A Series of Answers to Common Questions

Sam Shamoun

Question:

Jesus says that the Father is greater than he is, proving that he is not God. There
is no one who is greater than God.

Answer:

Here is the passage in question:

"You heard that I said to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you ' If you loved Me,
you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater (meizon)
than I." John 14:28

Since the questioner (a Muslim) assumes Unitarianism (that God is one in being and
in Person), it obviously doesn't make sense for God to speak of someone being greater
than himself. Yet, if God is a Trinity, a Trinitarian Being (i.e. one eternal God existing
in three distinct, yet inseparable Persons), then it is quite possible for one member or
Person of the Godhead to be greater in some sense than the other members. It would
be true that nothing outside of the Holy Trinity's own existence could ever be greater,
but this doesn't necessarily imply that there cannot be some type of authority structure
or ranking within the internal life and relationships of the Trinity itself. Lord Jesus
permitting, we will develop this point more in a future article. Karena penanya
(seorang Muslim) menganggap Unitarianisme (bahwa Allah adalah satu dalam dan
secara Pribadi), jelas tidak masuk akal bagi Tuhan untuk berbicara tentang seseorang
yang lebih besar dari dirinya sendiri. Namun, jika Allah adalah Seorang Trinitas,
Seorang Trinitarian (yaitu satu Tuhan kekal yang ada dalam tiga Orang yang berbeda,
namun tidak terpisahkan), maka sangat mungkin bagi satu anggota atau Orang
Ketuhanan untuk menjadi lebih besar dalam arti tertentu daripada anggota lainnya.
Akan benar bahwa tidak ada di luar keberadaan Trinitas Kudus sendiri yang bisa lebih
besar, tetapi ini tidak selalu menyiratkan bahwa tidak mungkin ada beberapa jenis
struktur otoritas atau peringkat dalam kehidupan internal dan hubungan Trinitas itu
sendiri. Tuhan Yesus mengizinkan, kita akan mengembangkan titik ini lebih dalam
artikel masa depan.

For now, let us deal with what Jesus intended to convey to his disciples that the Father
was greater than he. In the first place, the term for "greater" (Greek - meizon) does not
necessarily imply one who is greater in nature or essence. It can refer to someone or
something being greater in position and/or authority, just as the following passages
show: Untuk saat ini, marilah kita berurusan dengan apa yang Yesus maksudkan
untuk menyampaikan kepada para murid-Nya bahwa Bapa lebih besar dari dia. Di
tempat pertama, istilah untuk "lebih besar" (Yunani - meizon) tidak selalu
menyiratkan orang yang lebih besar dalam kodrat atau esensi. Ini dapat merujuk pada
seseorang atau sesuatu yang lebih besar dalam posisi dan / atau otoritas, seperti yang
ditunjukkan oleh bagian-bagian berikut:

"I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen
anyone greater (meizon) than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of
heaven is greater than he." Matthew 11:11

John being greater than all those born of women does not imply that the rest were less
human than John, or that they were inferior to John in nature. Here, the term must
mean that John was greater in position and rank. Yohanes menjadi lebih besar dari
semua orang yang lahir dari wanita tidak menyiratkan bahwa sisanya lebih sedikit
manusia daripada Yohanes, atau bahwa mereka kalah dengan Yohanes dalam kodrat.
Di sini, istilah harus berarti bahwa Yohanes lebih besar dalam posisi dan peringkat.

"Truly, truly, I say to you, a slave is not greater (meizon) than his master, nor is one
who is sent greater (meizon) than the one who sent him." John 13:16

Both the slave and the one sent are just as human as the master and the sender, having
the same human essence and nature that the master and sender have. Thus, greater
here must mean in position and authority, not in essence and nature. Baik budak dan
yang dikirim sama manusianya dengan tuan dan pengirim, memiliki esensi dan kodrat
manusia yang sama dengan yang dikuasai dan pengirim. Dengan demikian, lebih
besar di sini harus berarti dalam posisi dan wewenang, bukan pada esensiya dan
kodratnya.

"I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He
will do even greater (meizona) things than these, because I am going to the Father."
John 14:12

Jesus' disciples did not perform better works, but performed a greater number of

works than Christ since they reached far more people than Jesus did while he was on
earth. Hence, the term "greater" refers to quantity, the amount of works, as opposed to
quality since the disciples performed the same type of works but in far greater
number. Para murid Yesus tidak melakukan pekerjaan yang lebih baik, tetapi
melakukan sejumlah besar pekerjaan daripada Kristus karena mereka menjangkau
jauh lebih banyak orang daripada Yesus saat dia berada di bumi. Oleh karena itu,
istilah "lebih besar" mengacu pada kuantitas, jumlah karya, dibandingkan dengan
kualitas sejak murid melakukan jenis karya yang sama tetapi dalam jumlah yang jauh
lebih besar.

The preceding data shows that the word meizon can either mean, depending upon the
context, greater in nature, position, or even both. Thus, the only way we can know for
certain what Jesus meant by saying that the Father was greater than him is by reading
his statement in its immediate context. A careful look at the entire chapter of 14 shows
the Lord Jesus claiming to have all of God's omni-attributes: Data sebelumnya
menunjukkan bahwa kata meizon dapat berarti, tergantung pada konteksnya, sifat,
posisi, atau bahkan keduanya yang lebih besar. Dengan demikian, satu-satunya cara
kita dapat mengetahui dengan pasti apa yang Yesus maksudkan dengan mengatakan
bahwa Bapa lebih besar dari dia adalah dengan membaca pernyataannya dalam
konteks langsung. Melihat dengan cermat seluruh bab 14 menunjukkan Tuhan Yesus
mengklaim memiliki semua sifat omni Allah:

"And I WILL DO whatever you ask IN MY NAME, so that the Son may bring glory
to the Father. You may ask ME for anything in my name, AND I WILL DO IT." John
14:13-14

Christ is capable of personally answering all prayers that are directed to him or are
addressed in his name. The only way that Christ can both hear and answer all these
prayers is if he is both omniscient and omnipotent! Kristus mampu secara pribadi
menjawab semua doa yang ditujukan kepadanya atau ditujukan atas namanya. Satu-
satunya cara agar Kristus dapat mendengar dan menjawab semua doa ini adalah jika
dia mahamahakuasa dan mahakuasa!

"On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, AND I AM
IN YOU. Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me.
He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show
myself to him." John 14:20-21

Christ says that he is IN all the disciples, an impossible claim if he was only a man, or
even an angel. But since Jesus is God, and since God is omnipresent, it therefore
makes perfect sense for Christ to say he is able to dwell in all the believers at the same
time. Kristus mengatakan bahwa dia berada di semua murid, klaim yang mustahil jika
dia hanya seorang manusia, atau bahkan malaikat. Tetapi karena Yesus adalah Allah,
dan karena Allah mahahadir, oleh karena itu masuk akal bagi Kristus untuk
mengatakan dia mampu tinggal di semua orang percaya pada saat yang sama.

Finally:
"Jesus replied, ‘If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love
him, and WE will come to him and make OUR home with him.’" John 14:23

Both the Father and the Son make their home with all true believers! Christ is clearly
claiming co-equality with the Father since he is present with every believer in the
same way that the Father is! Baik Bapa dan Putra menjadikan rumah mereka dengan
semua orang percaya sejati! Kristus jelas mengklaim kesetaraan bersama dengan Bapa
karena dia hadir dengan setiap orang percaya dengan cara yang sama seperti Bapa!

In fact, even those who heard Jesus knew that he was claiming to be equal to his
Father: Bahkan, bahkan mereka yang mendengar Yesus tahu bahwa dia mengaku
setara dengan Bapa-Nya:

"And this was why the Jews persecuted Jesus, because he did this on the sabbath. But
Jesus answered them, ‘My Father is working still, AND I AM WORKING.’ This was
why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the
sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal (ison) with God." John
5:16-18

The reason why the Jews thought that Jesus was claiming equality with God is
because of his bold assertion that he has the same divine right to work on the Sabbath
as his Father does, being his Son. Jesus was pretty much saying that, as God’s Son, he
could do things which were considered unlawful on this sacred day since he is not
bound by the laws and regulations of the Sabbath in the same way that God isn’t
bound by them. Alasan mengapa orang-orang Yahudi berpikir bahwa Yesus
mengklaim kesetaraan dengan Allah adalah karena penegasannya yang berani bahwa
dia memiliki hak ilahi yang sama untuk mengerjakan hari Sabat seperti yang Bapa-
Nya lakukan, menjadi Putra-Nya. Yesus cukup banyak mengatakan bahwa, sebagai
Putra Allah, dia dapat melakukan hal-hal yang dianggap melanggar hukum pada hari
suci ini karena dia tidak terikat oleh hukum dan peraturan hari Sabat dengan cara yang
sama seperti Allah tidak terikat oleh mereka.

The following is another example of Jesus claiming to be equal with the Father:
Berikut ini adalah contoh lain yesus yang mengklaim setara dengan Bapa:

“‘My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal
life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father,
who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my
Father's hand. I and the Father are one.’ Again the Jews picked up stones to stone
him, but Jesus said to them, ‘I have shown you many great miracles from the Father.
For which of these do you stone me?’ ‘We are not stoning you for any of these,’
replied the Jews, ‘but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.’”
John 10:27-33

Christ ascribes to himself the very exclusive prerogatives of Deity: Kristus

menggambarkan kepada dirinya sendiri hak prerogatif Dewa yang sangat eksklusif:

“See now that I myself am He! There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring
to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand.”
Deuteronomy 32:39

“Yes, and from ancient days I am he. No one can deliver out of my hand. When I
act, who can reverse it?” Isaiah 43:13

As if this weren’t astonishing enough, Jesus says that he is one with the Father right
after stating that the latter is greater than all, which in the context refers to those who
would try to pluck believers from the Father’s all-powerful hand. Seolah-olah ini tidak
cukup mencengangkan, Yesus mengatakan bahwa dia adalah satu dengan Bapa tepat
setelah menyatakan bahwa yang terakhir lebih besar dari semua, yang dalam
konteksnya merujuk pada mereka yang akan mencoba memetik orang percaya dari
tangan Bapa yang kuat.

To more fully appreciate the implications of these statements, keep in mind that Jesus’
point is that there is no person who can prevent God from protecting his flock since
there is no being that is as powerful as God who can thereby thwart his purposes in
saving his sheep. Yet the Lord Jesus places himself in a unique position and category
since he actually believes that he is his Father’s equal, being one with him in ability
and power which is completely unlike anyone else! Untuk lebih menghargai implikasi
dari pernyataan-pernyataan ini, perlu diingat bahwa maksud Yesus adalah bahwa
tidak ada orang yang dapat mencegah Allah melindungi kawanan domba-kawanannya
karena tidak ada yang sekuat Allah yang dengan demikian dapat menggagalkan
tujuan-tujuannya dalam menyelamatkan domba-dombanya. Namun Tuhan Yesus
menempatkan dirinya dalam posisi dan kategori yang unik karena dia benar-benar
percaya bahwa dia adalah kesetaraan Bapa-Nya, menjadi satu dengan dia dalam
kemampuan dan kuasa yang sama sekali tidak seperti orang lain!

No wonder the Jews thought that Jesus was blaspheming. They could clearly see that
Christ was claiming to be God for believing that he could do things which only
Yahweh could do and for actually thinking that he was just as powerful as the Father!
Tidak heran orang-orang Yahudi berpikir bahwa Yesus menghujat. Mereka dapat
dengan jelas melihat bahwa Kristus mengklaim sebagai Tuhan karena percaya bahwa
dia dapat melakukan hal-hal yang hanya bisa dilakukan Yahweh dan karena benar-
benar berpikir bahwa dia sama kuatnya dengan Bapa!
In light of the foregoing, it is quite clear what the Lord Jesus meant that the Father
was greater than him. The Scriptures teach that when Christ became a man, he
assumed the role and position of a slave/servant: Mengingat hal-hal di atas, cukup
jelas apa yang Tuhan Yesus maksudkan bahwa Bapa lebih besar darinya. Tulisan Suci
mengajarkan bahwa ketika Kristus menjadi manusia, dia mengambil peran dan posisi
budak / hamba:

"For who is the greater, one who reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one
who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves." Luke 22:27

"Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had
come from God and was going back to God, rose from supper. He laid aside his
outer garments, and taking a towel, tied it around his waist. Then he poured
water into a basin and began to wash the disciples' feet and to wipe them with the
towel that was wrapped around him. He came to Simon Peter, who said to him,
'Lord, do you wash my feet?' Jesus answered him, 'What I am doing you do not
understand now, but afterward you will understand.' Peter said to him, 'You shall
never wash my feet." Jesus answered him, 'If I do not wash you, you have no share
with me.' Simon Peter said to him, 'Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my
head!' Jesus said to him, 'The one who has bathed does not need to wash, except for
his feet, but is completely clean. And you are clean, but not every one of you.' For he
knew who was to betray him; that was why he said, 'Not all of you are clean.' When
he had washed their feet and put on his outer garments and resumed his place, he
said to them, 'Do you understand what I have done to you? You call me Teacher and
Lord, and you are right, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed
your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an
example, that you also should do just as I have done to you.'" John 13:3-15

"Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he
was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but
made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of
men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to
the point of death, even death on a cross." Philippians 2:5-8

Thus, as long as Christ remained on earth in the form and position of a humble slave,
enduring persecution, insults, injury, and subsequently the shame of the cross, the
Father would be greater in position and honor. Once Christ returns to heaven to be
seated alongside his Father, he would no longer be in that state of humiliation. He
would share, once again, that same divine glory and sovereign authority that he had
with the Father before he had come to the earth as a man: Dengan demikian, selama
Kristus tetap di bumi dalam bentuk dan posisi budak yang rendah hati, menanggung
penganiayaan, penghinaan, cedera, dan kemudian rasa malu salib, Bapa akan lebih
besar dalam posisi dan kehormatan. Begitu Kristus kembali ke surga untuk duduk
bersama Bapa-Nya, dia tidak akan lagi berada dalam keadaan penghinaan itu. Dia
akan berbagi, sekali lagi, kemuliaan ilahi yang sama dan wewenang berdaulat yang
dia miliki dengan Bapa sebelum dia datang ke bumi sebagai manusia:

"Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with
You before the world was... Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given
Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given
Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world." John 17:5, 24

Thus, the Father was greater in position and rank, not in essence and nature. The
questioner is, therefore, committing a categorical fallacy. He/she is confusing the
category of position and rank with the category of essence and nature, erroneously
assuming that if one is greater in one way, i.e. position and authority, than he/she must
be greater in every way, i.e. essence and nature. In light of these clear biblical truths,
such is not the case at all. Dengan demikian, Bapa lebih besar dalam posisi dan
pangkat, bukan pada dasarnya dan alam. Oleh karena itu, pertanyaannya adalah,
melakukan kekeliruan kategoris. Dia membingungkan kategori posisi dan peringkat
dengan kategori esensi dan alam, keliru dengan asumsi bahwa jika seseorang lebih
besar dalam satu cara, yaitu posisi dan wewenang, daripada dia harus lebih besar
dalam segala hal, yaitu esensi dan alam. Mengingat kebenaran Alkitab yang jelas ini,
seperti itu tidak terjadi sama sekali.

Question:

How can Jesus be God when he denies being absolutely good, and says that only
God is good (cf. Mark 10:18)?

Answer:

The passage, in context, actually says:

"As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and
asked Him, ‘Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?’ And Jesus said to
him, ‘Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.’" Mark 10:17-18

By wrenching such statements out of their immediate and overall contexts, the
impression is given that the Lord Jesus is actually denying he is God since he denies
that he is good in the sense that God is good. The questioner's logic goes something
like this: Dengan menyayat pernyataan-pernyataan seperti itu dari konteks langsung
dan keseluruhan mereka, kesan diberikan bahwa Tuhan Yesus sebenarnya
menyangkal dia adalah Allah karena dia menyangkal bahwa dia baik dalam arti bahwa
Allah baik. Logika pertanyaan berjalan sesuatu seperti ini:

1. God alone is (absolutely) good.

2. Jesus is not (absolutely) good.
3. Therefore, Jesus is not God.

This misleading selectivity leads the questioner to erroneously conclude that Jesus
was denying his essential goodness. He/she automatically assumes that Jesus is
denying his absolute purity without taking into consideration the overall context of
Mark, as well as the entire NT, to see if this is indeed what Christ was trying to
convey. Selektivitas menyesatkan ini menuntun sang pembuka untuk secara keliru
menyimpulkan bahwa Yesus menyangkal kebaikan esensialnya. Dia secara otomatis
berasumsi bahwa Yesus menyangkal kemurnian mutlaknya tanpa mempertimbangkan
konteks keseluruhan Markus, serta seluruh PB, untuk melihat apakah ini memang apa
yang Kristus coba sampaikan.

