God's Plan from the Beginning

THE BOOK OF GENESIS is a real eye-opener to better appreciate God's nature and purposes. How significant at the outset is God's choice of the Hebrew word elohim that is translated as God in the first verse! No other word could be so appropriate and adequate to speak of God's nature in eternity past when He determined to initiate His plan of Creation by which He would be glorified. Other titles later addressing Him would be out of place at this point. For instance, titles pointing to his mercy, patience, love, hatred of sin, etc. had yet to be progressively revealed. Here apart from all His works, He transcends all revelation by which we can become identified with Him. He appears as the infinite, all-powerful, all-knowing God, unknowable apart from what He would later reveal. To learn of Him in eternity past, we must go to scriptures given us since the beginning. Two of those are especially significant:

Isaiah 43:10, 11 Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.  I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
Isaiah 46:9, 10 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.

In effect, do not these verses declare that He is ONE God with a PLAN from the BEGINNING? Then, it seems wise to begin at the beginning if we are to better appreciate His nature and the plan by which He would reveal Himself and consummate His purposes. Possible misconceptions we might otherwise read into scripture can lead to so much error that exists today. Those who insist that Christ was pre-existent should remember Isaiah 46:9-10 above: "I am God and there is none like Me. Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done saying, My counsel shall stand and I will do all my pleasure." Although Christ would not be born until the fullness of time, in the eyes of God, His Son's birth, life, crucifixion, and resurrection was an accomplished fact. Only in recognition of this truth can Christ be said to be pre-existent. As I Peter 1:20 tells us, "He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you."

Notice the parallel between Genesis 1:1 with John 1:1.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning Gods, [Elohim the Father] and the unnamed [Elohim the Son] created all things.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Appreciating Strong's definition of the Greek word Logos that is translated as the Word is helpful in clarifying John:1:1. The definition carries the meaning of thought and/or expression.  Bearing that in mind, we can regard "In the beginning was the Word," as the thought or intent of the supreme Elohim [God the Father] to be known by the lesser Elohim [the Son. of God]. And the word was with God, that is, the Father and the Son were always in union, and the word was God, that is, God's plan was all about God Himself via Christ.

We know that God is perfect in all His ways, even in His perfect choice of the word Elohim to introduce Himself as the Creator! Unlike other titles that are singular, only the plural noun elohim points to the Godhead where He identifies Himself with another, although in a way that allows Him to remain solely God. Yes, questions arise here, questions debated ever since the advent of Christ. Some say we cannot understand. But although not immediately obvious, a plausible, satisfying, scriptural answer does exist if we are willing to do a little digging.

First, an insight into the word elohim is crucial to the solution. Strong's Hebrew dictionary defines elohim as "gods in the ordinary sense, that is, of men such as magistrates, judges, and sometimes angels.; but specifically used [in the plural thus, especially with the article] of the supreme God." A study of the word's usage throughout scripture will quickly verify the truth of this, and we dare not forget it, that elohim may be used in two ways---to refer to the Supreme God or 2] to refer to lesser gods. It is a generic term for the word god much like the term human applies to us.

Second, to be identified as individuals, we need specific names [interestingly, in former times they often indicated one's parentage or trade, such as Johnson John's son] or Carpenter]. So it is with God. In contrast to Elohim, the use of the Lord God is a specific phrase by which the nature of God is to be known and by which the Father can be distinguished from the Son. You say, "How is that?" Remember that our Bibles are a translation from the manuscripts. In Hebrew the coupling Adonai Jehovah always refers to God the Father, while Jehovah Elohim always points to the Son. However, each of the two Hebrew couplings necessarily are translated into English by the identical phrase Lord God. To distinguish between the two, the translators used different capitalization---Lord GOD for the Father and LORD God for the Son. If yours is a King James Bible or other literal translation, you will see this throughout it.

Third, the way in which these names are used is most interesting and revealing. Notice that the Hebrew words Adonai and Jehovah are always used of God the Father, and each word properly and uniquely speaks of His diety. With respect to His Son, the words used of him are different. In the word coupling referring to Christ, Jehovah surely identifies him with God, but the word elohim is not so clear, leaving one with questions. Here we need to remember the two-fold meaning of Elohim:

1. When used in the plural Elohim refers to the supreme God, that is, God the Father, the one who is called in scriptures, "Lord GOD" [Adonai Jehovah]. The title "supreme" necessarily implies there are lesser Gods [elohims] who do not possess the deity of the supreme GOD.

2. Elohim can have reference to "lesser gods" not possessing the deity of the Supreme God. These include those men appointed by God as His judges, as mentioned in Psalm 82:1-7. We know by God's word that we who have trusted in Christ are God's children [sons], too. No deity is associated with this second group.

Fourth,who is the "us" mentioned in Genesis 1:26? Throughout Genesis chapter one, God is known solely as Elohim, always in the singular tense with one exception in Genesis 1:26 where, with respect to His creation of mankind, He speaks in His plurality: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." Might His choice of the word Elohim  be to provoke our curiosity over the plural nature the word conveys? Does it point to the three persons of the Godhead as commonly accepted? Or might it be only TWO--the Father and His Son? Without pursuing the question in depth right now, the omission of the Holy Spirit here need not pose a problem [scripture, e.g. John 4:24, shows God and His spirit to be one and the same; only the speculations of men create any difficulty]. Let us center on the Father and the Son to see how they, in union with each other, can help us find the answer.

Thanks for bearing with all this spadework about God's choice and use of words. We have tried to present it as concisely as possible but know you may yet have questions. However, hopefully we are now at a point to tie all this together for greater depth and clarity. In doing so, a question is in order.

Which definition of elohim applies to the Lord Jesus Christ?

Dare we even ask? Has Christ not always been regarded as the supreme God? To infer that he can be a lesser god may seem to border on heresy. The influence of the Trinity doctrine that Christ is "God the Son" and equal with the God the Father would make it seem so. However, the phrase "God the Son" is never used in scripture nor is it ever clearly stated that he is equal with His Father. But if we bypass speculations and stick to scripture, Christ's own words expose the error. Did he not confess not knowing the time of his coming? (Mark 13:42). Did he not say, "My Father is greater than I?" (John 14:28). With respect to making himself God, Christ's own answer to this charge of the Jews in John 10:33-36 is revealing by his reference to Psalm 82. Though others, then as now, seeing the Father in him, regarded him as God, never once did he make that claim. Instead, knowing his appointed glory, he chose to identify himself with those mentioned in the psalm and all his brethren.
Read carefully, prayerfully Jesus' response to the Jews' accusation that he made himself equal with God.  Notice that Jesus neither denies nor confirms their accusation but admits to having a title of God that is shared by other men, too. Read the words in Psalm 82 he used to justify his words:

"GOD stands in the congregation of the Mighty, He judges among the gods." [Exodus 21:6 and 22:8-9 reveal these to be God's magistrates, judges, i.e., elohims]. We read in verse 6: "I have said ye are gods. elohims] and all of you are the children sons] of the most High."

Now, back to John 10:34 for Jesus' answer to his accusers: "Is it not written "Ye are gods?" [elohims]. It must be asked in what sense of the word elohims was Jesus referring? Was it not to the children, i.e., sons of God? In verse 35-36, Jesus confirms it:  "If He called them "gods" [elohims] to whom the word of the God came, do you say of him whom the Father sent into the world, Thou blasphemy; because I said I am the Son of God." Note again the exact words of Psalm 82:6 to which Jesus referred: "Ye are gods [elohim] and all of you are children [sons] of the most high God." Could it be said any more plainly? Note how the Living Letter Bible paraphrases John 10:33-34:  "The Jews replied to Jesus, 'We are killing you not for any good work, but for blasphemy; you a MERE MAN, have declared yourself to be God' [deity].  Jesus replied, "In your own Law it says that men are gods..." Although Jesus identifies himself as a lesser elohim, even like one of us, he is a very special one, the Elohim of elohims through whom God will accomplish His will. Do not assume that his being identified as a "lesser god" diminishes the glory accredited to him by God. To worship the Son, apart from whom no one can know God, is to worship the Father.

A closer look at God's order:

In light of the foregoing, a new picture needs to be painted of God and His appointed order in relationship to His creation. Before the beginning, there was only God, holy, alone, forever the same with no other god existing before Him, with Him or after Him. Then, with respect to His creation, God devised His Plan by which He purposed from the beginning to be known by a man in union with Himself. The man, God's Son, would be an expression of God's nature, given all power and authority, credited even with creation. Talk about credentials! The man, God's son, though subservient to His Father, would by virtue of his work on the Cross be given authority to rule as God's chosen servant over all. Although in a sense he is a lesser god, it is no small thing to be second in command over all of creation. While having no deity of his own, he is in an inseparable union with the deity of God the Father from which his deity is derived. He is God's Anointed, the chosen Savior of the world, the perfect expression of the invisible God, given all power and authority to rule in the Millenium as the "God of gods, the Lord of Lords" that is, the Elohim of elohims, the Adon of adons [Deut 10:17]. He will reign until all is accomplished when finally God will be all in all [I Cor.15:28].

In this way, God ordained that the visible, mortal man would accomplish what the invisible, immortal God could not, that is, become identified with sin and death. Thus, God and the man in union would be revealed in a Father/Son relationship. God would be known not only as the Father nor only as the Son. No, it would be by both, God in His deity dwelling in a man whose will was always to be obedient, even to the Cross. God saw fit that we should worship His servant even as Himself. Finally, respecting ourselves, we see His order given in I Corinthians 11:3: "But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God."

God, who doesn't speculate,
has an answer for those who do

WHEN 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 and equal to God. The Spirit of God, affirmed as the third person of the Trinity, has been made GOD the Spirit, creating in effect TWO Spirits, where scripture clearly asserts there is only ONE. We mention it here initially to simply join the issue between the "mystery" of the Trinity and the ONE true  God who assigns Himself two names.

Proof positive

Certainly you should insist on proof for what we say, so 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 has invoked controversy for centuries. 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 are 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. Our case rests 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.

Back to the beginning to understand the future

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

I am God, and there is none like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, 'My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,' (Isaiah 46:9,10)

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) 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'?

How God determined to become a 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, and every miracle. We need to see it is the Father who is indwelling His Son.  The title 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.

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, appearances of 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. How to explain the appearances of such a man said to be God?

The man in Genesis

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. Who was this man? We don't know. We can only speculate, which we disdain to do, but perhaps God made the man out of nothing for this specific occasion. Or would that be too hard for God?

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.

A real man who God could use

How God 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. When ascended, He would be called "The Lord God, but never "God the Son" as Trinitarians insist.

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. Hopefully, the foregoing will help eliminate confusion and give understanding to the many accounts of how God used human agents to reveal Himself.

Father/Son
You can't have one without the other

EVERY CHRISTIAN who studies the Bible should know how we are encouraged to hold fast to sound doctrine. For what is our faith if it is not based on the sound teaching of scripture? Take away doctrine, as many urge today, and division among believers may be eliminated; but any meaningful understanding of God and our relationship to Him is negated. It is with this in mind that we would examine a doctrine accepted and propagated as a mainstay of Christianity, that is, the doctrine of the Trinity. It surely affects our understanding of the relationship of our heavenly Father and His Son. Can anything be more important to the believer than to know the particular nature and role of both? If Christ is truly GOD the Son, the third person of the Godhead said to be equal with God, serious questions arise. Moreover, it must seriously impact the way we regard Him. If Jesus walked this earth not only as a man but as God, he surely had a leg up on the rest of us. Our excuse for not walking as he walked might well be that HE WAS GOD, having great advantage over us.

In view of this, as those whose eternal destiny is tied to the words of scripture, we who are followers of Christ ought to ever so carefully note Jesus' words in John 17:3:

"This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent."

The word know used above in the Greek is ginosko that speaks of an intimate, first-hand knowledge; it is used in Matt. 1:25 of Joseph not having known (not having had sexual relations) with the virgin Mary prior to Jesus' birth. This is the word used in John 2:25 that Jesus "knew what was in man." Repeatedly this word is used of the believer's personal knowledge of Christ. Surely here its use should cause us to seriously ponder Christ's prayer for us to correctly understand the distinction between God and Christ Jesus as well as their common purpose.

What is crucial is to remember Peter's words, "Like newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word that you may grow thereby." What is true naturally is true spiritually. As a babe may enjoy the initial care of its parents, its appreciation of them will be ever growing. Likewise, as ones born of God, our calling is to increase in the knowledge of our Father and His Son by listening to and putting into practice  what we are told. Certainly we should come to a clear understanding of the relationship between God the Father and His Son.

However, to ponder this may well give rise to an immediate question. We pray to our heavenly Father, and we pray to Jesus. We worship them both as God. But does that mean we have two Gods? The Bible tells us there is only one God. Are our heavenly Father and Christ one and the same? Some say so. Christ is often referred to as the God-Man, but how are we to understand that? How can it be understood, considering the attributes of God and Man are so opposite? Our Bibles tell us that God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, an invisible Spirit who is separate from His creation and declared to be present everywhere. As members of humanity, we know full well how unlike God we are, mortal beings, limited and dependent. If a man, for instance, were to be omniscient, to possess even a single attribute of God, could he be fully human? Would he not be more accurately regarded as a superman? The same problem arises in attributing to God any characteristic of man, such as his mortality or dependent nature. For Him to be limited or dependent, God would cease to be God. But if we have studied our Bibles, we know Deity is ascribed to both the Father and to Christ. So is there an answer?

Many will say no, that it is a mystery beyond understanding. That may seem so, but the answer is there, even if not immediately obvious.  To appreciate it is not unlike solving a picture puzzle where different pieces must be fitted together. Of the many different answers advanced, invariably pieces of the picture are lacking. Beginning in the earliest centuries of the Church, no end of arguments and division arose over the nature of Christ. What was his relationship to God? Was he God? Was he both God and man? The questions and conjectures ultimately became so heated that it finally led to the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. that was ordered by Constantine after the legalization of Christianity in Rome. The end result of the Council's deliberations was the doctrine of the Trinity, which, after no inconsiderable dissension, has come to be accepted as the answer. But most believers, if asked to give a scriptural answer for their belief in the Trinity, might be hard pressed. The Trinity seems to be a view commonly accepted without much questioning and considered perhaps to be irrelevant to believers' lives. You might ask yourself if this is not true.

The answer--simple, but hidden

Our aim is, as much as possible, to examine the nature of God and His relationship to His Son solely in the light of scripture. To this end, we must not only examine various aspects and how they tie together, we also must avoid common presumptions that wrongly influence what we read into or out of scripture. We must remember that the majority is not always right, that no matter how well intentioned, the speculations and conclusions of men, however devout, are not on a level with the inspired word of God. Scripture must be regarded as the accurate and infallible revelation of God's nature and purpose from start to finish. It must be approached with a spirit of complete dependency on the Spirit of God to help us understand it. Scripture is not only inspired by God but cannot be understood apart from His Spirit. As we are told, "All scripture is given by the inspiration of God" (II Timothy 3:16), and "God has revealed them [the scriptures] to us through His Spirit..." (I Corinthians 2:10). What's more, we are told to study, "rightly dividing the word of Truth." Failure to meet these prerequisites is conspicuous by the multiplicity of diverse interpretations of scripture that result in error. If we are guilty of stating what ought to be obvious, forgive us; but the apprehension of our subject is dependent upon practicing what we "know." Much in God's word is easily grasped in comparison to so much that God has purposely hidden and intended only for those with hungry hearts. With this in mind, may we "grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. 
                                                                                                                                                (II Peter 3:18)

Concerning the person of Christ

That Christ was totally human is clear in scripture from start to finish. Our calendar is dated from His birth. The world knows He was born in Bethlehem. Certainly every Christian knows He led a miraculous and holy life until crucified for no sin of His own. For anyone interested, the scriptures furnish remarkable detail about every facet of His life, which proved to be the complete fulfillment of over 300 prophecies in the Old Testament. Without dealing with the more commonly known aspects of His humanity, it is His uniqueness that we would consider. Scripture tells us He was made in the likeness of men. But, unlike us, He was born of a virgin, born without Sin. How important that we grasp the enormity of that! If one is to do so, there is no better place to begin than with John's Gospel, which sheds so much light on Christ's deity.
During his last personal meeting with His disciples, when asked by John to show them the Father, His words in John 14:10,11 reveal truth easily overlooked for the full depth of its meaning.

"Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves."

His words amplified what He had told the disciples earlier when in John 5:19 He had explained:

"Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner."

If we discard any preconceptions and take Jesus' words at face value, we see three things. First, Christ and His Father were in a marvelous union, each in the other. Second, Jesus credited His Father with giving Him the words to speak and doing all His miraculous works through Him. Third, Jesus made it clear that He as a man could do nothing, that He could only convey what His Father showed Him.

Evident from Christ's words is the truth that he truly is the express image of the invisible God. To behold the Son is to see the Father. As John 4:34 makes clear, "Jesus said to them, 'My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work.'"  Since His will was always to do the will of His Father, to behold Christ's words and actions is to see God who indwelled Him. How astonishing that God would condescend to our level by means of a man, so that we might know Him! Could He have done it any other way? The answer is intrinsic to the truth of the Father/Son relationship.

You may be familiar with the verses quoted, but pause a moment to reflect upon the depth of their meaning. Often we may simply skim the surface of scripture, missing much of the light God would have us see. Consider the first of the three-fold blessing they unveil.

I. THE UNION:"I am in the Father, and the Father in Me."

Jesus' words are profound. They reveal a union that existed in God's purpose before creation ever took place. Speaking of Christ, I Peter 1:20 reveals, "He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you." We are told in John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Most interpret this only in terms of Christ, which of course it includes. However, the Word, (Logos in Greek) is defined in Strong's Bible dictionary as a thought or plan and its expression. It may legitimately be regarded, as Israel apparently did, as the grand scheme of God from the beginning to the end of His creation, Christ being the centerpiece of it in the appointed time.Think about this. In His omniscience, knowing all things that would take place from beginning to end, God determined to make Himself known through the man Jesus Christ. The Son would make known the Father; thus God would not be known solely as the Son nor as the Father but as both, as Father/Son. Working as a team, deity and humanity, together they accomplished our redemption, so that each might rightfully be addressed as our Savior. Whether we understand it or not, we certainly know, as noted above, that we pray to both.

II. THE FATHER DOES IT ALL: "The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works."

Let's not overlook that it was God in Christ who made our redemption possible. Though he intentionally points us to His Son to reveal Himself, He is always behind every word and miraculous work, "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself (II Cor. 5:19). Our faith is premised on such scriptures as II Tim. 3:16: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.." The word all here must include even the words Jesus spoke that he confessed were given him by the Father. Not only Jesus' words but his works were by his Father. Jesus performed many miracles, yet he credited them to his Father. Jesus seemed to be omniscient when he saw Nathaniel under the fig tree. He appeared to be omnipotent when he calmed the storm. Nicodemus recognized that no man could do the miracles Jesus did unless God were with him (John 3:2). Behind the actions of the man was the Spirit of God to do what no man, even Christ, could do apart from his Father.

