Below is a list of basically every verse in the whole bible that touches on the Trinity. I didn’t compile this list, but a reader of this website did and it’s posted here with his permission. (There’s actually a short/cool story behind it.)
Click here to expand the backstory Back in April of this year (2022), I had someone by the name of “Andrew P.” leave a comment on my article Why Jesus is called “The Son of God” and What It Means disagreeing with the article. We had a long, enjoyable, and cordial back-and-forth conversation in the comments about the article. (which you can read; it’s still there.) Andrew P. was a Unitarian at the time (Unitarians don’t believe in the Trinity), and that was the focus of much of our conversation. At the end of it, he said. You’ve given me a lot to think about. I’m going to have to take a hard look at some of these passages and see if they are saying what you think they are saying. Thanks for showing me these things. 🙂 I really need to commend him for his intellectual honesty. I was impressed, and still am. Anyway, he left another comment at the end of June (2022) saying that he now believes in the Trinity. Additionally, he created a file with basically every verse in the Bible that argues – or even potentially argues – for the Trinity and/or deity of Christ. He was extremely intellectually honest about it too, pointing out when a verse doesn’t argue for it, but merely appears to. I like it so much that I got his permission to turn it into an article here. I’ve made no changes to his work (other than the ones he suggested) except: Below is the file he created, copy/pasted without alterations other than those listed above. OR keep reading to get to the list of verses without delay (Note: I endorse this, but not necessarily every individual point he makes; we have a few small/minor points of disagreements, but overall it’s excellent.) Genesis 1:26: Elohim states that Adam will be made “in our image,” yet in the next verse Adam is made “in the image of Elohim.” This could indicate plurality of Persons within Elohim, but could also be a majestic plural or (less likely) speaking to divine council (cf. Job 38:7). Genesis 3:22: Yahweh Elohim states that “the man has become like one of us.” This could indicate plurality of Persons within Yahweh Elohim, but could also be a majestic plural or speaking to divine council. Genesis 11:7: Yahweh says, “Let us go down and confuse their language.” However, in the next verse it is Yahweh alone who scatters the people. This could indicate a plurality of Persons within Yahweh, but could also be a majestic plural or (less likely) speaking to divine council. Genesis 19:24: Yahweh rains down fire and sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah from (?) Yahweh out of the heavens. This could indicate two Persons called “Yahweh,” but could also be an example of Hebraic agency or parallelism. It could also be a Hebraism meaning “from Himself.” Genesis 20:13: Elohim “caused [plural] me to wander.” Whereas Elohim (plural) is occasionally used in reference to lesser gods, it is always with a singular verb; here, (plural) Elohim is used together with a plural verb, unprecedented in Hebrew except where multiple persons are in view. This appears to be strong evidence for the plurality of Persons within Elohim. Genesis 35:7: Elohim “appeared [plural].” Whereas Elohim (plural) is occasionally used in reference to lesser gods, it is always with a singular verb; here, (plural) Elohim is used together with a plural verb, unprecedented in Hebrew except where multiple persons are in view. This appears to be strong evidence for the plurality of Persons within Elohim. 2 Samuel 7:23: Elohim “went [plural].” Whereas Elohim (plural) is occasionally used in reference to lesser gods, it is always with a singular verb; here, (plural) Elohim is used together with a plural verb, unprecedented in Hebrew except where multiple persons are in view. This appears to be strong evidence for the plurality of Persons within Elohim. Psalm 45:6-7: A Davidic king, addressed as Elohim, is anointed by Elohim His Elohim. This shows that Elohim is not, in itself, an indication of numerical plurality; however, it also demonstrates that there are at least two Persons who can be called Elohim, one of Whom is inferior to and anointed by the other. Psalm 58:11: The Psalmist states that “there is a God Who judges [plural, lit. ‘they judge’] the earth.” Whereas Elohim (plural) is occasionally used in reference to lesser gods, it is always with a singular verb; here, (plural) Elohim is used together with a plural verb, unprecedented in Hebrew except where multiple persons are in view. This appears to be strong evidence for the plurality of Persons within Elohim. Proverbs 30:4: Yahweh has a Son whose name is not expected to be known by the writer’s audience. This could be a point in favor of trinitarianism. However, it is also possible that the son in question is Solomon himself (see 1 Chron. 28:5-6). Isaiah 9:6: The prophet prophesies the future arrival of a Son, a descendant of David, who will be called “El-Gibbor” (lit. “God of Might”). The very same title is applied in the next chapter to Yahweh, to Whom Israel is exhorted to return (Isa. 10:20-21). This is evidence that the coming Messiah will be Yahweh Himself, Who will be born as a child, a descendant of David. Isaiah 61:1: Yahweh, Who is contextually the One speaking throughout the entirety of this passage (see 60:22, 61:8), states that “the Spirit of Adonai Yahweh is upon Me, for Yahweh has anointed Me.” The same Yahweh Who is speaking then goes on to state that He will rejoice in Yahweh His God (v. 10)! The grammar appears to indicate three Persons, all of Whom are called Yahweh directly: Yahweh Who anoints and sends to Israel, Yahweh Who is anointed and sent to Israel, and the Spirit of Adonai Yahweh. Isaiah 63:8-10: Yahweh saved Israel by the instrumentality of the Angel of His Presence (Who has the very name of Yahweh; Exod. 23:20-21). However, they rebelled and His Holy Spirit grieved. The grammar indicates three separate Persons, all of Whom are identified with Yahweh (either in this passage or elsewhere) yet distinguished from one another. Jeremiah 23:5-6: The name of the Davidic king and Messiah Who will come to restore Israel will be “Yahweh our righteousness.” Daniel 7:13-14: One “like a son of man” is presented before the Ancient of Days, riding on the clouds of heaven, and is religiously served (pelach) by all people. Both riding on the clouds of heaven and being religiously served are deeds elsewhere reserved for Yahweh alone. This implicitly indicates that the “One like a son of man” is Himself Yahweh, despite being distinguished from the One on the throne. Hosea 1:6-7: Yahweh states that He will save Israel “by Yahweh their Elohim.” This could be evidence of two Persons called Yahweh, one of Whom sends the other to save Israel (esp. in light of Zech. 2:8-11), but could also merely be a Hebraism meaning “by Myself.” Zechariah 2:8-11: Yahweh of Hosts insists no less than three times that He has been sent by Yahweh, and that He Himself will come to dwell in the midst of Israel. This indicates the existence of at least two different Persons called Yahweh, one of Whom will send the other to dwell in Israel. Zechariah 14:9: Yahweh, Who is one and Whose name is one, will Himself come to rule over the whole earth from Jerusalem. This indicates that the coming Messiah will indeed be Yahweh Himself. Matthew 3:3: Here it is stated that John the Baptist came to “prepare the way of the Lord.” In this context, the Lord refers to Jesus, yet in the original context “the LORD” is Yahweh (Isa. 40:3). This could be taken to show that Jesus is Yahweh; however, it could also be a mere example of Hebraic agency, considering that the original passage also states that “the Messenger [lit. “angel/agent”] of the Covenant” is the One Who is coming. Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32, 33-34, 38-39, 43-44: Jesus repeatedly alters the Old Testament teachings, even in some cases reversing them. But rather than appealing to the authority of God, as would be necessary when altering/reversing a previous teaching of God, He appeals to His own authority: “I say to you”! This implies that He Himself carries the authority of God, and His audience certainly would not have missed this implication. Matthew 9:2: Jesus claims the authority to forgive sins, something properly belonging to God alone. However, the author immediately goes on to state that “God… had given such authority to a man,” which renders this passage equivocal on the issue of Christ’s deity. Matthew 12:6, 8: Jesus not only claims authority over the Sabbath, a day consecrated by Yahweh Himself (Exod. 20:8-11), but claims to be greater than the temple itself (which was considered to be the earthly presence of God Most High)! His Pharisaic audience clearly recognized the ‘blasphemy,’ resulting in a conspiracy to murder Him (v. 14). Matthew 12:32: The blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is considered far greater than all other sins, which is inconceivable unless the Holy Spirit is both personal and on the level of God Himself. However, this doesn’t prove that He is a ‘third Person,’ for Holy Spirit could simply be another name for the Father. Matthew 14:27: Jesus tells His disciples not to fear the tumultuous sea, because “I am He” (ego eimi). This is a strong parallel with Isaiah 43, in which Yahweh tells Israel, “do not fear when you pass through the waters” because “I am He” (ego eimi) is with them (vv. 1-3, 10). However, the parallel between the two is possibly unintentional. (Berean Patriot note: this is likely an allusion to Job 9:8, which says that God “alone… …tramples down the waves of the sea”) Matthew 16:27: Jesus claims authority over the angels of God and states that He will come to “repay each one according to his deeds.” This is a quotation of several Old Testament passages which state that Yahweh Himself will repay according to each person’s deeds (Ps. 62:12; Prov. 24:12; Jer. 17:10; 32:19; Ezek. 33:20 cf. Rom. 2:6). However, this could also be understood in light of other passages which state that God gave judgment over to Jesus (Jn. 5:22; Acts 17:31). Matthew 19:17-21: Jesus quotes all of the Ten Commandments except those dealing with following God, and then sums up the rest by exhorting the rich young ruler to “follow Me”! This is an implicit claim to being the same as Yahweh God, Who the first four commandments deal with. However, it could also be understood in light of the principle of Hebraic agency by which following Jesus, the agent of God, is the same as following God Himself (cf. Jn. 12:44). Matthew 21:9: Jesus is identified as “the One Who comes in the name of the Lord” (Ps. 119:26), Who in the original OT context is in fact Yahweh Himself. Matthew 23:9-10: Jesus puts Himself on the same level as the Father in heaven, stating that He, the Christ, is their “one-and-only Leader.” Matthew 23:37-39: Jesus states that He, in the past, willed to gather the inhabitants of Jerusalem “as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings.” This is an action attributed to Yahweh alone in the OT (Deut 32:11; Ruth 2:12; Ps 17:8; 36:7; 57:1; 61:4; 63:7; 91:4). Furthermore, He again identifies Himself as “the One Who comes in the name of the Lord,” Who in the original OT context is Yahweh Himself (Ps. 119:26). Matthew 25:31-32: Jesus Himself will enter into judgment with the nations in the eschatological Day of the Lord, an action which in the OT is attributed to Yahweh (Joel 3:2). However, this can be understood in light of other passages which state that God gave all judgment over to Jesus (Jn. 5:22; Acts 17:31). Matthew 26:64: Jesus claims to be the “one like a son of man” of Daniel 7:13-14, Who as noted above is described using actions (like riding on the clouds and being religiously served) that belong to Yahweh alone. In the very next verse, the high priest identifies this claim as blasphemous and deserving of death. However, this could also be merely a