In other words, in order to truly understand what Jesus meant we need to interpret his
words in the overall Christological picture of the Gospel writers, specifically in light
of Mark's Christology. Once this is done it will become quite apparent that the last
thing Mark (as well as the other writers) was trying to do was cast doubt on Jesus'
absolute sinlessness and Deity. Here are some citations from Mark which helps put
things in proper perspective: Dengan kata lain, untuk benar-benar memahami apa
yang Yesus maksudkan perlu kita tafsirkan kata-katanya dalam gambaran
Keseluruhan Kristus dari para penulis Injil, khususnya mengingat Kristuslogi Markus.
Setelah ini dilakukan, akan menjadi sangat jelas bahwa hal terakhir yang mark (serta
penulis lainnya) coba lakukan adalah menimbulkan keraguan pada keberesan dan
Kesesahan mutlak Yesus. Berikut adalah beberapa kutipan dari Mark yang membantu
menempatkan hal-hal dalam perspektif yang tepat:

"In those days Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the
Jordan. Immediately coming up out of the water, He saw the heavens opening, and the
Spirit like a dove descending upon Him; and a voice came out of the heavens: 'You
are My beloved Son, in You I AM WELL-PLEASED.'" Mark 1:9-11

"Just then a man in their synagogue who was possessed by an evil spirit cried out,
‘What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I
know who you are - the Holy One of God!’ ‘Be quiet!’ said Jesus sternly. ‘Come
out of him!’ The evil spirit shook the man violently and came out of him with a
shriek. The people were all so amazed that they asked each other, What is this? A new
teaching - and with authority! He even gives orders to evil spirits and they obey
him." Mark 1:23-27

"After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John with him and led them up a high
mountain, where they were all alone. There he was transfigured before them. His
clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in the world could bleach
them. And there appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who were talking with
Jesus. Peter said to Jesus, ‘Rabbi, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three
shelters - one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.’ (He did not know what to
say, they were so frightened.) Then a cloud appeared and enveloped them, and a
voice came from the cloud: ‘This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!’" Mark
9:2-7

"He had one more to send, a beloved son; he sent him last of all to them, saying,
'They will respect my son.' But those vine-growers said to one another, 'This is the
heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours!'" Mark 12:6-7

Jesus is God's beloved Son, his Holy One and Heir, with whom God is pleased. For
God to say that he is well pleased with the Lord Jesus, and for him to be called God's
Holy One, implies that Christ is absolutely good and morally pure. Yesus adalah Putra
Terkasih Allah, Yang Maha Suci dan Pewarisnya, dengan siapa Allah berkenan. Bagi
Allah untuk mengatakan bahwa dia sangat senang dengan Tuhan Yesus, dan baginya
untuk dipanggil Yang Kudus Allah, menyiratkan bahwa Kristus benar-benar baik dan
murni secara moral.

"... And they came, bringing to Him a paralytic, carried by four men ... And Jesus
seeing their faith said to the paralytic, ‘My son, your sins are forgiven.’ But there
were some of the scribes sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, ‘Why does this
man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?’ And
immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit that they were reasoning that way within
themselves, said to them, ‘Why are you reasoning about these things in your hearts?
Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, "Your sins are forgiven"; or to say, "Arise take
up your pallet and walk"? But in order that you may know that the Son of Man
has authority on earth to forgive sins’ - He said to the paralytic - ‘I say to you, rise,
take up your pallet and go home.’ And he rose and immediately took up the pallet and
went out in the sight of all; so that they were all amazed and were glorifying God,
saying, ‘We have never seen anything like this.’" Mark 2:3, 5-12

"For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life
a ransom for many." Mark 10:45
"And He said to them, ‘This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for
many.’" Mark 14:24

Christ can forgive sins on the basis of his having the divine authority to do so, and as
a result of his forfeiting his own life as a ransom for others. Again, the only way
Christ can forgive sins and die as a ransom is if he were sinless. Otherwise, he would
need to be forgiven of his own sins and would be in need of a ransom. Kristus dapat
mengampuni dosa atas dasar dia memiliki wewenang ilahi untuk melakukannya, dan
sebagai akibat dari kehilangan hidupnya sendiri sebagai tebusan bagi orang lain.
Sekali lagi, satu-satunya cara Kristus dapat mengampuni dosa dan mati sebagai
tebusan adalah jika dia tidak berdosa. Jika tidak, ia perlu diampuni dari dosa-dosanya
sendiri dan akan membutuhkan tebusan.

"Consequently, the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." Mark 2:28

God alone is sovereign over his own Sabbath: Hanya Tuhan yang berdaulat atas hari
Sabatnya sendiri

"For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a sabbath of complete
rest, a holy convocation. You shall not do any work; it is a sabbath to the LORD in all
your dwellings." Leviticus 23:3

The only way that Christ could be Lord over the Sabbath is if he is God, and yet to be
God is to be absolutely good. Satu-satunya cara agar Kristus bisa menjadi Tuhan di
atas hari Sabat adalah jika dia adalah Allah, dan belum menjadi Allah adalah menjadi
benar-benar baik.

"For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful

generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory
of His Father with the holy angels." Mark 8:38

"And Jesus began to say, as He taught in the temple, 'How is it that the scribes say that
the Christ is the son of David? David himself said in the Holy Spirit, "THE LORD
SAID TO MY LORD, 'SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I PUT YOUR
ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET.'" David himself calls Him 'Lord'; so in what
sense is He his son?' And the large crowd enjoyed listening to Him." Mark 12:35-37

"Then they will see THE SON OF MAN COMING IN CLOUDS with great power
and glory. And then He will send forth the angels, and will gather together HIS
ELECT from the four winds, from the farthest end of the earth to the farthest end of
heaven." Mark 13:26-27
"But He kept silent and did not answer. Again the high priest was questioning Him,
and saying to Him, 'Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?' And Jesus said,
'I AM; and you shall see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF
POWER, and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN.'" Mark 14:61-62

Christ is identifying himself as the Son of Man whom the prophet Daniel saw in a
vision, the very One who reigns forever and whom all must serve: Kristus
mengidentifikasi dirinya sebagai Putra Manusia yang dilihat nabi Daniel dalam
sebuah penglihatan, Yang sangat berkuasa selamanya dan yang semuanya harus
melayani:

"I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a
Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented
before Him. And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the
peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him His dominion is an
everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will
not be destroyed." Daniel 7:13-14

Thus, Jesus is the Son of Man who sits enthroned forever at God's right hand as Lord
over all the angels and the entire creation! Dengan demikian, Yesus adalah Putra
Manusia yang duduk diabadikan selamanya di tangan kanan Allah sebagai Tuhan atas
semua malaikat dan seluruh ciptaan!

These are just some of the many passages from Mark that establish the absolute purity
and sinlessness of the Lord Jesus. Here are several from John's Gospel: Ini hanyalah
beberapa dari banyak bagian dari Markus yang membentuk kemurnian mutlak dan
kemurnian tuhan Yesus. Berikut adalah beberapa dari Injil Yohanes:

"Simon Peter answered him, ‘Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of
eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.’" John 6:68-69

"And there was much muttering about him among the people. While some said, ‘He is
a good man,’ others said, ‘No, he is leading the people astray.’ ... He who speaks on
his own does so to gain honor for himself, but he who works for the honor of the one
who sent him is a man of truth; there is nothing false about him." John 7:12, 18

Some of the crowds acknowledge that Jesus is good, with Christ later denying that
there is anything false about him. In other words, Jesus doesn’t just agree with those
who say about him that he is good, but goes way beyond that by asserting that he is
absolutely good! Beberapa orang banyak mengakui bahwa Yesus baik, dengan Kristus
kemudian menyangkal bahwa ada sesuatu yang salah tentang dia. Dengan kata lain,
Yesus tidak hanya setuju dengan orang-orang yang mengatakan tentang dia bahwa dia
baik, tetapi melampaui itu dengan menegaskan bahwa dia benar-benar baik!

"The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what
pleases him ... Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why
don't you believe me?" John 8:29, 46

"I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep ... I
am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me." John 10:11, 14

To summarize the preceding data, we learned that:

1. Jesus is God's Holy One.

2. Jesus is God's beloved Son.
3. Jesus is the Heir.
4. Jesus is the Forgiver of sinners.
5. Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath.
6. Jesus is David's Lord.
7. Jesus is the Lord of the angels, of demons, and of the elect.
8. Jesus is the the divine Son of Man who comes on the clouds to reign forever.

Untuk meringkas data sebelumnya, kita belajar bahwa:

1. Yesus adalah Yang Kudus Allah.

2. Yesus adalah Putra terkasih Allah.
3. Yesus adalah Pewaris.
4. Yesus adalah Pengampunan orang berdosa.
5. Yesus adalah Penguasa Hari Sabat.
6. Yesus adalah Tuhan Daud.
7. Yesus adalah Tuhan para malaikat, setan, dan yang terpilih.
8. Yesus adalah Putra Ilahi Manusia yang datang di atas awan untuk memerintah
selamanya.

In light of the foregoing, we can now exegete the passage to see what the Lord Jesus
actually meant to say to the rich man. In the first place, Jesus didn't say "I am not
good, only God is good", but simply poses a question to the man to think more deeply
about the implications of his words. The implication being that if Jesus is good, and
only God is good, then Jesus is God. Again, note the logic behind this: Mengingat hal-
hal di atas, kita sekarang dapat mengeluarkan bagian itu untuk melihat apa yang
sebenarnya dimaksudkan Tuhan Yesus untuk dikatakan kepada orang kaya. Di tempat
pertama, Yesus tidak mengatakan "Saya tidak baik, hanya Tuhan yang baik", tetapi
hanya mengajukan pertanyaan kepada pria itu untuk berpikir lebih dalam tentang
implikasi firman-Nya. Implikasinya adalah bahwa jika Yesus baik, dan hanya Allah
yang baik, maka Yesus adalah Allah. Sekali lagi, perhatikan logika di balik ini:

1. God alone is (absolutely) good.

2. Jesus is (absolutely) good.
3. Therefore, Jesus is God.

1. (Sesungguhnya Allah benar-benar Maha Baik) terhadap apa yang disaningkan-

Nya (lagi Maha Baik)
2. Yesus (benar-benar) baik.
3. Karena itu, Yesus adalah Allah.

If the man truly believed this then he must be willing to abandon everything for
Christ. This is precisely what Jesus demanded: Jika manusia itu benar-benar percaya
ini maka dia harus bersedia meninggalkan segalanya untuk Kristus. Inilah yang yesus
tuntut:

"And looking at him, Jesus felt love for him, and said to him, ‘One thing you lack: go
and sell all you possess, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in
heaven; and come, FOLLOW ME.’" Mark 10:21

Jesus demands a devotion that is to be given solely to God. This is clearly seen in light
of the fact that Jesus' demand was made right after the man had indicated his
observance to the last six commands of the Ten Commandments. These commands
were given to govern a person's relationship with others. The first four
commandments govern a person's devotion to God. The man's trouble was that he
loved money more than God, and hence his money became an idol. He had to be
willing to die to his idolatry by giving it up in order to devote himself completely to
the pure worship of God. Yet, amazingly, Jesus never asked the man to follow the first
four commandments, or to follow God completely, but directed the man to follow
him. The reason being is that to wholeheartedly follow the Lord Jesus is to fulfill
one's obligation to God. Thus, Jesus was implicitly claiming to be God since he was
basically saying that to follow him is to follow God, to obey him is to obey God, to
love him is to love God. Therefore Jesus is God! Yesus menuntut pengabdian yang
harus diberikan semata-mata kepada Allah. Ini jelas terlihat mengingat fakta bahwa
permintaan Yesus dibuat tepat setelah pria itu menunjukkan ketaatannya pada enam
perintah terakhir dari Sepuluh Perintah. Perintah ini diberikan untuk mengatur
hubungan seseorang dengan orang lain. Empat perintah pertama mengatur pengabdian
seseorang kepada Allah. Masalah pria itu adalah bahwa ia mencintai uang lebih dari
Tuhan, dan karenanya uangnya menjadi idola. Dia harus bersedia mati kepada
berhalanya dengan menyerahkannya untuk mengabdikan dirinya sepenuhnya untuk
ibadah murni Allah. Namun, luar biasa, Yesus tidak pernah meminta orang itu untuk
mengikuti empat perintah pertama, atau mengikuti Allah sepenuhnya, tetapi
mengarahkan orang itu untuk mengikutinya. Alasannya adalah bahwa untuk dengan
sepenuh hati mengikuti Tuhan Yesus adalah untuk memenuhi kewajiban seseorang
kepada Allah. Dengan demikian, Yesus secara implisit mengklaim sebagai Tuhan
karena dia pada dasarnya mengatakan bahwa untuk mengikutinya adalah mengikuti
Allah, untuk mematuhinya adalah mematuhi Allah, untuk mengasihinya adalah untuk
mengasihi Allah. Karena itu Yesus adalah Allah!

To put it another way, Mark wants his readers to understand that Jesus is the human
appearance of Yahweh God Almighty. As one Evangelical writer put it: Dengan kata
lain, Mark ingin pembacanya memahami bahwa Yesus adalah penampilan manusia
dari Yahweh Allah yang Mahabesar. Seperti yang dikatakan oleh salah satu penulis
Evangelis:

... Mark wanted his readers to know that Jesus was "the Son of God" in a unique
sense. Thus, when God announces that Jesus is his Son in 1:11 and 9:7, Mark's Greek
reveals the unique nature of his sonship. In each instance, Mark uses the Greek
adjective agapetos ("only beloved") in what Greek grammarians call the "second
attributive position." An adjective in this position receives particular stress. In both
1:11 and 9:7, therefore, God says that Jesus is "my son - the uniquely beloved one."
The high priest at Jesus' trial seems to understand the unusual connotation of Jesus'
claim to divine sonship in the parable of the wicked tenants (12:6). Looking for a
conviction, he asks Jesus the apparently astounding question, "Are you the Christ, the
Son of the Blessed One?" (14:61).

The unique nature of Jesus' relationship to God is evident throughout Mark's narrative.
When Jesus forgives the sins of the paralytic in 2:5, the scribes think disapprovingly,
"Who can forgive sins but God alone?" Although the question is rhetorical - the
scribes intend it to be a statement of the obvious truth that Jesus has usurped a divine
prerogative - it prompts the Christian reader to think of Jesus as acting in the way God
acts. Mark has led us to think of Jesus as God. This impression is confirmed in 4:41
when, after stilling the raging storm, the disciples ask, "Who is this that even the wind
and the waves obey him?" The disciples know that the stilling of raging storms is the
business of Yahweh (Ps. 65:7; 89:9; 107:28-30), and their question implies the
unthinkable - that when they are in the presence of Jesus, they are in the presence of
God himself. Kodrat unik dari hubungan Yesus kepada Allah terbukti sepanjang
narasi Markus. Ketika Yesus mengampuni dosa-dosa lumpuh pada pasal 2:5, para juru
tulis berpikir dengan tidak setuju, "Siapa yang bisa mengampuni dosa kecuali Allah
saja?" Meskipun pertanyaannya adalah retoris - para juru tulis bermaksud untuk
menjadi pernyataan kebenaran yang jelas bahwa Yesus telah merebut hak prerogatif
ilahi - itu mendorong pembaca Kristen untuk menganggap Yesus sebagai bertindak
dalam cara Allah bertindak. Markus telah menuntun kita untuk menganggap Yesus
sebagai Tuhan. Kesan ini dikonfirmasi pada pukul 4:41 ketika, setelah masih badai
yang mengamuk, para murid bertanya, "Siapa ini yang bahkan angin dan ombak
mematuhinya?" Para murid tahu bahwa masih adanya badai yang mengamuk adalah
bisnis Yahweh (Wafat 65:7; 89:9; 107:28-30), dan pertanyaan mereka menyiratkan
yang tidak terpikirkan - bahwa ketika mereka berada di hadapan Yesus, mereka
berada di hadapan Allah sendiri.

