Explaining the Trinity

Part 2
Evidence for Jesus' Deity in John 5

Revelation 3:14 the Beginning of the Creation of God
The Firstborn
The Only-begotten Son
Micah 5:2 His Origins?
Proverbs 8:22-24, 29, 30 the Wisdom Angel?

For example, how do we answer these series of questions:

• First Corinthians 15:24-28 shows that after his reign, Christ will be eternally submissive to his Father. How does this fit into the Trinity doctrine?
• First Corinthians 11:3 teaches that the "head" of Christ is God without any temporal qualification. Does this not imply that Christ is eternally submissive? Is that how we conceive of Jesus as being God?
• Is Jesus the Most High God? Since Revelation 3:12 shows that the Father is the God of Jesus does this mean God has a God? How many Gods are there?
• What about Hebrews 5:8, which implies that Jesus had to come to earth to learn obedience? Why would God have to learn anything? 
• If God is three persons and if being all-knowing is an essential attribute of being God why does  Mark 13:32 (compare Matthew 24:36) say that only the Father knows the day and hour of the Great Tribulation but the Son and the Holy Spirit do not?
• First Corinthians 8:6 seems to say that the Father is the one to call "God" while Jesus is distinguished as "Lord." Is this not a contrast between them? Does this not imply that only one of them, the Father, can rightfully be called "God"?
• Deuteronomy 6:4 says that there is only ONE God so how can Jesus and his Father both be God?
• In what sense is Jesus one with his Father (John 10:30)? Does not the Bible say that Jesus and his Father are two (John 8:17,18)?
• If God can do anything, and Jesus is God, can Jesus do anything on his own initiative (John 5:19,30; 7:28; 8:28,42)?
• How can Jesus be God and be with God at the same time (John 1:1)?

I believe it is preferable that a doctrine be based on the most straightforward reading of a Biblical text without reading something into it. If the straight reading of a text seems difficult to reconcile with other texts, then this is not a sound reason to immediately assume it cannot mean what it says. Some effort should be made to understand all texts without having to allegorize any. If this sounds hard to do, just think of the following theological investigation as an 'experiment' where we will accept the texts for what they say and see if, in the end, we have something that is easy to understand or whether we have an incomprehensible mystery.

Most Biblical quotations are from the New American Standard (NAS), but other translations used are: New International Version (NIV), New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) and the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB).
 

First:

Matthew 16:13-15
	13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" 14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets." 15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

Indirectly, through this scripture, Jesus asks all of us this question: "Who do you say that I am?" Jesus cares how you answer this.

Second:
Jesus' identity as well as his relationship with his Father is important. Twice in scripture the relationship between the Father and Son is given as the model for human relationships.

This verse uses the model of the headship of God (the Father) over Christ as a model for the relationship between husband and wife. To misunderstand one is to misunderstand the other.

1 Corinthians 11:3
	"But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ."

The relationship between members of the church, the body of Christ, is modeled on the attitude of Christ towards his Father. If we do not understand what the relationship is, we cannot emulate it as we are told to.

Philippians 2:3,5,6
	"Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind let each of you regard one another as more important than himself; 5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped"

Third:
Paul chastised the Corinthian congregation for listening to some who taught a different Jesus (2 Corinthians 11:3,4). We are not told in what way the teaching differed from the biblical Jesus but it was different from what they had received from Paul and they were accepting both kinds of teachings. 

If you pick up the Bible and start reading it from the beginning you immediately read about 

God who created all that there is (Genesis 1:1; Isaiah 40:28; 42:5,8 ; Ephesians 3:9; Hebrews 3:4; Revelation 4:11; 14:7; ).

If you were reading the Bible (Old Testament) in Hebrew, you would also find that the Creator-God has a special Name, Yahweh ("Jehovah"). This name is used  more often than the term "God" (see the American Standard Version which is one of the few translations that renders the Hebrew name of God as an English name rather than as "LORD": Genesis 2:1,4; Genesis 12:8; 17:1; Exodus 3:15; 6:3; 20:7; Psalm 102:12,21,25; Psalm 83:18; Psalm 148:13; Isaiah 63:16; Jeremiah 10:10; Micah 4:5).

Next you would read that there are 

others who are called "gods/Gods" (Genesis 35:2; Exodus 12:12; Exodus 32:1,4,8,31; Judges 16:23; Galatians 4:8)

(in the biblical languages the term "God/god" is not distinguished by uppercase or lowercase letters). The Bible indicates these other Gods/gods are not real but are idols without any connection to real entities, and would be considered to be  imaginary objects of worship. 

But some Bible scholars say that the term "god/God" in the original language can refer to real entities

who are called "gods/Gods" in some real sense, either angels (because they are powerful spirit persons - 2 Corinthians 4:4; Psalm 8:5 / Hebrews 2:7) or humans (when they function as appointed representatives of God - Exodus 7:1; Psalm 82:1,6,7 / John 10:30-35).

This leads to the first challenge to understanding the Bible's references to "God":

How do we harmonize the above verses (that suggest there are other real "gods/Gods") with these?
 

Yahweh is unique, 'there are no other Gods, there is only One' (Deuteronomy 4:35,39; Deuteronomy 6:4; Deuteronomy 32:12,39; Joel 2:27; Mark 12:32; John 5:44; Romans 3:30; 1 Corinthians 8:4; 1 Timothy 1:17; James 2:19; Mark 12:29,32)  'there are no other gods like Yahweh' (Exodus 8:10; Deuteronomy 33:26; 1 Samuel 2:2; 2 Samuel 7:22; 1 Chronicles 17:20;  Psalm 113:5; Isaiah 46:9).

The answer can be found in Bible verses that say 

'among the other gods there are none like Yahweh' (Exodus 15:11; 1 Kings 8:23,60; 2 Chronicles 6:14; Psalm 89:6,7).

This suggests that the verses that state there are 'no other gods' mean that although there are others who can in a limited capacity be called "god" they are inferior and thus human language allows it to be said 'there is no God but one' because these 

other "gods" cannot do what Yahweh alone can do (Deuteronomy 3:24; Psalm 86:8-10) for  Yahweh/God made all things (2 Kings 19:15,19; Nehemiah 9:6; Isaiah 45:5-7,12,14,18,21,22; Jeremiah 10:6,7,10-12; Romans 4:17; Ephesians 3:9;)  and He did it all alone (Job 31:15; Isaiah 37:16; Isaiah 44:6-8,24; Malachi 2:10; Acts 17:24,26).

Obviously an idol representing an imaginary god (1 Corinthians 8:4; Galatians 4:8) cannot do what Yahweh can do - like make the universe from nothing - but any other real "god" (such as angels) must be a lesser god who cannot do what Yahweh alone can do. So we have moved from the general statement 'there is no God but one' that appears to contradict other more detailed Bible verses to a more precise statement 'there is only one God who made all things' thus resolving this apparent contradiction. 

