Jesus Is God
By: Elder Ross Drysdale
Who are the “secret oneness believers” among the Trinitarians? Do they show up in the statistics? Is Jesus “God the Father”, or “God the Son” in his divine nature? What are the “magic spectacles” Trinitarians use when reading the bible?
How many people over the centuries have seen the truth of Oneness, as opposed to those holding Trinitarian concepts? This is an intriguing question. Dr. Boyd feels he has the answer, for he states bluntly: “Yet according to most Oneness groups, Trinitarians are simply blind to the Oneness Revelation and indeed for more than 99.99% of all lovers of Christ who have ever lived have died without hope of heaven because they, being Trinitarians, failed to pick up on the ‘secret identity’ of Jesus” (Boyd, 71). That seems to leave oneness with only .01% of “all lovers of Christ” who held their position. These are certainly remarkable statistics. One wonders how Dr. Boyd was able to analyze 2,000 years of Church History on six continents to arrive at such a figure!
Even a cursory examination of history will show that his conclusions are not justified. Any encyclopedia will document how wide spread the oneness doctrine was by the Second Century. It was known by various names, such as Modalism, Monarchianism, Sabellianism, Patripassionism and so forth. Tertullian found it necessary to write a Treatise against it (Against Praxeas), in which he states that Oneness was the established belief of “all the simple people…who are always the majority of the faithful…” (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter 3). Dr. Boyd tries to do something with this genuine statistic in order to get it out of the way fast. For it is embarrassing to him that the “simple” and the “faithful” did not buy into Trinitarianism in those early years. He comes close to calling Tertullian a liar when he says, “One must then be cautious in taking him as always providing us with accurate history” (Boyd, 157). However, this “inaccuracy” does not prevent him from quoting him on the next page when it is to his advantage!
Indeed, one of the reasons it “appears” that Trinitarianism has held such a wide margin is the fact that many Oneness believers through the centuries thought they were Trinitarians and have referred to themselves as such. In actuality they were “closet oneness” and didn’t know it! I remember explaining the Oneness to a man I was acquainted with a number of years ago, while his friend, who was a dean of an Episcopal school, listened in. At the end of my explanation, the dean surprised me by exclaiming: That’s the way I believe in the Trinity – One God in three manifestations, not three persons trying to be one God.” He was thoroughly oneness, but absolutely convinced he was a believer in the Trinity. Another experience I had was with a young man who had converted to our church from the local Baptist Church. He came in my office somewhat concerned because someone had told him we didn’t believe in the Trinity, “you know, one God in three manifestations!” How many more of the “simple” and the “faithful” like that are “out there?” Millions I believe. They attend Trinitarian Churches; they believe they are faithful Trinitarians; they have never even heard the word “oneness.” But when you ask them to describe the Trinity, they paint you a word picture of the oneness doctrine that is word for word what we believe!.
And there is no denying that even among the “intelligentsia” there is a good representation of oneness, harboring under the label of “Trinity.” Even though Paul says “not many wise men after the flesh are called,” we still find some.
I remember in my undergraduate days at College I had to take a course in religion. I attended a Lutheran College and this was required. The professor announced to the class that the next day he was going to lecture on the Trinity. My friends, knowing My oneness beliefs, were overjoyed that I was “going to get it,” The next day however it was they who “got it.” The Professor immediately began by explaining that the word “person” actually meant “mask” in the Greek. So God in Three Persons really should be viewed as one single Person appearing under different masks or roles, as in Greek theatre performances. He concluded by saying there was one God in three manifestations. Yet this pure oneness doctrine was taught under the heading of Trinity. Examples are endless. Karl Barth the well known Swiss-German theologian is essentially a modalist and not a Trinitarian, for he defines God as existing in “three modes” rather than persons. Yet he is recognized as a Trinitarian, howbeit a modalistic one! A century ago the Plymouth Brethren held a famous Bible Conference to expound their “New Trinity.” How did they define their “new Trinitarian understanding?” Pure Oneness! The Father was explained as being the deity manifested in Christ and the whole Trinity was reduced to “modes” and “manifestations.” When the final count is taken Dr. Boyd may be surprised at how many real Trinitarians are left!