The same implication arises from Jesus' question to the rich man. Jesus asks, "Why do
you call me good? No one is good - except God alone" (10:18). We know by this time
in the narrative that Jesus is good; as the people of the Decapolis have said, "He has
done everything well" (7:37). But if Jesus is good and no one is good but God alone,
then it implies that Jesus is God. (Frank Thielman, Theology of the New Testament: A
Canonical and Synthetic Approach, [Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI 2005], Chapter 3.
Mark: The Death of God's Son As Good News, pp. 63-64) Implikasi yang sama
muncul dari pertanyaan Yesus kepada orang kaya. Yesus bertanya, "Mengapa Anda
memanggil saya baik? Tidak ada yang baik - kecuali Allah saja" (10:18). Kita tahu
pada saat ini dalam narasi bahwa Yesus baik; seperti yang dikatakan rakyat Decapolis,
"Dia telah melakukan segalanya dengan baik" (7:37). Tetapi jika Yesus baik dan tidak
ada yang baik kecuali Allah saja, maka itu menyiratkan bahwa Yesus adalah Allah.
(Frank Thielman, Teologi Perjanjian Baru: Pendekatan Kanonis dan Sintetis,
[Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI 2005], Bab 3. Markus: Kematian Putra Allah Sebagai
Kabar Baik, wafat 63-64)

We couldn't have stated it any better! Kita tidak bisa menyatakannya lebih baik!

Question:

According to Deuteronomy 6:4 there is only one Yahweh God. Jesus himself
quoted this in Mark 12:29 to prove that God is one. Since Jesus quotes this as one
of the greatest commandments doesn’t this prove that he didn’t believe in a
Triune God or in his Divinity?

Answer:

Before we begin discussing the implication and meaning of Jesus’ words we first
would like to quote these specific passages, beginning with Deuteronomy 6:4:
"Hear O Israel, Yahweh our God Yahweh is One (Shema Yisrael Yahweh Eloheinu
Yahweh Echad)."(1)

And now, here is the immediate context of Mark 12 in order to more fully appreciate
Jesus’ point:

"And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and
seeing that he answered them well, asked him, ‘Which commandment is the most
important of all?’ Jesus answered, ‘The most important is, "Hear, O Israel: The Lord
our God, the Lord is one (kyrious ho theos hemon kyrios heis estin). And you shall
love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your
mind and with all your strength." The second is this: "You shall love your neighbor as
yourself." There is no other commandment greater than these.’ And the scribe said to
him, ‘You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one (hoti heis estin), and
there is no other besides him. And to love him with all the heart and with all the
understanding and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is much
more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.’ And when Jesus saw that he
answered wisely, he said to him, ‘You are not far from the kingdom of God.’ And
after that no one dared to ask him any more questions." Mark 12:28-34

Heis is a singular masculine adjective which in this context modifies kyrios. The

verb estin is functioning here as a copula (linking verb) of predication (to state or
affirm as an attribute or quality of the subject), i.e. "he is one Lord."

The problem here is that this doesn’t tell us the exact type of oneness that the Bible
writers are predicating or attributing to God, i.e. is he a single Being with a single
essence that encompasses a plurality of attributes and/or Persons? Or does his essence
preclude his having multiple attributes and/or Persons? To put it simply, what does it
exactly mean that God is one?

When one carefully examines the Holy Bible God’s unity cannot mean that he has
only one attribute since the Scriptures are filled with references to the multiplicity of
characteristics that God has such as love, mercy, compassion, justice, righteousness,
perfection etc.

"And he said, ‘I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before
you my name "The LORD." And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and
will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.’" Exodus 33:19

"The LORD passed before him and proclaimed, ‘The LORD, the LORD, a God
merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and
faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression
and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers
on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.’"
Exodus 34:6-7

"The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and
without iniquity, just and upright is he." Deuteronomy 32:4

"Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love … So we have
come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever
abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him." 1 John 4:8, 16

Nor can this mean that God is one in Person since both the NT Scriptures and the
Hebrew Bible emphatically testify that there are multiple Persons of God. For
instance, here is what Jesus went on to say right after he quoted the Shema or
Deuteronomy 6:4:

"And as Jesus taught in the temple, he said, ‘How can the scribes say that the Christ is
the son of David? David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared, "The Lord (kyrios) said
to my Lord (to kyrio mou), ‘Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your
feet.’" David himself calls him Lord (kyrion). So how is he his son?’ And the great
throng heard him gladly." Mark 12:35-37

Christ was referring to the following Psalm where David’s Lord is exalted above his
enemies and is given victory in battle to destroy them:

"The utterance of Yahweh to my Lord (Adoni): ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make
your enemies your footstool.’ Yahweh sends forth from Zion your mighty scepter.
Rule in the midst of your enemies! Your people will offer themselves freely on the
day of your power, in holy garments; from the womb of the morning, the dew of your
youth will be yours. Yahweh has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘You are a
priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.’ The Lord (Adonai) is at your right
hand; he will shatter kings on the day of his wrath. He will execute judgment among
the nations, filling them with corpses; he will shatter chiefs over the wide earth. He
will drink from the brook by the way; therefore he will lift up his head." Psalm 110:1-
7

Interestingly, the Lord who is at Yahweh’s right hand is called Adonai in verse 5, a

title that is used extensively for Yahweh God. Note, once again, what verse 1 says:

"The utterance of Yahweh to my Lord is: ‘Sit at MY right hand, until I make your
enemies your footstool.’"
Now compare this with verse 5:

"The Lord is at YOUR right hand; he will shatter kings on the day of his wrath."

In the context "your right hand" obviously refers to Yahweh's right hand since in verse
1 the Psalter has already made mention of it, i.e. "My right hand." This supports the
fact that the Adonai of verse 5 is the same Lord of verse 1 since both are said to be at
Yahweh's right hand. Hence, David's Lord, the Messiah, is called Adonai, a name that
is often applied to Yahweh!

The other important thing to note about this particular Psalm is that there is an
interesting variant that is found in the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible (Septuagint
[LXX]), one that points to the preexistence of David’s Lord:

With You is dominion in the day of Your power, in the splendors of Your saints; I
have begotten You from the womb before the morning. Psalm 110:3 LXX (Source)

The official Catholic version of the Holy Bible, the New American Bible (NAB),
adopted this reading over against the Hebrew version:

"Yours is princely power from the day of your birth. In holy splendor before the
daystar, like the dew I begot you."
3
 [3] Like the dew I begot you: an adoption formula as in Psalm 2:7; 89:27-28. Before
the daystar: possibly an expression for before the world began (Proverbs 8:22).
(Source)

Evidently, the translators of the Septuagint believed that this text supported the view
that not only was David’s Lord already existing at the time this particular Psalm was
composed, but that he was also there with God before the creation of the world!

The Septuagint basically concurs with the theology of the Fourth Gospel which quotes
Jesus as saying:

"And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with
you before the world existed… Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given
me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you
loved me before the foundation of the world." John 17:5, 24

With the foregoing in perspective we can more fully appreciate Jesus’ point: By
appealing to this particular Psalm the Lord wanted to call attention to the fact that the
Messiah is more than a human descendant of David, since he is also his sovereign
Lord. Moreover, the context of the Psalm provides the reason why the Messiah is
David’s Lord, and therefore greater than his human ancestor; the former is a
preexistent Divine figure that was there with God even before David came into being!

Hence, even though Jesus said that the Lord God is one he went on to speak of two
Persons as Lord, namely, both his Father and himself.

Jesus doesn’t stop there since this is what he also said earlier in Mark 12:

"He had still one other, a beloved son. Finally he sent him to them, saying, ‘They will
respect my son.’ But those tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us
kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ And they took him and killed him and
threw him out of the vineyard." Mark 12:6-8

In this parable, the owner of the vineyard represents God and the servants represent
his prophets:

"From the day that your fathers came out of the land of Egypt to this day, I have
persistently sent all my servants the prophets to them, day after day." Jeremiah 7:25

"You have neither listened nor inclined your ears to hear, although the LORD
persistently sent to you all his servants the prophets, saying, ‘Turn now, every one of
you, from his evil way and evil deeds, and dwell upon the land that the LORD has
given to you and your fathers from of old and forever.’" Jeremiah 25:4-5

What makes this rather amazing is that Christ doesn’t identify himself as one of the
servants but as the Owner’s beloved Son and Heir!

It isn’t merely the NT that affirms God’s Uniplurality, the OT Scriptures also confirm
this truth:

"I will recount the steadfast love of the LORD, the praises of the LORD, according to
all that the LORD has granted us, and the great goodness to the house of Israel that he
has granted them according to his compassion, according to the abundance of his
steadfast love. For he said, ‘Surely they are my people, children who will not deal
falsely.’ And he became their Savior. In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the
Angel of his Presence saved them; in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; he
lifted them up and carried them all the days of old. But they rebelled and grieved his
Holy Spirit; therefore he turned to be their enemy, and himself fought against them.
Then he remembered the days of old, of Moses and his people. Where is he who
brought them up out of the sea with the shepherds of his flock? Where is he who put
in the midst of them his Holy Spirit, who caused his glorious arm to go at the right
hand of Moses, who divided the waters before them to make for himself an
everlasting name, who led them through the depths? Like a horse in the desert, they
did not stumble. Like livestock that go down into the valley, the Spirit of the LORD
gave them rest. So you led your people, to make for yourself a glorious name. Look
down from heaven and see, from your holy and beautiful habitation. Where are your
zeal and your might? The stirring of your inner parts and your compassion are held
back from me. For you are our Father, though Abraham does not know us, and Israel
does not acknowledge us; you, O LORD, are our Father, our Redeemer from of old
is your name." Isaiah 63:7-16

Here, the redemption of Israel from Egypt is attributed to Yahweh God the Father, the
Angel or Messenger (malak) of his Presence (panim– lit., "faces"), and his Holy
Spirit.

It should be noted that both the Hebrew and Greek words for angel simply mean a
messenger, not necessarily a spirit being with wings (1, 2).

Moreover, the evidence from the Hebrew Bible shows that this particular Messenger
or Angel is not a creature but a theophany (an appearance of God), or more precisely a
christophany (preincarnate appearances of Christ).

The first line of evidence which supports that this is no ordinary angel is the fact that
he is called the Messenger of God’s Face, a title which suggests that this Angel
happens to embody the very essence and nature of God, a view shared by many
commentators. In fact, many commentators believe that this Angel is the Lord Jesus in
his prehuman existence:

and the Angel of his presence saved them; not Michael, as Jarchi; but the Messiah is
here meant; the Angel of the covenant, the Angel which went before the Israelites in the
wilderness, (Exodus 23:20-23) not a created angel, or an angel by nature, but by office;
being sent of God, as the word signifies, on the errand and business of salvation; called "the
Angel of God's presence", or "face", because his face was seen in him; his name, and
nature, and perfections were in him; he is the brightness of his Father's glory, and
the express image of his person besides, the presence of God was always with
him; he is the "Ithiel", the Word that was with God, and with whom God always was; who
lay in the bosom of his Father, and was ever with him; and who also, as Mediator,
introduces his people into the presence of God, and always appears in it for them as their
advocate and intercessor: now to him salvation is ascribed; he saved Israel out of Egypt,
and out of the hands of all their enemies in the wilderness; and which salvation was typical
of the spiritual, eternal, and complete salvation, which is only by Christ, and issues in
eternal glory: (The New John Gill Exposition on the Entire Bible; source; underline
emphasis ours)

(2.) The person employed in their salvation--the angel of his face, or presence. Some
understand it of a created angel. The highest angel in heaven, even the angel of his
presence, that attends next the throne of his glory, is not thought too great, too good,
to be sent on this errand. Thus the little ones' angels are said to be those that always
behold the face of our Father, Matthew 18:10. But this is rather to be understood of
Jesus Christ, the eternal Word, that angel of whom God spoke to Moses (Exodus
23:20,21), whose voice Israel was to obey. He is called Jehovah, Exodus 13:21,
14:21,24. He is the angel of the covenant, God's messenger to the world, Malachi 3:1.
He is the angel of God's face, for he is the express image of his person; and the glory
of God shines in the face of Christ. He that was to work out the eternal salvation, as an
earnest of that, wrought out the temporal salvations that were typical of it. (Matthew
Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible; source)

The angel - The same that conducted them through the wilderness; the Lord Jesus
Christ, who appeared to Moses in the bush. Saved them - From the house of
bondage. Carried - He carried them in the arms of his power, and on the wings of his
providence. And he is said to do it of old, To remember his ancient kindness for many
generations past. (John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible; source)

angel of his presence--literally, "of His face," that is, who stands before Him
continually; Messiah (Ex 14:19; 23:20, 21; Pr 8:30), language applicable to
no creature (Ex 32:34; 33:2, 14; Nu 20:16; Mal 3:1). (Jamieson, Fausset, Brown
- Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible; source; underline
emphasis ours)

Finally:

d. And the Angel of His Presence saved them: This refers to the presence and work of
Jesus among ancient Israel, especially among those delivered from Egypt.

i. "The angel of His presence is the Messiah … Calvin sees in this angel merely a
serving angel. But of this Angel it is said that He by His love and pity saved Israel;
this can hardly be said of a created angel. It is the Christ who is meant here."
(Bultema)

ii. "Angel of his presence: literally 'of his face'. We recognize people by face; 'face' is
the Lord's very own presence (Psalm 139:7), among them in the person of his angel -
that unique 'Angel of the Lord' (as in Genesis 16:7ff; 21:17; 22:11, 15; Exodus 3:2;
14:19; 23:20-23; Malachi 3:1) who speaks as the Lord and is yet distinct from him."
(Motyer) (David Guzik’s Commentaries on the Bible; source)

The Torah provides corroborating evidence that this is what the phrase means since
we read in Exodus the following promise:
"And he said, ‘My Presence/Face (panim) will go with you, and I will give you rest.’
And he said to him, ‘If your Presence/Face (panim) will not go with me, do not bring
us up from here.’" Exodus 33:14-15

God promises to send his Presence/Face to lead his people into the land of promise.
Earlier in the book the One whom God says he would send is the Angel:

"Behold, I send an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the
place that I have prepared. Pay careful attention to him and obey his voice; do not
rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression, for my name is in him.
But if you carefully obey his voice and do all that I say, then I will be an enemy to
your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries. When my angel goes before you
and brings you to the Amorites and the Hittites and the Perizzites and the Canaanites,
the Hivites and the Jebusites, and I blot them out," Exodus 23:20-23

Notice that God tells Moses that this Angel has the Divine name within his very own
Person, implying that he has the very nature of God, and that he has the ability to
forgive sins, a Divine function:

"Who is a God like you, pardoning iniquity and passing over transgression for the
remnant of his inheritance? He does not retain his anger forever, because he delights
in steadfast love. He will again have compassion on us; he will tread our iniquities
underfoot. You will cast all our sins into the depths of the sea." Micah 7:18-19

Nor is this the only text which speaks of the Angel having the power to forgive sins:

"Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the Angel of the LORD,
and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. And the LORD said to Satan,
‘The LORD rebuke you, O Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you!
Is not this a brand plucked from the fire?’ Now Joshua was standing before the angel,
clothed with filthy garments. And the Angel said to those who were standing before
him, ‘Remove the filthy garments from him.’ And to him he said, ‘Behold, I have
taken your iniquity away from you, and I will clothe you with pure vestments.’"
Zechariah 3:1-4

Moreover, Israel failed to heed God’s warning to not rebel against this Angel and this
is what happened:

"Now the angel of the LORD went up from Gilgal to Bochim. And he said, ‘I
brought you up from Egypt and brought you into the land that I swore to give to your
fathers. I said, "I will never break MY covenant with you, and you shall make no
covenant with the inhabitants of this land; you shall break down their altars." But you
have not obeyed my voice. What is this you have done? So now I say, I will not drive
them out before you, but they shall become thorns in your sides, and their gods shall
be a snare to you.’ As soon as the angel of the LORD spoke these words to all the
people of Israel, the people lifted up their voices and wept. And they called the name
of that place Bochim. And they sacrificed there to the LORD." Judges 2:1-5

Here the Angel speaks as if he is God since he refers to his covenant, his swearing to
their fathers to give them the land of promise, and to his bringing Israel out of Egypt!

