Two conclusive arguments for universal salvation

Redirect

Is Jesus God? Answering Answers in Genesis (part 2 of 2)

Part 1: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/05/is-jesus-god-answering-answers-in.html

     In the first part of this series, we dealt with the arguments for the deity of Christ put forth by Answers in Genesis in their article, “Is Jesus God?“ In their article, they asserted that Jesus possesses many of the names, titles, attributes, and works that rightly apply to God alone, like being the creator or receiving worship. However, all of those arguments were shown to be false in one of two ways: either (1) the name, title, attribute, or work does not actually apply to Jesus and has been misinterpreted, or else (2) the name, title, attribute, or work is also applied to other humans throughout the Bible. The fact that such arguments can so easily be shown to be false from scripture alone certainly says something about the validity of the doctrine of Christ’s deity.

    In the second section of their article, Answers in Genesis (AiG) defends the doctrine of the Trinity against unitarian detractors (such as myself). First, they define the Trinity and provide some scriptural evidence in favor of it, and then set up straw-man unitarian “objections” to trinitarianism and the deity of Christ. Let’s take a look at their arguments.

    Defining the doctrine of the Trinity

The deity of Christ is intimately connected to the doctrine of the Trinity. This doctrine affirms that there is only one God and that in the unity of the one godhead there are three coequal and coeternal persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Let us briefly consider the evidence for this doctrine.

Since many trinitarian organizations define the Trinity in different ways, let’s break down AiG’s definition of the Trinity so that we can better critique it as we go on.

1. There is only one God.

2. There are three persons within the one God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

3. These three persons are all equal in status to one another.

4. Propositions 1 - 3 are eternally the case.

Now that we have a better understanding of AiG’s definition of the Trinity, let’s take a look at their evidence for it.

    There is one God

In the course of God’s self-disclosure to humankind, He revealed His nature in progressive stages. First, God revealed that He is the only true God. This was a necessary starting point for God’s self-revelation. Throughout history, Israel was surrounded by pagan nations deeply engulfed in the belief that there are many gods. Through the prophets, God communicated to Israel that there is only one true God (Deuteronomy 6:4, 32:39; Psalm 86:10; Isaiah 44:6). Even at this early juncture, however, we find preliminary indications of the Trinity (Genesis 1:26, 11:7; Isaiah 6:8, 48:16). God’s oneness is also emphasized in the New Testament (Romans 3:29–30; 1 Corinthians 8:4; Galatians 3:20; 1 Thessalonians 1:9; 1 Timothy 1:17, 2:5; James 2:19; Jude 25).

I agree with AiG that scripture clearly states that there is only one true God. However, they completely pass over the fact that scripture also says that “God is one” (not three or ‘three-in-one’), even in the very passages that they cited (Deut. 6:4; Rom. 3:30; Gal. 3:20; 1 Tim. 2:5; Jas. 2:19), and furthermore, that this title of “the one God” is repeatedly used of the Father and distinguished from Jesus Christ (Jn. 5:43-44; 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 4:5-6; 1 Tim. 2:5). In fact, in virtually all of the examples they provided of verses that prove monotheism, God uses singular pronouns to describe Himself, which precludes the existence of more than one consciousness or “person” within the one true God [1].

    The instances of “preliminary indications of the Trinity” in the Old Testament which they provide amount to nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of the trinitarian. There are only four passages which use plural pronouns in reference to God (Gen. 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isa. 6:8), and these cannot offset the literally thousands of instances where God uses singular pronouns to describe Himself - even at critical junctures like Psalm 86:10 and Isaiah 44:6, where Yahweh describes His unique status as God, He still uses only singular pronouns [2].

    Let’s take a look at the other supposed “preliminary indication of the Trinity” in the OT:

“Listen to Me, O Jacob, even Israel whom I called; I am He, I am the first, I am also the last. Surely My hand founded the earth, and My right hand spread out the heavens; when I call to them, they stand together. Assemble, all of you, and listen! Who among them has declared these things? Yahweh loves him; he will carry out his good pleasure on Babylon, and his arm will be against the Chaldeans. I, even I, have spoken; indeed I have called him, I have brought him, and He will make his ways successful. Come near to me, listen to this:”

“From the first I have not spoken in secret, from the time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord Yahweh has sent me, and His spirit.” (Isa. 48:12-16 NASB)

Because God is the one speaking in Isaiah 48:12-15, whereas Isaiah 48:16 says that “the Lord Yahweh has sent me”, this is supposed to show the so-called plurality within Yahweh. However, even if the speaker in v. 16 is one of the “persons” in the Trinity, the subject must change between vv. 15 and 16 (if only between “persons”), since the speaker clearly changes from the Caller to the one called.

    There is no reason to believe that, when the speaker changes between vv. 15 and 16, it is changing between two different “Yahwehs” and not simply between Yahweh and a human. And indeed, the context shows that the one speaking in v. 16 is not another “Yahweh”, but is actually Cyrus king of Persia. Throughout chapters 45 - 48 of Isaiah, the focus is on God’s judgment of Babylon which would be carried out by Cyrus; that this is still in view is confirmed by 48:14, which states “he will carry out his good pleasure on Babylon, and his arm will be against the Chaldeans.” Thus, the one who was sent by Yahweh in v. 16 is Cyrus, not another ‘person’ of Yahweh. This is not a “preliminary indication of the Trinity,” but is again merely trinitarians’ wishful thinking.

    The Father is God

As history unfolded, God progressively revealed more about himself. It eventually became clear that while there is only one God, there are three distinct persons within the one godhead, each individually recognized as God (Matthew 28:19).

The Father, for example, is explicitly called God (John 6:27; Romans 1:7; Galatians 1:1; 1 Peter 1:2). He is also portrayed as having all the attributes of deity—such as being everywhere-present (Matthew 19:26), all-knowing (Romans 11:33), all-powerful (1 Peter 1:5), holy (Revelation 15:4), and eternal (Psalm 90:2).

You will find no argument from me that the Father is not God. He is repeatedly revealed to be God throughout the New Testament, in fact, to the exclusion of any other “person” being God (Jn. 5:43-44; 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 4:6). He is also called the God of Jesus (Jn. 20:17; Rom. 15:6; 2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1:3; 1 Pet. 1:3).

    However, I do object to AiG’s assertion that Matthew 28:19 proves that “there are three distinct persons within the godhead, each individually recognized as God”. This is what Matthew 28:19 says:

“Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the holy spirit” (NASB)

All that this verse shows is that the Father is separate from the Son, who is separate from the holy spirit, and that baptism occurs by the authority of all three. This does not show that all three of these are recognized as God, or even that all three are personal beings (which is probably untrue of the holy spirit, as Sean Finnegan argued in an article that I featured earlier on this blog).

    The Son is [not] God

Jesus is also explicitly called “God” in Scripture (Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8). And He, too, has all the attributes of deity—including being everywhere-present (Matthew 28:20), all-knowing (Matthew 9:4), all-powerful (Matthew 28:18), holy (Acts 3:14), and eternal (Revelation 1:8, 17).

You should note that none of these verses (with the exception of Acts 3:14) actually teach what AiG claims they teach. However, I already dealt with most of these passages in the first part of my rebuttal, so I won’t rehash the same points here - please go read that post instead.

    The Holy Spirit is God

The Holy Spirit is also recognized as God (Acts 5:3–4). He, too, possesses the attributes of deity, including being everywhere-present (Psalm 139:7–9), all-knowing (1 Corinthians 2:10–11), all-powerful (Romans 15:19), holy (John 16:7–14), and eternal (Hebrews 9:14).

It is true that the holy spirit is indeed God, although AiG’s characterization of the holy spirit as a “he” rather than an “it” is questionable. The holy spirit is not a “person” separate from the Father, but is the means by which the Father interacts with the world, and which indwells believers in order to connect them to both God and Christ. For a more detailed study on the biblical definition of the holy spirit, and the question of its personality, see Sean Finnegan’s article that I featured earlier on this blog.

    Three-in-Oneness in the Godhead?

Scripture also indicates there is three-in-oneness in the godhead. In Matthew 28:19, the resurrected Jesus instructed the disciples, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). The word name is singular in the Greek, thereby indicating God’s oneness. However, the definite articles in front of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (in the original Greek) indicate they are distinct personalities, even though there is just one God.

These distinct personalities relate to each other. The Father and Son, for example, know each other (Matthew 11:27), love each other (John 3:35), and speak to each other (John 11:41–42). The Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus at His baptism (Luke 3:22), is called another comforter (John 14:16), was sent by the Father and Jesus (John 15:26), and seeks to glorify Jesus (John 16:13–14).

Again, AiG appeals to Matthew 28:19 as proof that God is three “persons” in one “being”. Let’s take a closer look at this verse:

“Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the holy spirit” (NASB)

First, it is argued that because the word “name” is singular here, the Father, Son, and holy spirit must somehow all have the same name (which AiG would presumably claim is Yahweh). But this is absolutely false. The “name” of something or someone simply refers to the authority of that thing or person, as prophets and kings often did things in “the name of Yahweh” in the Old Testament (Deut. 18:5-7, 22; 1 Sam. 17:45; 2 Kings 2:24; etc.) Furthermore, singular “name” can be used to refer to multiple people with different names, as the following passages demonstrate:

“The angel who has redeemed me from all evil, bless the boys; and may my name live on in them, and the name [singular] of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and may they grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.” (Gen. 48:16 NASB)

The three older sons of Jesse had followed Saul to the battle. And the name [singular] of his three sons who had gone into the battle were Eliab the firstborn, and second to him, Abinadab, and the third, Shammah. (1 Sam. 17:13 NASB)

In order to stay grammatically accurate, most Bible versions translate the above instances of (singular) “name” as the plural “names”. If these translators wish to be consistent and not misleading, they should translate Matthew 28:19 as “in the names of the Father and the Son and the holy spirit”. But until then, this verse remains another instance of trinitarian translator bias, which is unfortunately common throughout the Bible.

    Next, AiG demonstrates that all three of the “persons” of the Trinity are separate from one another, contra modalism. Since I agree with this assertion, I won’t spend too much time talking about their argument here. However, I should note that - although not all unitarians are agreed on this point - I don’t believe the holy spirit to be an actual personality, but simply the means through which God interacts with the world, which is occasionally personified in scripture (see this article for more information).