BLIND LEADERS OF THE BLIND
Most Trinitarian theologians however are not as enlightened as the “simple, who are always the majority of the faithful.” That they are blinded, for the most part, we do not deny. It is self evident. But we are not the ones responsible for this, neither is our Lord. Their blindness is self imposed. They prefer to see “men like trees walking.” The reason they can’t discern Christ’s true identity is they are so busy looking for Plato’s Logos that they miss completely the Father in the Son. They are combing haystacks looking for “substances” that are not there. They have a vast manhunt organized for three missing persons and it consumes all their energy. By the time they have plowed through Gnosticism, Platonism and Paganism and birthed such miscreants as Perichoresis and Hypostasia they have no strength left “to search the scriptures to see if these things are so.” We try to make it easy for them by bringing the Revelation to their doorstep, but they won’t answer the bell. For they are again “off and running,” racing through Greek lexicons in a frantic bid to “unbeget” the “begotten” Son, while at the same time trying to “eternally generate him from the Father’s substance.”
Such people are too busy to see anything! And to make matters worse, if such is possible, they are, everyone of them, wearing “specially designed” glasses to deflect the rays of the Son. For ‘Trinitarian theologians have trained themselves, and all who will listen to them, to automatically “re-translate” many passages of Scripture into Trinitarian thought forms. This is done so adeptly that they themselves become unaware of it! Allow me to illustrate.
JESUS AS GOD AND FATHER
The Bible has a number of references to Jesus as God. Scripturally, this is the equivalent of calling Him the Father. Every reference to Jesus as God is a reference to Him as Father. This is well established in Old and New Testament usage. The Old Testament restricts all deity to God the Father (Isaiah 63:16, Mal. 2:10, Isaiah 64:8, Jer. 3:19). To the Jews of the Old Testament, God and Father were synonymous. The Jews of Christ’s day also recognized that all deity was exclusive to the Father. They had One God – the Father (John 8:41). Christ Himself confirmed that the Only true God was the Father when He prayed: “This is eternal life, to know thee the only True God…” (John 17:3). The New Testament Church believed the same way, for Paul wrote: “To us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things…”(I Cor. 8:6). Let it be noted that this reference is exclusive – “but one God, the Father” – no one else is God. Over and over the Bible presses home this truth. Therefore When Christ is referred to as “God,” it has to mean He is the Father, for Biblically speaking, there is no other God!
But Trinitarians, who refuse to acknowledge the Fatherhood of Christ, must resort to “re-translating” these references to Christ as God. On go the “colored glasses.” Now through their prismatic vision they are able to see things with just the right distortion! Every place where Christ is called God, they see “God the Son, Second Person.” Thus they can come away from these texts proclaiming their agreement with them, but with this disclaimer: “of course He’s God, but God the Son, not the Father.” It does not occur to them that “God the Son” is an unscriptural title, never used of Christ. They have their “glasses” on, and to them it’s as plain as printers ink can make it. And they constantly re-enforce their myopic vision with the comforting thought that there are “three persons” in the Godhead, any of whom may be called “God.” It’s all so easy when you use the “glasses.” How handy are these “glasses” that so effortlessly “retranslate” all these verses from meaning “God the Father” into this mysterious “God the Son, Second Person of the Trinity.” Even Joseph Smith’s magical spectacles, with which he supposedly “translated” the Book of Mormon from golden plates, could not have been as powerful as these Trinitarian lenses. For he took what wasn’t there and said it was. Whereas Trinitarians take what is there, and say it isn’t! And these are the people who demand that we produce more “Father References.”
Why? So they can make them disappear also?
REVIEWING JESUS AS GOD
Let us revisit the texts that refer to Jesus Christ as God. But let us keep in mind the true Bible definition for God, i.e., “Father.” Trinitarians have been so busy (with the aid of their special lenses) pushing out this true definition, and sliding in the catch phrase “God the Son,” that they have missed a tremendous amount of evidence of the Fatherhood of Christ. Then they complain His divine identity as God the Father is “opaque” and “secret.” If they would start reading the Bible, as it was written, and cease “re-working” it to fit Plato’s Trinitarian ramblings they would realize the Truth, the scales would fall of their eyes; and they would see “no man, save Jesus Only”(Matthew 17:8).
