The Trinity is Bibical

[Rev. Derek Joshua E'Lon]

Is The Trinity Biblical?
From the Christian Research Institute
www.equip.org
The Trinity is a basic doctrine of orthodox Christianity. Yet the word "Trinity" is not found anywhere in the Bible. Is the doctrine of the Trinity really biblical?
The doctrine of the Trinity says that there is one All Mighty One (God) who exists eternally as three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I can assure you that the elements of this doctrine are all taken directly from the Bible.
The first plank of the Trinitarian platform is that there is only one All Mighty One (God). The Bible could not be more explicit on this point, which it states explicitly about two dozen times. In Isaiah 44:8 Yahweh (The LORD) says that even He does not know of any other (mighty ones)gods!
Yahshua (Jesus) often spoke of the All Mighty One (God) as His Father, and the apostles frequently spoke of "the Almighty One (God) the Father." But the New Testament also insists that Yahshua (Jesus) is The Almighty One (God). For example, Thomas acknowledged Yahshua (Jesus) as, "My Lord(master) and my Almighty One (God)" (John 20:28), and both Peter and Paul spoke of Yahshua (Jesus) as "our All Mighty One (God) and Savior" (2 Pet. 1:1; Tit. 2:13). Yet the New Testament also makes the distinction between the Father and the Son as two very different persons. In fact they tell us that they love one another, speak to each other, and seek to glorify each other (e.g., John 17: 1-26).
The Old Testament refers often to the Holy Spirit as The Almighty One (God) at work in the world, without distinction from the Father. But Yahshua (Jesus) in John 14 to 16 explained that this Holy Spirit would be sent by the Father at the Messiah’s (Christ's) request. The Holy Spirit would teach and guide the disciples, not speaking on His own initiative, but speaking on the Messiah’s 9Christ's) behalf and glorifying The messiah (Christ). Thus, the Holy Spirit is revealed by The Messiah (Christ) to be a third person distinct from the Father and distinct from the Son.
In short, the doctrine of the Trinity is completely and totally biblical, and it is essential that all the Followers of the Messiah Yahshua (Christians) give assent to this doctrine.

[Della Morton]

MY ANSWER PROVING YOU DON'T NEED THE TRINITY FOR the Above #
5 man is become as one of us proves plurality of persons (Gen 3:22)
The Old Testament does not teach or imply a plurality of persons in the Godhead. I can satisfactorily explain all Old Testament passages used by some trinitarians to teach a plurality of persons, harmonizing them with the many other passages that unequivocally teach strict monotheism. Certainly the Jews have found no difficulty in accepting all the Old Testament as God's Word and at the same time adhering to their belief in one indivisible God. From start to finish, and without contradiction, the Old Testament teaches the beautiful truth of one God.

[Child of the Kingdom]

Funny brother Luckett....ROFL...It's Friday night and I couldn't resist....THE SONG THAT DOESN'T END...

[Della Morton]

Y'all Are TOO FUNNY! I pray that dead Horse Wakes UP in JESUS NAME! THE WHEELS ON THE BUS GET STRAIGHTENED OUT! LOL! AND The Song That Doesn't End has Just Ended.BY THIS KEY Note SHHHHH! ROFL!


OK LET's Try another Keynote: RECESS IS OVER CHILDREN!!! LET"S GET BACK TO STUDYING YOUR BIBLE,THE BUS IS STOPPED AND THE SONG IS HUSHED. SIT DOWN AND LET US BEGIN:If You Are Good you Get a Cookie for paying attention! LOL!

[Archbishop Trevor 'Elihu' Greene]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I loved that show!!

[Della Morton]

Elohim

The most commonly used Hebrew word of God is Elohim. This is the original word in almost every Old Testament passage where we see the English word God. It is the plural form of the Hebrew word Eloah, which means God or deity.

Most scholars agree that the use of the plural word Elohim indicates God's greatness or His multiple attributes; it does not imply a plurality of persons or personalities. The Jews certainly do not see the plural form as compromising their strong monotheism. Flanders and Cresson explain that the plural usage in Hebrew has a certain function other than to indicate plurality: "The form of the word, Elohim, is plural. The Hebrews pluralized nouns to express greatness or majesty." [21]

The Bible itself reveals that the only way to understand the plural form of Elohim is that it expresses God's majesty and not a plurality in the Godhead, both by its insistence on one God and by its use of Elohim in situations that definitely portray only one person or personality. For example, Elohim identifies the singular manifestation of God in human form to Jacob (Genesis 32:30). The Israelites used the word elohim for the golden calf they made in the wilderness (Exodus 32:1, 4, 8, 23, 31), yet the Bible account makes it clear that there was only one golden calf (Exodus 32:4, 5, 8, 19-20, 24, 35). The Old Testament often uses elohim for singular pagan gods such as Baalberith (Judges 8:33), Chemosh (Judges 11:24), Dagon (Judges 16:23), Baalzebub (II Kings 1:2-3), and Nisroch (II Kings 19:37). The Bible even applies Elohim to Jesus Christ (Psalm 45:6; Zechariah 12:8-10; 14:5), and no one suggests there is a plurality of persons in Jesus. So the word Elohim does not indicate three persons in the Godhead. Only one being called Elohim wrestled with Jacob, only one golden calf was called elohim, and one Lord Jesus Christ is God made manifest in flesh.

Some Examples : Genesis 1:26

"And God said, Let us make man in our image." (Genesis 1:26)

Why does this verse use a plural pronoun for God? Before we answer this, let us note that the Bible uses singular pronouns to refer to God hundreds of times. The very next verse uses the singular to show how God fulfilled verse 26: "So God created man in his own image" (Genesis 1:27). Genesis 2:7 says, "And the LORD God formed man." We must therefore reconcile the plural in 1:26 with the singular in 1:27 and 2:7. We must also look at God's image creature, which is man. Regardless of how we identify the various components that make up a man, a man definitely has one personality and will. He is one person in every way. This indicates that the Creator in whose image man was made is also one being with one personality and will.

Any interpretation of Genesis 1:26 that permits the existence of more than one person of God runs into severe difficulties. Isaiah 44:24 says the LORD created the heavens alone and created the earth by Himself. There was only one Creator according to Malachi 2:10. Furthermore, if the plural in Genesis 1:26 refers to the Son of God, how do we reconcile this with the scriptural record that the Son was not born until at least four thousand years later in Bethlehem? The Son was made of a woman (Galatians 4:4); if the Son was present in the beginning who was His mother? If the Son be a spirit being, who was His spirit mother?

Since Genesis 1:26 cannot mean two or more persons in the Godhead, what does it mean? The Jews have traditionally interpreted it to mean that God talked to the angels at creation. [22] This does not imply that the angels actually took part in creation but that God informed them of His plans and solicited their comments out of courtesy and respect. On at least one other occasion God talked to the angels and requested their opinions in formulating His plans (I Kings 22:19-22). We do know that the angels were present at the creation (Job 38:4-7).

Other commentators have suggested that Genesis 1:26 simply describes God as He counseled with His own will. Ephesians 1:11 supports this view, saying that God works all things "after the counsel of his own will." By analogy, this is similar to a man saying "Let's see" (let us see) even when he is planning by himself.

Others explain this passage as a majestic or literary plural. That is, in formal speaking and writing the speaker or writer often refers to himself in the plural, especially if the speaker is of royalty. Biblical examples of the majestic plural can be cited to illustrate this practice. For example, Daniel told King Nebuchadnezzar, "We will tell the interpretation thereof before the king" even though Daniel alone proceeded to give the interpretation to the king (Daniel 2:36). King Artaxerxes alternately referred to himself in the singular and the plural in his correspondence. Once, he wrote, "The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me" (Ezra 4:18). In a letter to Ezra, Artaxerxes called himself "I" in one place (Ezra 7:13) but "we" in another place (7:24).