    More ad hominem

Again, like at the beginning of their article, Answers in Genesis feels the need to inform its readers that all unitarians are simply cult members and followers of false religions.

Cults and false religions often raise objections against both the deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity. In what follows, key objections will be briefly summarized and answered.

Apparently, they find it difficult to believe that anyone could come to the conclusion that the Trinity is false, and that Christ is not God, based on their own honest and independent study of scripture. So instead they resort to ad hominem attacks, spreading the falsehood that all unitarians are simply indoctrinated into their beliefs by cults and false religions.

    As I showed in the first part of my rebuttal, the most recent surveys do not support the assumption that all, or even most, unitarians are part of cults like the Jehovah’s Witnesses. In fact, although 96% of US Evangelicals profess a belief in the Trinity, fully 65% of them also believe that Jesus is a created being, and 37% did not agree with the statement that the Son of God existed prior to Jesus’ birth. It seems that most unitarians are simply regular Protestants, although they profess themselves to be trinitarians. AiG’s assertion that all unitarians are cult members and followers of false religions is simply poisoning the well.

    Jesus is the Son of God

Some claim that because Jesus is the Son of God, He must be a lesser God than God the Father. Among the ancients, however, an important meaning of Son of is “one who has the same nature as.” Jesus, as the Son of God, has the very nature of God (John 5:18, 10:30, 19:7). He is thus not a lesser God.

It is absolutely false that a meaning of “son of [God]” is “one who has the same nature as [God]”. This is simply a lie, and I’m not sure why AiG feels comfortable lying to their readers like this. As R. C. Sproul said,

...we see the difference between the title “Son of Man” and “Son of God”... both of these titles have within them elements that refer to His deity and to His humanity. But if anything, the emphasis on the two is just the opposite of what we would normally expect. The title “Son of God” is given, in the first instance in Scripture, to those who manifest obedience to the Father. Sonship is defined predominately, not in biological terms here, but in terms of being in one accord or submissive towards, and so on. Remember Jesus Himself, in His discussions with the Pharisees, who claimed to be “sons of Abraham,” Jesus rebuked them and said, “You are the children of Satan. You are the children of the one whom you obey.”

In the Old Testament, the “son of God” language is usually used of kings, specifically the king of Israel [3]. For example, see the following passages:

Then King David rose to his feet and said... “Of all my sons (for Yahweh has given me many sons), He has chosen my son Solomon to sit on the throne of the kingdom of Yahweh over Israel. He said to me, ‘Your son Solomon is the one who shall build My house and My courtyards; for I have chosen him to be a son to Me, and I will be a Father to him.’” (1 Chron. 28:2, 5-6 NASB)

“But as for Me, I have installed My king upon Zion, My holy mountain... ‘You are My son, today I have fathered You.’” (Ps. 2:6-7 NASB)

Likewise, the council of Israelite judges in Psalm 82 are referred to as both “gods [elohim]” and “sons of the Most High”. This is highly significant, because Jesus applies this passage to Himself in Jn. 10:34, implying that He is the “son of God” in the same way that they were sons of God - by being Yahweh’s anointed ruler over Israel. This is confirmed by the gospel of Luke, as it is written there that

“He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end... Holy spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; for that reason also the holy Child will be called the Son of God.” (Lk. 1:32-33, 35 NASB)

Here, we are given two reasons why Jesus will be called the Son of God: first, because He will rule over the house of Israel on the throne of David, and second, because of His miraculous conception (note that it says “for that reason also“). There is certainly a special sense in which Jesus is the Son of God, because He was miraculously conceived by holy spirit, thus making Him the “only-begotten Son”. But there is nothing here about Him being “of the same nature” as God, or being “eternally generated” by God, because these are not the meanings of “son of God”.

    Often, trinitarians bring up another passage, John 5:18 (which AiG did cite above), to support the idea that being the Son of God means being of the same nature as God. Let’s take a look at this verse:

For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.

There is definitely a sense in which Jesus is “equal with God”, and that is in a representational sense. As the divinely appointed Messiah and king, He has representational equality with Yahweh. But this was actually true of all the human Davidic kings of Israel in the Old Testament; it was in this sense that David was allowed to be worshipped by the people of Israel (1 Chron. 29:20), and that the unnamed Davidic king of Psalm 45:6 (probably either Solomon or Ahab) was called “God”.

    In the Old Testament, the human king of Israel from the Davidic line was said to sit on the throne of God (1 Chron. 29:23; 2 Chron. 9:8), rule over the kingdom of God (1 Chron. 28:5; 2 Chron. 13:8), be called the “son of God” (1 Chron. 28:6; Ps. 2:6-7), and be worshipped alongside God (1 Chron. 29:20). These all indicate representational equality with God, based on the deity-ruler relationship, and all of these are also said of Jesus in the New Testament. However, other passages make clear that Jesus was not equal to God in an ontological sense (e.g., Jn. 14:28; 20:17; Rom. 15:6).

    The Father is Greater than Jesus

Some cults argue that because Jesus said the Father is “greater” than Him (John 14:28), this must mean Jesus is a lesser God. Biblically, however, Jesus is equal with the Father in His divine nature (John 10:30). He was positionally lower than the Father from the standpoint of His becoming a servant by taking on human likeness (Philippians 2:6–11). Positionally, then, the Father was “greater” than Jesus.

Notice how AiG again poisons the well by saying that some “cults” argue that the Father is greater than Jesus. And furthermore, they put “greater” in scarequotes, making it seem as though the Father isn’t really greater than Jesus, even though there are explicit statements in the Bible that the Father is greater than Jesus. But I digress.

    AiG argues that Jesus was only inferior to the Father in His human nature. This means that once He regained His exalted position after His resurrection (Php. 2:9-11), He would no longer be inferior to the Father. However, even after Christ’s resurrection, the Father is repeatedly referred to as the God of Jesus (Jn. 20:17; Rom. 15:6; 2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1:3; Heb. 1:8-9; 1 Pet. 1:3), clearly demonstrating that the Father is still greater in status than Jesus. This alone demonstrates that AiG’s argument is absolutely false.

    They then appeal to John 10:30 to supposedly prove that Jesus is “equal with the Father in His divine nature”. Let’s take a look at that passage, then:

“I and the Father are one.”

But wait, by citing only a single verse, AiG is removing it from its entire context. Does this really show that Jesus is ontologically equal with the Father? Let’s look at the overall context:

“My sheep listen to My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give them eternal life, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one”...

The Jews answered Him, “We are not stoning You for a good work, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.”

Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law: ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods... are you saying of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?” (Jn. 10:27-36 NASB)

Notice, Jesus does not say that He is equal to God. In fact, just before making the declaration that “I and the Father are one”, He says that “My Father... is greater than all”, implying that the Father is greater than Him. And when the Jews try to stone Him for “making Himself God”, Jesus refutes their charge of blasphemy by telling them that He is not God in the same sense that Yahweh is God, but in the sense that human kings can be called gods and sons of God, as in Psalm 82 (see above).

    Furthermore, in John 17:21-22, Jesus prays for believers that “they may be one in us even as we are one”. This means that the sense in which Jesus is one with the Father cannot be in “being” or “nature”, unless believers too will become equal to God (which is clearly false).

    But if this is true, in what sense are Jesus and the Father “one”? The answer must be, in the same sense that Paul and Apollos are said to be “one” in 1 Corinthians 3:6-8, which is that they are of one mind, or agree as one. Both Jesus and the Father agree as one on the issue of giving eternal life to the sheep who follow Him. This is the only interpretation that does not directly contradict the surrounding context and the many other passages that show the Father to be ontologically greater than Jesus.

    Jesus is the firstborn

Some cults argue that because Jesus is the “firstborn of creation” (Colossians 1:15), He is a created being and hence cannot be truly God. Biblically, however, Christ was not created but is the Creator (Colossians 1:16; John 1:3). The term firstborn, defined biblically, means Christ is “first in rank” and “preeminent” over the creation He brought into being.

I actually agree with AiG on this point, for the most part, because I don’t believe that Jesus is the first created being as Arians do (instead, I believe that He began to exist at His conception). However, note again their insistence that it is only “cults” that disagree with their belief in the deity of Christ - these ad hominem attacks are absolutely unacceptable, because as I noted earlier, fully 65% of Evangelicals actually believe that Jesus was the first created being. This is simply poisoning the well.

    Jesus is not all-knowing

Some cults argue that because Jesus said no one knows the day or hour of His return except the Father (Mark 13:32), Jesus must not be all-knowing, and hence He must not be truly God. In response, Jesus in the Gospels sometimes spoke from the perspective of His divinity and at other times from the perspective of His humanity. In Mark 13:32, Jesus was speaking from the limited perspective of His humanity (see Philippians 2:5–11). Had he been speaking from His divinity, He would not have said He did not know the day or hour. Other verses show that Christ, as God, knows all things (Matthew 17:27; Luke 5:4–6; John 2:25, 16:30, 21:17).

It’s very interesting that AiG tries to argue that Jesus’ limited knowledge is only in His human nature, because just a few paragraphs earlier they attempted to show that the title “Son of God” refers to His divinity, and yet this verse states that “the Son” does not know the day or hour.

    However, even if we grant them that this verse might be compatible with trinitarianism, there are still many other passages that show that Jesus isn’t omniscient. For example, elsewhere we are told that He only knew and taught those things that the Father revealed to Him (Matt. 11:27; Jn. 8:40) and that He needed to learn (Heb. 5:8). By making it seem as though the unitarian case is based on a single verse, AiG is setting up a straw man that they can easily knock down.

    Jesus prayed

Some cults argue that because Jesus prayed to the Father, He could not truly be God. Biblically, however, it was in His humanity that Christ prayed to the Father. Since Christ came as a man—and since one of the proper duties of man is to worship, pray to, and adore God—it was perfectly proper for Jesus to address the Father in prayer. Positionally speaking as a man, as a Jew, and as our High Priest—“in all things He had to be made like His brethren” (Hebrews 2:17)—Jesus could pray to the Father. But this in no way detracts from His intrinsic deity.