Moreover, this Angel receives and accepts worship:

"Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD
standing in the way, with his drawn sword in his hand. And he bowed down and fell
on his face . And the angel of the LORD said to him, ‘Why have you struck your
donkey these three times? Behold, I have come out to oppose you because your way is
perverse before me.’" Numbers 22:31-32

"When Joshua was by Jericho, he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a man
was standing before him with his drawn sword in his hand . And Joshua went to him
and said to him, ‘Are you for us, or for our adversaries?’ And he said, ‘No; but I am
the commander of the army of the LORD. Now I have come.’ And Joshua fell on his
face to the earth and worshiped and said to him, ‘What does my lord say to his
servant?’ And the commander of the LORD’s army said to Joshua, ‘Take off your
sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy.’ And Joshua did
so." Joshua 5:13-15

Something which other angels refuse to accept:

"At this I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, ‘Do not do it! I am a
fellow servant with you and with your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus.
Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.’" Revelation 19:10;
cf. 22:8-9

But which the Lord Jesus encourages people to render to him:

"And whenever the unclean spirits saw him, they fell down before him and cried out,
‘You are the Son of God.’" Mark 3:11

"And when Jesus had stepped out of the boat, immediately there met him out of the
tombs a man with an unclean spirit. He lived among the tombs. And no one could
bind him anymore, not even with a chain, for he had often been bound with shackles
and chains, but he wrenched the chains apart, and he broke the shackles in pieces. No
one had the strength to subdue him. Night and day among the tombs and on the
mountains he was always crying out and cutting himself with stones. And when he
saw Jesus from afar, he ran and fell down before him. And crying out with a loud
voice, he said, ‘What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I
adjure you by God, do not torment me.’ For he was saying to him, ‘Come out of the
man, you unclean spirit!’" Mark 5:2-8

"And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, ‘Truly you are the Son of God.’"
Matthew 14:33

"Suddenly Jesus met them. ‘Greetings,’ he said. They came to him, clasped his
feet and worshiped him... When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some
doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has
been given to me.’" Matthew 28:9, 17-18

That is not all. In Genesis we are told that Jacob wrestled with God who had appeared
as a man:

"And Jacob was left alone. And a man wrestled with him until the breaking of the
day. When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he touched his hip
socket, and Jacob's hip was put out of joint as he wrestled with him. Then he said,
‘Let me go, for the day has broken.’ But Jacob said, ‘I will not let you go unless you
bless me.’ And he said to him, ‘What is your name?’ And he said, ‘Jacob.’ Then he
said, ‘Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven
with God and with men, and have prevailed.’ Then Jacob asked him, ‘Please tell me
your name.’ But he said, ‘Why is it that you ask my name?’ And there he blessed him.
So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, saying, ‘For I have seen God face to
face, and yet my life has been delivered.’" Genesis 32:24-30

Pay attention to the fact that God changed Jacob’s name to Israel, a point reiterated in
the following text:

"To this day they do according to the former manner. They do not fear the LORD, and
they do not follow the statutes or the rules or the law or the commandment that the
LORD commanded the children of Jacob, whom HE [Yahweh] named Israel." 2
Kings 17:34

Yet according to the prophet Hosea the man whom Jacob wrestled with and who
changed his name was actually the Angel of Yahweh:

"The LORD has an indictment against Judah and will punish Jacob according to his
ways; he will repay him according to his deeds. In the womb he took his brother by
the heel, and in his manhood he strove with God. He strove with THE ANGEL and
prevailed; he wept and sought his favor. He met God at Bethel, and there God spoke
with us-- the LORD, the God of hosts, the LORD is his memorial name:" Hosea 12:2-
5

As if this weren’t amazing enough we are told elsewhere that it was the Word of
Yahweh who actually changed Jacob’s name:

"Elijah took twelve stones, one for each of the tribes descended from Jacob, to
whom the Word of the LORD had come, saying, ‘Your name shall be Israel.’" 1
Kings 18:31

When we piece all these texts together the conclusion seems to be that the Angel of
Yahweh is the Word of God who comes to speak on Yahweh’s behalf. In other words,
the Angel of Yahweh is God’s Word who oftentimes appears in human form!

In fact, there are specific OT passages where the Word is pictured as a rational Being,
as a Messenger who appears to God’s prophets in dreams and visions:

"After these things the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision: ‘Fear not,
Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great.’ But Abram said, ‘O Lord
GOD, what will you give me, for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is
Eliezer of Damascus?’ And Abram said, ‘Behold, you have given me no offspring,
and a member of my household will be my heir.’ And behold, the word of the LORD
came to him: ‘This man shall not be your heir; your very own son shall be your
heir.’ And he brought him outside and said, ‘Look toward heaven, and number the
stars, if you are able to number them.’ Then he said to him, ‘So shall your offspring
be.’ And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness. And he
said to him, ‘I am the LORD who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give
you this land to possess.’" Genesis 15:1-7

Note that it is the Word who promised Abram that he would have a son as his heir.

"Now the young man Samuel was ministering to the LORD under Eli. And the word
of the LORD was rare in those days; there was no frequent vision … Then the LORD
called Samuel, and he said, ‘Here I am!’ and ran to Eli and said, ‘Here I am, for you
called me." But he said, ‘I did not call; lie down again.’ So he went and lay down.
And the LORD called again, ‘Samuel!’ and Samuel arose and went to Eli and said,
‘Here I am, for you called me.’ But he said, ‘I did not call, my son; lie down again.’
Now Samuel did not yet know the LORD, and the word of the LORD had not yet
been revealed to him … And the LORD came and stood, calling as at other times,
‘Samuel! Samuel!’ And Samuel said, ‘Speak, for your servant hears.’ … And the
LORD appeared again at Shiloh, for the LORD revealed himself to Samuel at Shiloh
BY THE WORD OF THE LORD." 1 Samuel 3:1, 4-6, 10, 21

Yahweh appeared to Samuel through his Word.

"The words of Jeremiah, the son of Hilkiah, one of the priests who were in Anathoth
in the land of Benjamin, to whom the word of the LORD came in the days of Josiah
the son of Amon, king of Judah, in the thirteenth year of his reign. It came also in the
days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, and until the end of the eleventh
year of Zedekiah, the son of Josiah, king of Judah, until the captivity of Jerusalem in
the fifth month. Now the word of the LORD came to me, saying, ‘Before I formed
you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed
you a prophet to the nations.’ Then I said, ‘Ah, Lord GOD! Behold, I do not know
how to speak, for I am only a youth.’ But the LORD said to me, ‘Do not say, "I am
only a youth"; for to all to whom I send you, you shall go, and whatever I command
you, you shall speak. Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you to deliver you,
declares the LORD.’ Then the LORD put out his hand and touched my mouth. And
the LORD said to me, ‘Behold, I have put my words in your mouth. See, I have set
you this day over nations and over kingdoms, to pluck up and to break down, to
destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant.’ And the word of the LORD came to
me, saying, ‘Jeremiah, what do you see?’ And I said, ‘I see an almond branch.’ Then
the LORD said to me, ‘You have seen well, for I am watching over my word to
perform it.’ The word of the LORD came to me a second time, saying, ‘What do you
see?’ And I said, ‘I see a boiling pot, facing away from the north.’ Then the LORD
said to me, ‘Out of the north disaster shall be let loose upon all the inhabitants of the
land.’" Jeremiah 1:1-14

The Word of Yahweh came to Jeremiah and touched the prophet’s mouth with his
hand. Finally:

"Then he said to me, ‘This is the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel: Not by might,
nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the LORD of hosts. Who are you, O great
mountain? Before Zerubbabel you shall become a plain. And he shall bring forward
the top stone amid shouts of "Grace, grace to it!"’ Then the word of the LORD came
to me, saying, ‘The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house; his
hands shall also complete it. Then you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent
me to you.’" Zechariah 4:6-9

In this reference the Word personally tells Zechariah that once Zerubbabel lays the
foundation of the temple the prophet will then know that the Lord had sent him, i.e.
God sent his Word to speak to the prophet!
Another interesting point about all of these texts is that the men identify the Word as
Yahweh God, therefore implying that the Word is somehow both distinct from and
happens to be Yahweh God at the same time.

This perfectly comports with the theology of the fourth Gospel:

"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 were made through him, and
without him was not any thing made that was made… He was in the world, and the
world was made through him, yet the world did not know him… And the Word
became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only
Son from the Father, full of grace and truth." John 1:1-3, 10, 14

Jesus is the Word that became flesh who is both distinct from and happens to be God
at the same time. What this basically means is that Jesus is that Word who appeared to
the prophets!

Furthermore, this even implies that Christ is the Angel of God since we saw earlier
how the evidence supports the view that the Angel is the same Person as the Word
who spoke to the prophets. Thus, if the Angel is the Word and Jesus happens to be the
Word then he must be the Angel of Yahweh. To put this in the form of a syllogism:

A. The Angel of Yahweh is the Word of God.

B. Jesus is the Word of God.
C. Therefore, Jesus is the Angel of Yahweh.

Nor are we the only ones to see that the Shema doesn’t preclude there being a plurality
of Divine Persons since even some Jewish sources clearly saw a plurality within God,
as the comments of the late, noted Bible expositor John Gill attests:

… These words are frequent in the mouths of the modern Jews, in proof of the unity of God,
and against a plurality in the Deity; but the ancient ones, not only consider them as a
good and sufficient proof, that there is but one God, but as expressive of a Trinity
in the Godhead: with a view to this text they observe {t}, that ``Jehovah, "our God,
Jehovah"; these are, (Nygrd tlt), "three degrees" (or persons) with respect to this
sublime mystery, "in the beginning, God", or "Elohim, created", &c.''

And again F21, ``there is an unity which is called Jehovah the first, our God,
Jehovah; behold! they are all one, and therefore called one: lo! these three names are
as one; and although we call them one, and they are one; but by the revelation of the Holy
Ghost it is made known, and they are by the sight of the eye to be known, that "these three
are one", (see 1 John 5:7) and this is the mystery of the voice that is heard; the voice is
one; and there are three things, fire, and wind, and water, and they are all one, in the
mystery of the voice, and they are not but one: so here, Jehovah, our God, Jehovah, these,
(Nynwwg atlt), "three modes, forms", or "things", are one.''

Once more they F23 say, ``there are two, and one is joined to them, and they are
three; and when they are three, they are one: these are the two names of hear, O
Israel, which are Jehovah, Jehovah, and Elohenu, or our God, is joined unto them; and it is
the seal of the ring of truth.''

To which I shall subjoin one passage more, where R. Eliezer is asking his father R. Simeon
ben Jochai, why Jehovah is sometimes called Elohim, he replies F24, among other things;
``come see, there are (Nygrdg), "three degrees", (or persons,) and every degree
is by itself; although they are all one, and bound together in one, and one is not
separated from another.''

To believe this, is the first and chief commandment in the law, and is the principal article of
the Christian faith; namely, to believe that there is one God, and that there are three
persons, Father, Son, and Spirit, in the Godhead.

FOOTNOTES…

F21 Zohar in Exod. fol. 18. 3, 4.

F23 Ib. in Num. fol. 67. 3.
F24 Zohar in Lev. fol. 27. 2. (The
New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible; source;
bold and underline emphasis ours)

With the foregoing in the background, the reader may be wondering why then did the
Bible writers use the masculine adjective heis for God if they believed that he is
multi-Personal? The answer is rather simple, the inspired authors wanted to show that
God is a personal Being as opposed to an impersonal force or energy. The use of
singular masculine nouns, pronouns, adjectives and verbs denote that God is a single,
conscious, intellectual Being even though he is not a single Person as the evidence
presented here clearly proves.

Interestingly, when the NT writers speak of the unity of the distinct Persons of the
Godhead they use the neuter form hen as opposed to heis:

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal
life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of MY hand. My
Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch
them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father, we are one (ego kai ho pater hen
esmen).’ The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, ‘I have
shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to
stone me?’ The Jews answered him, ‘It is not for a good work that we are going to
stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.’" John
10:27-33
By using both the neuter form of heis along with the plural verb form of eimi (esmen,
lit. "we are") John dispels any attempt of trying to turn the Father and the Son into a
single Person. John’s use of hen, instead of heis, clearly demonstrates that their unity
is not in terms of Personhood but in respect to their essence, e.g. they are not the same
Person but two distinct Persons that share the same essence fully and equally. That
John had equality of essence in view can be easily demonstrated by comparing the
words of the Lord Jesus with what the OT Scriptures teach regarding the unique
characteristics of Yahweh:

"See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive;
I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand."
Deuteronomy 32:39

"There is none holy like the LORD; there is none besides you; there is no rock like
our God… The LORD kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises
up." 1 Samuel 2:2, 6

"For he is our God, and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand.
Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah, as on the day
at Massah in the wilderness," Psalm 95:7-8

"‘You are my witnesses,’ declares the LORD, ‘and my servant whom I have chosen,
that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god
was formed, nor shall there be any after me. I, I am the LORD, and besides me there
is no savior. I declared and saved and proclaimed, when there was no strange god
among you; and you are my witnesses,’ declares the LORD, ‘and I am God. Also
henceforth I am he; there is none who can deliver from my hand; I work, and who
can turn it back?’" Isaiah 43:10-13

Notice how Jesus ascribes to himself the very prerogatives that the OT says belong
only to Yahweh, namely, the ability to give eternal life and to prevent anyone from
plucking his people out of his sovereign protection and power. He then goes on to
refer to the utter incapability of anyone snatching true believers from the Father’s
hand, which is a clear affirmation of his equality with the Father. As noted
Evangelical NT scholar Murray J. Harris put it, when speaking of the identity of
nature which Yahweh and Jesus share:

"Similarly, when Jesus declared ‘I and the Father are one’ (John 10:30), he was not
claiming that he and the Father were personally identical, for John uses the neuter for
‘one’ (hen), not the masculine (heis). Nor is Jesus simply affirming a unity of will or
purpose or action between him and his Father, so what the Father wishes, he also
wishes and performs. In the context Jesus has just declared that no person will be able
to snatch his sheep out of his hand (10:28) or out of his Father's hand (10:29). Such
equality of divine power points to unity of divine essence: ‘I and the Father are
one.’ (Murray J. Harris, 3 Crucial Questions about Jesus [Baker Books, Grand
Rapids, MI 1994], Chapter 3: Is Jesus God?, fn. 14, p. 119; bold and underline
emphasis ours)

With this in mind does it come as a surprise that Jesus’ astonishing statements led the
Jews to conclude (correctly so we might add) that Christ was making himself out to be
God?

In light of this emphatic and explicit evidence from both the Hebrew Bible and the
Christian Greek Scriptures, it is clear that when Jesus and the Bible writers speak of
God being one they do not mean this in terms of Personhood, e.g. God is not one
Person. Rather, they meant that God is one eternal Being who exists with a plurality
of attributes and as three eternally distinct, yet inseparable Persons.

Thus, a distinction must be made between God’s essential Being and his Personhood,
e.g., there is one uncreated essence of God that is instantiated in three eternal Persons.
To put it simply, God is a tri-Personal Being.

Further Reading

http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?
bodycontent=/articles/doctrinal_apologetics/bowman-trinity.html
http://christian-thinktank.com/trin01.html
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinitydefense.html
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/quietthird.html
http://aomin.org/trinitydef.html
http://aomin.org/CHALC.html
http://aomin.org/JOHN1_1.html
http://aomin.org/EGO.html
http://aomin.org/GRANVILL.html
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/09/holy-trinity-biblical-proofs.html
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/01/jesus-is-god-biblical-proofs.html
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Shabir-Ally/storkey.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/tam1.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/tam2.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/tam3.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/12anti-trinitarian.htm
http://www.carm.org/doctrine.htm
Endnotes

(1) It is rather interesting to note that the text of Deuteronomy 6:4 uses the
word echad in reference to God’s unity, a word that is often used to denote a
compound or composite unity as in the following example:

"Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and
they shall become one flesh (basar echad)." Genesis 2:24

Here, two flesh bodies come together to form one flesh. As one lexical source puts it:

'Echad one, same, single, first, each, once,.

This word occurs 960 times as a noun, adjective, or adverb, as a cardinal or ordinal
number, often used in a distributive sense. It is closely identified with yahid "to be
united" and with rosh "first, head," especially in connection with the "first day" of the
month (Gen 8:13). It stresses unity while recognizing diversity within that
oneness.

[E] can refer to a certain individual (Jud 13:2) or a single blessing (Gen 27:38).
Solomon alone was chosen by the Lord (I Chr 29:1). The notion of uniqueness is also
found in II Sam 7:23 and Ezk 33:24 (for this verse with reference to God, see below).
The phrase "in a single day" can refer to the suddenness of judgment (Isa 10:17; 47:9)
or blessing (Isa 66:8).

