One God and Father of all: How the scriptural revelation of the one true God contradicts the doctrine of the Trinity (Part Four)

Part Four: The only true God

One of the clearest and most succinct statements revealing the identity of the one true God is found in John 17:1-3. There, we read that Christ prayed, “Father, come has the hour. Glorify your Son, that your Son should be glorifying you, according as you gave him authority over all flesh, that everything which you have given to him, he should be giving it to them, even life eonian. Now it is eonian life that they may know you, the only true God, and him whom you commission, Jesus Christ.

In these verses we read of Christ praying to, and distinguishing himself from, the “only true God.” Since Christ was addressing the Father alone, it’s clear that Christ believed the Father to be the only true God. In accord with this fact is the equally clear truth that the only true God to whom Jesus Christ prayed was (and is) his God. But is the Father alone the only true God? According to Trinitarianism, he isn’t. Trinitarians believe that Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are just as much “the only true God” as the Father to whom Christ was praying in John 17:3. Thus, the position of Trinitarians could be expressed as follows:

1. The Father is identical with the only true God.

2. The Son is identical with the only true God.

3. The Holy Spirit is identical with the only true God.

According to Trinitarianism, then, each person of the Trinity is understood to be identical with (the same as) the only true God. By identifying each member of the Trinity with the same “only true God,” Trinitarians believe they’re able to avoid the conclusion that the Father alone is the only true God to whom Christ was praying. However - as will be demonstrated below – there is no tenable way for the Trinitarian to understand the words “the only true God,” such that each member of the Trinity can be identified with that which is being expressed through these words.

The Trinitarian has three options when it comes to understanding how each person of the Trinity could be identical with “the only true God”:

1. Each member of the Trinity is identical with the same divine essence.

2. Each member of the Trinity is identical with the same divine person.

3. Each member of the Trinity is identical with the same triune God.

None of these options work. To understand why, let’s consider each one in turn:

1. Each member of the Trinity is identical with the same divine essence.

As was demonstrated in part one of this study, the members of the Trinity cannot be identified with the one divine essence in which they are understood to subsist (or of which they are understood to be distinct “modes of existence”). Although the Trinitarian may understand the existence of the persons of the Trinity as being inseparable from the one divine essence, neither the Father nor the other two persons of the Trinity can, in Trinitarian theology, be equated with the one divine essence. The Trinitarian can’t equate one person (the Father, for example) with the essence of the other two persons. Assuming the idea is even intelligible to begin with, the idea that each person of the Trinity is identical with (the same as) the essence of the other two persons flat-out contradicts the idea that there is any real distinction between the persons of the Trinity at all.

Thus, the words “the only true God” cannot be understood to mean, “the only true divine essence.”

2. Each member of the Trinity is identical with the same divine person.

If the last option implicitly involves the destruction of any real distinction between the persons of the Trinity, this option explicitly does so. The acceptance of this view would be contrary to the Trinitarian doctrinal essential that each person within the Trinity is distinct from the others (the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, etc.). To believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are really the same person is to affirm the central theological tenet of Modalism, which is incompatible with orthodox Trinitarianism.

 Alternatively, if the Trinitarian were to understand Christ as saying that the Father was the only true divine person, they would be affirming the very doctrinal position to which I subscribe. The term translated “only” (mon’on) really does mean “only” (i.e., without another, alone, sole). If, after creating Adam, God referred to his human creation as “the only true human person,” it would mean that, besides him, there was no other human person (as was the case before Eve was formed). So for the Father to be “the only true divine person” would mean that, besides him, there is no other divine person. But of course, according to Trinitarianism, the Father isn’t the only true divine person. Rather, he is understood to be one of three divine persons. The position that the Father is “the only true divine person” is, therefore, precisely what Trinitarians don’t believe.  

3. Each member of the Trinity is identical with the same triune God.

The triune God is a tri-personal being identical with three distinct persons subsisting in one divine essence. Since no individual member of the triune God can be understood as being identical with three distinct persons subsisting in one divine essence, this last option doesn’t work, either. Even according to Trinitarianism, the Father himself is not the triune God. And since Christ was clearly addressing the Father in his prayer, he most assuredly wasn’t referring to the triune God as “the only true God.” Consider the following argument:

 1. The only true God cannot be both the triune God of Trinitarianism and another God.

2. According to Christ in John 17:3, the only true God is the Father.

3. The Father is not the triune God of Trinitarianism.

4. The triune god of Trinitarianism is not the only true God.

Everything said above can be considered “negative” arguments against the doctrine of the Trinity. However, having eliminated the three options available to the Trinitarian by which they can attempt to reconcile Christ’s words in John 17:3 with their theological position, let’s now consider some scripturally-informed logical arguments which positively state the truth concerning the identity of the only true God:

1. Either the Father alone is the only true God, or he isn’t.

2. If the Father alone isn’t the only true God, then the only true God is a different god than Jesus’ God.

3. But Jesus’ God is the only true God.

4. Therefore, the Father alone is the only true God.

1. In John 17:3, the God to whom Christ was praying is the only true God.

2. Jesus was praying to his God.

3. Jesus’ God is the Father alone.

4. The only true God is the Father alone.

1. No one can be the only true God without being greater than all and thus worthy of the worship of all.

2. The Father alone is greater than all and thus worthy of the worship of all (John 10:29; 14:28; cf. John 4:21-24).

3. The Father alone is the only true God.

Thus, the only logically possible, legitimate referent for the words “only true God” in John 17:3 is the Father alone. There is only one “only true God,” and the Father alone is he.

At this point, the Trinitarian may attempt to resist this conclusion by appealing to 1 John 5:20: “Yet we are aware that the Son of God is arriving, and has given us a comprehension, that we know the True One, and we are in the True One, in His Son, Jesus Christ. This One is the true God and life eonian.”