“And they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with Us.”
It would never have occurred to Isaiah, (who wrote the original prophecy) or Matthew, (who quoted it) to ask “what person of God?” Isaiah knew that Emmanuel would be “the Father” and so wrote in Isaiah 9:6. Matthew had no “Second Person” in mind. That was not invented until three hundred years later. The only they knew, even God the Father, was coming to dwell “with them” in the flesh of Emmanuel, their Messiah. Who would dare read anything more than this into it? Yet it is precisely here, on the first page of the New Testament, that Trinitarians and Neo-Trinitarians, begin their work of “over hauling” the Scriptures in order to diminish the full orbed deity of Christ, and reduce Him to some “Second Person.”
Luke 1: 67-68
“Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he hath visited and redeemed his people.” This is the prophecy of Zachariah, John the Baptist’s father, concerning Christ. And who was this “Lord God” that Zachariah had in mind, who would “visit and redeem his people?” Zachariah did not have any Trinitarian “Second Person” concept in mind, that’s for sure. He undoubtedly was thinking of Isaiah 63:16: “Thou O Lord, art our Father, our redeemer, thy name is from everlasting.” Zachariah’s own son, John, was to be called the prophet of the Highest (which is a reference to the Father) and would go “before the face of Jehovah to prepare his ways” (Luke 1:76). Christ is the “Highest,” for he who cometh from above is above all (John 3:31), and this is none other than the Father (WI- 4:6). His face is the “face of Jehovah” which agrees with Paul’s statement that we behold the “glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (II Con 4:6). Finally Zacharias acknowledges Christ as the source and origin of everything when he says, “the day spring from on high hath visited us” (Luke 1:78). If this is not the one infinite and undivided God in all His Fullness, then language has no meaning at all and words are useless vehicles for transmission of thought. For surely there can not be three “co-equal” day springs up on high!
“And behold one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God…”
“None good but God.” What “God” was Jesus talking about? The Father, of course. That’s the only God Jesus ever talked about. But is Jesus good? Yes, for He said,” I am the good Shepherd” (John 10:11). Hence He is the one God who is good, even the Father, who is the only God! And this fulfills Isaiah’s prophecy: “Behold the Lord God will come with strong hand…He shall feed his flock like a Shepherd” (Isaiah 40:10-11).
And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and My God.” Jesus is here addressed as Lord and God. The Greek is even better “the Lord of me and the God (ho theos) of me.” Certainly Thomas didn’t mean that Jesus was the Second of Three Co-equal persons, all of whom are God. He had just heard Jesus address the Father as the “only true God” (John 17:3). Surely in the space of a few days Thorns could not have found another true God, other than the Father. Yet this is what Trinitarians would have us believe: that Thomas was referring to Jesus as God the Son, instead of the Father, who is the only true God. No, Thomas was addressing the Deity in Christ, the Father that dwelt in the Son. He became by that confession “Oneness Thomas” and no longer “Doubting Thomas,”
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” That Jesus Christ is the Word, is universally recognized. Revelation 19:13 proves it beyond dispute. But the Word is God, the only God, for John never introduces another.
Trinitarians must do some track switching here to avoid derailment. So they change the definition of God within one breath and interpret the verse as: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God the Father, First Person, and the Word was God the Son, Second Person.” This not only is not what the text says, but it also makes the sentence disjointed and contradictory, and violates the Greek which uses the same word for God in both clauses. D.T. Boyd criticizes Oneness theology because it “requires that we view Jesus as switching back and forth between his supposed identities of Father and Son, and doing so between sentences ” (Boyd, p.88). But Trinitarians swap entire “Persons,” and do so in the middle of a sentence! Surely that renders their criticism of Oneness utterly null and completely void.