Adverbially, [E] means "once" or "one time" (II Kgs 6:10). God solemnly swore to
David "one time" that his descendants and throne would last forever (Ps 89:35 [H
36]). In Hag 2:6 the Lord warned that he would shake heaven and earth "once more in
a little while." Yet this prediction of the overthrow of nations probably included a near
as well as a far fulfilment (cf. Heb 12:26). The expression "in one day" denotes the
swiftness of the Lord’s acts (Isa 9:14 [H 13]; Zech 3:9).

Sometimes the phrase "as one man" can mean "all at once" (Num 14:15), but when
Gideon was told he would defeat Midian "as one man" it probably meant "as easily as
a single man" (Jud 6:16). The phrase can also refer to a nation aroused to take
united action against gross injustice (Jud 20:8; I Sam 11:7). Zephaniah’s mention of
people serving God "with one shoulder" (3:9) likely means "shoulder to shoulder,"
solidly united. Likewise in Ex 24:3 "with one voice" expresses that all Israel was
involved in entering into the Covenant with Yahweh.
The concept of unity is related to the tabernacle, whose curtains are fastened
together to form one unit (Ex 26:6, 11; 36:13), Adam and Eve are described as "one
flesh" (Gen 2:24), which includes more than sexual unity. In Gen 34:16 the men of
Shechem suggest intermarriage with Jacob’s children in order to become "one
people."

Later, Ezekiel predicted that the fragmented nation of Israel would someday be

reunited, as he symbolically joined two sticks (37:17). Once again Judah and
Ephraim would be one nation with one king (37:22). Abraham was viewed as "the
one" from whom all the people descended (Isa 51:2; Mal 2:15), the one father of the
nation.

Diversity within unity is also seen from the fact that [E] has a plural form. It is
translated "a few days" in Gen 27:44; 29:20, and Dan 11:20. In Gen 11:1 the plural
modifies "words": "the whole earth used the same language and the same words."
Apparently it refers to the same vocabulary, the same set of words spoken by
everyone at the tower of Babel. The first "same" in Gen 11:1 is singular, analogous to
"the same law" of the Passover applying to native-born and foreigner (Ex 12:49; cf.
Num 15:16), or to the "one law" of sure death for approaching the Persian king
without invitation (Est 4:11). (Robert Laird Harris, Gleason Leonard Archer & Bruce
K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament [Moody Press, Chicago, 1999
- electronic ed.], p. 30)

This, again, demonstrates that there is nothing in either the Greek or Hebrew words
for one which necessarily excludes the possibility of God being a multi-personal
Being.

Allah’s Omnipotence and the Incarnation

Sam Shamoun

The Quran repeatedly asserts that Allah is able to do everything and that he has power
over all things. This is stated in relation to texts which speak of Allah as creator,
sustainer, sovereign owner and reviver of all things:

That is because Allah, He is the Truth, and it is He Who gives life to the dead, and it
is He Who is Able to do all things. S. 22:6 Hilali-Khan

Do they not see that Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth, and was not
wearied by their creation, is Able to give life to the dead? Yes, He surely is Able to
do all things. S. 46:33
All that is in the heavens and the earth glorifieth Allah; and He is the Mighty, the
Wise. His is the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth; He quickeneth and He
giveth death; and He is Able to do all things. He is the First and the Last, and the
Outward and the Inward; and He is Knower of all things. He it is Who created the
heavens and the earth in six Days; then He mounted the Throne. He knoweth all that
entereth the earth and all that emergeth therefrom and all that cometh down from the
sky and all that ascendeth therein; and He is with you wheresoever ye may be. And
Allah is Seer of what ye do. His is the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth, and
unto Allah (all) things are brought back. S. 57:1-5 Pickthall

Whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is on the earth glorifies Allah. His is the
dominion, and to Him belong all the praises and thanks, and He is Able to do all
things. He it is Who created you, then some of you are disbelievers and some of you
are believers. And Allah is All-Seer of what you do. He has created the heavens and
the earth with truth, and He shaped you and made good your shapes, and to Him is the
final Return. He knows what is in the heavens and on earth, and He knows what you
conceal and what you reveal. And Allah is the All-Knower of what is in the breasts
(of men). S. 64:1-4 Hilali-Khan

It is Allah Who has created seven heavens and of the earth the like thereof (i.e. seven).
His Command descends between them (heavens and earth), that you may know that
Allah has power over all things, and that Allah surrounds (comprehends) all things in
(His) Knowledge. S. 65:12 Hilali-Khan

Blessed is He in Whose hand is the Sovereignty, and, He is Able to do all things.

Who hath created life and death that He may try you which of you is best in conduct;
and He is the Mighty, the Forgiving, Who hath created seven heavens in harmony.
Thou (Muhammad) canst see no fault in the Beneficent One's creation; then look
again: Canst thou see any rifts? Then look again and yet again, thy sight will return
unto thee weakened and made dim. And verily We have beautified the world's heaven
with lamps, and We have made them missiles for the devils, and for them We have
prepared the doom of flame. S. 67:1-5 Pickthall

Moreover, we are not aware of any Quranic passage which explicitly says that Allah
isn’t capable of doing something, that there are certain things which he cannot do.
This is unlike the Holy Bible which unashamedly states that there are certain things
that Yahweh, the true God, cannot do or say:

"Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to

the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath. God did this so that,
by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have
fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged." Hebrews 6:17-
18 NIV

"if we are faithless, he will remain faithful, for he cannot disown himself." 2 Timothy
2:13 NIV

"When tempted, no one should say, ‘God is tempting me.’ For God cannot be
tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone… Every good and perfect gift is from
above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change
like shifting shadows." James 1:13, 17 NIV

There may be similar references in the Quran but the problem is that we haven’t found
any.

Now if the Quran claims that Allah can do everything then surely this means that
Allah can appear and/or become a man without ceasing to be God. After all, the
Quran does say that Allah appeared as or assumed the form of fire to Moses:

When he saw a fire, and said to his family, 'Tarry you here; I observe a fire. Perhaps I
shall bring you a brand from it, or I shall find at the fire guidance.' When he came to
IT, a voice cried, 'Moses, I am thy Lord; put off thy shoes; thou art in the holy valley,
Towa. I Myself have chosen thee; therefore give thou ear to this revelation. S. 20:10-
13 Arberry

When Moses said to his people 'I observe a fire, and will bring you news of it, or I
will bring you a flaming brand, that haply you shall warm yourselves.' So, when he
came to IT, he was called: 'Blessed is he who is IN the fire, and he who is ABOUT
it. Glory be to God, the Lord of all Being! Moses, behold, it is I, God, the All-mighty,
the All-wise. S. 27:7-9 Arberry

Then, when Musa (Moses) had fulfilled the term, and was travelling with his family,
he saw a fire in the direction of Tur (Mount). He said to his family: "Wait, I have seen
a fire; perhaps I may bring to you from there some information, or a burning fire-
brand that you may warm yourselves." So when he reached IT (the fire), he was
called from the right side of the valley, in the blessed place FROM the tree: "O
Musa (Moses)! Verily! I am Allah, the Lord of the 'Alamin (mankind, jinns and all
that exists)!" S. 28:29-30 Hilali-Khan

If Allah is able to assume the form of or manifest himself as fire then he most
certainly can take on human form or appearance. Interestingly, Allah has granted his
angels the ability to assume the likeness of men:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

One day while Allah's Apostle was sitting with the people, a man came to him
walking and said, "O Allah’s Apostle. What is Belief?" The Prophet said, "Belief is to
believe in Allah, His Angels, His Books, His Apostles, and the meeting with Him, and
to believe in the Resurrection." The man asked, "O Allah's Apostle What is Islam?"
The Prophet replied, "Islam is to worship Allah and not worship anything besides
Him, to offer prayers perfectly, to pay the (compulsory) charity i.e. Zakat and to fast
the month of Ramadan." The man again asked, "O Allah's Apostle What is Ihsan (i.e.
perfection or Benevolence)?" The Prophet said, "Ihsan is to worship Allah as if you
see Him, and if you do not achieve this state of devotion, then (take it for granted that)
Allah sees you." The man further asked, "O Allah's Apostle When will the Hour be
established?"

The Prophet replied, "The one who is asked about it does not know more than the
questioner does, but I will describe to you its portents. When the lady slave gives birth
to her mistress, that will be of its portents; when the bare-footed naked people become
the chiefs of the people, that will be of its portents. The Hour is one of five things
which nobody knows except Allah. Verily, the knowledge of the Hour is with Allah
(alone). He sends down the rain, and knows that which is in the wombs."
(31.34) Then the man left. The Prophet said, "Call him back to me." They went to
call him back but could not see him. The Prophet said, "That was Gabriel who came
to teach the people their religion." (See Hadith No. 47 Vol 1) (Sahih al-Bukhari,
Volume 6, Book 60, Number 300)

Narrated Abu 'Uthman:

I was informed that Gabriel came to the Prophet while Um Salama was with him.
Gabriel started talking (to the Prophet). Then the Prophet asked Um Salama, "Who is
this?" She replied, "He is Dihya (al-Kalbi)." When Gabriel had left, Um Salama said,
"By Allah, I did not take him for anybody other than him (i.e. Dihya) till I heard the
sermon of the Prophet wherein he informed about the news of Gabriel." The
subnarrator asked Abu 'Uthman: From whom have you heard that? Abu 'Uthman said:
From Usama bin Zaid. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 503)

Even Allah’s Spirit(1) is capable of assuming the form of a man:

And make mention of Mary in the Scripture, when she had withdrawn from her
people to a chamber looking East, And had chosen seclusion from them. Then We
sent unto her Our Spirit (Roohana) and it assumed for her the likeness of a perfect
man. She said: Lo! I seek refuge in the Beneficent One from thee, if thou art God-
fearing. He said: I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a
faultless son. S. 19:16-19 Pickthall

If angels, which are creatures, are capable of appearing as men then surely Allah must
be able to do likewise; that is, unless a Muslim wants to believe that angels are
capable of doing something that Allah cannot! But to say that Allah can’t appear in
human form implies that he doesn’t have power to do everything, which contradicts
the plain teaching of the Quran which claims that he does!(2)

A Muslim may concede that it is possible for Allah to appear as a man in light of the
Quran’s teaching that he has the ability to do anything, but contend that it is beneath
the majesty of Allah to do so. The problem we have with this claim is that the Quran
states that it wasn’t beneath the dignity of Allah to assume the appearance of fire, a
substance which is obviously inferior to man in worth since even the Quran agrees
that humans have been honored and dignified by Allah:

We have honoured the sons of Adam; provided them with transport on land and sea;
given them for sustenance things good and pure; and conferred on them special
favours, above a great part of our creation. S. 17:70 Y. Ali

The Quran also says that man has been made in the best stature and has been
appointed ruler (khalifah) in the earth:

And when thy Lord said unto the angels: Lo! I am about to place a viceroy
(khaleefatan) in the earth, they said: Wilt thou place therein one who will do harm
therein and will shed blood, while we, we hymn Thy praise and sanctify Thee? He
said: Surely I know that which ye know not. S. 2:30 Pickthall

It is He who has appointed you viceroys (khala-ifa) in the earth, and has raised some
of you in rank above others, that He may try you in what He has given you. Surely thy
Lord is swift in retribution; and surely He is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. S.
6:165 Arberry – cf. 7:129; 10:14; 27:62

Verily, We created man of the best stature (mould), S. 95:4 Hilali-Khan

And according to the hadith literature Allah made man in his own (divine) image:

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Allah,
the Exalted and Glorious, created Adam in His own image with His length of sixty
cubits, and as He created him He told him to greet that group, and that was a party of
angels sitting there, and listen to the response that they give him, for it would form his
greeting and that of his offspring. He then went away and said: Peace be upon you!
They (the angels) said: May there be peace upon you and the Mercy of Allah, and
they made an addition of "Mercy of Allah." So he who would get into Paradise would
get in the form of Adam, his length being sixty cubits, then the people who followed
him continued to diminish in size up to this day. (Sahih Muslim, Book 040, Number
6809)

In light of this, why should it be deemed dishonorable for Allah to assume the likeness
of humanity when it wasn’t beneath him to assume the form of something less than
man?

Moreover, why wasn’t it beneath the dignity of the Spirit or angels to assume human
likeness?

More importantly, the Quran claims that Allah is the God of the biblical prophets:

We have sent thee inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and the Apostle after him: we
sent inspiration to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah,
Aaron, and Solomon, and to David We gave the Psalms. Of some apostles We have
already told thee the story; of others We have not; - and to Moses God spoke direct; -
S. 4:163-164 Y. Ali

And argue not with the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), unless it be in (a
way) that is better (with good words and in good manner, inviting them to Islamic
Monotheism with His Verses), except with such of them as do wrong, and say (to
them): "We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you; our
Ilah (God) and your Ilah (God) is One (i.e. Allah), and to Him we have submitted
(as Muslims)." S. 29:46 Hilali-Khan

Yet the Scriptures of these prophets say that God can and did appear as a man:

"And Jehovah appeareth unto him among the oaks of Mamre, and he is sitting at
the opening of the tent, about the heat of the day; and he lifteth up his eyes and
looketh, and lo, three men standing by him, and he seeth, and runneth to meet them
from the opening of the tent, and boweth himself towards the earth, And he saith, ‘My
Lord, if, I pray thee, I have found grace in thine eyes, do not, I pray thee, pass on from
thy servant; let, I pray thee, a little water be accepted, and wash your feet, and
recline under the tree; and I bring a piece of bread, and support ye your heart;
afterwards pass on, for therefore have ye passed over unto your servant;’ and they say,
‘So mayest thou do as thou has spoken.’ And Abraham hasteth towards the tent, unto
Sarah, and saith, ‘Hasten three measures of flour-meal, knead, and make cakes;’ and
Abraham ran unto the herd, and taketh a son of the herd, tender and good, and giveth
unto the young man, and he hasteth to prepare it; and he taketh butter and milk, and
the son of the herd which he hath prepared, and setteth before them; and he is standing
by them under the tree, AND THEY DO EAT… AND JEHOVAH SAITH UNTO
ABRAHAM, ‘Why [is] this? Sarah hath laughed, saying, Is it true really - I bear -and
I am aged? Is any thing too wonderful for JEHOVAH?… AND JEHOVAH SAID,
‘Am I concealing from Abraham that which I am doing, … AND JEHOVAH
SAITH, ‘The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah - because great; and their sin -
because exceeding grievous: I GO DOWN NOW, and see whether according to
its cry which is coming unto Me they have done completely - and if not - I know;’
and the men turn from thence, and go towards Sodom; AND ABRAHAM IS YET
STANDING BEFORE JEHOVAH. And Abraham draweth nigh and saith, ‘Dost
Thou also consume righteous with wicked? peradventure there are fifty righteous in
the midst of the city; dost Thou also consume, and not bear with the place for the sake
of the fifty -- the righteous who [are] in its midst? Far be it from Thee to do according
to this thing, to put to death the righteous with the wicked; that it hath been - as the
righteous so the wicked - far be it from Thee; DOTH THE JUDGE OF ALL THE
EARTH NOT DO JUSTICE?’ AND JEHOVAH SAITH, ‘If I find in Sodom fifty
righteous in the midst of the city, then have I borne with all the place for their
sake.’… AND JEHOVAH GOETH ON, WHEN HE HATH FINISHED
SPEAKING UNTO ABRAHAM, and Abraham hath turned back to his place."
Genesis 18:1-9, 14, 17, 20-26, 33 Young’s Literal Translation

Here, God appears as a man to Abraham, eats food and has feet to wash!

"And above the firmament over their heads there was the likeness of a throne, in
appearance like sapphire; and seated above the likeness of a throne WAS A
LIKENESS AS IT WERE OF A HUMAN FORM. And upward from what had the
appearance OF HIS LOINS I saw as it were gleaming bronze, like the appearance of
fire enclosed round about; and downward from what had the appearance OF HIS
LOINS I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and there was brightness round about
him. Like the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud on the day of rain, so was the
appearance of the brightness round about. Such was the appearance of the likeness of
the glory of the LORD. And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard the voice
of one speaking. AND HE SAID TO ME, ‘Son of man, stand upon your feet, and I will
speak with you.’ And when he spoke to me, the Spirit entered into me and set me
upon my feet; and I heard him speaking to me. AND HE SAID TO ME, ‘Son of man, I
SEND YOU TO THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL, to a nation of rebels, WHO HAVE
REBELLED AGAINST ME; they and their fathers HAVE TRANSGRESSED AGAINST
ME to this very day. The people also are impudent and stubborn: I send you to them;
and you shall say to them, "THUS SAYS THE LORD GOD." And whether they hear or
refuse to hear (for they are a rebellious house) they will know that there has been a
prophet among them. And you, son of man, be not afraid of them, nor be afraid of
their words, though briers and thorns are with you and you sit upon scorpions; be not
afraid of their words, nor be dismayed at their looks, for they are a rebellious house.
And you shall speak MY WORDS TO THEM, whether they hear or refuse to hear; for
they are a rebellious house. But you, son of man, hear what I say to you; be not
rebellious like that rebellious house; open your mouth, and eat what I give you.’ And
when I looked, behold, A HAND WAS STRETCHED OUT TO ME, and, lo, a written
scroll was in it; AND HE SPREAD IT BEFORE ME; and it had writing on the front
and on the back, and there were written on it words of lamentation and mourning and
woe." Ezekiel 1:26-28, 2:1-10 RSV

Ezekiel sees the glory of the Lord manifested as a human figure, a figure that goes on
to identify himself as the sovereign Yahweh or Lord!