According to the standard Trinitarian interpretation of this verse, the person referred to as “this One” in the last statement refers to Jesus Christ rather than to the Father (thus making Jesus “the true God”). However, as has already been demonstrated, we have good reason to believe that the Father alone is the only true God. And insofar as this is the case, we have good reason to believe that 1 John 5:20 is completely consistent with this truth, and that the Trinitarian has simply misunderstood what is being said in this verse. As with the “only true God” referred to by Christ in John 17:3, the “true God” who is being referred to by John in 1 John 5:20 is the Father alone. This can be confirmed through a more careful analysis of the verse itself. To make the distinction between the two persons in view in this verse as clear as possible, I’ve placed references to Jesus in red and references to the Father in blue: “Yet we are aware that the Son of God is arriving, and has given us a comprehension, that we know the True One, and we are in the True One, in His Son, Jesus Christ. This One is the true God and life eonian.”

According to John, Jesus Christ (the Son of God) had given the recipients of his letter knowledge of the Father (“the True One”). Notice how the Father is repeatedly referred to by John as the “the True One.” When we get to the last statement of this verse, the clear implication is that “this One” refers back to “the True One” who had already been referred to twice by John (i.e., the One whose Son is Jesus Christ). The Trinitarian may object that “Jesus Christ” is the closest noun to “this One.” However, the proximity that a noun or pronoun has to a certain referent does not, in itself, determine the identity of the referent. The following are just a few examples in which the context (and not the closest noun or pronoun) is necessary to determining the identity of the referent: Acts 4:10-11, Acts 7:18-19 and 2 John 1:7. Since, in the context, the “true one” clearly refers to the Father, we can reasonably conclude that “this one” refers back to the same person (who, in John 17:3, is referred to as “the only true God”). Moreover, in the larger context of Scripture, the expression “the true God” is found four other times (2 Chron. 15:3; Jer. 10:10; John 17:3; 1 Thess. 1:9). In all four places, it is the Father alone who is being referred to. And in the immediate context of John’s letter, “him that is true” is found two times, and both times it refers to the Father.[1]

For us there is one God, the Father

In 1 Corinthians 8:4-6, Paul wrote the following:

“We are aware that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God except One. For even if so be that there are those being termed gods, whether in heaven or on earth, even as there are many gods AND many lords, nevertheless for us there is one God, the Father, out of Whom all is, and we for Him, AND one Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom all is, and we through Him.”

In this passage, Paul was clearly distinguishing the one God (the Father) from Jesus Christ (who is referred to as our “one Lord”). The same contrast between the Lord Jesus Christ and God can be found in Ephesians 1:1-2 and 4:5-6 as well:

“Grace to you and peace from God, our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ…”

“…one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, Who is over all and through all and in all.”

Notice how the one God is the “God and Father of all,” and is said to be “over all.” The word “all” must be understood as including the Lord Jesus Christ, since the same God who is “over all” is the “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Eph. 1:2). This is also clear from 1 Corinthians 11:3: “Now I want you to be aware that the Head of every man is Christ, yet the head of the woman is the man, yet the Head of Christ is God.” Christ also declared the Father to be “greater than all” (John 10:29), including himself (John 14:28). Thus, when we find Paul referring to Christ as the “one Lord” in 1 Cor. 8:6, the implication is that Christ is the one Lord who is distinct from, and subordinate to, the one God. That is, among all who are subordinate to the one God, there is, for us, one Lord.

That Christ - as the “one Lord” - is to be understood as distinct from, and subordinate to, the one God, is further evident from the contrast being made by Paul in 1 Cor. 8:4-6. When Paul referred to “many gods” and “many lords” he was referring to two different classes of beings with two different statuses. The “gods” are not the same as the “lords”; they are the beings to whom people rendered divine worship/service. And the “lords” in view are not the same as the “gods”; the “lords” refer to those persons who, although understood to have a superior status/rank, were not considered divine. When Paul referred to the Father as the “one God,” he was contrasting the Father with the “many gods” to which he’d referred previously (that is, in contrast with the “many gods” referred to, there is, for us, one God – i.e., the Father). In the same way, when Paul referred to Jesus Christ as the “one Lord,” he was contrasting Christ with the “many lords” to which he’d referred previously (that is, in contrast with the “many lords” referred to, there is, for us, one Lord – i.e., Jesus Christ). For us there is ”one God, the Father” rather than “many gods,” and ”one Lord, Jesus Christ” rather than “many lords.”[2]

When we understand the contrast Paul was making, we can see that, by referring to Jesus Christ as the “one Lord” of believers, Paul wasn’t denying that the title “Lord” could also be appropriately applied to God. Clearly, the Father is also “Lord.” For example, in Luke 1:31-32 we read, ”And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David” (for other examples of the title “Lord” being applied to the Father, see Matthew 4:7, 10; 22:37; Luke 1:68; 20:37; Acts 2:39; 3:22; 4:24; 17:24; Rev 1:8; 4:8, 11; 21:22; etc.). However, just as the “many lords” Paul had in view were understood as distinct from, and subordinate to, the “many gods,” so the “one Lord” with whom Paul identified Christ is to be understood as distinct from, and subordinate to, the one God.

Trinitarians will often argue that, because the Father is also “one Lord,” Jesus Christ can also be considered the same “one God” as the Father. However, this argument is flawed. The Father is not the “one Lord” of v. 6. In fact, the very thing that allowed Paul to refer to Christ – but not the Father – as the “one Lord” in v. 6 is that Christ doesn’t have the same divine status as the Father. By virtue of not having divinity, Christ can’t be contrasted with the “many gods” of v. 5. Only the Father (who possesses divinity) is a suitable contrast to the “many gods” of v. 5. And yet Christ can be contrasted with the “many lords,” because he is the only non-divine person (i.e., the only person subordinate to the one God) who is our Lord. Among all who are distinct from and subordinate to the “one God,” there is for us “one Lord, Jesus Christ.”

