Refuting All Trinitarian ‘Proof-Texts’
The Epistles of Paul
Romans 1:3-4: Jesus is both the Son of David according to the flesh, and the Lord and Son of God according to the Spirit of holiness. This confirms the distinction between the Son and the Spirit, and (at least superficially appears to) affirm the two natures of Jesus.
The key word here is “superficially.” To a reader who was unfamiliar with the idea of ‘two natures,’ this would not have been obvious at all. It doesn’t say that Jesus is God according to the Spirit, but that he was “appointed [horizo] the Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness, by resurrection from the dead.” The resurrection was the point at which Jesus fully came into his role as the Son of God (Acts 13:33). However, it would make no sense to say that Jesus was appointed to be God at his resurrection.
The title “Son of God” is not an enigmatic way to say that Jesus is God. From a biblical perspective, the Son of God refers to God’s representative king (1 Chron. 28:5; Psa. 2:6-7; 89:20, 26-27; Luke 1:32-33; John 1:49) and is used interchangeably with the title “Messiah” (Matt. 16:16, 20; Luke 4:41; John 19:7, 12; 20:31; Eph. 4:13; 1 John 5:1, 5). [1] Since the resurrection was the point at which Jesus was “given all authority over heaven and earth” and “made Lord and Messiah” (Matt. 28:18; Acts 2:36; Rom. 14:9-11; Phil. 2:9-11), this is when he was appointed as “the Son of God with power,” even though he was also God’s Son beforehand.
Romans 8:3: See note on John 17:16, 18.
See my response to the note on John 17:16, 18.
Romans 8:9-17, 26-29: The Father, Son, and Spirit are distinguished from one another. Furthermore, the Spirit is said to have a mind (v. 27) and to both testify and intercede for us (vv. 16, 26), demonstrating His personality.
Romans 8:16 says, “The spirit itself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God.” Our own spirits are not separate persons, yet in this passage they are also said to “testify.” Evidently, there is some personification going on in this passage, so there is no reason to see the spirit of God here as any more personal than our own spirits. In the immediate context of Rom. 8:16, the spirit ‘testifies’ by being an identifying marker of the children of God (Rom. 8:14-15).
Furthermore, this passage actually doesn’t consistently distinguish between the spirit and Jesus. In fact, Paul freely interchanges “Christ” and “the spirit of Christ” (Rom. 8:9-11). Therefore, when he says that the Spirit intercedes for us, he could be referring to Jesus’ own intercessory work. This is supported by the immediate context, in which it is Jesus who is referred to as “he who is interceding for us” (Rom. 8:34).
Romans 8:35-39: “The love of Christ” is equated with “the love of God.”
Yes, because “the love of God” is “in the Messiah Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8:39). According to Paul, God demonstrated His love for us by sending Jesus to die for us (Rom. 5:8). Thus, Jesus is the perfect expression of God’s love. This does not equate Jesus with God; on the contrary, they are consistently distinguished in this passage.
Romans 9:1: Paul undertakes the Oath of Testimony, swearing that he is telling the truth, which (under pain of death) the Jews were not allowed to swear by anything less than God Himself. Jesus confirms that no one may swear by anything less than God, even by heaven itself (Matt. 5:34-37; cf. Jas. 5:12). However, here Paul swears by Christ and the Holy Spirit!
Paul doesn’t swear by Christ in this passage; instead, he states, “I am telling the truth in Christ.” Throughout Paul’s letter to the Romans, “in Christ” refers to those in the body of Christ (Rom. 6:3; 8:1; 12:5; 16:3, 7, 9-10), so he is simply saying that he is telling the truth as a member of the body of Christ. He actually only swears by the holy spirit, which is entirely consistent with unitarianism, since the holy spirit is the powerful presence of God.
Romans 9:5: Christ is referred to as “the One being God over all, blessed to the ages.” The grammar is fairly unambiguous, considering that there is no contextual reason why Paul would suddenly switch from describing Christ to describing the Father.
The grammar of this verse is most definitely
not “fairly unambiguous.” On the contrary, the Greek can be translated three different ways that are consistent with the grammar, all of which can be found in modern translations:
- From them [Israel], according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is God over all, blessed to the ages. [NIV, NKJV, ESV, NLT, CSB]
- From them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God be blessed to the ages. [KJV, Douay-Rheims, ASV, NRSV, NASB, YLT]
- From them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah. God who is over all be blessed to the ages. [ASB, CEV, GNT]
Most mainstream translations are divided between options 1 and 2, while a few take option 3. The grammar is evidently not unambiguous, and the meaning of the text must be determined based on context. First, since Paul elsewhere only refers to the Father as “over all” (Eph. 4:6) and states that Jesus is subordinate to the Father (Rom. 15:6; 1 Cor. 11:3; 2 Cor. 1:3; 11:31; Gal. 1:4; Eph. 1:3) it seems unlikely that he would be referring to Christ as “over all” in this verse.
