, 415, Acts 13:35 686
482, 496, 590 Acts 13:38 263
John 20:28 370, 544 Acts 13:45; 18:6 500
John 20:31 36, 216, 624 Acts 14:12 13, 18, 591
John 21:9-13 535 Acts 14:15 203
Acts 1:8 472 Acts 15 557
Acts 1:8; 10:38 568 Acts 16:6-7 484
Acts 16:30 407 Rom 5:12-21 751
Acts 17:24-26 203 Rom 5:14 528
Acts 19:6 472 Rom 5:18-19 432, 612, 614
Acts 20:24 636 Rom 5:19 429, 430, 432, 528, 689,
Acts 20:28 406, 435, 436, 661 720
Acts 22:16 408 Rom 6:3 257
Acts 23:6 57 Rom 6:4 458
Acts 24 657 Rom 6:11,23 794
Acts 24:3 382 Rom 6:11; 8:39 262
Acts 24:24 267 Rom 6:17 378
Acts 27:35 381 Rom 6:19 703
Acts 28:15 381 Rom 7:19 683
Rom 1:1; 15:16 636, 726 Rom 7:25 263, 377, 378
Rom 1:4 233 Rom 8:1,39 794
Rom 1:5 263 Rom 8:2 155, 794
Rom 1:5; 16:26 468 Rom 8:3 250
Rom 1:7 29, 323 Rom 8:9 419, 484, 678
Rom 1:8 263, 377, 380 Rom 8:14 475
Rom 1:8; 7:25 383 Rom 8:14-17 231
Rom 1:10 402 Rom 8:15 416, 639, 640
Rom 1:16; 2:9,10 622 Rom 8:17 287, 487, 678
Rom 1:20 196, 203, 204 Rom 8:21 672
Rom 1:21 380 Rom 8:22 683
Rom 1:21-24 381 Rom 8:24 256
Rom 1:23 30 Rom 8:27 405
Rom 1:25 64, 204, 372, 373 Rom 8:29 231, 256, 273, 274, 275,
Rom 2:7 444 276, 277, 278, 469, 482,
Rom 2:16 263 681
Rom 2:17 262 Rom 8:34 357, 404, 545, 661
Rom 3:8 500 Rom 9 662
Rom 3:10 14, 669, 670, 675, 685 Rom 9:1 795
Rom 3:18 697 Rom 9:3 600
Rom 3:22,26 715 Rom 9:5 367, 368, 369, 370, 371,
Rom 3:22; 3:26 714 372, 373, 374, 538
Rom 3:24 794 Rom 9:26 635, 665
Rom 3:25 638 Rom 10:13 409
Rom 3:30 68 Rom 10:21 164
Rom 5:1 165, 263 Rom 11 350
Rom 5:9,17 263 Rom 11:33-36 349
Rom 5:10 436 Rom 11:36 53, 206, 258, 259, 260,
Rom 5:11 262, 263 264, 266, 346, 350
Scripture Index 841
Rom 12:5 795 1Cor 4:10,15,17 798
Rom 13:10 689 1Cor 5:7 337, 712
Rom 14:6 379, 380 1Cor 6:5 363
Rom 14:9 407 1Cor 6:14 29
Rom 14:14 261, 795 1Cor 6:17 132, 464, 621, 637
Rom 15:3 553 1Cor 6:19 513, 649
Rom 15:6 45, 590 1Cor 7:22,39 798
Rom 15:13,19 568 1Cor 8 62
Rom 15:17 795 1Cor 8:1,7 578
Rom 15:26 275 1Cor 8:4 63
Rom 16:2,3 795 1Cor 8:4-6 61
Rom 16:4 379, 380 1Cor 8:5 13, 441, 518
Rom 16:7,8,9,10 796 1Cor 8:6 67, 252, 263, 264, 266,
Rom 16:11,12,13 796 371
Rom 16:16 406 1Cor 9:1 446, 799
Rom 16:22 797 1Cor 9:2 799
Rom 16:26 427 1Cor 10:30 380, 500
Rom 16:26-27 350 1Cor 11:3 583, 584, 587
Rom 16:27 65, 238, 346, 347 1Cor 11:7 517, 526
1Cor 1:2 406, 407, 408, 797 1Cor 11:11 799
1Cor 1:3 29, 323 1Cor 11:12 264, 266
1Cor 1:4 380, 797 1Cor 11:24 380
1Cor 1:5,30 797 1Cor 11:24,25 433
1Cor 1:9 207, 264 1Cor 12:3 370
1Cor 1:14 380 1Cor 12:13 261
1Cor 1:23 578 1Cor 13:4 239
1Cor 1:24,30 240 1Cor 13:10 698
1Cor 1:26-27 705 1Cor 14:16 382