It must also be kept in mind that, in contrast with the Lordship of the Father, Jesus’ Lordship is not a status that has always belonged to him. Rather, as argued earlier in this study, Jesus’ Lordship was given to him by God (Acts 2:36; Phil 2:8-11; Rom. 14:9; Matt. 28:18; Heb. 1:4). Since Jesus’ Lordship is derived and the Father’s is un-derived, they cannot be the same “one Lord.” And since Jesus and the Father are not the same “one Lord,” they cannot be the same “one God.” The one God is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and no one else. And this means that the one God is not the god of Trinitarianism:

1. According to 1 Cor. 8:6, the one God besides whom there is no other God is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2. If the one God besides whom there is no other God is the Father alone, then the one God is not the tri-personal god of Trinitarianism.

3. The tri-personal god of Trinitarianism is not the one God, but is a false god.

Part Five: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2019/01/one-god-and-father-of-all-how_70.html

---

[1] Some have objected that, elsewhere, Christ is referred to as “the life” and “life eonian.” However, there is no good reason why both God and his Son can’t be referred to as “life eonian” (especially since,  according to Christ, life eonian is said to involve, and be closely associated with, knowing both God and his Son).

[2] It is because the larger context of this passage involves the subject of idols (which are things that represent gods) that Paul first referred to “those being termed gods.” However, in anticipation of his reference to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, Paul made sure to add that there were “many lords” as well as “many gods.” For the contrast that Paul planned on making was not only between the Father and the “many gods,” but also between Jesus Christ and the “many lords.” 

One God and Father of all: How the scriptural revelation of the one true God contradicts the doctrine of the Trinity (Part Three)

Part Three: The Shema

In Mark 12:28-34 (ESV), we find recorded an insightful exchange between Jesus and a certain scribe:

²⁸ And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” ²⁹ Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.³⁰ 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.’ ³¹ The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” ³² And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him. ³³ And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.”³⁴ And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions.

In verses 29-30, Christ was quoting from Deuteronomy 6:4-5 (“Hear, O Israel: Yahweh our God, Yahweh is one!”). These verses form part of what is commonly referred to as the “Shema” (called such after the word translated “Hear” or “Listen” in Deut. 6:4). A common Trinitarian strategy when the subject of the Shema is being considered is to argue that the Hebrew and Greek terms translated “one” in Deut. 6:4 and Mark 12:29 (echad and heis, respectively) denote a unity of two or more persons or things. However, as will be argued below, the oneness being affirmed in the Shema is the oneness of the Father alone, and the term “one” in Mark 12:29 denotes the same thing that the term “one” denotes in Matthew 23:9 (where we read, “…for one is your Father, the heavenly.”).

Obviously, the oneness of the Father referred to in Matt. 23:9 is not a unity of two or more persons. It should also be noted that this meaning of the term “one” is the standard meaning of both the Hebrew and Greek terms translated “one.”[1] The terms echad and heis are used just as consistently in Scripture to express the idea of numerical oneness as is our English word “one,” and those claiming that the primary meaning of either of these terms is something other than that which is expressed by our English word “one” are simply mistaken. Regardless of any other secondary meanings the terms translated “one” can be understood as having in certain contexts, the primary meaning of both terms is that of mathematical, numerical oneness.

Some Trinitarians have claimed that echad and heis can be understood to mean something like “compound unity.” However, the idea of plurality belongs to the collective noun that these terms modify. The concept of plurality doesn’t reside in the word “one” itself (whether in the Hebrew or in the Greek). Even in English when we use the word “one” in reference to collective nouns like “team,” “group” or “herd,” the word still means “one.” “One” means the exact same thing whether we’re talking about “one grape,” or “one cluster of grapes” (Num 13:23) – i.e., absolute, mathematical oneness. In order for echad or heis to be understood as modifying that which is collective or compound, it must first be understood that whatever the terms are modifying is, in fact, collective or compound.

Moreover, as with the English word “one,” the only way that the Hebrew and Greek terms translated “one” can be understood to express the idea of a unity of two or more persons or things is when two or more persons or things are actually in view.[2] For example, in John 17:11, Christ declared, “And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one…” Notice how multiple persons are clearly in view in this verse (e.g., Jesus’ disciples, as well as Jesus and the Father); it is these distinct persons who are said to be “one.” It is the mention of at least two distinct personal entities that is conspicuously absent from the Shema. The Shema does not say, “The Lord our God, although three, is yet one,” or “The Lord our God, they are one.” There is no hint of anything numerically more than one “coming together” or existing in union here. No non-identical things (whether personal or otherwise) are spoken of or implied which, together, comprise “one” something, or exist in unity. Rather, implicit in the Shema is that there is one “he” (“the Lord our God”) who is numerically and unequivocally “one.”

John 10:30 is often appealed to by Trinitarians in an attempt to prove that the oneness of God affirmed in the Shema is a oneness of essence between three persons. However, as with what we read in John 17:11 (and in contrast with what we read in Deut. 6:4 or Mark 12:29), there is clearly more than one person in view in this verse. The immediate and larger context of John 10:30 also makes it clear as to what sort of “oneness” Christ had in view in John 10:30. The sense in which Jesus and the Father (his God) are “one” is that they share the same purpose, and are in complete agreement with each other.