III. THE SON OBEYS HIS FATHER: "the Son can do nothing of Himself but what He sees the Father do"

How else could God manifest Himself? "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth," as we read in John 4:24. Since God is Spirit, He is invisible. "No one has seen God at any time," as attested by John 1:18. What's more, in Malachi 3:6 we read, "I am the LORD, I do not change."  Despite His awesome power, the invisible, immutable God needed a man, a perfect man in whom He could dwell. Only then could He make Himself known on a level we can understand and relate to. Of the many reasons why this was necessary, just one is sufficient to prove it--man's mortality makes him subject to death, a prerequisite for a Savior. It has been said that God died on the Cross. But how could the eternal God ever die? No, but His Son could. And God has seen fit to identify Himself with His Son in an inseparable union. At the very crux of our faith relating to Christ is the truth of Romans 10:9: "...if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." Yes, Christ as a man could be touched with our infirmities, wounded for our transgressions, and so could God in union with His Son. But God could not die; that was something only Jesus could do. God and Jesus, each opposite in nature to the other yet having a common will and purpose, accomplished what would otherwise have been impossible.

We need to look at God anew. He is never surprised. He foresaw Adam's sin, and He foretold the Answer that would solve the seeming dilemma. Throughout the Old Testament, He gave all kinds of pictures pointing to the coming Messiah, who would be born without sin, who would be judged on the Cross for our sins. It had to be. Too often, the absolute holiness of God is overlooked. The world makes a mockery of His holiness by asking how could a God of love not forgive us. The answer is He couldn't, not apart from His Son. For sin to somehow come into His presence is impossible; even the tiniest taint of sin would mar His absolute perfection. No, God had to punish it, and it cost Him the death of His only begotten son. But when sin had been taken out of the way, God was free to be merciful to all who come to Him by trusting in the redemption of Christ. Let this sink in.
We have no righteousness in ourselves. No less a one than the apostle Paul declared, "For I know that in me that is, in my flesh, [in his natural self] nothing good dwells."  God can only accept us in His beloved Son. When we trusted our lives to Him we were baptized into His death. We died to sin and the law, and we became new creations, risen with Him, recipients of His life that now dwells in us, just as His Father's life was in Him. Read Romans 6:3,4: "do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." The Bible repeatedly tells us to walk by faith in what God declares, not by our limited understanding or varying and unreliable feelings. God has said, "Thy word is truth." Paul tells us to "reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord."  We're to make up our minds and count on it!

If by the obedience of faith, we know who we are in Christ, the words of Jesus should not be so much a mystery as some make it. Consider his words, "I am in the Father, and the Father in me."  Here was the One born by the Virgin Mary without sin, who "increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men." Implicit in this wisdom was his appreciation that he was "meek and lowly." He knew full well that his nature as a man was one of complete dependency on God. Coupled with this was his complete confidence in God. So great was his pursuit of scriptural knowledge that when he was only twelve years old, His wisdom amazed those at Bethlehem. Yet, patiently waiting on God, He would be near age thirty before called to His ministry when baptized by John, who testified, "For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God does not give the Spirit by measure (John 3:34). Yes, unlike any other, Christ began His ministry only upon the reception of the fullness of His father, "For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell" (Colossians 12:19).

Do we denigrate Christ?

Now, in the event it hasn't crossed your mind, we raise a question. If Christ, in and of himself, is not God, does it not somehow denigrate him? Further, then how can he be called God? These are legitimate questions because scripture often refers to him as God. Is there a way to reconcile this seeming dilemma? YES! We emphatically insist there is, and to the careful reader it may already be evident. In many instances Jesus acknowledged God to be superior to himself, yet now glorified in heaven, he is certainly superior to us and is rightfully our God. Though Christ was a man, he was a very special man, the chosen one of God whom God could and would credit with His deity because of their union in will and purpose. When we see Jesus we see God incarnate. Consider the man, perfect in all his ways, whose essence is described in Philippians 2:5-9 which might be paraphrased as follows:

Look at things the same way Jesus did, who, though knowing he was a reflection of Deity in the form of a man* [the last Adam], didn't try to be equal with God [like the first Adam]. He wasn't interested in being highly regarded but determined to be a servant. He was made just like other men; and as a man, He continually humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death on the Cross.

*We ask, does God himself have a form, He who is Spirit and dwells in unapproachable light? The Greek word for "form" implies the outward appearance. So far as we can see the word must refer to Christ who is the visible image of God.

Indeed, by becoming identified with the humanity of Jesus, it might be said that God set aside his reputation. Instead of being set apart and unapproachable as in the Old Testament, He determined to reveal Himself in the form of a servant.

The Deity of Christ--His Father IN him

TO SAY JESUS was fully and only man when he walked this earth is assumed by many to deny his deity. If as a man he was not God, how could he be divine? That must be answered if we are to avoid confusion and understand the nature of Christ in union with God.

Sadly, when trying to search out and present the answer, there's a problem. Because the answer advanced differs from traditional notions, a normal reaction is to reject it out of hand without a fair, objective hearing. This is natural and we confess to having done the same, but God help us to not jump to unfounded conclusions. Let's remember that as disciples we are all commanded to carefully seek out the truth by our common Savior.

Do we not all acknowledge the Bible to be the depository of all God's revelation, accurate to the last jot and tittle, providing the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, never contradictory when properly understood? Have we not all admitted our own sinful estate and trusted the One who could change our eternal destiny? Have we not been born again by the holy spirit of God and experienced His power to change our lives? Do we not rest and rejoice in the promises of a God who cannot lie or fail to bring about His intentions? Yet haven't we discovered how helpless and error prone we are in ourselves apart from God's marvelous grace. Have we not all had to be corrected many times? With all this in mind, we beg the reader to not write us off but to search out and evaluate all we say.

In regard to our question, seldom is the deity of Christ investigated in the full light of all that the Bible reveals about it. Normally the existing cultural teaching is accepted without much question. Rather than diligently searching the scriptures objectively, it is easier to rely on hearsay, be it creeds or the preaching and writings of men. This is not to diminish any who have labored to arrive at truth; but it is a reminder that men, no matter what their rank and station, are fallible and subject to error. Our teaching can only reflect what we have been taught, whether right or wrong, as evidenced by so many conflicting scriptural views causing so much division in Christendom today.

The peril of subtle error

Tragically, once a misconception over scripture is affirmed to be true, it can spread like a contagious disease, blinding those infected to the cause of their error. Such, we believe, happened at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. when the Trinitarian doctrine was conceived. Over the centuries this speculation by men to explain God has become so entrenched in popular thought that to question it is to be thought heretical.

Perhaps this is a major reason so few dare take issue with it; to question presumptions, to honestly challenge majority opinion, to risk disfavor, such runs against our natural bent. But if we are to arrive at the truth, we must hold to scripture alone no matter how much it goes against the grain of popular thought. Do we dare do this? We dare not. What follows is, as briefly and straightforwardly as we can explain it, what we are convinced is God's answer. But again, don't take our word for it; search it out for yourself.
First, as we have noted from Isaiah 46:10 and elsewhere, God planned from before creation to become identified by means of Christ Jesus. Consider I Peter 1:20:

"He [Christ] indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you." [That is, God decreed beforehand the birth and life of His Son in whom He would indwell, and when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth His son born of a woman, born under the Law, according to Gal. 4:4].

Second, apart from condescending to us in human terms, God necessarily had to remain unknowable for He "alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see."  Question: If God, invisible and immutable, was to be known by means of His Son, what would He need to do? Answer: He would have to indwell the spirit of Jesus, enlighten him, motivate him, be behind all his words and actions.  In short, He would literally clothe Himself in the body of His Son who willingly trusted and obeyed his Father. Yes, God was truly incarnate in His Son; the name Immanuel (God with us) in Isaiah 7:14 spoke of God in Christ.

What's more, if God was to be known by His Son, He would do all in the name of His Son, crediting him even with His miraculous works and titles. Viewed in this way, the divinity of Christ takes on a new light in scriptures that appear to make him God in himself. For instance, note Col. 1:15-18 NKJV that identifies Christ with the work of Creation.

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16) For by [better "in"] Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17) And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18) And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence. 19) For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, 20) and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross." [NOTE THIS: The Greek word "en" translated "by" in verse 16 is most often rendered as "in." Though it is legitimately translated "by" oftentimes, we think it is a mistake to use it here as we will try to explain below].

What do we believe?

Some questions are in order. Do we not believe there is only one God, one creator? Then, if we make Christ himself creator according to the above passage, how do we reconcile the many instances in Isaiah and elsewhere that insist that Jehovah alone is God and creator? Are they one and the same? One might conclude as much from comparing Isaiah 45:23. speaking of Jehovah, and Philippians 2:10, speaking of Christ, where it is said of each, "every knee shall bow." Indeed, they are both also said to be our "Savior." But how can that be? Only by recognizing that each played a role in our salvation. In effect, in Christ there are two natures, that of humanity and that of his Father's Deity, each distinct from the other. As Jesus instructed Phillip in John 14:10, "Do you not believe that I am IN the Father, and the Father in Me?" Surely, "God was in Christ" according to II Cor. 5:19. But let's also remember that Christ was IN the Father: "He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world" (I Pet. 1:20). He was the very centerpiece of God's plan that God would execute "in the fullness of time when He sent forth His son" (Gal. 4:4), when in declaring the end from the beginning He promised "My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure." (Isaiah 46:10). Sure enough, God did! God would make every scripture find its fulfillment in Christ. Determining to make Himself known in all His fullness, God would be IN Christ all that Christ was said to be IN Him. Regarding Col. 1:16 above, hopefully this should help explain why "IN Him all things were created." As the Son, he is being credited with the Deity of the Father in Him.

To be the perfect image of God, Christ had to reflect Him in all His majesty while making clear his own role of humanity.  Christ came to reveal the Father. The Father determined to be known by His Son. We need to ponder this. Are they not two sides of one coin? Surely God continued to be one and the same when He indwelt Christ. He had not given His glory to another god; He had simply indwelt His Son to make Himself known in human terms. Christ was the human means by which his Father's Deity could be manifested. To worship him is to worship the Father because his Deity is that of the Father.

A difference of Heaven and earth

Third, we need to distinguish between the humiliation of Christ and his later exaltation to the right hand of God. Here I Cor. 15:42-49 is instructive.

"So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, 'The first man Adam became a living being.' The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man."

The passage not only speaks of Christ, that he is the firstborn of many brethren, but of us. We are reminded of 2Cor 5:16:

"Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer."

There is a profound difference between his humiliation and his exaltation, true in his life just as in ours. Like us who believe, on this earth he walked in dependence by faith regarding the promises and spirit of his Father, but after his ascension he entered into the glory promised him and became a life-giving spirit. Having been given the name above every name, Christ in union with God the Father will rule as Lord in the coming kingdom of God until the Day of God when all things having been subdued to him, even death, he shall be subject to God so that God may be all in all. (1 Cor. 15:24-28).

In view of all this, certainly we may attribute deity to Christ, the deity of his Father in him.  We do well to remember the life of Joseph, how ultimately he was given all authority by the Pharaoh though not displacing him. For Joseph to give a command was just as if the Pharaoh had decreed it. So it is with Christ who has been given all authority by God. Let us remember the order of God as set forth in I Cor. 11:3, "the head of every man is Christ . . . and the head of Christ is God." Yes, Christ is subordinate to God but he is clearly in authority over us as our God.

What do we really believe?

To hopefully clarify all this even more, perhaps it will help to ask a simple question. Where was God the Father during the earthly ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ? The answer must be that He was indwelling Jesus' physical body. "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself " (II Corn. 5:19). Can it be said any more clearly? God the Father indwelt Christ every moment from His baptism until the third hour on the Cross when God had to forsake His Son in order to judge the sins of the world laid upon Him, after which He raised Christ from the dead, now ascended into Heaven, given all power and authority to rule as Lord of lords and King of kings in the coming Millennium.

Do you believe this? Then what are we to think of the prevailing view that assigns Christ a deity of his own, crediting him, for instance, with omniscience and omnipotence in such instances as when he saw Nathaniel under the fig tree or when he stilled the waters of the Sea of Galilee? If God was in Christ where is the need for Christ himself to be God? Jesus surely didn't think so when He said,

Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. [i.e., miracles]." John 14:10.

Do the words of Jesus mean anything? "The Father is in Me." "The Father is indwelling Me." The Father speaks through Me." "The Father performs miracles through Me." In the light of His words, can we not safely say without contradiction that Jesus indeed has a deity that indwells Him? Cannot it also be said without contradiction that the DEITY IS THAT OF THE FATHER HIMSELF? It would certainly appear so. To carry that to its ultimate conclusion, is it not safe to say that the deity of Jesus is that shared with Him by His Father? Further, for what reason need Christ have a deity of His own?  If God the Father, who is over all, indwells Christ, speaks through Christ, and performs miracles through Him, what more could Christ do than is done by the Father? Obviously, NOTHING.  Let's carry that out still further. If Christ had a deity of His own and could do all the above things attributed to the Father, then what need for the Father to indwell Jesus? Surely the argument is moot; for the scriptures have already settled the issue. God the Father is indwelling the Son. Jesus is not a liar. He is the personification of truth. He said clearly, unmistakably, "I AM IN THE FATHER AND THE FATHER IS IN ME." God was in Christ by His Spirit. Likewise, God through Christ is in every believer by His Spirit. (God is Spirit --John 4:24). "Christ the first fruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming."  --I Corinthians. 15:23.

We are to walk as He walked--in total dependence upon our Father, born by His spirit by which He promises to direct our steps as we seek to please Him by faith. True, Christ was born without sin, while God has seen fit to allow our sin nature to remain, though foreign to our new nature in Christ. Facing our own wilderness of temptation and trial, like the man Jesus, our challenge is to overcome by faith in God's word, "for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure" --Phil. 2:13.  Is this not true? Think about it.

Search the scriptures for yourself, taking care not to be blinded by preconceptions, looking at it anew. Your admiration and love for Christ will soar to new heights as you discover He had to tough it out just like the rest of us.  Although fully man with no divinity of his own, he shared the divinity of his Father who indwelt him in full measure. We reverence Jesus' words in John 17:3, "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." Father/Son--you can't have one without the other.  Just as He was chosen--forever to be worshiped as the firstborn--even so, we also are chosen to walk in His steps.

The Trinity's origin in a Church Divided

UNDER THE UMBRELLA of Christendom the battle rages on between churches divided by a multitude of views-everything from the doctrine of faith vs. works to such issues as whether to be sprinkled or immersed for baptism. Hardly a thing in scripture escapes controversy. One teaching, however, orthodox churches hold in common is the blessed Trinity, God in three persons, each God, each equal, a trinity in unity. Here is the fountainhead of Christianity, separating it from all other religions and cults. Yet few believers likely have examined it. Let us look at two chief reasons behind the origin of the Trinity doctrine and its impact on our faith-1) the scriptures and 2) the influence of culture.

The genesis of a crisis

A short history lesson is helpful. As time passed after Christ's first advent, when he failed to return as expected, questions arose about the nature of Christ. Many had second thoughts. Was He God, was he only a man, or perhaps something of each? By the time Constantine legalized Christianity after long persecution, some of the views had reached a fever pitch.  Constantine, now head of the Church, determined to resolve the controversy for the sake of a unified Rome and convened the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. Believers of every persuasion were ordered to come from all parts of the empire to express their views. Talk about a challenge!

Might we put ourselves at such a council, apart from our footnoted Bibles, concordances, computer programs, et al. We, who are so fervent about separation of Church and State, need to appreciate the weight of Constantine's presence over the Council, as well as the peer pressure that invariably attends such events. We would find ourselves in a contest between what had always been Jewish thought of God's Word as opposed to new Gentile conceptions influenced by Greek philosophy. The winner would gain the favor of Constantine who presided over the Council and that of Roman law that would uphold it.  The Council's task might be compared to a joint session of Congress trying to hammer out vital legislation in accord with the Constitution and acceptable to the President without a veto. Think of it---Fine points of law, the meaning of wording used, precedents, etc. all discussed, examined, and undoubtedly compromised to gain a majority opinion and final approval without threat of a veto. What a way to try arriving at God's truth!

The intensity and extent of the battle

Few are aware of the impassioned dissension that developed at the Council and that continued long afterward in forthcoming councils. The controversy would extend until the sixth century. In opposition to the Trinity, the view of Arius held center stage although views such as Sabellism, Nestorianism, and others were in the wings. The outlook of the churches in Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria each played a part in the contest. Generally speaking, Rome, most powerful of the three, favored the Trinity position. Nestorius of Antioch denied the Trinity. Those in Alexandria, long a center of learning and much affected by Hellenism, was the home ground of Arius and his host of followers. Leaders of the three churches were continually vying against one another for their views to predominate.

We know that Rome won the day at the first Council. Rome overcame by virtue of its legal authority and power, despite intense opposition that never ceased for hundreds of years. As with our own Constitution and Amendments, modifications were made to the original declaration as time passed. At the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D., an oversight of Nicea was corrected to include the Holy Spirit as the Third Person of the Godhead. Then in 431 the Council of Ephesus, overcoming Nestorius' convictions, officially declared Christ to be the "Incarnate God" and the Virgin Mary to be "The Mother of God." At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, what we have called the "dual nature" of God was affirmed although misunderstood. The final result was the Trinity doctrine that remains today. Followers of the various opposing factions were often defamed and excommunicated. The seeds of Roman Catholicism as we know it were sprouting. As Rome's official religion, the Pope in league with the prevailing Caesar would rule supreme over other kingdoms in the coming dark ages. Following is an excerpt from the very beginning of the Athanasian Creed, now unquestioningly accepted by orthodox churches,  it far exceeds the many favors or penalties Rome could impose for dissent; it adds the threat of losing one's salvation.

"Whoever would be saved, must first of all take care that he hold the Catholic (universal) faith, which, except a man preserve whole and inviolate, he shall without doubt perish eternally. But this is the Catholic faith, that we worship one God in trinity, and trinity in unity..."

Suddenly a new standard for salvation that rests on a concept never declared in scripture is invoked. Whatever happened to the scriptural condition for salvation revealed in Romans 10:9 that "if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved"?

A war over words--the crux of the battle

In arriving at Rome's new conception of God, no transcript exists to detail all the arguments used, but we suspect they were much like those used today. In every case, the question was to explain how scripture's mention of "God," His "spirit," and "Christ" were related to each other. In turn, the emphasis was on Christ, his nature, who he was with respect to God. Regarding the Trinity's explanation of "three persons, each God," the reasoning was that the person of Christ could only be of one nature. It was concluded that he had to be in himself a mixture of man and God. As we have tried to show elsewhere, his "dual nature" is the answer to the dilemma. The many scriptures cited in the case for the Trinity are better explained as alluding to Christ existing in his Father's mind rather than to the physical Jesus himself. What a shame other direct, straightforward scriptures, even by Jesus himself are ignored! (Refer to other of our articles if you want a refresher on these scriptures).

Making things all the worse was the reasoning used to explain how Christ and God were both of the same nature. New words, big words, words often misunderstood were coined to make the case. The word "Trinity" is not to be found in scripture. Neither are such expressions as "three persons," said to be coeternal. The titles, "God the Son," "God the Spirit," are not to be found. Words like Homoousian vs. Homoiousian, were much argued about as the substance that both Christ as man and God shared. The thought that their union was not one of "substance" but of "will" was missed completely.

We have mentioned other views or explanations in lieu of the Trinity, but it takes books to explain them, and that is not our intention here. It is insightful that the views of that time still exist in one way or another among today's churches. Indeed, the convictions of Nestorius are very much if not the same as our own. What happened during his ministry to go against the grain of established religious error is a lesson for all.