It appears that AiG has resorted to arguing that everything they don’t like about Jesus is just part of His “human nature”. This is not a valid argument, because to have the “nature” of something just means that you possess the characteristics of that thing. So if Jesus truly had the nature of God, because God is inherently greater than all things (Eph. 4:6), it would be impossible for Him to be positionally inferior to the Father.

    However, even if we grant AiG’s argument that Jesus was only positionally inferior to the Father in His humanity, we would expect that He became on the same level as the Father when His human nature was exalted to His current position after His resurrection, according to trinitarians (Php. 2:9-11). Instead, we see that even after His resurrection, the Father was called the God of Jesus (Jn. 20:17; Heb. 1:8-9; etc.), and that Jesus still prays to and petitions the Father for our salvation (Heb. 7:25). This proves AiG’s argument to be false and unscriptural.

    The Trinity is illogical

Some cults claim the Trinity is illogical (“three in one”). In response, the Trinity may be beyond reason, but it is not against reason. The Trinity does not entail three gods in one God, or three persons in one person. Such claims would be nonsensical. There is nothing contradictory, however, in affirming three persons in one God (or three whos in one what).

No, actually, the Trinity is entirely against reason. According to the orthodox doctrine of trinitarianism, as laid out in the creedal statements of the fourth and fifth centuries, each of the three “persons” fully encompasses what God is, and each one can be said to be fully God. However, they are also affirmed to be distinct persons, or “whos” as AiG says, and not merely manifestations of the same person, God. This can be summed up in six statements:

1. The Father = God

2. The Son = God

3. The Holy Spirit = God

4. The Father =/= the Son

5. The Son =/= the Holy Spirit

6. The Holy Spirit =/= the Father

If each of the three “persons” is numerically identical with God, and yet each of the three is not numerically identical with one another, this breaks all rules of logic. Traditionally, this has led to three main “heretical” schools of thought that attempt to resolve this problem: modalism (which argues that the three are merely manifestations of the same person), tritheism (or “social trinitarianism”, which argues that the three are separate Gods), and unitarianism (which argues that only the Father is God).

    Unitarianism is the only option that is compatible with both scripture and logic, but trinitarianism breaks the simple rule of logic that a thing is always equal to itself. Essentially, if trinitarianism is true, logic states that God is not God, which is about as heretical and anti-biblical as one can get.

    The Trinity is pagan

Some cults have claimed the doctrine of the Trinity is rooted in ancient paganism in Babylon and Assyria. In response, the Babylonians and Assyrians believed in triads of gods who headed up a pantheon of many other gods. These triads constituted three separate gods (polytheism), which is utterly different from the doctrine of the Trinity that maintains that there is only one God (monotheism) with three persons within the one godhead.

I, personally, am not familiar with this objection to the Trinity, and I don’t know of any knowledgeable unitarian who would make this argument in good faith. I suspect that this is a straw-man of the unitarian argument that the Trinity was not developed in its modern, orthodox form until several centuries after Christ (which is indeed true). But either way, I am not knowledgeable enough about this subject to fully engage with it.

    Conclusion: Jesus is [not] God

We have seen that Jesus must be viewed as God by virtue of the facts that He has the names of God, the attributes of God, and the authority of God; He does the works of God; and He is worshiped as God. We have also seen persuasive scriptural evidences for the doctrine of the Trinity. Our triune God is an awesome God!

Well, we’ve made it to the end of AiG’s article. We had to suffer through multiple outright lies about what the Bible says, many straw-men of unitarian arguments, and the repeated insistence that all unitarians are members of cults (which is patently false). Ultimately, none of their arguments for Christ’s deity really prove that Jesus is God beyond a doubt, whereas there are many passages of scripture - indeed, every single time that God is described as separate from Christ [4] - that show that Jesus is not God. If you are a trinitarian reading this, I hope you will challenge your presuppositions about the nature of God and study this issue with an open mind - because worshipping a triune God is really worshipping an idol of man’s own creation.

______________________________

[1] Since both Jesus and the Father, supposedly “persons” of the Trinity, also use their own singular pronouns in the New Testament, and when spoken of together use plural pronouns (e.g., Jn. 14:23). Thus, if God were truly a being that included both Jesus and the Father, He would need to use plural pronouns to accurately describe Himself in the passages that prove His uniqueness (Deut. 32:39; Ps. 86:10; Isa. 44:6; etc.) Instead, He chose to use singular pronouns to describe Himself, which shows that there cannot be more than one “person” within the “godhead”.

[2] These four instances can be explained by the Hebrew use of the “plural of majesty” (sometimes called the “royal we”), in which a singular person of great authority uses a plural pronoun or verb to express their intentions. For example, King Artaxerxes uses the plural of majesty in Ezra 4:18: “The king [singular] sends this reply: ‘The letter you sent us has been read...’”

[3] “A parent-child relationship between the gods and the king was common imagery in the ancient world. Such imagery supported the authority of the king and portrayed his role as mediator between the divine realm and the world in which he was to maintain order.” (Commentary on Psalm 2:6 by John Walton)

[4] Which is literally dozens of times in the New Testament. See the following passages: Matt. 4:9-10; 9:8; 19:17; Mk. 9:18; 16:19; Lk. 1:68-69; 3:7-8; 18:19; 22:69; Jn. 1:18; 3:16-17; 34; 6:29; 7:16-18; 13:3; 16:27-28; 17:3; Acts 2:22; 24; 33-36; 3:13-15; 26; 4:10; 5:30-32; 7:55; 10:38-42; 13:30; 37; 17:31; Rom. 3:24-25; 8:3; 34; 15:6; 1 Cor. 3:23; 8:6; 11:3; 15:15; 24; 2 Cor. 1:2-3; Gal. 4:4; Eph. 1:3; 17; 20; 4:4-6; Col. 1:3; 2:12; 3:1; 1 Thess. 3:11; 2 Thess. 2:16; 1 Tim. 2:5; 6:13; 2 Tim. 4:1; Heb. 2:8-10; 9:14; 12:2; 23-24; 1 Pet. 1:3; 2:4; 3:21-22; 1 Jn. 3:9; Rev. 1:6; 3:2; 3:12; 7:10; 12:10; 14:4

Is Jesus God? Answering Answers in Genesis (part 1 of 2)

     I was recently made aware of an article by the creationist ministry, Answers in Genesis, which attempts to defend the traditional Christian doctrine of the “deity of Christ”. Since I’ve been discussing the Trinity and related doctrines for the past month on this blog, I decided that taking a look at the article, and debunking the arguments within, would be the perfect ending to this series on the Trinity. This article presents basically all of the scriptural arguments for the deity of Christ that have been made by trinitarian apologists, and so the fact that all of these arguments are so easily refuted surely says something about the truth or falsity of this doctrine.

    Before beginning my critique of their article, I would like to point out one thing. Their arguments for Jesus being God all rest upon the assertion that Jesus possesses names, attributes, and works that only rightfully apply to Yahweh, the one true God. For this reason, their argument falls entirely apart if it can be shown that the titles, attributes, and works can apply to anyone other than Yahweh. Please keep this in mind when reading through my post.

    Is unitarianism a cult?

Interestingly, Answers in Genesis (AiG) chooses to start off their article with an ad hominem attack on unitarianism itself:

Is Jesus God? There are many cults and false religions today that deny it. The Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example, believe Jesus was created by the Father billions of years ago as the Archangel Michael and is hence a “lesser god” than the Father. The Mormons say Jesus was born as the first and greatest spirit child of the Heavenly Father and heavenly mother, and was the spirit-brother of Lucifer. New Agers claim Jesus was an enlightened master. Unitarian Universalists say Jesus was just a good moral teacher.

This gives the readers of this article the impression that unitarianism is something that is only believed by cults. There are certainly cults today that believe in unitarianism, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, but these are by no means the majority of unitarians. Instead, most unitarians, in my own experience, are simply Christians who came to a different understanding of God’s nature based on the clear teaching of the Bible (like myself).

    In fact, although 96% of Evangelicals profess a belief in the Trinity, 65% believe that Jesus was created by God, and 37% did not agree with the statement that the Son of God existed prior to Jesus’ birth. It seems that belief in trinitarianism is simply a professed, creedal belief, and not one that most Protestants fundamentally agree with. Many US Protestants would be better categorized as unitarian, or at the very most “confused trinitarian”. This just goes to show how AiG’s categorization of unitarians as cult members is false, and bound to poison the well for Christians who are simply seeking biblical truth.

    Does Jesus have the names of God?

AiG begins their argument for Christ’s deity by attempting to show that Jesus possesses the names and titles of God.

Jesus is Yahweh. Yahweh is a very common Hebrew name for God in the Old Testament, occurring over 5,300 times. It is translated LORD (all capitals) in many English translations of the Bible.

We first learn of this name in Exodus 3, where Moses asked God by what name He should be called. God replied to him, “I AM WHO I AM. . . .Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you’ ” (verse 14). Yahweh is basically a shortened form of “I AM WHO I AM” (verse 15). The name conveys the idea of eternal self-existence. Yahweh never came into being at a point in time for He has always existed.

Jesus implicitly ascribed this divine name to himself during a confrontation He had with a group of hostile Jews. He said, “I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM” (John 8:58). Jesus deliberately contrasted the created origin of Abraham—whom the Jews venerated—with His own eternal, uncreated nature as God.

Actually, the title of God in Exodus 3:14 should almost certainly be translated, “I will be who I will be”. In the original Hebrew, this title is ehyeh asher ehyeh. The word ehyeh is elsewhere translated as the future tense of the verb “to be”, and was in fact used that way just two verses earlier:

And He [God] said, “Assuredly I will be [ehyeh] with you [Moses], and this shall be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: when you have brought the people out of Egypt, you shall worship God at this mountain.” (Exod. 3:12 NASB)

Essentially, what God is saying here is, “I will be with you, and I will be who I will be” (meaning, “I will be whatever I need to be for my people Israel”). Today, this is the majority scholarly interpretation of this passage. J. Washington Watts, a professor at Syracuse University, wrote that

Such a translation as ‘I am what I am’ appears to be ruled out completely by the fact that the verbs here are imperfects. ‘I am’ is the normal translation of the Hebrew perfect, not an imperfect... The translation offered here relates this explanation of the name to covenants with the patriarchs. As such it was a basis of assurance concerning Yahweh’s presence and support. This thought is made explicit in the verse that follows, and the proper name Yahweh, the memorial name, is made synonymous with the description ‘I shall continue to be what I have always been.’ This makes the description a restatement of Yahweh’s faithfulness and assurance that he will fulfill the covenants with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. [1]

Therefore, God’s title in Exodus 3:14 should be properly translated as “I will be who I will be”. This is how it was understood by several ancient translators as well, since both Aquila and Theodotion from the second century AD translated this title as εσομαι ο εσομαι (meaning “I will be what I will be”).