Consider, for example, John 5:19: Jesus, then, answers and said to them, “Verily, verily, I am saying to you, The Son cannot be doing anything of Himself if it is not what He should be observing the Father doing, for whatever He may be doing, this the Son also is doing likewise” (compare with John 14:10 and 17:8). And in the immediate context of John 10:30, we read the following: Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you are not believing. The works which I am doing in the name of My Father, these are testifying concerning Me. But you are not believing, seeing that you are not of My sheep, according as I said to you. My sheep are hearing My voice, and I know them, and they are following Me. And I am giving them life eonian, and they should by no means be perishing for the eon, and no one shall be snatching them out of My hand. My Father, Who has given them to Me, is greater than all, and no one is able to be snatching them out of My Father's hand. I and the Father, We are one.”

In this passage, Jesus is emphasizing the fact that he and the Father have the same, shared purpose concerning those whom Christ referred to as his “sheep.” Both Jesus and the Father were united in their desire and purpose to ensure that the “sheep” in view receive “life eonian,” and were both exercising their power to prevent the sheep from “perishing for the eon” (as is expressed in the words, “no one shall be snatching them out of My hand” and “no one is able to be snatching them out of My Father's hand”). It is in this sense that Jesus declared that he and the Father were “one.”

That the “oneness” in view in John 10:30 is not a oneness of “shared divine essence” (as is affirmed by Trinitarians and required by their doctrinal position) is further evident from what Christ later declared in his prayer to the Father concerning his disciples: “And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one…The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,  I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.” Since Christ was obviously not praying that his disciples would become “one in essence” - or that they would become “one being” - we can conclude that the oneness in view in John 10:30 was not a “oneness of essence.”

Now, the two most common ways in which Mark 12:29 has been translated into English are as follows: (1) “The Lord our God is one Lord”; (2) The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” It should be kept in mind that what we find recorded in Mark 12:29 is itself a translation of the Hebrew of Deut. 6:4, and may be understood as expressing the same truth found there. Thus, if the first option is the correct way of translating Mark 12:29, then Deut. 6:4 should be translated, “Yahweh our God is one Yahweh.” On the other hand, if the second option is correct, the Hebrew of Deut. 6:4 should be translated, “Yahweh our God, Yahweh is one.” But how do we determine which translation is most likely correct?

I submit that when we let the scribe’s response to what Jesus said inform our understanding of how Mark 12:29 should be translated, the second option will be shown to be more plausible than the first. Notice how the scribe echoed what he heard Jesus say by responding as follows: “You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him.” Since it’s reasonable to understand the scribe as having repeated what he heard Jesus declare when he said “he is one” (replacing the words “the Lord God” with the personal pronoun “he”), the second option (”The Lord our God, the Lord is one”) can, I believe, be considered the most likely option for how the Greek of Mark 12:29 should be translated into English.

Moreover, a common idiom found in the Hebrew Scriptures involves the repetition of a word (e.g., a person’s name or title) for emphasis instead of using a corresponding pronoun. While this idiom can be used with impersonal things as well, the following are just a few examples where persons are in view: Gen 4:23-24; 16:16; 18:17-19; Ex 34:35; 1 Kings 2:19; 10:13; 12:21; Esther 8:8; Ezekiel 11:24; Dan 3:2-3; 9:17; Ex 16:6-7; 1 Sam 3:21; 12:7; 2 Chron. 7:2. As with these examples, Deut. 6:4 can also be understood as an example of this idiomatic way of speaking, with the divine name “Yahweh” being repeated for emphasis instead of the use of a pronoun. But if we were to replace the second use of the name Yahweh with an appropriate pronoun, what would we use?

Based on the kind of pronouns consistently used in reference to Yahweh throughout the Hebrew Scriptures (see part five of this study), we would use the singular personal pronoun “he” (rather than “they”). Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, Yahweh is referred to with singular personal pronouns such as “I,” “he,” “him,” “me,” “myself,” etc. He is referred to, and refers to himself, as a single person. So if we were to replace the second, emphatic use of the divine name with an appropriate pronoun, Deut. 6:4 would thus read, “Hear, O Israel: Yahweh our God, HE is one.” “He” is the personal pronoun that is implied here, and with which the second use of the name “Yahweh” could be appropriately substituted.

But what is the identity of the Lord God whose “oneness” is being affirmed in the Shema? Based on a number of verses in scripture, I think it’s clear that the Jews in Christ’s day believed that their God was a single divine person – i.e., the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Consider, for example, Jesus’ words to the unbelieving Jews in John 8:54: “It is My Father Who is glorifying Me, of Whom you are saying that He is your God.” And based on his response to what Christ said, it’s also evident that the scribe with whom Christ was speaking believed the Lord God whose oneness is affirmed in the Shema to be a single person: Then the scribe said to Him, “You are right, Teacher! You have correctly said that He is One, and there is no one else except Him. And to love Him with all your heart, with all your understanding, and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself, is far more important than all the burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

In addition to noting what the scribe did say, it’s equally important to consider what he didn't say. He didn't say, “...They are one,” or that “there are no others besides Them.” No; the scribe referred to the God whose oneness Christ affirmed by using the singular personal pronouns “He” and “Him” (which, of course, refer to a single person or self). Clearly, the scribe to whom Christ spoke (and who, we may reasonably conclude, accurately expressed the shared doctrinal understanding of God that was affirmed by the Jews in Christ’s day) believed that God was a single individual (rather than two or more individuals). It was, therefore, the Father alone whose “oneness” the scribe understood Christ to be affirming in Mark 12:29.

But what did Christ believe? Did he agree with the scribe? I submit that he did. Consider the following argument:

1. The “Lord our God” whose oneness Christ and the scribe affirmed in Mark 12:29 is the God before whom all Israel - including Christ himself - was commanded to have no other gods.