The church at Antioch apparently reflected Jewish thought. Nestorius was an esteemed orthodox preacher who eventually was appointed the patriarch of Constantinople. While there his belief that Christ had two natures (as we believe) became widely known. A ruckus began when he preached against the Virgin Mary being referred to by the theological term theotokos that meant the "bearer of God" or as many say, "mother of God" He said it would be better for her to be termed "Christotokos, that is, "mother of Christ" Nestorius's conception of the Person of Christ was that "Mary did not give birth to divinity, but to the man, the instrument of divinity." Thus, for him, the two natures of Christ--divine and human--were in intimate harmony, but each functioned according to its own attributes. (Do I hear any "Amens"?)

The news of his views soon reached Cyril, the patriarch of Alexandria, who was strongly apposed to Nestorius and insisted Christ had only one nature, both as God and man. A discourse that started cordially ended in heated and bitter arguments. Their controversy ended at Ephesus in 431. When agreement could not be reached for either side, it was referred by the bishop to the Pope who was sympathetic to Cyril who has been accused of bribery. The end result was that they were both ostracized. While Cyril was temporarily condemned, he later won the day with Rome though his political astuteness. Nestorius was deposed to Egypt, Cyril's home ground where he suffered severely; his recorded remarks are remindful of Paul's sufferings cheerfully accepted in Christ. Despite his defeat, Nestorius nevertheless was held in high regard and affected the decisions of later Councils. Even after his death, He had a huge influence, many Nestorian churches being founded in eastern Asia and the Middle East that continue even until today. This is just one little tidbit that is representative of this ideological battle that raged for years.

The impact culture on conceptions

How much our culture can color our views is evidenced by examining the events following the ascension of Christ and leading to the times when men set out to explain his divinity. Walker in his A History of the Christian Church sheds light on how the word Logos was understood at the time of Christ:

The Judaism of the dispersion was much influenced by Hellenism, especially by Greek philosophy, and nowhere more deeply than in Egypt. There, in Alexandria, the Old Testament was given to the reading world in Greek translation, the so-called Septuagint, as early as the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus (B.C. 285-246) . . . The most influential of the Alexandrian interpreters was Philo (B.C. 20?-A.D. 42?). To Philo, the Old Testament is the wisest of books, a real divine revelation, and Moses the greatest of teachers; but by allegorical interpretation Philo finds the Old Testament in harmony with the best in Platonism and Stoicism. The belief that the Old Testament and Greek philosophy were in essential agreement was one of far-reaching significance for the development of Christian philosophy. This allegorical method of Biblical explanation was greatly to influence later Christian study of the Scriptures. (Emphasis mine)

In the second century, Justin Martyr, then Tertulian and Origin, and, later in the fourth century, Augustine, would draw upon this allegorical aspect of Hellenism to harmonize it with Christianity. 

The impact of the Greek culture on the "Church fathers" cannot be overestimated. These philosophers were brilliant men for their time, and their writings are worth studying. Often what Plato and others wrote seemed to speak of Biblical truth. The life of Socrates in his pursuit to know good and follow it, even to the point of dieing for it, has caused some to think he was a saved Christian. Be that as it may, he set an example for seeking after truth and embodying it in life. We must remember that Greek thought was not without credulity; it undoubtedly influenced the so-called "Church fathers" as they wrestled with how to explain Christ. We need to remember that the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. The wisdom of the Greeks led so far as Gnosticism where it was thought Christ could not have been actual flesh and blood because of the evil nature of all in the world. When we understand the world view prevailing at the inception of the Trinity, it's easier to see how those at the Council of Nicea reached their conclusions.

The damage once done remains today

Most of us have little regard for how much our present culture is the product of Greek thought. In spite of all, the Trinity remains to this day the hallmark of our faith, and understandably so. After all, it is the majority view, arrived at by the "Church fathers" and affirmed by almost all theologians, churches and Christian organizations. The Creeds are based upon it; we sing it from our hymnals. In most quarters, to question it borders upon the heretical. The two reasons for its origin remain the same, a misunderstanding of the scriptures and the influence of Greek thought upon our own culture. Once a lie is fostered as the truth, especially when accepted by the "leadership" in the Church it is next to impossible to reverse.

If the blind acceptance of the Trinity today seems surprising to you, take note of a similar misconception that many fundamental Christians oppose, that is, evolution. This lie, right from the mouth of Satan, has come to be accepted by some of our most reputed seminaries seeking credit for being in agreement with so-called science. The acceptance has come not from personal, critical examination but from simply taking the word of the "experts," just as many believers rely solely on their preacher rather than doing their homework. The evolutionary view has become so established as to make conformity to it a requirement for acceptance in the scientific community. Students must give what they suspect are wrong answers to pass their courses. Scientists wanting accreditation, grants, etc. risk loss if not on the bandwagon. Majority opinion, however wrong, especially when endorsed by the elite in positions of influence and power, can reduce opposition to a voice crying in the wilderness.

Does the Trinity add to or take away from God's Word?

God is jealous for His word. Heed His words in Deut 12:32 "Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it." Throughout the Bible He warns against false prophets. Even so, false prophets, those bent upon "improving" God's Word, have abounded to this day. That being so, we need to examine the Trinity doctrine to see if it adds to or takes away from the word of God.

First, let it be clear, our focus is on the teaching, not necessarily those identified with it. As disciples we all have much to learn in our quest for truth and are often deceived. Our faith must rest on the finished work of Christ, not on theological questions where we often lack understanding.

Having said that, what is clear, as we have noted, are the new words, expressions, and conjecture used to make the Trinity's case. A warning! Use extreme care when redefining such a vital, core doctrine as the monotheism of God.  The suppositions that put a spin on the Oneness of God are surely an addition to what God has said in countless places.

What is more, these "additions" actually subtract from God's word by making Jesus equal with his Father, losing sight of his relationship with God as the "meek and lowly" one who said he could do nothing by himself , truth with which we identify with him. His life surely mirrors the relationship we are to have. To make Christ "God the Son" amounts to identity theft. The term, God-man, used so frequently of Christ, should be examined, both from the standpoint of scripture and of logic. The attributes of God and of Man are opposed to each other. Consider each. God--all powerful, all knowing, unchanging, holy, eternal. Man--dependent, limited in knowledge, variable, mortal. Christ could not be both God and man. However, He could, as man, be indwelt by God, allowing him and his Father both to retain their own unique attributes.

Although Trinity doctrine theoretically acknowledges that God is One, practically speaking, it can only confuse and diminish the understanding of monotheism. It has caused untold division, the major reason why Israel rejects Christianity, and why Mohamed is said to have instituted Islam. What harm it has caused among Christians themselves! Should not monotheism be the cardinal criterion by which any such teaching is tested. Fourteen times in Isaiah alone the oneness of God is expressed, e.g., Isaiah 43:10,11:

"Before Me there was no God formed, nor shall there be after Me. I, even I, am the LORD, And besides Me there is no savior." In Deuteronomy 6:4 He says, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one"

What do you say?

As you undoubtedly have perceived, a closer look at the Trinity doctrine, so readily and almost universally accepted, raises questions deserving answers. Of course, it's easier just to go along with the crowd. But if you are convinced of the accuracy and authority of scripture, if you are unafraid to challenge popular opinion in a search for truth, if you are prepared to spend some time in study, the reward will be an incalculable new appreciation of God's word. Never has it been more important to obey the command of 2 Timothy 2:15:

"Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

The Trinity's Impact on the Creeds

NOTHING SHOWS more clearly how the Trinity doctrine has influenced the understanding of the Bible than the progression of creeds over the 500 years following Christ. Starting with the earliest creed that affirms what scripture declares, as we believe, "improvements" are made as time progresses. Was God not able to get it right in the "faith once and for all delivered unto the saints? For your convenience, here are the four major creeds to examine.

Apostle's Creed

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell. The third day He arose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, whence He shall come  to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen

The Nicene Creed (325 AD)

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen

Chalcedonian Creed (451 AD)

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

Athanasian Creed (500 AD)

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And eternal, are not three eternals, but one Eternal. As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one created, and one Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Spirit Almighty. And yet they are not three almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord. And yet not three lords, but one Lord. For as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge each Person by Himself to be both God and Lord, so we are also forbidden by the catholic religion to say that there are three gods or three lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits. And in the Trinity none is before or after another; none is greater or less than another, but all three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved must think thus of the Trinity. Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man; God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of the substance of his mother, born in the world; perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching His godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching His manhood; who, although He is God and man, yet he is not two, but one Christ; one, not by conversion of the godhead into flesh but by taking of the manhood into God; one altogether; not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as the rational soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ; who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, He sits at the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence He will come to judge the quick and the dead. At His coming all men will rise again with their bodies and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.

What do you think?

So read the creeds. Do you now understand? Or might we suspect this is the guesswork of men, one might say the product of a committee. The longest and latest creed by Athanasius is said to be accepted by the majority of churches. Why should we then wonder about the division and failure of the church today? The early Church that "turned the world upside down" knew nothing of any Creeds. They were not theologians. They were common men awestruck by the life, death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ who by His resurrection was proven to be who He claimed, their Savior sent by God, to die for the sins of the world.

Passages used to support the Trinity

TAKE CARE not to put your own spin on God's word. Our own presumptions can influence what the Bible says. We think this accounts for passages read from preconceived views such as Trinitarianism. A case in point is John 10:30-39 used to support the Trinity view that Jesus was God.

John 10:31-36 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?" The Jews answered Him, saying, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God." Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, "You are gods"'? "If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), "do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?

Actually, when this verse is examined and understood, there may not be a better example to prove he was not God. We invite you to take a closer look, not only at this passage but at Psalm 82:1-7 alluded to by Jesus:

God stands in the congregation of the mighty; He judges among the gods. "How long will you judge unjustly, And show partiality to the wicked?" Selah vs. "Defend the poor and fatherless; Do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy; Free them from the hand of the wicked. They do not know, nor do they understand; They walk about in darkness; All the foundations of the earth are unstable." I said, "You are gods, And all of you are children of the Most High. But you shall die like men, And fall like one of the princes."

We see that the word gods can be used in a sense that does not refer to God Himself. The Hebrew word Elohim translated gods, though certainly used of God in a generic sense, is very frequently used of men, in this case of God's people, His judges, prophets, etc. The words of Jesus get very interesting when we bear this in mind.

Let us consider those who made the charge against Jesus. As Jews their understanding was rooted in the Shema, "The LORD our God, the LORD is one" and for any man to claim equality was blasphemous. However, regarding their understanding of Christ, they were blind and zealous to reject him, not having any inkling of his relationship to his Father. It is revealing to consider how Jesus replied to their charge.
He could have replied in either of two ways. 1. "You are right. I am claiming to be equal with my Father, I am as much God (Deity) as He is." 2. He could reply, as he did, by asking in vs. 34  "Is it not written in your law, "Ye are gods?" Then Jesus continues by giving them a theological lesson they should well have known. In effect, he explains "I am indeed god in the same sense as your own written law says 'Ye are gods.'" Trinitarians should study this passage and learn the lesson, too. It would be strange for Jesus, if indeed he was God, equal with His Father, to cite a passage that would not confirm his having deity, but would actually prove the very opposite!

Look closely at Psalm 82. God is standing in the midst of His saints and instructing them how they should judge. Verse 6 is particularly instructive. "I said, "You are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High." Although being God's Chosen One, who would bear the sins of the world, Jesus affirmed his brotherhood with the saints by acknowledging that he, too, was a child of God in keeping with the dual nature of his person.

In effect, Jesus' words might be, "I the Lord Jesus Christ, as a man, confess my humanity, that I can hunger, and thirst, can become weary and subject to death. I am not omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent. Those attributes belong only to God, my Father. Those attributes are evident in my life only because He is dwelling in me. I am the image of God that enables Him to be seen. My Father, who is invisible, through me becomes visible. We are a team in an inseparable union of deity and humanity, 'Father/Son.' In our dual nature we are working together to bring about redemption."

Because of his work on the Cross, he has been given a name above every name, deemed worthy to bear every title of God, given all power and authority. As the Son of God, he is an elohim, although a very special one, not unlike the other prophets who God referred to as elohims. Remember, Moses was a god (elohim) unto Pharoah (Exodus.7:1) The words in vs.6 show every believer to be a god (Elohim)  Hear the words for yourself again. "I said, "You are gods, And all of you are children of the Most High." Yes, we who have believed on Christ are joint heirs with him and should "know what is the hope of his calling."

Should anyone question this, be it remembered the words are given under the inspiration of God. They are not ours; we only quote His words. May the same Spirit that gave them help us all to hear and believe them. We conclude this study with several other scriptures for you to consider that we think are wrongly used to support the Trinity.

Col. 1:15 can be seen as God's intention in His plan to credit His Son even with creation, "For by [better: through] Him all things were created. If Christ were to be the perfect expression of God, in his role as Lord he could not be lacking in any aspect. God's intent was to be forever known in union with His Son, even when He created the world. Though His Son would only be manifested at the proper time, he was in the mind of God from the beginning. He necessarily had to share in all power, honor and glory of the Father. Hard to grasp? Consider that God, in a similar way, has attributed to believers all the riches of Christ, so one day we also will share in His glory.

Phil 2:5-8, so often used to support Trinitarian belief, is essentially an appeal by the apostle Paul for believers to follow after the humility exhibited by Christ. The mention of "being in the form of God" raises the question of what is meant by "form." Since God who is invisible has no "form" may not the Word speak of Christ's likeness as the image of God?

John 17:5 In asking to be glorified with "the glory which I had with you before the world was," Remember that Jesus knew all that was written of him in scripture. Then, it seems most reasonable to assume He was referring to the future glory destined to be his from the beginning, foretold in the scriptures according to the plan of God. Are we, too, not awaiting our future glory?

John 20:28 When Thomas exclaimed to Jesus, "My Lord and my God!" was he affirming that Christ was the Father, the one true God, or was he praising Christ as the very image of God? In the Old Testament when God revealed himself through angels in the likeness of men, those to whom God appeared said the same thing, yet certainly the angels were not God, only a means through whom He could reveal Himself (cf. Genesis 32:3, Judges 13:22).

What do you think?

The Divine Agent

DOES EVER ONE AND ONE NOT ADD UP TO TWO? Sometimes in the Bible it seems that way. There are instances in the scriptures when God uses a visible agent to speak for him, making it appear the agent is God Himself. 1Timothy 6:16 tells us God "alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see." Only by a visible agent such as an angel can God "be seen." Though the agent may be spoken of as God, clearly it can't be God in truth who is spirit. Otherwise, it would add up to our having two Gods. Any such error in addition must derive from a failure in division--to not clearly distinguish God from the agent He uses. Always there is only One God from whom are all things and one channel through whom He reveals Himself. Examples abound as early as the book of Genesis.

We read that after the angel of the Lord had spoken to Hagar, her words were, "Then she called the name of the LORD who spoke to her, "You are a God who sees"; for she said, "Have I even remained alive here after seeing Him?" (Gen. 16:7-13)

The account of the three angels who spent the day with Abraham is a remarkable study in itself. See Gen. 18-19. This is the first account, and the one and only instance, where God appears in human form credited with the titles of His Deity. It would be natural to say that the man speaking is God. Five times he is addressed as Adonai, a name used only of God and never of man, nine times as LORD (Jehovah), a total of 14 times as Deity. The man is called by the names of God; he speaks as God; he makes promises as God; he holds the power of judgment as God, and executes that judgment. Note the strange play on words in Gen. 19:24.

"Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven."

Do you see the strange wording? We have two LORDS (two Jehovahs). There is a LORD, that is His agent walking on earth, and a LORD in heaven.
The account in Genesis 32:24-30 of Jacob wrestling with the angel of God should be familiar to us all.

"Then Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him until daybreak. When he saw that he had not prevailed against him, he touched the socket of his thigh; so the socket of Jacob's thigh was dislocated while he wrestled with him. Then he said, "Let me go, for the dawn is breaking." But he said, "I will not let you go unless you bless me." So he said to him, "What is your name?" And he said, "Jacob." He said, "Your name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israel; for you have striven with God and with men and have prevailed." Then Jacob asked him and said, "Please tell me your name." But he said, "Why is it that you ask my name?" And he blessed him there. So Jacob named the place Peniel, for he said, "I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been preserved." [We learn from Hoseah 12:3,4 that the man was the angel of God.] "In the womb he took his brother by the heel, And in his maturity he contended with God. Yes, he wrestled with the angel and prevailed; He wept and sought His favor."

We remember the experience of Manoah and his wife in Judges 13:18-22.

"But the angel of the LORD said to him, "Why do you ask my name, seeing it is wonderful?" So Manoah took the young goat with the grain offering and offered it on the rock to the LORD, and He performed wonders while Manoah and his wife looked on. For it came about when the flame went up from the altar toward heaven, that the angel of the LORD ascended in the flame of the altar. When Manoah and his wife saw this, they fell on their faces to the ground. Now the angel of the LORD did not appear to Manoah or his wife again. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of the LORD. So Manoah said to his wife, "We will surely die, for we have seen God."

These and other instances show how God attributes His nature to those through whom He acts. The agent is said to be God even though he is only a channel. Is it not puzzling why no one ever seems to question these accounts but insists that Christ is God rather than serving as his agent? We remember Thomas' words upon touching Jesus' body in John 20:28, "My Lord and my God!" Was Thomas seeing God or the chosen man through whom He purposed to be known? What do you say?

A missing pieceof the puzzle

TO ENVISION OUR PICTURE of God is like working out a puzzle. Different pieces must be put together and many questions answered. Be assured that there are satisfying, scriptural answers for all your questions. Let's look at the first piece of this puzzle.

The dual nature of Christ

In Ephesians 1:11, we see that God "works all things according to the counsel of His will." Here and in other scriptures, it becomes apparent that God had a plan and a purpose for His creation by which He would show forth His glory. In eternity past, before creation, God determined exactly how He would express Himself by condescending to our level, becoming identified with man, so that we might be able to know and enjoy Him.

The invisible, unchanging God would reveal Himself through a visible man. Standing outside of time, God pointed to this man throughout the Old Testament by means of many instances, types, prophecies, and even narratives between Himself and the man. God not only wrote the script; he played the parts and spoke the lines. From the time Christ was born at Bethlehem, all these prophetic scriptures would bear witness that Jesus was THE man.

A close reading of the gospel of John will bear out this relationship of Christ to God His Father. Because His will was to do that of His Father, his words and works reflected the exact nature of God. He, as the second Adam, is also the perfect example of man, what God intends for us to be. Here is what we choose to call the Dual Nature of Christ--the nature of God and the nature of man, each retaining its own opposite attributes, existing in one person, in a union of perfect harmony.

The view we present is not ours alone. We believe it was originally the conviction of the Church until men's speculations made it otherwise. Over the early centuries, all kinds of different views were advanced: Arianism, Apollonarianism, Eutychesim, Montanism, Nestorianism, et. al. Church council after council was formed to address these conceptions, first Nicea, then Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, on and on, even to Vatican II of today. The history of these reveals a relentless succession of battles by opponents of different persuasions. Winners in one council often would be despised losers at the next. Men praised as saints for their stand were later banished and anathematized as others' views won the day. How astonishing to see men professing God show so little love and humility! The opposing views and deplorable antics used is a study in itself. A classic example is what ultimately narrowed down to a shootout at the Council of Ephesus between the views of one Nestorius of Antioch and his nemesis, Cyril of Alexandria. The story of these antagonists at that council helps reveal how we have arrived at the theology understood by so many today. We need to learn about the two key opponents, Nestorius and Cyril.