1Cor 1:27 708 1Cor 14:17,18 380
1Cor 2:4 568 1Cor 15 454
1Cor 2:7 331, 578 1Cor 15:4,12 650
1Cor 2:7-8 29 1Cor 15:5-6 446
1Cor 2:8 30, 445, 536, 537, 726 1Cor 15:18,19 799
1Cor 2:9 546 1Cor 15:20 277
1Cor 2:11 566 1Cor 15:21 263
1Cor 2:16 600 1Cor 15:22 799
1Cor 3:1 797 1Cor 15:24 371, 586
1Cor 3:16 215, 468, 633, 649 1Cor 15:24-27 438
1Cor 3:16-17 649 1Cor 15:24-28 668
1Cor 3:22 258 1Cor 15:25-28 546
1Cor 4:7 494 1Cor 15:27 17, 298, 553, 585, 586
1Cor 15:27-28 329, 368, 548 2Cor 5:7 256
1Cor 15:28 370, 553, 586, 587, 588 2Cor 5:17 467, 470, 801
1Cor 15:31 799 2Cor 5:18 264
1Cor 15:42-44 447 2Cor 5:18-19 416
1Cor 15:45 455, 470, 473, 570, 601, 2Cor 5:19 216, 248, 257, 262, 413,
638 433, 435, 636, 801
1Cor 15:45,47 451, 519 2Cor 5:19-20 726
1Cor 15:45-49 467, 454 2Cor 5:20,18 436
1Cor 15:47,45 276, 527, 553 2Cor 5:21 686, 712, 749, 802
1Cor 15:48 456 2Cor 6:16 468
1Cor 15:49 275 2Cor 6:18 369
1Cor 15:50 446, 458 2Cor 8:16 378
1Cor 15:52 448 2Cor 9:11,12 382
1Cor 15:53 312 2Cor 9:13 250
1Cor 15:53-54 442 2Cor 9:15 53, 378
1Cor 15:53-55 444 2Cor 10:4-5 546
1Cor 15:57 263, 378 2Cor 10:15 716
1Cor 15:58 800 2Cor 11:2-32 569
1Cor 16:7,10 29 2Cor 11:4 336, 568, 569, 571
1Cor 16:19,24 800 2Cor 11:5; 12:11 577
2Cor 1:1 406, 435, 661 2Cor 11:7 636
2Cor 1:2 29, 323 2Cor 11:13 574
2Cor 1:3 352, 373 2Cor 11:23 15
2Cor 1:3; 11:31 45, 590 2Cor 11:31 372, 373
2Cor 1:5 263 2Cor 12:2,19 802
2Cor 1:11 380 2Cor 12:7 690
2Cor 1:19 800 2Cor 12:8 403, 404
2Cor 1:20 264, 383, 800 2Cor 12:9 705, 707
2Cor 2:12 800 2Cor 13:4 703, 707, 802
2Cor 2:14 378, 801 2Cor 13:11 702
2Cor 2:14,16 276 Gal 1:1 64, 264, 650
2Cor 2:17 801 Gal 1:3 29, 323
2Cor 3:4; 13:7 164 Gal 1:5 346
2Cor 3:14 801 Gal 1:6 571, 572
2Cor 4 295 Gal 1:6-9 569
2Cor 4:2 289 Gal 1:13 406, 435, 661
2Cor 4:4 52, 296, 510, 519, 521 Gal 1:22 802
2Cor 4:6 15, 217, 296, 332, 333, Gal 2:4,17 803
447, 464, 514, 546, 726 Gal 2:16 267, 714, 715
2Cor 4:15 258, 378, 382 Gal 2:20 257, 275, 513, 696, 714,
2Cor 4:18 256 715
Scripture Index 843
Gal 3:1 54, 682 Eph 2:18 264
Gal 3:1-4:11 717 Eph 2:21-22 280, 807
Gal 3:14 803 Eph 3:6,11 807
Gal 3:20 68 Eph 3:9 105, 203, 265, 266
Gal 3:22 715 Eph 3:10; 4:16 265
Gal 3:26 231, 299, 803 Eph 3:12 715, 807
Gal 3:28 261, 803 Eph 3:14 375, 410
Gal 4:4 428, 470, 471, 533, 607 Eph 3:16 568
Gal 4:6 416, 475, 484, 639, 640 Eph 3:19 280, 282, 469, 619, 621
Gal 4:7 264 Eph 3:20 402
Gal 4:12 402 Eph 3:21 346, 347, 807
Gal 4:14 276 Eph 4:1,17 808
Gal 4:19 699 Eph 4:5,6 67, 370
Gal 5:6 803 Eph 4:6 207, 265, 590
Gal 5:10 804 Eph 4:13 468, 681, 698
Gal 5:11 428 Eph 4:15 698