So it would appear that the Bible teaches that there is only One God, who is uniquely identified by (primarily) two things: 
(1) His Divine Name that is alone to be exalted above all others (Psalm 148:13)
(2) He made the universe alone  (Job 31:15; Isaiah 37:16; Isaiah 44:6-8,24; Malachi 2:10; Acts 17:24,26;).

This seems to explain all issues so far, except for one verse that could potentially have a conflicting thought: 
 

The One God speaks and refers to "Us" making man. Yet we saw above that only one God made man (Job 31:15; Malachi 2:10; Acts 17:24,26). Further, the "Us" has a single image or likeness (the Hebrew words for "image" and "likeness" are singular). Then the event is repeated but "Us" disappears and the text says  "God" made/created man in his own image (again, singular). 

Does "Let Us make . . . " mean all of the "Us" had a significant role in the 'making'? Why is "Us" not mentioned in the second phrase, only "God" being stated? Is the term "Us" equivalent to "God"? Some proposed explanations are:

1) The "Us" refers to one God who made all things but it does not mean 'us' as it does in common English. It is not plural but has some grand metaphorical meaning.
2) The "Us" refers to one God who made all things, it is plural (as it is in English) but somehow refers to only one God. 
3) The "Us" refers to "God" plus other observer(s) who make little or no contribution to the 'making' process. The reference to "Let Us make . . . " does not mean, as it does in English, that 'we' jointly made anything. Thus it is sufficient to simply say "God" did it, ignoring the other(s) who made no contribution to the 'making'.
4) The "Us" refers to "God" plus at least one other 'Maker' who, for some unexplaned reason, is ignored in all other texts that describe the 'making' of man.Thus the idea that only one 'someone' made man is a misunderstanding of all the above mentioned texts. 

None of the above explanations appears to be natural or obvious. If one prefers to reach conclusions through logic based on texts found entirely within Scripture, then chosing any of the above explanations will pose a challenge. So right from the start of reading the Bible it appears we have encountered a difficulty. But it gets even more difficult. 

If we move on to the New Testament we encounter the gospel account of John which begins with phrases that echo the beginning of Genesis. Here we learn the identity of someone who could be included in "Us":

John 1:1-3

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. . . . And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."

The "Word," (identified in verse 14 as being Jesus) is said (twice!) to have been in the beginning with God and states that everything came into existence through the agency of him. So not only was he involved in making man, he made everything that has ever come into existence.

Soon we also encounter this in John:

John 5:18-23

For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God. Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner. For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him greater works than these, so that you will marvel. For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes. "For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him."

While it does not say here specifically that Jesus made all things, it says the Father shows him all the things that he does and the Son (Jesus) does everything the Father shows him and he does it the same way the Father does them, thus he makes himself equal with God. No wonder the Jews sought to kill him. 

While it may have appeared to be a small issue to explain Genesis 1:26,27 this is a much more difficult task. There is no ambiguity that this Jesus was with God, watching what he does and duplicating all that he saw. How could God have been alone when making the universe and the only God who can do this?

Other references that echo this are found in Hebrews 1:2,3,10-12 (with a quotation from  Psalm 102:12,15,21,24-27) and Colossians 1:15,16.

It does not help to resolve this by claiming that Jesus was not a "god" when he was with God making the universe because, as we saw above, the Bible repeatedly states that there is no one, no anything, who can do what Yahweh, the Creator, alone can do. 

Now to complicate matters, we find texts asserting that Jesus was, on rare occasions,  called "God/god" (Isaiah 9:6,7 / Luke 1:30-33; John 20:28 , also see the preamble in 1 Timothy 1:17 referring to the Only God who is King eternal, immortal and invisible and is to be honored forever while at the end of the book, in 6:14-16, is a parallel reference to Jesus as being the Only SovereignKing who alone is immortal, cannot be seen and is to to be honored forever).

So now there is a new problem. The previous discussion made it clear that although there were other entities, either imagined or real, who could be called 'god' in some sense, these could not make the universe as the One God did, nor did they share in it. Even if these 'gods' are real, either angelic or demonic, they are vastly inferior to the One God who made the universe. However the above verses introduce us to a person who made the universe, is called 'God' in some sense, was with God when the universe was made, is honored like God is and is very much like God. How do we resolve this? 

One might be tempted to say that the contradiction only arises when you include the New Testament, however even in the Old Testament book of Isaiah there appears to be a problem for the One God is identified in Isaiah 10:20,21 ('Mighty God'); 37:16; 44:24 yet there appears to be suggestions of a distinct person of the same stature in Isaiah 6:8 ("Us") and Isaiah 9:6 ("Mighty God").

If Jesus were a god but not the same God as the true God (Jeremiah 10:10,11) then it would be wrong even to say the name of Jesus (Exodus 23:13) (Deuteronomy 11:16; 18:20; Judges 2:19; 2 Kings 17:35; )
 

The chart below explains in a graphical form five different theological viewpoints.  Each belief-system will say that Jesus is God but they differ in the details. The answers to three questions distinguish each group and those answers are displayed in the tree-graph below. The three questions are:
 

1) The Father and Son, when counted, are how many Gods? 2) The Father and Son are counted as having how many Minds? 3) If they are two distinct Minds ('Persons'), what is the positional relationship between the Father and the Son?

In each colored box below are two links, each leading to text further down into this article. One link leads to a summary "for" the view - giving the reasoning that supports the position - while the second link leads to a summary "against" the position. Under each of the five views the summary adds a comment regarding the Holy Spirit. 

 

These five different belief-systems all hold that Jesus is in some sense 'God'.  They say the Father and Son are . . .

|

|

One God  for   ------------  against

Two Gods  for  -----------   against  and . . .

|

|

|

|

having One Mind  for  -----   against   1

composed of two Minds  (that is, two "Persons"), who are . . .   for  ------------   against

Father and Son are equal   for  -----------  against   4

Son is inferior   for  -----------  against   5

|

|

|

|

|

equal in all prerogatives   for  ------------  against   2

unequal in some prerogatives   for  ----------   against   3

The Father is God, Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God. Jesus is the Father and the Father is the Holy Spirit. There is only ONE God, one Mind, who relates to humans in one of three ways. This can be illustrated as a man who is a father, a son and a husband.

The Father is God, Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God. Jesus is NOT the Father and the Father is NOT the Holy Spirit so there are three distinct Minds. Yet these three distinct Minds constitute only ONE God. They are all equal in nature. None is above or subordinate to the other.

The Father is God, Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God. Jesus is NOT the Father and the Father is NOT the Holy Spirit so there are three distinct Minds. Yet these three distinct Minds constitute only ONE God. They are all equal in nature but the Son and the Holy Spirit are eternally (and voluntarily!) functionally subordinate to the Father.

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit each have the same essence. They are three Gods but the church's primary focus is on ONE God, Jesus.

The Father is the Most High God while Jesus is a second, inferior and created God. The Holy Spirit is not a distinct Mind but rather is the Father's Power or Active Force.