As an Antiochian, Nestorius was schooled in that church's theological view of Christ, and he distinguished himself as a sound leader. In 428 he was appointed by Rome as the Patriarch, i.e., bishop of Constantinople. Nestorius was sure anyone reading the straightforward account of scripture would conclude the person of Christ was of both a physical and divine nature, each distinct. The germ of the dispute originated when two factions came before him to settle a dispute over a Greek word used of the Virgin Mary-theotokos, i.e., in English, "Mother of God." Nestorus' recommendation was to accept the term if it was properly understood but thought it would be better to speak of Mary as the "Mother of Christ," that is, mother of his humanity rather than of God. The matter was apparently resolved for a time until Cyril, the bishop of the church at Alexandria, protested. Cyril adamantly opposed Nestorius, insisting Christ had only one nature rather than two. He reasoned that Christ was God alone. Although this was the crux of the controversy, from his study of Nestorius' writings, however, Friedrich Loofs was convinced Cyril focused on the theotokos issue to divert attention away from serious charges made against him by some of his own regents at Antioch. Loofs accused Cyril of being unscrupulous in accomplishing his ends, a charge apparently well vindicated then and proved even more so later at Ephesus.

In a few years the reputation and convictions of Nestorius, at the outset in accord with Rome, were put aside by Cyril's skillful manipulations and what is said to be bribery of key principals. Actually, the results of Ephesus could be called a draw, since both Cyril and Nestorius were condemned by Pope Celestine; and Emperor Theodosius called for a halt to the proceedings. Cyril did regain political favor, but tragically Nestorius was anathematized and banished to Egypt where he suffered greatly for some 15 years. Ironically, the view for which Nestorius died came to be accepted at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, although never fully appreciated. It was at this council that the concept of the "hypostatic union," was formulated. In essence it declared:

"In the person of Christ there are two natures (deity and humanity) united in such a way as to be without mixture, confusion, separation, each nature retaining its own absolutes."

Though such a statement was a great milestone in the Church's quest to understand Christ as both man and God, its full significance was missed because of the presumption that both natures belonged to Christ. No, the two natures were not united in terms of a common "substance" (as argued in that day) but by a common will and purpose.
Consider what has been said, that the Father took up residence in the physical body of Jesus. Are not the two natures evident? One is God and the other is Christ. One is the Father and the other is the Son. Two natures, each with attributes completely opposite to the other joined in will and purpose. There it is, the Dual Nature. Chalcedon had the right formula, though it reached the wrong conclusion. Influenced by the Creeds that credited Christ with both deity and humanity, the two natures were thought to be exclusively those of Christ. The Deity nature was assumed to be that of Christ. Wrong! No, in Christ the Deity of God dwelt in him who was fully man. Right! Scripture is always right.

So what do you think? Are our conclusions clear and in agreement with scripture? We have quoted only enough scripture to explain our case and hopefully to whet your appetite, but we trust that whether you agree or disagree, you will follow the example of the Bereans who checked out the apostle Paul in the scriptures "to see if those things were so." Frankly, we will be surprised if you don't have questions or agree completely with all that we say. We acknowledge that a surface reading of many scriptures may make Christ appear to be preexistent to his birth at Bethlehem and to be God in and of himself as a man. This is particularly true because of the culture in which we live that causes us to read the Bible with false presumptions. How little we appreciate the influence of Greek philosophy on the "Church fathers" who deviated from scripture to accommodate a Platonic world view. May all who have a heart hunger for searching out God discover the error. We are reminded of Proverbs 25:2:

"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honor of kings is to search out a matter."

Certainly God does not reveal the depths of His truth to curiosity seekers or the half-hearted. Indeed, to search His word for understanding is not unlike working hard to discover and mine valuable ore. May we all eagerly accept the challenge to grow to maturity by prayerfully searching out God's Word as instructed in II Tim. 2:15:

"Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that need not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

Verses Relevant to the Dual Nature

The Nature of God

For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. Col 1:16

CAN THE UNCHANGING GOD take on the opposite attributes of a man without violating this verse? Since we know God the Father is the Creator and since this verse credits His Son with creation, must not the two somehow be one? How else to explain such an enigma apart from the vital union of a Father/Son relationship by which God determined He would be known?

If God can attribute His righteousness to justified sinners, can He not credit His beloved Son with the work of creation? If Christ were not so credited could he be the perfect manifestation of God? Since God is declared to be Spirit, is there need for another Spirit, a third person of the Godhead, a God the Spirit, separate from God the Father? Why? Is it not clear that God the Father IS the Spirit? See John 4:24. While Jesus was filled with the Spirit and led by the Spirit, why did He repeatedly credit His words and actions to God the Father who indwelt Him, unless His Father and the Spirit were the same?

"I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another." How to reconcile this declaration of the Father with that of Jesus in John 17:5 -- "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." Is there any explanation other than that of the Father/Son union?
". . . before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no savior." Isa 46:10b,11
In light of God's emphasis that He alone is God, do we have two saviors? Yes, both God and His Son. They were a team, God and man, working together, each playing their respective role."  How else to explain this apart from the dual nature union of Father/Son?

Christ's birth and growth

Matt. 1:18 -- "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.
Though Jesus was born by the Spirit of God without sin, and could accurately be called the Son of God, must we assume He, as a human, WAS born GOD? Did He ever claim to be? As born again believers, do we claim to be?
Luke 2:52 -- "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men."
Jesus was obviously regarded as an exceptionally godly person, but does it appear that His friends and neighbors considered him to be God? See Luke 4:22, 28.
Heb 1:5 Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?
Although we might infer John's mention of Christ as the only begotten Son to speak of his physical birth, other scriptures indicate it refers to his glorification after his ascension. Most certainly it does not refer to eternity past.
II Samuel 7:14 -- And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?"
Note the future tense, "I will" used in II Samuel 7:14.  When was Christ born? In eternity or in the fullness of time in Bethlehem? The Creeds affirm that the Son was begotten by the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son. Where is this speculation substantiated in scripture?

The nature of His person and ministry

John 1:32 -- "And John bore witness, saying, "I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and He remained upon Him."
Up to this point, it appears Jesus had led a fairly normal life.  Isn't this where we see the impact of God's Spirit upon Him?
John 1:48 --""Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you."
John 6:19-- ". . . they see Jesus walking on the sea..."
Was Jesus Himself omniscient and omnipotent? Or were these attributes those of God the Father in Him? What of Peter in Acts:5:1-4 where the Spirit enabled him to discern that Ananias was lying? Peter appears omniscient.
John 3:34 -- "For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God does not give the Spirit by measure."
Just as Jesus gave Himself fully to God, did not His father give Himself fully to His Son. We read in Colossians 2:9 "For in him dwells all the fullness the Godhead bodily." 
John 5:19 -- "The Son can do nothing of himself, but whatever he sees the Father do: for whatever things He does, these also the Son does likewise."
We are told to walk by faith for when we are weak then we are strong. Is not Jesus the perfect example of depending totally in faith on His Father for His every word and deed?
John 5:26, 27 -- "For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man."
Didn't God need Christ every bit as much as Christ needed God? How else could God judge the world, when He himself could not be tempted nor die?
John 12:44 --- Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me  [Again Jesus points to the Father as his source of power.]
John 14:10 ---"Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works."
Isn't this the consequence of Col. 2:9, "For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily"? Isn't the deity of Christ that of His Father who indwelt Him in an inseparable union and expressed Himself visibly through His Son?

His sovereignty and rule

Matt. 28:18 -- "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth"
Phil. 2:9  -- "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name"
Heb. 12:2 -- ". . .who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God."
Christ even now remains a man, though in a glorified body, still indwelt by His Father, given all authority and power to bring about God's final purposes.
I Tim. 2:5 -- "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."
If the man Christ Jesus is our mediator, can He possibly be God Himself?
Deut. 10:17 -- "For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, a great God"
The Hebrew words show Christ chosen by God to rule on earth during the millennium, having been given power and authority by His indwelling Father.

The completion of His rule

I Cor. 15:24-28--- "Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. For He has put all things under His feet. But when He says, 'all things are put under Him,' it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all"

Should not this passage be entitled Mission Completed? Do not we see God's eternal plan in action to redeem His creation through His Son? When, with all enemies put under His feet and no longer a need for rule by power and authority, do we not see Christ laying aside His God-given authority to make Himself like His brothers? By doing so does He suffer loss? Is it not that He brings us all into the exact relationship He eternally has enjoyed, that the fullness of God, His ALL, will indwell us ALL? Will Christ's work on the Cross ever be forgotten? Will he not always be loved and honored forever? We can only say, "what a Christ"!

Adonai Jehovah and Jehovah Elohim

OF THE MANY NAMES or titles ascribed to God, the English-speaking world is probably most familiar with the name Lord God. We see it capitalized two different ways in literal translations of the Bible such as the KJV--Lord GOD and LORD God. This difference may escape our notice, but it is at the crux of what we want to share.

Though God has expressed Himself through Christ, He has left much for us to search out. There are the "hidden things" of God. "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter" (Proverbs 25:2; see also Isa 48:6, Jer. 33:3). In accordance with this, we would search more deeply God's name as it relates Christ.

"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

To investigate these names we must know the meaning of the Hebrew words used in the manuscripts from which our Bible versions are translated. Not being skilled linguists, we will rely on Strong's Hebrew Dictionary for their meaning.

The first Hebrew word having a bearing on these names is in Genesis 1:1 where God introduces Himself by the Hebrew word, Elohim.  The word, so intriguing because of its plural nature, surely speaks of God's power but leaves much to be known of His nature. Consequently, it must give way to the specific name by which He has chosen to be known. We find it first mentioned in Genesis 2:4 by two Hebrew words, Jehovah and Elohim, that when coupled together are translated as LORD God in our Bibles:
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.
It is next used in Exodus 3:15 where the Angel of the Lord in the burning bush told Moses:

Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: 'The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations.' 

Anyone having a good Bible computer program offering Hebrew/Greek transliteration can search for the words Lord God to verify that Jehovah Elohim always refers to how God chose to be known by His creation. However, in the search, another Hebrew word coupling also will come to light-Adonai Jehovah, also translated Lord GOD. Do you see the difference between the two? A sharp eye will reveal that the capitalization of the two is different. In the scores of listings of Lord God, this distinction in capitalization never varies. Since, when translated into English from the two different Hebrew word couplings, they both read as Lord God, the only means to distinguish between them was by different capitalization. If your Bible is a literal translation, KJV, NASV, RSV, etc., you will see the different capitalization throughout the Old Testament--LORD God and Lord GOD. Bear this distinction in mind; it is most crucial--LORD God (Jehovah Elohim) and Lord GOD (Adonai Jehovah). Why so important? Examine the verses where the two are used. For example, notice the context of Isaiah 61:1, 2a:

"The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me, Because the LORD has anointed Me To preach good tidings to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives, And the opening of the prison to those who are bound; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD..."

Here are the very words Jesus used in Luke 4:1 as he initiated his ministry at Nazareth. His words, "The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me," show us that the Lord GOD (Adonai Jehovah) must be the Father, the one true God. See similar verses in Isaiah: 28:16, 48:16, 50:4, 5, 9.

Now that we can see that the Lord GOD (Adonai Jehovah) refers to God the Father, let's consider the other word coupling, Jehovah Elohim. Here, Exodus 3:14 is most significant. When asking the Angel of the Lord by what name God was to be called, we read, "And God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM.' And He said, 'Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, I AM has sent me to you.'" Though already mentioned we repeat the Angel's words that follow in verse 15:

"Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: 'The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations [this is how I am to be remembered].'"

These scriptures enable us to see that LORD God (Jehovah Elohim), first mentioned in Genesis 2:4 and now here again, is the name by which God would make himself known to Israel and the Church. Of course, every Christian knows that name must point to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Incidentally, remember Jesus' words in John 8:58 when the Jews sought to stone him when he declared, "Before Abraham was, I AM." The LORD God and the "I AM" are one and the same. The word coupling LORD God (Jehovah Elohim) is used close to 300 times in the King James Version of the Old Testament as God dealt with His people from Adam to Israel. Following are just a few of many verses showing the use of LORD God to show the truth of this:

Adam and Eve, in Genesis 3:8, "heard the voice of the LORD God...and hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God"
In Exodus 9:1, Moses, addressing the Pharaoh, says, "Thus saith the LORD God of the Hebrews, let my people go..."
In I Samuel 10:18, speaking to Israel, Samuel says, "Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, 'I brought up Israel out of Egypt and delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians.'"

In I Kings 18:21, Elijah asks the people, "How long halt ye between two opinions? If the LORD God be God, follow him, but if Baal, then follow him.

Notice in II Samuel 7:25-28 that David prays to both LORD God and Lord GOD: "Now, O LORD God, the word which You have spoken concerning Your servant and concerning his house, establish it forever and do as You have said ...Therefore Your servant has found it in his heart to pray this prayer to You.  "And now, O Lord GOD, You are God, and Your words are true, and You have promised this goodness to Your servant."[Two Gods or One God with two names?]

You have been given a lot to digest, so it may be time for a breather. What is being reported here, to our knowledge, is so new and opposite to common opinion as to be difficult to appreciate; but it most certainly is scriptural, without any speculation. We see that God has ingeniously used two distinct word couplings throughout the Old Testament--Adonai Jehovah, Lord GOD, and Jehovah Elohim, LORD God. Can there be any other explanation for their use than to prophetically point to and distinguish God the Father from His Son?  With this advantage, passages, once obscure, take on new clarity. Even in the New Testament where Greek is used rather than Hebrew, references to Old Testament passages must necessarily be translated with the same meaning. Clearly, the LORD God of the Old Testament is the same God in the New Testament revealed by His Son. Do your homework and you will see. For now, let us continue. There is more to say regarding Adonai Jehovah, the Father and Jehovah Elohim, the Son.

Both Adonai and Jehovah are words used exclusively of God the Father, whether used in coupling form or separately. They are never used of any other. We might surmise from His using the two words that alone designate Divinity that God chose to give Himself a kind of "double billing" Why? Perhaps to emphasize a "double witness" that He is the only deity existing. However, having said this, at once a question arises. What of the Jehovah Elohim, the Son of God? Was he not God? Certainly he is called God; and with respect to Israel and the Church, he is the One by whom God has chosen to be known. About this there is much to be said, but bear with us while first we examine the name Jehovah Elohim.
The name Jehovah, obviously speaks of Deity and has already been noted, so let us focus on the meaning and significances of Elohim that follows it. Remember the use of the plural noun Elohim in Genesis 1:1? Although normally used in the singular sense, in Genesis 1:26 with regard to the creation of mankind, we read, "Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image." We ask why? It's no typographical error. What motive in this instance might God have had to refer to Himself as "US"? Might the answer be that He wanted to give a subtle clue of His union before creation with His Son? Strong's Hebrew Dictionary defines the word Elohim as follows:

plural of gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:--angels.

Simply put, Elohim is a generic term used in two ways, both of the supreme God and in a lesser sense of people, e.g., men, devils, gods, angels, judges, etc. Even the Lord Jesus Christ is spoken of as an Elohim, as in Deuteronomy 10:17 "For the LORD your God [elohim] is God [elohim] of gods [elohim] and Lord of lords." Bearing this in mind, God's choice of the word Elohim to characterize His Son is ingenious in speaking of him as God, yet as a god who is a man. Linking the name Jehovah with the name Elohim provides a picture of God in union with Christ. The words of John 14:10 come to mind:

Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works.

To clarify even more his words, consider John 5:30, "I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me" Jesus who was "meek and lowly" reigned supreme as he allowed the will and sufficiency of his Father to rule his life. In him was life, and the life that was the light of men was that of the one true God.

Our examination of names would not be complete without comparing the words Adonai and Adon. Strong's defines Adonai as "an emphatic form of Adon; the Lord (used as a proper name of God only)." We have already seen that Adonai is used in the Hebrew word coupling referring to God. A search will show that in over 400 verses in the KJV, Adonai is always used of God whether linked with Jehovah in the word couplings or when used separately. It is never used of God's Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.

With respect to Christ as Lord the word Adon is used. Adon, like the word elohim, can refer to human rulers. The definition in Strong's shows it to be "from an unused root (meaning to rule); sovereign, i.e. controller (human or divine)-lord, master, owner" Included in 287 verses in the KJV, it is used of Christ 28 times. But it is never used of God the Father.

Is not God, who is so precise in his use of words, trying to tell us something? Most definitely, but the truth will escape us if we fail to discern the difference between these words. Right now, before going any further, etch theses key words indelibly in your mind. Now, let us do a quick recap.

The words Adonai Jehovah are always prophetic of the Father whether linked together or used separately.

The word coupling Jehovah Elohim always points to God's Son. Elohim can refer to Jesus' humanity while Jehovah speaks of God indwelling him, a Father/Son relationship.
Adonai and Adon are miles apart in their usage. Adonai always and only refers to God the Father, while Adon is used of men, even of Christ, but never of the Father.

If all this be true, and you have scripture's word for it, does it not confirm that there is only one true God who has appointed a man through whom He will share His deity to rule as Lord of lords in the millennium?

We began with the mention of John 17:3 that eternal life is to know the only true God and Jesus Christ whom He has sent. We trust the significance of Christ's words is now more easily and accurately discerned. The two names of God--one, testifying to the only true God, and the other revealing Him in terms we can better understand by His Son. Each, with opposite natures, bound by a common will and purpose, played their separate roles to bring about our redemption. 

To anyone believing that Christ is God and equal with the Father, all this may come as a shock in disbelief. It certainly was to us at first, and we understand you may have questions just as we did. Many passages seem to substantiate it. Well, like Radio Shack's commercial says, "You've got questions? We've got answers." There is an alternative view that unravels the "mystery that cannot be explained" offered in defense of the Trinity conception.

We close with a question. Do you really believe what the Bible says or just what others say about it? With all due respect to those who crafted the Trinity doctrine, they were fallible men. Their speculations cannot be compared to the scriptures. For most of our Christian lives, we never challenged the Trinity view; it had been affirmed by the Church fathers, declared in the Creeds, and ultimately accepted by the majority of believers. Today it is included in the statement of faith of almost every church and Christian organization and is defended by theologians we highly respect. But there is one thing wrong. It is not scriptural! There is no substitute for a personal investigation of the claims of scripture. For those who are hungry to understand and obey it, the reward is "out of this world."

The significance of the name Lord God

THE PROOF of God's dual nature, surprisingly, lies right under our noses. Will you believe it is a most common two-word phrase, the Lord God? Yes, in the Old Testament it appears hundreds of times as the English translation of the Hebrew words, Adonai Jehovah and Jehovah Elohim. Each of these two Hebrew phrases translate the same way in English and can only be differentiated by the way they are capitalized Lord GOD (Adonai Jehovah) and LORD God (Jehovah Elohim). The different capitalization appears in any literal version such as the KJV or NASV although it is missing in some modern translations. Don't miss this distinction, because it makes a BIG difference.

You might ask what's the big deal, anyway? Admittedly, it may seem like a little thing. But ask yourself, were the scriptures given by the inspiration of God? If they are accurate to the last jot and tittle, then this capitalization must be there for a reason. To understand that is to appreciate scripture's accuracy, all the more convinced that only God could have authored the Bible. Last but not least, these words help us to discern God from His Son in the O.T.
It takes some determination to reap the tremendous reward this study offers even though every effort will be made to be as straightforward and clear as possible. We begin here with an overview of the two Hebrew phrases each translated Lord God, and of the word LORD when used alone. Each will be examined individually regarding their capitalization and distinctions in Hebrew.