Second, in the larger context of Rom. 9:1-5, Paul’s point is to describe eight advantages that God has given to Israel: “the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the Law, the worship, the promises… the patriarchs, and… the Messiah.” It would make sense at this point for Paul to break into a doxology praising the Father for His gracious treatment of Israel (Jer. 3:19; Mal. 2:16), but it wouldn’t make sense to break into a doxology praising the Messiah.
For these contextual reasons, it seems likely that the correct translation is option 2 or 3: “From them… comes the Messiah. God who is over all be blessed to the ages.” Option 1 remains a possibility, but this is by no means a conclusive argument for the deity of the Messiah.
Romans 9:32-33: Paul states that Christ has become a stumbling stone and rock of offense (see also Rom. 10:9-11), in accordance with the OT prophecy (Isa. 8:14). However, in the original OT context it is Yahweh Who will become a stone of stumbling and rock of offense to Israel.
Jesus can fulfill prophecies about Yahweh without being Yahweh Himself, since he is God’s agent. In the Old Testament, statements about Yahweh were fulfilled by human agents of God (e.g., Exod. 7:17-21; 14:14-16, 21; Judg. 2:16-18). Thus, as the agent of God, it’s entirely possible for Jesus to fulfill statements about God without necessarily being God Himself.
Romans 10:13: Paul quotes Joel 2:32, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” In the original OT context, “the Lord” Who is called upon for salvation is Yahweh Himself, whereas in the context of Paul’s quotation, it is Jesus.
According to Jesus, “Whoever believes in me does not believe in me only, but in Him who sent me” (John 12:44 cf. 13:20; Matt. 10:40). This is standard agency language; as the agent of God, the one who accepts Jesus accepts God, and the one who rejects Jesus rejects God. The same principle is applied to other representatives of God, like the prophets (Exod. 16:8; 1 Sam. 8:7; 1 Thess. 4:8). Thus, to call upon the name of Jesus is to call upon the name of Yahweh, not because Jesus is Yahweh but because he’s Yahweh’s representative.
In the epistle to the Romans, “Lord” as a title of Jesus does not mean “Yahweh”. Paul repeatedly says that Jesus is “my Lord” and “our Lord” (Rom. 4:34; 5:1, 11, 21; 6:23; 7:25; 8:39; 15:6, 30; 16:18, 20, 24); but Yahweh is a personal name, not a title, so “our Yahweh” makes no sense (and isn’t found anywhere in the Old Testament). Furthermore, the Father is said to be the God of “our Lord” Jesus, whereas Yahweh has no God above Him (Exod. 20:3; Rom. 15:6); and Jesus is said to have become Lord after his resurrection (Rom. 14:9). Therefore, to confess that “Jesus is Lord” (Rom. 10:9) is not to say that Jesus is Yahweh.
Romans 10:20: Paul states that the prophecy in Isaiah 65:1, in which Yahweh proclaims that He has been found by those who did not seek Him, has been fulfilled now that the Gentiles have come to faith. However, in the context of Paul’s application of the prophecy, it is Jesus Who has been found by the Gentiles (vv. 6-8).
It is not at all clear from context that Paul is referring to Jesus and not to the Father. The original passage, Isaiah 65:1, is explicitly spoken by the Father (Isa. 64:8), so this verse cannot be speaking of Jesus — unless Jesus and the Father are in fact the same person, which is certainly out of the question.
Romans 14:6-9: Paul states that anyone who fasts, or does not fast, does so “with regard to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God.” However, the Lord in question is identified as Jesus in v. 9. Thus, this is likely another instance in which Jesus is called “the God” (ho theos), albeit indirectly.
In Romans 14:6, “to [the] Lord” is anarthrous (without the definite article), and so likely refers to Yahweh (the Father), whereas in Romans 14:8, “to the Lord” has the definite article, and so likely refers to Jesus. This is in line with the usage of kurios with and without the definite article throughout the New Testament. [2] Believers are servants of both God and Jesus, so it makes perfect sense that both would be mentioned in this passage (Jas. 1:1).