Brother Gordon Magee, in his excellent book “Is Jesus In the Godhead or Is the Godhead in Jesus,” recounts a conversation between a Trinitarian and a Oneness believer about this verse. It goes something like this:
The Oneness believer asked the Trinitarian Who the Word was, and who God was, in this text. The Trinitarian replied that the “Word” was Jesus, and “God” was the Father. The Oneness disciple then asked him to repeat the text using those substitutes. The Trinitarian gladly complied: “In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with the Father, and Jesus was the Father!” Somewhat embarrassed the Trinity believer exclaimed he had made an error. God in that verse referred to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the whole Trinity. Again he was asked to repeat the verse, this time with his new substitution. The Trinitarian began again: “In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with the Father, on, and Holy Ghost and Jesus was the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost!” He stopped, even more embarrassed than before.
You see, without their magic “switch’em up, mix’em up” glasses, Trinitarians simply cannot use the language of Scripture as it is written. They have to “make it and mold it after their will.”
Some may wonder, if Jesus is the Father, how could he be said to be With him.” You will remember that when Jesus was on earth as the Son, he also said the Father was “with” him. And we discovered this was so because the Father “dwelt in him” and He was therefore the Temple in which the Father lived. The same situation occurs in the Old Testament. Christ was not the Son, but He was the Word, or in other words God’s image, or visible form. This glorious Word, the Christ, was known as the “body of heaven” (Exodus 24:10) and as such was the Temple of God in Old Testament times. God was “with” the Word, because he indwelt that visible form and used it to manifest Himself. When the Word appeared in Old Testament times, it was called the Angel of Jehovah, but Jehovah was clearly indwelling the Angel-Word at all times. (Exodus 3:2-6). Whether in the Old Testament as the Word of God, or in the New Testament as the Son of God, Christ has always been God’s body or Temple. Thus God is always in Him, and thereby can be said to be “with him.” This does not constitute two persons either; for God is a Spirit (John 4:24) and not a person. Person is a term applied to human beings. It is in the Person of Christ, that the otherwise invisible Father, who is Spirit not “person,” is manifested and seen.
I Timothy 3:16
“And without controversy great is the mystery of Godliness: God was manifest in the flesh..,”
God was manifest in the flesh. This means the only true God, even the Father, was manifest in the flesh of His Son. This agrees with the testimony of the whole Bible. Jesus said the deity that was in his flesh was the Father – “the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works” (John 14:10). “I am in the Father, and the Father in me” (John 10:38). “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30). Perfect agreement. The Father was in Him, doing the works. God was in flesh, manifesting Himself. No contradiction whatsoever. It fulfills prophecy also, for Isaiah said that the Son would actually be God, even the everlasting Father, in human flesh form (Isa. 9:6).
The old classic Trinitarians dodged this verse by retranslating it in their minds as “God the Son was manifest in the flesh.” Any scripture to justify this “switch?” None. But that has never stopped them in the past. “The Church has always interpreted it this way” is their constant refrain. What Church I ask? Not the original apostolic one founded on the Day of Pentecost. Dr. Boyd writes; “This typical New Testament way of speaking is, of course, exceedingly strange if Jesus is Himself God the Father” (Boyd, p.68). What is “exceeding strange” is this New Testament silence if Jesus is Himself “God the Son.” Why do they not produce even one text that says “God the Son” was dwelling in the Son of God? That’s a hard nut to crack and they’ll be at it for quite awhile. The absence of Scripture does not keep them up at night however. They sleep quite well being sedated by the “Church’s traditional interpretation of Scripture” which allows them to “discover that God can be truly one while also embodying a trinity…” (Boyd, p.52). As Augustine put it; “Rome has spoken, Case closed!”
While classic Trinitarians were content to “rework” the text, Neo Trinitarians prefer to bail out by means of another parachute one they borrowed from Jehovah’s Witnesses. Using their favorite NIV translation of the Bible, Neo Trinitarians insist the verse only should read: “He who was manifest in the flesh,” thereby eliminating God completely from the discussion. Thus Neo Trinitarians follow in the footsteps of their watchtower predecessors who likewise translate it as “He” and not “God” in their New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. Now they can all walk away from the text, wiping their perspiring foreheads and sighing with relief over what a “close call” they all just had. That Neo-Trinitarians would prefer this Arian inspired rendering over the traditional one, shows how ardently they “really” believe that Jesus is God. They are willing to join forces with a Christ denying cult, like Jehovah’s Witnesses, in order to avoid a “head on” with I Timothy 3:16 and its strong oneness pronouncement. Thus they have shown their “true colors” by jumping on the Watchtower bandwagon and joining them in chanting: “It’s not in the Greek.” But it is in the Greek, and they are in the WRONG!