Messianic claim, which some early sources imply was also considered blasphemous in the 1st-2nd centuries. Matthew 28:19: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all appear to share a singular “name” into which Christians are to be baptized. However, this could also be a Hebraism in which multiple individuals with different names are attributed a singular “name” (cf. Gen. 48:16; 1 Sam. 17:13). Mark 1:2-3: See note on Matthew 3:3. Mark 2:5: See note on Matthew 9:2. Mark 2:28: See note on Matthew 12:8. Mark 3:29: See note on Matthew 12:32. Mark 6:50: See note on Matthew 14:27. Mark 10:18-21: See note on Matthew 19:17-21. Mark 11:9: See note on Matthew 21:9. Mark 14:62: See note on Matthew 26:64. Luke 3:4-6: See note on Matthew 3:3. Luke 4:18: Jesus claims that the prophecy of Isaiah 61:1 is fulfilled by Himself. In the original context, it is actually Yahweh Himself speaking and stating that Yahweh has anointed Him and the Spirit of Adonai Yahweh has rested upon Him (see note on Isaiah 61:1). Luke 5:20: See note on Matthew 9:2. Luke 6:5: See note on Matthew 12:8. Luke 6:27: See note on Matthew 5:43-44. Luke 7:16: In response to Jesus’ miracles, the people rejoice that “God has visited His people,” using a verb (episkeptomai) which elsewhere describes a personal visit (Matt. 25:36, 43; Acts 15:36; Jas. 1:27). However, the same verb can also simply mean “to care for” (i.e. by sending the Messiah) without necessarily indicating a bodily visitation. Luke 10:17-18: Jesus claims authority over the demons because “I watched Satan fall like lightning from heaven.” This could indicate a past pre-existence in which He saw Satan fall from heaven (?) Luke 13:34-35: See note on Matthew 23:37-39. Luke 18:19-22: See note on Matthew 19:17-21. Luke 19:38: See note on Matthew 21:9. Luke 22:67-70: See note on Matthew 26:64. John 1:1-14: John states that the word of God, which was with God in the beginning and which was God, has become flesh in Jesus Christ. This may reflect early Targums (Aramaic translations/paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible) which had a tendency to replace “Yahweh” with “the Memra (Word) of the Lord.” For example, Targum Neofiti 1:1 (which dates before Jesus) states, “In the beginning the Memra (Word) of the Lord created and perfected the heavens and the earth.” If this was John’s literary background in mind, then the claim that the Word of God became flesh in Jesus is a claim that Jesus is Yahweh Himself in human flesh. However, if John’s literary background was the Hebrew wisdom literature (including Psalms, Proverbs, and intertestamental literature), then he was merely claiming that the impersonal word of God by which Yahweh made the heavens and earth (Ps. 33:6) was made manifest in Jesus. John 1:18: Most textual traditions state here that the Son, in the bosom of the Father, is the “only-begotten God” who reveals the Father. This reflects trinitarian claims that the Son is the Begotten God while the Father is the Begetting God. However, patristic evidence favors the alternate reading, “only-begotten Son.” John 4:14, 26: Jesus claims to be the One out of Whom flows living water, which in the OT is always Yahweh Himself (Isa. 12:2-3, Jer. 2:13). Furthermore, He follows this up immediately with the statement that “I am He, the One speaking to you” (ego eimi ho lalon soi) which is a near word-for-word quote of Isaiah 52:6 (LXX), in which Yahweh reveals His name as “I am He, the One speaking, ‘I am here’” (ego eimi ho lalon pareimi). John 5:18-30: According to John, the Jews viewed the claim that “God was [Jesus’] Father” as “making Himself identical [Greek: isos] to God.” The Greek word used here (isos) does not indicate mere representational equality with God, but actual ontological identity as God. Furthermore, Jesus goes on to claim that the purpose of judgment is “that all will honor the Son according as they honor the Father” (vv. 22-23), indicating equality of worship between the Son and the Father. The fact that the Son cannot do anything apart from the Father (vv. 19, 30) is not contrary to trinitarian theology, but actually expected by it, since according to trinitarianism the unity of action between the Father and Son is actually the foundation of all reality. John 6:20: See note on Matthew 14:27. John 7:37-38: Again, Jesus claims to be the One from Whose innermost being flows springs of living water. According to OT refs, this can only be Yahweh Himself (Isa. 12:2-3, Jer. 2:13). John 8:24, 28: Jesus twice states emphatically that “I am He” (ego eimi), mirroring two identical declarations from the book of Isaiah. First, He claims that “I am He” (ego eimi) and that unless His audience believes this they will be dying “in your sins” (en tais hamartiais humon), strongly paralleling Isaiah 43:24-25 in which Yahweh states that “you stood before Me in your sins [en tais hamartiais humon]” but that “I am He, I am He [ego eimi ego eimi] Who blots out your transgressions.” In the second statement, Jesus claims that “you will know that I am He” (gnosesthe hoti ego eimi) paralleling Isaiah 43:10 in which Yahweh states that “you may know… that I am He.” These two, almost word-for-word, quotes from the same chapter of Isaiah in such close proximity would certainly not have been missed by Jesus’ Pharisaic audience. John 8:58: After making such implicit claims to deity as noted in the previous note above, Jesus goes on to say at the end of the chapter that “before Abraham became, I am.” Although this does not (as is commonly assumed) parallel Exodus 3:14, it appears to be a straightforward claim that Jesus existed before Abraham, coming immediately after a dialogue in which Jesus implicitly claims to be far greater than even Abraham (something which the Jews did not fail to pick up on). The Jews immediately pick up stones to stone Jesus, showing that they viewed this as a strong implicit claim to deity (and thus ‘blasphemy’). They were not merely stoning Him for His Messianic claims (contrary to some unitarian arguments), because although He claimed explicitly to be the Son of Man earlier in the chapter (v. 28), the Jews apparently did not view this as warranting such extreme measures. John 10:1-16: Jesus makes the claim, not only to being the Shepherd of the sheep, but to being the exclusive Shepherd of the sheep, to the extent that everyone else is either a thief or merely a “hired servant.” However, in the OT, the only Shepherd of Israel is Yahweh Himself (Gen. 48:15; 49:24; Ps. 23:1; 79:13; 80:1; 100:3; Isa. 40:11; Ezek. 34:31; many others). Unless Yahweh is being degraded to merely a “hired servant” (impossible!) the claim to deity is immediately evident: Jesus is not merely a hired servant of Yahweh, but He Himself is Yahweh, the exclusive Shepherd of Israel. John 10:25-29: Jesus again claims to be the Shepherd of Israel, but goes even further than that, stating that the people of Israel are the ‘sheep in His hand.’ Furthermore, the people of Israel are also the ‘sheep’ in His Father’s hand. This is a reference back to Psalm 95:7, in which it is said that Israel are “the people of [Yahweh’s] pasture and the sheep of His hand.” If they are the sheep in the hand of both Jesus and His Father, the only conclusion is that both Jesus and the Father are somehow Yahweh. This all leads up to the very next verse, in which Jesus claims… John 10:30: “I and the Father are one.” Unitarians often argue that Jesus was merely stating that He and His Father were ‘of one mind,’ citing John 17:21 and 1 Corinthians 3:8 as parallels. But in light of what He just finished stating – that the Israelites are the ‘sheep in the hand’ of both He and the Father – Jesus was already making a claim to ontological unity with His Father as Yahweh (see the previous note above). Thus, by stating that “I and the Father are one,” He was merely affirming that which His Pharisaic audience was likely already thinking: “Yes, My Father and I are one; We are Yahweh.” This also solves the apparent ‘problem’ of the many Shema-based passages which state that “God is one” (e.g., Deut. 6:4; Mk. 12:29, 32; Rom. 3:30; Jas. 2:19). It is indeed possible for God to be more than one Person, and yet still be One; for between the Persons there is perfect unity of being and unity of action. John 10:31-36: Jesus’ statement that “I and the Father are one” is the first time that He explicitly makes Himself out to be God in the gospel of John; prior to this, He had only indirectly indicated this by way of Old Testament references (although His audience did not fail to pick up on it). The Jews, incensed by this statement, immediately take up stones to stone Him “for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God” (v. 33). In response, Jesus rebukes them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’?” (v. 34) Unitarians often claim that Jesus is stating that He is merely a derivative and lesser god, like the ones in Psalm 82. However, Jesus is actually using a typical rabbinic rebuke technique in which a rabbi quotes the first part of a verse, expecting the disciples to finish the quote and understand the rebuke. In the original context of Psalm 82, the full quote is, “I have said, ‘You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High; but you will die like men, and fall like one of the princes.’ Arise, O Elohim, judge the earth!” Jesus is not saying that he is a derivative god; rather, He is rebuking the Pharisees and saying that they will “die like men.” In fact, in the context of the full quote, Jesus is putting Himself in the place of Elohim, as Judge over all of the derivative gods (including the Pharisees). This would make very little sense if Jesus were Himself one of the derivative gods. John 10:37-39: Finally, Jesus finishes off this dialogue heavy with OT refs and double meanings by appealing to the works that He has done as proof that “the Father is in Me and I am in the Father.” This claim is apparently strong enough, along with the other statements He has made, to be considered blasphemy and worthy of stoning by the Jews, because they immediately attempt to seize Him again. However, this is somewhat weaker as an argument for trinitarianism considering that the apostle John says that the same is true of anyone who loves (1 Jn. 4:16). John 11:25: Jesus claims to emphatically be the Resurrection and the Life, which is elsewhere true of only Yahweh Himself, “the Living God” “in Whom we live and move and have our being.” However, this could be an example of how Jesus as the express image of the Father shares certain titles of God (although this seems unlikely considering that His claim is to be the Life, not merely a Life). John 12:13: See note on Matthew 21:9. John 12:38-41: John states that Isaiah the prophet spoke the words of Isa. 6:8-10 and 53:1 “when he saw His [Jesus’] glory and spoke of Him.” In context, it is the glory of Yahweh of Hosts which Isaiah saw when he spoke of these things (Isa. 6:3). However, it is possible that John was instead speaking of the glory of the Messiah which Isaiah saw in 52:13-15 and 53:11-12. For this reason, this passage is fairly equivocal on the issue of the deity of Christ. John 13:18-19: Jesus quotes Psalm 41:9 as a prophecy about Himself, saying “so that you may believe (when it comes to pass) that I am He” (hina pisteusete… ego eimi). This is a near word-for-word quote of Isaiah 43:10 (LXX), in which Yahweh says, “so that you may believe… that I am He” (hina pisteusete… ego eimi). Like earlier in the gospel of John, this ‘ego eimi’ statement clearly parallels an Isaianic statement about the uniqueness of Yahweh, and is thus an implicit claim to deity by Jesus. John 14:6: Jesus again claims to be the Life, but also emphatically the Way and the Truth. As noted about John 11:25, being the Life is unique to Yahweh Himself, “the Living God” “in Whom we live and move and have our being.” Furthermore, the Truth (or the TRUE) is a title belonging to Yahweh alone, and it is applied elsewhere to both the Father (Jn. 17:3; 1 Thess. 