Romans 15:30: The Father, Son, and Spirit are yet again distinguished personally from one another. Furthermore, the Spirit is said to love, something which very clearly implies His personality.
This verse doesn't say that the spirit loves, but Paul exhorts the Romans “through the love of the spirit.” The love of the spirit is not the spirit’s own love, but the love which comes from the spirit (cf. Phil. 2:1-2, “fellowship of the spirit”). The spirit could be a source of love without itself being a personal being.
1 Corinthians 1:31: Paul quotes Jeremiah 9:24 as saying, “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord,” where “the Lord” is “Yahweh.” However, in the context of Paul’s quotation, the Lord is Jesus Christ. This shows that Paul believed Jesus to be Yahweh.
In this verse, Paul actually alters Jeremiah 9:24 (LXX), which originally stated, “Let him who boasts boast in this: that I am the Lord who exercises mercy, and judgment, and righteousness upon the earth.” Since Paul is intentionally altering the original OT verse, it’s not at all clear that he wants the reader to conclude that Jesus is Yahweh.
Instead, Paul has just said that Jesus became several attributes of God for us, like “wisdom... righteousness and sanctification and redemption” (1 Cor. 1:30). The Jeremiah passage says that we should boast in the fact that God exercises mercy, judgment, and righteousness; but now Jesus has become those things for us, so we should boast in him. In the context of Paul’s overall argument in 1 Cor. 1:24-31, this interpretation makes much more sense than saying that Jesus is Yahweh.
1 Corinthians 2:10: The Spirit is said to be omniscient, for He “searches all things.” Furthermore, the Spirit is said to even search out “the depths of God,” something which no one but God Himself can search out (Rom. 11:33).
Continuing the passage, “For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way, no one knows the thoughts of God except the spirit of God” (1 Cor. 2:11). Our own spirit isn’t a person separate from us, so this verse actually suggests that the spirit of God is not a person separate from God.
1 Corinthians 2:16: Paul quotes Isa. 40:13, “Who has known the mind of Yahweh?” followed up by the statement, “But we have the mind of Christ.” This equates Yahweh with Christ.
On the contrary, the point of Isa. 40:13 is that no one knows the mind of God. If Paul were equating Jesus with God, this verse would be totally contradictory: “No one knows the mind of God, but we have the mind of God.” Instead, this verse suggests that Jesus is not Yahweh, since no one knows the mind of Yahweh, but we know the mind of Jesus. Although we can approach knowledge of God by having the mind of Messiah Jesus (Phil. 2:5), we can still never fully understand God’s mind (Rom. 11:33-35).
1 Corinthians 8:4-6: Paul states that Jesus Christ is greater than any lesser god or lord, referring to Jesus as the one Lord. Although unitarians often press this passage into service as a unitarian prooftext, the context makes clear that Paul is placing Jesus on the same level as the Father, as the Adonai. Furthermore, Paul breaks up the traditional doxology — “from Whom and through Whom and to Whom are all things” — by speaking of the Father “from Whom are all things” and of the Lord Jesus “through Whom are all things.” Again, this puts Jesus on the same level as the Father, as the one God.
On the contrary, 1 Cor. 8:4-6 absolutely does not support the idea that Jesus is Yahweh. In verse 6, Paul contrasts the “one God, the Father” with the “many gods” of the pagans, and the “one Lord, Jesus Christ” with the “many [human] lords” of the pagans. The comparison breaks down if Paul is referring to Jesus as more than a human lord. Furthermore, given that Jesus became Lord at his resurrection (Acts 2:36; Rom. 14:9), the title “Lord” when applied to Jesus can’t mean Yahweh nor Adonai.
Furthermore, when Paul says, “from [the Father] are all things… and through [Jesus] are all things,” he’s not speaking of the original creation. On the contrary, it is the new creation in which “all things” come “from God” and “through the Messiah” (2 Cor. 5:17-18). Jesus was God’s chosen agent to accomplish the new creation, but not the original creation, which was accomplished by the Father alone without the use of intermediaries (Isa. 44:24). Therefore, 1 Cor. 8:6 does not support Jesus’ deity nor pre-existence.
1 Corinthians 12:4-11: The Spirit, the Lord (Jesus), and the God (the Father) are each personally distinguished from one another while their equal authority over the church and spiritual gifts is recognized. Furthermore, the Spirit is said to have a “will” and to decide which spiritual gifts go to which person, affirming His personality.