Thus, if Allah is the God of the Bible then Muslims must accept the fact that it is
indeed possible for their god to appear as a man. Yet if Allah can indeed appear as a
man then it is also possible for him to become a man without ceasing to be God. After
all, Allah is said to be able to do all things.

But if Allah can in theory become a man then Muslims have no legitimate rational
objection to the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation, i.e. that God became a genuine
human being in the Person of Jesus Christ without ceasing to be God. The only
objection they can raise to the Incarnation is that the Quran denies the Deity of Christ,
an objection which crumbles in light of the historical data which conclusively
demonstrates that the historical Jesus claimed to be God in the flesh and rose from the
dead to prove it:

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html
http://risenjesus.com/
http://www.garyhabermas.com/
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8449/evidence7.html
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/resurrection-evidence.htm
http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html
http://christian-thinktank.com/trin01.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/loftus.html
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/jesusclaimshub.html
http://www.tektonics.org/guest/wildvis.html

Further Reading

http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/allah_as_man.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/monotheism.htm#image
Footnotes

(1) The evidence of the Quran points to the Spirit being God since he has all the
essential attributes of Deity. For an analysis of the Quranic data that demonstrates this
point we recommend the following articles:

http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/gabriel_spirit.html
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/gabriel.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/t5_73.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Abualrub/spirit.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/umar_spirit.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/umar_spirit2.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/spirit1.htm

With this being the case this means that the Quran teaches that God can and has
appeared as a man since the Spirit, whom the Quran says possesses essential Divine
characteristics, assumed human form when he came to Mary to announce the birth of
Jesus.

(2) The Muslim may wish to say that Allah cannot do anything which is contrary to
his character such as lying, lusting, murdering etc., but can only do those things that
are in accord with his unchangeable nature. There are several problems with this view,
the first of which is that the Quran says that Allah can (and actually does) lie and act
deceptively and that he does change his mind:

http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/allah_deceiver.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/command_evil.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/god.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Wood/deceptive_god.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/preserved-crucifixion.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Quran/index.html#abrogation

What this basically means is that Allah doesn’t have a certain character that limits the
way he speaks or acts.

This leads us to the second problem with this claim, specifically that the Quran
doesn’t speak of Allah having an eternal, immutable nature either because it doesn’t
know of it or because Allah doesn’t have one! The Quran portrays Allah as a being
that chooses to do certain things or act in a certain way simply because he wants to,
not because he has to. In other words, Allah speaks the truth in certain situations not
because he has to but because he chooses to. This explains why the Quran has no
problems ascribing contradictory traits to what is supposed to be the one universal
sovereign and perfect Deity, i.e. Allah lies and speaks the truth, guides and misleads
people:

Whomsoever Allah guides, he is the one who follows the right way; and whomsoever
He causes to err, these are the losers. And certainly We have created for hell many
of the jinn and the men; they have hearts with which they do not understand, and
they have eyes with which they do not see, and they have ears with which they do not
hear; they are as cattle, nay, they are in worse errors; these are the heedless
ones… Whomsoever Allah causes to err, there is no guide for him; and He leaves
them alone in their inordinacy, blindly wandering on. S. 7:178-179, 186 Shakir

And We have sent no Messenger save with the tongue of his people, that he might
make all clear to them; then God leads astray whomsoever He will, and He guides
whomsoever He will; and He is the All-mighty, the All-wise. S. 14:4 Arberry

As noted Christian apologist and philosopher Norman L. Geisler and co-author Abdul
Saleeb put it:

GOD AS ABSOLUTE WILL (HIS VOLITIONALITY)

There is a certain mystery about God’s names. Cragg affirms these names "are to be
understood as characteristics of the Divine will rather than laws of His nature. Action,
that is, arising from such descriptives may be expected, but not as a matter of
necessity." What gives unity to all God’s actions is that he wills them all. As willer he
may be recognized by the descriptions given him, but he does not conform to any. The
action of his will may be identified from its effects, but his will of itself is inscrutable.
This accounts for antithesis in certain of God’s names that will be discussed below.
For example, God is "the One Who leads astray" as well as "the One Who guides."

GOD AS ABSOLUTELY UKNOWABLE (HIS INSCRUTABILITY)

Since everything is based on God’s will and since his effects are sometimes
contradictory and do not reflect any absolute essence, God’s nature is really
unknowable. Indeed, "the Divine will is an ultimate beyond which neither reason nor
revelation go. In the Unity of the single will, however, these descriptions co-exist with
those that relate to mercy, compassion, and glory." God is named from his effects, but
he is not to be identified with any of them. The relation between the Ultimate Cause
(God) and his creatures is extrinsic, not intrinsic. That is, God is called good because
he causes good, but goodness is not part of his essence. (Geisler & Saleeb, Answering
Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross [Baker Books, A Division of Baker Book
House Co, Grand Rapids, MI, updated and revised 2002], p. 138; underline emphasis
ours)

The final problem with this view is that it assumes that if Allah did have a specific
nature that caused him to act a specific way that this somehow would preclude him
from being able to appear or become a man. The Muslims haven’t been able to show
(*) why possessing the nature of Deity automatically rules out the possibility of Allah
assuming a human appearance or from taking on the nature of man, especially when
this didn’t prevent Allah from taking on the appearance or characteristics of fire. If he
is able to take or manifest in one form then certainly he should be able to assume any
and all forms if he so chooses.

A Look at Isaiah 6 and its Trinitarian Implications

Sam Shamoun

Isaiah chapter 6 is a passage packed with rich theological truths, providing clear
evidence of Yahweh being a uniplurality. According to that chapter, Yahweh
appeared visibly to Isaiah in order to commission him to be his prophet:

"In the year that King Uzzi'ah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and
lifted up; and his train filled the temple. Above him stood the seraphim; each had
six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with
two he flew. And one called to another and said: ‘Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of
hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory.’ And the foundations of the thresholds
shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke. And I
said: ‘Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the
midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of
hosts!’ Then flew one of the seraphim to me, having in his hand a burning coal which
he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth, and said: ‘Behold,
this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin forgiven.’ And 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.’ And he said, ‘Go, and say to this people: "Hear
and hear, but do not understand; see and see, but do not perceive." Make the heart of
this people fat, and their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes,
and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.’
Then I said, ‘How long, O Lord?’ And he said: ‘Until cities lie waste without
inhabitant, and houses without men, and the land is utterly desolate, and the LORD
removes men far away, and the forsaken places are many in the midst of the land. And
though a tenth remain in it, it will be burned again, like a terebinth or an oak, whose
stump remains standing when it is felled.’ The holy seed is its stump." Isaiah 6:1-13
Note the following:

1. Yahweh appears in a visible form seated on the throne, manifesting his glory
to Isaiah.
2. Yahweh is pronounced thrice holy (known as the Trisagion).
3. Yahweh uses both singular ("I") and plural ("Us") pronouns.

It is our contention that the reason why God is called thrice holy and uses the plural
pronoun is because the prophet Isaiah, as well as the rest of the biblical writers,
believed that God is a Triune entity. In other words, books such as Isaiah help us to
see clearly that the reason Yahweh used the plural pronoun is in order to help his
people know that he exists as a uniplurality, that he is a multi-Personal Being.

For instance, Isaiah knew that God and his Spirit are the Ones who commission and
empower prophets and messengers:

"‘Draw near to me, hear this: from the beginning I have not spoken in secret, from the
time it came to be I have been there.’ And now the Lord GOD has sent me and his
Spirit." Isaiah 48:16

"The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me to
bring good tidings to the afflicted; he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to
proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are
bound;" Isaiah 61:1

Other OT prophets concur:

"And the hand of the LORD was there upon me; and he said to me, ‘Arise, go forth
into the plain, and there I will speak with you.’ So I arose and went forth into the
plain; and, lo, the glory of the LORD stood there, like the glory which I had seen by
the river Chebar; and I fell on my face. But the Spirit entered into me, and set me
upon my feet; and he spoke with me and said to me, ‘Go, shut yourself within
your house. And you, O son of man, behold, cords will be placed upon you, and you
shall be bound with them, so that you cannot go out among the people; and I will
make your tongue cleave to the roof of your mouth, so that you shall be dumb and
unable to reprove them; for they are a rebellious house. But when I speak with you, I
will open your mouth, and you shall say to them, "Thus says the Lord GOD"; he
that will hear, let him hear; and he that will refuse to hear, let him refuse; for they are
a rebellious house.’" Ezekiel 3:22-27

The above passages echo what we find in the NT scriptures:

"And while Peter was pondering the vision, the Spirit said to him, ‘Behold, three
men are looking for you. Rise and go down, and accompany them without
hesitation; for I have sent them.’" Acts 10:19-20

"While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, ‘Set apart
for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.’ Then after
fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off. So, being sent
out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleu'cia; and from there they sailed to
Cyprus." Acts 13:2-4

Furthermore, the following passage from Isaiah expressly presents God as a plurality
of Divine Persons:

"Who is this that comes from Edom, in crimsoned garments from Bozrah, he that is
glorious in his apparel, marching in the greatness of his strength? ‘It is I, announcing
vindication, mighty to save.’ Why is thy apparel red, and thy garments like his that
treads in the wine press? ‘I have trodden the wine press alone, and from the peoples
no one was with me; I trod them in my anger and trampled them in my wrath; their
lifeblood is sprinkled upon my garments, and I have stained all my raiment. For the
day of vengeance was in my heart, and my year of redemption has come. I looked,
but there was NO ONE to help; I was appalled, but there was NO ONE to
uphold; so MY OWN ARM brought me victory, and my wrath upheld me. I trod
down the peoples in my anger, I made them drunk in my wrath, and I poured out their
lifeblood on the earth.’ I will recount the steadfast love of the LORD, the praises of
the LORD, according to all that the LORD has granted us, and the great goodness to
the house of Israel which he has granted them according to his mercy, according to the
abundance of his steadfast love. For he said, Surely they are my people, sons who will
not deal falsely; and he became their Savior. In all their affliction he was
afflicted, AND THE ANGEL OF HIS PRESENCE SAVED THEM; in his love
and in his pity he redeemed them; he lifted them up and carried them all the days of
old. But they rebelled and grieved his HOLY SPIRIT; therefore he turned to be
their enemy, and himself fought against them. Then he remembered the days of old, of
Moses his servant. Where is he who brought up out of the sea the shepherds of his
flock? Where is he who put in the midst of them his HOLY SPIRIT, who caused
his glorious ARM to go at the right hand of Moses, who divided the waters before
them to make for himself an everlasting name, who led them through the depths? Like
a horse in the desert, they did not stumble. Like cattle that go down into the
valley, THE SPIRIT of the LORD gave them rest. So thou didst lead thy people, to
make for thyself a glorious name. Look down from heaven and see, from thy holy and
glorious habitation. Where are thy zeal and thy might? The yearning of thy heart and
thy compassion are withheld from me. For thou art our Father, though Abraham
does not know us and Israel does not acknowledge us; thou, O LORD, art our
Father, our Redeemer from of old is thy name." Isaiah 63:1-16

The above text states that God was appalled that he could find no one to intercede, no
one to assist him, so he decided to act by himself in order to accomplish his purpose.
And yet later in the text Isaiah says that God, the Angel of his very Presence, and his
Holy Spirit all worked in unison to accomplish the salvation and redemption of Israel
during the Exodus! Basically this means that the Angel and the Spirit cannot be other
than God, cannot be mere creatures; if they were created beings then God could not
have claimed that he alone brought redemption, since there were creatures that
assisted him.

More importantly, notice that the God who acted on behalf of Israel’s deliverance is
Triune, i.e. three Persons are said to have acted on behalf of the covenant people: God
the Father, the Angel of his Presence, and His Holy Spirit!

Third, Isaiah identifies more than one Person as the Mighty God, and is aware that
there is more than one Divine Entity who is Holy!

"In that day the remnant of Israel and the survivors of the house of Jacob will no more
lean upon him that smote them, but will lean upon the LORD, the Holy One of
Israel, in truth. A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God (El
Gibbor)." Isaiah 10:20-21

"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his
shoulder, and his name will be called ‘Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God (El
Gibbor), Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.’ Of the increase of his government and
of peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David, and over his kingdom, to
establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth
and for evermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this." Isaiah 9:6-7

Both Yahweh and the Son, who is given the right to rule on David’s throne, are the
Mighty God! Interestingly, the Jewish translators of the Hebrew Scriptures into the
Greek language believed that this Messianic Child, who is clearly identified as the
Mighty God in the above text, is actually the Angel of God:

For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his
shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger (Greek- Angelos, "Angel") of great
counsel: Or I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him. Brenton’s
Septuagint (LXX)
Note that the Septuagint translators identify the Child, who is the Mighty God, as the
Angel of great counsel. We therefore have strong grounds for assuming that the Angel
of God’s Presence and the Messiah are one and the same Person. Furthermore,
according to Isaiah 10:20-21, which we just looked at above, the Mighty God who is
Yahweh is called the Holy One of Israel, a point reiterated elsewhere:

"For I am the LORD your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior. I give Egypt as
your ransom, Ethiopia and Seba in exchange for you… Thus says the LORD, your
Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: ‘For your sake I will send to Babylon and break
down all the bars, and the shouting of the Chalde'ans will be turned to lamentations. I
am the LORD, your Holy One, the Creator of Israel, your King.’" Isaiah 43:3, 15

Thus, we can infer from this that the Messianic Child is also the Holy One of Israel
since he is the Mighty God. Follow our logic:

A. The Mighty God is the Holy One of Israel.

B. The Messiah is the Mighty God.
C. Therefore, the Messiah is the Holy One of Israel.

And this is precisely what we find the NT calling Jesus the Messiah, namely, the Holy
and Righteous One:

"and he cried out, 'What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to
destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God.'" Mark 1:24

"Simon Peter answered him, 'Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of
eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One
of God.'" John 6:68-69

"But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be
granted to you, and killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this
we are witnesses." Acts 3:14-15

"Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? And they killed those who
announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now
betrayed and murdered," Acts 7:52

"Then he said: 'The God of our fathers has chosen you to know his will and to see the
Righteous One and to hear words from his mouth.'" Acts 22:14 NIV

Isaiah even expressly says that Yahweh’s Spirit is Holy:

"But they rebelled and grieved his holy Spirit; therefore he turned to be their enemy,
and himself fought against them. Then he remembered the days of old, of Moses his
servant. Where is he who brought up out of the sea the shepherds of his flock? Where
is he who put in the midst of them his holy Spirit," Isaiah 63:10-11

The NT supplies additional support for the Trisagion being a hint that God is Triune.
For example, the book of Revelation provides us with a glimpse of the worship that
occurs in heaven:

"And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all round
and within, and day and night they never cease to sing, ‘Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord
God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!’" Revelation 4:8

Note the use of the Trisagion by the four living creatures. It is clear from Revelation
that this praise of God being thrice holy is intentional in that it is meant to include all
the Divine Persons of the Godhead, such as the Father and the Lord Jesus, both of
whom are shown to be completely Holy:

"And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: ‘The words of the holy one,
the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts
and no one opens. I know your works. Behold, I have set before you an open door,
which no one is able to shut; I know that you have but little power, and yet you have
kept my word and have not denied my name.’" Revelation 3:7-8

"Who shall not fear and glorify thy name, O Lord? For thou alone art holy. All
nations shall come and worship thee, for thy judgments have been revealed."
Revelation 15:4

"And I heard the angel of water say, ‘Just art thou in these thy judgments, thou who
art and wast, O Holy One.’" Revelation 16:5

Thus, from the foregoing we can safely infer that the threefold cry of holy by the
seraphim in Isaiah 6:3 was in recognition of Yahweh being a Tri-Personal Being.