The label 'Trinity' is often associated with a variety of concepts regarding God and there are other doctrines, with other labels, proposing to describe the nature of God as taught in the Bible. As a result, some persons claim to believe in the Trinity doctrine and yet their understanding of it contradicts the historic definition. Others may describe a belief that sounds very close to the historic doctrine of the Trinity and yet were unaware that their theology could be considered Trinitarian. For this reason I need to list the various definitions that pervade the New Testament-based religions:
 

The various beliefs can be generally categorized like this

1. Trinitarian - The term 'God' refers to the nature that is shared among three distinct eternal persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Within this foundational view there are differing sub-views:
• Some adherents would say that these three persons have always been equal in position and authority. (Egalitarian)
• Others would say that the Son, the Word (Jesus), was temporarily in subjection to the Father while on earth.
• Others believe the Son, beginning with his earthly incarnation, is eternally submissive (functional subordination).
• Still others hold that the Son and the Holy Spirit are both eternally - from eternity to eternity - functionally subordinate to the Father. (Complementarian)
All these views are usually labeled as representing the Trinity doctrine, so-called because the three persons ("Tri") are in unity, all having the nature of "God".
2. The term 'God' refers to the one eternal person that manifests Himself to mankind in three different modes, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. An illustration might be that of one man who is viewed in three different ways, to one he is a father, to another a husband and to another a son. This view is often labeled as Modalism or Oneness.
3. Others believe that the term 'God' refers only to the one eternal person known as the Father. The Son is not 'from eternity' like the Father. The Holy Spirit is generally regarded as some kind of a spiritual force or power, not a distinct person. These believers, sometimes called 'Arians' after the prominent third century teacher Arius, hold that the Son is a created angel that came to earth as God's representative to save mankind.
4. Another view, not discussed in this article, are the 'Socinians' who hold that Jesus began his existence as a man whom God later promoted and exalted to heaven.

The following article presents the Complementarian-Trinitarian position as I understand it. I find that it fits with the majority of the Scriptures taking the most natural reading.

A brief presentation

Before proceeding to the details, here is a brief explanation of this view:

The Trinitarian concept differs from the other views primarily in the idea that three persons can be (and must be!) understood to be only ONE God. This concept is roughly described by some as a "composite being". Composite beings are not unknown in Scripture (see below for a list) and one example is examined here: 

Isaiah 43:10

Note that while the term "servant" is singular, the reference "witnesses" is plural. So in one sense the referent is singular, and in another sense, plural. If one were to hold strictly to what it says here then one would day that God has only one servant but that servant is a composite being, composed of many witnesses.  In Isaiah 49:3-7; (compare 50:10) the term "servant" switches between two meanings, one reference to a composite being and another to a single person, the messenger chosen by God. Do we conclude that the messenger is himself the entire nation of Israel? No. Do we concluded that God has more than one servant? No.

David was identified as God's servant (Isaiah 37:35; Psalm 89:20) and his son Solomon was God's servant (1 Kings 3:7). Does this mean that God had more than one servant? If we fold in the view of Isaiah 43:10 the answer is no. When Solomon refers to David, his father, as a servant (1 Kings 3:7), must we necessarily conclude that Solomon cannot also be called "servant"? No. Or must we conclude that Isaiah 43:10 conflicts with the Solomon calling David "servant"? Again, no. For if we view all servants of God throughout time as comprising the one composite "servant" of God, there is no contradiction. So while this does sound odd, that is part of the flexibility of human language that God has granted us.

Even though the concept of a composite being is found in Scripture, why do some believe that this necessarily describes the nature of God? There are many scriptures that can be referenced but the basic reason is this:

Scripture states that the "One God" of the Old Testament has some attributes that no other God has. We will also see that Scripture states that the Word, Jesus, has some of these same attributes. Most significant is that the One God is said to be the One Creator or Maker of the universe yet the Word also is ascribed this attribute.

Isaiah 44:24 says God is the maker of all things, he made them by himself, all alone. Isaiah 44:6-8 has God repeatedly saying there is no God besides "Me", and asks if there is anyone like "Me" (also see Isaiah 45:5,6,14,18,21,22 and Psalm 86:8,10; 89:6,7; 113:5). Isaiah 46:9 repeats that there is no other God and answers the previous question by stating that there is no one like "Me". Psalm 102:12-27 describe the LORD, "my God", as being the one who made the heavens and the earth.

As we now consider the supporting verses showing that Jesus has these attributes, we should address the Arian counter-claim that the Bible applies these prestigious attributes only in a representative sense, that is, when a speaker makes a prestigious claim he is in reality only speaking as a representative with his own identity being totally subsumed and transparent.  For example in Genesis 44:4-10 Joseph commands his house steward to speak a command in his name. In verse 10 the steward speaks just as if he were Joseph and refers to the command that all guilty persons were to become "my" slave (rather than 'my Lord's slave'). Some see a similar case of such representative speech in Genesis 22:15,16 where the angel of the LORD says "By Myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, . . ."

But as we will now see, the supporting  verses do not have a person speaking as a representative but rather these verses have third parties  applying these prestigious attributes directly to Jesus.

Above we saw the claim that God made the heavens and the earth and no one else is even like him. Yet Psalm 102:25-27, referenced above, is quoted in Hebrews 1:10-12 and those same creative acts are applied to Jesus. To whom are these words of instruction written? To gentiles or pagans? No, to Jews, those persons most familiar with Isaiah. Note the context of Hebrews 1:2,3 where it again asserts that the Son (Jesus) made the universe but further teaches that he is the exact copy of "His" (Majesty's) nature. Since Isaiah (and Psalms) clearly state that there is no one else like the One God, the Only God, who made the universe alone, all by himself, would the Jewish audience conclude that these statements in Hebrews 1:2,3,10-12 contradict the Bible?  These claims are uniquely true for the God of the Old Testament yet they are ascribed to the Son, Jesus. 

How do we resolve this apparent contradiction? These statements were not made in a representative sense so they cannot be used to resolve this.If we take the words as they are, and as being true, Jesus must be that One God who has no equal.  The Modalist response is to insist that the Word IS the Father, the Majesty. But as we saw in Hebrews 1:3, the Son cannot be the Majesty for he sits at the right hand of the Majesty. Thus we are left with the Trinitarian model, that just as Solomon and David were individually witnesses (of God) and simultaneously  in the one composite being, "my servant", the Son and the Majesty are two persons within in the composite One God. Each can be appropriately addressed as God (just as David and Solomon could each be addressed as "servant"), yet there are not two Gods (nor are there two servants), but only one.
 

Why Did Jesus Never say 'I Am God'?

The answer becomes apparent when considering a parallel question. Most Christians would say a belief that Jesus is the "Christ" is a fundamental belief. Then why did he not say this directly and clearly by simply saying 'I am the Christ?' In examining Jesus' teachings we find that only rarely did he say things that sounded like an admission to being the Christ (John 4:25,26; Mark 14:61,62; Matthew 26:63-64; Luke 22:67-70) and he hesitated to say so openly (John 10:24, 25, 37, 38; Luke 22:67). When anyone did conclude that he was the Christ, he generally did not want those persons to tell others (Luke 4:41; Matthew 16:13-20; Mark 3:11-12; Mark 8:27-30; Luke 9:18-21). Instead of identifying himself by plain statements, Jesus preferred letting his spiritual teachings and his works identify him (John 5:36; 14:10,11).