This passage actually says that it is God, the Father, who is “working all [spiritual gifts] in everyone” by distributing them “through the spirit” (1 Cor. 12:6-10; cf. Heb. 2:4). In light of this, the statement that the spirit “apportions [spiritual gifts] individually to each as it wills” (v. 11) is personification. Alternatively, this could be translated to say that the spirit “apportions spiritual gifts individually to each as He [God] wills.”
2 Corinthians 3:17-18: The Spirit is said to be “the Spirit of the Lord” as well as “the Lord” Himself.
In context, “the Lord” refers to Yahweh, the Father, whose glory was seen only with a veil in the Old Testament, but now is seen unveiled (2 Cor. 3:13-18). “The Lord is the spirit” because the spirit is God’s personal presence within us, which we see unveiled as a result of the mediating work of Jesus.
2 Corinthians 5:10: Paul states that “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ,” whereas elsewhere he states that “we must all appear before the judgment seat of God” (Rom. 14:10). This demonstrates that the throne of God is the same as the throne of Christ (a fact affirmed even more emphatically in the book of Revelation).
Jesus has been given the authority to judge, but God is the true power behind the judgment (John 5:22, 27, 30). Thus, the judgment seat of the Messiah is also the judgment seat of God. In the same way, it was said in the Old Testament that Solomon “was placed on [Yahweh’s] throne... to do judgment in righteousness” (2 Chron. 9:8; cf. 1 Chron 29:23). Thus, this does not show that Jesus is anything more than an exalted human, the ideal Davidic king.
2 Corinthians 10:17: Paul quotes Jeremiah 9:24 as saying, “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord,” where “the Lord” is “Yahweh.” However, in the context of Paul’s quotation, the only Lord is Jesus Christ. This shows that Paul believed Jesus to be Yahweh.
There is nothing in the context to suggest that Paul is referring to Jesus here. However, even if he did intend this to refer to Jesus, he intentionally altered the original reading of Jeremiah 9:24 (LXX); see my response to the note on 1 Corinthians 1:31.
2 Corinthians 13:14: The Spirit, the Lord Jesus, and the God (the Father) are personally distinguished from one another. Furthermore, the Spirit is said to have “fellowship” with us, which is inconceivable unless He is personal.
This verse does not say that believers have fellowship with the Spirit, but that believers have “the fellowship of the spirit,” which refers to the fellowship that believers have with one another thanks to the gift of the holy spirit (cf. Phil. 2:1-2).
Galatians 4:4: See note on John 17:16, 18.
See my response to the note on John 17:16, 18.
Galatians 4:6: The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are personally distinguished from one another. The Spirit’s personality is once again affirmed as Paul states that He cries out, “Abba Father!” within our hearts.
In this verse, the Son and the Spirit are not distinguished from another. On the contrary, it states, “God has sent the spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’” This refers to Jesus’ presence in our hearts, marking us as children of God (Rom. 8:9-11, 14-17; Eph. 3:16-17).
Ephesians 1:3-14: The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are once again personally distinguished from one another, and each are praised for their respective role in salvation (the Father for predestining us, the Son for saving us, and the Spirit for sealing us).
In this passage, the holy spirit is not praised for sealing us, it’s merely stated factually that believers have been “marked with the seal of the promised holy spirit.” This doesn’t require the spirit to be a separate person.
Ephesians 4:8: Paul, quoting Psalm 68:18, states that when Christ “ascended on high, He led captive captivity, and He gave gifts to people.” However, in the original OT context, it is explicitly Yahweh God Who is doing this.
In this passage, Paul is modifying the meaning of Psalm 68:18, which was originally about God ascending the mountain of Jerusalem, “leading captives in His train and receiving gifts from men.” Paul takes this verse out of context and flips its meaning around to describe Jesus’ ascension to heaven in which he “led captivity captive and gave gifts to men.” Since Paul is liberally interpreting the original meaning of this psalm, as he does elsewhere with other OT passages, [3] there is no reason to believe that Paul is identifying Jesus as Yahweh. Furthermore, in contemporary Jewish literature, Psalm 68:18 was commonly applied to Moses, showing that ancient Jews had no problem applying texts about Yahweh to humans. [4]
Philippians 2:5-8: Christ Jesus, although being inherently in the form of God, did not grasp at equality with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant. Being born in the likeness of man, and being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death on a cross. Traditionally, this passage is seen as describing the ‘two natures’ of Jesus; one morphe nature (that of God) which He inherently has, and one morphe nature (that of mankind) which He took upon Himself. This passage also demonstrates His pre-existence.