Gal 6:14 578 Eph 4:21 253, 808
Gal 6:15 467 Eph 4:32 262, 808
Eph 1:1 804 Eph 5:4 382
Eph 1:2 29, 323 Eph 5:5 262
Eph 1:3 45, 352, 373, 590, 804 Eph 5:8 634, 665, 808
Eph 1:4 156, 270, 279, 443, 701, Eph 5:18 484
804 Eph 5:20 380
Eph 1:7,9 804 Eph 5:27 701
Eph 1:10 271 Eph 6:1,10 808
Eph 1:10-11 805 Eph 6:12 446
Eph 1:12,13,15 805 Eph 6:17 155
Eph 1:16 380 Eph 6:18 678
Eph 1:17 376 Eph 6:21 809
Eph 1:18 610 Eph 6:23 64
Eph 1:18-23 438 Phil 1:1,26 809
Eph 1:19 376 Phil 1:2 29, 323
Eph 1:20 514, 545, 650, 805 Phil 1:3 380
Eph 1:20-23 546 Phil 1:13,14 809
Eph 1:21 276, 291, 313 Phil 1:19 484
Eph 1:23 578 Phil 1:21 275, 436
Eph 2:1 644 Phil 1:29 718
Eph 2:4 702 Phil 1:29-30 713
Eph 2:6,7 806 Phil 2 511, 533, 535, 536
Eph 2:10 260, 806 Phil 2:1 678, 810
Eph 2:13,14,15 806 Phil 2:5 531, 810
Phil 2:5-11 509, 510, 755 Col 1:15 268, 272, 274, 275, 276,
Phil 2:6 370, 515, 516, 519, 520, 277, 278, 307, 328, 333,
526, 527, 529, 530, 537, 358, 370, 408, 447, 455,
538, 573, 584, 625 465, 473, 487, 510, 514,
Phil 2:6-11 510, 512, 520, 530, 531, 517, 519, 521
541, 559, 755 Col 1:15,18 231
Phil 2:6-8 527 Col 1:15-19 241, 242, 258
Phil 2:6-9 528 Col 1:16 243, 245, 246, 247, 248,
Phil 2:6.128 517 252, 253, 254, 255, 256,
Phil 2:7 528, 531 257, 258, 259, 264, 266,
Phil 2:8 327 267, 276, 561, 792, 813
Phil 2:8-11 514 Col 1:17 255, 261, 266, 269, 270,
Phil 2:9 298, 329, 539, 543, 546, 271, 813
550 Col 1:18 276, 277
Phil 2:9-11 408, 539, 552 Col 1:19 255, 279, 280, 281, 282,
Phil 2:10 301, 302, 410 469, 619, 813
Phil 2:10-11 541 Col 1:19-20 271
Phil 2:11 358, 408, 525 Col 1:20 258, 264, 383
Phil 2:12 682 Col 1:22 413
Phil 2:17 712, 716 Col 1:24 712
Phil 2:19,24,29 810 Col 1:28 255, 699, 700, 813
Phil 3:1,3 810 Col 1:28-29 699
Phil 3:9 714, 715, 811 Col 2 254
Phil 3:12 689 Col 2:3 239, 813
Phil 3:12,14 611 Col 2:6 255, 813
Phil 3:14 262, 811 Col 2:7 255, 382, 814
Phil 3:21 436, 447, 458, 460, 703 Col 2:8 578
Phil 4:1,2,7,10 811 Col 2:9 153, 156, 214, 255, 279,
Phil 4:4 29, 811 280, 311, 435, 464, 465,
Phil 4:6 164, 382, 402 618, 814
Phil 4:13 793, 812 Col 2:10 255, 548, 814
Phil 4:19,21 812 Col 2:11 814
Phil 4:20 346 Col 2:12 650
Col 1 143, 319 Col 2:15 255, 437, 814
Col 1:2 255, 812 Col 2:19 265
Col 1:3,12 380 Col 3:1 545
Col 1:4 255, 812 Col 3:3 262
Col 1:4; 2:5 716 Col 3:10 517
Col 1:8 678 Col 3:11 258
Col 1:9 402 Col 3:15 383
Col 1:14 812 Col 3:16 379
Scripture Index 845
Col 3:17 64, 264, 380, 383 1Tim 3:5,15 406, 435, 661
Col 3:18,20 814 1Tim 3:13 817
Col 4:2 382 1Tim 4:3,4 382
Col 4:3-4 105 1Tim 4:10 635
Col 4:7 815 1Tim 6:13 266