Lord GOD	LORD God	LORD
Adonai Jehovah Both words emphasize the deity of the Father Used only of the FatherÂ	Jehovah Elohim Pointing to the union of the Father and Son  Used only of the Son	Jehovah Can refer to both the Father and the Son Used of either

Mark it now in your mind that when either GOD or LORD is in all capitals, the words mean the same thing, Jehovah. It's somewhat like a brand name that identifies God as Deity, avoiding any confusion or mix-up. Remember, both words god and lord many times do not refer to God, as we will later explain. This knowledge alone can clear up all kinds of questions related to the doctrine of the Trinity and supposed deity of Christ. They  identify God and the role He plays in our redemption.

Concerning the Lord GOD:

The Father's name Lord GOD, pointing to His deity, is to be distinguished from the name LORD God (Note the capitalization) that refers to how He would make Himself known to man (see Exodus 3:16). As explained above, the Hebrew word Jehovah is common to both capitalized words GOD and LORD. Consider this. Is not God, acknowledging His Son of humanity in sharing His name with His Son to indicate the union between them? Certainly this is indicative of His dual nature. Further, the coupling of the name for Christ not only confirms the union, it conveys both Deity (Jehovah) and humanity (Elohim) in His person, as we will explain later.
The Hebrew words Adonai Jehovah are also a double emphasis of His deity. Two is the number of witness, and it speaks of God's Deity that He has repeatedly emphasized in the Old Testament and stated so succinctly in Isaiah 43:10, 11, "I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."

The meanings of the word Lord

Bear with us a minute to understand the Hebrew use of this word. It actually appears three ways in Hebrew as 1) Adon, 2) Adonai, and 3) Adoni. We might say that Adon is the root from which Adonai and Adoni spring. Adonai, as noted, always speaks of God, never of man. In the case of Adon and Adoni, a word search in Strongs' does not distinguish between the two. It does not list Adoni but includes it among the references to Adon. Initially unaware of this, we surmised that Adon never could be attributed to God, but there are instances where that is not so. We found that it is only Adoni, a more precise word, that never is used of God.

Problems arise in translation because these Hebrew words, Adonai, Adon and Adoni each translate as Lord in English.

Adonai is used only of God, never of man.
Adon is sometimes used of God but also of men, angels, and of the Lord Jesus Christ. This word Lord, used of the Son, unlike Adonai, is not exclusive. It is found 305 times in the scriptures. It is used 268 times of men, 9 times of angels, and 28 times of the Lord Jesus. The definition of this word perfectly describes the calling and ministry of the Lord Jesus,. It means to rule, to be sovereign, a controller, a lord, master, or owner. Used of men, it has no connotation of Deity. Its references to Christ portray him as a king, a ruler. Does this remind you of His role during the millennium?
Adoni, nearly identical to Adon but more precise, never points to God but is always a human title. Its use in Psalm 110 provides undeniable proof of Christ's humanity. Note David's words, "The LORD (Jehovah) said unto my Lord (adoni), Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." Would not David's conception of his Lord be that of all Jewish thought? It is in Psalm 110 that Adoni, only used of man, has been mistranslated as Adonai by Trinitarians to make Christ God.

Concerning the LORD God

"LORD God"  (Jehovah Elohim). These coupled Hebrew words point to the union of deity and humanity of Christ. What's more, there is a message in the Son's name (Jehovah Elohim) itself. The word Jehovah surely speaks of God's deity that indwells Christ. Just as surely the word Elohim points to His humanity. It is not difficult to see that the name "LORD God" represents two natures---deity and humanity in Christ. Remember our criteria.  The truth must be in accord with monotheism and that God cannot change, that He is invisible.

Let us look in this phrase at the word Elohim, the name or title referring to the Son. In Deut. 10:17 it is said of the Lord Jesus: "He is the God of gods, (Elohim of Elohim). Notice, many Elohim, but only One supreme Elohim, the Lord Jesus Christ. What an appropriate name for Christ! The plural nature of elohim points to both His Deity and Humanity. Elohim is not really the name of God. It is a more generic, encompassing word, used of God but also of men, devils, gods, judges and especially of the Lord Jesus Christ. Remember that Satan tempted Eve, telling her she and Adam could become gods (Elohim). Nations had their Elohim  (Rulers, gods). Yet, considered in that light, can you believe this word is used so predominantly of the Lord Jesus Christ? We need to understand this word Elohim is not necessarily a title of deity. There are many "gods" (elohim) listed in the Old Testament, but only one title of Deity--the "LORD" (Jehovah). As Paul said in I Cor: 8:5-6, "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth . . . to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things" (Note that Paul attributes deity of God to the Father only, no mention of the Son).

Apart from where its context may otherwise affect its meaning, Elohim by itself alludes more to power, authority, prestige, and honor. Strong's Concordance defines it as The supreme God when preceded by the article, and gods in the ordinary sense, of magistrates, angels, judges, etc.  A Scofield Bible footnote says "Elohim is a uni-plural noun formed from "El" meaning strength, or the strong one, and "Alah" to swear to bind oneself by an oath, so implying faithfulness. As meaning primarily the Strong One, it is fitly used in the first chapter of Genesis." It may be that God allowed Elohim to be used in these various ways to show forth for all to see the "Highest and Greatest Elohim of all." It appears this name is primarily intended for those in authority, for example, rulers of nations. Other nations had their elohim. Israel will have an Elohim who will be the Lord Jesus Christ. So God, in anticipation of the Kingship of His Son, chose this name for the final segment of world rule when the Lord Jesus will be recognized as the Elohim of Elohim. Rather than speaking of deity in Christ, elohim is better understood as His designated title of authority.

More to think about

The importance of the word elohim as applied to Christ is how it is linked with the word Jehovah, which speaks of the Deity indwelling Him in the union of the dual nature. More than any other Gospel, the book of John reveals the deity of Christ, most often from the lips of Jesus.  Jesus repeatedly reveals the nature of His deity as in John 14:10, "I am in the Father and the Father is in Me."  Let us paraphrase what Jesus was saying:  "I (the man Jesus) am in union with the Father (deity) who is  indwelling  my physical body" The deity of Christ is that of the Father. Christ has no deity of His own as a man per se.

Only the dual nature can explain all this. Jesus alone in His humanity could not have manifested the Father to us. He would have been helpless, and powerless as a man. As he said, "I can do nothing of myself" (John 5:19, 30). The Father indwelling Jesus gave him the wisdom, the words to speak, and enabled him to heal the sick, the blind, to feed, the five thousand, raise the dead, etc.

The dual nature also sheds light to distinguish between God's dispensations of Law and Grace. Jesus necessarily began his ministry with God's chosen people Israel to whom he was first called. The Gentiles before receiving anything from Christ had to wait until after His ascension. (Acts 10:1-48). Israel has been called "the sign people" "For the Jews require a sign." (I Cor.1:22).  Jesus said to the Jews, "Except you see signs and wonders ye will not believe." (John 4:48) Hear the words of Peter as he addresses the nation of Israel in Acts 2:22-24: vs. 22 "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." (notice "God did by Him"). Note in vs.24 that it was God who raised Jesus from the dead. Otherwise, Jesus would have remained dead. After Israel rejected Christ following His resurrection and ascension, God instituted the Church, that is, the Body of Christ which, rather than trusting in signs and wonders, lives solely by faith in God's promises. "For by grace are you saved through FAITH and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works lest anyone should boast." (Eph.) 2:8-9) Where Israel had failed under the dispensation of the Law that depended upon the ability of man (who can do nothing), the dispensation of Grace centers on God who can do all. Where the law was powerless to establish righteousness, God took it upon Himself to do the job through Christ in those who believe.

The word LORD when used alone

As already stated, Jehovah refers to God's deity. When coupled with the word Adonai, it is exclusively His name. However, notice that Jehovah is linked with Elohim in the coupling of the names for Christ.  God has loaned (for lack of a better expression) His name to His Son to show us the union of deity and humanity (God and Christ) in a dual nature.

We would be remiss if we failed to note that this name "LORD (Jehovah) occurs numerous times alone, creating a question. How do we determine whom it belongs to, the Father or the Son? There is a key to identifying this. However, before discussing it, one thing needs to be emphasized clearly. The word Jehovah translated LORD always points to the deity of God (Jehovah), whether used alone or in the coupling of the names of the Son. That is a rule. Here is the "key" Whenever the name "LORD" refers to the Son, the passage later will include a human aspect, though it may not appear for a number of verses

Zechariah 12:1-10 illustrates this. We will point out the separation and leave it for you to read the whole passage. Verse 1 begins: "The burden of the LORD..." As stated before, the LORD, when used alone, is always the "DEITY" of the Father. Here we must ask, "Is it the Father speaking of Himself or are the words those of the Son, given to Him by the Father who is in union with Him? Though this may seem strange, this manner of God speaking by means of His Son is verified repeatedly in the Gospel of John where Christ's union with the Father is clearly identified. In the vernacular of the world: This is God's show with the Son starring in the leading role as the vessel of God. Now, how to determine who is speaking, whether God or Jesus? The passage will show a "HUMAN ASPECT" following mention of the DEITY, although sometimes several verses later. Clearly verse 10 shows this to be so. The Son is shown to be speaking, although his words are being given him by God. We read, "And I will pour upon the house of David the Spirit of grace and supplication and they shall LOOK UPON ME WHOM THEY HAVE PIERCED." We see Christ on the cross by the hands of His own people.

In Isaiah 50:1-7 we have the same scenario. The Son is the speaker, but actually behind the Son is the Father speaking through him. In the Father/Son union this is always in accord with God's plan and purpose. While appearing to speak for Himself, the Son is being given the words by His Father. It is the fulfillment of Deut. 18:18 "I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." Note in verse 1 the name LORD used alone: "Thus saith the LORD..." (the Son speaking of His Father, though the Father is behind the words). Remember, this is a prophetical dialog, with God speaking the lines of both Father and Son to verify an event in the future when Christ would come. God, standing outside of time, spoke all the lines in these narratives. He not only wrote the script, He played each part. How can it be otherwise when Christ would not be on the scene until Bethlehem? In His union with Deity, the Son credits Himself with creation in verses 2-3: "I cloth the heavens" etc.  We again see the HUMAN ASPECT as we read verses 4-7. Verse.4: "The Lord (Adonai) GOD (Jehovah) hath given Me (the Son) the tongue of the learned . . . He (the Father) wakes me every morning," etc. Verse 5: "The Lord (Adonai) GOD (Jehovah) hath opened mine ear..." In verse 7: "For the Lord GOD will help me...," (Note the Son's response to what the Father shares with the Son in verse 6: "smitten, beard pulled, spit on."

We told you so

Okay, what we're saying may cause some brain strain. Remember, we warned this would take some determined study and thought. But are you not seeing things verses opened in a whole new way? To know whether it is God or Christ speaking in passages otherwise veiled, is that not worth the time and effort?
For example take a closer look at Deuteronomy 10:17. Let us zero in on this verse to see how the Hebrew word couplings, Adonai Jehovah (God the Father) and Jehovah Elohim (the Son of God) can increase our understanding. We quote it here from the NKJV:

"For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality nor takes a bribe."

Exactly who is speaking? Is it God the Father or His Son? To whom does the verse apply?Now examine the same verse with the Hebrew words added:

"For the LORD [Jehovah] your God [Elohim] is God [Elohim] of gods [Elohim] and Lord [Adon] of lords [adons], the great God [El], mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality nor takes a bribe."

If you have followed what we have found, it must be the Son. What insight this can give!

Hopefully, this study has shown the marvelous way God accomplished all his good pleasure by indwelling the body of the Son as the source and power for the miracles of Christ. He directed Jesus in where to go, what to do, what to say, in everything being sufficient, as only God can be. Together in union they walked the earth. One without the other could not have accomplished anything. The Father without the Son would have had no manifestation of Himself. The Son without the Father would have been helpless and powerless. Both needed the other, and together they fulfilled the plan of redemption. The Father in the Old Testament made claims to be the Savior, Redeemer, King, etc. How? By means of His Son in the N.T. Together they walked on the earth. Together they reached the cross. Together they suffered on the Cross. Even during that three hours of darkness, they were together, but in different roles, God as the judge of righteousness and Jesus as the sacrifice, necessarily punished as the sins of the world were laid upon Him. (Remember Abraham's sacrifice of his son Isaac). Only the Son could bear our sin, an impossibility for the Father. We hear Jesus cry out, "My God, why has thou forsaken me?," experiencing for the first time the loss of God's presence. Finally, at Jesus' victory cry, "It is finished," The cry tells us the Father and Son are united together again. We read in Luke, "'Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit.' Having said this, He breathed His last." Raised back to life by God and ascended to heaven, He is seated along side His Father, still indwelt by Him, waiting until the earth is made His footstool when His Father and He will rule together during the millennium.

Deut. 10:17-proof positive

We close Deut. 10:17 giving us the words of God, Jehovah the Father, in His declaration of the prestige and authority given His Son the Lord Jesus Christ when He would sit on the throne of David. Nowhere in the statement is a single divine attribute credited to the Lord Jesus. His deity is always from the coupling of His names showing His indwelling and union with the Father.

"For the LORD your God [the Son's coupling of names] is God of gods(Elohim of Elohim) and Lord of lords[Adon of adons] a great God [El. Mighty strong] a mighty, and a terrible which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward"

We stress again that Deut 10:17 confirms the truth that the Hebrew word Adon, when used in reference to the Lord Jesus Christ, nearly always deals with His humanity, kingship and rule over Israel and the world during the millennium. The definition of the word is "controller, sovereign, reigning, the attributes of a king." Not once is there a connotation of deity in the word Adon. From before the foundation of the world, God the Father gave to Christ the promise of ruling the world. Jesus Christ with His Father shall reign over the universe for a thousand years. After that the plan and purpose of God for creation will have been completed. No longer will there be a need for a king. Then will come to pass what is declared in I Corinthians 15: 28: "Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all."

Then, eternity future begins. God has chosen not to tell us of this time period, but we can be sure it will be glorious. Never again will there ever be a dark cloud over creation. For now, we can begin to see how God has revealed Himself through His Son so that all who trust in Him may have understanding. Hopefully, by the aid of His Spirit what we have uncovered may help to that end.

Scriptures verifying the truth of
the word couplings

LET US ZERO IN on Deuteronomy 10:17 to see how the Hebrew word couplings, Adonai Jehovah (God the Father) and Jehovah Elohim (the Son of God) can increase our understanding. We quote it here from the NKJV:

For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality nor takes a bribe.

Exactly who is speaking? Is it God the Father or His Son? Now examine the same verse with the Hebrew words added: For the LORD [Jehovah] your God [elohim] is God [elohim] of gods [elohims] and Lord [Adon] of lords [adons], the great God [el], mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality nor takes a bribe. Note the use of the words Jehovah followed by elohim. This coupling always speaks of the Son, the elohim of elohims, the God of gods as explained elsewhere. The word Adon points to a ruler, a lord or master, whether human or divine, where here it is used in both ways-of Christ as God (but not the supreme deity) and of all gods in a human sense. The Hebrew word el can refer to either the Almighty or to any so called human deity.

Some food for thought that must be thoroughly digested

The first occurrence of the coupling, LORD God, is found in Genesis 2: 4 where the second creation account centers on God's relationship to man. Instead of the word elohim, as in Genesis 1:1, here in relation to man He is known as Jehovah elohim (LORD God.  This is prophetic of the Son, by whom God from the beginning chose to reveal Himself to the world). It is the name God assigned to himself as given in Exodus 3:15 of how He was to be known to His creation. "And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations." [NIV reads "the name by which I am to be remembered"]

It becomes increasingly evident that the coupling of names was no accident. By choosing these precise word combinations, it allowed God to show how Deity in union with humanity would accomplish His eternal plan of redemption. Lord (Adonai) GOD (Jehovah), the Father, and LORD (Jehovah) God (Elohim), the Son--the Hebrew words consistently point to the distinct roles of the One God. As already noted, the two couplings translated into English always read as Lord God, differing only in their capitalization. No wonder it is sometimes difficult to understand certain scriptures, particularly dialogs between the Father and Son. Their union is so close that the distinction between them is often missed, so that at times it may appear only one person is involved. Perhaps God intended it that way. On the one hand, God gives Himself titles such as King, Redeemer, Savior, etc. to convey His attributes. On the other hand, He sees fit to share His titles with His Son, so essential if Christ is to be the exact personification of his Father. No wonder the confusion! However, the confusion can be clarified when God's dual nature is understood by means of these particular word couplings.

Elijah's confrontation with the prophets of Baal

Consider the account in I Kings 18:17-39 where Elijah battles the 450 prophets of Baal. You know the story. In vs. 24 Elijah says, "I will call on the name of the LORD, (Jehovah) and the God, (Elohim) that answers by fire, let him be God" (Elohim). Interestingly, in vs. 36 Elijah addresses his prayer to the Son (Jesus). Why? Was it not because God wanted His coming Son to get the glory? We see that Elijah prays to the LORD God (Jehovah Elohim, the word coupling for the Son) whom Israel would know to be the God of Abraham, Isaac and of Israel.  Elijah continues, Let it be known this day that thou art the LORD God (Jehovah Elohim). Then, we read, The fire came down from heaven and the people said "The LORD (Jehovah) He is the God (Elohim). The LORD (Jehovah) He is the God (Elohim). With the exception of God the Father, Jesus Christ is the Elohim above all elohims (Deut. 10:17).

Christ's relationship to his Father

Remember Jesus' words in the Gospel of John: "I AM IN THE FATHER AND THE FATHER IS IN ME" (John 14:10-11). Words to this effect appear repeatedly in the Gospel of John:

John 10:38: "...though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father [Deity] is in Me, and I in Him

John 14:20: I am in the Father [Deity], and you in me and I in you  

John 16: 32: Indeed the hour is coming, yes, has now come, that you will be scattered, each to his own, and will leave Me alone. And yet I am not alone, because the Father [Deity] is with Me.

John 17:21: "...You, Father ([Deity], are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me."

What was he saying? Can it but be that Christ was in the Father in the O.T., and the Father was in Christ in the N.T.? This may cause one to ponder, but such a perspective surely clarifies many scriptures. We are convinced that Jesus had a remarkable grasp of scripture, understanding, for instance, that the "I am" in Exodus 3:14 alluded to himself who was to come, entitling him to claim such identity when he spoke.  So it was that Jesus could identify himself with his Father in the many Old Testament occurrences that pointed to his coming. Certainly the Jews knew the significance of the phrase, "I am," as is evidenced in such verses as John 8:58, 59, when they sought to stone him. That the Father was in him in the N.T. is obvious from Jesus' words and such verses as II Cor. 5:19 "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself." Just as God was in the beginning, so He shall be until the end. We begin to see that Genesis1:1 means that in the beginning Gods (the plural noun Elohim), that is, God (the superior Elohim) in union with God the Son (Elohim the lesser), together bring about creation. In the fullness of time, the Supreme Elohim (God) would indwell the lesser Elohim (God's Son) to bring about the redemption of all creation. Christ's words in John, "I am in the Father and the Father is in me," would be fulfilled completely.

The Dual Nature is the only way in which Deity and humanity could be joined. The only true deity, the one true God, was now living in the perfect, sinless humanity of Christ. The Deity of Christ was that of His Father in him. When will Christ's words be believed? When Jesus sits on the throne to reign over the earth, sitting there with Him will be the Father. Two persons are indispensable to our redemption, one the Deity of the Father (God) and the other the perfect humanity of the Son. Each needed the other; neither could do it alone. God as deity had to remain God. He could not change and become a man but He could create one; He could impregnate the Virgin Mary who gave birth to His Son. God would fulfill His purpose to have a Son born after His own heart; God would become a Father.