2. The God before whom Jesus Christ had no other gods was, and is, the Father alone.

3. The “Lord our God” whose oneness both Christ and the scribe affirmed in Mark 12:29 was, and is, the Father alone.

I’ll now defend each of the premises of the above argument.

1. The “Lord our God” whose oneness Christ and the scribe affirmed in Mark 12:29 is the God before whom all Israel - including Christ himself - was commanded to have no other gods.

As a Jew, Christ undoubtedly grew up believing and confessing the doctrinal truth being affirmed in Mark 12:29, and would’ve understood himself as being included among the covenant people who are being referred to by the word “our.” And as a member of this community of people, Jesus would’ve not only grown up believing and reciting the truth being expressed in Deut. 4:6, but would’ve considered himself as having had a covenant-based obligation to affirm it. And this means that the God whose oneness Jesus was obligated to affirm must be his God, individually, as well as the God of all Israel, collectively.

Moreover, being under the law given to Israel from birth (Gal. 4:4), Christ would’ve understood the first of the Ten Commandments (“You shall have no other gods before me”) - as well as the command that he considered to be the greatest command (Mark 12:30) - to be commands that he, too, was obligated to keep in order to remain obedient to God. And, of course, since Christ believed there to be an “only true God” (John 17:3), then he would’ve believed that this only true God was necessarily in view in Deut. 6:4 and Mark 12:29. Surely, Christ would not have believed that the God whose oneness he affirmed in Mark 12:29 could be any God other than the only true God, or that this God was the God before whom Israel was commanded to have no other gods.

2. The God before whom Jesus Christ had no other gods, and who was the exclusive object of his worship, was the Father alone.

It’s already been demonstrated that the Jewish people in Christ’s day understood the oneness of God being affirmed in the Shema to be the oneness of a single divine individual (i.e., the Father). But were the Jews in Christ’s day correct in believing that the oneness of God being affirmed in the Shema was the oneness of the Father alone? Or, was their doctrinal understanding on this point deficient, and in need of modification? To answer this question, we need only determine who Jesus considered to be his God. For, as previously argued, the Lord God of Jesus is necessarily the “Lord our God” whose oneness Christ and the scribe affirmed in Mark 12:29.

In John 4:22-24 (HCSB) we read that Christ declared the following to a certain woman of Samaria:

²¹ “Believe Me, woman, an hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. ²² You Samaritans worship what you do not know. We worship what we do know, because salvation is from the Jews. ²³ But an hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth. Yes, the Father wants such people to worship Him. ²⁴ God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

Based on Christ’s repeated use of the word “we” in v. 22, it’s evident that Christ included himself among those who, in contrast with the Samaritans, worshipped what they knew. It’s also evident that the God whom Christ believed that he and his fellow Jews worshipped was the Father (whom Christ understood to be a single person, as is evident from his use of the singular pronoun “him” in verses 23-24). Since Jesus’ God is the Father alone, it follows that the God whom Christ understood both himself and his fellow Israelites to be obligated to worship and obey was the Father alone.

3. The “Lord our God” whose oneness both Christ and the scribe affirmed in Mark 12:29 was, and is, the Father alone.

Having determined who, exactly, Christ considered to be the Lord his God, we are able to identify the “Lord our God” whose oneness Christ affirmed in Mark 12:29. For, as previously argued, the “Lord our God” whose oneness Christ affirmed in Mark 12:29 is necessarily the Lord God of Jesus. And since the Lord God of Jesus is the Father alone, it follows that it is the oneness of the Father of which both Christ and the scribe understood the words Mark 12:29 to be an affirmation.

Part Four: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2019/01/one-god-and-father-of-all-how_82.html

---

[1] See, for example, Gen. 2:21; 42:11; Ex. 9:7; Lev. 16:5; Num. 10:4; 2 Sam. 17:22; Eccl 4:9; Isa 4:1; Jer. 52:20; Mal. 2:10.

[2] For example, in Genesis 2:24, we read that a man becomes “one flesh” with his wife. Of course, this is figurative language; the man and woman do not literally become “one flesh.” This is a powerful image that speaks of the intimate physical and emotional union existing between husband and wife. At the same time, the word echad here still means “numerically one” and not numerically more than one. And in this and other similar passages, not only does echad maintain its meaning of “numerically one” (as it must in order for the figurative expression to convey its intended sense), but two or more “parts” are mentioned, such that the reader can immediately discern that there is some kind of “coming together” and union of the people or things mentioned. This is not the case in the Shema.

One God and Father of all: How the scriptural revelation of the one true God contradicts the doctrine of the Trinity (Part Two)

Part Two: The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ

Having examined the doctrinal position of Trinitarians, I will for the remainder of this study be arguing that the one, true God revealed in Scripture is none other than the divine person referred to in Ephesians 4:6 as the “God and Father of all.” In referring to God as a “person” I simply mean that he is an individual, conscious entity (or “self”) who is able to refer to himself by the use of singular, personal pronouns (such as “I,” “me” and “myself”), and can validly be referred to by other persons by the use of singular pronouns. Just as Jesus Christ is a single person, so I believe that the one true God is also a single person.