The NT also supports our position that the reason why Yahweh used the plural
pronoun "Us" (lanu) in Isaiah 6:8 was because he was addressing the other Divine
members. For instance, John the Evangelist believed that the Yahweh who appeared
to Isaiah was none other than the Lord Jesus!

"Even after Jesus had done all these miraculous signs in their presence, they still
would not believe in him. This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet: ‘Lord,
who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?’
For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: ‘He has
blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes,
nor understand with their hearts, nor turn—and I would heal them.’ Isaiah said this
because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him." John 12:37-41 NIV

John quotes Isaiah 6:10 and claims that in that particular text the prophet Isaiah had
seen Jesus’ glory! In other words, the glory that Isaiah saw in Isaiah 6 was the very
glory of the prehuman Son of God!

We are further told that the Holy Spirit was also there in Isaiah 6:8. The apostle Paul,
in rebuking the unbelieving Jews, claimed that it was none other than God’s Spirit
who spoke in Isaiah 6:9-10:

"So, as they disagreed among themselves, they departed, after Paul had made one
statement: ‘The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your fathers through Isaiah the
prophet: "Go to this people, and say, You shall indeed hear but never understand,
and you shall indeed see but never perceive. For this people’s heart has grown dull,
and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest they should
perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart,
and turn for me to heal them."’" Acts 28:25-27

What the foregoing NT data shows is that the Son of God was the One who appeared
to Isaiah and spoke on behalf of the entire Triune Godhead, explaining why the
seraphim cried out holy three times and accounts for why Yahweh used the plural
pronoun. The Father and the Holy Spirit were basically speaking through the Person
of the Son who had manifested his glory in visible form to Isaiah!

_____________________________________________________________________
___

As if the above were not enough to establish our thesis, here comes the Prophet Daniel
to make our case even stronger. Daniel was given the ability to interpret dreams and
visions of the pagan kings, as well as to personally experience some of his own. In
one of these dreams, Nebuchadnezzar sees something troubling which he knew only
Daniel could explain:

"At last Daniel came in before me -- he who was named Belteshaz'zar after the name
of my god, and in whom is the spirit of the holy gods -- and I told him the dream,
saying, ‘O Belteshaz'zar, chief of the magicians, because I know that the spirit of the
holy gods is in you and that no mystery is difficult for you, here is the dream which I
saw; tell me its interpretation… I saw in the visions of my head as I lay in bed, and
behold, a watcher, a holy one, came down from heaven… The sentence is by
THE DECREE OF THE WATCHERS, THE DECISION OF THE WORD OF
THE HOLY ONES, to the end that the living may know that the Most High rules the
kingdom of men, and gives it to whom he will, and sets over it the lowliest of men.
This dream I, King Nebuchadnez'zar, saw. And you, O Belteshaz'zar, declare the
interpretation, because all the wise men of my kingdom are not able to make known to
me the interpretation, but you are able, for the spirit of the holy gods is in you.’ …
And whereas the king saw a watcher, a holy one, coming down from heaven and
saying, `Hew down the tree and destroy it, but leave the stump of its roots in the earth,
bound with a band of iron and bronze, in the tender grass of the field; and let him be
wet with the dew of heaven; and let his lot be with the beasts of the field, till seven
times pass over him'; this is the interpretation, O king: IT IS A DECREE OF THE
MOST HIGH, which has come upon my lord the king," Daniel 4:8-9, 13, 17-18,
23-24

From the above we discover the following points:

1. The king knew that God’s Spirit was inspiring Daniel, even though he identifies
the Spirit as belonging to the gods, an obvious reflection of his paganism.
2. The king sees a watcher come down from heaven announcing God’s decree.
3. According to the watcher the sentence that will soon come to pass has been
decreed by the watchers and decided upon by the holy ones.
4. Later on in the text we are told that it is the Most High who has decreed this
to come to pass.
5. Therefore, we can assume that the Most High is the same as the watchers, as
the holy ones spoken of in the vision.

What we are essentially trying to say is that Daniel knew that God is a uniplurality, a
multi-Personal Being. Watchers and holy ones cannot be referring to heavenly
creatures since God alone decrees future events which leads us to believe that they
most likely refer to God, His Spirit and Angel, who may have been the One that came
down to announce the decree to the king.

After all, Daniel knew of the Angel of the Lord, the same One identified as God by
the prophet Isaiah:

"He answered, ‘But I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are
not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods." …
Nebuchadnez'zar said, ‘Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed'nego,
who has sent his angel and delivered his servants, who trusted in him, and set at
nought the king's command, and yielded up their bodies rather than serve and worship
any god except their own God.’" Daniel 3:25, 28
God sends this same Angel to deliver Daniel from the lion’s den:

"My God sent his angel and shut the lions' mouths, and they have not hurt me,
because I was found blameless before him; and also before you, O king, I have done
no wrong." Daniel 6:22

Daniel even receives a vision in which he sees a human figure whom all the nations
serve as he rules over them in an eternal kingdom:

"I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like
a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And
to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and
languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not
pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed." Daniel 7:13-14

According to Isaiah 9:6-7 the One who rules forever is the Messiah, the Son of David
who, as we saw above, is also identified as the Angel of the Lord by the Septuagint
translators. Therefore, the Son of Man must be the very same One who appeared to
Daniel and his friends as God’s Son, the Angel, in order to save them.

And all throughout the NT Jesus is identified as the Son of Man!

"But he was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, ‘Are you the
Christ, the Son of the Blessed?’ And Jesus said, ‘I am; and you will see the Son of
man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.’" Mark
14:61-62

"Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?" John
6:62

"But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and
Jesus standing at the right hand of God; and he said, ‘Behold, I see the heavens
opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God.’" Acts 7:55-56

Moreover, Daniel describes God as the Most Highs, plural, not as the Most High:

"But the saints of the Most Highs (Elyonin) will receive the kingdom and will
possess it forever—yes, for ever and ever… But the court will sit, and his power will
be taken away and completely destroyed forever. Then the sovereignty, power and
greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be handed over to the saints,
the people of the Most Highs (Elyonin). His kingdom will be an everlasting
kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him." Daniel 7:18, 26-27
The word Elyonin (Most Highs) is the plural of Elyon (Most High).

Some translations render the singular pronouns "his" and "him" found in verse 27 as
plural:

"And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the
whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most
Highs; their kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions
shall serve and obey them." ESV

These pronouns cannot be referring to the saints who rule but to the nearest
antecedent, namely, the Most Highs, since service or worship cannot be rendered unto
creatures. The verb which the ESV renders as "serve", with the NIV translating it as
"worship", comes from the Aramaic word pelach. This is used all throughout the book
of Daniel for the worship which can only be shown to the true God:

"‘There are certain Jews whom you have appointed over the affairs of the province of
Babylon: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed'nego. These men, O king, pay no heed to
you; they do not serve your gods or worship the golden image which you have set
up.’… Nebuchadnez'zar said to them, ‘Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and
Abed'nego, that you do not serve my gods or worship the golden image which I have
set up?’ … Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed'nego answered the king, ‘O
Nebuchadnez'zar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If it be so, our God
whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace; and he will
deliver us out of your hand, O king. But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we
will not serve your gods or worship the golden image which you have set up.’ …
Nebuchadnez'zar said, ‘Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed'nego,
who has sent his angel and delivered his servants, who trusted in him, and set at
nought the king's command, and yielded up their bodies rather than serve and
worship any god except their own God.’" Daniel 3:12, 14, 16-18, 28; cf. 6:16; 20;
Ezra 7:24

Thus, since the text of verse 27 expressly says that all dominions will serve or worship
the ruler of the kingdom this shows that the pronouns must be referring to God, who is
identified here by the plural "Most Highs."

A careful analysis of the immediate context will explain why Daniel referred to God
as the Most Highs, as opposed to the singular Most High, since earlier he spoke of the
Ancient of Days seated on his throne:

"As I looked, thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His
clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head was white like wool. His throne
was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze. A river of fire was flowing,
coming out from before him. Thousands upon thousands attended him; ten thousand
times ten thousand stood before him. The court was seated, and the books were
opened." Daniel 7:9-10 NIV

Recall that earlier we quoted Daniel 7:13-14 where the prophet saw the Son of Man
approaching the Ancient of Days to receive an eternal kingdom. This explains why in
the above text Daniel saw more than one throne being set up since both God, whom
the prophet identifies as the Ancient of Days, and the Son of Man are occupying
thrones.

In fact, the reign of the Son of Man is described in the same manner that the rule of
the Most Highs is portrayed:

"I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming
with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him
near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all
peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting
dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be
destroyed." Daniel 7:13-14 NKJV

"Then the kingdom and dominion, And the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole
heaven, Shall be given to the people, the saints of the Most High. His kingdom is an
everlasting kingdom, And all dominions shall serve and obey Him." Daniel 7:27
NKJV

This leads us to conclude that the Son of Man is actually one of the Most Highs that
Daniel saw, One who is a distinct Person from the Ancient of Days. This basically
helps us understand why Daniel spoke of plural Most Highs (Elyonin), as opposed to
singular Most High (Elyon), since in the context Elyonin is a clear reference to both
the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man together as they rule over an eternal
kingdom!

In conclusion we see that the prophet Daniel knew by inspiration that:

1. God has a Spirit and an Angel who is also his Son.

2. The God who decrees all things is identified as a plural entity, i.e. he is called
the holy ones and the watchers.
3. The Son of Man is a Divine Being that rules forever.
4. The Ancient of Days and the Son of Man are the Most Highs whom Daniel saw
ruling over all creation forever.
 5. According to both Isaiah 9:6-7 and the NT scriptures the Son of Man is the
Messiah.

Unless noted otherwise, all scriptural quotations taken from the Revised Standard
Version (RSV) of the Holy Bible.

Eusebius and the Trinitarian Baptismal Formula

Exposing Jamal Badawi’s Desperate Tirade Against the Trinity

Sam Shamoun

In two previous articles (1, 2) we saw how Dr. Badawi used material from anti-
Trinitarian cult leaders, such as the late Victor Paul Wierwille the founder of the Way
International, in his debates against John Rittenhouse and Dr. William Lane Craig to
refute the Biblical basis for the Deity of the Lord Jesus.

In the Rittenhouse debate (Jesus: Prophet or God?, Cal Poly Pomona, February 28,
2008) Dr. Badawi again appealed to Wierwille to attack the veracity of the Trinitarian
baptismal formula found in Matthew 28:19:

"The notion of the formula of baptism, many wrote about it and they said it was
developed much later. Eusebus, before 325 (the conference of Nicea), used it without
in the name of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, which show the influence
of the Council of Nicea that for the first time began to shape the concept of Trinity
and the politics that resulted in his later writing using that formula. The formula itself
is in doubt. Thank you." (YouTube video)

Even though he didn’t mention it, this is one of the assertions made by Wierwille.
According to Wierwille this Matthean formula was corrupted from its original form
and cannot be used to support the doctrine of the Trinity. He stated that the prominent
Church father Eusebius quoted this verse eighteen times without once mentioning the
trinitarian formula prior to the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.). It is only after this
Council that Eusebius started mentioning the Trinitarian formula when discussing
Matthew 28:19. This led Wierwille to conclude that,

"It would not have been difficult for scribes to insert ‘in the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,’ in place of the original ‘in my name.’ This must have
been what happened." (Wierwille, Jesus Christ Is Not God [American Christian Press,
New Knoxville, Ohio, 2nd edition, 1981], pp. 19-20)
In the first place, both Badawi and Wierwille are merely arguing from silence since
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because Eusebius didn’t quote it
prior to the Council doesn’t mean that he was unaware of its existence or that the
Gospel of Matthew didn’t originally contain this Trinitarian baptismal formula. The
most this proves is that Eusebius had no reason to cite this before this time, and only
felt it necessary to start referencing this particular text after the Council had convened
and a creed had been formally ratified.

Secondly, there is plenty of evidence from the writings of the early Church Fathers,
from the disciples of the Apostles and their subsequent successors, that this Trinitarian
formula was being used long before Nicea and that it formed part of the Gospel of
Matthew. In fact, this command was so well known that many writers alluded to it
without naming the specific Gospel from which they were quoting. What this shows is
that these Christians assumed that their readers were so familiar with this formula, and
already knew in which of the four Gospels this instruction could be found, that they
didn’t feel the need to specify the source.

We will look at just a few of examples from these early Christian writings, all of
which predate the Council of Nicea.

Didache - Teaching of the Twelve Apostles

Here is some historical background regarding the Didache so that the readers can
appreciate the importance of this document:

Since it was discovered in a monastery in Constantinople and published by P.

Bryennios in 1883, the Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles has continued to
be one of the most disputed of early Christian texts. It has been depicted by scholars
as anything between the original of the Apostolic Decree (c. 50 AD) and a late
archaising fiction of the early third century. It bears no date itself, nor does it make
reference to any datable external event, yet the picture of the Church which it presents
could only be described as primitive, reaching back to the very earliest stages of the
Church's order and practice in a way which largely agrees with the picture presented
by the NT, while at the same time posing questions for many traditional
interpretations of this first period of the Church's life. Fragments of the Didache were
found at Oxyrhyncus (P. Oxy 1782) from the fourth century and in coptic translation
(P. Lond. Or. 9271) from 3/4th century. Traces of the use of this text, and the high
regard it enjoyed, are widespread in the literature of the second and third centuries
especially in Syria and Egypt. It was used by the compilator of the Didascalia (C
2/3rd) and the Liber Graduun (C 3/4th), as well as being absorbed in toto by the
Apostolic Constitutions (C c. 3/4th, abbreviated as Ca) and partially by various
Egyptian and Ethiopian Church Orders, after which it ceased to circulate
independently. Athanasius describes it as 'appointed by the Fathers to be read by those
who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of goodness' [Festal
Letter 39:7]. Hence a date for the Didache in its present form later than the second
century must be considered unlikely, and a date before the end of the first century
probable. (Jonathan Draper, Gospel Perspectives, v. 5, p. 269)

He then states in a footnote (op. cit., p. 284), "A new consensus is emerging for a date
c. 100 AD." (Source)

This document twice alludes to the Matthean Baptismal formula, serving as an

independent witness that this formula was known and in use by the early Church:

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having
first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other
water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither,
pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy
Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else
can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before. (Roberts-
Donaldson translation; source)

Here is another translation of this same passage:

7:1 But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize.

7:2 Having first recited all these things, baptize {in the name of the Father and of
the Son and of the Holy Spirit} in living (running) water.
7:3 But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water;
7:4 and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm.
7:5 But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
7:6 But before the baptism let him that baptizeth and him that is baptized fast, and any
others also who are able;
7:7 and thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before. (J.B.
Lightfoot’s translation; source)

Ignatius of Antioch (ca. AD. 107-112)

Chapter IX.-The Old Testament is Good: the New Testament is Better.

… The priests indeed, and the ministers of the word, are good; but the High Priest is
better, to whom the holy of holies has been committed, and who alone has been
entrusted with the secrets of God. The ministering powers of God are good. The
Comforter is holy, and the Word is holy, the Son of the Father, by whom He made all
things, and exercises a providence over them all. This is the Way which leads to the
Father, the Rock, the Defence, the Key, the Shepherd, the Sacrifice, the Door of
knowledge, through which have entered Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, Moses and
all the company of the prophets, and these pillars of the world, the apostles, and the
spouse of Christ, on whose account He poured out His own blood, as her marriage
portion, that He might redeem her. All these things tend towards the unity of the one
and only true God. But the Gospel possesses something transcendent [above the
former dispensation], viz. the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, His passion, and
the resurrection itself. For those things which the prophets announced, saying, "Until
He come for whom it is reserved, and He shall be the expectation of the Gentiles,"
have been fulfilled in the Gospel, [our Lord saying,] "Go ye and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
All then are good together, the law, the prophets, the apostles, the whole company [of
others] that have believed through them: only if we love one another. (Epistle of
Ignatius to the Philadelphians; source)

Chapter II.-Unity of the Three Divine Persons.