Here is the pre-Pauline hymn in question, from Philippians 2:6-11, with Paul’s additions to the hymn in parentheses:
who, though he was in the form of God,
did not grasp at equality with God,
but emptied himself,
taking the form of a servant.
becoming in human likeness
and being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself,
becoming obedient unto death (even death of a cross).
therefore also God highly exalted him,
and gifted him the name above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow (in heaven and on earth and under earth),
and every tongue confess that ‘Jesus the Messiah is Lord’ (to the glory of God the Father).
This hymn must be read in context. It was meant to provide an example for the church at Philippi to follow, along with the examples of Epaphroditus and Paul who also ‘poured themselves out’ in humility (Phil. 2:5, 17, 25-30; 3:4-10). The example of a heavenly being becoming human wouldn’t be relatable. Furthermore, this hymn is supposed to be about the attitude of “Messiah Jesus” (Phil. 2:5), that is, the human Jesus after his baptismal anointing (Matt. 1:21; Mark 1:10-11; Acts 10:38). All this indicates that the hymn is about the human, not the pre-incarnate, Son.
This strongly suggests that the ‘second Adam’ interpretation of this hymn is correct. [5] Just like Adam (Gen. 1:26-27; 5:1), the human Jesus was made in the image (or “form”) of God. But unlike Adam (Gen. 3:5, 22), he did not grasp at equality with God, instead emptying and humbling himself, taking the “form” of the suffering servant who “poured himself out unto death” (Isa. 53:12). Therefore God exalted him, and he regained the threefold dominion over “heaven, earth, and under the earth” which Adam had lost (Gen. 1:28; Psa. 8:6-8; cf. Exod. 20:4).
Once these allusions to Adam and the Isaianic suffering servant are taken into account, it becomes clear that the entire hymn is about the earthly Jesus in his death and resurrection, and not the supposedly pre-incarnate Son.
Philippians 2:10-11: Paul quotes Isaiah 45:23, in which Yahweh swears by Himself that “to Me every knee will bow and every tongue will swear allegiance,” but reapplies it to Jesus. Since the original OT context is all about the supreme uniqueness of Yahweh compared to other derivative gods, the entire point of the passage would be annulled if Jesus were only human or a derivative god. Paul then says that everyone will confess that “Jesus Christ is Lord;” in the context, “Lord” is “Yahweh,” so this identifies Jesus with Yahweh Himself.
Philippians 2:11 states that “every tongue will confess that ‘Jesus the Messiah is Lord,’ to the glory of God, the Father.” As the primary representative of God, all praise to Jesus is ultimately for the glory of the Father who sent Him (cf. John 5:23; 12:44). Bowing and swearing allegiance to Jesus is, therefore, equivalent to bowing and swearing allegiance to God. This same OT text (Isa. 45:23) is quoted by Paul with regard to God, the Father, in Romans 14:10-11.
With regard to “Lord” as a title of Jesus in Paul’s epistles, see my response to the note on Romans 10:13.
Colossians 1:15: As the Son of the Father, in unity of action with the Father, Jesus perfectly reveals the Father (being the “image of the invisible God”), and as the Firstborn, He inherits the entire creation from the Father. This is consistent with trinitarianism, in which the Son derives His very being and authority from the Father.
This verse may be consistent with the doctrine of Jesus’ deity, but it does not support that doctrine. On the contrary, the fact that Jesus is “the image [eikon] of the invisible God” is supportive of the view that Jesus as the Messiah is God’s primary agent, not that Jesus is God Himself. The Greek word eikon refers to a representation of a thing, not to the thing itself. By virtue of having been sent and empowered by God, Jesus “speaks the words of God” and “does whatever the Father does,” and “the one who sees [Jesus] sees the One who sent [him]” (John 3:34; 5:19, 30; 12:45). This is the language of agency, not of deity.
Nor does the fact that Jesus is the firstborn of creation suggest that he is God or that he was created first. Throughout Scripture, the word “firstborn” is used to designate one who receives an inheritance, not one who was necessarily born first (e.g., Exod. 4:22; Jer. 31:9). In fact, in Psalm 89:27, God speaks of David, His anointed king, as His firstborn. Since Jesus is the Messiah, the ideal Davidic king, this makes him the firstborn who inherits the entire creation (Heb. 1:2), and believers are joint heirs with him (Rom. 8:17). But this does not make Jesus out to be God, nor does it imply that he pre-existed his birth.