    However, even if the title is meant to be a declaration of God’s eternal self-existence, as both AiG and most modern translators seem to want it to be, this still would not be translated into Greek as εγω ειμι (which is what Jesus says in John 8:58). The Septuagint, which is the Greek translation that was used in Jesus’ day, even by the writers of the New Testament, translates the full title as “εγω ειμι Ο ΩΝ”, meaning “I am the ONE WHO IS”, and the shortened title as simply “Ο ΩΝ”. Since Jesus never identified Himself as either the “I will be” or the “ONE WHO IS”, there is no evidence to suggest that He saw Himself as the recipient of the titles in Exodus 3:14.

    Instead, the gospel of John repeatedly develops “εγω ειμι” as a Messianic title, not a divine one. When the Samaritan woman remarks that she has heard that the Messiah is coming, Jesus responds, “εγω ειμι”, meaning “I am [the Messiah]” (Jn. 4:25-26). Jesus tells the Jews that, unless they believe that “εγω ειμι”, they will die in their sins (Jn. 8:24); since we are told elsewhere that the message by which they are saved is that “Jesus is the Messiah” (Jn. 20:31), this again is not a claim to deity, but the implied statement is “I am [the Messiah]”. Jesus again states, “εγω ειμι”, where the implied predicate is clearly “Son of Man”, also a Messianic title (Jn. 8:28 cf. Mk. 14:62). In response to a Messianic prophecy, Jesus claims, “εγω ειμι”, meaning “I am [the One prophesied]” (Jn. 13:18-19).

    We should give the author of the gospel of John enough credit to assume that he knew what he was talking about. John wouldn’t have translated Exodus 3:14 with such an inaccurate phrase as “εγω ειμι”, nor would he have expected his audience to know what he was trying to say if that were the case (since “εγω ειμι” is not how any other translation from that day translated Exod. 3:14). Jesus wasn’t claiming to be God here; He was claiming to be the Messiah.

Jesus is Kurios. The New Testament Greek equivalent of the Old Testament Hebrew name Yahweh is Kurios. Used of God, Kurios carries the idea of a sovereign being who exercises absolute authority. The word is translated Lord in English translations of the Bible.

To an early Christian accustomed to reading the Old Testament, the word Lord, when used of Jesus, would point to His identification with the God of the Old Testament (Yahweh). Hence, the affirmation that “Jesus is Lord” (Kurios) in the New Testament constitutes a clear affirmation that Jesus is Yahweh, as is the case in passages like Romans 10:9, 1 Corinthians 12:3, and Philippians 2:5–11.

Like the claim that Jesus’ “εγω ειμι” statements refer back to Exodus 3:14, this is blatantly false. There are three different Hebrew words that are translated into Greek as κυριος (kurios): the title adon (used of human lords), the title Adonai (used of God alone), and the personal name Yahweh. In fact, κυριος is repeatedly used of humans in the New Testament; in one place, Paul exhorts all Christian κυριοι to submit to their κυριος in heaven, Jesus (Col. 4:1)!

    There is simply no evidence to suggest that the writers of the New Testament saw Jesus as Yahweh or Adonai rather than simply adon (human lord). However, there is evidence that they saw Him as an adon rather than Adonai. The Messianic prophecy of Psalm 110 uses adoni in reference to the coming Messiah:

The LORD [Yahweh] says to my Lord [adoni]: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.” (NASB)

This prophecy is quoted or alluded to no less than twenty-four times in the New Testament as fulfilled by Jesus [2]. However, it does not describe the Messiah as Yahweh, or even as Adonai, but as merely adoni  (“my lord”) — a title meant for human rulers which is not once applied to God Himself. This is strong evidence that the title κυριος, when applied to Jesus, is not a claim to divinity, but merely to superiority. Unfortunately, most translations mask this fact by capitalizing “Lord” when applied to Jesus and God, and keeping it uncapitalized when applied to anyone else.

    To be clear, this doesn’t mean that I believe that Jesus was merely a “good moral teacher”, which is the caricature of unitarians that AiG paints. I believe that He is the greatest human being who ever lived, who died and was resurrected, and is now exalted to the highest possible position for a created being to hold, at the right hand of God. But the title of Adonai cannot be applied to anyone other than Yahweh Himself, whereas the title of adon applies to anyone apart from God who has authority. Since Jesus has been given all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18), He is the greatest adon — the only one who can properly be called our (human) Lord.

Jesus is Elohim. Elohim is a Hebrew name that is used of God 2,570 times in the Old Testament. The name literally means “strong one,” and its plural ending (im in Hebrew) indicates fullness of power. Elohim is portrayed in the Old Testament as the powerful and sovereign governor of the universe, ruling over the affairs of humankind.

Jesus is recognized as both Yahweh and Elohim in the prophecy in Isaiah 40:3: “Prepare the way of the Lord [Yahweh]; make straight in the desert a highway for our God [Elohim].” This verse was written in reference to John the Baptist preparing for the coming of Christ (as confirmed in John 1:23) and represents one of the strongest affirmations of Christ’s deity in the Old Testament. In Isaiah 9:6, we likewise read a prophecy of Christ with a singular variant (El) of Elohim: “And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God [El], Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”

The argument based on Isaiah 40:3 commits an error that I like to call the “fulfillment fallacy”. According to this argument, anyone who fulfills a prophecy about God, or a statement that God will do something, must be God Himself. However, if this argument were applied consistently across the entire Bible, we would have to conclude that not only is Jesus God, but Moses was God (Exod. 3:7-10), Aaron was God (Exod. 17:17-20), all the judges of Israel were God (Judg. 2:16-18), and so on.

    The fact is that God often acts out His will through the use of intermediary agents, and when those agents fulfill His will, it can be said that He is the one doing those things. I wrote a lot more about this subject in my earlier post, “Understanding the concept of agency”, and if you are curious, please go and check out that article.

    In the other verse quoted here, Isaiah 9:6, we are told that the coming Messiah would be called el gibbor, which is usually translated as “Mighty God”. However, the title el gibbor is by no means unique to God alone; in fact, in one of the only two other places in the entire Old Testament where this title is used, it is applied to human rulers (Ezek 32:21), where it is usually translated as “mighty chiefs” or similar. This is the result of trinitarian translator bias. The Jews of that time would have had no concept of Yahweh Himself coming down to be born as a human, and the title el gibbor (which is elsewhere applied to humans) certainly wouldn’t get that idea across. It should more likely be translated here as “Mighty Chief” or “Mighty Hero” rather than “Mighty God” [3].

Jesus is Theos. The New Testament Greek word for God, Theos, is the corresponding parallel to the Old Testament Hebrew term Elohim. A well-known example of Christ being addressed as God (Theos) is found in the story of “doubting Thomas” in John 20. In this passage, Thomas witnesses the resurrected Christ and worshipfully responds: “My Lord and my God [Theos]” (John 20:28).

Jesus is called Theos throughout the rest of the New Testament. For example, when a jailer asked Paul and Silas how to be saved, they responded: “Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household” (Acts 16:31). After the jailer believed and became saved, he “rejoiced, having believed in God [Theos] with all his household” (verse 34). Believing in Christ and believing in God are seen as identical acts.

In fact, there is only one place in the entire New Testament where Jesus is called θεος (theos) with certainty, and that is in Hebrews 1:8-9. That passage is a quotation of Psalm 45:6-7, a psalm which was originally written about an unnamed king of Israel who was being married to the daughter of the king of Tyre (go ahead, read it for yourself). Scholars are divided on who exactly this psalm was originally written for, but there are two main viewpoints: either it was written for Solomon, or for Ahab. Either way, it should be clear that this psalm was not originally written for God, and so interpreting its quotation in Hebrews 1:8-9 any differently simply shows trinitarian bias.

    But then, if Psalm 45:6-7 is referring to a human king, how can it call that king “God”? And why does Hebrews 1:8-9 call Jesus “God” if not in the same sense that Yahweh is God? The fact is that throughout the Bible, those who work out God’s will on His behalf are sometimes called “God” in a representational sense. For example, when Moses was told that his brother Aaron would speak on his behalf to the pharaoh of Egypt, Yahweh told him that he would be God to Aaron (Exod. 4:16), and again in Exodus 7:1, Moses is said to be God to the pharaoh. In Psalm 82:1, 6, God tells the human judges of Israel that they are elohim (gods) because of the authority which He has given them. Even the burning bush in Exodus 3 who entrusted Moses with the personal name of God is later said to be merely an angel through whom God commissioned Moses (Acts 7:30, 35).

    Therefore, even when Jesus is called θεος in Hebrews 1:8-9, this does not mean that Jesus is actually the same as Yahweh (at least, not any more than Solomon or Ahab are the same as Yahweh, one of whom Psalm 45 was originally written about). Rather, He is the representational agent through whom God works out His will, as I discussed in my earlier article, “Understanding the concept of agency”. As for John 20:28, I gave several unitarian interpretations of this verse at the end of another post, so please go check that out if you are curious.