But because most people had misconceptions about what to expect of the Christ, they did not accept him as such (John 7:27,40-43; 12:34; Luke 23:39). They were puzzled about who he was and not many believed him to be the Christ (John 1:41; 7:31,40,41; 11:26,27; Matthew 16:13-16; 27:17,22). Does this mean that it is logical to conclude that Jesus could not be the Christ simply because he did not specifically say he was the "Christ" and because only a few others said he was? No.

So summarizing . . .

Why did many Jews doubt Jesus was the Christ?

• Jesus did not directly claim to be the Christ.
• They misunderstood the implications of the title 'Christ', leading to false expectations.

• The claims made by Jesus imply that he was the Christ.
• The works performed by Jesus imply that he was the Christ.
• Persons close to Jesus professed him to be the Christ.

Today many doubt that Jesus is God because . . .

• Jesus did not directly claim to be God.
• They misunderstand the implications of the title 'God' leading to false expectations.

• The claims made by Jesus imply that he was God.
• The works performed by Jesus imply that he was God.
• Persons close to Jesus professed him to be God

How Can Two (Or More) Persons Be One God?

Genesis 2: "²⁴ For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh."

Mark 10 " ⁶ But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. ⁷ For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, ⁸ and the two shall become one flesh; consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh."

What is also significant is noting the name that God gave to his human creations. The man is called "man" (or "Adam" in Hebrew) in Genesis 2:7,20 but this is apparently more than just a reference to his nature since it served as a name (Luke 3:38; Romans 5:14). But the woman does not receive a distinctive name until Genesis 3:20 after she sins. Now note Genesis 5:1,2 where we learn that the woman had already been named at the time of her creation. 

Genesis 5: " ¹ This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man [Hebrew 'Adam'], He made him in the likeness of God. ² He created them male and female, and he blessed them and named them Man [Hebrew 'Adam'] in the day when they were created."

Since Genesis 2:23,24 declares the couple to be one flesh prior to their procreation, their oneness is not dependent on marital relations. Verse 23 clarifies by stating that Eve was made from Adam and was of  the same flesh and bone. This is helpful in understanding why they are said to be one. Jesus adds in Mark 10:6 that their oneness had to do with the commitment of marriage between the two of them. As a couple they were to behave as one entity. If Eve had lived where she liked and made all her own decisions it is hard to see how they would still be "one flesh" as God had intended. For them to behave as one entity, there would necessarily be one and only one person handling the role of final decision-maker with the other person taking the role of being a cooperative helper.

Further, although the woman was to be submissive, this does not mean she was inferior. She was not a monkey nor was she to be a separate independent human. She was to be honored just as her husband (Exodus 20:12). She had the same nature as her head, her husband. She was not more or less human than he. She was made from Adam's rib so must have had the same genetic nature. He was the male gender and she was the female gender of the same humanity yet each had a different role. They were distinct persons but they were not to be viewed as being separated, for they were "no longer two."

The same concept of oneness is true for the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. They are all Deity. They have the same essential attributes of immortality, the authority to judge and give life, are credited with making the universe, and their glory is one. Although the Son is submissive, he is to be honored just as much as the Father (John 5:23). However, they are all distinct persons. Generally we do not say they are 'separate' since the Father is always with the Son (John 8:29; 14:10; 16:32) except on one occasion when the Holy Father separated from the Son who bore all the sins of all mankind, living and dead (Matthew 27:46). When Yahweh, the One True God, spoke in the Old Testament, he usually spoke for "us," the three persons of the Trinity (Isaiah 6:1-10 Yahweh; John 12:36-43 Son; Acts 28:25-27 Holy Spirit). At times the name "Yahweh" distinguishes the Father from the Son (Psalm 110:1) but at other times Jesus has the name of Yahweh (John 17:6,11,12). Each person has a different role or function in the universe. One person, the Father, is the source of all authority and decisions, the Son is the perfect agent who carries out the one will better than any angel could, the Holy Spirit gives spiritual gifts.

The above reasoning shows it is biblically possible for two (or more) distinct persons to be viewed as one entity.  So as an aid to discussing this further, when two or more persons behave as one person or they can be collectively perceived as one person we will call this unified entity a "composite being".
 
 

Does the term "God" refer to a person, a composite being, a nature or all three?

While the above illustration of Adam and Eve may not impress one as being a clear reference to a 'composite being' there are other biblical examples. 

• The Bride of Christ

The Corinthian congregation was included in that bride for Paul addressed them saying  (2 Corinthians 11:2):

"For I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy; for I betrothed you to one husband, so that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin."

Here the Greek 'you' is plural while 'virgin' is singular. Although Paul was not a member of that congregation, and distinguished himself from them ("I . . . you"), yet he was not thereby excluding himself from being a member of the "virgin" or bride. However it is not appropriate to say Christ has many brides, for the Scriptures speak of only one bride. This illustrates how one person who is part of a composite being could also speak to another person (or persons) and address them as that composite being. This helps in understanding John 17:3 (commented on elsewhere in this article).
 

>>>>>>>> Aquila and Priscilla: Acts 18: Aquila would say Priscilla was his bride. How many brides did Jesus have? One. Aquila was her head. So they were distinct with unequal roles, yet both within the One Bride. Aquila could say 'this is my bride yet we are both within the One Bride of Christ.

• The Heavenly Woman

• The Body of Christ

• God's servant, the nation, the witnesses of God

• The Northern and Southern Hebrew nations

• The Jewish nation and the Christian church.

• Satan / all demons

The concept of a composite being is not foreign to Scripture. God's people in the Old and New Testament are portrayed as composite beings, God's Woman and the Lamb's bride are manifested as composite beings and the Devil himself is referred to as a composite being.

How can the term "God" take different meanings in the same sentence?

From Genesis 3:20 it would seem that the woman was not called "Eve" until after their sin. Then from Genesis 5:1,2 we see the man and woman were both called "Man" until their sin. As the text says, they were one flesh. So, was the woman called "a Man?" No, she was not a man. So does the Bible imply that she was called "the Man?" No, she wa s certainly not THE man, her husband was THE man. But the text does say she was named "Man." Now consider this:

'In the garden was the Woman, and the Woman was with the Man and the Woman was Man.'

John 1 " ¹ In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

 Likewise, John 1:1 is saying that in the beginning the Word was (already) with the person who is commonly referred to as "God", namely the Father, who holds the supreme authoritative position. The next portion of the verse adds that the Word had the essential nature of being God. This is not a mystery nor is it incomprehensible.

Further note that the reference to Adam and Eve could not read:

'In the garden was the Woman, and the Woman was with the Man and the Woman was a Man.'