Colossians 1:16: In this passage, Paul states that “all things were created [aorist] in” Jesus Christ, and “all things have been created [perfect] through Him and for Him.” This verse uses three of the prepositions which are used in the traditional formulation of God’s relationship to creation (“from Him and in Him and through Him and for Him”), with the exception of “from Him” since it is the Father, not the Son, Who initiates all creative action. This shows that Jesus was involved in creation, not only as the creative agent of God the Father, but as God Himself.
On the contrary, the overall Pauline context shows that Colossians 1:16 is referring to the new creation, not the original creation. Based on 2 Corinthians 5:17-18, we see Paul described the new creation also as “all things” (ta panta) and said that it was created “in” (en) and “through” (dia) the Messiah. Likewise, in Ephesians 2:10, Paul says that we “have been created in Messiah Jesus unto good works.” This is most certainly relevant to the Colossians hymn, because in Col. 1:14, he writes, “in him we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.”
Paul then explains the extent of this creation “in him” as “all things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or lordships or rulers or authorities.” In Ephesians 1:20-23, Paul says that Jesus has been exalted over “all thrones and lordships and rulers and authorities... all things [ta panta]... the church which is his body.” Thus, this still seems to be another way to describe the new creation — “in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible” highlights Jesus’ authority over both the human and angelic realms (cf. Eph. 3:10; 1 Pet. 3:22).
Thus, Colossians 1:16 should not be seen as implying that Jesus was the original Creator, but that he is the Messiah through whom God effects the new creation, which is the “all things” created “in” and “through him.” This is more consistent with the rest of the New Testament than the ‘old creation’ reading, because the New Testament authors consistently attribute the old creation to God alone while distinguishing Him from Jesus (Mark 10:6; 13:19; Acts 4:24, 30; 17:24, 31; Heb. 2:10; Rev. 4:11). This interpreation of Col. 1:16 was held even by post-Nicene Christians, such as Theodore of Mopsuestia (Comm. on Colossians 1.16a) and Gregory of Nyssa (Contra Eunomius IV.3).
Colossians 2:2: Paul speaks of his gospel as “tou musteriou tou Theou Christou.” This could be translated as “the mystery of God Christ,” in which case it would be explicitly calling Christ “the God” (tou theou). However, it could just as easily be translated as “the mystery of the God of Christ,” or even “the mystery of the Christ of God.”
Yes, the Greek of this verse is much more naturally translated as “the mystery of the God of Messiah,” or “the mystery of God, which is the Messiah,” rather than saying “the mystery of God Messiah.” This is especially true since the very word “Messiah” means anointed by God, so the title “God Messiah” would seem to be a contradiction in terms. Thus, this verse says nothing about Jesus’ deity.
Colossians 2:9: Paul states that “in Him [Jesus], all the fullness of the God-ness dwells bodily.” This is a straightforward claim to the absolute deity of Christ. Unitarians often point to Ephesians 3:19, which states that believers too can be “filled to all the fullness of God” without themselves being God. However, this is not a valid parallel for two reasons. First, whereas Eph. 3:19 states that believers may be filled with all the fullness of God (theos), Col. 2:9 states that Jesus has all the fullness of God-ness (theotes), that is, the state of being God. This is a small but very important distinction. Second, whereas Eph. 3:19 states that believers must be filled with the fullness of God, Col. 2:9 states that all the fullness of God-ness dwells bodily in Jesus. These two verses, though superficially similar, are in fact very different and do not parallel one another. Whereas believers must be filled with the fullness of God, all of the fullness of the ‘God-ness’ inherently dwells continually within Jesus.
This is incorrect. “To dwell” (katoikeo) in Greek does not necessarily refer to an inherent or permanent ‘dwelling,’ but often describes someone coming and settling in a location (e.g., Matt. 2:23; 4:13; 12:45; Luke 11:26; Acts 7:4; Heb. 11:9). The same word is used to describe how Jesus and the spirit of God dwell within believers (Eph. 3:17; Jas. 4:5), but it certainly does not mean that believers inherently are Jesus or the spirit of God. Colossians 2:9 must be read in the context of Colossians 1:19, which states that the Father caused “the fullness” to “dwell” in Jesus. If Jesus were inherently God, then the Father would not cause the fullness to dwell in him.
Furthermore, theotetos does not necessarily mean “the state of being God” (i.e., Yahweh); it can also refer to a more general state of ‘divinity.’ This word is only used once in the New Testament, but in other Greek texts from this period, theotetos is used to describe a state of divinity (not necessarily absolute) that can be given or taken away. [6]
Thus, Colossians 2:9 is not saying that Jesus is inherently Yahweh. On the contrary, this passage is better understood as reiterating the fact that Jesus was “given of the spirit without measure,” being completely filled with the spirit of God (John 3:34).