There are a number of ways in which one could go about defending the position summarized above. I want to begin by analyzing certain key elements of the following statement by Paul from Romans 15:6: “…with one mouth, you may be glorifying the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The three truths affirmed in this verse that I will be considering are: (1) The truth that Jesus Christ is Lord; (2) The truth that God is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; and (3) The truth that the Father is the God of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Concerning the truth of the Lordship of Jesus Christ, let’s consider one of the most important Messianic prophecies in all of Scripture: Psalm 110:1. In this prophecy of David we read, “Yahweh said to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.’” This key verse is quoted in the “New Testament” more often than any other verse from the Hebrew Scriptures. In this prophecy we find Yahweh (whose name is translated as "the LORD" in most English Bibles) inviting a person distinct from himself to sit at his “right” (or “right hand).” Besides literally referring to a physical location in the heavenly realm, sitting at God’s right hand also implies a position of authority and preeminence that is second only to God’s. It implies that one has been given all authority in heaven and on earth. Moreover, it’s clear from Mark 12:35-37 that Jesus understood himself to be the “Lord” to whom Yahweh was speaking in this prophecy: And answering, Jesus said, teaching in the sanctuary, “How are the scribes saying that the Christ is a Son of David? For he, David, said, in the holy spirit, ‘Said the Lord to my Lord, “Sit at My right, Till I should be placing Thine enemies for a footstool for Thy feet.”’ Then he, David, is terming Him ‘Lord.’ And whence is He his Son?” And the vast throng hears Him with relish.

Jesus’ being made Lord can be understood as having been prefigured in the story of Joseph. Pharaoh - who was considered a “god” to the Egyptians - exalted Joseph to a status that was second only to his own, even going so far as to give Joseph his signet ring (Gen 41:42), which signified Pharaoh’s own authority. According to Pharaoh himself, no one could even “lift up hand or foot in all the land of Egypt” without Joseph’s consent (vv. 40-41, 44, 55). Not only that, but Joseph was even given a new name (v. 45). While Joseph’s elevated status and delegated authority did not make him the same entity as Pharaoh (or place him above Pharaoh), it did enable him to do everything that Pharaoh could do. Joseph was set over all the land of Egypt; all the people were under his command. This is a beautiful type of what God did for Jesus when he raised him from the dead, set him at his right hand as Lord over all, and gave him a name that is above every name.

Trinitarians often claim that David was ascribing divine status to the Messiah when he referred to him as “my Lord” in Psalm 110:1. However, this belief betrays a serious misunderstanding on their part. The term David used in reference to the Messiah - i.e., adoni (“my lord,” which is from adon, “lord”) - is consistently used in the Hebrew Scriptures for those who were understood to be distinct from Yahweh. It was used most often in reference to humans who were considered to be of a superior status/rank (e.g., Gen. 24:12; 2 Sam. 15:15). On a few occasions it was used in reference to celestial messengers (e.g., Dan. 12:8; Zech. 1:9; cf. Rev. 7:14, where an angel is addressed by John as “my Lord”). To see all the occurrences of this term, click the following link: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/strongs_113.htm.

In contrast with the terms used for humans (adon/adoni), the Hebrew title for “Lord” that is reserved for Yahweh is Adonai (which is an emphatic form of adon). For all occurrences of this term, see the following: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/strongs_136.htm. Although the terms are similar in spelling, the differences in use and application have significant implications regarding the identity of the one God of Israel and the nature of the Messiah. While it is clear that the person told to sit at Yahweh’s right hand would’ve been understood by David as being superior in authority to himself (hence David calls him “my Lord”), it is equally clear that this person was understood as being distinct from, and subordinate to, Yahweh himself.

In this key Messianic prophecy, then, we find that the Messiah would be a man who, although highly exalted far above all other created beings - and given authority that is second only to Yahweh’s - is not to be identified with Yahweh himself. This is in accord with the fact that the Messiah had consistently been prophesied in the Hebrew Scriptures as being a member of Adam’s race, and as being distinct from the one God of Israel (see, for example, Genesis 3:15; 12:3; 22:18; 28:14; 49:10; Numbers 24:17-19; Deuteronomy 18:15; 2Sa 7:12-13; 1 Chronicles 17:13; Psalm 45:2-7, 17; 72:1; 89:3-4; 110:1; 132:11; Isaiah 7:14; 11:1-5; 52-53; Jeremiah 23:5; 30:21; Daniel 7:13; Zech 6:12-13; Micah 5:2).

That Jesus’ Lordship is distinct from the Lordship of Yahweh is further evident from the fact that Jesus’ status as Lord is derived from God, and is not inherently his. In Acts 2:29-36, we find that Peter understood the prophecy of Psalm 110:1 to have been fulfilled (or to have begun to be fulfilled) through the resurrection and ascension of Jesus:

“Men! Brethren! Allow me to say to you with boldness concerning the patriarch David, that he deceases also and was entombed, and his tomb is among us until this day. Being, then, inherently, a prophet, and having perceived that God swears to him with an oath, out of the fruit of his loin to seat One on his throne, perceiving this before, he speaks concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that He was neither forsaken in the unseen, nor was His flesh acquainted with decay. This Jesus God raises, of Whom we all are witnesses. Being, then, to the right hand of God exalted, besides obtaining the promise of the holy spirit from the Father, He pours out this which you are observing and hearing. For David did not ascend into the heavens, yet he is saying, ‘Said the Lord to my Lord, “Sit at My right Till I should be placing Thine enemies for a footstool for Thy feet.”’ Let all the house of Israel know certainly, then, that God makes Him Lord as well as Christ -- this Jesus Whom you crucify!"

From the above it’s clear that the exalted status which David prophesied Jesus would have when invited by Yahweh to sit at his right hand is a status that was given to Jesus when he was resurrected. It was at this time that God made Jesus “Lord.” There is, of course a sense in which Jesus was “Lord” before his death and resurrection, but it must be kept in mind that anyone who was considered to have a superior rank or status in relation to others could be addressed as “lord” or “Lord” (the capitalization of the term depends entirely on one’s translational preference). In addition to the numerous examples of humans being addressed as “lord” in the Hebrew Scriptures, we also find examples in the Greek Scriptures of people other than Jesus being addressed as “lord,” as well (e.g., Philip in John 12:21 and an angel in Acts 10:3-4 and Rev. 7:14). The authority that Christ received when he was resurrected, however, made him “Lord of all” (Acts 10:36). And it this exalted status that Peter had in mind when, in Acts 2:36, he said that God had made Jesus “Lord.”