1:9; 1 Jn. 5:20) and the Son (1 Jn. 5:20; Rev. 3:7). John 14:9-11: Despite not being the Father, Jesus absolutely reveals the Father to the extent that if you have seen Jesus, you have seen the Father. Furthermore, the Father is in Jesus, and Jesus is in Him. This emphasizes the unity between the two Persons, although it does not (by itself) show that Jesus is God. John 14:16-17, 26: Jesus distinguishes the “Helper,” “Holy Spirit,” and “Spirit of Truth” from the Father Who sends Him, and distinguishes Him from Himself (the Son) by referring to Him as “another Helper.” Furthermore, He uses masculine pronouns in v. 26 to describe Him (in contradistinction to the neuter word ‘spirit,’ pneuma), emphasizing the personality of this Spirit. Thus, the Holy Spirit is a Person separate from the Father and the Son (although it is important to recognize that He is not declared to be God in this passage). John 15:26: The “Helper” and “Spirit of Truth” referenced in the previous chapter is said to “proceed forth out of the Father” (present tense, indicating continual ongoing action). John 16:7, 13: The “Spirit of Truth” will be sent by Jesus when He goes away (emphasizing the distinction between the Son and the Spirit), yet is described again with masculine pronouns in v. 13 in contradistinction to the neuter word ‘spirit’ (pneuma). This again demonstrates the Spirit to be a Person separate from the Father and the Son. John 17:5: Jesus, praying to the Father, asks Him to “glorify Me with Yourself, with the glory that I was having with You before the existence of the world.” Read straightforwardly, this would indicate that Jesus had a heavenly pre-existence, and that He has the same glory which Yahweh said He would never give to another (Isa. 42:8), making Him Yahweh. However, it could also be an example of prolepsis, and the same glory is said to be given to believers (v. 22); thus, this passage is not necessarily in favor of the deity of Christ. John 20:22: Jesus breathes on the disciples and gives them the Holy Spirit. This has a double meaning, as the word ‘spirit’ (ruach in Hebrew and pneuma in Greek) also means ‘breath.’ The implication of this verse is that Jesus’ breath is the Holy Spirit; He has the same Spirit as Yahweh. John 20:28: John reports Thomas as having exclaimed to Jesus, “My Lord and my God!” (ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou) This is a rare vocative address which is elsewhere always applied to Yahweh alone; it is found in both the LXX (e.g., Ps. 35:24) and the NT (Rev. 4:11). If the exclamation is to be understood vocatively, this is one of several instances in the New Testament where Jesus is explicitly referred to as “the God” (ho theos). However, there are several alternate unitarian interpretations of this verse which read it as other than a vocative address. (Berean Patriot note: the Greek word for “lord” here has a separate form for vocative {direct address} and subject {Nominative} case. It’s in the subject case {Nominative} here, making direct address extremely unlikely.) John 21:17: Peter tells Jesus, “Lord, You know all things,” a reference to Jesus’ omniscience (see also Jn. 16:30). Acts 1:11-12: Jesus is taken up bodily from the Mount of Olives, and it is prophesied that He will return in the same way. However, in the OT, it is Yahweh Himself Who returns bodily to the Mount of Olives in the Day of the Lord (Zech. 14:3-4). Acts 2:17-18, 33: Peter quotes Joel 2:28-29 in which “Yahweh your God” promises that He Himself will pour out the Spirit. However, he then goes on to state that it is Jesus who is pouring out the Spirit. Acts 3:14: Peter refers to Jesus as “the HOLY and Righteous One,” a name which belongs to Yahweh alone in the OT (see esp. Isa. 17:7; 24:16; 43:15; 57:15). Acts 5:3-4, 9: By parallelism the Holy Spirit is both “God” and “the Spirit of the Lord.” Acts 7:52: Jesus is referred to as the Righteous One, a title only properly belonging to Yahweh in the OT (see note on Acts 3:14). Acts 7:59: It is Jesus Who receives the spirit of Stephen upon his death. However, according to the OT, the spirit of a man returns to God at death, because it is He Who first gave it (Ecc. 12:7). Acts 10:43: “All the prophets testify of [Jesus], that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.” The OT prophets never say such a thing about any human or derivative god, but only about Yahweh alone. Acts 20:28: Paul exhorts the elders at Ephesus to “shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.” Since it is, of course, Jesus Who purchased the church with His blood, this is likely another instance in which Jesus is referred to as “the God” (ho theos). However, it is possible to translate it alternately as “…which He purchased with the blood of His own [Son],” although this has the problem that “His own” (ho idios autou) is never elsewhere used on its own to describe Jesus. Acts 22:14: See note on Acts 8:52. Acts 28:25-27: According to Paul, it was the Holy Spirit Who spoke in Isa. 6:8-10. In the original context of the passage, it is the Lord Yahweh who speaks. Romans 1:3-4: Jesus is both the Son of David according to the flesh, and the Lord and Son of God according to the Spirit of holiness. This confirms the distinction between the Son and the Spirit, and (at least superficially appears to) affirm the ‘two natures’ of Jesus. Romans 8:9-17, 26-29: The Father, Son, and Spirit are distinguished from one another. Furthermore, the Spirit is said to have a mind (v. 27) and to both testify and intercede for us (vv. 16, 26), demonstrating His personality. Romans 8:35-39: “The love of Christ” is equated with “the love of God.” Romans 9:1: Paul undertakes the Oath of Testimony, swearing that he is telling the truth, which (under pain of death) the Jews were not allowed to swear by anything less than God Himself. Jesus confirms that no one may swear by anything less than God, even by heaven itself (Matt. 5:34-37 cf. Jas. 5:12). However, here Paul swears by Christ and the Holy Spirit! Romans 9:5: Christ is referred to as “the One being God over all, blessed to the ages.” The grammar is fairly unambiguous, considering that there is no contextual reason why Paul would suddenly switch from describing Christ to describing the Father. Romans 9:32-33: Paul states that Christ has become a stumbling stone and rock of offense (see also Rom. 10:9-11), in accordance with the OT prophecy (Isa. 8:14). However, in the original OT context it is Yahweh Who will become a stone of stumbling and rock of offense to Israel. Romans 10:13: Paul quotes Joel 2:32, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” In the original OT context, “the Lord” Who is called upon for salvation is Yahweh Himself, whereas in the context of Paul’s quotation, it is Jesus. Romans 10:20: Paul states that the prophecy in Isaiah 65:1, in which Yahweh proclaims that He has been found by those who did not seek Him, has been fulfilled now that the Gentiles have come to faith. However, in the context of Paul’s application of the prophecy, it is Jesus Who has been found by the Gentiles (vv. 6-8). Romans 14:6-9: Paul states that anyone who fasts, or does not fast, does so “with regard to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God.” However, the Lord in question is identified as Jesus in v. 9. Thus, this is likely another instance in which Jesus is called “the God” (ho theos), albeit indirectly. Romans 15:30: The Father, Son, and Spirit are yet again distinguished personally from one another. Furthermore, the Spirit is said to love, something which very clearly implies His personality. 1 Corinthians 2:10: The Spirit is said to be omniscient, for He “searches all things.” Furthermore, the Spirit is said to even search out “the depths of God,” something which no one but God Himself can search out (Rom. 11:33). 1 Corinthians 2:16: Paul quotes Isa. 40:13, “Who has known the mind of Yahweh?” followed up by the statement, “But we have the mind of Christ.” This equates Yahweh with Christ. 1 Corinthians 8:4-6: Paul states that Jesus Christ is greater than any lesser god or lord, referring to Jesus as the one Lord. Although unitarians often press this passage into service as a unitarian prooftext, the context makes clear that Paul is placing Jesus on the same level as the Father, as the Adonai. Furthermore, Paul breaks up the traditional doxology – “from Whom and through Whom and to Whom are all things” – by speaking of the Father “from Whom are all things” and of the Lord Jesus “through Whom are all things.” Again, this puts Jesus on the same level as the Father, as the one God. 1 Corinthians 12:4-11: The Spirit, the Lord (Jesus), and the God (the Father) are each personally distinguished from one another while their equal authority over the church and spiritual gifts is recognized. Furthermore, the Spirit is said to have a “will” and to decide which spiritual gifts go to which person, affirming His personality. 2 Corinthians 1:21-22: God (the Father), Christ, and the Spirit are each personally distinguished from one another. 2 Corinthians 3:17-18: The Spirit is said to be “the Spirit of the Lord” as well as “the Lord” Himself. 2 Corinthians 5:10: Paul states that “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ,” whereas elsewhere he states that “we must all appear before the judgment seat of God” (Rom. 14:10). This demonstrates that the throne of God is the same as the throne of Christ (a fact affirmed even more emphatically in the book of Revelation). 2 Corinthians 10:17: Paul quotes Jeremiah 9:24, “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord [Yahweh]” (cf. 1 Cor. 1:31). However, in the context of Paul’s quotation, the only Lord is Jesus Christ. (See also Gal. 6:14.) 2 Corinthians 13:14: The Spirit, the Lord Jesus, and the God (the Father) are personally distinguished from one another. Furthermore, the Spirit is said to have “fellowship” with us, which is inconceivable unless He is personal. Galatians 4:4-6: The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are personally distinguished from one another. The Spirit’s personality is once again affirmed as Paul states that He cries out, “Abba Father!” within our hearts. Galatians 6:14: See note on 2 Corinthians 10:17. Ephesians 1:3-14: The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are once again personally distinguished from one another, and each are praised for their respective role in salvation (the Father for predestining us, the Son for saving us, and the Spirit for sealing us). Ephesians 2:18, 21-22; 3:14-17; 4:4-6; 5:18-20: God the Father, the Lord Jesus, and the Spirit are personally distinguished from one another, five separate times. Ephesians 4:8: Paul, quoting Psalm 68:18, states that when Christ “ascended on high, He led captive captivity, and He gave gifts to people.” However, in the original OT context, it is explicitly Yahweh God Who is doing this. Philippians 2:5-8: Christ Jesus, although being inherently in the form of God, did not grasp at equality with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant. Being born in the likeness of man, and being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death on a cross. Traditionally, this passage is seen as describing the ‘two natures’ of Jesus; one morphe nature (that of God) which He inherently has, and one morphe nature (that of mankind) which He took upon Himself. However, there is an alternate interpretation, the Second Adam interpretation (held by trinitarians and non-trinitarians alike), which sees this passage as describing only Jesus’ life on earth without a reference to a divine pre-existence. Philippians 2:10-11: Paul quotes Isaiah 45:23, in which Yahweh swears by Himself that “to Me every knee will bow and every tongue will swear allegiance,” but reapplies it to Jesus. Since the original OT context is all about the supreme uniqueness of Yahweh compared to other derivative gods, the entire point of the passage would be annulled if Jesus were only human or a derivative god. Philippians 3:3: The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are again personally distinguished from one another. Colossians 1:15: As the Son of the Father, in unity of action