1 Thessalonians 1:3-6: God the Father, the Lord Jesus, and the Spirit are again personally distinguished from another. The Spirit is said to have “joy,” once again affirming His personality.
This is a misreading of 1 Thess. 1:6, which doesn’t say that the spirit has joy, but that the believers at Thessalonica had “the joy of the holy spirit.”
2 Thessalonians 1:12: Paul speaks of “the grace of our God and Lord Jesus Christ,” calling Jesus “the God” (ho theos) in a grammatically unambiguous fashion. Unitarians deny that this verse is actually calling Jesus “our God,” and prefer to translate it as “the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ” (supplying a definite article not found in the Greek). Such a translation is theologically motivated, based on the idea that “the NT nowhere else refers to Jesus as ho theos,” which is patently false. According to the Granville Sharp Rule, this must be referring to Jesus as both “God” and “Lord.”
Granville Sharp’s first rule is only applicable “except [if] the nouns [are] proper nouns… in which case there [are] many exceptions.” [7] Therefore, the rule only applies to 2 Thess. 1:12 if “God” (theos) is not a proper noun in this context, that is, if theos does not refer to a single person (the Father) only. Using Granville Sharp’s first rule on verses like this to prove trinitarianism is circular reasoning, since it presupposes that theos can refer to more than one person in the first place.
Furthermore, even if we ignore the fact that using Granville Sharp’s first rule to prove Jesus’ deity is circular, this rule probably cannot be applied to 2 Thess. 1:12 anyway. Even Dr. Daniel Wallace, a defender of the Granville Sharp rule, admits that it cannot be applied to 2 Thess. 1:12, because “Lord Jesus Christ” should likely be considered a proper name. [8] Therefore, 2 Thessalonians 1:12 should almost certainly be translated, “the grace of our God and of the Lord Jesus Christ.”
2 Thessalonians 3:5: “May the Lord direct your hearts to the love of God and to the perseverance of Christ.” The grammar indicates that the Person being referred to as “the Lord” is distinct from “the God” and “the Christ.” So then, we have a third Person separate from the Father and the Son, Who is nevertheless referred to as “the Lord.” Since Paul elsewhere states that “the Lord is the Spirit” (see note on 2 Cor. 3:17), we may conclude that this third “Lord” is in fact the Spirit, Who personally directs us to the love of God and the perseverance of Christ.
“The Lord” in this verse is not necessarily a different person from “God” and “the Messiah.” In context, it is more natural to see “the Lord” as referring to Jesus, since “the Lord” is used as a title of Jesus in the verses before and after this (2 Thess. 3:4, 6).
1 Timothy 2:5-6: The grammar of this passage is somewhat ambiguous; it could easily be translated as, “For one God and one mediator between God and mankind, a man Jesus Christ, He [or ‘this One’] gave Himself as a correspondent ransom for all.” If this translation is correct, then Paul was referring to Jesus as both the “one God” and “a man,” affirming the traditional ‘two natures’ doctrine of Christ. However, it could also be translated (interpolating a few words not found in the original Greek) as, “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and mankind, a man Jesus Christ,” which would be equivocal on the issue of the deity of Christ. This translation, although more common among modern Bible versions, may not reflect the original Greek as it adds several words not found therein; however, the possibility that this translation is correct (however small) must be recognized.
I can’t find a single translation or commentary that takes the “one God” and “one mediator” to both be referring to Jesus. On the contrary, a hyper-literal translation of this passage would be, “For one is God, one also is a mediator between God and humanity, the human Messiah Jesus.” In other words, God is one person while the human mediator, Jesus, is another person. This definitely isn’t supportive of the doctrine of Jesus’ deity.
1 Timothy 3:16: The best textual evidence indicates that this verse should be translated, “And confessedly, great is the mystery of piety: He was revealed in the flesh, was vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.” Who is “He” Who was revealed in the flesh? The nearest antecedent is “the Living God” of the previous verse, indicating that it was “the Living God” Who “was revealed in the flesh, etc.” This passage, therefore, likely refers to Jesus indirectly as “the Living God.”
This is a misreading; “the Living God” is not the nearest antecedent. On the contrary, the closer antecedent is “mystery,” and so the most plausible translation is “great is the mystery of piety, which was revealed in the flesh…” Elsewhere in Paul, the “mystery” is identified with “Christ in you” (Col. 1:27; cf. Eph. 3:4). Thus, this verse should be understood as saying that the Messiah (not the Living God) was “revealed in the flesh,” etc., and it is equivocal on the issue of his deity.