The use of the plural in Genesis 1:26 also may be similar to the plural Elohim in denoting the greatness and majesty of God or the multiple attributes of God. In other words, the plural pronoun simply agrees with and substitutes for the plural noun Elohim.

Still another explanation is that this passage describes God's foreknowledge of the future arrival of the Son, much like prophetic passages in the Psalms. We must realize that God does not live in time. His plans are real to Him even though they are in the future as far as we are concerned. He calls those things that are not as though they are (Romans 4:17). A day is as a thousand years to Him and a thousand years is as a day (II Peter 3:8). His plan - the Word - existed from the beginning in the mind of God (John 1:1). As far as God was concerned, the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world (I Peter 1:19-20; Revelation 13:8). It is not surprising that God could look down the corridors of time and address a prophetic utterance to the Son. Romans 5:14 says that Adam was a figure of Him who was to come, that is, Jesus Christ. When God created Adam, He had already thought about the Incarnation and created Adam with that plan in mind.

Taking this idea a step further, Hebrews 1:1-2 says that God made the worlds by the Son. How could this be, seeing that the Son did not come into existence until a point in time much later than creation? (Hebrews 1:5-6). God used the Sonship to make the world. That is, He hinged everything on the future arrival of Christ. Though He did not pick up the humanity until the fulness of time was come, it was in His plan from the beginning, and He used it and acted upon it from the start. He created man in the image of the future Son of God, and He created man knowing that although man would sin the future Sonship would provide a way of salvation.

God created man in the beginning so that man would love and worship Him (Isaiah 43:7; Revelation 4:11). However, by reason of His foreknowledge God knew that man would fall into sin. This would defeat God's purpose in creating man. If this was all there was to the future, then God would have never created man. However, God had in His mind the plan for the Incarnation and the plan of salvation through the atoning death of Christ. So, even though God knew man would sin, He also knew that through the Son of God man could be restored and could fulfill God's original purpose. It is apparent, then, that when God created man he had the future arrival of the Son in mind. It is in this sense that God created the worlds through the Son or by using the Son, for without the Son, God's whole purpose in creating man would have failed.

In summary, Genesis 1:26 cannot mean a plurality in the Godhead, for that would contradict the rest of Scripture. We have offered several other harmonizing explanations. (1) The Jews and many Christians see this as a reference to the angels. Many other Christians see it as (2) a description of God counseling with His own will, (3) a majestic or literary plural, (4) a pronoun simply agreeing with the noun Elohim, or (5) a prophetic reference to the future manifestation of the Son of God.

Other Plural Pronouns for Examples

There are a few other Old Testament uses of plural pronouns by God, namely Genesis 3:22, 11:7, and Isaiah 6:8. A reading of these verses of Scripture will show that they can easily mean God and the angels (all three verses) or possibly God and the righteous (Isaiah 6:8). Any of the first four explanations given for Genesis 1:26 could adequately explain these plural usages. Well I Hope This Helps. I am Going To bed . God bless you all. Love In Christ Della Morton

[Della Morton]

Is there evidence of a plurality of persons from repetitions of God or LORD in the same verse, such as threefold repetitions (Numbers 6:24-26; Deuteronomy 6:4) and twofold repetitions (Genesis 19:24; Daniel 9:17; Hosea 1:7)? A reading of these passages of Scripture will show they do not indicate a plurality in the deity. Let us analyze them briefly.

Numbers 6:24-26 is simply a threefold blessing. Deuteronomy 6:4 says God is one. Two of the repetitions in that verse are "LORD God." Does this mean two persons of God are indicated every time the phrase LORD God appears? Of course not. It just identifies the one God as none other than the LORD (Jehovah) worshiped by Israel. We have already discussed Genesis 19:24 in this chapter. In Daniel 9:17, the prophet merely speaks of God in the third person, and in Hosea 1:7 God speaks of Himself in the third person. This is not unusual, for in the New Testament Jesus spoke of Himself in the third person (Mark 8:38). In summary, all passages of Scripture that repeat the words God, LORD, or some other name for God follow common, normal usage. None of them suggests a plurality in the Godhead.

The Spirit of the LORD

A number of Old Testament passages mention the Spirit of the LORD. This presents no problem, for God is a Spirit. The phrase "Spirit of the LORD" merely emphasizes that the LORD God is indeed a Spirit. It further emphasizes the LORD's work among men and upon individuals. It does not suggest a plurality of persons any more than when we speak of a man's spirit. Indeed, the LORD makes this plain when He speaks of "my spirit" (Isaiah 59:21).

The LORD God and His Spirit

This phrase found in Isaiah 48:16 does not indicate two persons any more than the phrases "a man and his spirit" or "a man and his soul." For example, the rich fool spoke to his soul (Luke 12:19), but this does not mean he consisted of two persons. "LORD God" means the sum total of God in all His glory and transcendence, while "his Spirit" refers to that aspect of Him with which the prophet has come into contact and which has moved upon the prophet. The very next verse (Isaiah 48:17) speaks of the "Holy One of Israel," not the holy two or holy three. Isaiah 63:7-11 talks about the LORD and "his holy Spirit," while Isaiah 63:14 speaks of "the Spirit of the LORD." Clearly, no personal differentiation exists between Spirit and LORD. The LORD is a Spirit, and the Spirit of the LORD is simply God in action.

[Della Morton]

Fellow of Jehovah

In Zechariah 13:7, the LORD spoke of the Messiah and called Him "the man that is my fellow." The key to understanding this verse of Scripture is to realize that the LORD described a "man." That is, He was speaking about the man Christ Jesus, saying this man would be His companion or one close to Him. This verse does not describe one God calling another God "my fellow God." This is even plainer in the NIV and TAB. The former translates the phrase as "the man who is close to me," while the latter has it as "the man who is My associate." Only the sinless man Christ Jesus could approach the holy Spirit of God and be truly close to God. That is why I Timothy 2:5 says, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." Of course, through Christ, we can all achieve fellowship with God.

Conclusion

The Old Testament does not teach or imply a plurality of persons in the Godhead. We can satisfactorily explain all Old Testament passages used by some trinitarians to teach a plurality of persons, harmonizing them with the many other passages that unequivocally teach strict monotheism. Certainly the Jews have found no difficulty in accepting all the Old Testament as God's Word and at the same time adhering to their belief in one indivisible God. From start to finish, and without contradiction, the Old Testament teaches the beautiful truth of one God.

[Della Morton]

ok You Get a cookie for being Good. NOW HOW ABOUT SOME BURIED TREASURE!
Let us examine some New Testament explanations.

Four Important Aids To Understanding

From the outset of our discussion, let us emphasize four important points. If we understand these clearly, most seemingly difficult verses of Scripture become readily explainable.

(1) When we see a plural (especially a duality) used in reference to Jesus, we must think of the humanity and deity of Jesus Christ. There is a real duality, but it is a distinction between Spirit and flesh, not a distinction of persons in God.

(2) When we read a difficult passage relative to Jesus, we should ask if it describes Him in His role as God or in His role as man, or both. Does He speak as God or as man in this instance? Remember that Jesus has a dual nature like no one else ever has had.

(3) When we see a plural in relation to God, we must view it as a plurality of roles or relationships to mankind, not a plurality of persons.

(4) We should remember that the New Testament writers had no conception of the doctrine of the trinity, which was still far in the future at the time they wrote Scripture. They came from a strict monotheistic Jewish background; one God was not an issue with them at all. Some passages may seem "trinitarian" to us at first glance because trinitarians through the centuries have used them and interpreted them according to their doctrine. However, to the Early Church, who had no concept of the future doctrine of the trinity, these same passages were very normal, ordinary, and readily understandable in their perception of the mighty God in Christ. To them there was no thought of contradicting strict monotheism and the deity of Jesus.