with the Father, Jesus perfectly reveals the Father (being the “image of the invisible God”), and as the Firstborn, He inherits the entire creation from the Father. This is consistent with trinitarianism, in which the Son derives His very being and authority from the Father. Colossians 1:16: In this passage, Paul states that all things were created [aorist] in Jesus Christ, and all things have been created [perfect] through Him and for Him. This verse uses three of the prepositions which are used in the traditional formulation of God’s relationship to creation (“from Him and in Him and through Him and for Him”), with the exception of “from Him” since it is the Father, not the Son, Who initiates all creative action. However, this could also be interpreted in a unitarian fashion as describing the “new creation” in Christ (cf. 2 Cor. 5:17-18). Colossians 2:2: Paul speaks of his gospel as “tou musteriou tou Theou Christou.” This could be translated as “the mystery of God Christ,” in which case it would be explicitly calling Christ “the God” (tou theou). However, it could just as easily be translated as “the mystery of the God of Christ,” or even “the mystery of the Christ of God.” Colossians 2:9: Paul states that “in Him [Jesus], all the fullness of the God-ness dwells bodily.” This is a straightforward claim to the absolute deity of Christ. Unitarians often point to Ephesians 3:19, which states that believers too can be “filled to all the fullness of God” without themselves being God. However, this is not a valid parallel for two reasons. First, whereas Eph. 3:19 states that believers may be filled with all the fullness of God (theos), Col. 2:9 states that Jesus has all the fullness of God-ness (theotes), that is, the state of being God. This is a small but very important distinction. Second, whereas Eph. 3:19 states that believers must be filled with the fullness of God (in the aorist subjunctive, describing a one-time and uncertain event), Col. 2:9 states that all the fullness of God-ness dwells bodily in Jesus (in the present indicative, describing a continual, ongoing, and certain event). These two verses, though superficially similar, are in fact very different and do not parallel one another. Whereas believers must be filled with the fullness of God, all of the fullness of the ‘God-ness’ inherently dwells continually within Jesus. Furthermore, the next verse states “…and in Christ you have been made full,” showing that any ‘fullness of God’ within believers is merely derivative to that of Christ. 1 Thessalonians 1:3-6: God the Father, the Lord Jesus, and the Spirit are again personally distinguished from another. The Spirit is said to have “joy,” once again affirming His personality. 2 Thessalonians 1:12: Paul speaks of “the grace of our God and Lord Jesus Christ,” calling Jesus “the God” (ho theos) in a grammatically unambiguous fashion. Unitarians deny that this verse is actually calling Jesus “our God,“ and prefer to translate it as “the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ” (supplying a definite article not found in the Greek). Such a translation is theologically motivated, based on the idea that “the NT nowhere else refers to Jesus as ‘the God,’” an idea which is patently false. However, the possibility does remain (however small) that Paul was not following the Granville Sharp Rule in this instance, and was therefore not referring to Jesus as “our God.” 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14: God the Father, the Lord Jesus, and the Spirit are personally distinguished from another. 2 Thessalonians 3:5: “May the Lord direct your hearts to the love of God and to the perseverance of Christ.” The grammar indicates that the Person being referred to as “the Lord” is distinct from “the God” and “the Christ.” So then, we have a third Person separate from the Father and the Son, Who is nevertheless referred to as “the Lord.” Since Paul elsewhere states that “the Lord is the Spirit” (see note on 2 Cor. 3:17), we may conclude that this third “Lord” is in fact the Spirit, Who (actively!) directs us to the love of God and the perseverance of Christ. 1 Timothy 2:5-6: The grammar of this passage is somewhat ambiguous; it could easily be translated as, “For one God and one mediator between God and mankind, a man Jesus Christ, He [or ‘this One’] gave Himself as a correspondent ransom for all.” If this translation is correct, then Paul was referring to Jesus as both the “one God” and “a man,” affirming the traditional ‘two natures’ doctrine of Christ. However, it could also be translated (interpolating a few words not found in the original Greek) as, “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and mankind, a man Jesus Christ,” which would be equivocal on the issue of the deity of Christ. This translation, although more common among modern Bible versions, may not reflect the original Greek as it adds several words not found therein; however, the possibility that this translation is correct (however small) must be recognized. 1 Timothy 3:16: The best textual evidence indicates that this verse should be translated, “And confessedly, great is the mystery of piety: He was revealed in the flesh, was vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.” Who is “He” Who was revealed in the flesh? The nearest antecedent is “the Living God” of the previous verse, indicating that it was “the Living God” Who “was revealed in the flesh, etc.” This passage, therefore, likely refers to Jesus indirectly as “the Living God.” However, this interpretation is not absolutely certain, despite the fact that “the Living God” is the only possible antecedent at all within the previous two verses. 2 Timothy 4:18: Like in Romans 9:5, Paul gives a doxology to the Lord Jesus, despite the fact that in another doxology, at Rom. 1:25, Paul condemns worshipping any created being apart from the Creator (such as in a doxology!) Titus 2:13: Paul speaks of “that happy expectation and appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,” calling Jesus “the great God” in a grammatically unambiguous fashion. Unitarians deny that this verse is actually calling Jesus “the great God,“ and prefer to translate it as “the glory of our great God and the Savior Christ Jesus” (supplying a definite article not found in the Greek), just as in 2 Thess. 1:12. However, in this passage, contextual indications make such a translation inconceivable. First of all, elsewhere in the NT, the Second Coming is never described as the appearing of God the Father; rather, it is the appearing of only a single Person, the Lord Jesus. Furthermore, just a few verses earlier, Paul refers to “God our Savior” whose grace “is saving all mankind”; because of this, when Paul goes on to speak of “our great God and Savior,” it is inconceivable that he could be speaking of two individuals! Based on these contextual indications, we can be certain that Paul is referring to Jesus as “the great God” in this verse, even apart from the Granville Sharp Rule. Titus 3:5-6: God the Father, our Savior Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are once again personally distinguished from another. Hebrews 1:2: God the Father “established the ages” through His Son. This could be describing the original creation event; however, it is more likely describing the future ages during which Christ shall reign (Lk. 1:33), seeing as the context of the verse deals with the period following His resurrection and ascension (vv. 3-4). Hebrews 1:6: The Hebraist quotes Psalm 97:7 (LXX) as the Father saying, “Let all the angels of God worship Him [the Son].” Since the original context of the passage deals with the worship of Yahweh by all derivative gods, the fact that the Hebraist applies this quote to Jesus destroys any view that Jesus is, Himself, a derivative god. Instead, Jesus (the Son) is fully Yahweh, not a derivative god. Hebrews 1:8-9: The Hebraist quotes Psalm 45:6-7 (LXX) as the Father saying to the Son, “Your throne, O God, is to the age of the age, and a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of joy beyond your companions.” Like in the original passage, this indicates two individuals Who are called “God” (or “Elohim”), one of Whom is the Son, and the other of Whom is the Father (according to the Hebraist’s application). At the very least, this shows that Jesus is directly called “the God” (ho theos) at least one time in the New Testament. Hebrews 1:10-12: The Hebraist quotes Psalm 125:25-27 (LXX) as the Father speaking to the Son about His (!!) work of creation and His eternality. The original passage is explicitly about Yahweh, and the Hebraist applies it to the Son, showing the Son to be Yahweh. Although there are unitarian interpretations of this passage, they fail to fully account for the context of the Hebraist’s argument, as a straightforward reading leads to the view that vv. 10-12, like vv. 8-9, is the Father speaking to the Son. Hebrews 3:1-4: The Hebraist makes the argument that Jesus is far greater than Moses, “inasmuch as the builder of the house has more honor than the house,” for “the builder of all things is God.” The parallelism used here shows that Jesus is the One Who created Moses, and furthermore, it is very likely that the Hebraist is here calling Jesus “the God” (ho theos). However, although this is a very likely interpretation, there are certain ambiguities in the grammar of this passage which make it possible that the Father is the One being spoken of here. Hebrews 3:7-11: The Hebraist states that it was the Holy Spirit Who spoke the words of Psalm 95:7-11. Since, in the original OT context, it is Yahweh Who spoke these words, the Holy Spirit must be Yahweh. Hebrews 9:14; 10:29-30: God the Father, the Christ, and the eonian Spirit are twice personally distinguished from one another. Hebrews 13:20: In this verse, the Hebraist refers to Jesus as “the great Shepherd of the sheep,” a title which only properly belongs to Yahweh Himself (for which see note on Jn. 10:1-17). Hebrews 13:21: The Hebraist gives a doxology to Jesus Christ in this verse, despite the fact that worship of any non-God creature (especially in a doxology) is absolutely forbidden; and furthermore (if Paul is the Hebraist), in another doxology, at Rom. 1:25, Paul condemns worshipping any created being apart from the Creator (such as in a doxology!) 1 Peter 1:2: God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Spirit are personally distinguished from one another. 1 Peter 2:8: See note on Romans 9:32-33. 1 Peter 3:14-16: Peter quotes Isaiah 8:12 which states, “Do not fear their fear, and do not be in dread.” However, whereas the OT passage continues, “It is Yahweh of Hosts Whom you are to regard as holy,” Peter goes on to state instead, “Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts.” This is one of the clearest (albeit implicit) statements of Christ’s identity as Yahweh in the NT. 1 Peter 4:11: Peter gives a doxology to Jesus Christ, despite the fact that worship of any non-God creature (especially in a doxology) is absolutely forbidden. 1 Peter 4:14: God the Father, the Christ, and the Spirit of glory are personally distinguished from one another. 1 Peter 5:4: Peter refers to Jesus as the “Chief Shepherd,” for which see note on Jn. 10:1-17. 2 Peter 1:1: Peter speaks of “the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ,” calling Jesus “the God” (ho theos) in a grammatically unambiguous fashion. The formulation of the address, in the original Greek, is exactly the same as elsewhere in the Petrine epistles where he refers to Jesus as “the Lord and Savior” (2 Pet. 1:11; 2:20; 3:2; 3:18), and to the Father as “the God and Father” (1 Pet. 1:3). Because of the regularity of this type of address in the Petrine epistles, unitarians cannot argue that Peter is not referring to Jesus as “the God” in this verse without some sort of special pleading. 2 Peter 3:18: See note on 1 Peter 4:11. 