Crucial to understand: Jesus was not born GOD

We need to understand that no Deity was passed from the Father to the Son. Christ, the second Adam, was born without sin like the first Adam. But unlike his predecessor, when tried, Christ would not sin, being made perfect by the things that He suffered. This was God's only begotten Son, not begotten as God before creation, as some say, but born fully man like us, yet without sin. An aside you may wish to study on your own: Jesus has met all the conditions necessary to become Israel's "Kinsman Redeemer." He is solely a member of the human race. He has paid the price of our redemption. And in the fullness of time, He will come in God's glory to take possession of the land. Once the Church is caught up to him in Heaven, we will return with him to reclaim his purchased possession. What a Savior!

The two elohims in Psalm 45 confirm the Dual Nature

Remember that the word God (Elohim) is used of men, devils, gods, angels, judges, etc. "Elohim" in this sense is used 28 times of the Lord Jesus Christ. He is addressed as "Elohim" (god) in reference to the rule over creation. In due time he will be the great, mighty, ruling king over all creation. He is called, God (Elohim) mighty ruler, a great God) of all gods (elohims), rulers, etc. Psalm 45 gives us an example. Although the passage quoted has been used by many to assign a deity to Jesus in and of himself, that error comes to light by a careful reading. Study this passage and note there are two different "Elohims" (God, gods). There is a supreme Elohim, who is the Father, and another Elohim, who is the Lord Jesus Christ. Having said that, we remind you again, that Elohim is not exclusively a title of deity as is Adonai or Jehovah. It can only imply deity when the context refers to God Himself. It can also be a title given to men. In this passage it is given to the Lord Jesus Christ. Carefully ponder the most significant verses:

Verse 1: David is the writer, and he is extolling his king (The Lord Jesus). Verse 2: he speaks of the humanity of Christ, "Fairer than the children of men. (You are the most excellent of men" in the NIV). Verse 6 continues referring to Jesus, "Thy throne O God (Elohim ) is forever, thy kingdom is a right sceptre." Note especially how the context of elohim refers to both the Father and to Jesus in verse 7:  Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickness: therefore, God (ELOHIM, Jesus) thy God (ELOHIM, God The Father) hath anointed thee Jesus (Elohim) with the oil of gladness above thy fellows" (men).  God the Father is the "supreme God" (Elohim Deity) as Strong states, but Jesus is the Magistrate or God (Elohim) exceeding all others called Gods because of their ruler ship.

A rule of interpretation regarding names of God

The coupling of names for the Father or the Son are, of course, not found anywhere in the Greek text of the N.T. However, whenever the name of either is carried over into the N.T., sound rules of interpretation require it to be used in accord with the Hebrew meaning that God had established in the O.T. This is especially true of instances where the word elohim is used of God such as in Psalm 45.

Psalm 45;6 is quoted in Hebrews 1:8-9: "Thy throne O God (Elohim) is forever." The Hebrew word used of "God" in the O.T. psalm is "Elohim." The context of the passage shows that it does not refer to the supreme Deity, but to the lesser "Elohim," in this case, a man. It speaks of ruler ship as defined in the O.T.  Some claim that this proves the deity of Christ. A little home work will show this to not be so.  Carefully study the passage, especially vs. 7. We need to lay aside any preconceptions and take time to let the Spirit of God reveal the truth of the passage.

Jesus' words to Mary Magdalene

Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene and says, "I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."  The meaning of the O.T. word for God is quite revealing. The words, to my God" (Jehovah) and your God" (Jehovah), necessarily must refer to the supreme God of Deity in the scriptures expressed in Isaiah 43:10-11, "None beside Me". This must be God the Father. By his words to Mary, Jesus placed himself on the same level as ourselves, under subjection to God. At the end of time in I Cor.15:28, we are told that, after Jesus, the man as God (Elohim), has defeated all the enemies, the last being death. He will return  to the Father all authority that had been given him, and then place himself under subjection, so that GOD MAY BE ALL IN ALL. A GOOD QUESTION:  How could God be the God of Jesus and at the same time the God of Mary Magdalene and every believer? Is Jesus less than God in this sense? Yes, according to the O.T. pattern and standard, Jesus is a man, but He has the title of God (lesser Elohim) who is Himself under the Supreme Elohim of God. Remember from Psalm 45, we see God spoken of in two different ways:

First, He is the Supreme Elohim. There is none greater than He. Even the Son is not equal to Him.

Second: God is expressed by His Son who is the lesser Elohim, the appointed man whose deity is that of his Father, through whom God will rule over all creation. Christ, under God but over all.

Study the scriptures to see for yourself whether this is not true.

Exactly what does the "Word" mean?

"In the beginning was the word"

EVER WONDER which Bible version is the best? Believers certainly differ and sometimes argue about it, but normally it's conceded that no one version is perfect.  Despite the extraordinary care given to preserving God's word over the centuries, every Bible version is but a translation from the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and necessarily reflects the views of the translators.

Normally this isn't a problem since God's truth can most often be stated with some latitude, but there are those difficult verses and passages, hard to understand and often appearing contradictory, that force us to really dig for the answer. In such cases, the King James Version proves invaluable since it is a literal translation and is keyed to Strong's concordance so we can discover and understand the Hebrew and Greek words in question. Even so, a problem still remains. The KJV, as well as other versions, sometimes fails to hold true to the acknowledged accuracy of the original manuscripts. Why? We think because of preconceptions of the translators who all have been unintentionally biased by a Trinitarian view. This is not to criticize the intent of the translators; they have followed what has been the long accepted view. It is only to show that if an alternative view is to be presented--one more accurately conveying the thrust of all scripture, as we contend--the original Hebrew and Greek text must be examined without bias.

The challenge facing translators

With respect to this, John M. Bland, in his work published on the Internet, There is One God, painstakingly examines relevant scriptures that show a Trinitarian bias. The reasons he advances, we feel, deserve  serious thought.

First, the Greek manuscripts were "penned in 'uncials' (all capital letters) and possessed virtually no punctuation and no spaces between words, sentences and chapters. Therefore, even the chapter breaks, paragraphs, verse breakdown and numberings depend--to various degrees--upon the interpretation of the translator. Moreover, the translator must determine the capitalization.

Further, the meaning of a word is influenced by the context in which it is used. For example, the context of the word spirit can indicate different meanings, e.g., a person with "a haughty spirit," or "the spirit of God," or "the spirit of man." Consequently, to interpret the context, the translator is forced to assume what must be a biased view. This is not a criticism of the translators; it is only an admission of a fact of life we live with.

Also, languages cannot always be understood on a "word-for-word" basis. The translator must often supply words to clarify the meaning, these often being italicized as in the KJV as you may have noticed. For instance, John 6:34--"For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him."---concludes with the words "unto him" for the sake of clarity.

Finally, many times, words in the manuscripts must be supplied with pronouns such as "he" or "it'." The same is true of the definite article "the." Once again, the translator must decide whether or not to supply such parts of speech, his decision necessarily affected by his theology. As an example, Bland calls attention to "the Holy Spirit" used in the four Gospels. He notes that most often there is no definite article in the original Greek, so the phrase would otherwise be translated simply "Holy Spirit" or if not capitalized, "holy spirit." Yet our English versions translate it by adding a non-existent "the," revealing the Trinitarian bias to regard the Holy Spirit as the third person of the Godhead.

The "Word"---a prime example of translator bias

What has been said must be factored in together with another problem. That is, words are sometimes wrongly translated apart from their normal use (as will be shown) to bear out the sense of the Trinitarian view. When all this is taken into account, certain passages can convey an entirely different slant. None better illustrates this than John 1:1-4, probably the most significant passage used to support the idea of the Trinity. Take a look at it below as it appears in the KJV with the key words crucial to the meaning followed by the Greek from which they were translated.

John 1: 1 In the beginning was the Word <logos>, and the Word <logos> was with <pros> God, and the Word <logos> was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with <pros> God.
3 All things were made <ginomai> by <dia> him; and without him was <ginomai> not any thing made <ginomai> that was made <ginomai>.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

The definitions of the original Greek words are enlightening. We make no claim to be linguists or expert in Greek, although Bland appears to be knowledgeable, so we encourage you to check Strong's dictionary for the meanings in full, but for now we present them briefly as best we understand:

According to Strong's definition of "Word": "Something said (including the thought); by implication, a topic (subject or discourse)."

Since this is so, might not the Word (logos) be better understood as God's total plan of redemption as revealed from Genesis to Revelation?

Read Proverbs 8 where the mindset of God is personified as wisdom.  The word logos is used in a wide variety of ways, so we do well to study its meaning. First, the phrase, "Word of God," appears repeatedly in the KJV throughout the New Testament, almost always translated from the words, "logos" and "theos." It is used only four times in the Old Testament, first in I Samuel 9:27 where the prophet requested Saul to, "stand thou still a while, that I may shew thee the word of God." We might ask if he presented the gospel or more specific instructions for the king.

However, most often (over 400 times), in the Old Testament, we see God making His will known to the prophets and others by the phrase, "thus saith the LORD." By such expressions, God can be seen unfolding His will progressively in accord with Hebrews 1:1, "God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets. has in these last days spoken to us by His Son," This being true, when we read in John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word," should we not be exceedingly careful about what is meant?  Note that it is not until John 1:14 that we read, "the Word [Logos] became flesh," embodying through the life of Christ the personalized expression of God's plan and message.

Regarding John 1:1-4, learning just three Greek words will help open our eyes:

pros: "A preposition of direction; forward to, i.e. toward"As opposed to "pros," the Greek word "meta" would more accurately convey the meaning generally understood as "being along side." Instead, "pros" carries the idea of "with regard to" or "pertaining to."
dia:"Denoting the channel of an act; through" In similar verses applying to Christ  dia is rendered "through"; it seems strange that is isn't so translated here.
ginomai: "To cause to be; to become (come into being);...to come to pass"  Four times in verse 3, it is translated as "made" rather than simply to come into existence through Christ, who the word "dia" implies was the channel God used.

What a difference freedom from bias can make!

If we free ourselves from preconceptions, if we keep these definitions in mind together with what has been mentioned about capitalization, the use of pronouns appropriate to the gender of the subject, the use or non-use of the definite article, observing other rules of grammar, and read in context, a second look at the passage is quite enlightening.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the plan, and the plan was with regard to God, and the plan was God  [that is, the plan originated with God, was about Him, and was consummated in Him.]
2 The same was in the beginning with regard to God.
3 All things came to pass through it; and without it not any thing came to pass that came into being.
4 In it was life; and the life was the light of men.

What a change a few words can make by taking them at face value without bias! We can see the passage is in harmony with God's foreordained will and purpose to secure our redemption and glorify His name. Before the heavens and the earth were created, He decreed every step in how He would progressively reveal Himself from Genesis through Revelation, from Eden through the Millennium to the Day of God. Here we see the relevance of His words in Isaiah 46:10 "Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure."

Study this passage carefully, bearing in mind all that has been said. Notice the difference when the word logos is translated in the sense of God's intention or plan rather than soley limited to the person of Christ at his first advent. Don't overlook that the use of the pronoun, "him," is rightfully changed to "it" because the subject is not a person but of a neuter gender. Also, we see that Christ was not the original Creator, as implied, but the channel through whom God brought all things to pass; this is made clear by the proper translation of "dia" meaning "through" and "ginomai" rendered in the sense of "becoming, or coming to pass." Finally, with respect to God's plan, the advent of Christ was the very center of it. From the beginning, God's intention was to be known by His Son as the Word who ultimately was manifested in the flesh.

Are we putting our own spin on the passage? How? No, it is true to both the Greek words and grammar. But don't take our word for it. Study it out for yourself.

The Metamorphosis of the "Word"

THE GREEK WORD Logos provided an answer to Greek philosophers' thought that a Logos or some kind of intermediary was necessary to account for the disparity between a God of perfection and the imperfect world that existed. Walker in his A History of the Christian Church sheds light on how the word Logos was understood at the time of Christ:

The Judaism of the dispersion was much influenced by Hellenism, especially by Greek philosophy, and nowhere more deeply than in Egypt. There, in Alexandria, the Old Testament was given to the reading world in Greek translation, the so-called Septuagint, as early as the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus (B.C. 285-246) . . . The most influential of the Alexandrian interpreters was Philo (B.C. 20?-A.D. 42?). To Philo, the Old Testament is the wisest of books, a real divine revelation, and Moses the greatest of teachers; but by allegorical interpretation Philo finds the Old Testament in harmony with the best in Platonism and Stoicism. The belief that the Old Testament and Greek philosophy were in essential agreement was one of far-reaching significance for the development of Christian philosophy. This allegorical method of Biblical explanation was greatly to influence later Christian study of the Scriptures. (Emphasis mine)

In the second century, Justin Martyr and, later Origin, Clement, Augustine from Alexandria would draw upon this mediator aspect of Hellenism to harmonize it with Christianity and influence how the meaning of the Word would come to be regarded. To appreciate all this, a brief look at the neo-Platonist philosophy prevailing in Greek culture and thought can be enlightening.

The influence of Greek culture

Plato's concept of God was in the sense of perfect forms or ideas from which all the imperfect things in the world take their form. The Logos, from which the Word is translated, gradually became integral to Greek philosophy as a pre-existent mediator between the perfection of God and the imperfections of the world. Plato's concept of God and creation might be best explained by the example of ripples formed by a rock thrown in the water: the further away the ripples from the rock, i.e. God in His perfection, the less they were like Him.

Plato also illustrated what he considered the difference between reality (God) and illusion (this world) by picturing a people in a cave facing a wall against which shadows were cast by objects passing from light entering through a window behind them. Unable to turn and see the actual objects, the people concluded that the shadows they saw were reality rather than the actual objects. He surmised that if someone were freed from the cave, upon seeing the objects themselves, returned to the cave to share his discovery about the shadows, he would likely be ridiculed and never again be content to dwell in the cave.

Although their views regarding God and creation fell short, the rationale of the Greek thinkers and their influence should never be underestimated. They were brilliant men for their time and their writings worth studying. Often what Plato and others wrote seemed to speak of Biblical truth. The life of Socrates in his pursuit to know good and follow it, even to the point of dieing for it, has caused some to think he was a saved Christian. Be that as it may, he set an example for seeking after truth and embodying it in life. We must remember that Greek thought was not without credulity; it undoubtedly influenced the Church fathers as they wrestled with how to explain Christ. It certainly illustrates how we must guard against letting preconceptions from our culture affect our search for truth in scripture.

Add Gnosticism to the confusion

Finally, the error of Gnosticism has come to be well recognized. This error insisted that Christ could not be human since to come in bodily form would be evil and opposed to God's perfection. We know John's Gospel and his letters refuted such a view, insisting that Christ was a real flesh and blood man. Philo's error, instead of diminishing the humanity of Christ, had the opposite effect of inferring he was pre-existent and equal with God in accord with Greek philosophy. Unfortunately this error is accepted even today.

Hopefully, the foregoing helps in understanding the circumstances and presumptions of those called by Constantine to tidy up all the speculation about the nature of Christ and God for the good of Rome. Probably the closest we can come to appreciating the challenge faced by the Council might be some kind of joint session of Congress trying to hammer out vital legislation hopefully in accord with the Constitution that would be acceptable to the President without the possibility of a veto. Fine points of law, the meaning of wording used, precedents, etc. all discussed, examined, and undoubtedly compromised to gain a majority opinion and final approval. Then, as we are so aware in our system, no matter how noble the efforts, opposite views, even ones honestly held, become more difficult to propose.

Once passed, the law of the land is established and enforced despite dissent. So it is with how the "Word"is regarded today, centering on a pre-existent eternal God of Greek thought rather than on the broader revelation of God's plan held by Israel. It remains so today.

How was Christ IN His Father?

WAS IT GOD the Father or Christ who created the world? This can be confusing because there are scriptures that credit both. So who was it? To make sense out of this, an appreciation of Christ's relationship to his Father as revealed in John 14:10 is invaluable. Asked by Phillip to show them the Father, Jesus replies,

"Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works."

What did he mean, "I am in the Father"? 1Peter 1:20 reminds us,

"He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you."

We see that the Old Testament speaks of Christ in all kinds of types and prophecies to be fulfilled upon his coming. Though not understood until his advent, he was clearly IN his Father so far as God's intention expressed by Isaiah 46:10b, "My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure."

On the other hand, only when Christ begins his ministry do we begin to understand his words, "the Father is in me." Jesus reveals all his works were not by him but of his Father IN him. One thing is certain--both the Father and the Son, each in their separate roles, are united in purpose regarding our salvation. The invisible God was the source; the visible man was the channel.

If before the foundations of the world, God intended to make Himself known through His Son, is it not fair to say that Christ was IN God--in His mind, in his purpose, in all He would do and say in the Old Testament? Then we should ponder this in respect to creation. Surely God was the source of creation, but must not Christ--as the one through whom God would be known--be credited as sharing it? How better than expressing His work as done through His Son? Webster defines through as "by means of" and "from beginning to end." God would necessarily identify Christ with Himself in the Old Testament to provide markers to identify him at his coming.  Verses attributing creation to Christ make it clear he is the channel, not the source.

Col 1:16 For by [better "in"] Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. [The Greek word "en" is most often translated "in" rather than "by," and is in keeping with other texts] 

Rom 11:36 . . . For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.

1Cor 8:6 . . . yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live. 

Eph 3:9 . . . and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ;

Heb 1:2 . . . has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds 

Examples abound of how God revealed Himself in human form

God credits Christ with all His words and acts because he is the means by whom God determined to make Himself known. This explains Jesus' words that he was IN his Father. Though he was yet to be born, throughout the Old Testament, he was continually in God's thoughts and intention as illustrated in so many instances alluding to him. Think about this. Does ever one and one not add up to two? Sometimes in the Bible it seems that way. There are instances in the scriptures when God uses a visible agent to speak for him, making it appear the agent is God Himself. ITimothy 6:16 tells us God "alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see." Only by a visible agent such as an angel could God "be seen." Though the agent may be spoken of as God, clearly it can't be God who  in truth  is spirit. Otherwise, would it not add up to our having two Gods? Any such error in addition must derive from a failure in division--to not clearly distinguish God from the agent He uses. Always there is only One God from whom are all things and one channel [one Lord] through whom He reveals Himself. Examples abound as early as the book of Genesis.

We read that after the angel of the Lord had spoken to Hagar, her words were, "Then she called the name of the LORD who spoke to her, "You are a God who sees"; for she said, "Have I even remained alive here after seeing Him?" (Gen. 16:7-13)
The account of the three angels who spent the day with Abraham is a remarkable study in itself. See Gen. 18-19. This is the first account, and the one and only instance, where God appears in human form credited with the titles of His Deity. It would be natural to say that the man speaking is God. Five times he is addressed as Adonai, a name used only of God and never of man, nine times as LORD (Jehovah), a total of 14 times as Deity. The man is called by the names of God; he speaks as God; he makes promises as God; he holds the power of judgment as God, and executes that judgment. Note the strange play on words in Gen. 19:24. "Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven." Do you see the strange wording? We have two LORDS (two Jehovahs). There is a LORD, that is His agent walking on earth, and a LORD in heaven.

