As we study God’s word, we stand in awe of how he has presented His truth so plainly that even a child can begin to grasp it, yet the depths of His word have challenged the greatest theologians. Apparently He has chosen to reveal the choicest nuggets of His truth only to those determined to dig deep for insight. Much harm has been done to the Word of God from failing to appreciate its accuracy, reading into it wrong predispositions, and failing to search it out in depth. The significance of the names of God is a case in point. We have come to believe that God ever so wisely has chosen the various names applying to Himself to affirm an exciting truth that has escaped us—namely, of the relationship between God the Father and His Son in the person of Christ. If this unique relationship is true (and we are convinced it is), it calls into question the common conception of the Trinity doctrine. Why is this?

While the Trinity pays lip service to the monotheism of God, its insistence of His being three persons, each God, each separate, yet equal, creates confusion to say the least. The Son of God is made GOD the Son, pre-existent to His birth on earth, a God-Man, which we intend to show by scripture is an impossibility. The Spirit of God, affirmed as the third persons of the Trinity, has been made GOD the Spirit, creating in effect TWO Spirits, where scripture clearly asserts there is only ONE. We have much to say about this assertion, but we mention it here initially to simply join the issue between the “mystery” of the Trinity and the true ONE monotheistic God who assigns Himself two names.

Certainly you should insist on proof for what we say, and we will provide it. We will present scripture, both in the Old Testament and the New, punctuated by Christ’s testimony, of Jesus’ relationship to His Father. You will see how the Author of scripture has devised an amazing scheme to reveal His nature by His ever so precise choice of Hebrew words that make distinctions lost in our English translations. You will see His name, the Lord God, in a new light that attests to His dual nature.

Yes, we may appear brash in making our assertions? How dare we question such a doctrine considered by many to equate with Christianity itself?  But let us ask this one question. Is the Trinity doctrine given by the inspiration of God or is it the product of men who tried to reconcile scriptural references to God, His Spirit, and His Son? Before you dismiss what we have found, acquaint yourself with how the Trinity doctrine originated close to 300 years after Christ. Consider that it was conceived at a time of spiritual decline to satisfy the concerns of the Roman emperor Constantine, that it was approved only after much dissension, instituted and enforced by decree, and invoked controversy for hundreds of years. We invite you to study what we have found, to verify it for yourself, and study the history of the early church on your own.

You might ask why only now does this come to light. We suggest that the doctrine of the Trinity and the deity of Christ has blinded the minds of theologians with a pre-disposition keeping them from seeing the truth. Relying on the accepted view, they have been satisfied that study is no longer needed, though they explain it is a mystery that has no explanation. We differ. We believe God has not left us in the dark. We base our view on scripture rather than speculation. We rest our case on Jesus’ words, “If you continue in my Word, then are you my disciples. And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.”

At the outset, let us say this subject will be a shocker. Further, we admit it’s no easy concept for us to present or for the reader to grasp.  The subject and study of these names must be clear, precise, and understandable. The names are so ingeniously put together by God that it’s not easy to uncover their place and meaning. We hope the reader will hold any predispositions in abeyance, particularly if inclined toward the Trinitarian persuasion. You may note some “red flags” that do not agree with what you’ve been taught. No problem. Before rejecting anything outright, judge what is said by the light of scripture. Truth always wins out.

So much for our prefacing remarks. We begin by going to the beginning when God was alone before all creation:

“...I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. (Isaiah 43:10)

We see that God is ONE, in accord with the doctrine of monotheism, the truth of which must be the criterion by which all other teaching is judged. Even before the foundations of the world, before time itself, God had a plan or thought that He would carry out. To paraphrase John 1:1, In the beginning was the plan (God’s thought, His plan or purpose); it was with God (from the beginning) and (because it centered on God revealing Himself by His Son) it was God. Now this raises some questions. How could an invisible God who by His very nature cannot change, how could he carry out His plan? This is where it was essential for God to devise His names by which He could make Himself known to us. Purposing to be known as Father/Son, the names were crucial in identifying whether the Father or the Son was speaking in so many narratives in the Old Testament. Consequently, God devised certain names to be exclusively His. He also made a way to share His name with His Son. Then He assigned names belonging exclusively to the Lord Jesus.