With these four points in mind, let us turn to some specific passages of Scripture.

The Baptism Of Christ

"And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (Matthew 3:16-17).

According to this passage, the Son of God was baptized, the Spirit descended like a dove, and a voice spoke from heaven. Luke 3:22 adds the further information that "the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him."

To understand this scene correctly, we must remember that God is omnipresent. Jesus is God and was God manifested in flesh while on earth. He could not and did not sacrifice His omnipresence while on earth because that is one of God's basic attributes, and God does not change. Of course, the physical body of Jesus was not omnipresent, but His Spirit was. Furthermore, although the fulness of God's character was resident in the body of Jesus, the omnipresent Spirit of Jesus could not be so confined. Thus, Jesus could be on earth and in heaven at the same time (John 3:13) and with two or three of His disciples at any time (Matthew 18:20).

With the omnipresence of God in mind we can understand the baptism of Christ very easily. It was not at all difficult for the Spirit of Jesus to speak from heaven and to send a manifestation of His Spirit in the form of a dove even while His human body was in the Jordan River. The voice and the dove do not represent separate persons any more than the voice of God from Sinai indicates that the mountain was a separate intelligent person in the Godhead.

Since the voice and the dove were symbolic manifestations of the one omnipresent God, we may ask what they represented. What was their purpose? First, we must ask what was the purpose of Jesus' baptism. Certainly He was not baptized for remission of sin as we are, because He was sinless (I Peter 2:22). Instead, the Bible says He was baptized to fulfill all righteousness (Matthew 3:15). He is our example and He was baptized to leave us an example to follow (I Peter 2:21).

Moreover, Jesus was baptized as a means of manifesting Himself, or making Himself known, to Israel (John 1:26-27, 31). In other words, Jesus used the baptism as the starting point in His ministry. It was a public declaration of who He was and what He came to do. For example, at Christ's baptism, John the Baptist learned who Jesus was. He did not know that Jesus really was the Messiah until the baptism, and after the baptism he was able to declare to the people that Jesus was the Son of God and the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29-34).

Having established the purposes of Christ's baptism, let us see how the dove and voice furthered those purposes.

John 1:32-34 clearly states that the dove was a sign for the benefit of John the Baptist. Since John was the forerunner of Jehovah (Isaiah 40:3), he needed to know that Jesus was really Jehovah come in flesh. God had told John that the One who would baptize with the Holy Ghost would be identified by the Spirit descending upon Him. Of course, John was incapable of seeing the Spirit of God anointing Christ, so God chose a dove as the visible sign of His Spirit. So the dove was a special sign for John to let him know that Jesus was Jehovah and the Messiah.

The dove also was a type of anointing to signify the beginning of Christ's ministry. In the Old Testament, prophets, priests, and kings were anointed with oil to indicate that God had chosen them (Exodus 28:41; I Kings 19:16). Priests in particular were both washed in water and anointed with oil (Exodus 29:4, 7). The oil symbolized God's Spirit. The Old Testament foretold that Jesus would be similarly anointed (Psalm 2:2; 45:7; Isaiah 61:1). In fact, the Hebrew word Messiah (Christ in Greek) means "the Anointed One." Jesus came to fulfill the roles of prophet, priest, and king (Acts 3:20-23; Hebrews 3:1; Revelation 1:5). He also came to fulfill the law (Matthew 5:17-18), and to keep His own law He needed to be anointed as prophet, priest, and king.

Since Jesus was God Himself and a sinless man, an anointing by a sinful human and anointing with symbolic oil was not enough. Instead, Jesus was anointed directly by the Spirit of God. Thus, at His baptism in water, Jesus was officially anointed for the beginning of His earthly ministry, not by symbolic oil but by the Spirit of God in the form of a dove.

The voice came from heaven for the benefit of the people. John 12:28-30 records a similar incident in which a voice came from heaven and confirmed the deity of Jesus to the people. Jesus said it came not for His benefit but for the people's sake. The voice was God's way of formally introducing Jesus to Israel as the Son of God. Many people were present at the baptism of Jesus and many were being baptized (Luke 3:21), so the Spirit singled out the man Jesus and identified Him to all as the Son of God by a miraculous voice from heaven. This was much more effective and convincing than an announcement coming from Jesus as a man. In fact, it appears that this miraculous manifestation effectively accomplished Jesus' purpose at His baptism.

The baptism of Jesus does not teach us that God is three persons but only reveals the omnipresence of God and the humanity of the Son of God. When God speaks to four different people on four different continents at the same time, we do not think of four persons of God, but of God's omnipresence. God did not intend for the baptism to reveal to the monotheistic Jewish onlookers a radically new revelation of a plurality in the Godhead, and there is no indication that the Jews interpreted it as such. Even many modern scholars do not see the baptism of Christ as an indication of a trinity but as a reference to "the authoritative anointing of Jesus as the Messiah." [23]

[Della Morton]

MORE NEW TESTAMENT EXPLANATIONS

SOME TRINITARTANS ASK What was The Voice From Heaven then?

Three times in the life of Jesus a voice came from heaven: at His baptism, at His transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-9), and after His triumphal entry into Jerusalem (John 12:20-33). We have just explained that a voice does not indicate a separate person in the Godhead but only another manifestation of the omnipresent Spirit of God.

In each of the three cases, the voice was not for the benefit of Jesus but for the benefit of others, and it came for a specific purpose. As we have discussed, the voice at Christ's baptism was part of the inauguration of His earthly ministry. It was for the people's sake, just as the dove was for John's sake. The voice introduced Jesus as the Son of God: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (Matthew 3:17). The voice at the transfiguration unquestionably was for the benefit of the onlooking disciples, for the message was, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him" (Matthew 17:5). The third manifestation of the voice occurred when a group of Greeks (apparently Gentile proselytes) came to see Jesus. Jesus explained that the voice was not for Him but for the people (John 12:30).

TRINTITARIANS ASK WHAT ABOUT The Prayers Of Christ?

Do the prayers of Christ indicate a distinction of persons between Jesus and the Father? No. On the contrary, His praying indicates a distinction between the Son of God and God. Jesus prayed in His humanity, not in His deity. If the prayers of Jesus demonstrate that the divine nature of Jesus is different than the Father, then Jesus is inferior to the Father in deity. In other words, if Jesus prayed as God then His position in the Godhead would be somehow inferior to the other "persons." This one example effectively destroys the concept of a trinity of co-equal persons.

How can God pray and still be God? By definition, God in His omnipotence has no need to pray, and in His oneness has no other to whom He can pray. If the prayers of Jesus prove there are two persons in the Godhead, then one of those persons is subordinate to the other and therefore not fully or truly God.

What, then, is the explanation of the prayers of Christ? It can only be that the human nature of Jesus prayed to the eternal Spirit of God. The divine nature did not need help; only the human nature did. As Jesus said at the Garden of Gethsemane, "The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak" (Matthew 26:41). Hebrews 5:7 makes it clear that Jesus needed to pray only during "the days of his flesh." During the prayer at Gethsemane, the human will submitted itself to the divine will. Through prayer His human nature learned to submit and be obedient to the Spirit of God (Philippians 2:8; Hebrews 5:7-8). This was not a struggle between two divine wills, but a struggle between the human and divine wills in Jesus. As a man Jesus submitted Himself to and received strength from the Spirit of God.

Some may object to this explanation, contending that it means Jesus prayed to Himself. However, we must realize that, unlike any other human being, Jesus had two perfect and complete natures - humanity and divinity. What would be absurd or impossible for an ordinary man is not so strange with Jesus. We do not say Jesus prayed to Himself, for that incorrectly implies Jesus had only one nature like ordinary men. Rather, we say the human nature of Jesus prayed to the divine Spirit of Jesus that dwelt in the man.