Consider the account in Genesis 32:24-30 of Jacob wrestling with the angel of God.
"Then Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him until daybreak. Then he saw that he had not prevailed against him, he touched the socket of his thigh; so the socket of Jacob's thigh was dislocated while he wrestled with him. Then he said, "Let me go, for the dawn is breaking." But he said, "I will not let you go unless you bless me." So he said to him, "What is your name?" And he said, "Jacob." He said, "Your name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israel; for you have striven with God and with men and have prevailed." Then Jacob asked him and said, "Please tell me your name." But he said, "Why is it that you ask my name?" And he blessed him there. So Jacob named the place Peniel, for he said, "I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been preserved." (We learn from Hosea 12:3,4 that the man was the angel of God. "In the womb he took his brother by the heel, And in his maturity he contended with God. Yes, he wrestled with the angel and prevailed; He wept and sought His favor."

We remember the experience of Manoah and his wife in Judges 13:18-22. "But the angel of the LORD said to him, "Why do you ask my name, seeing it is wonderful?" So Manoah took the young goat with the grain offering and offered it on the rock to the LORD, and He performed wonders while Manoah and his wife looked on. For it came about when the flame went up from the altar toward heaven, that the angel of the LORD ascended in the flame of the altar. When Manoah and his wife saw this, they fell on their faces to the ground. Now the angel of the LORD did not appear to Manoah or his wife again. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of the LORD. So Manoah said to his wife, "We will surely die, for we have seen God."

These and other instances show how God attributes His nature to those through whom He acts. The agent is said to be God even though he is only a channel. Is it not puzzling why no one ever seems to question these accounts but insists that Christ is God rather than his agent? We remember Thomas' words upon touching Jesus' body in John 20:28, "My Lord and my God!" Was Thomas seeing God or the chosen man through whom He purposed to be known? What do you say?

Two Births or Only One?

AS WE READ of Christ's birth in Bethlehem and the successive events in His life, the gospel story presents a straightforward picture of how our salvation was accomplished. We meet a man prophesied in the Old Testament to be the Messiah, a man chosen from the beginning to make God known to the world. No one can read of the words he spoke and what he did without questions and wonder. True followers spend a lifetime growing in a fuller appreciation of the gospel.

While we may readily relate to his humanity, even though it surpasses our own, the deity so often attributed to him is a different matter. Is he God or man or both, a god-man, as so many believe? Is he the second person of the Godhead, that is, God the Son, equal with God and existing before his birth in Bethlehem? The Creeds state that Christ was begotten of God before the world began, which raises questions. So apart from other aspects of his deity, discussed elsewhere, let us discuss this issue of his "birth before his birth."

Actually, scripture has nothing to say about this first birth, unlike the manifold detail about the one we celebrate on Christmas.  No, this first birth of Christ as God is merely an assumption invented by theologians to explain how he was somehow pre-incarnate. It is beyond the purpose here to examine all these various passages and verses in detail. Instead, a brief look at a few key scriptures hopefully will inspire you to study on your own.

A more comprehensive view of the "Word"

Let us look first at the most influential verse of all--John 1:1. "In the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God and the Word was God." If the Word used as it is here is limited solely to Christ at his first advent, the case for his pre-existence appears airtight. But is that necessarily so? It all depends on what is meant by the Greek word Logos, translated as Word. It is used in a diversity of ways but the most customary meaning, as defined in Strong's Bible dictionary, is said to be a thought or plan and/or its expression. It may legitimately be regarded, as Israel apparently did, as the grand scheme of God from the beginning to the end of His creation, Christ being the centerpiece of it in the appointed time. God's Word would encompass His total plan--the creation of the heavens and the earth, Eden, Adam's sin, Lawlessness, The Flood, Babel, Abraham, Israel, Moses, the Law, finally the advent of Christ, his life, crucifixion, ascension, the Church, His return, the Tribulation, the Millennium, Final judgment and the new heavens and earth in the Day of God. Understood in this light, John 1:1 points more broadly to God's plan to reconcile the world to Himself. This is how Israel always regarded it. Now consider how it in this sense:

In the beginning was the plan, and the plan was with respect to God, and the plan was God. [From the beginning, God's plan was to reveal Himself by Christ, that He would be known by His Son. The plan could not be separated from God, and it spoke of his very essence revealed in his Son. He was in it every step of the way right up to the time of Christ on the Cross and beyond.]

To better appreciate how the word Logos became more narrowly centered only on Christ's first advent, a familiarity with the history of the early Church is imperative. We need to discover the impact of Greek culture and philosophy on theological thought of that day.

When the Logos or the Word is understood in this broader light, other comments by Christ take on a new significance. For instance, John 17:5 "...the glory which I had with You before the world was." Instead of referring to a glory he possessed in the past, his words can be seen to speak of the glory he knew had been prophesied he would receive after his finished work on the Cross. We also possess prophesied glory we have not yet received, just like our Savior.

One theologian's question sheds light

Other verses in John's gospel deserve a second look. Christ himself in John 3:13 claims to have "ascended to heaven." Linked to this thought is a group of verses in chapter six that affirm he "came down" from heaven (see 6:31-33, 38, 41-43, 50-51, 58). Our first impressions must be that he surely had to have been in heaven before coming to earth, but we need to be careful about making snap judgments. Take a second look at John 3:13:

And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which is in heaven. [Theologian Albert Barnes comments: "'Which is in heaven'. This is a very remarkable expression. Jesus, the Son of man, was then bodily on earth conversing with Nicodemus; yet he declares that he is at the same time in heaven. This can be understood only as referring to the fact that he had two natures--that  his divine nature was in heaven, and his human nature on earth. Our Savior is frequently spoken of in this manner." Comp. John 6:62; 17:5; 2Co 8:9.  As Jesus was in heaven--as his proper abode was there--he was fitted to speak of heavenly things, and to declare the will of God to man.]

Note that Barnes confirms the dual nature of Christ when he states, "his divine nature was in heaven, and his human nature of earth." Is this not another way of saying his divine nature was that of God, and that as a man his human nature was on earth?  (Remember how in addressing Nicodemus, Jesus used not the singular "I" but the plural "we' pointing to his union with His Father in heaven). We must be careful what we read into such verses that speak of "ascending to" and "coming down" from heaven. Most often heaven is regarded as a place, and surely it is rightfully described as such. Still, what is heaven? Is it not where God dwells? We are told in Acts 17:28 that "in Him we live and move and have our being." Ephesians 1:3 and 2:6 speak of we believers being "seated in heavenly places." In many verses, such as in Colossians 1, we are spoken of as having been risen with Christ. We might say any separation of ours from heaven is bridged by faith rather than by mileage on an odometer. When in prayer we enter into his courts, we enjoy a bit of it here and now, though we look forward to one day dwelling there by sight in new glorified bodies.

What need for Jesus to have been God?

Of one thing we are convinced. There is no reason why Christ had to be God or exist before his birth in Bethlehem other than in the mind and intention of God from the beginning. Note his own words such as in John 14:10 and others, as well as scriptures written of him such as II Corn. 5:19, "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself." Take care, to identify the man Jesus Christ as God is to risk our being able to as closely identify with him. His divinity arises not from himself but from God the Father who indwelt him as His Anointed.

Truly we can worship Christ as God, as we are commanded, because he is the express image of our Father (God incarnate if you will). As God's Anointed, Christ is the firstborn of many brethren whose lives are rooted in him and share so much in common:

• We as well as Christ  have been born by the Spirit of God.
• We are said to be ordained by God from before creation (I Pet. 1:20 and Eph. 1:4).
• We have been made one with God just as Christ was (John 17:21 and Gal. 2:20)
• We are in Christ and he in us just as he was in the Father and the Father in him (John 14:10 and John 17:21-23).
• Believers will also be glorified (John 17:22).
• Just as Christ confessed his complete dependence upon God, spoken of as "meek and lowly," so are we called to walk as he walked in a confident dependence upon his God and our God.

How do we relate to Christ? Is our eternal hope when we enter heaven to be like God or to realize the significance and wonder of our humanity gloriously revealed in Christ? "We know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." (I John 3:2b). There we will meet our Lord and Savior who suffered for us on the Cross--still fully man though in a glorified body, ever praising God with us whom he is not ashamed to call his brethren.

Mistakes happen when we confuse Christ with His Father. Though they are one in purpose, they play separate roles in accord with their opposite natures. Each needs the other. Father/Son, Deity/Humanity, the sufficiency of the Father, the obedience of the Son unto whom is given all power and authority.

One God, one Son, one birth---that's all that was needed.

Study and meditate on the scriptures here presented and search out others that are related in a new light.  "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (IThes 5:21)

The Kinsman Redeemer
Biblical proof that Christ was solely a man, not God

IN THE OLD TESTAMENT BOOK of Ruth, the story of this young woman remains one of the most familiar and meaningful in the Bible. We read of Naomi forced to leave her land after the death of her husband, going to the land of Moab with her two sons and daughters-in-law, then losing her two sons and determining to return to Israel without her two daughters but prevailed upon by Ruth to return with her. Ruth's words are precious to this day:

"Entreat me not to leave you, Or to turn back from following after you; For wherever you go, I will go; And wherever you lodge, I will lodge; Your people shall be my people, And your God, my God."

As those familiar with the story will remember, Ruth found work in fields of Boaz who was a near relative of Naomi, and a love affair ensued in which Naomi played a part. Without going into detail, what is worthy to be stressed is the background and significance of Boaz as a kinsman redeemer. It is indeed a prelude to another story--that of the Lamb found worthy to open the sealed scroll in Revelation. We need to examine God's conditions when giving the land to Israel. In his book Marantha, theologian Renald Showers examines these and their relevance.

You might say God was the "Land Lord" and Israel the tenants

First, in Genesis 13:15, God declares, "all the land which you see I give to you and your descendants forever," yet in Leviticus 25:23 God makes clear He is the landlord and Israel the tenant, "The land shall not be sold permanently, for the land is Mine."

If anyone had to "sell" their land, God laid down specific instructions to assure it would be returned to the owner at the year of Jubilee celebrated every 50 years. Actually, it might be better said to say the land was leased rather than sold. The purchase price would be based on the number of years the buyer had right to work the land, that is, from the time of the "sale" to the year of Jubilee. Also, only a member of the same tribe was elligible as a buyer, "Thus no inheritance shall change hands from one tribe to another, but every tribe of the children of Israel shall keep its own inheritance." (Numbers 36:9). To make clear how all the foregoing worked, Leviticus 25:25-28:

"And in all the land of your possession you shall grant redemption of the land.'If one of your brethren becomes poor, and has sold some of his possession, and if his redeeming relative comes to redeem it, then he may redeem what his brother sold. Or if the man has no one to redeem it, but he himself becomes able to redeem it, then let him count the years since its sale, and restore the remainder to the man to whom he sold it, that he may return to his possession. But if he is not able to have it restored to himself, then what was sold shall remain in the hand of him who bought it until the Year of Jubilee; and in the Jubilee it shall be released, and he shall return to his possession."

It is now a bit easier to understand Boaz' role as kinsman redeemer. We do need to bear in mind the conditions necessary for the redemption of the land--1)the redeemder must be of the same tribe, 2) the redeemer must pay the purchase price, and 3) he must take possession of the land. In cases where the kinsman redeemer was unable to take immediate possession, others might wrongly take over the land whom the redeemer might have to forcefully evict. In every case, the redeemer would need to furnish proof of his rightful ownership by presenting his deed of purchase. This was a legal contract spelling out the details of the purchase that was signed by the buyer, attested to by witnesses on the back of the document, and kept in safe keeping. Normally written on a scroll, two identical copies were made, one for common inspection and another that was sealed and kept in safe hands, only to be opened by authorities for verification in cases where tampering with the unsealed copy was suspected. The precautions for the deed were vital since many years might elapse before the buyer could take possession of the land, risking that usurpers might unlawfully take control of the property.

A priceless illustration

The account in Jeremiah 32:6-15 illustrates this well. God had Jeremiah redeem the land of his cousin when it was under the control of Babylon. It would be 70 years before Israel returned from its captivity to the land, so a deed of purchase was imperative for Jeremiah to prove right of repossession. Jeremiah paid the price, signed the deed, both the sealed copy and the open one, giving them in the presence of witnesses to Baruch who was charged to put both copies in an earthen jar that they would last many days. What an example of Jeremiah's faith in God's promise to return the land to His people!

Now let us magnify this in the greater light of God's redemption of the world by means of Christ. We will see some striking parallels to the kinsman redeemer of Israel. Let's consider them one by one:

First, not just the land of Israel but the entire earth belongs solely to God by right of creation. Adam, as the son of God, was given the earth as an inheritance forever, yet like Israel he was not the owner but a tenant. His purpose under God was to multiply and have dominion over the earth, but he forfeited this right to Satan when he sinned. We might say he sold the land to another not of his tribe, that is, one not human but an angelic power, second only to God. That unlawful sale gave Satan, the new owner, authority to rule as the god of this world. Though God in His righteousness had to honor the penalty of Adam's sin, for the sake of Adam, He cursed the ground that Adam would have reason to search for Him.

Second, though Adam lost rightful possession of the land, it was temporary as in the case of Israel. As God established the year of Jubilee when the land would revert to its original owners, so too God has appointed a day when the meek shall inherit the earth. We as Adam are still privileged to live on the earth, but we are now under the authority of Satan rather than God. Yes, we are in a dilemma that can be solved by nothing less than a Kinsman Redeemer.

Third, Christ meets the exact requisites of the kinsman redeemer of Israel.

• The kinsman had to be a member of the tribe. With respect to the redemption of the world, he must necessarily solely be a man, not an angel or god. Scriptures abound to show only Christ met this condition.
• The Kinsman Redeemer had to fulfill two conditions before taking control of the land. First, he had to pay the redemption price that was accomplished by the shedding his blood on the Cross. However, it still remains for him to fulfill the second condition of taking possession of the land.
• In the longsuffering patience of God, after calling out a people for His name, the Lamb will take the sealed scroll, the title to the land, from his Father's hand. Proving his authority by opening the seals, he will rout the enemy by his mighty judgments to establish his rule as King of Kings in the Millenium.

May we join in praise with those in Revelation chapter Five who worship the Lamb found worthy to open the sealed scroll :

And they sang a new song, saying: "You are worthy to take the scroll, And to open its seals; For You were slain, And have redeemed us to God by Your blood Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, And have made us kings and priests to our God; And we shall reign on the earth."

We sing praises to the Lamb of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, the second Adam born of the Virgin Mary, who walked this earth in complete dependence on God, just as we do, who is our Kinsman Redeemer now given all power and authority and seated at the right hand of God.

This file is an edited excerpt from the treatise, A statement of reasons for not believing the doctrines of Trinitarians, by Andrews Norton, theologian, 1765-1853. As the treatise was originally in book form, the footnotes have had to be placed within the text of this document as appropriately as possible. Because of grammatical differences between Norton's day and our own, in a few cases where they may affect the sense of his words, I have edited for clarity. Norton was a highly esteemed theologian holding a Unitarian view though not a denominationalist. William R. Newell, well known for his work, Romans Verse by Verse, expressed his highest admiration for Norton in the Preface he was privileged to author. Thanks to Norton, we have the specifics that I express in general to prove how Greek philosophy contributed to Trinitarian thought.

SECTION IV.

On the origin of the doctrine of the trinity

WE CAN TRACE THE HISTORY of this doctrine, and discover its source, not in the Christian revelation, but in the Platonic philosophy,* which was the prevalent philosophy during the first ages after the introduction of Christianity, and of which all the more eminent Christian writers, the Fathers as they are called, were, in a greater or less degree, disciples.

They, as others have often done, blended their philosophy and their religion into one complex and heterogeneous system; and taught the doctrines of the former as those of the latter. In this manner, they introduced errors into the popular faith.

*I state the proposition in this general form, in which the authorities to be adduced directly apply to it. But it is to be observed, that the doctrine of the personality of the Logos, and of his divinity, in an inferior sense of that term, which was the germ of the Trinity, was immediately derived from Philo, the Jewish Plato as he has been called, which fact I shall hereafter have occasion to advert to."

"It is an old complaint of learned men," says Mosheim," that the Fathers, or teachers of the ancient church, were too much inclined to the philosophy of Plato, and rashly confounded what was taught by that philosopher with the doctrines of Christ, our Savior; in consequence of which, the religion of Heaven was greatly corrupted, and the truth much obscured.* This passage is from the Dissertation of Mosheim, Concerning the Injury done to the Church by the Later Platonists. In the same Dissertation, after stating some of the obstructions thrown in the way of Christianity by those of the later Platonists who were its enemies, he proceeds to say: "But these evils were only external, and although they were injurious to our most holy religion, and delayed its progress, yet they did not corrupt its very nature, and disease, if I may so speak, its vitals. More fatal distempers afflicted Christianity, after this philosophy had entered the very limits of the sacred city, and had built a habitation for itself in the minds of those to whom the business of instruction was committed.There is nothing, the most sacred in our faith, which from that time was not profaned, and did not lose a great part of its original and natural form. †  Few of the learned," he adds in another place, "are so unacquainted with ecclesiastical history, as to be ignorant what a great number of errors, and most preposterous opinions, flowed in from this impure source." ‡

*Mosheim, De turbafcl per recentiores Platonicos Ecclesia Commentatio, § vi.
†Ibid., § xxxiii.
Ibid., § xlviii.

Among the false doctrines thus introduced from the Platonic philosophy is to be reckoned, pre-eminently, that of the Trinity. Gibbon says, with a sneer, that "the Athenian sage [Plato] marvelously anticipated one of the most surprising discoveries of the Christian revelation,"* In making this assertion, Gibbon adopted a popular error, for which there is no foundation. Nothing resembling the doctrine of the Trinity is to be found in the writings of Plato himself. †  But there is no question that, in different forms, it was a favorite doctrine of the later Platonists, equally of those who were not Christians as of those who were. Both the one and the other class expressed the doctrine in similar terms, explained it in a similar manner, and defended it, as far as the nature of the case allowed, by similar arguments; and both appealed in its support to the authority of Plato.

Clement of Alexandria, one of the earliest of the Trinitarian and Platonizing Fathers, (he flourished about the commencement of the third century)  endeavors to show, that the doctrine was taught by that philosopher. He quotes a passage from one of the epistles ascribed to him ‡ in which mention is made of a second and third principle, beside the "King of all things."

*[Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Ch. xxi.]
†Mosheim says, ironically: " Certainly the three famous hypostases of the later Platonists may be discovered in the Timoeus of Plato, as easily and readily as the three principles of the chemists, salt, sulphur, and mercury." " Certe tres illas celeberrimas hypostases Platonicorum in Timoeo Platonis ostendere, Deque facile ct promp, tum est, atque tria chymicorum principia, sal, sulphur, et mercurinm ex hoc Dialogo cruere." (Sec his Notes to his Latin Translation of Cudworth's Intellectual System, 2d cd., Tom. I. p. 901.) The doctrine of the Trinity is as little to be discovered in any other genuine writing of Plato as in the Timoeus.
‡The second epistle to Dionysius ; which, with all the other epistles ascribed to Plato, is now generally regarded as spurious.

In this passage, he observes, he "can understand nothing to be meant but the Sacred Trinity; the third principle being the Holy Spirit, and the second principle being the Son, by whom all things were created according to the will of the Father."*

A similar interpretation of the passage is referred to by Eusebius; and in the oration which he ascribes to Constantine, as addressed "To the Assembly of Saints," Plato is eulogized as teaching, conformably to the truth, that " there is a First God, the Father, and a Second God, the Logos or Son."