What we read in Acts 2:36 concerning Jesus’ being made Lord is in accord with the words of Christ himself in Matthew 28:18: “Given to Me was all authority in heaven and on earth.” Although Jesus had relatively great authority during his earthly ministry (having been anointed by God “with holy spirit and power” when he was baptized; Acts 10:38), he did not have “all authority in heaven and on earth” until after his death and resurrection; this authority was given to him by God as a reward for his obedience:

“…and, being found in fashion as a human, [Christ Jesus] humbles Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore, also, God highly exalts Him, and graces Him with the name that is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should be bowing, celestial and terrestrial and subterranean, and every tongue should be acclaiming that Jesus Christ is Lord, for the glory of God, the Father.”

We also read in Romans 14:8-9 that Christ died and was restored to life by God so that “he should be Lord of the dead as well as of the living.” This implies that Jesus was not “Lord of the dead as well as of the living” before his death and resurrection. We’re also told that Jesus became “so much better than the messengers as He enjoys the allotment of a more excellent name than they” (Heb. 1:4).

In Psalm 110:1, then, we find that the Messiah would be a man who, although highly exalted far above all other created beings - and given authority that is second only to Yahweh’s - is not to be identified with Yahweh himself. For, in contrast with what we read concerning Jesus, Yahweh has never had to become better than any other being or class of beings, or receive from someone higher than himself “a name that is above every name.” Yahweh has never had to be made “Lord,” or be given “all authority in heaven and on earth.” Why? Answer: Because Yahweh is the Supreme Being. By virtue of his own inherent divinity, Yahweh is, and always has been, infinitely superior to all created beings. There was never a time when Yahweh was not “Lord” (i.e., Adonai). To conceive of Yahweh, the one true God, as a being who has ever had to receive anything from anyone is, quite simply, to fail to have a right conception of God as the Supreme Being.

Consider the following argument:

1. Following his death and resurrection, Jesus Christ was made Lord of all and was given all authority in heaven and on earth.

2. Yahweh, the one true God, has never been made Lord (he’s always been Lord), and has never been given all authority in heaven and on earth (he’s always had all authority).

3. Jesus Christ is not Yahweh, the one true God.

The conclusion to this argument leads us to our next point: Yahweh, the one true God, is the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. Concerning Jesus’ being the Son of God, we find this truth explicitly affirmed on several occasions during Christ’s earthly ministry. Consider, for example, the declaration of the disciples after Christ walked on water: “Truly, you are God’s Son!”(Matt. 14:33) We also have Peter’s well-known confession in Matthew 16:16: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And the most important testimony concerning Jesus’ identity was undoubtedly provided by God himself: “This is my Son, the beloved, in whom I delight” (Matt. 3:17).

But why is Jesus able to be called the “Son of God” or “Son of the living God?” By virtue of what is the appellation “Son of God” applicable to Jesus? Answer: It’s applicable to Jesus by virtue of the fact that God (Yahweh) is his Father. But when, according to scripture, did God actually become the Father of Jesus? Answer: In Matthew 1:18-21 and Luke 1:31-35 we read that Jesus was generated by God when Jesus’ mother became pregnant with him. The word translated “generated” in these verses is gennao, and is the same word translated as “begotten” elsewhere in scripture (when the fathering of a child is in view). In other words, this term refers to the event by which a father brings his child into existence, and thereby becomes the father of that child (consider, for example, all the “begetting” that is referred to in Matthew 1:2-16).[1] 

Thus, the generating of Jesus that we find referred to in Matthew 1:20 and Luke 1:35 should be understood as the event by which God became the Father of his Son, and Jesus became the Son of God, his Father. To believe that God didn’t become the Father of his Son at this time – or that Jesus isn’t the Son of God by virtue of this historical event - is to simply disregard the very idea that the term gennao expresses in these and other verses. This simple fact means that Christ’s sonship (his being the Son of God) is inseparable from the fact that he was conceived in his mother’s womb through the power of God. Consider the words of Gabriel in Luke 1:35: “Holy spirit shall be coming on you, and the power of the Most High shall be overshadowing you; wherefore also the holy One Who is being generated shall be called the Son of God.”

The word translated “wherefore” means “consequently,” or “for this reason.” Gabriel was, in these words to Mary, providing her with the very reason why Jesus would be called “the Son of God.” Jesus’ being the Son of God is inseparable from the fact that he was generated (or begotten) by God at the time when his mother became pregnant with him. Since God became Jesus’ father when the words of Luke 1:35 were fulfilled, it follows that the existence of Jesus as the Son of God began when he was conceived by God.

Now, when Peter identified Jesus as “the Christ, the Son of the living God,” the “living God” that Peter had in view was Yahweh, the one true God (Deut. 5:26; Josh. 3:10; 1 Sam. 17:26, 36; Psalm 42:2; 84:2; Jer. 23:36; Dan. 6:26; Hosea 1:10). The living God is, in other words, the God before whom Israel was commanded to have no other gods (Exodus 20:3; Deut. 5:7). In Jeremiah 10:10 (CVOT) we read, “Yet Yahweh is Elohim in truth; He is the living Elohim and the eonian King…” Here we find the living God (Elohim) identified as Yahweh, the one God of Israel (notice also that Yahweh is referred to as “he” and not “they”). Thus, Peter was affirming that Jesus is the Son of Yahweh, the one true God. And if Yahweh is Jesus’ Father, then he is necessarily distinct from Jesus.