1 John 5:20: “We are in Him Who is TRUE, in His Son Jesus Christ; this One is the TRUE God and eonian life.” Based on the grammar of this verse, John could be referring to either the Father or Jesus (or even… both!) as “the TRUE God.” However, contextual indications demonstrate virtually beyond a doubt that it is, in fact, Jesus Who is being referred to in this way. This is because John never refers to the Father as “eonian life,” but makes a habit of referring to Jesus as “the Life” (Jn. 11:25; 14:6) and “the Truth” (Jn. 14:6) or even “the TRUE” (Rev. 3:7)! Furthermore, at the start of this epistle and even earlier in the same chapter, John calls Jesus the “eonian life” (1 Jn. 1:1-2; 5:11-12). So then, it is very likely that John is referring to Jesus (or else, both the Father and Jesus) as “the TRUE God.” This also solves another ‘problem’ for trinitarianism. At Jn. 17:3, Jesus refers to His Father as “the only TRUE God,” which unitarians take to mean that Jesus cannot Himself be God. However, according to 1 Jn. 5:20, the “eonian life” (Jesus) is also the TRUE God. Jude 4: Jude refers to Jesus as “our only Master and Lord Jesus Christ.” Although unitarians often argue that Jesus could be “our only Lord” in the sense of being our only human lord, the same cannot be true of “our only Master.” The title “the Master/Owner” (ho despotes, lit. ‘the Despot’) emphasizes total authority, and is typically applied to Yahweh alone, the One Who created the heavens and the earth (Lk. 2:29; Acts 4:24; Rev. 6:10). If Jesus is “our only Master,” then (unless Yahweh is somehow demoted to a lesser position than Jesus) Jesus must be Yahweh, creator of heaven and earth. Jude 5: After stating that Jesus is avowedly our only Master and Lord, Jude goes on to state “that Jesus/the Lord, after saving a people out of Egypt, then destroyed those who did not believe.” The textual evidence is split fairly evenly between the two readings “Jesus” and “the Lord,” although leaning slightly toward “Jesus.” However, even if the original reading is “the Lord,” Jude just stated that Jesus is “our only Lord”! This early Christian tradition that Jesus is the One who led the exodus from Egypt parallels the Old Testament teaching that it was ‘the Angel of the Presence’ Who saved Israel, and Who, though being sent by Yahweh, nevertheless carries the name of Yahweh (Exod. 23:20-21, Isa. 63:8-10). Jude 25: “To the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power, and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now, and for the ages, verily!” A straightforward reading of this passage indicates that God had glory through Jesus Christ before all ages, which of course requires Jesus to have existed before all ages. (See also 2 Tim. 1:9 which implies that Christ Jesus existed “before times eonian.”) Revelation 1:17-18: Jesus declares, “I am the First and the Last, and the Living One.” Elsewhere in RevJohn, the statement that “I am the First and the Last” is attributed to the One sitting on the throne, Who is unambiguously the Father (Rev. 1:11). However, even if “the First and the Last” is a title that can be applied to Jesus as a non-God being, as unitarians argue (despite the fact that this title in Isa. 44:6 is a claim to being the absolute one and only God), the title of “the Living One” is absolutely unique to Yahweh alone, the Living God in Whom is all life. This is the climax of the “Life” statements throughout the Johannine literature (cf. Jn. 11:25; 14:6; 1 Jn. 1:1-2; 5:11-12; 5:20). Revelation 2:8: Jesus once again claims to be “the First and the Last.” Revelation 2:23: Jesus declares that all of the churches will come to know that “I am the One Who searches minds and hearts, and I will give to each of you according to your works.” This brings together two frequent OT statements about Yahweh’s role in judgment (for which see 1 Chron. 28:9; Ps. 7:9; Jer. 17:10 cf. Acts 1:24; Rom. 8:27; along with Ps. 28:4; 62:12; Prov. 24:12; Ezek. 33:20 cf. Rom. 2:6). Even if unitarians argue that this refers to the fact that God has given all judgment to Jesus (Jn. 5:22; Acts 17:31) this still would not warrant Jesus’ declaration of Himself as “ the One Who searches minds and hearts, and gives to each according to their works”; only Yahweh could refer to Himself as such. Revelation 3:7: Jesus is said to be “the One Who is Holy and TRUE,” both of which are titles applicable to Yahweh God alone Revelation 5:6: The Lamb (Jesus), despite being distinguished from the One sitting on the throne (the Father), is nevertheless said to stand “in the center of the throne.” This shows that He is personally distinguished from the Father, while also deserving the same divine honor and prerogatives as the Father Himself. Furthermore, the Lamb is said to have seven eyes, a characteristic of Yahweh in the OT (Zech. 4:10) which symbolically expressed “fullness of seeing” (in Latin, omni-scienta, literal ‘omniscience’). This shows that the Lamb has omniscience, a characteristic which belongs to God Most High alone (cf. Jn. 16:30; 21:17). Revelation 5:9: The elders “sing a new song” to the Lamb Who was slain, to praise Him for His salvation. In the OT, the exhortation to “sing a new song” is only ever directed at Yahweh Elohim Himself, and always in the context of His lovingkindness and salvation (Ps. 33:3; 96:1; 98:1; 144:9; 149:1; Isa. 42:10). (Significantly, in Psalm 33:3-4, the exhortation to “sing a new song” is directed at “the Word of Yahweh,” which is also the name of Jesus! [Jn. 1:14; Rev. 19:13] ) Revelation 5:11-14: The multitudes before the throne worship the Lamb, using almost the exact same song that they sang to the One on the throne (the Father) in the previous chapter. Combined with v. 6, this shows that the Lamb not only sits upon God’s throne, but is worthy of equal worship with the Father (cf. Jn. 5:23); and this despite the fact that worshipping any derivative being, even a messenger of God, is condemned (Col. 2:18 cf. Rev. 19:10; 22:9-10). Revelation 7:17: See note on Revelation 5:6. Revelation 11:15: The author uses a singular verb – “He will reign” – despite the fact that both the Father and “His Christ” are the subject of this verb. Revelation 17:14; 19:16: “The Lamb… is Lord of lords and King of kings.” This reflects a name of God which came to be used in Judaism, Melech Malchei HaMelachim, meaning “King of kings of kings.” However, this is likely not a statement of Christ’s deity, since King of kings was also a title of some human kings during this period. Revelation 20:6: The priests of God are said to also be the priests of Christ, despite the fact that Yahweh’s priests were absolutely forbidden from acting as priest for any derivative ‘god’ or mere human. Revelation 21:9: New Jerusalem is said to be the bride of the Lamb. Per the OT imagery of Israel and Judah as the brides of God, the marriage of Jerusalem to any not-God entity is adultery (see esp. Jer. 3:1-10; Hos. 1:2). However, in RevJohn the marriage of Jerusalem to the Lamb is presented as good and ideal. Revelation 21:22: Both “the Lord God the Almighty” and “the Lamb” are said to constitute the ‘temple’ of New Jerusalem – i.e., the physical presence of God. It would not make sense to include the Lamb in the ‘temple’ if the Lamb were not God. Revelation 22:1, 3: God and the Lamb are said to share a (singular) throne, reaffirming that Jesus shares the divine honor and prerogatives of the Father. Revelation 22:3-5: Of both God and the Lamb, it is said that “His servants will serve Him; they will see His face, and His name will be on their foreheads” (cf. Rev. 11:15). This shows that singular pronouns can be used of these two Persons together, which solves the ‘problem’ for trinitarianism of why God repeatedly uses singular pronouns in the OT. Revelation 22:6-7, 16: The messenger speaking to John says that it was “the Lord God of spirits” Who sent him, yet immediately goes on to relate that this Lord God states, “Lo, I am coming quickly” (the words of Jesus according to v. 20). Furthermore, it is later said that it was Jesus Who sent the messenger (v. 16). Thus, it is Jesus Who is referred to as “the Lord God of spirits” in v. 6. Revelation 22:12: See notes on Matthew 16:27 and Revelation 2:23. Revelation 22:13: The One Who states, “I am coming quickly,” in the previous verse (i.e. Jesus) now claims, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.” In Isa. 44:6, the title “the First and the Last” is a claim to being the absolute one and only God of monotheism. Furthermore, elsewhere in RevJohn, the claim to being “the Alpha and the Omega” and “the Beginning and the End” is only made by the Father (1:8, 21:6).
OT EVIDENCE
NT EVIDENCE
THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN
THE BOOK OF ACTS
THE EPISTLES OF PAUL
THE BOOK OF HEBREWS
THE GENERAL EPISTLES
THE BOOK OF REVELATION
Thanks for sharing my list of pro-Trinity passages!
Thanks for creating it! 🙂
Another interesting discussion. But it seems that logically, there is a third possibility beyond Trinity and Unity—three separate beings. I’m not a Bible scholar, but off the top of my head, I can think of a few examples:
The Old Testament references where Elohim says “we” will do this or that, logically could imply separate deities, one directing the other
John 17, where Jesus prays to the Father that his disciples could be “one” they same way he and the Father are one. This seems to invalidate all the other appeals to the word “one” as support.
Acts 7, where Stephen has a vision and sees Christ standing next to the Father in Heaven. This vision occurred after Christ’s accession and after Pentecost.
What do you make of the peculiar verses?
That ignores the places that talk about God’s oneness, for example:
Plus many other verses. You can square verses with the Trinity, but not with tritheism. You need to have a theology that squares with all the verses, not just some. Both monotheism and tritheism fail this test, while trinitarian theology pass it.
To those verses specifically, Elohim makes sense with the trinity, and so doesn’t have to mean tritheism.. I think John 17 makes more sense as a statement of unity, not ontology. and this idea of Jesus sitting next to the father is partially explained in Revelation, where the lamb is in the midst of the throne. Thus, next to and in teh same place at once. Trinity explains this, tritheism can’t.
So you wouldn’t deny that there is the Father…. there is the Son… and there is the Holy Spirit?
When counted this up and it comes up to 3 and that’s literally what the word “trinity” means is 3 parts even though the word “trinity” is not found anywhere in scripture that I’ve ever seen.
1 John 5:7 says “these three are one”
This is not to say God is 3 separate Gods… but 1 God with 3 different parts, just like He made man in His Image, and yet man is made up of spirit soul and body (1 Thessalonians 5:23)
In the account where God made man, He said “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Genesis 1:26-28)
So tritheism would be incorrect in that God is not 3 different Gods… but based on scripture He is one being made up of 3 parts (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), just like we are one being made up of 3 parts (spirit, sole, body)
Amen. Love a Great Bible study created by another of God’s
‘diligent’ students. I found lots I can add to Thomas Golda’s
“160 Reasons Jesus Christ Is God” to make it even ‘more complete’ (500 Passages are now 539 and ‘climbing’).
Thanks.
Chris Endrizzi
The Jews- for-Jesus website explains that it was common for B.C. Jews to think of God as plural with many Jews being Trinitarian. God is commonly used in the plural in ancient Hebrew language.Is the Trinity in the Hebrew Scriptures? – Jews for Jesushttps://jewsforjesus.org › learn › the-trinity-based-on-th.
Incredibly helpful. Thank you.
Also Isaiah 7:14
‘Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel’
(God with us)
I agree that’s evidence, the trouble is that many non-trinitarians will say that God was was with us through his representative, much like an ambassador. I don’t take that position, but it’s a common enough counter-argument that requires a lot of effort to disprove, so I usually wouldn’t use that verse in favor of other verses that require less effort to deal with.