Col 4:11 52 1Tim 6:15 547
Col 4:17 815 1Tim 6:15-16 65, 350, 445
1Thes 1:1 262 1Tim 6:16 439
1Thes 1:2 380 1Tim 6:16; 1:17 444
1Thes 1:5 568 1Tim 6:17 268
1Thes 1:8,9 164 2Tim 1:1,13 817
1Thes 1:9 643 2Tim 1:3 379
1Thes 2:2,8,9 636, 726 2Tim 1:6 265
1Thes 2:13 380 2Tim 1:9 331, 817
1Thes 2:14 815 2Tim 1:10 444
1Thes 3:8 815 2Tim 1:12 12, 633
1Thes 3:9 382 2Tim 2:1 817
1Thes 3:10 402 2Tim 2:10 818
1Thes 4:1 261, 815 2Tim 2:15 79, 289
1Thes 4:3 470 2Tim 3:2-4 662
1Thes 4:16 816 2Tim 3:12,15 818
1Thes 5:12 816 2Tim 3:16 17
1Thes 5:18 380, 816 2Tim 4:1 262
2Thess 1:1 262 2Tim 4:7 15
2Thess 1:2 29, 323 2Tim 4:14-16 420
2Thess 1:3 380, 716 2Tim 4:18 346, 347
2Thess 1:8 637 Tit 1:1 716
2Thess 1:12 816 Tit 1:2 331
2Thess 2:13 380 Tit 3:2 500
2Thess 3:4 816 Tit 3:4-6 632
2Thess 3:12 261, 816 Phm 1:4 380
1Tim 1:4 578 Phm 1:8,16 818
1Tim 1:12 377, 381 Phm 1:20,23 818
1Tim 1:13 31, 375 Heb 1 143, 312, 319
1Tim 1:14 817 Heb 1:1 283
1Tim 1:17 30, 65, 291, 346, 350, Heb 1:2 207, 249, 250, 251, 252,
443, 446, 514, 516 284, 285, 286, 288, 290,
1Tim 2:1 382, 405 291, 293, 294, 295
1Tim 2:5 358, 413, 429, 437, 462, Heb 1:2; 11:3 289
522, 560, 580, 644, 667 Heb 1:3 295, 296, 297, 298, 313
1Tim 2:14 573 Heb 1:3; 10:12 433
Heb 1:3; 8:1 148 Heb 5:7 403, 600, 696, 697, 706,
Heb 1:4-5 298 707
Heb 1:5 233, 298 Heb 5:7-10 694
Heb 1:6 276, 299, 300, 301, 302, Heb 5:8 282
311, 392, 393 Heb 5:9 696, 700
Heb 1:7 324 Heb 5:10 688
Heb 1:8 303, 305, 308 Heb 5:14 702
Heb 1:9 305 Heb 6:5 276, 292
Heb 1:10 305, 309, 310, 311 Heb 6:6 113
Heb 1:10-12 310 Heb 7:1,16 695
Heb 1:11,12 305 Heb 7:21 636
Heb 1:12 427 Heb 7:25 357, 405, 429, 661
Heb 1:13 434 Heb 7:26 332, 686, 688, 747
Heb 1:14 324 Heb 7:28 700
Heb 2 313 Heb 8:1 156, 545
Heb 2:2 528 Heb 8:6 293
Heb 2:5-8 547 Heb 8:7-8 292
Heb 2:6,7,8 314 Heb 9:2 331
Heb 2:6-9 437 Heb 9:7 434
Heb 2:7 34 Heb 9:14 648, 686
Heb 2:8 17, 329 Heb 9:24 661
Heb 2:8-9 315 Heb 9:27 442
Heb 2:10 206, 251, 264, 266, 286, Heb 9:28 211, 442
309, 315, 316, 700, 711, Heb 10:7,9 553
713 Heb 10:10 265
Heb 2:11 231, 256, 273, 481 Heb 10:12 545
Heb 2:11-14 316 Heb 10:14 700, 701
Heb 2:13 318 Heb 11:1,13 256
Heb 2:14 446 Heb 11:3 290
Heb 2:17 638 Heb 11:10 627
Heb 2:17; 5:1 164 Heb 11:17 229, 233
Heb 3:1 657 Heb 11:27 515
Heb 3:2 295 Heb 12:2 268, 328
Heb 3:3 297 Heb 12:14 699
Heb 3:4 265, 266 Heb 12:23 273
Heb 3:13 682 Heb 12:28 379, 696
Heb 4:12 152, 333 Heb 13:15 383
Heb 4:15 13, 512, 598, 685, 686 Heb 13:20-21 351, 352
Heb 5:5 233 Heb 13:21 346
Heb 5:6; 6:20 289 Jms 1:4 702
Jms 1:13 598, 601, 603, 691
Scripture Index 847
Jms 1:17 377, 494, 634 1Jn 2:19 650