One of the most common titles given to Yahweh is “the Most High” or “the Supreme” (see, for example, Genesis 14:18-22; Num. 24:16; Deut. 32:8; 2 Sam. 22:14; Psalm 7:17; 9:2; 18:13; 21:7; 46:4; 47:2; 50:14; 57:2; 77:10; 78:17, 35, 56; 82:6; 83:18; 87:5; 91:1, 9; 92:1; 97:9; 107:11; Isa. 14:14; Lam. 3:35, 38; Dan. 3:26; 4:2, 17, 24, 25, 32, 34; 5:18, 21; 7:18, 22, 25, 27; Hos. 7:16; 11:7; Luke 1:32, 76; 6:35; Acts 7:48). But rather than being identified with the “Most High,” Jesus is instead said to be the “Son of the Most High”:

”And lo! you shall be conceiving and be pregnant and be bringing forth a Son, and you shall be calling His name Jesus. He shall be great, and Son of the Most High shall He be called. And the Lord God shall be giving Him the throne of David” (Luke 1:31-32; cf. Mark 5:7). The Son of the Most High cannot be identified with the Most High himself; the fact that Jesus is the Son of the Most High means that Jesus is to be distinguished from the Most High. And since Jesus is not the Most High, he is necessarily subordinate to the Most High.

Later, in Acts, we read that Peter referred to Jesus as the “servant” of God: ”The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus...” (Acts 3:13; cf. 5:30; Isaiah 42:1). Based on the use of the singular personal pronoun “his,” it’s clear that Peter understood the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to be a single person. And since Peter understood Jesus to be the servant of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, this God must be the God of Jesus as well.

That Jesus did, in fact, understand himself to have a God is just as clear as the fact that God is Jesus’ Father. Consider, for example, the following words that Christ exclaimed while on the cross: ”My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46) And at least forty years after his resurrection and ascension, Christ declared the following to the church in Philadelphia: ”He who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God. Never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name” (Rev 3:12). And in Hebrews 1:9 the author applied the prophetic words of Psalm 45:7 to Jesus as follows: “You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”

Thus we find that, both before and after his resurrection, Jesus understood himself to have a God. Consider also Matthew’s account of Jesus’ last temptation in the wilderness, as recorded in Matthew 4:8-10:

Again the Adversary takes Him along into a very high mountain, and is showing Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to Him, “All these to you will I be giving, if ever, falling down, you should be worshiping me.” Then Jesus is saying to him, “Go away, Satan, for it is written, The Lord your God shall you be worshiping, and to Him only shall you be offering divine service.”

Jesus replied to the Adversary’s last temptation by quoting the words of Deut 6:13. Had Jesus yielded to the Adversary’s temptation (which, of course, he did not do), he would’ve sinned against the Lord his God by worshipping as God someone other than the Lord his God. Moreover, we know that, in Deut. 6:13, Moses was speaking to Israel, collectively. Thus, whoever Christ believed to be the Lord God being referred to in Deut. 6:13, he would’ve understood to be the Lord God of all Israel, collectively.

But who, exactly, was the exclusive object of Jesus’ worship? What is the identity of the Lord God to whom Jesus was completely devoted? Who, exactly, would Christ have sinned against had he worshipped Satan as God? In light of the singular personal pronoun “him,” it’s reasonable to believe that the Lord God whom Israel was commanded to be worshipping is a single individual or person (rather than more than one person). Just as Scripture is clear that Jesus Christ has a God, so it’s equally clear who, exactly, the God of Jesus is. Jesus’ God is Yahweh, the one true God (who is repeatedly referred to by Jesus as "the Father" and "my Father"). Not only is this fact implied throughout the Gospel Accounts, but it’s a truth explicitly affirmed by Christ himself in John 20:17: ”But go to My brothers and tell them that I am ascending to My Father and your Father—to My God and your God.” The Father - and the Father alone - is the God whom Jesus worshipped, prayed to and obeyed.

In addition to Christ’s own words, it’s clear that Jesus’ apostles understood the Father to be the God of Jesus as well:

“...that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 15:6).

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort” (2 Corinthians 1:3). 

“...the God and Father of our Lord Jesus” (2 Corinthians 11:31).

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Ephesians 1:3).

“The God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory” (Ephesians 1:17).

“We give thanks to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Colossians 1:3).

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 1:3).

“[Jesus] has made us kings and priests to his God and Father” (Revelation 1:6).

As a way of summarizing the position that has been advanced thus far, here are a few arguments in defense of what I believe concerning the identity of God:

1. Jesus Christ is the Son of “the living God”/Son of “the Most High” (Matt. 16:16; Luke 1:32).

2. Jesus Christ is not his own Father, and Jesus’ Father is not his Son.

3. Jesus Christ is not the living God/Most High.

To this argument we could add the following:

4. The living God/Most High of whom Jesus is the Son is a single divine person.

5. The living God/Most High is identical with Yahweh, the God of Israel.

6. Yahweh, the God of Israel, is a single divine person.

We could formulate another argument based on the words Christ declared to Mary Magdalene in John 20:17:

1. Mary Magdalene’s God is the same God as Jesus Christ’s God (John 20:17).

2. Jesus Christ’s God is the Father alone.

3. Mary Magdalene’s God is the Father alone.

And to this argument we could add the following:

4. Mary Magdalene’s God is the one God of Israel, and the God before whom Israel was commanded to have no other gods.

5. The Father alone is the one God of Israel, and the God before whom Israel was commanded to have no other gods.

6. The triune god of Trinitarianism is not the Father alone, and is therefore a false god.

Part Three: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2019/01/one-god-and-father-of-all-how_8.html

---

[1] In fact, “to bring into existence” is precisely what the English word “generate” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/generate), while the word “beget” can be defined as, “to cause to exist,” “to produce as an effect,” “to generate,” “to procreate” or “to father.”