Augustine tells us in his Confessions, that he found the true doctrine concerning the Logos in a Latin translation of some Platonic writings, which the providence of God had thrown in his way. §Speaking of those ancient philosophers who were particularly admired by the later Platonists, he says: "If these men could revive and live over again their lives with us, with the change of a few words and sentences they would become Christians, as very many Platonists of our own time have done." ;

* Stromat. Lib. V. c. 14. p. 710, ed. Potter.
†Praparatio Evangelica, Lib. XI. c. 20.
‡Cap. 9.
§ " Tn, Domine procurasti mihi qnosdam Plato
nicorum libros," &c. [Confess. Lib. VII. cc. 8, 9.] Opp. I. col. 128. Basil. 1556.
;Lib. de Vcra Religione. [Cap. 4, al. 7.] Opp. I. col. 704.

Theodoret gives the following account of the Platonic Trinity as compared with the Christian: "Plotinus and Numenius, explaining the opinion of Plato, represent him as teaching the existence of three principles which are beyond time and eternal, The Good, the Intellect, and the Soul of the World. He gives the name of The Good to the being whom we call Father; of Intellect, to him whom we name Son and Logos; and the power which animates and gives life to all things, which the Divine Word names Holy Spirit, he calls Soul. But these doctrines, as 1 have said, have been stolen from the philosophy and theology of the Hebrews."*

Basnage had good reason for observing, that the Fathers almost made Plato to have been a Christian, before the introduction of Christianity. Immediately after this remark, Basnage quotes a writer of the fifth century, who expresses with honest zeal his admiration at the supposed fact, that the Athenian sage should have so marvelously anticipated the most mysterious doctrines of revelation.†

*Thus have we given a true and full account, how, according to Athanasius, the three divine
†Grrec. Affect. Carat. Serm. II. Opp. IV. 500, ed. Sirmond. t Basnage, Histoire des Juifs, Liv. IV. ch. 4.4 20.

I will produce a few passages from modern Trinitarian writers, to show the near resemblance between the Christian and Platonic Trinity. The very learned Cudworth, in his great work on the Intellectual System, has brought together all that antiquity could furnish to illustrate the doctrine. He institutes a long and minute comparison between the forms in which it was held by the Heathen Platonists, and that in which it was held by the Christian Fathers. Toward the conclusion of this, we find the following passages:

"Thus have we given a true and full account, how, according to Athanasius, the three divine hypostases, though not monoousious, but homoousious only, are really but one God or Divinity. In all which doctrine of his, there is nothing but what a true and genuine Platonist would readily subscribe to."*

"As the Platonic Pagans after Christianity did approve of the Christian doctrine concerning the Logos, as that which was exactly agreeable with their own; so did the generality of the Christian Fathers, before and after the Nicene Council, represent the genuine Platonic Trinity as really the same thing with the Christian, or as approaching so near to it, that they differed chiefly in circumstances, or the manner of expression."

In proof of this, Cudworth produces many passages similar to those which I have quoted from the Fathers. Athanasius, he observes, "sends the Arians to school to the Platonists." ‡

Ch. IV. § 36. p. 620. [Vol. II. p. 15, Andover edit.]
†Page 621. [al. II. 17.]
‡Page 623. [al. II. 19, 20.] The study of Cudworth is strongly recommended by Bishop Horsley for the information which his work contains respecting the tenets of the Platonists. Sec his Charge, before quoted, V. § 5. I would recommend it also, with particular reference to the subject before us; for I know no other work from which so much information can be derived concerning the origin of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

Basnage was not disposed to allow such a resemblance between the Christian and Platonic Trinity as that which Cudworth maintains, and he has written expressly in refutation of the latter. It is not necessary to enter into this controversy. The sentence with which he concludes his remarks on the subject, is enough for our purpose. "Christianity, in its triumph, has often reflected honor on the Platonists; and as the Christians took some pride in finding the Trinity taught by a philosopher, so the Platonists were proud in their turn to see the Christians adopt their principles."*

I quote the authorities of learned Trinitarians, rather than adduce the facts on which they are founded, because the facts could not be satisfactorily stated and explained in a small compass. It is to be observed, that Trinitarians, in admitting the influence of the Platonic doctrine upon the faith of the early Christians, of course do not regard the Platonic as the original source of the Orthodox doctrine, but many of them represent it as having occasioned errors and heresies, and particularly the Arian heresy. Such was the opinion of Petavius, who in his Theologica Dogmata, †  after giving an account of the Platonic notions concerning the Trinity, thus remarks:

"I will now proceed to consider the subject on account of which I have entered into so full an investigation of the opinions of the Platonists concerning the Trinity; namely, in what manner this doctrine was conceived of by some of the ancients, and how the fiction of Plato concerning the Trinity was gradually introduced into Christianity by those of the Platonists who had become converts to our religion, or by others who had been in any way indoctrinated in the Platonic philosophy. They are to be separated into two classes. One consists of such as, properly speaking, were unworthy the name of Christians, being heretics. The other, of those who were true Christians, Catholics, and saints, but who, through the circumstances of their age, the mystery not yet being properly understood, threw out dangerous propositions concerning it."

* Historic des Juifs, Liv. IV. ch. 3,4.
†De Trinitate, Lib. I. c. 3. § 1 '

The very Orthodox Gale, in his Court of the Gentiles, says: " The learned Christians, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, &c., made use of the Pythagorean and Platonic philosophy, which was at this time wholly in request, as a medium to illustrate and prove the great mysteries of faith, touching the Divine Xo'yo?, word, mentioned John i. 1, hoping by such symbolizings, and claiming kindred with these philosophic notions and traditions (originally Jewish) touching the Platonic Xoyo?, i/ov?, and rpta?, [the Platonic trinity,] they might gain very much credit and interest amongst these Platonic Sophistes."*

Beausobre, in his History of Manichaeism, adverts to this subject. His opinion concerning the resemblance of the Platonic and Christian Trinity appears in the following passage:
"Such, according to Chaleidius, † was the Platonic Trinity. It has been justly regarded as defective. 1. It speaks of a first, a sccond, and a third God; expressions which Christianity has banished. Still, as appears from what I have said, Plato really acknowledged but a single God, because he admitted, properly speaking, but a single First Cause, and a single Monarch. 2. This theology is still further censured for the division of the Divine Persons, who are not only distinguished, but separated. The objection is well grounded. But this error may be pardoned in a philosopher; since it is excused in a great number of Christian writers, who have had the lights of the Gospel. 3. In the last place, fault is found with this theology on account of the inequality of the Persons. There is a supreme God, to whom the two others are subject. There was the same defect in the theology of the Manichaeans. They believed the consubstantiality of the Persons, but they did not believe their equality. The Son was below the Father, and the Holy Spirit below the Father and Son. But if we go back to the time when Manichaeus lived [about the middle of the third century], we shall be obliged to pardon an error, which was then very general. Huet, who acknowledges that Origen has everywhere taught that the Son is inferior to the Father, excuses him on the ground that this was the common doctrine of those writers who preceded the Council of Nice.

* Part HI, B. 1L c. 1. § 9.
†Chaleidios was a Platonic philosopher, who lived before the close of the fourth century.

And Petavius not only does not deny it, but proves it at length in his First Book on the Trinity."*

* Histoirc da Manich6isme, Tom. I. pp. 560, 561.

There has been no more noted defender of the doctrine in modern times than Bishop Horsley. The following is a quotation from his Letters to Dr. Priestley:

"I am very sensible that the Platonizers of the second century were the Orthodox of that age. I have not denied this. On the contrary, I have endeavored to show that their Platonism brings no imputation upon their Orthodoxy. The advocates of the Catholic faith in modern times have been too apt to take alarm at the charge of Platonism. I rejoice and glory in the opprobrium. I not only confess, but I maintain, not a perfect agreement, but such a similitude as speaks a common origin, and affords an argument in confirmation of the Catholic doctrine [of the Trinity], from its conformity to the most ancient and universal traditions."*

In another place he says: "It must be acknowledged, that the first converts from the Platonic school took advantage of the resemblance between the Evangelic and Platonic doctrine on the subject of the Godhead, to apply the principles of their old philosophy to the explication and confirmation of the articles of their faith. They defended it by arguments drawn from Platonic principles; they even propounded it in Platonic language." †

* Letters to Dr. Priestley, Letter 13.
†Charge, IV. § 2.

The celebrated Bentley, upon taking his degree of Doctor of Divinity in 1696 at Cambridge, defended "the identity of the Christian and Platonic Trinity," together with "the Mosaic account of the Creation and the Deluge," and "the proof of divine authority by the miracles recorded in Scripture." Nor does it appear that the first-mentioned position was regarded with surprise or obloquy, any more than the last two.*

I might produce more authorities in support of the facts which have been stated. But I conceive it to be unnecessary. The fair inference from these facts every reader is able to draw for himself. The doctrine of the Trinity is not a doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, but a fiction of the school of the later Platonists, introduced into our religion by the Fathers, who were admirers and disciples of the philosophy taught in this school. The want of all mention of it in the Scriptures is abundantly compensated by the ample space which it occupies 'in the writings of the heathen Platonists, and of the Platonizing Fathers.

But what has been stated is not the only evidence which Ecclesiastical History affords against this doctrine. The conclusion to which we have just arrived is confirmed by other facts. But these, however important, I will here but barely mention. They are the facts of its gradual introduction; of its slow growth to its present form; of the strong opposition which it encountered; and. of its tardy reception among the great body of common Christians. †

* See Monk's Life of Bentley, p. 57.
†On these subjects, see Dr. Priestley's History of Early Opinions concerning Jesus Christ. [Compare Mr. Norton's "Account of the

Cudworth, after remarking "that not a few of those ancient Fathers, who were therefore reputed Orthodox because they zealously opposed Arianism," namely, Gregory Nyssen, Cyril of Alexandria, and others, entertained the opinion that the three persons in the Trinity were three distinct individuals, " like three individual men, Thomas, Peter, and John,"-- the divine nature being common to the former as the human nature is to the latter--observes that "some would think that the ancient and genuine Platonic Trinity, taken with all its faults, is to be preferred before this Trinity." He then says, "But as this Trinity came afterwards to be decried as tritheistic, so in the place of it there started up that other Trinity of persons numerically the same, or having all one and the same singular existent essence--a doctrine which seems not to have been owned by any public authority in the Christian Church, save that of the Lateran Council only."*

This is the present Orthodox form of the doctrine of the Trinity. Cudworth refers to the fourth general Lateran Council, held in 1215, under Pope Innocent the Third. The same Council which, in the depth of the Dark Ages, established the modern doctrine of the Trinity, established, likewise, that of Transubstantiation; enforced with the utmost rigor the persecution of heretics, whom it ordered to be sought out and exterminated; and prepared the way for the tribunals of the Inquisition, which were shortly after established.*

*Controversy between Dr. Priestley, Dr. Horeley, and others," in the General Repository and Review (Cambridge, 1312, 1313), Vols. I- HI.]
Intellectual System, Ch. IV. § 36. pp. 602-604. [I. 791 -793, Andover edit.]
enforced with the utmost rigor the persecution of heretics, whom it ordered to be sought out and exterminated ; and prepared the way for the tribunals of the Inquisition, which were shortly after established.*
* See Fleury, Histoire Ecclesiastique, An. 1215.

IF YOU ARE A THINKER, you may appreciate the challenge presented by theologian Andrews Norton to carefully reason how words are to be read if they are to be correctly understood. What follows is a selected, edited portion of Section VIII from Norton's treatise, A statement of reasons for not believing the doctrines of Trinitarians. To concisely express Norton's logic, the Trinity is not "a mystery that has no explanation" but an absurdity that defies the rules of grammar. Judge for yourself.

______________________________

THE PRINCIPLE OF INTERPRETATION to which I refer is so constantly present to the mind of every one, and is acted upon so unconsciously in reading all other books but the Scriptures, that, except in reference to them, it is scarcely necessary to announce it or advert to it. It has been already mentioned. In many cases, as I have said, we at once reject the literal meaning of words, and understand them as figurative, because if we did not do this they would convey some meaning which contradicts common sense; and it would be inconsistent with our notions of the writer to suppose him to intend such a meaning. Men's minds being constituted alike, so that, when a subject is clearly understood, what appears an absurdity to one will appear an absurdity to another, we do not ascribe an absurd meaning to the language of any writer, except upon the special consideration of some well-known peculiarity of belief, or defect or cloudiness of intellect. Yet a great part of all language diverted in any way from its literal sense will bear an absurd meaning, that is, admits of being so interpreted when the words alone are regarded. . .

Words are only human instruments for the expression of human ideas; and it is impossible that they should express anything else. The meaning of words is that idea or aggregate of ideas which men have associated with certain sounds or letters. They have no other meaning than what is given them by men; and this meaning must be always such as the human understanding is capable of conceiving; for we can associate with sounds or letters no idea or aggregate of ideas which we have not. Ideas, therefore, with which the human understanding is conversant, are all that can be expressed by words. If an angel should have faculties of a different nature from those which we possess, he can make no use of our language to convey to our minds the results of their exercise. If any being have more senses than we have, he can find no words of ours to express to us his new perceptions. It being impossible, therefore, that words should be employed to denote anything but human ideas; whenever they have a meaning, this meaning, though liable to be mistaken, must in its own nature be capable of being fully understood.

To talk of an incomprehensible meaning, if we use the word "incomprehensible" in a strict sense, is to employ terms which in themselves express an absurdity. It is the same sort of language, as if we were to speak of an invisible illumination. The meaning of a sentence is the ideas which it is adapted to convey to the mind of him who reads or hears it. But if it be capable of conveying any ideas, that is, if it has any meaning, it is merely stating the same fact in other terms, to say that those ideas are capable of being received and understood.
No one, indeed, will deny that there are many truths incomprehensible by us; which are above reason, or, in other words, which are wholly out of the grasp of our present faculties. But these truths cannot be expressed in human language. Nor, while our faculties remain what they are, can they be in any way revealed to us. To reveal is to make known. But what cannot be comprehended cannot be made known, and therefore cannot be revealed.

This very plain subject has been obscured by a loose and ambiguous use of language. It is said, that we believe truths which we do not comprehend-that we believe that the grass grows; but do not know how it grows ; - that we believe that some things are infinite; but that we do not comprehend infinity-that we believe that God knows all things; but that we cannot form a conception of omniscience. Let us examine these propositions. The grass grows: do we not know what we mean when we use these words? It is as intelligible a proposition as can be stated. We affirm, and we intend nothing more than to affirm, that certain well-known, sensible phenomena take place. It is true that we do not know how it grows, that is to say, we do not know the proximate causes of its growth; and it is equally true, that we affirm nothing about those causes in the proposition stated. Our affirmation does not extend beyond our knowledge. The fact that there are many phenomena, of which we cannot assign the causes, does not tend to prove that, when we affirm those phenomena to exist, we utter incomprehensible propositions.

But we say of many things, that they are or may be infinite; that space and duration arc infinite; that the attributes of God are infinite; that our own existence will be infinite or without termination; and we do not understand what is meant by infinity; we do not comprehend these truths. I answer that if we do not understand those propositions-if they are unintelligible-it is very idle to make them. We do not comprehend infinity in itself considered; but we comprehend our own idea of infinity, with the knowledge, as in very many other cases, that it is an inadequate idea. Our ideas of things infinite are, as that word implies,* essentially negative ideas. They consist in the conception of certain things, accompanied with the belief of the absence of all limit or termination. We not only have an idea of infinity, but it is impossible we should not have. The very constitution of our minds is such that we cannot, for instance, imagine a period when time began, or when it may end. It is true that we are unable to conceive of infinity positively, we do not understand all its nature; and we can reason about it therefore but very partially. It belongs to the class of inadequate ideas,* which includes far the greater portion of all our ideas; and the propositions relating to it are no more unintelligible than the propositions which relate to other ideas of this class. I affirm, that the same person who called on me today visited me yesterday; and there is no one, I think, who will maintain that this is an incomprehensible proposition. Yet there are few who will pretend to have a perfectly adequate idea of identity, the notion of which is involved in the proposition just stated; and many questions may be raised respecting this subject, as well as respecting infinity, by which most minds would be perplexed. I say that the sun is the principal source of light and heat; and the proposition is perfectly intelligible. But I have not an adequate idea of the sun; there are many things concerning it, as well as concerning infinity, which I can neither affirm nor deny. I cannot say, for instance, whether, as some have imagined, it be adapted to the support of animals and vegetables, in any respect similar to those which exist upon the earth. Our idea of infinity differs from most other ideas of the class to which I have referred it, only in this respect--that its inadequacy is occasioned by the fact that the subject is beyond the grasp of our faculties, while the inadequacy of most other ideas seems to arise from the deficiency of our means of information. But this is a difference which does not in any degree affect the nature of the propositions made concerning it, so as to distinguish them from other propositions relating to inadequate ideas.

* From the Latin in negative, smdfinitut.

But it will be said that we have no conception of omniscience, and yet that we make propositions concerning it, which have a meaning and a very important one. I answer, that they have not only an important, but a perfectly intelligible meaning; and that this subject is of a similar kind to many others, of the nature and relations of which the understanding has distinct ideas, though they are subjects of which the imagination cannot form distinct conceptions. Fix on any particular object of knowledge, and I can conceive, in every sense of the word, that this should be known to God. But when these objects are infinite, or when they are multiplied, beyond very narrow limits, my imagination fails and is altogether confounded. But the same is the case with regard to much humbler subjects. No ideas can be more definite, considered as objects of the understanding, than those which relate to number and quantity; yet it is principally collective and aggregate ideas involving the notion of great numbers or vast quantity, that the imagination is thus unable to embrace. When I am told that there are more than six hundred millions of inhabitants upon the earth, I understand the proposition as perfectly, as when I am told that there are six individuals in a certain room. But of the latter my imagination can form a distinct conception, of the former it cannot. I have no images in my mind which correspond in any considerable degree to the immense number of individuals mentioned; or to that vast mass of matter with all its various modifications which constitutes the earth. Still less can one form distinct images of what astronomy has made known to us respecting the universe. But who will pretend that man cannot comprehend the truths which man has discovered? We need not, however, go so far for "examples. I can form no image of a figure with twenty equal sides-none which shall distinguish it from a similar figure of nineteen or twenty-one. But I am surely able to comprehend propositions respecting such a figure with twenty sides; and I have a very clear idea of it as an object of the understanding. The fact therefore that our imaginations cannot conceive of omniscience, has no bearing to prove that our reason cannot comprehend the propositions which we make concerning it. When indeed we regard omniscience as infinite knowledge, then our ideas respecting it, however clear, must be inadequate. But, as I have just shown, propositions relating to inadequate ideas may be altogether intelligible.

Language then cannot be formed into propositions having a meaning, which meaning is not, in itself considered, fully to be comprehended. This is merely saying, in other terms, that the human mind is capable of comprehending the ideas of the human mind, for no other ideas are associated with, or can be expressed by, language. What then is the character of those propositions, said to be derived from the Scriptures, which are called incomprehensible; and which, it is affirmed, express - mysteries above human reason? I answer, that so far as they have a meaning, they are intelligible; and that many of them are, in fact, propositions which are perfectly intelligible. When I am told that the same being is both God and man, I recognize, as I have before said,* a very intelligible, though a very absurd proposition, that is, I know well all the senses which the words admit . When it is affirmed that " the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet there are not three Gods, but one God"; no words can more clearly convey any meaning than those propositions express the meaning, that there are three existences of whom the attributes of God may be predicated, and yet that there is only one existence of whom the attributes of God may be predicated. But this is not an incomprehensible mystery; it is plain nonsense.