The three oldest Greek manuscripts are the Vaticanus, the Alexandrinus, and the Sinaiticus. Let’s look at their testimony. First, the Vaticanus is missing the entire epistle of I Timothy, so it’s eliminated from the argument. The Alexandrinus renders it as “God was manifest in the flesh.” In support of this translation there are nearly three hundred Greek copies which render it in the same way, retaining the word “God.” Only a handful of Greek copies support the “He who” perversion of the text. Among the witnesses in support of “God was manifest” are: The Syriac Version of Philoxenus (AD 488-518), Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa (d. 394; one of Dr. Boyd’s favorite Cappodocian Fathers); Diodorus of Tarsus.(d. 370), Chrysostom (d.407), Dionysius of Alexandria (AD264), plus Ignatius, Barnabas and Hippolytus.
Almost all of these witnesses are older than any of the Greek Manuscripts we possess. Surely they knew what the correct rendering was. They had the manuscripts before them as they wrote, and handled ones which were much older than the ones we now have.
It is true that the third manuscript, the Sinaiticus, does render it as “He who was manifest in the flesh,” however this particular manuscript is much corrupted and shows visible attempts by ten different scribes to correct its supposed “errors!”
Bible scholars see another problem with the “He who” rendition: “Dr. Bloomfield and other learned authorities have demonstrated that the new reading ‘the mystery…who was manifested’ violates all the rules of construction and exhibits only too clearly the marks of accidental or deliberate corruption” (Daniel L. Segraves, The Search for the Word of God,. p. 82).
Why do Neo-Trinitarians not “follow the church” on this issue also, and “allow Scripture to tell us at the Truth in fact implies?” Why do they suddenly part company with their old ecclesiastical compatriots – Ignatius, Hippolytus, Chrysostom, and the Cappodocian Father, Gregory of Nyssa. They were certainly good enough witnesses for their Trinitarian arguments. Why are they not called in for “expert testimony” on this case? Dr. Boyd uses Ignatius on pages 150-153 as an authentic witness for the Trinity. He cites the writings of Hippolytus on page 178 and says that he, along with other Church Fathers, clearly understood “what was at stake.” He mentions the Cappodocian Fathers on page 173, of whom Gregory of Nyssa was one. They are theologians to be trusted! But when it comes to the true textual rendering of I Timothy 3:16 they are of no value! They are never quoted or cited. They are returned without fanfare to the dust of their tombs, until needed again. I hope he didn’t mind that we borrowed them in the meantime; after all, he wasn’t using them!
In spite of what they say, any chance Neo Trinitarians get to remove a proof of Christ’s absolute deity, they seize it. Even if they have to wake up in the same bed with Jehovah’s Witnesses and their brood of “gods many.” For in their hearts, Neo Trinitarians realize, if Christ is called God, he must be the “only true God,” even the Father. And this they cannot abide.
II Corinthians 5:19
God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself…” who was the God that was “in Christ?” The same one Jesus told us was in him: “…that ye may know and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him (John 10:38). “But the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works” (John 14:10). “…as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee…” (John 17:21). “Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me…” (John 14:11). What more is needed? If Jesus is not the Father, then we are still unreconciled to the Father, for this verse declares that we have only been reconciled to the God that was “in Christ.” And if this was just the “Second Person” that was in Christ, then we still need to be reconciled to the First and Third Persons of this supposed Trinity!
Trinitarians always try to weaken this verse with their old “Johnny One Note” refrain: “It was God the Son, not God the Father, who was in Christ.” Thus they again “retranslate” the verse in their minds and attempt to launch it off into the wild blue yonder of the “distinct persons” theory. But it says God, not God the Son, and the Biblical definition of God is “Father.” Hence, the Father was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself. Paul agrees, Jesus agrees, why can’t they?