The choice is simple. Either Jesus as God prayed to the Father or Jesus as man prayed to the Father. If the former were true, then we have a form of subordinationism or Arianism in which one person in the Godhead is inferior to, not co-equal with, another person in the Godhead. This contradicts the biblical concept of one God, the full deity of Jesus, and the omnipotence of God. If the second alternative is correct, and we believe that it is, then no distinction of persons in the Godhead exists. The only distinction is between humanity and divinity, not between God and God.

"My God, My God, Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me?"

This verse (Matthew 27:46) cannot describe an actual separation between Father and Son because Jesus is the Father. Jesus said, "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30). The Bible states that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself" (II Corinthians 5:19). Jesus was God the Father made manifest in flesh to reconcile the world to Himself. The cry of Jesus on the cross does not mean that the Spirit of God had departed from the body, but that there was no help from the Spirit in His sacrificial death of substitution for sinful mankind. It was not one person of the Godhead being deserted by another, but the human nature feeling the wrath and judgment of God upon the sins of mankind.

There were not two sons - a divine son and a human son - but there were two natures - deity and humanity - fused in one person. The divine Spirit could not be separated from the human nature and life continue. But in His agonizing process of dying, Jesus suffered the pains of our sins. Dying became death when He yielded His Spirit.

In other words, what Jesus meant when He cried, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" was that he had taken the place of sinful man on the cross and was suffering the full punishment for sin. There was no abatement of suffering because of His deity. Since all have sinned (Romans 3:23) and the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), all mankind (except for the sinless Christ) deserved to die. Christ took our place and suffered the death that we deserved (Romans 5:6-9). Jesus was more than a courageous martyr like Stephen and more than an Old Testament sacrifice, because He died in our place and experienced for a time the death we deserved. On the cross, He tasted death for every man (Hebrews 2:9). This death was more than physical death; it also involved spiritual death, which is separation from God (II Thessalonians 1:9; Revelation 20:14).

No one alive on earth has felt this spiritual death in its fullest degree, because all of us live, move, and have our being in God (Acts 17:28). Even the atheist enjoys many good things such as joy, love, and life itself. Every good thing comes from God (James 1:17), and all life originates from Him and is upheld by Him. But, Jesus tasted ultimate death - the separation from God that a sinner will feel in the lake of fire. He felt the anguish, hopelessness, and despair as if he were a man eternally forsaken by God. So the human nature of Jesus cried out on the cross as Jesus took on the sin of the whole world and felt the eternal punishment of separation for that sin (I Peter 2:24).

We must not assume that the Spirit of God departed from the body of Jesus the moment He uttered the words, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" The divine Spirit left the human body only at death. Hebrews 9:14 says that Christ offered Himself to God through the eternal Spirit. Moreover, Jesus told His disciples with respect to His death,

Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that he shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me" (John 16:32). Thus, the eternal Spirit of God, the Father, did not leave the human body of Christ until Christ's death

Trinitarians Ask about the Communication Of Knowledge Between Persons In The Godhead?

Some believe the Bible describes transfers of knowledge between separate persons in the Godhead. This is a dangerous argument because it implies there could be one person in the Godhead that knows something another person does not know. This implies a doctrine of separate personalities and minds in God, which in turn leads to tritheism or polytheism.

Let us look at some passages of Scripture that need explanation. Matthew 11:27 says, "No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." This verse simply states that no one can understand who the Son (the manifestation of God in flesh) is, except by divine revelation (from the Father). Jesus undoubtedly had this in mind when He told Peter, "Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven" (Matthew 16:17). We are told that no man can say Jesus is Lord except by the Spirit (I Corinthians 12:3). Also, the Father revealed His nature and character to man through the Incarnation - through Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Romans 8:26-27 says, "The Spirit itself maketh intercession for us," and "He that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit." These statements indicate only a plurality of functions of the Spirit. On the one hand, God places His Spirit in our hearts to teach us to pray and to pray through us. On the other hand, God hears our prayers, searches and knows our hearts, and understands the prayers He prays through us by the intercession of His own Spirit. This verse of Scripture does not imply a separation of God and His Spirit, because God is a Spirit. Neither does it indicate a separation of Christ as the searcher of hearts from the Spirit as intercessor, because the Bible also says Christ makes intercession for us (Hebrews 7:25; Romans 8:34), and the Spirit searches all things, including our hearts. "But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God" (I Corinthians 2:10-11). Although the Spirit searches the "deep things of God," we are not to think that there is a separation between God and His Spirit. What we are told is that God reveals things to us by His Spirit in our lives. His Spirit in us conveys truths from His mind to our minds: "But God hath revealed them to us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God." Then the passage compares man and his spirit to God and His Spirit. A man is not two persons, and neither is God.

Matthew 28:19

We will discuss Matthew 28:19 showing that it describes one God with multiple offices but only one name. The focus is not on a plurality but upon oneness.

The Pre-existence Of Jesus

Many passages of Scripture refer to the existence of Jesus before His human life began. However, the Bible does not teach us that He existed separate and apart from the Father. On the contrary, in His deity He is the Father and Creator. The Spirit of Jesus existed from all eternity because He is God Himself. However, the humanity of Jesus did not exist before the Incarnation, except as a plan in the mind of God. Therefore, we can say the Spirit of Jesus pre-existed the Incarnation, but we cannot say the Son pre-existed the Incarnation in any substantial sense. John 1:1, 14 is a good summary of the teaching on the pre-existence of Jesus: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… And the Word was made flesh…" In other words, Jesus existed from all eternity as God. The plan of the future Sonship existed with God from the beginning - as an idea in the mind of God. Ultimately, this Word became flesh - as the extension of God the Father in human form.

Let us apply these concepts to various verses of Scripture that speak of the pre-existence of Christ. We can understand John 8:58 ("Before Abraham was, I am") to be a reference to the pre-existence of Jesus as the God of the Old Testament. We can understand John 6:62 ("What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before") in the same way, with Jesus using the phrase "Son of man" as the equivalent of "I" or "me" rather than to emphasize His humanity. In John 16:28 Jesus said, "I came forth from the Father." This, too, refers to His pre-existence as God. The divine nature of Jesus was God the Father, so the dual-natured Christ could say, "I came forth from the Father." This statement may also describe the Word, the plan that existed in the mind of God, becoming flesh, and being sent into the world.

In John 17:5 Jesus prayed, "O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." Again, Jesus spoke of the glory He had as God in the beginning and the glory the Son had in the plan and mind of God. It could not mean that Jesus pre-existed with glory as the Son. Jesus was praying, so He must have been speaking as a man and not as God. We know the humanity did not pre-exist the Incarnation, so Jesus was talking about the glory the Son had in the plan of God from the beginning.


TRINITARIANS ASK WAS The Son Sent From The Father?

John 3:17 and 5:30, along with other verses of Scripture, state that the Father sent the Son. Does this mean that Jesus, the Son of God, is a separate person from the Father? We know this is not so because many verses of Scripture teach that God manifested Himself in flesh (II Corinthians 5:19, I Timothy 3:16). He gave of Himself; He did not send someone else (John 3:16). The Son was sent from God as a man, not as God: "God sent forth his Son, made of a woman" (Galatians 4:4). The word sent does not imply pre-existence of the Son or pre-existence of the man. John 1:6 states that John the Baptist was a man sent from God, and we know he did not pre-exist his conception. Instead, the word sent indicates that God appointed the Son for a special purpose. God formed a plan, put flesh on that plan, and then put that plan in operation. God gave the Son a special task. God manifested Himself in flesh in order to achieve a special goal. Hebrews 3:1 calls Jesus the Apostle of our profession, apostle meaning "one sent" in Greek. Briefly stated, the sending of the Son emphasizes the humanity of the Son and the specific purpose for which the Son was born.