    Finally, I find it curious that AiG states that “Believing in Christ and believing in God are seen as identical acts” and sees this as evidence that Jesus is God. This doesn’t mean that Jesus is God, but rather corresponds quite nicely to what Jesus Himself told us earlier about His relationship to the Father who sent Him:

“Whoever receives one child like this in My name receives Me, and whoever receives Me does not receive Me but Him who sent Me.” (Mk. 9:37 NASB)

Now Jesus cried out and said, “The one who believes in Me, does not believe only in Me, but also in Him who sent Me. And the one who sees Me sees Him who sent Me.” (John 12:44-45 NASB)

“Truly, truly I say to you, the one who receives anyone I send, receives Me; and the one who receives Me receives Him who sent Me.” (John 13:20 NASB)

Because Jesus is God’s representative agent, those who believe in Him believe in the Father who sent Him, in the same way that those who receive His disciples are also receiving Him. This certainly doesn’t prove that Jesus is God any more than it proves that Jesus’ disciples are Jesus.

    In summary, there is no evidence from scripture that either Jesus or the writers of the New Testament saw Him as ontologically the same as God, such that all the titles of God apply to Him. In the only place in the New Testament where Jesus is called θεος with certainty, Hebrews 1:8-9, this is a quotation from a psalm that was originally about the king of Israel; so Jesus can no more be considered God than Ahab or Solomon can be considered God.

    If the writers of the New Testament wanted to prove that Jesus was God, they could have easily done so. There is one title that is applied to God, and only God, in the Greek Septuagint, and that is “Ο ΩΝ” (the “ONE WHO IS”). All that the writers of the New Testament needed to say is “Jesus is the ONE WHO IS” (“Ιησους εστιν Ο ΩΝ”); their silence on this issue truly speaks volumes.

    Does Jesus possess the attributes of God?

Answers in Genesis next tries to convince us that Jesus is God by showing us how Jesus possesses attributes that only rightfully belong to God.

Jesus is eternal. John 1:1 affirms: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” The word was in this verse is an imperfect tense, indicating continuous, ongoing existence. When the timespace universe came into being, Christ already existed (Hebrews 1:8–11).

Setting aside for a moment the fact that the “word”, or λογος, in the prologue of John should almost certainly be understood as God’s wisdom, and not the “pre-incarnate Christ”, this argument is still false. The imperfect tense in Greek indicates any ongoing action, but does not require the action to continue prior to the time in question. To say that “in the beginning was the word” means just that: that the word existed in the beginning, but says nothing about whether it existed before the beginning.

Jesus is self-existent. As the Creator of all things (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2), Christ himself must be uncreated. Colossians 1:17 tells us that Christ is “before all things, and in Him all things consist.”

These first three texts are the main prooftexts for the position that Jesus created the universe. However, there are several other passages that clearly distinguish between the Creator of the universe and Christ, which would be rendered nonsensical if Jesus were the one who created the universe (Mk. 10:6; Acts 17:24, 31; Heb. 2:10). If the three texts that AiG cites truly prove that Jesus created the universe, this would seem to create an irreconcilable contradiction. So let’s take a look at each one in turn:

All things came into being through it [the word], and apart from it not even one thing came into being that has come into being. (Jn. 1:3)

This passage is supposed to prove that Jesus created all things, because the “word” in John 1:1-13 is said to be the “pre-existent Christ”. However, this is not a view that is inherent in the text; it must be eisegeted into the prologue of John, not exegeted out of it. The context indicates that the “word” here is the divine wisdom that became embodied in Jesus, but was not conscious prior to His birth. See this article for more information on the prologue of John and its relation to both biblical and extra-biblical wisdom literature.

in him [Christ] was created the all things in the heavens and upon the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or lordships or rulers or authorities, the all things has been created through him and for him. (Col. 1:16)

This passage is also cited to show that all things were created by Jesus. However, this passage is not referring to the original creation, but the new creation of all things in Christ. In the beginning, what was made was “the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1); here, what is being made is “all things in the heavens and upon the earth”, which shows that it is not referring to the original Genesis creation.

    Furthermore, throughout Paul’s writings, the term “in Christ” refers to those things that have been redeemed (cf. Col. 1:14), and so by saying “in him was created the all things”, he is clearly referring to the new, redeemed creation which has been made in Christ and through Christ. See the following comparison between 2 Corinthians 5:17-18, a passage describing the new creation, and Colossians 1:16:

So then if anyone [is] in Christ, [he is] a new creation. The old passed away; lo, the all things has become new! Now the all things [are] out of God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ (2 Cor. 5:17-18)

in him was created the all things in the heavens and upon the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or lordships or rulers or authorities, the all things has been created through him and for him. (Col. 1:16)

From these contextual clues, it is clear that Colossians 1:16 is not referring to the original creation, but to the new creation, which was indeed made in Christ and through Christ.

upon these last days [God] spoke to us in a Son, whom He established inheritor of all things, and through whom He made the ages. (Heb. 1:2)

This is the last text thought to prove that Jesus was the one who created all things. However, the only reason to think that it is referring to the original creation is because most Bible versions translate the last part of this verse as “through whom He made the world” or even “the universe” rather than “the ages”, which is the literal translation of τους αιωνας. This is another clear case of trinitarian translator bias.

    This is not saying that Jesus created the universe, but that God has created the ages through Him, referring to the oncoming ages during which Jesus will be reigning, and we alongside Him (Lk. 1:33; Eph. 2:6-7). Therefore, none of these three texts prove that Jesus created the universe in the beginning; instead, they are either referring to God’s wisdom by which He created the universe (Jn. 1:3), or else they are referring to the new creation (Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2).

    However, it should be noted that even if Jesus was the creator of the universe, this does not prove that He Himself was uncreated, as AiG wants us to think. Many unitarians, especially Arians, do indeed believe that Jesus was the conduit through whom God created the universe. This does not prove that Jesus is uncreated, much less that Jesus is God, but (if true) it would merely show that God created through Him.

Jesus is everywhere-present. Christ promised His disciples, “Where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them” (Matthew 18:20). Since people all over the world gather in Christ’s name, the only way He could be present with them all is if He is truly omnipresent (see Matthew 28:20; Ephesians 1:23, 4:10; Colossians 3:11).

Just because Jesus is with believers does not mean that Jesus is truly omnipresent. Rather, Jesus is supernaturally connected to the members of His body through the holy spirit which God gives to us, and through that spirit He lives within us (Jn. 16:12-14; Rom. 8:9-11; Gal. 4:6; Eph. 3:14-17). This does not show that He is everywhere at once, but merely that He is with those who believe in Him, which is in no way incompatible with the biblical depiction of Christ Jesus as the human Son of God who has been exalted to God’s right hand in the heavens.

Jesus is all-knowing. Jesus knew where the fish were in the water (Luke 5:4, 6; John 21:6–11), and He knew just which fish contained the coin (Matthew 17:27). He knew the future (John 11:11, 18:4), specific details that would be encountered (Matthew 21:2–4), and knew from a distance that Lazarus had died (John 11:14). He also knows the Father as the Father knows Him (Matthew 11:27; John 7:29, 8:55, 10:15, 17:25).

Again, this does not show that Jesus is omniscient, but merely that He knows far more than a regular human would. This is not incompatible with the unitarian view that Jesus is a human being, a man who was filled by God with holy spirit without measure (Jn. 3:34). In fact, He cannot have been truly omniscient, as He only knew those things that the Father revealed to Him (Matt. 11:27; Jn. 8:40), needed to learn (Heb. 5:8), and did not know the time of His return (Mk. 13:32).

Jesus is all-powerful. Christ created the entire universe (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2) and sustains the universe by His own power (Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3). During His earthly ministry, He exercised power over nature (Luke 8:25), physical diseases (Mark 1:29–31), demonic spirits (Mark 1:32–34), and even death (John 11:1–44).

The assertion that Christ created the universe has already been dealt with and shown to be unscriptural. The fact that Jesus is sustaining the universe by His power is not incompatible with His current position at the right hand of God, with all things in heaven and earth having been put under His authority (Matt. 28:18). And though Jesus certainly performed many miracles throughout His life, He also explicitly stated that He could only do those things that the Father gave Him the authority to do (Jn. 5:19-23). This means that Jesus cannot be omnipotent, although as the Son of God, He certainly has been given much power.

Jesus is sovereign. Christ presently sits at the right hand of God the Father, “angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him” (1 Peter 3:22). When Christ comes again in glory, He will be adorned with a majestic robe, and on the thigh section of the robe will be the words, “KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS” (Revelation 19:16).

Of course I do not disagree that Jesus is sovereign. But AiG seems to be unaware that the fact that all things have been made subject to Christ actually disproves the idea that He is God. God, who created the heavens and the earth, is already inherently the Lord of all things (Acts 17:24). Jesus needed to be given His authority (Matt. 28:18; 1 Cor. 15:27-28; Php. 2:9-11; Heb. 2:8-9), which means that He cannot be inherently the Lord of all, but as Peter said, God has made Jesus both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36). At the consummation, Jesus will be King of all kings, and Lord of all lords, subject only to the One who subjected all to Him (1 Cor. 15:24-28).

Jesus is sinless. Jesus challenged Jewish leaders: “Which of you convicts Me of sin?” (John 8:46). The apostle Paul referred to Jesus as “Him who knew no sin” (2 Corinthians 5:21). Jesus is one who “loved righteousness and hated lawlessness” (Hebrews 1:9), was “without sin” (Hebrews 4:15), and was “holy, harmless, [and] undefiled” (Hebrews 7:26).

Jesus is indeed sinless, and the death of a sinless being was necessary to effect the redemption of all. But the fact that Jesus is sinless does not mean that Jesus is necessarily God — and thank God for that, because if He were God, He wouldn’t have been able to truly die (1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16)!

    Does Jesus possess the authority of God?

Jesus always spoke in His own divine authority. He never said, “Thus saith the Lord” as did the prophets; He always said, “Verily, verily, I say unto you. . . .” He never retracted anything He said, never guessed or spoke with uncertainty, never made revisions, never contradicted himself, and never apologized for what He said. He even asserted, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away” (Mark 13:31), hence elevating His words directly to the realm of heaven.