Notice a similar reference to "man" in Hebrews 13:6:

"The Lord is my helper, I will not be afraid. What will man do to me?"

The biblical references to "God" are used like a name, distinct from Jesus

John 1 " 1 In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

The biblical references to "God" sound more like a person than a composite Being

Although the above illustration clarifies the concept of how two persons can be "one" in another sense what does this mean for the term "God"? Can we read the Bible and discern that the term "God" is used in all cases (or in the majority of cases) as a composite being? Or, since the basis for the above reasoning was centered around the concept of the one human nature that Adam and Eve shared, do we find that "God" usually refers to a nature? Or is the term "God" used in contexts that most naturally appear to describe a solitary person? Is there any consistency? If not, then does this imply that the Trinity doctrine is a unnecessarily contrived invention?
 

If the term "God" primarily refers to the Trinity, a Composite Being and not a Person, why do most references to "God" sound like references to a person?
(Matthew 4:4; 23:22)
 

Often we find references to the term "God" being used like a name and occasionally in distinction to Jesus. For example in John 1:1 is a reference to the Son being with "God" and then being "God". How can the Son be with an entity and then BE that same entity? As mentioned above the answer is that in this verse, the first reference to "God" is to a person while the second reference  is to the nature of God. This is

(Mark 10:18; 16:19; Luke 4:8,12; Luke 6:12; John 6:27; 8:40,42; 13:3; 14:1;Acts 2:24; 3:15; 10:38; Romans 1:8; Philippians 2:11; etc.) As in John 1:1 how can the Son be "God" and also be with "God"? Does this verse, as well as the others mentioned, show that "God" is distinguished from the Son? Does it seem odd to see a reference to an entity as if it were a singular being followed by a second reference with the same term meaning a composite being?

Likewise, what about

often and clearly, refers to the Father (Romans 1:7; 15:6; 1 Corinthians 1:3; 15:24; 2 Corinthians 1:2,3; Galatians 1:1,3,4; Ephesians 4:6; Philippians 4:20). But do we find references to "God" being used as a name or in direct address to Jesus? The few verses where Jesus is clearly called "God" are qualified references, that is, there is a qualifier as in "mighty" God (Isaiah 9:6) and "my" God (John 20:28).  There are a few verses where some translations render the term "God" as a direct address to Jesus (Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; Hebrews 1:8), however not all Bible scholars agree. One that, in my opinion, most likely does apply to Jesus is Hebrews 1:8 (see more here).

The debate regarding this verse is whether it is supposed to read

"O God, your throne is forever"

"God is your throne forever"

But if Jesus is "God" why are there references that seem to make distinctions between God and Jesus? As mentioned at the beginning of this article, the relationship between Jesus and his Father can be likened to the relationship between Eve and Adam.

Genesis 5:1,2 says

"¹ This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man (Hebrew "Adam"), He made him in the likeness of God. ² He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man (Hebrew "Adam") in the day when they were created." (NIV)

The text here switches back and forth referring to creating a single person (1 and 3) and two persons (4, 5, 6, 7) and one reference that could be either (2). So when reading this one could conclude that Eve is not included in the reference to God making "him" yet Eve is included in the reference to God creating "them". The point is that in biblical language terms can in one
 
 

All the references to Jesus being God are really only rare examples of a representative being viewed as the source.

It is possible to refer to a prophet and say "God has visited us" (Luke 7:16). This suggests that any reference to "God" could in reality be a reference to God's representative. So some might conclude that all references to Jesus as "God" are only made in the sense of Jesus being God's representative.  But, as we examine the evidence in the rest of the article you will notice that the reasoning is rarely based on just the use of the title "God", it is more based on the attributes attached to Jesus. No prophet, no angel had the attributes given to Jesus. Especially as you read the first 2 chapters in  Hebrews, notice how the reasoning clearly says "the Son does thus and so but no angel has ever done thus and so".  You would not find those kind of statements repeated if the Son were only an angelic representative. Yet if the Son did indeed have the attributes and nature of "God" then the Son would most certainly be the representative of God. So being God's representative does not determine the conclusion of whether Jesus does or does not have the nature of God.
 

How can God have a God?

Recall our example of a marriage and how a couple is no longer to be viewed as two but only as one flesh (Mark 10:8,9). That would apply for Abraham and Sarah. They were one flesh, no longer two, yet Sarah called Abraham "my Lord" (Genesis 18:12; 1 Peter 3:6) yet was one flesh with that Lord. So the difference in rank has no bearing on their being one.

Consider again the above illustration of Adam and Eve. Imagine that Adam and Eve had remained sinless and had a child named Cain. Suppose we could ask Cain 'Who is your boss (or head)?' Cain would probably reason that since Eve was in perfect submission and one flesh with Adam, both his parents were his boss. He would say 'My boss is Adam and Eve.' If we asked 'Then how many bosses do you have?' He would reason that since Adam and Eve were ONE flesh and no longer two, the authority was 'one', so he would say 'One boss.'

We might object and ask Cain if because Adam and Eve were two persons, does this not mean there were two bosses, a 'big' boss and a 'little' boss? He then would answer 'No, for Adam and Eve were to be in perfect unity with perfect communication, acting as one entity with one decision-maker, one will. No, there was only one boss, the two persons together named "Adam" (or "Man"). They could not be two bosses for they were "no longer two." '

Next suppose we asked Eve. 'Do you have a boss?' She would reason that since she was in perfect submission, and Adam was her head, she would say 'Yes' she had an earthly boss, Adam. Then how many human bosses are there in the Garden of Eden, one or two? The answer is 'one'. Yet if Eve is a boss and she has a boss over her, does this not mean one plus one are two bosses? No, as long as Eve was ONE flesh with her head, Adam and she was not acting on her own initiative there was only one boss. However if Eve were not ONE flesh with Adam, if she acted on her own initiative, then there would be two bosses and poor Cain would get confused about whom to obey.  So rather than viewing this as 'one boss plus one boss,' we should view it as 'one boss times one completely submissive boss' equals one boss.

This explains why Jesus is eternally submissive to his Father as his head yet is still one with his Father (John 10:30). Just as Eve was a boss and yet also had a boss, Jesus is called God in Scripture (Isaiah 9:6; John 20:28) and yet he had a God. Likewise, just as Adam and Eve were one flesh and were to behave as one unit and thus there was only one boss in the garden, in heaven there is just one authority, one God.

Note these references showing how recognized Bible scholars describe the submission of Jesus.