Jms 2:1 30, 536 1Jn 2:20 684
Jms 2:19 68 1Jn 3:5 749
Jms 2:23 677 1Jn 3:13 456
Jms 3:2 658, 676, 702 1Jn 3:21 164
Jms 3:9 517, 522 1Jn 4:2-3 576, 577
Jms 5:12 269 1Jn 4:8 702
Jms 5:17 13 1Jn 4:8,16 513
1Pet 1:2 64, 650 1Jn 4:9 224, 229, 232
1Pet 1:3 352, 373, 590 1Jn 4:9-10 632, 633
1Pet 1:9,21 716 1Jn 4:10 638
1Pet 1:11 484 1Jn 4:14 337
1Pet 1:15-16 701 1Jn 4:17 469, 649, 677
1Pet 1:18-19 687 1Jn 4:20 633
1Pet 1:19 337, 686 1Jn 5:3 678
1Pet 1:20 156, 270, 443 1Jn 5:16 402
1Pet 1:23 155 1Jn 5:18 416, 591
1Pet 1:24 461 1Jn 5:20 370
1Pet 2:4 428 2Jn 1:2 288
1Pet 2:22 686, 749 2Jn 1:3 64
1Pet 3:18 436 2Jn 1:7 576
1Pet 3:22 545, 546, 548 Jude 1:6 375, 681
1Pet 4:1 711 Jude 1:8 500
1Pet 4:4 500 Jude 1:9 540
1Pet 4:8 269 Jude 1:14 343
1Pet 4:11 347, 358 Jude 1:24-25 352
1Pet 4:17 726 Jude 1:25 347
2Pet 1:4 534, 638 Rev 1 143, 319, 330
2Pet 1:5 716 Rev 1:1 321, 322, 323
2Pet 1:16-17 723 Rev 1:3; 22:7 336
2Pet 1:16-18 219 Rev 1:4 325, 326, 629, 630
2Pet 1:17 156 Rev 1:4,8; 4:8 335
2Pet 2:10 500 Rev 1:4-5 323
2Pet 3:6 265 Rev 1:5 231, 277, 278, 327, 329
2Pet 3:10 582 Rev 1:6 347
2Pet 3:18 348, 349 Rev 1:6; 5:10 313
1Jn 1:1 152, 155 Rev 1:7 329
1Jn 1:9; 2:1 667 Rev 1:7; 22:20 343
1Jn 2:1 357, 661 Rev 1:8 268, 325, 327, 352
1Jn 2:2 638 Rev 1:9 136
1Jn 2:18,22 576 Rev 1:10 331
Rev 1:13 331, 332, 364 Rev 11:4 331
Rev 1:14 332 Rev 11:15 544
Rev 1:15 333 Rev 11:16-17 341
Rev 1:16 333, 724 Rev 11:17 325, 354, 381
Rev 1:17 268, 333, 334, 335, 339 Rev 12:4,7-9 681
Rev 1:17-18 334 Rev 12:5; 13:6 164
Rev 1:17; 2:8 268 Rev 12:7 272
Rev 1:18 726 Rev 12:9 610
Rev 1:20 324, 332 Rev 12:9; 20:2 672
Rev 2:1 364 Rev 12:12 215
Rev 2:10 16 Rev 13:4 396
Rev 2:27 329, 586 Rev 13:8 156, 279
Rev 3:1 324 Rev 13:11 336
Rev 3:9 338 Rev 13:13,15 488
Rev 3:12 330 Rev 14:7 203, 355
Rev 3:14 276 Rev 14:8 136
Rev 3:21 342, 354, 364 Rev 14:13 261
Rev 4:4 498 Rev 15:3-4 66, 355
Rev 4:5 324 Rev 15:4 684
Rev 4:6 364 Rev 15:6 331
Rev 4:8 325, 353 Rev 16:5 325
Rev 4:8-11 354 Rev 16:5-7 355, 356
Rev 4:9 382 Rev 16:13 563
Rev 4:11 203 Rev 17:14 329, 543, 547
Rev 5:6 324, 364, 365 Rev 19:1-8 356
Rev 5:8 339, 342 Rev 19:10 338
Rev 5:9-14 375 Rev 19:13 620
Rev 5:10 295 Rev 20:10 488
Rev 5:12 240 Rev 21:3 215
Rev 5:13 346, 347, 349 Rev 21:5 467
Rev 5:13-14 339 Rev 21:6 268
Rev 5:14 338, 340, 342, 392, 393, Rev 21:23 218, 357
394, 395, 398, 399, 400 Rev 22:1 365, 366
Rev 6:6 364, 365 Rev 22:2 364
Rev 6:15-17 343 Rev 22:5 218
Rev 7:11-12 341 Rev 22:7 344
Rev 7:12 347, 382 Rev 22:12-13 335,342
Rev 7:14 407 Rev 22:20 406, 410, 414
Rev 7:15 215
Rev 7:17 363
Rev 10:1 333, 724