This is a surprisingly common claim made by trinitarians - “surprising”, I say, because it is complete and utter nonsense. It is simply false that the prophets always said “Thus saith the LORD [Yahweh]” before quoting Yahweh’s own words. In fact, there are many instances in the Old Testament where a prophet begins speaking in the first person as Yahweh without using the formulaic expression “Thus says Yahweh” first. See the following examples:

And Moses summoned all Israel and said to them... “Yet to this day Yahweh has not given you a heart to know, nor eyes to see, nor ears to hear. And I [Moses] have led you in the wilderness for forty years; your clothes have not worn out on you, and your sandal has not worn out on your foot. You have not eaten bread, nor have you drunk wine or other strong drink, in order that you might know that I am Yahweh your God.” (Deut. 29:2, 4-6 NASB)

“For behold, the Lord Yahweh of armies is going to remove from Jerusalem and Judah both supply and support, the entire supply of bread and the entire supply of water... And I will make mere boys their leaders, and mischievous children will rule over them” (Isa. 3:1, 4 NASB)

“For Yahweh’s anger is against all the nations, and His wrath against all their armies. He has utterly destroyed them, He has turned them over to slaughter... For My sword has drunk its fill in heaven; behold it shall descend for judgment upon Edom, and upon the people whom I have designated for destruction. The sword of Yahweh is filled with blood” (Isa. 34:2, 5-6 NASB)

“Return, Israel, to Yahweh your God, for you have stumbled because of your wrongdoing. Take words with you and return to Yahweh... I will heal their apostasy, I will love them freely, because My anger has turned away from them.” (Hos. 14:1, 4 NASB)

“Behold, a day is coming for Yahweh when the spoils taken from you will be divided among you. For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city will be taken, the houses plundered, the women raped, and half of the city exiled, but the rest of the people will not be eliminated from the city. Then Yahweh will go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle” (Zech. 14:1-3 NASB)

Although there are many more examples of this in the Old Testament (e.g., Micah 1), these should suffice to show that it is not true that prophets always introduced Yahweh’s words with the formula “Thus saith Yahweh”. If these prophets were given the authority to speak in Yahweh’s name, how much more Jesus, the image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15 cf. Jn. 1:18; 12:45; 14:9) and perfect representative of God on earth?

    Furthermore, even though Jesus never introduced His words with the formula “Thus saith Yahweh”, He did make it explicitly clear that the words He spoke were not His own, but those of His Father.

“I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me.” (Jn. 8:28 NASB)

“For I did not speak on My own, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak.” (Jn. 12:49 NASB)

“The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own, but the Father, as He remains in Me, does His works.” (Jn. 14:10 NASB)

“Now they have come to know that everything which You have given Me is from You; for the words which You gave Me I have given to them” (Jn. 17:7-8 NASB)

Therefore, the trinitarian argument that, whereas the prophets spoke on the authority of God and introduced His words with “Thus saith Yahweh”, Jesus spoke on His own authority, is patently false and duplicitous. It not only ignores clear evidence to the contrary, that the prophets were allowed to speak on the authority of God without using the introductory formula first, but also contradicts Jesus’ own statements that He was speaking the words that the Father gave to Him.

    Did Jesus perform the works of God?

Jesus’ deity is also proved by His miracles. His miracles are often called “signs” in the New Testament. Signs always signify something—in this case, that Jesus is the divine Messiah.

Some of Jesus’ more notable miracles include turning water into wine (John 2:7–8); walking on the sea (Matthew 14:25; Mark 6:48; John 6:19); calming a stormy sea (Matthew 8:26; Mark 4:39; Luke 8:24); feeding 5,000 men and their families (Matthew 14:19; Mark 6:41; Luke 9:16; John 6:11); raising Lazarus from the dead (John 11:43–44); and causing the disciples to catch a great number of fish (Luke 5:5–6).

The miraculous signs which Jesus performed certainly show Him to be God’s anointed one, the Messiah, but not that He is “the divine Messiah”. In fact, “divine Messiah” is an oxymoron, since the Messiah was repeatedly prophesied in the Old Testament to be a human king of the Davidic line, separate from Yahweh (as I argued in a previous post).

    The miracles of Jesus demonstrate that He is a man given much authority by God, but not that He is God Himself. One example that trinitarians often like to give is Jesus’ forgiveness of sins in the synoptic gospels, quoting Mark 2:7, “who can forgive sins but God alone?” However, they conveniently ignore the fact that the gospel of Matthew explicitly states that He was a man given authority by God to forgive sins:

“But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—then He said to the paralyzed man, “Get up, pick up your stretcher and go home.” And he got up and went home. But when the crowds saw this, they were awestruck, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men. (Matt. 9:6-8 NASB)

As a matter of fact, this applies to all of Jesus’ other miracles as well. As Jesus said to the Jewish leaders,

“Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in the same way. For the Father loves the Son and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him greater works than these, so that you will be amazed.” (Jn. 5:19-20 NASB)

Based on these passages, it can be clearly seen that Jesus’ miracles are not evidence that He is God. Instead, they simply show that He is a man who was given much authority by God, as His Son and anointed one.

    Was Jesus worshipped as God?

Jesus was worshiped on many occasions in the New Testament. He accepted worship from Thomas (John 20:28), the angels (Hebrews 1:6), some wise men (Matthew 2:11), a leper (Matthew 8:2), a ruler (Matthew 9:18), a blind man (John 9:38), an anonymous woman (Matthew 15:25), Mary Magdalene (Matthew 28:9), and the disciples (Matthew 28:17).

Scripture is emphatic that only God can be worshiped (Exodus 34:14; Deuteronomy 6:13; Matthew 4:10). In view of this, the fact that both humans and angels worshiped Jesus on numerous occasions shows He is God.

No one would doubt that Jesus was and is worshipped, this is made absolutely clear in the passages cited above by AiG. Furthermore, the Bible also makes clear that the worship of Jesus was considered to be okay and not against any commandment of God; after all, the Father actually commands the angels to worship Him (Heb. 1:6). However, this does not mean that Jesus is the supreme Deity, as I will show in this section.

    The word “worship” is translated from shachah in Hebrew and προσκυνεω in Greek. These words literally mean “to bow down” and “to kiss [the hand] toward”, respectively, both of which were actions that expressed respect and reverence in ancient society. However, these words are used in the Bible to describe worship of both God and others (including humans). See the following examples:

So Abraham stood up and bowed [shachah] to the people of the land, the sons of Heth. (Gen. 23:7 NASB)

But he himself [Jacob] passed on ahead of them and bowed down [shachah] to the ground seven times, until he came near to his brother [Esau]. (Gen. 33:3 NASB)

Now Joseph was the ruler over the land; he was the one who sold grain to all the people of the land. And Joseph’s brothers came and bowed down [shachah] to him with their faces to the ground. (Gen. 42:6 NASB)

“So the slave fell to the ground and prostrated himself [προσκυνεω] before him, saying, ‘Have patience with me and I will repay you everything.’” (Matt. 18:26 NASB)

“Behold, I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie—I will make them come and bow down [προσκυνεω] before your feet, and make them know that I have loved you.” (Rev. 3:9 NASB)

These practices were never condemned by God and were considered to be innocuous gestures of respect. In fact, Jesus proclaims that He will force one group of people to worship (προσκυνεω) the human members of the church at Philadelphia. Furthermore, in at least one case (that of the divinely appointed kings of Israel), it seems to have been institutionalized and encouraged by God. David, the “man after God’s own heart” (Acts 13:22), not only worshipped others but also accepted worship, and was never condemned for doing so:

Afterward, however, David got up and went out of the cave, and called after Saul, saying, “My lord the king!” And when Saul looked behind him, David bowed [shachah] with his face to the ground and prostrated himself. (1 Sam. 24:8 NASB)

And Joab fell on his face to the ground, prostrated himself [shachah], and blessed the king (2 Sam. 14:22 NASB)

They informed the king [David], saying, “Nathan the prophet is here.” And when he came into the king’s presence, he prostrated himself [shachah] before the king with his face to the ground. (1 Kings 1:23 NASB)

Then David said to all the assembly, “Now bless Yahweh your God.” And all the assembly blessed Yahweh, the God of their fathers, and bowed down and paid homage [shachah] to Yahweh and the king. (1 Chron. 29:20 NASB) [4]

Clearly, then, worship (either shachah or προσκυνεω) is not limited to Yahweh God alone, and was often received by humans as well. But how can this be reconciled with the passages quoted by AiG, which appear to say that worship does belong to Yahweh God alone? The context of these passages (Exod. 34:14-15; Deut. 16:13-14; Matt. 4:8-10) makes clear that these commandments are only forbidding the worship of false, pagan gods, and not forbidding the worship of humans in a position of authority (of which Jesus is absolutely one; Matt. 28:18). This is because biblical “worship” simply refers to the act of paying respect and honor to either a ruler or a deity.

    Unfortunately, in the vast majority of Bible translations, the exact same words that are translated as “worship” when used in reference to God and Christ are variously translated as “bow down” or “pay homage” when used in reference to other humans. This obfuscates the true meaning of the word “worship”, making it seem as though Jesus is God, and is yet another example of blatant trinitarian translator bias. In summary, yes, Jesus is worshipped - but worship is not, nor should it be, limited to God [5].

    Do Old Testament parallels prove that Jesus is God?

A comparison of the Old and New Testaments provides powerful testimony to Jesus’s identity as God. For example, a study of the Old Testament indicates that it is only God who saves. In Isaiah 43:11, God asserts: “I, even I, am the Lord, and besides Me there is no savior.” This verse indicates that (1) a claim to be Savior is, in itself, a claim to deity; and (2) there is only one Savior—the Lord God. It is thus highly revealing of Christ’s divine nature that the New Testament refers to Jesus as “our great God and Savior” (Titus 2:13).

This trinitarian argument, like so many others, is simply sheer nonsense. Certainly, God is the only savior, but this does not preclude the clear scriptural fact that many humans can also be called saviors. Many other passages in the Bible state that certain humans are saviors, raised up (i.e., commissioned as agents) by Yahweh: Othniel ben-Kenaz (Judg. 3:9), Ehud ben-Gera (v. 15), David (2 Sam. 3:18), Jeroboam ben-Jehoash (2 Kings 14:27), and many unnamed human saviors (Neh. 9:27, Obad. 1:21).

    Does this mean that all of those other humans were actually God incarnate? Certainly not! The fact is that God is the only savior only in the sense that He is the ultimate source from whom all salvation comes, but He often acts out this salvation through the use of intermediaries. See, for example, Judges 2:16-18:

Then Yahweh raised up judges who saved them from the hands of those who plundered them... And when Yahweh raised up judges for them, Yahweh was with the judge and saved them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge; for Yahweh was moved to pity by their groaning because of those who tormented and oppressed them.