• In Essential Truths of the Christian Faith by R.C. Sproul in Chapter 26 ("The Subordination of Christ") it says: "A subordinate is not a peer; a subordinate is not on an equal level of authority with his or her super-ordinate. The prefix sub- means "under" and super- means "over" or "above." When we speak of the subordination of Christ we must do so with great care. Our culture equates subordination with inequality. But in the Trinity all members are equal in nature, in honor, and in glory. All three members are eternal, self-existent; they partake of all aspects and attributes of deity. In God's plan of redemption, however, the Son voluntarily takes on a subordinate role to the Father. It is the Father who sends the Son into the world . . . As they are the same in glory, the Father and the Son are also of one will. . . . By submitting Himself to the perfect will of His Father, Jesus did for us what we were unwilling and unable to do for ourselves. . . . As the subordinate One, He saved a people who had been insubordinate. . . . Although Christ is equal to the Father in terms of His divine nature, He is subordinate to the Father in His role in redemption. Subordination does not mean 'inferior.' "
• In Systematic Theology (by A. H. Strong, 1953 ed. p. 342) it says: "The subordination of the person of the Son to the person of the Father or in other words an order of personality, office, and operation which permits the Father to be officially first, the Son second, and the Spirit third, is perfectly consistent with equality. Priority is not necessarily superiority. The possibility of an order, which yet involves no inequality, may be illustrated by the relation between man and woman. In office man is first and woman second, but woman's soul is worth as much as man's: see 1 Cor. 11:3 . . . We frankly recognize an eternal subordination of Christ to the Father, but we maintain at the same time that this subordination is a subordination of order, office, and operation, not a subordination of essence."
• Commenting on 1 Corinthians 15:28, F. Godet says: "Subordination was therefore, according to him, in harmony with the essential relation of the Son to the Father, in His Divine and human existence."
• H. A. W. Meyer, in his Commentary on the New Testament, says this about 1 Corinthians 11:3: "He to whom Christ is subordinate is God . . . where the dogmatic explanation resorted to, that Christ in His human nature only is meant . . . , is un-Pauline. Neither again, is his voluntary subjection referred to, but . . . the objective and, notwithstanding His essential equality with God (Philippians 2:6), necessary subordination of the Son to the Father in the divine economy of redemption."

Take a piece of paper and draw the illustration below. Write as title at the top "Everything that has ever existed . . .". Next, draw a line starting from the top, just below the title, to the bottom dividing it in half. On the left, slightly below the top, write: ". . . Those things that were brought into existence. . ." On the right, at the top, write: ". . . everything else . . . the things that have always existed." There are only two categories, every thing that has ever existed was either made or it was not made. Either it was brought into existence or it was always here.

Next, on the left half, starting down below the second title, draw another line dividing it into half again. Thus you now have three columns or lists. At the top of the left-most list write the words ". . . through the agency of Jesus" and at the top of the middle list write ". . . not through the agency of Jesus." Logically the left side of ". . . Those things that were brought into existence. . ." can be broken into two categories: either the thing was made through Jesus or it was made but not through the agency of Jesus, that is, it was made apart from Jesus. There are no other categories, everything that has ever existed belongs on one of these three lists.
 

Next, turn to John 1:3 where John comments on two of the three lists. There John says:

"Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." NIV (Some scholars think this last phrase belongs with the next verse, but either way, the point will be the same.) Or

"All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being." NRSV

Sometimes in Scripture the word "all" does not mean all things that have ever existed, sometimes it means 'all the  things' understood in the immediate context of the discussion or all things but with some obvious exceptions. Here it might not be obvious what "all things" refers to but it would seem that it would exclude any thing that that any reader would naturally believe had always existed. The Jewish reader of the first century would immediately assume that the Creator was not one of those things that came into being, since he always existed (Psalm 90:2; 93:2). So we might expect further clarification from John as to the identity of "all things". 

Now examine the next phrase: "without him not one thing came into being". This is essentially saying the same thing as the first phrase. In mathematics the study called "set theory" would say the first phrase describes the set of "all things" and that they came into existence through him - referring to the Word of John 1:1,2. What is implied is that the Word did not bring about his own existence so the Word is not one of the "all things". The second phrase speaks of the complement of the first set, namely, that of that same set of "all things" the subset of items that came into being "without him", that is, without the agency of the Word, has zero elements. They are mathematically equivalent. So why repeat the same point? It would appear that John wanted to emphasize the point and make clear that there was no overlooked exception to this nor was this imprecise casual speech. To further emphasize the point, if as some scholars believe, the next phrase ("that has been made") modifies the subject "all things", then even our initial assumption, that "all things" excludes uncreated things, is an unnecessary assumption, nothing is left to guesswork. John is saying that all uncreated things came into being through the agency of the Word.

Another point of the phrase "without him not one thing came into being" is of interest. The Greek for "not one thing" is literally "not not" and is an emphatic "not". It means that no thing, not one thing, ZERO items are meant. In Greek the reference to "not one thing" is emphatic. It means zero, there are no exceptions. There are no objects in this category Again this emphasizes that the reader should not consider that there might be even one exception two what is said. Especially when you note that in the context it mentions God and the Word and "all things", so that if there were some unmentioned exception, it would have to be some thing outside of these and something obvious to the reader. 

So could the Word be an exception to the doubly emphasized statement that not one thing came into existence apart from the Word's agency? Since this passage is primarily an exposition about the Word, it does not seem likely that the writer would leave such a significant issue out of the discussion as if it were obvious to the reader. There does not seem any room for an exception. It would be stretching it to say that John really meant "All things except those obvious things unmentioned here came into being through the Word, and without him not one thing came into being except of course the one unmentioned created thing. 

Now compare this with our list .The first phrase ("All things came into being through him") in this verse addresses our left-most list. It shows that all things that were ever made (or "came into being"), came through Jesus and therefore should be listed on the first list. So write the words "All things" on this list. Then add as examples "stars and planets, angels, humans, living things, etc."

This alone would imply that the second list, those things made apart from the agency of Jesus, is an empty list. But could there be an exception? Are there things that were made by the Father apart from any action of the Son?

John next says "without him not one thing came into being." John is specifically addressing the category of those things that came into being (or were made) but without the agency of the Word. He comments that in this category there is "not one thing." So on your middle list write the words "not even one thing." Reaffirm the point by reading the three titles together: "Everything that has ever existed . . . those things that were brought into existence. . . (but) not through the agency of Jesus" and that according to John 1:3 this list contains "not even one thing."

Now fill in the rest of the paper by deciding where to list "The Father." Since the Father has always existed, he is from eternity, list "the Father" on the right-most list. Next, decide where the Holy Spirit should be listed. Did Jesus bring the Holy Spirit into existence? Scripture says the Spirit was in the beginning with God (Genesis 1:1,2). So add the "Holy Spirit" to the right-most list.

Now for the key concern. Decide where Jesus should be listed. Can he be on the first list of those things made by Jesus? Did Jesus make himself, did he bring himself into existence? No, that is logically impossible. So he cannot be on the left list. What about the middle list? Jesus cannot be added to the middle list for John 1:3 insists "not one thing" can be listed there. Therefore, the only place Jesus can be listed is on the right side as one of those things that has always existed!
 