About this time they start reaching for their “Perichoresis” theory which the Cappodocian Fathers cooked up after a restless night at the Monastery: “…whatever person of the Godhead one is referring to, the other two are fully present” (Boyd, p.64). Well then what is so special about “God the Son” being incarnate, if the other two persons are “fully present” also? And it can’t be that the Son “endured” something the other “two” did not, for what “Jesus endured the totality of the Godhead endured”(Boyd, p.188). They might as well come right out and say that the entire Trinity, all three Persons, was incarnate in Jesus Christ. “Well”, they counter, “the Son was the one who was sent into the world.” How could he be? For each Person of the Trinity “completely dwells within the other two” and “wherever God is, all of God is”(p.171). So they all come “into the world” together! What’s more, seeing God is an omnipresent Spirit, He was already in the world, and everywhere else! So when the Trinity arrived, it was met by the Trinity which was already here! Could anything be more ridiculous and self-contradictory? Surely of all the inane theories that have ever been advanced, this is the crown and summit. It would have been a blessing to the world if it had remained in that dusty monastery, never seeing the light of day. But its out now and there is nothing they can do about it but swallow hard and go on.
“And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, ‘received my spirit.” He called on God, by saying “Lord Jesus.” There’s no question what God, Stephen had in mind, for he defined Him for us in verse 32 as “the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” who was also “the God of his Fathers.” This is none other than God the Father, for “doubtless thou art our Father, though Abraham be ignorant of us.”(Isa.63:16). Are we to assume that a few moments later, Stephen discovers another God, namely “God the Son,” and invoked him while dying. Hardly! The God that he invoked with the name of the Lord Jesus was the same “God of his Fathers” and the only God, even God the Father. Thus the testimony of this dying saint seals Jesus identity as Father and confirms it with his martyr’s blood.
But some will say, “Didn’t Stephen see Jesus standing next to God in Heaven?” He did not! He saw the “glory of God” (Acts 7:55). And where do we see the glory of God? We behold “the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (II Cor. 4:6). The only way we can see God’s glory is to look at the “face of Christ,” who is the “image of God” (II Cor. 4:4) and has God’s glory dwelling within him, for “God is glorified in him” (John 13:32). Stephen also referred to Jesus being on the “right hand of God.” But this is not a literal flesh and bone right hand, for “God is a Spirit” (John 4:24) and “a Spirit path not _flesh and bones”. (Luke 24:39). It is symbolic speech. The Bible also talks about being sheltered under God’s “wings,” and “covered with his feathers” (Psalms 91:4). Are we to believe that God is a huge celestial Hen because of this figurative speech? Of course not! His “right hand” is no more literal than his “wings” or “feathers.” It is all figurative. It simply means that Jesus is in the position of Power, on the right hand of Power: “Hereafter shall the Son of Man sit on the right hand of the power of God” (Luke 22:62). When did Jesus receive this power? When he was resurrected and the Father took up permanent residence in his body (Col 2:9 Greek), thereby transferring all his power and divine attributes to Christ, His Son. “And Jesus came and spake unto them saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth” (Matt. 28:18).
So in summary, Stephen saw Jesus with all authority and power, ruling from the heavens, “on the right hand of power,” and he saw the glory of the Fullness of the Godhead shinning out from the face of Jesus Christ, who is the glory of God. No wonder he cried out to God saying “Lord Jesus.” Who wouldn’t?
“…to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” God had blood! When? When the Father dwelt in the body of His incarnational Son. “God was manifest in the flesh,” and flesh has blood in it, for “the life of all flesh is in the blood thereof. All things the Father had, belonged also to the Son through the incarnation. “All things that the Father hath are mine…”(John 16:15). Conversely, all things that the Son had, which included flesh and blood, became the Father’s also. “And all mine are thine, and thine are mine…”(John 17:10). In this sense the Father, who in his divine essence is Spirit, is said to have blood. He assumed it through the incarnation, and it is in the same sense that “God laid down his life for us” (I John 3:16). Not that God who is a Spirit could die or be killed. That is impossible, seeing God is immortal and thereby incapable of death (I Timothy 1:17). But he could, and did, lay down this assumed human life, this flesh and blood body in which he was incarnate, and which he interpenetrated (John 10:38). “How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the Eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works…”(Hebrews 9:14). It was not God, “the Eternal Spirit” who died, but rather it was through the Eternal Spirit (who dwelt in the body of our Lord) that the flesh and blood life of Christ was “laid down for us” in sacrifice.