TRINTARIANS SAY : THAT THERE IS Love Between Persons In The Godhead

A popular philosophical argument for the trinity is based on the fact that God is love. The basic argument is: How could God be love and show love before He created the world unless God was a plurality of persons that had love one for another? This line of reasoning is faulty for several reasons. First, even if correct it would not prove a trinity. In fact, it could lead to outright polytheism. Second, why does God need to prove to us the eternal nature of His love? Why cannot we simply accept the statement that God is love? Why do we limit God to our concept of love, contending that He could not have been love in eternity past unless He had a then-existing object of love? Third, how does the trinitarian solution avoid polytheism and at the same time avoid saying merely that God loved Himself? Fourth, we cannot limit God to time. He could and did love us from eternity past. Even though we were not then in existence, He foresaw our existence. To His mind we existed and He loved us.

John 3:35, 5:20, and 15:9 state that the Father loves the Son, and John 17:24 says the Father loved Jesus before the foundation of the world. In John 14:31 Jesus expressed love for the Father. All of these statements do not mean separate persons. (Is it not strange that these passages omit the Holy Ghost from the love relationship?) What these verses express is the relationship between the two natures of Christ. The Spirit of Jesus loved the humanity and vice versa. The Spirit loved the man Jesus as He loves all humanity and the man Jesus loved God as all men should love God. Remember, the Son came to the world to show us how much God loves us and also to be our example. For these two objectives to be achieved, the Father and the Son showed love for each other. God knew before the world began that He would manifest Himself as the Son. He loved that plan from the beginning. He loved that future Son just as He loved all of us from the beginning of time.

IS THERE Other Distinctions Between Father And Son?

Many verses of Scripture distinguish between the Father and Son in power, greatness, and knowledge. However, it is a great mistake to use them to show two persons in the Godhead. If a distinction exists between Father and Son as persons in the Godhead, then the Son is subordinate or inferior to the Father in deity. This would mean the Son is not fully God, because by definition God is subject to no one. By definition, God has all power (omnipotence) and all knowledge (omniscience). The way to understand these verses is to view them as distinguishing the divinity of Jesus (the Father) from the humanity of Jesus (the Son). The humanity or Sonship role of Christ is subordinate to His deity.

John 5:19 says, "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." (See also John 5:30; 8:28.) In Matthew 28:18 Jesus proclaimed, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth," implying that the Father gave Him this power. In John 14:28 Jesus said, "My Father is greater than I." First Corinthians 11:3 states that the head of Christ is God. All these verses of Scripture indicate that the human nature of Jesus could do nothing of itself but His human nature received power from the Spirit. The flesh was subject to the Spirit.

[Della Morton]

"The Apostolic Benediction"

Second Corinthians 13:14 reads, "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen." Again, we should remember that Paul penned this verse of Scripture at a time when trinitarianism was still a doctrine of the future, and therefore the verse was not puzzling or unusual at the time. Basically, the verse conveys three aspects or attributes of God that we can know and have. First, there is God's grace. God has made His grace available to mankind through His manifestation in flesh, in Jesus Christ. In other words, unmerited favor, divine help, and salvation come to us through the atoning work of Jesus. Then God is love, and love always has been part of His basic nature. He loved us long before He robed Himself in flesh as Christ. And finally, the baptism of the Holy Ghost gives us communion (fellowship) with God and with our fellow believers: "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body" - the body of Christ (I Corinthians 12:13). Through the indwelling Spirit of God, not the presence of the physical body of Jesus Christ, we have a present, continuing relationship with God unlike anything available to the Old Testament saints.

Second Corinthians 13:14 is logical and understandable when we interpret it as three important relationships God has shared with us or as three different works the one Spirit accomplishes. There are diversities of operations but only one God working all in all (I Corinthians 12:4-6).

Other Threefold References In The Epistles And Revelation

Several other verses of Scripture identify God by three titles or names. However, many more verses use only two designations for God, in particular Father and Lord Jesus Christ. But most verses of Scripture use only one designation for God. There does not appear to be any special significance as to the Godhead in the threefold references; none of them require any separation of persons. Let us analyze them one at a time.

Ephesians 3:14-17 uses the following titles to describe God: "the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," "his Spirit," and "Christ." Interestingly, this passage actually stresses one God with no distinction of persons, because it describes the Spirit first as the Father's Spirit and then as Christ in our hearts. Although the KJV is unclear as to what "his" means, the NIV, TAB, RSV, and Nestle's Greek text clearly demonstrate that "his Spirit" means "the Father's Spirit." So, in this passage, the Father, the Spirit, and Christ are all identified as the same being. The only remaining distinction lies in the phrase, "Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," which distinguishes between the Spirit of God and His manifestation in the flesh.

Ephesians 4:4-6 states there is one Spirit, one Lord, and one God and Father. Again this proves the oneness of God. The one God is Spirit and He is the Lord of all. The basic idea expressed in these verses is the oneness of God, not a threeness. Why was this thought restated in three different ways? Verse 4 connects the one Spirit with the assertion that there is one body, reminding us the one Spirit of God baptizes us into the one body (I Corinthians 12:13). Verse 5 groups "one Lord" with "one faith" and "one baptism," indicating we must condition our faith and our baptism on the person, name, and work of the Lord Jesus, not just on a belief in God as a Spirit. Verse 6 brings it all together, saying, "one God and Father of all, who is above all [i.e., who is Lord], and through all, and in you all [i.e., who is the Spirit in you]." The one God is the one Lord and the one Spirit.

A trinitarian interpretation of Ephesians 4:4-6 is not logical because it separates Jesus from God. If there are three persons maintained in these verses, they would be: God and Father, Lord, Spirit. This interpretation implies that the Father is God in a way that Jesus is not. It is against the theory of the trinity to think of Jesus as separate from God. Trinitarians must be consistent with their theory and accept Jesus as the one and only God of the Bible or else abandon their theology of one God.

According to Hebrews 9:14, Christ offered Himself through the eternal Spirit to God. The subject of the verse is the blood of Christ, so obviously the verse speaks of the human, mediatorial role of Christ. How did Christ make His great sacrifice? He did so through His divine nature - the eternal Spirit - which is none other than the Father. Jesus prayed to the Father in Gethsemane and received strength from Him to endure the crucifixion. This verse simply teaches that Christ was able to offer up His human body to God through the help of the Spirit of God.

Similarly, I Peter 3:18 says Christ was put to death in the flesh but quickened (made alive) by the Spirit so that He might bring us to God. We know that Jesus resurrected Himself from the dead by His own divine Spirit (John 2:19-21; Romans 8:9-11). In other places, the Bible says God raised Jesus from the dead (Acts 2:32). So, we have the man Christ raised from the dead by the Spirit of God - the divine nature of Christ - in order to reconcile mankind to God.

I Peter 1:2 mentions the foreknowledge of God the Father, the sanctification of the Spirit, and the blood of Jesus. This verse simply describes different aspects of God in relation to our salvation. First, foreknowledge is part of God's omniscience, and He had it before the Incarnation and before the latter-day outpouring of the Spirit. Thus, it is natural for us to associate it with God's role as Father. Secondly, God does not have blood except through the man Jesus, so it is more natural to say the blood of Jesus rather than the blood of God or the blood of the Spirit. Finally, we are sanctified, or set apart from sin, by the power of the indwelling presence of God, so Peter naturally spoke of sanctification by the Spirit. As with II Corinthians 13:14, the Bible uses the most logical way to describe these attributes or works of God, namely by associating them with the roles, names, or titles God has.

Jude 20-21 is another verse of Scripture like this. It speaks of prayer in the Holy Ghost, the love of God, and the mercy of Jesus. As before, we can understand this easily as denoting different workings of God by using the roles most closely associated with those workings.