One God, One Lord
Psalm 50:1 (The Mighty One, God, the LORD, has spoken)
Isaiah 43:15 (I am the LORD, your Holy One, The Creator of Israel, your King.)
Mark 12:29 (Jesus answered, "The foremost is, '(1) HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD;)
Mark 12:32
Dt 4:35
Dt6:4
James 2:19

2 Corinthians 3:18 (But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.) (And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect [1] the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit. )
Joshua 22:22 (The Mighty One, God, the LORD, the Mighty One, God, the LORD! He knows, and may Israel itself know. If it was in rebellion, or if in an unfaithful act against the LORD do not save us this day!)
2 Kings 19:15 (Hezekiah prayed before the LORD and said, "O LORD, the God of Israel, who are enthroned above the cherubim, You are the God, You alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth. You have made heaven and earth.)
Nehemiah 9:6 (You alone are the LORD. You have made the heavens, The heaven of heavens with all their host, The earth and all that is on it, The seas and all that is in them. You give life to all of them And the heavenly host bows down before You. )

Although this simple presentation does not fully prove that the Holy Spirit is a person, we must admit there are three items on the list of things that always existed. All three were involved in creation, including the Holy Spirit (Psalm 104:30). Yet Isaiah 44:24 and Malachi 2:10 say only ONE God made the universe, all by himself. Thus we have three entities, but ONE God.

Now for a more in-depth explanation . . .
 
 

Hebrews 1: . . .

" ¹ God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, ² in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, . . ."

" ^{Hebrews 1:2} . . .whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world."

This would probably cause a devout Jew a little puzzlement. Was there anyone in the Hebrew scriptures revealed to have shared in making the universe? Who could this be? Angels, also called sons of God (Job 1:6; 2:1; Psalm 29:1; 89:5-7), cannot do what God can do. They did not participate in making the universe. They were part of the creation:

Deuteronomy 3 " ²⁴ 'My Lord Yahweh,' I said, 'now that you have begun to reveal your greatness and your power to your servant with works and mighty deeds no God in heaven or on earth can rival" (NJB)

Psalm 86 " ^{8 among} the gods there is none to compare with you, no great deeds to compare with yours. ¹⁰ For you are great and do marvelous deeds, you, God, and none other." (NJB)

Malachi 2 " ¹⁰ . . . Has not one God created us? . . ."

Isaiah 44 " ²⁴ Thus says Yahweh, your redeemer, he who formed you in the womb: I, Yahweh, have made all things, I alone spread out the heavens. When I hammered the earth into shape, who was with me?" (NJB)

Isaiah 45 " ¹⁸ For thus says Yahweh, the Creator of the heavens - he is God, who shaped the earth and made it, who set it firm; he did not create it to be chaos, he formed it to be lived in: I am Yahweh, and there is no other. ²¹ . . . Who foretold this in the past, who revealed it long ago? Was it not I, Yahweh? There is no other god except me, no saving God, no Saviour except me! ²² Turn to me and you will be saved, all you ends of the earth, for I am God, and there is no other." (NJB)

So how many Gods made the universe? One or two? A Jew would answer "One! ,there is no other."

Notice what Jesus' Jewish disciples believed. . .

Acts 4 " ²⁴ When they heard it, they raised their voices together to God and said, 'Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth, the sea, and everything in them," (NRSV)

Acts 17 " ^{24 The} God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth . . ." (Compare Acts 10:36 where Jesus is "Lord of all.")

Revelation 14 " ⁷ and he said with a loud voice, 'Fear God, and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come; and worship Him who made the heaven and the earth and sea and springs of waters.' "

Only ONE God made the universe and He is to be glorified and worshiped because of it! Who is this? If God made the universe by himself and no other God can do what He can do, who is this Son that was used to make the universe? Is He to be glorified and worshiped too? Will the rest of the book to the Hebrews answer this? Will it name someone that has already been revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures as this Son that made the universe?

Continuing with Hebrews 1: . . .

" ³ And He is the radiance of His glory . . ."

Isaiah 42 " ⁸ I am the LORD (Yahweh), that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images. "

Isaiah 48 " ¹¹ For My own sake, for My own sake, I will act; For how can My name be profaned? And My glory I will not give to another. " (Compare Matthew 16:27; Mark 8:38; John 16:14,15; 17:5; Revelation 5:13,14)

So who is it that is the radiance of the glory of God himself? Is it really true that God would not share his glory with another? While in a sense God later gives some glory to Spirit-begotten Christians (John 17:22), here in Isaiah the glory belongs to God and no other.

Consider another passage where Isaiah speaks of Yahweh's glory. While reading this, ask yourself "Are Isaiah 42:8 and 48:11 true here? Is God's glory being shared with another God? How many glories are mentioned here?"

Isaiah 6: " ¹ In the year of King Uzziah's death I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple. ² Seraphim stood above Him, . . . ³ And one called out to another and said, 'Holy, Holy, Holy, is the LORD (Yahweh) of hosts, The whole earth is full of His glory.' . . . ⁵ Then I said, 'Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I live among a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, the LORD (Yahweh) of hosts.' ⁸ Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, 'Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?' Then I said, Here am I. Send me!' ⁹ He said, Go, and tell this people: "Keep on listening, but do not perceive; Keep on looking, but do not understand." ¹⁰ "Render the hearts of this people insensitive, Their ears dull, And their eyes dim, Otherwise they might see with their eyes, Hear with their ears, Understand with their hearts, And return and be healed." "

Well, how many glories did you see? Did you see the glory of anyone else described here? Did you see more than one person mentioned? Did Yahweh share his glory with any of those persons? Now compare . . .

John 12:36-43: " ³⁶ 'While you have the Light, believe in the Light, so that you may become sons of Light.' These things Jesus spoke, and He went away and hid Himself from them. ³⁷ But though He had performed so many signs before them, yet they were not believing in Him. ³⁸ This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke [in Isaiah 53:1]: 'Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?' ³⁹ For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, ⁴⁰ [in Isaiah 6:10] 'He has blinded their eyes and he hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted and I heal them.' ⁴¹ These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him. ^{42 Nevertheless} many even of the rulers believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue; ⁴³ for they loved the approval of men rather than the approval of God."

From the context it is clear that this is referring to Jesus, the Son of God, the one that many would not believe. Yet John quotes Isaiah 6:10 (in John 12:40) and then explains that Isaiah saw the glory of the Son of God! So how many glories did Isaiah see? Did Isaiah see two glories? The account said Isaiah "saw the Lord. . . . The whole earth is full of His glory." Isaiah "heard the voice of the Lord (Yahweh), saying, 'Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?' There was only ONE glory mentioned, one voice, one speaker, one sender yet Isaiah would be going for "Us." (Note also that the Holy Spirit is credited with doing the speaking - see Acts 28:25-27.) So this glory was being shared by another! If this other person sharing God's glory was an angel or a second god, would that not contradict Isaiah 42:8 and 48:11? Then whose glory did Isaiah see - Jesus' or Yahweh's? Did he see the glory of one God or two? The only answer that fits the claims in Isaiah, John and Acts 28:25-27 is that Isaiah saw Yahweh and His glory and His voice, yet he was looking at the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Thus the angels said "Holy, Holy, Holy, [three times] is the LORD (Yahweh) of hosts."

continuing with Hebrews 1:3 . . .