“But unto the Son he saith, thy Throne 0 God, is forever and ever.” This is taken from the Book of Psalms, where God, speaking through David, prophesied of the Coming Messiah (Psalms 45:6-7). And by inspiration of God, working through the writings of David, we are informed that the Messiah will not only be a “Son” but also God Himself! This is not a conversation between two persons of the Godhead in which one points to the other and calls him God! It is Messianic Prophecy given by God in the Old Testament, and fulfilled in Christ, the God-man, in the New Testament. He, who is the Son of God on the “outside” as a human, is also God on the “inside” as Spirit.
Trinitarians always try to “re-arrange” this verse to say: “God the Son, who is incarnate in the Son of God, is called God, by God the Father.” But of course that’s not what it says.
I John 5:20
“…And we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.” How could Jesus Christ be referred to in this verse as “the true God and eternal life” when Christ Himself defined the Father as “the only true God” and “eternal life” (John 17:3)? By God the Father being incarnate and embodied in the Son, everything that is said of God can now be said of Jesus Christ. The “true God” and “eternal life” is dwelling in the flesh Temple of His Son, thereby making Christ “God manifest in flesh”(I Timothy 3:16). “For God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him (John 3:34). Instead of a “measure” of the divine nature, He has all the Fullness of the Godhead (Col 2:9). No wonder John could also write, He that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also” (I John 2:23), and “He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he bath both the Father and the Son” (II John 9). The “true God” and “eternal life” even the Father, is enfleshed within the body of the Son.
“Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the Great God and our Savior, Jesus Christ.”
Christ is here styled the “Great God and Savior.” In the tenth verse Paul talks about the doctrine of “God our Savior.” Who is this Great God who is also Savior? Trinitarians read it in their minds as “God the Son and Our Savior,” Jesus Christ. But that’s not what Paul meant. The Old Testament was clear that there was only one Savior, Jehovah God, and none other. “I, even I am Jehovah, and beside me there is no Savior” (Isaiah 43:11). Yet Christ is called Savior (Luke 2:11). Paul reconciles this in the one Person of Christ who is both God and Savior, and this he did according “to the commandment of God our Savior” (Titus 1:3). And this “Great God our Savior” was none other than the Father incarnate in the Lord Jesus Christ. “Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, Our Savior” (Titus 1:4). It was God the Father, in our Lord Jesus Christ, which constituted the one Savior. (Note: The original Greek uses no punctuation marks, therefore the comma after Christ can just as well be added or omitted. In fact, the original Greek could ‘be equally translated as: “from God the Father, even the Lord Jesus Christ, Our Savior”).
In summary, there is no question that when Paul refers to Christ as the “Great God and Savior” he is calling him Father; because Jesus in John 10:29, as well as Moses in Deuteronomy 10:17, defined the “Great God” as being none other than God the Father!
“…of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever.”
Trinitarians have always admitted this verse calls Jesus “God.”’ But by using their unique “Trifocal” lenses they see it as “God the Son.” But it can be easily shown that this is another reference to Christ as Father. He is said to be God who is “over all,” And this is none other than Father: “One God and Father of all who is above all, and through all, and in you all” (Eph. 4:6). And in case some might think there could be “two persons” (or three) who are “above all” we present Psalms 83:18, “That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth.” The one true God the Father, known as Jehovah in the Old Testament, now incarnate in Christ, is “over all, God blessed forever.” Cold stubborn facts are against our Trinitarian friends, but they manage to “fix it up” somehow and go on. The thing just will not wear!
So we have seen from this Biblical survey that Jesus Christ is, on a number of occasions in the New Testament, directly called God. And in every case we have seen that this is also a reference to Him being God the Father. There is nothing in any of those passages that would warrant the assertion that “another divine Person” is being referred to, namely “God the Son.” Every single text mentioned is most easily explained and understood by recognizing the Father as the divine nature dwelling in .Christ as He Himself said.