It’s important to understand that God didn’t simply create everything and then sit back to watch it unfold, as some believe. No, from before the foundation of the world, He intended to be personally involved with His creation. He would have fellowship with His created beings, communicate with them, eat with them, have face to face encounters with them, even a wrestling match, making promises, and renewing them. The scripture tells us that God is immutable, invisible, that He is Spirit, so how could He do the above? The answer is in the plan that He devised before creation to manifest Himself by means of a Son of Humanity, a genuine member of the human race. Note, this son could not possess deity as is erroneously thought; it was not deity that was needed but a man, a visible man who could reveal the invisible God. Could that be what we have missed in the issue of the incarnation?  Not to minimize the importance of Christ or His life and work on the cross, but wasn’t His coming to reveal the Father? As John 1:18 declares: No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. Remember Jesus’ words in John 14:9: "Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, `Show us the Father'?

Do we not need to look at the scriptures in a new light that focuses on God the Father? The truth is that the Father is behind every word Jesus spoke, every move, every act, every miracle. We need to see it is the Father who is indwelling His Son.  The name Father is used over 100 times in the Gospel of John alone. It is the Father who chose the names that establish this truth. Throughout the Old Testament they appear repeatedly in an uncanny way to reveal His nature, their meaning and purpose being clearly established. And note this vital point. Any name of God in the New Testament must have the same meaning and purpose of its equivalent  in the Old Testament.  It is important to bear this in mind; otherwise when Jesus is addressed as God, it may be wrongly inferred that He possesses Deity in Himself as a man. So, look at  this as a rule, as an absolute—the Greek language does not take precedent over the Hebrew. The names used in the Old Testament to distinguish between the Father and Son, revealing His dual nature, still apply in the New Testament.

Since the Son would not appear until Bethlehem, God had to devise a way to prepare our hearts and mind for the coming of His Son. How?  We suggest, as the author of the script, He “role played” both the lines of God the Father and those of His coming Son. Standing outside of time, God narrated the dialogs between Himself and His Son so that by these and other prophecies Christ could be recognized when He arrived on the scene.

In addition to the narratives and many prophecies, we see God using a favorite method of teaching by giving us many instances of theophanies, that is, a man or angel appearing as God. Some speculate that these appearances were literally Christ in His supposed pre-existent form. Not so. Christ was not on the scene until Bethlehem. The doctrine of Monotheism of One God (“none beside Him nor with Him”) eliminates Christ from being there. Then, how to explain these appearances and their purpose? We must speculate which we disdain to do, but here it is necessary; and it is at least in accord with scripture and doctrinal truth. We suggest that God created a man to serve as a prototype of His coming Son. The man, who was clearly not God, would be a kind of “robot” through which God could communicate. In essence, God would use this man to “role play” or portray His union with Christ when He would come. How else could God accomplish this means of prophecy? Certainly without these appearances scripture would suffer great loss.

We draw your attention to the incident in Genesis18-19 where the first recorded instance of this man appears. We see him with two other men, who were angels in human form. Let us draw a picture of what we believe God was doing. This man is a kind of puppet (with no strings attached) in the hand of God. He appears to be thoroughly human. He eats and fellowships with Abraham, and Sarah nearly a full day. Finally he addresses the spiritual matter for which he came. Let’s be clear about who this man is. He is not God, For God cannot be a man. But the man is a “stand in” for God, representing God, and it seems by the wording one might assume he was God?  No, he is just a man. God is totally in charge and in control of this man. The man speaks personally, addressing Abraham and Sarah by name. Note the titles given to him. This is not a mistake of penmanship. It is intentional. God wants us to see the whole picture. There is more here than meets the eye. The man inquires about Sarah in verse 9 and goes on to  promise Abraham a son, “I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life (restore physically for child bearing?); and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son.” Note the first person tense, “I will.” The voice is the man’s but it is God speaking. Note the names of God used: Vs.13: “The LORD (Jehovah) said.” Vs17: “The LORD (Jehovah) said.” Vs.30: “Let not the Lord (Adonai).” See the picture?  Here is a man that God fashioned to be used like a puppet, who is given the names of God, “LORD”(Jehovah), “Lord”(Adonai). Now we urge you to pay close attention lest you overlook the bigger picture we think God would have us see. Surely the story in itself is needful, but beyond that, we think God has given us a picture of His dual nature—that is, He would use a man perfectly suited to communicate His will. Certainly he is a prototype of Christ with one difference; this man is a body only, not truly born into the human race. In all other respects he serves as an illustration of the Father/Son concept of the dual nature.