Revelation 1:4-5 says, in part, "Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; And from Jesus Christ." According to verse 8, Jesus is the One "which is, and which was, and which is to come." He is the One on the throne (Revelation 4:2, 8). The seven Spirits belong to Jesus (Revelation 3:1; 5:6). This passage, therefore, merely gives us several ways of looking at the one God, who is Jesus Christ. The reason verse 5 mentions Jesus Christ in addition to the preceding description of God is to emphasize His humanity, for that verse calls Jesus the first-begotten of the dead.

If a person is determined to make this passage mean three persons, what would prevent him from dividing the Spirit into seven persons based on verse 4? Also, verse 6 speaks of "God and his [Jesus Christ's] Father," and the same logic would divide these into two persons - God and Father.

In summary, several verses of Scripture use three titles or names of God. In each case, the Bible uses a very natural and easily understandable way to describe a plurality or roles, attributes, or workings of God. In many cases, these verses actually provide additional evidence that there is one God with no distinction of persons.

[Archbishop Trevor 'Elihu' Greene]

If I'm not mistaken, it was King David that said "the LORD said to my LORD ''sit at My right hand till I make Your enemies Your footstool ". King David is as OT as you can get!

[Della Morton]

EARLIER IN THESE POSTS I HAVE emphasized Colossians 2:9 a number of times because it teaches that all the fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily in Jesus Christ. We understand this to mean all of God - all His attributes, power, and character - is in Jesus. Father, Son, Holy Ghost, Jehovah, Word, and so on are all in Jesus. Some trinitarians try to counter this interpretation by referring to Ephesians 3:19, which says we as Christians can be filled with all the fulness of God. Therefore, they argue, Colossians 2:9 does not indicate the full deity of Jesus any more than Ephesians 3:19 indicates the full deity of Christians. We will answer this argument by analyzing these two verses of Scripture in turn.

Colossians 2:9 refers to the fulness of deity in a way that Ephesians 3:19 does not. Immediately after stating all the fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily in Jesus, the Bible adds, "And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power" (Colossians 2:10). In other words, everything we need is in Jesus, and Jesus is omnipotent. These statements are based on verse 9, and therefore verse 9 must indeed mean all of God is in Jesus.

In fact, this is the only logical conclusion based on the theme of the book to that point. Chapters 1 and 2 make the following claims about Jesus: (THIS IS YOUR HOMEWORK CHILDREN! PLEASE GO HOME AND STUDY THIS. THERE WILL BE A QUIZ!()SMILING)

Table 10: The Full Deity Of Jesus As Stated In Colossians
Verse Description of Jesus
1 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God
2 1:16 He is the Creator of all things
3 1:17 He is before all things (Eternal)
4 1:17 By Him all things consist
5 1:18 He is the Head of the church
6 1:18 He is pre-eminent in all things
7 1:19 All fulness of Godhead dwells in Him
8 1:20 He has reconciled all things to God
9 2:3 He has all treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Omniscience)
10 2:5 We should have our faith in Him
11 2:6 We should walk in Him
12 2:7 We should be rooted and built up in Him
13 2:9 All the fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily in Him
14 2:10 We are complete in Him
15 2:10 He is the Head of all principality and power (Omnipotence)

We should note that in Colossians 2:2, the subject is "the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ," or as the NIV puts it, "the mystery of God, namely, Christ." Verse 9 is merely an elaboration or further explanation of this mystery. The mystery of God (Christ) is that all the fulness of the deity dwells in Christ. Thus, we see from the context that Colossians 2:9 is an explanation of Christ's full deity.

The Greek word for Godhead in Colossians 2:9 is Theotes, which means the Deity. The word bodily reminds us of the word incarnation, which means the embodiment of a spirit in earthly form. Putting this together, Colossians 2:9 tells us Jesus is the incarnation of the fulness of the Deity - He is the bodily manifestation of everything God is. The Amplified Bible translates Colossians 2:9 as, "For in Him the whole fullness of Deity (the Godhead), continues to dwell in bodily form - giving complete expression of the divine nature." It translates Colossians 1:19 as, "For it has pleased the Father that all the divine fullness - the sum total of the divine perfection, powers and attributes - should dwell in Him permanently." The NIV translates Colossians 2:9 as, "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form." It translates Colossians 1:19 as, "For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him."

Turning to other translations of Colossians 2:9, the Twentieth Century New Testament has, "For in Christ the Godhead in all its fulness dwells incarnate"; The New Testament in Modern English (J. B. Phillips) has, "yet it is in him that God gives a full and complete expression of himself (within the physical limits that he sets himself in Christ)"; and Living Letters: The Paraphrased Epistles (Kenneth Taylor) has, "For in Christ there is all of God in a human body."

It is clear then, that Colossians 1:19 and 2:9 describe the full deity of Jesus Christ. We could not apply the statements in Colossians 1 and 2 to ourselves and be correct. We are not the incarnation of the fulness of God. Nor are we omniscient, omnipotent, and so on. Whatever Ephesians 3:19 means, it cannot mean the same thing as Colossians 1:19 and 2:9.

What does Ephesians 3:19 mean, then, when it says "that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God"? When we look at the context, we see the emphasis of the passage: Christians can have the fulness of God in them because they have Christ. Since Christ is the fulness of God, when we have Christ in us we have the fulness of God. Verse 17 speaks of Christ dwelling in our hearts, and verse 19 tells us we can have the fulness of God by having Christ. Far from tearing down the absolute deity of Christ, Ephesians 3:19 establishes once again that all of God is in Christ. Colossians 2:10 supports this reading of the passage in Ephesians, saying, "And ye are complete in him - Christ." The NIV makes it even clearer: "And you have been given fulness in Christ…" Similarly, TAB says, "And you are in Him, made full and have come to fullness of life - in Christ you too are filled with the Godhead."

This may give rise to a further question; namely, how is a Christian different from the man Christ if both have the fulness of deity resident in them? The answer is that Jesus Christ is God revealed in flesh. He had His divine nature because He was conceived by the Spirit of God. His human nature has the divine nature dwelling in it, but His divine nature is God. Therefore, nothing can ever separate Jesus from His deity. We can live without the Spirit of God in us and the Spirit can depart from us, but this is not so with the man Jesus. Christ has all the attributes and character of God as His very nature, while we have them only by Christ dwelling in us. The nature of God is not ours. We can let it shine through us and control us (by walking after the Spirit), but we can also quench it and let our own human natures dominate (by walking after the flesh). Jesus Christ has all the fulness of the Godhead bodily because He is God Himself incarnated. We can have the fulness of God in our lives only as we let Jesus Christ live in us.

There is one more aspect we need to address with respect to Colossians 2:9. Some point out that Paul's purpose in writing this was not to oppose trinitarianism but Gnosticism. Of course, Paul did not aim his argument directly at trinitarianism, because that doctrine had not yet emerged! No doubt Paul was opposing the Gnostic belief that Christ was an inferior emanation from the supreme God. The fact remains, however, that Paul's language, which was inspired by the Holy Ghost, does exclude trinitarianism. Colossians is clearly an affirmation of the Oneness belief. It does not matter what false belief Paul was opposing; his positive doctrine still stands. The Oneness doctrine he taught certainly stands against Gnosticism, but it also stands against trinitarianism and any other belief which denies that all of the deity dwells in Jesus Christ.

Philippians 2:6-8

This passage describes Jesus Christ as follows: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." The NIV says, "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man he humbled himself and became obedient to death - even death on a cross!"

Apparently, this verse of Scripture is saying that Jesus had the nature of God, that He was God Himself. God has no equal (Isaiah 40:25; 46:5, 9). The only way Jesus can be equal with God is for Him to be God. So, Jesus was equal with (the same as) God in the sense that He was God. However, He did not consider His prerogatives as God something to be held or retained at all costs, but He was willing to lay these aside and assume a human nature so that He could save lost mankind. He willingly became a humble, obedient servant and even submitted to death on a cross.