The nature of Jesus and his relationship with the Father can be best understood by the Hebraic concept of “Shalia” or “Shaliach.” Jesus made consistent reference to him being sent by the Father. Without a Hebraic mindset to interpret his meaning, our Western mindset leads us to errors in formulating the Trinity doctrine.
Moreover. all genuine believers are the Shaliah of Jesus and all that it entails meaning that we underestimate the authority and power that Jesus has given to us as his agents/ambassadors.
This!!! I’ve been battling confusion on the Holy Trinity. Who to address when praying, will I offend one or the other etc…and trying not to lean on my own understanding. I love this, all points to God. 🙌🏻
I’ll be honest I don’t know subscribe to trinity due to verses and thoughts like:
Hear O Israel the Lord our God is one.
(To Jesus) Why do you call me good/rabbi? Only God is good. One is your teacher. Call no man good,teacher,father,etc.. That’s God and also a mish mash of several similar verses from memory so excuse me.
The Father is greater than I (you can’t hear trinity talk w/o co-equal stuff and he said > than not = to)
I came not to do my will, but the will of he who sent me (The Father, God)
You’ll see me seated AT THE RIGHT HAND of the Mighty One. (God Almighty right?)
If you confess with your mouth/believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord and God raised him from the dead you will be saved.
To me he’s not claiming to be God. Right hand does Gods will. On Earth and in Heaven. Probably always did. I lay down my life only to pick it up again this is why the Father loves me. RH says by orders of the King. He’s claiming having the authority over us and many things which again is guessing to explore further than stated.
The Father (Mighty One, God Almighty) judges no man but has committed all judgement to the son.
And it will not be taken away because guess who gave it? No one plucks what’s in his hand away and certainly not his “right hand” from him either.
He’s claiming and showing obedience- that he does Gods will in all things, the Lordship God gave him. He is Gods Holy One. It’s again all guess work/hard to find for me to say details of that. How long he existed before, what all he has himself created (with the blessing of the Mighty One- do we men not create silly things as well?- Yet God is God),etc…
He’s also saying he’s THE link for man to know God. One mediator what Paul says. I think he himself says If you have known me you have known the Father. And if you deny me I will deny you before my Father. It’s like you just NEED TO respect Gods authority on it like anything else you know? Just as if you thirsted for water and tried to quench it with stone. God gave WATER that authority over you, not stone. If you reject water and go to stone you will be in some torment until you repent and say ok Gods way. Water for thirst. Grass is green. Jesus is Lord.
I think in contrast with that everything about him and what he does is Gods will, as the right hand, the good shepherd not the hired hand which would be well any of us, that’s the thing. For me that’s because that’s Gods will, that’s part of his Lordship.
I think there’s a lot of argument in this but I think to ground. Moses goes up the Mt. God says take your shoes off the ground you stand on is Holy ground. Or the Ark of the covenant. It’s gold and all this monetary stuff right? The stuff of unrighteous mammon-which man could use for good deeds so certainly God can make dirt/gold holy just by being there. The gold being worse than dirt as we know it from what makes of it. Why is the ground holy? Was it awesome dirt? Why was the ark holy? Is God a fan of the gold standard in economic systems? It was holy because God was there and by his authority he said it was. Just as water is “wholly” satisfying to thirst, not stone which is unwholly.
Like could you imagine God or anything spirit getting so similarly confused with man? What are you? I’ve heard you called dust, blood,bones, meat,flesh. Heard you got 2 brains, 2 minds about you and are unstable. That you’re kinda crazy. You got a mind of the flesh and mind of the spirit. You got 2 or more spirits also. You got one a spirit of man that would weaken before God if he was angry forever, there’s something unknown to you of God that gets sick of contending with you because it belongs in a clean temple and you’re filthy/unstable and says I will not contend with you forever you’ll die at 120yrs. Then there are all these unclean spirits to be cast out. 2+ you know. Is man a couple? A trinity, is man a legion? Does it matter for God to know man?
He knows exactly what man is. And he knows how little man knows of spiritual things. It’s even said. My people die from a lack of understanding.
So me to it’s not about parts or holy dirty or holy gold. It’s an authority issue. There is a ONE source of that and it does some crazy hard to understand things and it’s more foolish to reject them for not understanding it than to obey as much as you are able to. Like the thirst it’s water not stone that’ll do you. And in knowing it goes through Jesus, Lord, not through intellectual pursuits looking for God in some telescope book. Like I see a light and some purple. There’s fire and a beard and he’s a man and his skin color is…..No you know? You see some delusion and are given over to what you imagine instead if you reject the authority may as well drink stone for thirst because removed of all authority like that if you imagine it so you might be trying that.
No harsh anything intended to Trinitarians that was just my attempt to say why I don’t agree on those details while also saying they aren’t the most important thing. Authority not your intellectual stance on what was writ on it you know? You can have a weird stance. It can be natural to you. Pink Flamingo’s do, yet they stand before God.
In the case of “Hear O Israel the Lord our God is one”, the word “God” there is plural. So it properly reads: “our Gods is one”. That sounds awfully Trinitarian.
You could also simply take scripture at its word:
Some respond with “The Father is greater than I”, but that can easily be understood in the context of authority, not ontology. Two beings of the same order/level can different levels of authority, like the various hierarchies in government, or the authority God instituted in marriage. None is a greater being than the other, but one is “greater” in authority.
John’s gospel plainly states that Jesus was making himself equal with God. If you take the scriptures at their word, you should believe that.
“a man approved by God” , if Yeheshua was God himself he wouldn’t need his own approval
The passages in John’s Gospel have to be put in context. Besides why not take it from Yeheshua himself, he not once called himself God. Matter of fact, it’s quite the opposite. During John’s Gospel, the Romans called their emperors God, so the Christians did the same, however that doesn’t make it right. Also just because you preexisted, that doesn’t make you God, that’s an odd conclusion to come to. Again, merely an assumption. If you’re the righteous one, that doesnt mean it only applies to God. Yeheshua is the second in command and sits on the right hand throne of God. That alone makes him the righteous one. But you cant jump to the conclusion that he is God. And yes he does have the spirit of the Most High, if he didnt why would God sent him to save the Elect.
None of the scripture you cited is proof of Yeheshua being The Most High. It’s your interpretation. Yeheshua is the second in command, and that’s a big deal, however no, The Most High did not decide to live as a human and die himself for our sins. That’s grotesque to even think. He sent his only son. Yeheshua is Lord, but the Most High is the Father. Lord doesn’t equal God. Even a husband was called Lord.
Here some clear scripture that contradicts your assumption:
“Father,… This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent” (John 17.3)
“There is no God but one…. yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him” (1 Corinthians 8.4, 6).
“Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:” (Acts 2:22)
“There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all” (Eph 4.4-6).
“‘Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone’” (Mark 10.17-18/Luke 18.18-19; cf. Matthew 19.16-17).
“MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME” (Matthew 27.46/Mark 15.34).
Why would he say that, if he himself was God.
“I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God” (John 20.17)
But of that day and/or hour no one knows, not even the angels of/in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone” (Matthew 24.36/Mark 13.32)
That implies that Yeheshua didn’t know, but only the Father did. Again, Lord and Father, big difference.
I do like some of your other takes, but you’re way off on this one. Not only does scripture say clearly otherwise, but it is something that should be understood. Have a hard think and contemplate retracting this article, because it is simply false. I’ve seen alot “could” in your arguments, but there is no confusion in any of the scripture I’ve stated. You are not going by scripture at all here, but it seems that you are trying to convince yourself and not just the readers
All of the verses you quoted have several different ways to take them, but there are several verses (3-4) about which I have never heard a good answer from a Unitarian. If you wish to convince me, you’ll need to answer those verses first. The first one is this:
God purchased the church “with His own blood”. I simply see no other way to understand the verse other than a clear statement of Jesus’s deity; that He is God. Looking into the original Greek won’t help Unitarians because I know Greek and can tell you this verse means exactly as it’s translated above. Any attempt to make it say something like “the blood of His own Son” (a common mistranslation/perversion of the verse) is grammatically impossible.
If something happens to my son, it is my own flesh and blood. That in no way implies that my son is me.
But if you say: “I gave my blood”, you wouldn’t be referring to your son’s blood, but your own. I’m sorry, that’s an entirely unsatisfying answer and also flies in the face of the plain meaning of the sentence in English, to say nothing of Greek. In Greek that’s even more clearly not a possible understanding of the passage.
I think Phil already made my point here. Since Yeheshua is God’s son, and self conceived, it is literally his flesh and blood, but that doesn’t make him God. Again, just read the scripture I stated in Hebrew ideally, and the meaning is no different. Besides the Jews of that time were expecting a man to be the Messiah, not God himself.
The Bible says that even in the future, the Son will be subject to the Father. “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” (1 Cor. 15:28 ESV). If Jesus is subject to the Father in the eternal future, then it seems the teaching that the two of them are “co-equal” is wrong.
And yet John 5:18’s God-breathed/inspired commentary on Jesus’s words says that Jesus was “making Himself equal to God”, despite the acknowledgement that a son is subject . A difference of authority doesn’t require a difference of being. (Consider men of different authority levels; the authority difference doesn’t mean an ontological difference) Here’s another (quite flawed/imperfect) analogy: My emotions and will are two separate things that are both 100% me, but distinct and separate from one another and my emotions are subject to my will. There’s a difference of authority and the two are the distinct, but they are both “co-equal” parts of me despite the difference in authority. Yes that’s a flawed analogy so don’t take it too far.
Unfortunately you haven’t replied to any of the verses I’ve stated. I don’t think “I gave my blood” is in any way convincing. What does ” a man approved by God” mean, when Paulus said it? Again, if Yeheshua is self-conceived, what else but “I gave my blood” would you actually say? I mean that’s literally the only way to say it. I express myself the same way with my sons, and they’re not even fully mine. So that was not convincing at all, I must say.
Also, I don’t understand the many times Yeheshua himself stated that he is not the Father himself, why do you think he would speak in riddles on so many occassions, instead of making it clear that he himself is actually The Most High. Even if you do have verses that can be interpreted the other way around, I think it is clear that many times that’s just not the case.
I’m not sure you realize the irony of your first sentence. You complained that I haven’t replied to any of the verses you mentioned, but you posted a comment on an article with literally dozens of verses that talk about the deity of Christ and didn’t respond to them before bringing up your own. Irony. If you would like to convince me, you’ll need to answer the verses that I think are clear first.
Your “answer” to Acts 20:28 essentially boils down ignoring what the text plainly says. Even in English your understand is an extreme stretch, but in Greek it simply isn’t possible. So since we are discussing this scripture says, and since this verse was written in Greek, please explain why the Greek means what you say. I’ll even accept an explanation that simply makes it possible.
Additionally, you also ignored my comment about John 5:18. John’s inspired commentary on Jesus’s words says that Jesus was making Himself equal to God. I see no way around that except for ignoring what the text plainly says.