2 Timothy 4:18: Like in Romans 9:5, Paul gives a doxology to the Lord Jesus, despite the fact that in another doxology, at Rom. 1:25, Paul condemns worshipping any created being apart from the Creator (such as in a doxology!)
Romans 1:25 condemns worshiping any created being “beyond” or “instead of” (para) the Creator. However, proper worship of Jesus is not “instead of” the Creator, but to the glory of the Father (Phil. 2:10-11). As the primary agent of God, all worship of Jesus goes toward the One who sent him (John 5:23; 12:44). Thus, it isn’t improper to worship him, whether or not he is God.
Titus 2:13: Paul speaks of “that happy expectation and appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,” calling Jesus “the great God” in a grammatically unambiguous fashion. Unitarians deny that this verse is actually calling Jesus “the great God,“ and prefer to translate it as “the glory of our great God and the Savior Christ Jesus,” just as in 2 Thess. 1:12. However, in this passage, contextual indications make such a translation inconceivable. First of all, elsewhere in the NT, the Second Coming is never described as the appearing of God the Father; rather, it is the appearing of only a single Person, the Lord Jesus. Furthermore, just a few verses earlier, Paul refers to “God our Savior” whose grace “is saving all mankind”; because of this, when Paul goes on to speak of “our great God and Savior,” it is inconceivable that he could be speaking of two individuals! Based on these contextual indications, we can be certain that Paul is referring to Jesus as “the great God” in this verse, even apart from the Granville Sharp Rule.
It’s true that the context precludes “our great God and Savior” from referring to two different individuals, since “God” and “Savior” refer to the same person in the immediate context (Titus 2:10-11). However, Titus 2:13 actually says that we are “awaiting… the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, the Messiah Jesus.” Jesus is not being spoken of as our great God, but as “the glory of our great God.” Jesus himself said that when he came again, it would be “in the glory of his Father” (Matt. 16:27), and he is elsewhere described by Paul as “the glory of God” (2 Cor. 4:6). Therefore, Titus 2:13 doesn’t support the doctrine of Jesus’ deity, but simply describes him as “the glory of our great God,” that is, the glory of the Father.
Refuting All Trinitarian ‘Proof-Texts’
The Epistles of Paul
______________________________
[1] For the uses of the title “son of God” in ancient Judaism and Christianity, see Adela Y. Collins and John J. Collins,
King and Messiah as Son of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008).
[3] For example, Rom. 9:24-26; 1 Cor. 9:9-10; 2 Cor. 6:2; Gal. 3:16; 4:22-31; Eph. 5:29-32.
[4] For example,
Targum Psalms 68.19;
Sifrei Deuteronomy 49.2;
Ruth Rabbah 2.3;
b. Shabbat 89a.
[5] Charles H. Talbert, “
The Problem of Pre-Existence in Philippians 2:6-11,”
Journal of Biblical Literature 86 (1970), 141-153; George Howard, “
Phil 2:6-11 and the Human Christ,”
The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40, no. 3 (1978), 368-387; Scott A. Deane, “
Obedience and Humility of the Second Adam: Philippians 2:6-11,”
A Journal from the Radical Reformation 7, no. 1 (1997), 4-12.
[6] “But from the demigods a few souls still, in the long reach of time, because of supreme excellence, come, after being purified, to share completely in divine qualities [
theiotetos]. But with some of these souls it comes to pass that they do not maintain control over themselves, but yield to temptation and are again clothed with mortal bodies and have a dim and darkened life, like mist or vapour,” Plutarch,
De defectu oraculorum 10 (415C); “others generously declared that there were many gods, and distinguished between what they called the first god, and others they ranked second or third in divinity [
theiotetos],” Lucian,
Icaromenippus 9.
[7] Granville Sharp,
Remarks on the uses of the definitive article in the Greek text of the New Testament (London: Verner and Hood, 1803), 6.
[8] “‘Christ Jesus’ is surely a proper name, and thus does not fall within the limitations of Sharp’s rule. Further, two other passages seem to involve proper names. Second Thessalonians 1:12 does not have merely ‘Lord’ in the equation, but ‘Lord Jesus Christ.’ Only by detaching κυρίου from ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ could one apply Sharp’s rule to this construction.”
https://bible.org/article/sharp-redivivus-reexamination-granville-sharp-rule