Trinitarians view this verse of Scripture as describing two persons in the Godhead - God the Father and God the Son. In their view, the Son had the same nature as the Father but was not the Father. They contend that the divine Son became incarnated, not the Father. Many trinitarians further maintain that in the Incarnation this divine Son surrendered or emptied Himself of many of His attributes as God, including omnipresence. Thus, they speak of the kenosis or emptying of Christ, from the Greek word kenoo in the first part of verse 7. Although this word does include in its meaning the concept "to empty," most versions do not choose this meaning. Here are three renderings of kenoo in Philippians 2:7: "made himself of no reputation" (KJV), "made himself nothing" (NIV), and "stripped Himself [of all privileges and rightful dignity]" (TAB).

From the Oneness point of view, Jesus is not God the Son, but He is all of God, including Father and Son. Thus, in His divinity, He is truly equal to, or identical to God. The word equal here means that the divine nature of Jesus was the very nature of God the Father. Jesus did not strip Himself of the attributes of deity, but rather stripped Himself of His dignity and rightful prerogatives as God while He dwelt among men as a human. The Spirit of Jesus, which was God Himself, never lost any of His omniscience, omnipresence, or omnipotence.

This verse only refers to the limitations Jesus imposed upon Himself relative to His life as a human. As the three translations quoted above indicate, the kenosis of Christ consisted of a voluntary surrender of glory and dignity, rather than a surrender of His nature as God. As a man, Christ did not receive the honor that was due to Him as God. Instead of acting in His rightful role as King of mankind, He became a ministering servant to mankind. As a man, He submitted to death on the cross. He did not die as God but as a man. So, this verse expresses a very beautiful thought: Although Jesus was God, He did not insist on retaining all His rights as God. Instead, He willingly stripped Himself of His right to glory and honor on earth by taking on the nature of a man and dying. He did all of this so that He could provide salvation for us.

As a result of Christ's humbling, God (the Spirit of Jesus) has highly exalted Jesus Christ (God manifested in flesh). Jesus has a name that is above every name - a name that represents all that God is. The Spirit of God gave this name to the Christ (Messiah), because Christ was God manifested in flesh. Also, Jesus Christ has all power over things in heaven, in earth, and under the earth. Every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, thereby giving glory to God the Father since the Father is in Christ. Philippians 2:9-11 describes all of this: "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth: And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Many, and perhaps most, trinitarian scholars actually view the kenosis of Christ in a way consistent with Oneness. For example, one prominent scholar says Christ did not actually "empty" Himself of attributes of deity, for that would mean an abdication of deity, with Jesus becoming a mere demigod. [26] Instead, he explains the passage as follows: Jesus renounced not His divinity but His being in the form of God alone. He did not discard His divine attributes but concealed them in the weakness of human flesh. They were always available, but He chose not to use them, or He used them in a new way. He imposed limitations on Himself. His heavenly glory and majesty were no longer immediately apparent. In short, He hid His divinity in humanity, but His deity was still evident to the eyes of faith. [27]

Colossians 1:15-17




Revelation 1:1

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him." Here we find a distinction between the eternal Spirit of God and the man Christ. Only the Spirit could give the revelation of the events of the end times. The humanity of Christ could not know these things (Mark 13:32), so Jesus Christ knew them only through the Spirit. In addition, the deity of Christ was not a product of His humanity, but the divine human union was a product of the deity. The Book of Revelation not only reveals things to come, but it also reveals the deity of Jesus Christ, and the knowledge of both must come from the Spirit of God. We soon find that Revelation does reveal Jesus as God, for in Chapter 1 John saw a vision of Jesus in all the power and glory of God.

The Seven Spirits Of God was Mentioned in earlier Blogs on BPN.

This phrase appears in Revelation 1:4, 3:1, and 5:6. Does it describe seven persons in the Godhead? No, but if some people applied the same logic to this phrase that they use on other phrases in Scripture then they would have seven persons of the Spirit. The Bible lets us know, however, that there is only one Spirit (I Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 4:4).

Why, then, does Revelation speak of seven spirits? We must remember that Revelation is a book filled with symbolism. Furthermore, seven is a very symbolic number in the Bible, and it frequently represents perfection, completion, or fulness. For example, God rested from creation on the seventh day (Genesis 2:2), the Old Testament Sabbath was on the seventh day (Exodus 20:10), the candlestick or lampstand in the Tabernacle had seven lamps (Exodus 25:37), Noah took seven pairs of clean animals into the ark (Genesis 7:2), Jesus told His disciples to forgive a brother seven times a day (Luke 17:4), and the Book of Revelation contains letters to seven churches (Revelation 1:11). Thus, the seven spirits of God simply indicate the fulness or perfection of the Spirit of God. It is a way of emphasizing the totality of God's Spirit. The phrase may also allude to the seven aspects of the Spirit recorded in Isaiah 11:2, especially since both Isaiah and Revelation describe the seven spirits as belonging to Jesus.

This brings up another point: the Bible does not identify the seven spirits as seven separate persons or even as one separate person. Rather, John clearly told us the seven spirits belong to Jesus Christ (Revelation 3:1; 5:6). Later in the book he described the Spirit in the singular (Revelation 22:17). Thus, the seven spirits symbolically represent the fulness and power of the one Holy Spirit, who is none other than the Spirit of Jesus.

The Lamb In Revelation 5

Revelation 5:1 describes One on the throne in heaven with a book (scroll) in His right hand. Then verses 6-7 depict a Lamb who comes and takes the book out of the right hand of the One that sits on the throne. Does this mean there are two persons of God? No. Once again, we must remember that the Book of Revelation is highly symbolic. In fact, we know the passage in question is symbolic. First, John did not see the invisible Spirit of God, because John himself said no man has ever done that (John 1:18, I John 4:12). In fact, no man can see God (I Timothy 6:16). Revelation 5:5 says a "Lion" would open the book, but in verse 6 John saw a "Lamb" instead. Verse 6 says the Lamb was slain but yet it moved. It had seven eyes, which symbolize the seven spirits or the sevenfold Spirit of God (verse 6) and the omniscience of God (Proverbs 15:3). The Lamb had seven horns, which signify the fulness of God's power or God's omnipotence, because horns in the Bible usually symbolize power. (See Zechariah 1:18-19; Revelation 17:12-17.) All of the description of this scene demonstrates the symbolic nature of the passage. To understand it we must find out who the One on the throne is and who the Lamb is.

Revelation 4:2 and 8 describe the One on the throne as the "Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come." Yet, in Revelation 1:8 Jesus describes Himself as "the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." (See 1:11-18 and 22:12-16 for further proof that Jesus is the speaker of 1:8.) Also the One on the throne is the Judge (Revelation 20:11-12), and we know that Jesus will be the Judge of all (John 5:22, 27; Romans 2:16; 14:10-11). Therefore, we can conclude that the One on the throne is Jesus in all His power and deity.

The Lamb is the Son of God - Jesus Christ in His humanity, particularly in His sacrificial role. The New Testament identifies Jesus as the Lamb who offered His blood for our sins (John 1:36; I Peter 1:19). That is why Revelation 5:6 describes the Lamb as slain. God could not and did not die; only the humanity of Jesus died. So the Lamb represents Jesus only in His humanity as a sacrifice for sin. The rest of chapter 5 also proves this by describing the Lamb as our Redeemer.

That this Lamb is not merely an ordinary human is evident since He has the fulness of God's Spirit, including omniscience and omnipresence (verse 6). He has other roles as the Lion of the tribe of Judah and as the Root of David (verse 5). The Lion denotes Christ's kingly role and His descent from King David. Jesus was from the tribe of Judah (Matthew 1:1-3; Luke 3:33), which was the tribe of royalty from the time of David. The lion is the symbol of Judah as ruler (Genesis 49:9-10). The Root of David alludes to Christ's role as David's source (Creator) and David's God.