Acts 20:28 I have already replied to it. Why is that a stretch? To say my own blood, when it is your own self-conceived son is a stretch? Any father would actually express themselves that way. I’ve done a numerous times in my life. And as you cited it can actually mean ” the blood of his own (son)”
Here a better explanation:
1. There are some Greek manuscripts that read “the church of the Lord” instead of “the church of God.” Many Trinitarian scholars believe that “Lord” is the original reading, because there is no mention anywhere in the Bible of God having blood. If the Greek manuscripts that read “Lord” are the original ones, then the “problem” is solved. However, it is the belief of the authors that good textual research shows that “the church of God” is the correct reading.
2. Both the American Bible Society and the Institute For New Testament Research in Germany (which produces the Nestle-Aland Greek text) agree that the manuscript evidence supports the reading tou haimatios tou idiou, literally, the blood of His own (Son), and not idiou haimatios, “his own blood.” God paid for our salvation with the blood of His own Son, Jesus Christ.
3. The text note at the bottom of the very Trinitarian NIV Study Bible gets the meaning of the verse correct: “his own blood. Lit. ‘the blood of his own one,’ a term of endearment (such as ‘his own dear one’) referring to His own Son.”
I will reply to 5:18 John and than is shall be your turn to read the text “plainly” and all the verses that I’ve cited, and why would Yeheshua actually not just make it clear at so many points that he himself is The Most High, and instead made so many references that he isn’t. Same goes for Paul saying, “a man approved by God” or “attested by God”:
“Men of Israel, hear these words: Yeheshua of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know” — Peter introduces Yeheshua to his audience. The Gospel message he was getting ready to deliver could not be revealed without speaking about Yeheshua. But notice that Peter begins by telling the crowd that Yeheshua of Nazareth was a man “attested by God to you”. What does that mean?
A. The word “attested” here is the Greek word apodeiknumi (ap-od-ike’-noo-mee); which means to show off, exhibit; figuratively it means to demonstrate or accredit (Strong’s). The ASV and others use the phrase “approved of God“. What Peter is telling everyone is that the man known as Jesus of Nazareth was the real thing. He was God’s choice. God had approved of Yeheshua and had even demonstrated His approval of Yeheshua to Peter’s listeners . How did God demonstrate His approval of (attest to) Yeheshua? Through Miracles is the answer, which were performed by him through Yeheshua. Same as he did with prophets, which to be fair were even more unbelievable, e.g. Moses parting the Red Sea.
Now regarding John 5:18
Well if you are him and he is you and therefore the same, why refer to him as your father to begin with? And to me a difference of authority does equal a difference of being actually, I disagree with you. Your analogy is purely philosphical and can be twisted one way or another.
And let’s look at John 5:17 when he says ” My father is always working and I am always working” , the Pharisees of that time thought it was blasphemous because he was basically saying he has The Most High’s authority on earth, which he obviously had and therefore worked on Sabbath. You can also look at other verses where the word “even” or “equal” is being used, however that didn’t actually mean that they were equal. For example Joseph and the Pharaoh. The same word in Greek is used in both verses.
And why did he respond the way he did in John 5:19, and basically says, calm down the son can’t do nothing without the father?
At that time, if you were the king’s father, you had authority, especially if you are the only son. And you are basically representing your father to the fullest. To me John chapter 5 shows a clear line of dependence, which is Father -> Son. The Father “assigns” judgment to Jesus (John 5:22), “sends” Jesus (5:23, 24), has “granted” life to Jesus (5:26), “given” authority (5:27), and Jesus “does not seek his own will” but instead the Father’s (5:30).
So how can there be full equality and yet full dependence? That is a contradiction in itself. The answer should be only scriptural, no wild interpretations like kenosis. At best, Yeheshua and John are saying that he has partial, dependant equality with The Most High, which has been assigned to him, rather than he having assigned to himself.
Question: are we going to have a good faith discussion? Because intentionally misquoting me to make it sound like we agree when we don’t doesn’t seem like good faith. In your first paragraph, you said:
That is not what I said. That is in fact the exact opposite of what I said. Here is what I said:
Please do not misrepresent me again. Now, to what you said:
(1) Then why bring it up?
(2) We agree on which Greek words are there and the form, but you assume that τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου means “the blood of His own [son]”; it doesn’t. It’s a classic example of a second attributive position genitive; why should it not be translated as such?
(3) In my article on Bible translations, I use the NIV as example of intentional mistranslation throughout the article. Quoting any NIV/NIV notes is a non-starter because they intentionally mistranslate in many, many places.
To John 5:18, you basically ignored the text except to say that the word for “equal” doesn’t mean equal. (I’ll get to the context verses momentarily) Here’s a lexical quote that directly contradicts your assertion:
Additionally, I looked up every verse where the word appears and its usage is consistent with that definition but not with your assertion. You mentioned Joseph and Pharaoh; are you talking about in the Septuagint? If so, please cite the chapter and verse so I can look it up.
To 5:17 and 5:19 and dependence.
You said that my answers should come from scripture, but then you don’t want me to mention kenosis, which refers to a word that’s literally used in scripture. Jesus “emptied Himself” (Phil 2:7) and became “a little lower than the angels” (Heb 2:7). That’s your answer. He chose to depend on the Father while on Earth.
You said: “So how can there be full equality and yet full dependence?”. I believe you said that you have children. When they are babies, aren’t they fully ontologically equal because they are also made in the image of God, and yet also fully dependent on you? That’s full ontological equality with full dependence.
To “a man attested by God”; have you never “approved” or “attested” or “demonstrated” something about yourself? (It’s even used that way in 2 Thess 2:4). Why does this say anything about Jesus’s otology?
First of all, I did not misquote you. When I stated ” And as you cited it can actually mean ” the blood of his own (son)” , that is exactly what you wrote “However, it is possible to translate it alternately as “…which He purchased with the blood of His own [Son],although this has the problem that “His own” (ho idios autou) is never elsewhere used on its own to describe Jesus.” So you need to remember what you said at different points, instead of pointing the finger. Later you said otherwise, but not in that instance, which I referred to. It begs the question why you phrased it that way only to say later that it is grammatically impossible. If you meant otherwise, I’m not sure how one is supposed to know that when you literally said “However, it is possible to translate it alternately as…”.
There also have been plenty of mistranslations when it was initially translated into Greek as well, so that problem is not new. Context is important, weighing what’s being said, rather than singling out particular words.
My main criticism is, that as The Most High’s Son, he was in the form of God, but that certainly wouldn’t make him an equal to be in the form of the “Original God”. And you’re right, kenosis is a thing, I looked into it deeper, however that really doesn’t make any difference for the following reason/verse:
Instead of ambitiously scheming to fill himself of more attributes of deity (as did Lucifer), he elected to go in the opposite direction, emptying and humbling himself to take on the lowly form of man/servant. He is not an equal, however he is a representation of the Most High on earth, as his Son. Hebrews 1:3 confirms this.
“He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high”
If someone is in power and says “this is my right hand man”, we all know what that means. The person you trust the most, that represents you to the fullest and has authority in your “absence”, however it does not mean “equal”. Regarding Joseph and the Pharaoh, let’s take the Berean Study Bible:
Then Judah approached Joseph and said, “Sir, please let your servant speak personally to my lord. Do not be angry with your servant, for you are equal to Pharaoh himself.
Or here a translation from the Aramaic:
And Yehuda came near to him and said, “I beg of you my Lord, let your Servant speak a word before you my Lord, and let not your anger be hot against your Servant, because you are as Pharaoh.
Ah, I see the where the misunderstanding happened; I didn’t write this article other than the intro and a few notes, as I said in the intro. I also specifically said that I don’t agree with every single point. I apologize that I assumed when I forgot the writer of the list said that.
Also, I did some more looking and it turns out that although it would be a very strange way to take Acts 20:28 and extremely far from the usual sense/construction, it’s not technically impossible to understand it as “the blood of [his] own”, and then to supply “son” as the referent for “own”. So I made a mistake there; mea culpa. However, I would like to stress that your understanding would most definitely not be the usual way to understand it. The normal way to take this would be “His own blood” and that’s the way this type of construction is taken take virtually everywhere else. So yes it’s technically possible, but I would argue it’s also extremely implausible.
To John 5:18 and Pharaoh. You said the same word was used, but it isn’t. I checked the LXX and the word there is “μετά”, not “ἴσος”. They aren’t even close. If you are referring to the Hebrew, it’s a preposition there, not an adjective, and the basic meaning of it is “like”. i.e. “You are like Pharaoh”.
Now, I’ve noticed that the way you talk about Jesus seems to indicate that you believe His sonship began before the incarnation. Please read Luke 1:35 if that’s the case since the verse makes it explicit that the incarnation is the reason for the title “son of God”.
Also, not that it comes across that I’m not trying to address the other 2 points you made. You said “He chose to depend on the Father while on Earth.” I disagree that this is a valid point for Trinity. Neither does it come ever across in scripture, that Yeheshua actually chooses to depend on the father, rather that he actually is dependent on the father. However the equality he does have with the Father, has been assigned to him and is also dependent on the Father.
And that is not taking away anything from our Lord Yeheshua, it is merely disagreeing with the concept of Trinity. That’s why he is sitting on the right hand throne of The Most High, and not on the same throne.
Well my children are not fully dependent on me, unless they are still young, so not sure how you meant that or if I’m misunderstanding. Yeheshua was fully dependent on his earthly parents, but when he became a man that was a different story. I’m also not sure how you drew the connection of equality and us being in the image of God. I feel like we’re interpreting words in a completely different way.
And regarding “have you never “approved” or “attested” or “demonstrated” something about yourself?” Sure I have (though rarely), but that goes both ways, and normally when you say something/ or someone has been “approved” or “attested” we are talking about a different person/ entity. This is a matter of interpretation and yours is more far-fetched, although not impossible.
Scripture that confirms the dependence is plentiful ,especially in John:
8:26 I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him.
8:28 When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
8:29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.
If read plainly, as we should, without adding or taking away from Scripture, I’m not sure how these can be understood, other than Yeheshua does not equal The Most High.
The parental analogy – like all analogies – is indeed flawed and only extends so far. I’m happy to jettison it if the point was unclear, which obviously it was. Sorry about that.
You said of Jesus:
That ignores Revelation 7:17:
The lamb (obviously Jesus in this context) is “in the center of the throne” and yet elsewhere He is also stated to have sat down at the right hand of the Father. This makes perfect sense from a Trinitarian perspective but little sense otherwise. (at least to me.)
It’s ironic that you bring up John 8:28 because that’s one of Jesus’s many “I am” (ἐγώ εἰμι) statements. He makes rather a lot of them and while John 8:58 is the most commonly referenced and most clear, there are others that are compelling. However, the “I am” debate will take us down a long and likely unproductive rabbit trail so I’ll use a different answer instead.