In almost the same breath, we are told that the judges saved Israel (making them, by the most basic definition of the word, “saviors”) as well as that Yahweh is the one who saved Israel. Which is correct? Both, because although the judges were the immediate cause of Israel’s salvation, God was the ultimate source of their salvific actions, being with them “all the days of the judge”. In the same way, we are told by Paul that “God was in Christ conciliating the world to Himself” (2 Cor. 5:19).

    But what about Titus 2:13, which AiG quotes to ‘prove’ that Jesus is both God and Savior? As a matter of fact, this verse could either be translated as “our great God and Savior Jesus Christ”, or “the great God and Jesus Christ our Savior” (in which case it would not be calling Jesus “the great God”). To use the Granville Sharp Rule in order to make this verse prove the deity of Christ is actually circular reasoning, as I argued in a previous post, because that rule requires that only one individual is in view (which is not true if Jesus isn’t the same as God). All that this verse definitely shows is that Jesus is our savior, which neither trinitarians nor unitarians would deny.

Likewise, God asserted in Isaiah 44:24: “I am the Lord, who makes all things, who stretches out the heavens all alone, who spreads abroad the earth by Myself” (emphasis added). [sic] The fact that God alone “makes all things” (Isaiah 44:24)—and the accompanying fact that Christ is claimed to be the Creator of “all things” (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2)—proves that Christ is truly God.

As shown in the previous section, none of those three verses actually prove that Jesus was involved in the original Genesis creation of “the heavens and the earth”. Other verses show that Jesus was not involved in the original creation (e.g., Acts 17:24, 31; Heb. 2:10). Jesus is the creator of the “new creation” (2 Cor. 5:17-18), not the old creation, and so this argument for the deity of Christ also fails.

    In the next part of this critique of Answers in Genesis’ trinitarian apologetics, we will deal with their defense of the Trinity doctrine against “unitarian objections”. Spoiler alert: many of their so-called “objections” are complete straw men of actual unitarian arguments, and don’t engage with any of the objections that I raised in this post.

Part 2: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/05/is-jesus-god-answering-answers-in_01051501047.html

______________________________

[1] From A Distinctive Translation of Exodus With An Interpretive Outline

[2] Matt. 22:44; 26:64; Mk. 13:36; 14:62; 16:19; Lk. 20:42-43; 22:69; Acts 2:34-35; 5:31; 7:55-56; Rom. 8:34; 1 Cor. 15:25; Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12-13; 12:2; 1 Pet. 3:22-24.

[3] Martin Luther’s translation translates el gibbor as simply “Held”, meaning “hero”.

[4] Notice the similarity of the Israelites worshipping “Yahweh and the king”, and Thomas’ exclamation in John 20:28, “My Lord, and my God!” In both cases, it seems likely that the worshippers are worshipping God along with someone else (in these cases, David and Jesus).

[5] Although there is definitely a sort of reverence that God alone deserves, which is why Jesus commands us, “the Lord our God, the Lord is one, and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength” (Mk. 12:29-30). This sort of reverence is deserved by the Father alone, however, which is why Jesus says “the Lord our God” at the beginning of this passage rather than “the Lord your God” (cf. Jn. 20:17), and why Jesus elsewhere says that true worshippers worship the Father (Jn. 4:23-24).

A Unitarian View of the Holy Spirit (part 2 of 2)

By Sean Finnegan (also view it on his website here)

Part 1: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/05/a-unitarian-view-of-holy-spirit-part-1.html

    Throughout our study so far, we have focused on what the holy spirit is, rather than what it is not. However, considering the fact that so much of Christendom holds to the doctrine of the Trinity—including the idea that the holy spirit is a distinct individual from the Father and Son—I thought it would be appropriate to discuss why the spirit is not a “person.” The pressure to conform to the “orthodox” doctrine of the spirit’s personality comes from multiple sources. From internet websites zealously anathematizing anyone who dares to deny the spirit its co-equal, co-eternal, and co-essential status with the Father and the Son to most modern Bible translations that constantly translate neuter pronouns like “which” and “it” as “who” and “he” to my very own word processor that angrily underlines the capitalized “holy spirit” with jagged red electronic ink. Yet, regardless of the pressure to conform to a Trinitarian understanding of the holy spirit, there are several rather devastating reasons why the spirit is not a distinct “person.” [15]

    The Holy Spirit Does Not Have a Name

In the Bible, one’s name meant more than what people said to get someone’s attention. Rather, one’s name encapsulated all that a person stood for. The meaning of one’s name reflected his or her nature. For example, God’s proper name, Yahweh, is derived from the Hebrew verb “to be.” The statements, “I am who I am” and “[He] who was and who is and who is to come” reflect the meaning of His name (Exodus 3:14; Revelation 4:8). To be Yahweh is to be the existent one—the one who is always there. Jesus’ name means “Yahweh is salvation,” which makes sense when one stops to consider that Jesus was the means of Yahweh’s salvation for all mankind. Consider the statement about Jesus, “For there is no other name under heaven…by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Yet, the holy spirit is given no proper name. This is astounding if the holy spirit were truly a “person” equal with, yet distinct from the Father and Son. In fact, in biblical culture having one’s name stricken from the record was one of the severest punishments. It is hard to imagine why “God the Holy Spirit” neglected to reveal “his” name when the Father and Son certainly have.

    The Holy Spirit Never Sends Greetings

At the beginning of each of the thirteen letters written by Paul, the first few verses include some variation of the following benediction: “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” [16]  This consistency is remarkable. Paul delivers grace and peace from God and Jesus to his readers but never from the holy spirit. If the spirit were a person, distinct from the Father and Son, then why does “he” never send grace and peace? In addition, the letter of James opens with “James, a bond-servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ….” Apparently, James considers himself a lifetime slave to the Father and the Son, but no mention is made concerning the holy spirit. Furthermore, the first letter of John begins with the following statement of fellowship: “…indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:3). Again, it would not make sense to leave out the holy spirit from fellowship with the believers if it were an independent person from the Father and Son.

    The Holy Spirit Is Owned by God

The phrase “spirit of God” appears twelve times in the NT, not counting variations. [17] In Greek, the phrase “of God” is one word, theou, which is in the genitive case. This is the possessive case and can be translated into either English using the preposition “of” or the apostrophe and “s” designation. For example, if Spot is the dog of Grace, then Spot is Grace’s dog—Grace is Spot’s owner. Thus it is with the spirit. It is God’s spirit—Yahweh is the source and possessor of the spirit. It goes where He sends it and does what He wants it to do. The spirit is not independent of God, but it is His influence and presence. For example, Paul asks, “For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God” (1 Corinthians 2:11).

    The Holy Spirit Is Never Prayed To

Jesus gave explicit instructions for prayer in the Sermon on the Mount and then again at the last supper. He always instructed his disciples to pray to the Father. Then, at the last supper, he told them to pray to the Father in the name of Jesus Christ. This is especially noteworthy since the coming of the holy spirit was one of the topics he discussed at length in John 13-17. Why not ask the spirit directly to come into the new believer? Instead, Jesus says, “…if you ask the Father for anything in my name, he will give it to you” (John 16:23) and “…but if I go, I will send him [the helper] to you” (John 16:7). Furthermore, John the Baptist prophesied that one would come after him who would baptize in holy spirit (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33). This was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost when Jesus poured forth what the people saw and heard—the holy spirit (Acts 2:33). If the spirit were a person, then why does it not have a say about its own sending? The chain of events is clear, the convert or evangelist prays to God in the name of Jesus to receive spirit, and then Jesus baptizes the new believer in the spirit which proceeds from God.

    The Holy Spirit Is Left Out of Key Passages

Jesus confirmed the time-honored creed of the Jewish people when he declared, “…Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength” (Mark 12:28-29). Where is the holy spirit in this creedal statement? Why didn’t Jesus add the holy spirit in when he quoted it? When Jesus walked on this earth, he had an incredible oneness with his Father (John 10:30). He lived in a state of perpetual communion, always doing the works, [18] obeying the will, [19] and speaking the words [20] of his Father. In fact, several times, God spoke to Jesus audibly, and others heard what He said (Luke 3:22; Mark 9:7; John 12:28). Jesus expressed the oneness he enjoyed with the Father in the following words, “All things have been handed over to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal him” (Matthew 11:27). No one really knows the Son except the Father. No one really knows the Father except the Son. No one can know the Father unless the Son reveals Him. These words express a great deal of exclusivity. Why is the holy spirit left out? Why doesn’t Jesus also enjoy oneness with the third person of the Trinity like he does with the Father?

    In the Olivet Discourse, Jesus explained what would happen just before the Kingdom comes (Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21). After expressing to his disciples that they should be able to tell when the end is near, he clarifies by saying, “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone” (Matthew 24:36). It is evident that in Jesus’ mind, the potential beings who may have end-times knowledge include humans, the angels, himself, and the Father. Why is it that only the Father knows when the end will come? If the holy spirit were also God, why is it left out twice (once from those who potentially could know, but don’t; and once from those who do know)?

    Several of the prophets had visions of Yahweh on His throne (1 Kings 22:19; Isaiah 6:1; Ezekiel 1:26; Daniel 7:9; Revelation 4:2). Jesus has been promised the throne of David (Luke 1:32). Until then, he is seated with the Father on His throne (Revelation 3:21). What about the holy spirit’s throne? Why is the holy spirit left out if it were also God? Of course, there are other reasons why the Trinitarian understanding of the holy spirit does not make sense, but these are, in my view, the five strongest. Before concluding our study, we should first work through the most common reasons given for believing in the spirit’s personality.

    What about All Those Personal Pronouns in John 14-16?