Dr. Boyd, however, believes he has found another divine nature that dwells in Christ. He writes: “Paul also came to see that this same one God dwelled fully as the Son of God in Jesus Christ”(Boyd, p.122). He has the Son of God “dwelling fully” in Jesus Christ. But Jesus Christ is the Son of God! Therefore he has the Son of God “dwelling fully” in the Son of God! The Son is dwelling in the Son whatever that means! It is certainly not what Christ Himself revealed, for he said: “The Father (not the Son!) that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works ” (JOhn.14:10). I think the Son of God can be trusted to know who was dwelling in Him! To support his “Son in Son” doctrine, Dr. Boyd refers us to Colossians 2:9. But that’s no help for him, for it reads “For in him (Christ) dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” Nothing about just “the Son dwelling in the Son,” but plenty about the whole Godhead dwelling in Him (and that would necessarily include Father, Son, and Holy Ghost). He needs a text that says “God the Son dwelt in the Son of God.” But he’ll never find it. I know. I was a Trinitarian. I searched the entire Bible through, looking for such a text and never found it. I had my friends look, they couldn’t find it either. My pastor couldn’t find it. They all gave up looking, as I myself did. Why search for what is not there? It’s a waste of time. This whole thing was not planted by the Father, and will therefore have to be “plucked up” ‘(and the sooner, the better).
Another route which indisputably identifies Jesus Christ as God the Father is obtained through cross referencing Old Testament prophecies with New Testament fulfillments in Christ. Dr. Boyd does not like cross referencing and warns against it on page 85 with bold letters, “Beware of Cross Referencing Arguments.” It is no wonder he dislikes cross referencing, for these references would make any Trinitarian cross! But we like them. To us they are “joy unspeakable” and “full of glory” – the glory of Christ that is.
Rev. 1:7-8 Jesus was the Almighty
Gen. 17:1 And the Almighty was God
John 8:58 Jesus was the I Am
Ex 3:14 And the I Am was God
Acts 3:14 Jesus was the Holy One
Isa 43:15 And the Holy One Was God.
John 8:24 Jesus was the I Am He
Isa. 43:19 And the I Am He was God
Rev. 22:13 Jesus was the First and the Last
Isa 44:6 And the I am He was God?
I Cor. 10:4 Jesus was the Rock
Ps. 18:31 And the Rock was God
II Cor. 11:2 Jesus was the One Husband
Jer. 31: 32 And the one Husband was God
Matt. 23:8 Jesus was the One Master
Mal. 1:6 And the One Master was God
John 10:16 Jesus was the One Shepherd
Isa. 40:11 And the One Shepherd was God
Acts 4:12 Jesus was the One Savior
Isa. 45:21 And the One Savior was God
Luke 1:68 Jesus was the One Redeemer
Isa. 41:14 And the One Redeemer was God
Rev. 19:16 Jesus was the Lord of Lords
Deut. 10:17 And the Lord of Lords was God
John 1:3 Jesus was the One Creator
Isa. 44:24 And the One Creator was God
John 1:49 Jesus was the King of Israel
Isa. 44:6 And the King of Israel was God
Phil 2:10 Every knee must bow to Jesus
Isa 45:23 Every knee must bow to God
Matt 25:31 Jesus is Coming
Zech 14:4-5 God is Coming
Who could possibly deny that the Almighty, the I Am, The I Am He, the Lord of Lords, the First and the Last, the Redeemer, and the Creator mentioned in the Old Testament was anyone else but God the Father. And yet Jesus is the New Testament fulfillment of everyone of those titles! He is either God the Father in flesh or the New Testament writers were terribly mixed up. I’d rather believe the Trinitarian theologians and “fathers” were mixed up; they had a penchant for it. Yet in spite of this mountainous avalanche of Biblical evidence that comes raining down on us from the twin peaks of the Old and New Testament, all proving Jesus to be the Father in his divine nature, Dr Boyd writes: “The way the Bible does speak, then, is to refer to Jesus as God’s Son and the Father as someone distinct from Jesus the Son” (Boyd, p.69).,The only way this statement could be made correct would be to replace “Bible” with “Pope,” for as we have clearly seen, it is not the Bible which is so determined to make the Father distinct from the Son.
This article “Jesus is God” written by Elder Ross Drysdale is excerpted from the book Enter the Neo-Trinitarians.