To answer your assertion of required dependency, I’ll bring up John 1:3 (arguably the strongest anti-unitarian verse in the Bible). So here’s the question as it regards dependency, and keep John 1:3 in mind as you answer: Is Jesus a created being? (Do keep in mind what that will mean regardless of which way you answer.)
It was a misunderstanding, and I respect your reply. To make it very clear, I only want to have a discussion in good faith.
Since the comparison of Joseph and the Pharaoh is in the OT Genesis 44:18, I did indeed refer to the Hebrew, or as cited to the Aramaic translation “you are as pharaoh” or as you said “like”. As I said, I don’t want to get caught up in single words, but context. I think translations/ wording can be challenging when we prioritise single words rather than context.
Looking at John 5:18 “Therefore* the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.” This actually never comes out of the Lord’s mouth, right? That is the interpretation of the Jews, which the Lord corrected right after in John 5:19.
This happens to me all the time, I would carefully choose my words, but many times people, or even family members create their own interpretation, rather than listening to the exact words. Once you repeat it again and “clarify”, it is clear that their mind fabricated things and they have no choice to accept what you’ve really said, if they have genuine intentions. It is a gift to listen to someone without any objectives and keep a neutral mind. I think John 5:18 is the perfect example for it. When Yeheshua said “My Father worketh hitherto*, and I work.”, it was taken out of context and the equality God in this case was simply the interpretation of those Jews.
The problem, in my opinion, with the Trinitarian view is, that it implies to be one but also three. One does not equal three. So, to say that Mark 6:19 “So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.” and Revelation 7:17 “for the Lamb in the center of the throne will be their shepherd, and will guide them to springs of the water of life; and God will wipe every tear from their eyes.” complement each other, makes little sense to me.
My problem with your interpretation of Revelation 7:17 is literally the first verse of Revelation “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:” To me the lamb is of course Yeheshua, you are making my point, and not the Most high, who is never described as the lamb. The Lamb is not God, and God is not the Lamb. The Lamb was slain and raised. God is not slain and raised. Rev 7:17, again without context, ignores all the references prior, that the Lamb has a God.
The Lamb sits in the centre of the throne because the Father granted it Rev 2:27 “And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.”
Solomon and David sat on the throne of the Lord 1 Chron 23:29, but we don’t read into that. I think the fact that the Most High grants his prophets and his son power and equality to some extent, should not be confused with being the same entity. The Father has always used representatives and delegated, however they all do as whatever the Father assigns them to. Although I’m not comparing Yeheshua, for obvious reasons, to any of the prophets.
Regarding John 1:3
I wish you would have quoted the verse, because I am of the opinion, that it (the Word) does not have to refer to a person, or to him. Greek does assign gender to nouns. Are you implying that assigning a gender to a noun is proof of the trinity? Again, maybe I misunderstand. However, to me it’s all about context and general understanding, rather than singling out words, especially when the Greek writers had a Trinitarian view to begin with. However, context and larger parts of scripture indicate otherwise.
Glad we cleared that up. 🙂
You brought up the single word “equal” in John 5:18 and focused on it, I was replying to your focus on it and I believe demonstrated that “equal” does indeed mean “equal”. Seemingly as a response, you have shifted from focusing on words to focusing on context. However, I don’t know if you realize that in so doing, you have reversed your position on the verse.
You were saying the verse doesn’t declare that Jesus is God because “equal” doesn’t actually mean “equal”. Now you say that this is merely what the Jews thought. However, if John is merely recording what the Jews thought, then “equal” would make far more sense. So which is it? Again, I’m not sure you realize that you flip-flopped on the interpretation, seemingly based on a desire to make the verse say a specific thing (that Jesus isn’t God). That has the appearance of eisegesis, even if it’s not the reality.
Additionally, in John 5:18, “making Himself equal to God” is clearly John’s commentary on Jesus’s words. To make it anything else is ignoring the plain text of the passage. Jesus repeated and clearly declared Himself to be God, but did so in a Jewish way which we westerners usually miss. Please, watch the first ~7 minutes of the second video in this post of mine for more information and one of the many, many clear examples.
You said that you have a problem that Trinity implies that God is one but also three. However, the OT declares God’s plurality plainly whenever it pairs a singular verb with a plural noun (which is all over the place). That literally means something like “One Gods”, as in Gen 1:1 “In the beginning, God(plural noun) created(singular verb).” Thus, “one Gods created”. Again, singular verb + plural noun is the usual way the OT speaks of God doing things. Additionally, the Shema of Deut 6:4 actually has “YHWH our Gods(plural), YHWH is one” (one = echad, the word for “one” that is composite and not absolute). Thus, “Hear O Israel, YHWH our Gods, YHWH is one”. God is one and yet also more than one. I’m sorry if this makes you uncomfortable, but that’s the way the OT is written in Hebrew.
To John 1:3, contextually, it’s John 1:14-15 that makes it clear that “the Word” is Jesus. Do you disagree? If so, why?
I have shown that equal doesn’t mean equal in a literal way, which is why I quoted the comparison between Joseph and the Pharaoh. As you rightly pointed out, one is of the OT and one of the NT, therefore originally written in 2 different languages. If we say that language makes the comparison invalid, fine. But if we say that it doesn’t and the scriptures are inspired by the Most High, then we have to say that equal or “like” does not necessarily mean that they are the same entity. And yes it is John’s commentary on what those Jews were saying, interpreting. And let’s not forget Yeheshua’s reply in John 5:19. So not sure what that changes, unless I misunderstand. But you are right to point out that I flip flopped in that regard.
I’m not saying that the Most High can’t be more than One, what I am saying is that he isn’t 3 different entities. You could say that the Most High was the burning bush, but that isn’t my point. I’m saying that there is ONE God, who does not have 3 different “personas” that are co-equal.
You also missed out on commenting on many of my other points, such as the sitting on the throne part and that David and Solomon were granted the same “privilege”. And the lamb is not God, and God is not the lamb. And that the lamb has a God. And God was not slain and raised from the Dead.
Regarding “I’m sorry if this makes you uncomfortable,” I’m not sure if you mean that in a sarcastic way, but why would that make me uncomfortable? I’m not here to push my views and twist the scriptures. If I can learn, I’m always glad to do that. I see, including on this website, historical mistakes that have been made for centuries, even though there is much historical evidence, manuscripts. But I digress.
I think it would be also fair to mention that there are thousands of passages in the Hebrew Bible and the NT that use singular pronouns and verbs (Anthony Buzzard and Charles Hunting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity’s Self-inflicted Wound, International Scholars Publications, New York, 1998, p. 17) in the same sentence, right?
Are you also of the opinion that the Jews of that time expected a human messiah or actually God himself?
There are very few verses in the NT that can be interpreted as Yeheshua being Man and God. These can also be interpreted in a unitarian way. However there are much more verses that say the opposite and can’t be explained in any other way.
What about Heb 2:17 ” Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.” This shows clearly who’s who, who was made by whom etc.
Same goes For Rom 5:14 ” Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. ” Isn’t the Greek word tupos (τύπος) for type ? So wasn’t Yeheshua created just like Adam without sin in nature? Adam and Yeheshua were both fully human and not 100% God and 100% human, therefore the comparison wouldnt otherwise make sense, in my humble knowledge, since Adam did not have “God-nature”.
Concerning your last question: The opening of John’s Gospel shows that in the beginning there was only one God, not many Gods. It also shows that this God had wisdom, a plan within Himself, which became flesh in Yeheshua. When they say “He” in John1:2, they could have translated it as “it”, but again the “word” is masculine in Greek, as you obviously know. So, Yeheshua has a beginning, since he was born, but he was always part of the “word” or wisdom, plan of the Most High. So he existed as part of being the divine plan and purpose of the Most High and was then made flesh. Is there any solid evidence that Yeheshua existed before he was born, I mean actually existed and was also called the “Word”? I know there are many verses which Trinitarian point to, but was he called the Word and do we know that he didn’t “exist” as part of the divine plan but actually existed in a real way.
Therefore John 1:14,15 means that the “Word” or reason of the Most High became flesh, as we all understand. So the logos pre-existed, however does that mean that the person existed before its incarnation or only in The Most High’s mind and reason? Making the logos a person before Yeheshua is eisegetical.
Trinitarian scholar Westscott says : “It is necessarily without the article (theos not ho theos) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person… No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word.”
Isaiah 44:24 would also contradict that notion of John 1:1-3 as Trinitarians interpret it.
Anyway, I don’t think we will get anywhere in this regard, quoting verses and translations. This is not me being defensive, but realistic.
I disagree about you proving that “equal doesn’t mean equal” since you cited a Hebrew preposition to define a Greek adjective. Regardless, I’m willing to drop it for the same reason that I didn’t comment on other things (like the Lamb of God on the throne), because properly answering them would take an enormous amount of space. I’m trying to prevent this discussion from ballooning too far, so if I don’t comment on something, assume that I’m dropping it as a point in my favor for space or time considerations.
So staying with John chapter 1, your answer of Isaiah 44:24, and your question about if Jesus existed before the incarnation, there’s two places I would go to that clearly show Jesus existed before the incarnation. One of them even reinforces the point I was going to make about John 1:3 and answers Is 44:24, but I’ll quote that second. First, here’s Jude 1:5.
Contextually, “the Lord” in verse 5 could only be Jesus because of the end of verse 4. Thus, Jesus absolutely did exist before the incarnation.
Additionally, there’s Colossians:
Clearly, everything was made “through Him”. Now, some say it should read “because of Him”, since “διά” (dia) is also often translated “because of”. However, it’s followed by a genitive in this verse, making “through” the proper understanding. (See link: Thayers definition A.1. “Because of” requires being followed by the accusative case; Thayer’s definition B.II.a)
Thus, if everything was made through Jesus, He must have existed for those things to have been created “through Him”. Additionally, you cited Isaiah 44:24, which when read with John 1:3 and Col 1:16 is actually one of the strongest Trinitarian passage combinations:
If everything was made “through Him” (Jesus), and if the LORD/YHWH made the heavens and Earth “all alone”, then there’s only one logical conclusion…
(I think YHWH is the name of the Trinity collectively, so YHWH would include Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)
Also, what about Mark 12:29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one” The Greek word εἷς is always being used for one.
Or John 17:3 “This is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” Not really co-equal.
The list could go on and on.
I think YHWH is the name of the Trinity collectively, so YWHW being “one” either in an absolute sense or in a “one from many” sense still works. Conversely, the “echud”/”one from many” sense simply makes no sense without a doctrine like the Trinity.
It is also my belief that this concept of Trinity has been adopted, just like so many other Heathen rituals such as Christmas, Easter etc.
The fact that there is only ONE, is what distinguishes it from the Babylonians, Indians, Egyptians, Sumerians who all believed in Trinity. Osiris, Isis and Horus or Amun, Re and Ptah…anyone knows that there has been plenty of infiltration, that you can see in the Vatican as well. That alone makes Trinity extremely doubtful and dangerous, to say the least.