Nearly all modern translations have adopted the standard of using personal pronouns (like “he” and “him”) in reference to the holy spirit. This is unusual because the word “spirit” or pneuma is neuter in Greek, and the pronouns the Bible uses are likewise neuter (like it and which). Although it is often the case that masculine and feminine Greek pronouns are translated in English as “it” or “which,” neuter words in Greek are virtually never translated into English using personal pronouns except when referring to the spirit. Immediately, this double standard should grab our attention as a potential area of bias in translation. Jason BeDuhn insightfully explains the matter as follows:

Jason BeDuhn on Translating Greek Gender into English

Now it turns out that both “masculine” and “feminine” Greek nouns can be used for impersonal things as well as persons. But “neuter” nouns are used only for impersonal things, such as objects, animals, forces, abstract principles, and so on. The same holds true for “masculine,” “feminine,” and “neuter” pronouns…But even though the “personal” category is larger in Greek than in English, the “Holy Spirit” is referred to by a “neuter” noun in Greek. Consequently, it is never spoken of with personal pronouns in Greek. It is a “which,” not a “who.” It is an “it,” not a “he.” This is the case, then, where the importance of the principle of following primary, ordinary, generally recognized meaning of the Greek when translating becomes clear. To take a word that everywhere else would be translated “which” or “that,” and arbitrarily change it to “who” or “whom” when it happens to be used of “the holy spirit,” is a kind of special pleading. In other words, it is a biased way to translate. And because this arbitrary change cannot be justified linguistically, it is also inaccurate. [21]

Why isn’t the word “which” translated “who” if it is masculine? This is because in English we never designate non-persons with masculine and feminine pronouns unless a figure of speech called personification is taking place. For example, ships and cars are sometimes represented in English with feminine pronouns, but everyone recognizes that they are impersonal objects.

    Thus, a word’s grammatical gender does not automatically imply sexual gender. [22] If it did, then one would be quite confused about the gender of the holy spirit. In Hebrew ruach is feminine, in Greek pneuma is neuter, and parakletos is masculine. If grammatical gender did imply sexual gender, what pronouns would we use: “she,” “it,” or “he?” The only way to determine how to translate the pronouns is based on the belief of the translator concerning whether or not the word in question is a person. This process works fine in most cases except when the theological bias of translators dictates personhood. In these cases (“word” in John 1:1-3 and “holy spirit” throughout the NT), the translators break their own consistency and impose their theological bias without leaving so much as a footnote. Then, honest Bible students see that masculine pronouns are used in reference to the spirit along with capitalization—an equally biased contrivance—and then claim because of this that the spirit is a person. The result is circular reasoning.

    The word “spirit” is neuter; therefore, the pronouns referring to “spirit” should be translated accordingly as “it,” “which,” etc. If modern translators followed this standard, there would be little question about the holy spirit (at least until the reader broached John 14:16 where parakletos (helper) is masculine and may thus be referred to with masculine pronouns). Everything depends on whether or not the translator believes the paraklete is a person, but this is a theological rather than grammatical question. Even so, several times in the context, these two words are used interchangeably. This has a significant bearing on the matter.

John 14:16-17

...He will give you another helper, that he may be with you forever; that is the spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive...

John 14:25-26

These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. But the helper, the holy spirit, whom the Father will send in my name...

John 15:26

When the helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, he will testify about me

John 16:13

I have more things to say to you but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth...

The helper is the holy spirit (or spirit of truth). Since pneuma, the word translated “spirit,” is neuter, it is clear grammatically that the spirit is not a person. Furthermore, if in the other sixty-five books of the Bible the spirit is not a person (and the helper is equated to the spirit), then we must conclude that the helper (although represented by a masculine noun and masculine pronouns) should also be translated as neuter. The only reasonable exception would be if personification is in use. [23]

    What about the Phrase “The Holy Spirit Says?”

Several texts have been used to support the belief the holy spirit is a person because the holy spirit speaks (2 Samuel 23:2; Matthew 22:43; Mark 12:36; Acts 1:16; 28:25; Hebrews 3:7; 9:8). Although communicating (i.e. speaking one’s mind) is certainly an indication of personhood, this is not necessarily the case for these texts because the spirit is a way of talking about God in action. Peter put it this way, “for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the holy spirit spoke from God” (2 Peter 1:21). God speaks through the holy spirit; it is not only His finger but also His mouth. This is how we came to have the Scriptures. They were a result of God’s inspiration of the writer through the medium of His spirit, word, and wisdom.

    It is a well-known fact that the Jews have regularly used other words in an effort not to pronounce God’s name. For example, “heaven,” [24] “blessed,” [25] “holy One,” [26] “Lord,” [27] etc. are ways of referring to Yahweh without uttering His name. In like manner, the phrases “word of God,” “spirit of God,” “breath of God,” “wisdom of God,” “glory of God,” and “power of God,” are circumlocutions for God’s activity in the world. Dunn is once again helpful here:

James Dunn on “The Holy Spirit Says”

As for the rabbinic formula (‘The Holy Spirit says’), is this any more than what we might call a literary hypostatization? —that is, a habit of language which by use and wont develops what is only an apparent distinction between Yahweh and one of these words and phrases used earlier to describe his activity towards men (here particularly in inspiring scripture). Have we in all these cases any more than a personification, a literary (or verbal) device to speak of God’s action without becoming involved every time in a more complicated description of how the transcendent God can intervene on earth? —in other words, simply a useful shorthand device (‘Spirit of God,’ ‘glory of God,’ etc.) which can both express the character of God’s immanence in a particular instance and safeguard his transcendence at the same time without more ado. [28]

    What About the Intercession of the Holy Spirit?

The following text is quoted in an attempt to prove that the holy spirit is a person:

Romans 8:26-27

In the same way the spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; and he who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the spirit is, because he intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.

Joseph Thayer reads this text as follows:

Joseph Thayer on Romans 8:26 

Romans 8:26 means, as the whole context shows, nothing other than this: ‘although we have no very definite conception of what we desire, and cannot state it in fit language in our prayer but only disclose it by inarticulate groanings, yet God receives these groanings as acceptable prayers inasmuch as they come from a soul full of the Holy Spirit.’ [29]

Another possible way to understand this text is to remember that the spirit is used interchangeably with Christ (cf. Romans 8:9-11). If this is the case here, then Christ is the one who intercedes on our behalf. This interpretation gains traction once we realize that a few verses later Christ is called the one “who also intercedes for us” (Romans 8:34). It is not at all unexpected to see a blurring of categories here; this is common in Paul’s letters.

    What about Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit?

Occasionally, people claim that denying the personality of the holy spirit is the unforgivable sin of blaspheming the spirit. In order to get to the bottom of the matter, we must remember the context of Jesus’ remarks about blaspheming the holy spirit. A demonized man was healed by Christ, and the Pharisees accused Jesus of casting out demons by Beelzebul, the ruler of demons. Christ pointed out the absurdity of “Satan casting out Satan” and then confessed that it was by God’s spirit that he cast out demons. Then he made the statement, “Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the holy spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come” (Matthew 12:32). Blasphemy against the holy spirit is observing God in action through His human Messiah and declaring that the source of his power was demonic rather than divine. In essence, they were calling God the prince of demons. This sort of unrepentant, hardhearted, intentional blasphemy against God at work in His Messiah is unforgivable.

    Conclusion

I have endeavored to accomplish two tasks: to define the holy spirit from the Scriptures and to explain why the traditional doctrine does not hold up to scrutiny. After consulting both Old and New Testaments, we discovered the holy spirit is a way of talking about God and Jesus in action, especially within the church. Although the spirit is not a person distinct from the Father and Son, it is certainly very personal. If the biblical evidence for the spirit’s personality is so lacking, why do so many believe in it today? BeDuhn explains what happened:

Jason BeDuhn on Theology Influencing Translation

Later Christian theology also applied the technical status of a ‘person’ on the Holy Spirit, which has led modern translators and readers to think of the Holy Spirit in human terms as a “who,” even a “he,” rather than as an “it” that transcends human measures of personhood. [30]

As we have seen, nearly all modern translations carry forward the tradition of theological bias on this issue. Ironically, translators were actually trying to honor the spirit as God and help people “rightly” understand the Scriptures. Yet, is it more honoring to change the meaning of someone/something or to represent it as it truly is? Certainly if the Bible teaches unequivocally the spirit is a person, then God doesn’t need the translators’ help to teach this doctrine by tweaking pronouns in favor of orthodoxy. The time is ripe for a fresh reconsideration of this matter. People deserve to know in actuality who God, His Son, and the holy spirit truly are. 

______________________________

[15] According to the Trinity, person means an individual or a mind (emotions, intellect, and will). Person does not mean a human being. God the Father is a person. Jesus is a person.

[16] Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:3; 2 Corinthians 1:2; Galatians 1:3; Ephesians 1:2; Philippians 1:2; Colossians 1:2; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:2; 1 Timothy 1:2; 2 Timothy 1:2; Titus 1:4; Philemon 1:3

[17] Matthew 3:16; 12:28; Romans 8:9, 14; 1 Corinthians 2:11, 14; 3:16; 7:40; 12:3; Ephesians 4:30; Philippians 3:3; 1 John 4:2

[18] John 8:29; 10:25, 32, 37; 14:10; 17:4

[19] John 3:34; 5:30; 6:38; 14:31; 15:10

[20] John 7:16; 8:26, 28, 38; 12:49-50; 14:24; 17:8, 14

[21] Jason David BeDuhn, Truth in Translation ©2003, University Press of America, page 140.

[22] We have already noted that if a Greek word is neuter, then it does reflect that in English, and the word should use impersonal pronouns.

[23] Personification would not be unusual because this technique is often used to express truth in Scripture (for example, wisdom is personified as a lady in Proverbs 8). Also, note that Jesus himself said “these things I have spoken to you in figurative language...” (John 16:25).

[24] Matthew 19:23-24; Mark 11:30; Luke 15:18, 21

[25] Mark 14:61; 1 Timothy 6:15

[26] 2 Kings 19:22; Job 6:10; 1 John 2:20

[27] Virtually every OT quotation in which “Yahweh” had appeared has been rendered “Lord” (kurios).

[28] James DG Dunn, Christology in the Making (second edition) ©1989, Eerdmans Publishing Co. page 134.

[29] Joseph Henry Thayer, D.D., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament ©1977, Mott Media, page 522

[30] Jason David BeDuhn, Truth in Translation ©2003, University Press of America, page 136.