We have mentioned that this man cannot be God. Neither can he be Christ, as Trinitarians deduce.  No, none of the appearances of any man in the Old Testament can literally be Christ in human form. Why? Let’s reason from the scriptures to show the impossibility. God does not play games with us. Even though He sometimes spares us the details, nevertheless, He provides the outline of what He wants us to see.  Test the Trinity view in the light of scripture. If Christ were God, then He, too, would be of the same “substance” of God, whatever that is. As God, the Son would be immutable. He could not change and become a man, nor could He ever appear as a man, because as God He would also be invisible. This being true, there can be only one answer, which we find in John 1:1: “In the beginning” He decreed that He would have a Son of humanity through whom and with whom He would complete His plan of redemption for all creation.

How He brought this Son into the world is described in Luke 1: 26-35 when the angel Gabriel sent by the Lord informed Mary that she had been chosen to give birth to the “Son of God.” Although we are familiar with the birth process, it is helpful to see exactly how the Son of God fits into this picture of a human birth. Forgive us if we state the obvious that the birth process requires the uniting of the sperm of the man with the egg of the woman. We know from Romans 5:12 that sin is inherited from Adam so that the sperm of the man is tainted. Sin is passed on by the man, not the woman. Therefore, when the time came for Christ to be born, God Himself replaced the man’s part in the conception, impregnating Mary by His Spirit with a sperm without flaw, so that Jesus was born without sin. Few understand this aspect of the virgin birth, that God provided the Y chromosome that would guarantee a male child, one perfect, without sin, with a disposition to always please God. Therefore, when Christ came into the world, He was properly called ”THE SON OF GOD,”  for indeed,  His Father was God Himself. He would be called “The Lord God, but never once “God the Son” as the Trinitarians insist. It is so simple, yet confusion is the outcome when adding to scripture to make something out of nothing.

Let’s see how this worked out in the life of Christ in His earthly ministry. God the Father indwelled the physical human body of Jesus in the same way as the account in Genesis, but this time in a true man who, born without sin, was always obedient to His Father’s will. Are not two persons in Christ evident -- the Father and the Son, Deity and Humanity? Clearly we have here a “Dual Nature.”  As surely as God in Gen.18-19 spoke through the man, to Abraham and Sarah, so God speaks through Jesus to us. Seven times Jesus tells us this in the Gospel of John, as for example in John 8:28:

“I speak only the words of My Father. I do nothing of myself; but as My Father has taught Me, I speak those things”

The Father, indwelling the Son at His baptism (Matt.3:16),  spoke through His Son  (John 14:10) and performed miracles through him  (Acts 2:22), as an observant eye and mind will see.  It becomes evident that Jesus had no deity of His own. “I can of mine own self do nothing” (John 5:19,30).  His deity is that shared with Him by His Father. “I am in the Father and the Father is in Me.” Yet, as in the case of the man in Genesis 18, the names of God are ascribed to Jesus, who has been given all power and authority by His Father. Once this union is understood, the Hebrew names of God in the Old Testament become increasingly significant in identifying both Father and Son in His dual nature, while also exposing faulty doctrines. 

TO TOP

WHAT'S IN A NAME?

HOME