". . . and the exact representation of His nature,"

Philippians 2:3,5,6,8 " ³ Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind let each of you regard one another as more important than himself; ⁵ Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, ⁶ who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, ⁸ . . . He humbled Himself . . ." (Although translations differ over how the end of this verse should be translated they agree on the first part saying that Jesus, while in heaven, existed in God's form.)

Parallel to Hebrews 1:3 this says Jesus had the "form" of God. If we could see Jesus in His heavenly form we would have to say he had the form of God, the exact representation of God's nature. Jesus looks just like God!

But there is more that can be learned from this passage. Paul points to the relationship between Jesus and His Father and says that Jesus' attitude should be ours. He states that "although He existed in the form of God . . . He humbled Himself." The first phrase refers to Jesus' nature, His heavenly appearance. The second phrase refers to Jesus' position. Paul reasons that our Leader, Christ, had a nature deserving of stature but chose a position that was unexpected, a humble position that did not fit his "form." If the attitude that Jesus adopted was actually expected then Paul's whole reasoning looses its force. Paul's intent is to convince Christians to adopt an attitude that was not natural for them, one that was unexpected.

For Paul's reasoning to be convincing and applicable, there must be a parallel situation between Jesus and His Father and between Christians in the congregation. The Christian reading this passage would have to see the extent of Jesus' humility in contrast to His relationship to His Father. The implication is that Jesus truly had the nature of His Father just as Christians all have the same basic human nature. And just as we might expect Jesus to maintain a position that fit his nature, humans usually behave in a manner fitting their view of being equal to each other. But Paul points out that Jesus did not grasp a position of equality to His Father, a position that we would reasonably expect Him to grasp based on his "form." Instead He willingly accepted a position of humility, below his nature. Likewise, Paul reasons that humans should do the same. Even though they are all equal in nature, they should each choose a position of humility in relation to others.

In brief, Paul reasons that even though Jesus had a nature completely equal to God, he chose a relationship of submission. Likewise, Christians are all equal in basic human nature but they should all adopt the attitude of Jesus and be submissive to one another.

Another verse comments on Jesus' form or appearance:

John 14 " ⁹ Jesus said to him, 'Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, "Show us the Father?"' "

Could this be saying that Jesus is the Father and God is really only one person? Then this would be strange since the first few verses of Hebrews says God spoke through the Son and made the universe through the Him. That makes a distinction between the Son and someone else.

So we must conclude that the Son has God's appearance; he looks exactly like God even in his nature. But in the Jewish mind, who could look exactly like God? Do angels look like God? Is there another God that looks exactly like God? Here is another puzzle for the Hebrew who is trying to understand the Son in terms of the Hebrew Scriptures:

Psalm 89 " ⁶ For who in the skies above can compare with the LORD (Yahweh)? Who is like the LORD (Yahweh) among the heavenly beings? ⁷ In the council of the holy ones God is greatly feared; he is more awesome than all who surround him. ⁸ O LORD (Yahweh) God Almighty, who is like you? You are mighty, O LORD (Yahweh), and your faithfulness surrounds you. ⁹ You rule over the surging sea; when its waves mount up, you still them. " (NIV) [What would a Jew that was familiar with this verse think of the account in Matthew 8:24-27 (Mark 4:35-41; Luke 8:22-25)?]

Note that this implies that the "heavenly beings" of verse six are the ones who are around him in verse seven. So even the angels that are around Yahweh can not compare with Him. Then WHO is the Son that is the radiance of God's glory and "the exact representation of His nature"?

1 Kings 8: " ²³ He said, 'O LORD (Yahweh), the God of Israel, there is no God like You in heaven above or on earth beneath, keeping covenant and showing loving kindness to Your servants who walk before You with all their heart' " (2 Chronicles 6:14 reads the same.)

Isaiah 46: " ⁵ 'To whom would you liken Me And make Me equal and compare Me, That we would be alike? ⁹ Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me."

(Other verses that also say there is no God like Yahweh, are: Exodus 8:10; 9:14; 15:11; Deuteronomy 33:26; 1 Samuel 2:2; 2 Samuel 7:22; 1 Chronicles 17:20; Psalm 113:5; Isaiah 40:18,25; 44:6-8; Jeremiah 10:6; Micah 7:18.)

Would a Jew familiar with these texts conclude that the Son, the one who is "the exact representation of His nature," must be an angel or a second and distinct God? No, for there is no other god or angel that can be compared to the One True God. Just who is this that is being describing here?

continuing with Hebrews 1:3

". . . and upholds all things by the word of His power."

Psalm 148 " ⁵ Let them praise the name of the LORD (Yahweh), For He commanded and they were created. ⁶ He has also established them forever and ever; He has made a decree which will not pass away. "

Since Yahweh 'established the universe for ever and ever' and the Son "upholds all things", how can it be said that no one can compare with Yahweh? The only conclusion is that the Son is the same Deity as Yahweh. Just as Adam and Eve are the one human flesh, the one humanity, that produced Cain; Yahweh (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) are the one Deity that created the universe.

continuing with Hebrews 1:3 . . .

". . . When He had made purification of sins,"

(Mark 2:7) "Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone? " or (Luke 5:21) "The scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, 'Who is this man who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?' "

and the rest of Hebrews 1:3 . . .

"He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,"

Psalm 110:1 "The LORD (Yahweh) says to my Lord: 'Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.' "

That this verse is referring to the Father speaking to the Son can be seen in several verses (Matthew 26:64; Acts 2:34-36; 1 Corinthians 15:25-27; Ephesians 1:20,22; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 1:13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Peter 3:22). It appears that Hebrews 1:3 is a reference to Psalm 110:1 as well. If Yahweh is speaking to the Lord Jesus and tells Him that He, the Son, will sit at Yahweh's right hand, how can they both be the same person?

Up to this point in Hebrews 1:3 the Son has been compared with God. Would you say that the comparisons show the Son to be different, somewhat similar or exactly like God? As we continue reading we will see how the Son is compared with angels. Will we find that the writer of Hebrews identifies the Son with some special angel revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures? No. From this point on we will see the Son contrasted with angels and shown to be VERY different. If the Son is to be identified with some Old Testament angel, then this is THE place to show it so that our Jewish reader of this book to the Hebrews will understand in familiar terms exactly who the Son is.

Continuing with the thought of the Son being placed at the right hand of the Father . . .

" ^{Hebrews 1:4} having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they."

We learn from Hebrews 2:9,17 that the Son had to take on the nature of humans and become, temporarily, lower than angels. However, after his resurrection he was exalted to heaven, and received a position superior to that of angels (compare John 17:5). He received another superior name, the "only-begotten Son," which had its fullest meaning after his resurrection (Romans 1:3,4; Acts 13:33).

" ^{Hebrews 1:5} "For to which of the angels did He ever say, 'Thou art My Son, Today I have begotten Thee'? And again, 'I will be a Father to Him, And He shall be a Son to Me'?"

Does the fact th