Another fact supports our point that the Lamb represents Jesus in His humanity rather than as a second person in the Godhead. The reason the Lamb appears is to open the book held by God. Many interpret this book to be the title deed of redemption. Others see it as symbolic of the mysteries and plans of God. Either way, it required a human being to open, for God did not redeem us nor did He reveal Himself to us in His role as the transcendent God. He used His manifestation in human flesh as the means both to reveal Himself and to be our kinsman redeemer. (See Leviticus 25:25, 47-49.) So the Lamb represents the humanity of Christ.

Many prominent trinitarian scholars agree that Revelation 5 is symbolic and does not describe God the Father on the throne and God the Son standing by the throne. The Pulpit Commentary identifies the One on the throne as the Triune God, [28] and the Lamb as the Christ in His human capacity. It states, "The Son in his human capacity, as indicated by his sacrificial form of the Lamb, can take and reveal the mysteries of the eternal Godhead in which he, as God, has part." [29] Thus, even in the eyes of trinitarian scholars, this scene is not an indication of a trinity in the Godhead.

We can conclude that the vision in Revelation 5 symbolically depicts the two natures and two roles of Jesus Christ. As Father, Judge, Creator, and King, He sits upon the throne; for in His deity He is the Lord God Almighty. As the Son, He appears as a slain lamb; for in His humanity He is the sacrifice slain for our sins. John did not see the invisible Spirit of God, but he did see a vision symbolically portraying Jesus on the throne in His role as God and as a lamb in His role as the Son of God sacrificed for sin.

If a person insists upon literalizing this demonstrably symbolic passage, then he would need to conclude that John still did not see two persons of God, but rather that he saw one God on the throne and a real lamb near the throne. This is not logical, but it reveals that the attempts of trinitarians to make the passage a proof text for a trinity is futile.

Other verses in Revelation make it clear that that Lamb is not a separate person from God. In particular, Revelation 22:1 and 3 speak of "the throne of God and of the Lamb," referring to the one throne of 4:2 and 5:1. After mentioning "God and the Lamb," Revelation 22:3 goes on to talk about "his servants," and verse 4 refers to "his face" and "his name." The Lamb and the glory of God light the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:23), yet the Lord God is the light (Revelation 22:5). So, "God and the Lamb" is one being. The phrase refers to Jesus Christ and designates His dual nature.

We conclude that Revelation 5, symbolic in nature, reveals the oneness of God. It describes One on the throne, but also describes a lion, a root, and a Iamb. Does this description reveal four in the Godhead? Clearly not. Rather, there is only One on the throne. The lion, the root, and the lamb all represent in symbolic form the characteristics and qualifications of the One worthy to open the seals of the book. The lion tells us He is the King from the tribe of Judah. The root tells us He is the Creator. The lamb tells us He is God incarnate and our sacrifice. It is only in this last role that He can be our Redeemer and can open the book. Thus, Revelation 5 teaches there is one God and this one God came in flesh as the Lamb (the Son) to reveal Himself to man and to redeem man from sin.

Why Did God Allow "Confusing" Verses of Scripture?

Many people ask the question, "If the doctrine of Oneness is correct, why did God allow some verses that seemingly confuse the issue?" For example, if God intended for us to baptize in Jesus' name, why did He allow Matthew 28:19 to be recorded as it is? Even if we can understand this verse to mean that we should baptize in the name of Jesus Christ, is it not the source of unnecessary confusion?

My answer is twofold. First, these verses of Scripture are not confusing when read in their original context. God cannot be responsible for man's mistakes. The verse as recorded by Matthew was perfectly understandable in the apostolic era, and it is not God's fault that later man-made doctrines have twisted the meaning of Scripture out of context.

Second, God sometimes has a purpose in presenting truth in a partially hidden way. In Matthew 13:10, the disciples asked Jesus why He spoke to the people in parables. He explained that the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven were not given to the people (verse 11). Why? "Because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand… For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them" (Matthew 13:13-15). In other words, the people did not really desire to hear, see, and understand more about God. If He spoke to them plainly, they might understand despite their lack of spiritual desire. Therefore, Jesus spoke in parables so that only those who are truly hungry and thirsty for righteousness would be filled (Matthew 5:6), and that only sincerely diligent seekers would find the truth (Hebrews 11:6). After giving this answer, Jesus proceeded to explain to the disciples a parable He had just given to the multitude.

Could it be that God allows some verses of Scripture to be a stumbling block to those who are satisfied with the traditions of men and to those who do not seek the truth sincerely, earnestly, and wholeheartedly? Could it be that these same verses become great revelations to those who earnestly seek the mind of the Spirit? If so, this places a heavy responsibility on those who were reared knowing truth. If they do not have a hunger and a love for the truth equal to that which God requires of others, they will eventually fall from the truth themselves (II Thessalonians 2:10-12). Perhaps this explains why many in Christendom never find the truth, why some who have it lose it, and why some who have at least part of the truth lose what they do have.

Conclusion
IN conclusion: Nowhere does the Bible teach a separation of persons in the Godhead. Furthermore, we do not find either the word trinity or the doctrine of trinity anywhere in the Bible. In fact, the only time we find the number three connected explicitly with God is in the dubious verse of Scripture, I John 5:7. Even so, that verse describes the manifestations of God in heaven and concludes that "these three are one."

The New Testament does teach the dual nature of Jesus Christ, and this is the key to understanding the Godhead. Once we get the revelation of who Jesus really is - namely, the God of the Old Testament robed in flesh - all the Scriptures fall into place.

It is interesting to note two things about the verses of Scriptures used by trinitarians to teach a plurality of persons in the Godhead. First, many of these verses actually are strong proof texts of Oneness. Examples are Matthew 28:18-19, John 1:1-14, 14:16-18, I John 2:33, and 5:7. Second, many of these verses, if interpreted from a trinitarian point of view, eventually lead to a nontrinitarian doctrine such as Arianism, binitarianism, or tritheism. For example, many use the prayers of Christ to prove the Father is a separate person from the Son. If this means the Son prayed in His role as God (a person in the Godhead), it leads to the belief of the subordination or inferiority of "God the Son" to God the Father. This interpretation defeats the trinitarian doctrine that the Son is co-equal with the Father, and it leads to a form of Arianism. On the other hand, if the Son prayed in His role as a man, then this explanation supports the Oneness belief and does not advance trinitarianism. This same argument demolishes trinitarian arguments that rely on verses of Scripture which say the Father is greater than the Son, the Son does not have all power, and the Son does not have all knowledge.

Likewise, trinitarian arguments that the recorded conversations, communication of love, and communication of knowledge indicate persons in the Godhead will lead to erroneous doctrine. Their arguments would establish three separate intelligences, wills, and personalities. They fall into the error of tritheism (belief in three Gods) - something in which trinitarians profess not to believe. Similarly, if they argue that Stephen saw two literal bodies of God in heaven, they cannot escape the concept of a plurality of Gods.

Since most of the trinitarian proof texts speak of two, not three, it appears that their interpretation should establish binitarianism (belief in two persons only) or at least a subordination of the Holy Spirit to the Father and Son. However, either doctrine contradicts orthodox trinitarianism.

In summary, most so-called trinitarian proof texts must be explained in a way consistent with Oneness or else they lead to doctrines that trinitarians themselves do not believe. On the other hand, the Oneness point of view clearly explains and harmonizes the whole of Scripture. It is consistent with the strict monotheism of the Old Testament and preserves the Christian belief in the Son of God who died for our redemption and the doctrine of the Holy Spirit who actualizes salvation in our lives.
God Bless You All! LOVE IN CHRIST,Della M