The Only Perfect Man

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Only Perfect Man

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Only Perfect Man

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Large Print Edition

This large-print edition is suitable for

The text is identical to that of the print

T his book is released to the public as a free PDF e-book.

Christian Disciples Church

Face of Jesus Christ

Eric H.H. Chang

Edited and Completed by

Second Edition (version 2.3)

Print edition available from Amazon.com and other online stores

Cover design by Bentley C.F. Chan

Chapter 1 Yahweh, The One and Only God 41

T hose who seek after God’s truth in a good and honest

My role in this book

I n this book we discuss some of the important and keenly

I n this study on Jesus the only Perfect Man, it is only right

during the dictation were functioning as robots or recording

A man of God who taught me the Word of God

Testaments). That crucial day stretches back six decades to

Surely here is a man of God of whom it could be said that

Hearing God’s voice in God’s Word: The first

commandment. And the second, like it, is this: “You shall

When we fulfill the two great commandments—love for

As trinitarians we rejected the monotheism of the first com-

It is never too late to return to Yahweh our God. If we

Experiencing God is essential for understanding

I too was looking at the texts that were being discussed

How we read the Scriptures is governed by whether we

F irstly, as stated in the book’s title—The Only Perfect

Trinity, but something that he had learned through suffering

Writing from the perspective of a battlefield

What it means is that this book is written from the vantage

the Word of God (not by dictation but by inspiration, 2Tim.

If we capitalize “he,” which refers to God, with all other pro-

On the same topic—the subjection of all things to Christ—

The meaning of the clause in italics is made clear if we

Procedure: a matter of crucial importance

in procedure as to how doctrine and practice are to be

How can trinitarians read the Scriptures apart from

in any case, by that of the church leaders who wrote the

My trinitarian mindset also influenced how I read the Old

B ecause trinitarian doctrine has changed the meanings of

The elimination of Yahweh’s Name

don’t know that kyrios (Lord) is often simply a substitute for

like a Roman emperor. The church was being steadily

Isaiah 12:4 Give thanks to Yahweh; proclaim His name!

The Jewish reluctance to utter the name “Yahweh”

The word kyrios (Lord) in the LXX verses which are

1Cor.16:7 (“if the Lord permits”), 1Cor.16:10 (“doing the

1. In v.2, Paul speaks of “Jesus Christ” as the one who was

Any of these points would be sufficient to establish that “the

In various passages Paul uses the formula, ‘The God and

Today there is the further problem that “Lord” has become

100% man at the same time. When we make Jesus 100%

persuasion before God unsurpassed in the eyes of her devot-

The Son of God

The fact that trinitarians feel compelled to reverse “Son of

priest says to Jesus, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if

John is asking his readers to believe that Jesus is the Christ,

Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the