There is then one God and Father, and not two or three; One who is; and there is no
other besides Him, the only true [God]. For "the Lord thy God," saith [the Scripture],
"is one Lord." And again, "Hath not one God created us? Have we not all one Father?
And there is also one Son, God the Word. For "the only-begotten Son," saith [the
Scripture], "who is in the bosom of the Father." And again, "One Lord Jesus Christ."
And in another place, "What is His name, or what His Son's name, that we may know?
" And there is also one Paraclete. For "there is also," saith [the Scripture], "one Spirit,"
since "we have been called in one hope of our calling." And again, "We have drunk of
one Spirit," with what follows. And it is manifest that all these gifts [possessed by
believers] "worketh one and the self-same Spirit." There are not then either three
Fathers, or three Sons, or three Paracletes, but one Father, and one Son, and one
Paraclete. Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make
disciples of all nations, commanded them to "baptize in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," not unto one [person] having three names,
nor into three [persons] who became incarnate, but into three possessed of equal
honour. (Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians; source)

Irenaeus (ca. 130-200)

Chapter XVII.-The Apostles Teach that It Was Neither Christ Nor the Saviour, But
the Holy Spirit, Who Did Descend Upon Jesus. The Reason for This Descent.
It certainly was in the power of the apostles to declare that Christ descended upon
Jesus, or that the so-called superior Saviour [came down] upon the dispensational one,
or he who is from the invisible places upon him from the Demiurge; but they neither
knew nor said anything of the kind: for, had they known it, they would have also
certainly stated it. But what really was the case, that did they record, [namely,] that
the Spirit of God as a dove descended upon Him; this Spirit, of whom it was declared
by Isaiah, "And the Spirit of God shall rest upon Him," as I have already said. And
again: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He hath anointed Me." That is the
Spirit of whom the Lord declares, "For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your
Father which speaketh in you." And again, giving to the disciples the power of
regeneration into God, He said to them, "Go and teach all nations, baptizing them
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." For [God]
promised, that in the last times He would pour Him [the Spirit] upon [His] servants
and handmaids, that they might prophesy; wherefore He did also descend upon the
Son of God, made the Son of man, becoming accustomed in fellowship with Him to
dwell in the human race, to rest with human beings, and to dwell in the workmanship
of God, working the will of the Father in them, and renewing them from their old
habits into the newness of Christ. (Irenaeus Against Heresies Book III; source)

Tertullian (ca. 160-220)

Chapter XX.-Christ First Delivered the Faith. The Apostles Spread It; They Founded
Churches as the Depositories Thereof. That Faith, Therefore, is Apostolic, Which
Descended from the Apostles, Through Apostolic Churches.

… Accordingly, after one of these had been struck off, He commanded the eleven
others, on His departure to the Father, to "go and teach all nations, who were to
be baptized into the Father, and into the Son, and into the Holy Ghost ."
Immediately, therefore, so did the apostles, whom this designation indicates as "the
sent." … (Tertullian The Prescription Against Heretics; source)

Chapter VI.-The Angel the Forerunner of the Holy Spirit. Meaning Contained in the
Baptismal Formula.

Not that in the waters we obtain the Holy Spirit; but in the water, under (the witness
of) the angel, we are cleansed, and prepared for the Holy Spirit. In this case also a
type has preceded; for thus was John beforehand the Lord's forerunner, "preparing His
ways." Thus, too, does the angel, the witness of baptism, "make the paths straight" for
the Holy Spirit, who is about to come upon us, by the washing away of sins, which
faith, sealed in (the name of) the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, obtains.
For if "in the mouth of three witnesses every word shall stand:" -while, through the
benediction, we have the same (three) as witnesses of our faith whom we have as
sureties of our salvation too-how much more does the number of the divine names
suffice for the assurance of our hope likewise! Moreover, after the pledging both of
the attestation of faith and the promise of salvation under "three witnesses," there is
added, of necessity, mention of the Church; inasmuch as, wherever there are three,
(that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,) there is the Church, which is a body
of three. (Tertullian On Baptism; source)

Chapter XIII.-Another Objection: Abraham Pleased God Without Being Baptized.

Answer Thereto. Old Things Must Give Place to New, and Baptism is Now a Law.

Here, then, those miscreants provoke questions. And so they say, "Baptism is not
necessary for them to whom faith is sufficient; for withal, Abraham pleased God by a
sacrament of no water, but of faith." But in all cases it is the later things which have a
conclusive force, and the subsequent which prevail over the antecedent. Grant that, in
days gone by, there was salvation by means of bare faith, before the passion and
resurrection of the Lord. But now that faith has been enlarged, and is become a faith
which believes in His nativity, passion, and resurrection, there has been an
amplification added w the sacrament, viz., the sealing act of baptism; the clothing, in
some sense, of the faith which before was bare, and which cannot exist now without
its proper law. For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula
prescribed: "Go," He saith, "teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." The comparison with this law
of that definition, "Unless a man have been reborn of water and Spirit, he shall not
enter into the kingdom of the heavens," has tied faith to the necessity of baptism.
Accordingly, all thereafter who became believers used to be baptized. Then it was,
too, that Paul, when he believed, was baptized; and this is the meaning of the precept
which the Lord had given him when smitten with the plague of loss of sight, saying,
"Arise, and enter Damascus; there shall be demonstrated to thee what thou oughtest to
do," to wit-be baptized, which was the only thing lacking to him. That point excepted,
he bad sufficiently learnt and believed "the Nazarene" to be "the Lord, the Son of
God." (Ibid.; source)

Victorinus (ca. 270-303)

15. "And His voice as it were the voice of many waters."] The many waters are
understood to be many peoples, or the gift of baptism that He sent forth by the
apostles, saying: "Go ye, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Victorinus Commentary on the
Apocalypse of the Blessed John; source)
The above historical sources should forever silence the lies of Wierwille and Badawi
and finally put to rest the issue of whether the Trinitarian baptismal formula was
originally part of Matthew’s Gospel and in use long before Nicea.

For more info concerning this topic we suggest reading this article.

Refuting Badawi’s Gross Distortions of the Doctrine of the Trinity

The final point we want to address for now is Badawi’s complete disregard for and
perversion of what Christians actually believe about the holy and blessed Trinity.
Here is how Badawi responded to Rittenhouse’s appeal to John 10:30 where Jesus
said that he and the Father are one:

"Number 4. There was a reference, as well, to – just trying to catch up cause, uhm …
ok – a reference was made to the statement that "I and the Father are one" in 10.
However, contrary to what Mr., uhm, ahh Rittenhouse actually said, I read also
sources that say the opposite. It actually, it says that the Greek word heis, h-e-i-s, is
the one that means one in Person. And the writers say that actually the Greek term
is hen, h-e-n, which means one in purpose. And there is additional evidence I have of
a [sic] statements in the Bible that use the same term to refer actually to oneness in
purpose that used, Jesus used in dealing with his disciple." (Emphasis ours)

We have already addressed the meaning of John 10:30 in the following articles: 1, 2, 3

So we won’t bother exegeting the text here. What we want to highlight at this point is
the assertion made by Badawi that the Greek word heis is the term that would have
demonstrated that Jesus and the Father are one, which implies that Rittenhouse
believes Jesus is the same exact Person as God the Father. Since this is not what
Rittenhouse or Trinitarians actually believe the use of heis would have therefore
disproven the position held by orthodox Christians. The Biblical doctrine of the
Trinity affirms that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct Persons from
one another who eternally exist as the one God.

This means that Badawi is either blatantly ignorant in regard to the beliefs held by
traditional Christians, or is willfully lying and using cheap debate tricks in order to
score points and deceive people into thinking that orthodox, conservative Christians
actually believe that the Father and the Son are the same Person.

Either position leads to the same conclusion. Dr. Badawi has no business debating
with Christians since he is ignorant of Christian theology and needs to study it more
thoroughly in order to understand it. Or he is a liar who cannot be trusted to speak
honestly and should be shunned by any honest seeker of truth.

The Blood of God

An Examination of the Christological Implications of Acts 20:28

Sam Shamoun

In the book of Acts Luke records Paul’s farewell speech to the Ephesian elders as he
exhorts them to protect the flock of God by holding to sound doctrine. In his speech
he makes a rather astonishing statement, one which may be another reference to Jesus
as God:

"Now from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the church to come to
him. And when they came to him, he said to them: ‘You yourselves know how I lived
among you the whole time from the first day that I set foot in Asia, serving the Lord
with all humility and with tears and with trials that happened to me through the plots
of the Jews; how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable,
and teaching you in public and from house to house, testifying both to Jews and to
Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. And now,
behold, I am going to Jerusalem, constrained by the Spirit, not knowing what will
happen to me there, except that the Holy Spirit testifies to me in every city that
imprisonment and afflictions await me. But I do not account my life of any value nor
as precious to myself, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I received
from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God. And now, behold, I
know that none of you among whom I have gone about proclaiming the kingdom will
see my face again. Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood
of all of you, for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God.
Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has
made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own
blood (ten ekklesian tou theou, en periepoiesato dia tou haimatos tou idiou). I know
that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;
and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw
away the disciples after them. Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I
did not cease night or day to admonish everyone with tears. And now I commend you
to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the
inheritance among all those who are sanctified. I coveted no one's silver or gold or
apparel. You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to
those who were with me. In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this
way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he
himself said, "It is more blessed to give than to receive."’" Acts 20:17-35
Note, once again, the emphasized part as we quote a different translation:

"Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you
overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood."
NIV

Paul refers to God having blood, which is an obvious reference to the Lord Jesus who
was the One who died in order to ransom believers!

However, there are some problems with taking this passage as a definite reference to
Jesus as God, not the least of which is the fact that there are several variant readings in
the extant manuscripts (MSS). Some MSS read "the church of the Lord"(1) as
opposed to "the church of God," while other, later MSS combine both readings
together so that we have "the church of the Lord and God." There is also a debate
whether to translate dia tou haimatos tou idiou as "which he obtained with his own
blood" or "which he obtained with the blood of his own." The translation "the blood of
his own" can imply that it wasn’t the blood of God that purchased the Church, but the
blood of one dear to God, such as a child or more specifically his beloved Son. As
noted by the NET translators:

114tn Or "with his own blood"; Grk "with the blood of his own." The genitive
construction could be taken in two ways: (1) as an attributive genitive (second
attributive position) meaning "his own blood"; or (2) as a possessive genitive, "with
the blood of his own." In this case the referent is the Son, and the referent has been
specified in the translation for clarity. See further C. F. DeVine, "The Blood of
God," CBQ 9 (1947): 381-408. (Source)

This explains the following English translation:

Keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock, of which the Holy Spirit has made
you overseers, to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his
own Son. NRSV

There is evidence from the NT that the expression tou idiou can refer to persons
intimately connected to someone, as a term of endearment or to near relations:

"He [Jesus] came to his own (ta idia), and his own people (hoi idioi) did not receive
him." John 1:11

"Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to
depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own (tous idious) who were in
the world, he loved them to the end." John 13:1
"On their release, Peter and John went back to their own people (tous idious) and
reported all that the chief priests and elders had said to them." Acts 4:23 NIV

"Then he gave orders to the centurion that he should be kept in custody but have some
liberty, and that none of his friends (ton idion) should be prevented from attending to
his needs." Acts 24:23

Evangelical NT scholar Murray J. Harris adds:

First, there are fifteen substantival uses of idious in the NT: to idion (once), ta
idia (nine times), and hoi idioi (five times), the latter expression describing
compatriots (John 1:11b), disciples (John 13:1), fellow believers (Acts 4:23; 24:23),
and relatives (1 Tim. 5:8). Second, although the singular ho idios is not found
elsewhere in the NT, it is used in the papyri as a term of endearment and close
relationship; a letter may be addressed to so-and-so to idio. Third, the NT witnesses to
several parallel coinages in which a substantival adjective or participle has become a
christological title: ho dikaios, "the Righteous One" (RSV: Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14; cf.
1 Pet. 3:18; 1 John 2:1, 29; 3:7); ho agapetos (mou), "my Beloved" (NEB: Matt. 3:17;
12:18; 17:5; 2 Pet. 1:17); ho hegapemenos, "the Beloved" (Eph. 1:6 RSV); ho
eklelegmenos, "my Chosen" (Luke 9:35 NEB); ho eklektos, "his Chosen One" (Luke
23:35 RSV).

If, then, ho idios is here a christological title, it carries the connotation of uniqueness
("only") and endearment ("dearly loved") associated with the Greek
term monogenes and the Hebrew term yachid. (Harris, Jesus As God: The New
Testament Use of "Theos" in Reference to Jesus [Baker Academic, A Division of
Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI, July 1998 Paperback], p. 140)

The NT also speaks of Jesus purchasing the Church through his blood, which is
another way of saying by his death:

"In him we have redemption through his blood (dia tou haimatos autou), the
forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace," Ephesians 1:7

"waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior
Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify
for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works." Titus
2:13-14

"knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your
forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious
blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot." 1 Peter 1:18-19
"So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his
own blood (dia tou idiou haimatos)." Hebrews 13:12

"and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of
kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood (en
to haimati autou) and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be
glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen." Revelation 1:5-6

"And they sang a new song, saying, ‘Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its
seals, for you were slain, and by your blood (en to haimati sou) you ransomed
people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have
made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.’"
Revelation 5:9-10

The foregoing demonstrates that it is quite possible for the text to be referring to God
purchasing the Church with the blood of Jesus, his dearly Beloved, the One belonging
to God in the most intimate way.

Yet there are problems with taking this as a reference to God purchasing the Church
with Christ’s blood, not the least of which is the claim that tou idiou (ho idios in the
nominative) should be understood as a Christological title. Christian Apologist Robert
M. Bowman Jr. explains why this assertion isn’t that convincing:

To get around the reading "which he purchased with his own blood," some scholars in
the past century or so have argued that the clause should be translated, "which he
purchased with the blood of his own." What is at dispute here, in technical terms, is
whether to take TOU IDIOU adjectivally ("his own") or substantivally ("of his own").
The simplest reading in terms of the grammar is the adjectival reading, "through his
own blood." (Greek often places the adjective after the noun in this construction,
article-noun-article-adjective, called the second attributive position.) The NWT
Reference Bible, in an appendix on Acts 20:28, admits that this would be "the usual
translation" (p. 1580). However, Harris and some other scholars favor the substantival
reading. On this reading, "his own" is a kind of description or title of Christ. They
admit that Christ is nowhere else in the NT called "his own," but they compare this
way of construing the words to other titles of Christ using adjectives, such as "the
Righteous One" or "the Beloved." …

The view that TOU IDIOU is a substantive is at least plausible, but I think it is also
unlikely. Against I would make the following six arguments.

1. The other titles of Christ based on adjectives (e.g., "the Beloved") all have multiple
attestations in the NT and continued to be recognized as Christological titles and used
by the early church. This is not the case with the hypothetical title "His Own."
Moreover, in the case of these other titles there is no grammatical ambiguity about
their usage as there is here. (Is the NWT's "the Blood of his Own" the Most Likely
Translation?; source)

Even Harris admits that, "the singular ho idios is not found elsewhere in the NT"
(Ibid., 140). Thus, the burden of proof is upon the person who claims that this phrase
functions as a Christological title to show that it does.

A further problem with this view is that the variants actually provide support that the
original reading, and subsequently the correct interpretation, is "the church of God,
which he purchased with his own blood." The variant readings show that certain
scribes had some difficulty with a text speaking of the blood of God since this may
have suggested (at least to them) that it was God the Father who died on the cross.
Hence, a scribe may have sought to change the reading in order to avoid any
misunderstanding. The late renowned Greek NT textual scholar Bruce M. Metzger did
an excellent job of explaining the situation:

The external evidence is singularly balanced between "church of God" and "church
of the Lord" (the reading "church of the Lord and God" is obviously conflate, and is
therefore secondary - as are also other variant readings). Paleographically, the
difference concerns only a single letter… In deciding between the two readings one
must take into account the internal probabilities.

The expression ekklesia kuriou occurs seven times in the Septuagint but nowhere in

the New Testament. On the other hand, ekklesia tou theou appears with moderate
frequency (eleven times) in the Epistles traditionally ascribed to Paul, but nowhere
else in the New Testament. (The phrase hai ekklesiai pasai tou Christou occurs once
in Ro. 16:16.) It is possible, therefore, that a scribe, finding theou in his exemplar, was
influenced by Old Testament passages and altered it to kuriou. On the other hand, it is
also possible that a scribe, influenced by Pauline usage, changed his exemplar
to theou.

In support of the originality of kuriou is the argument (urged by a number of scholars)

that copyists were likely to substitute the more common phrase he ekklesia tou
theou for the more rare phrase he ekkleesia tou kuriou.

On the other hand, it is undeniable that  theou is the more difficult reading. The
following clause speaks of the church "which he obtained dia tou haimatos tou idiou."
If this is taken in its usual sense ("with his blood"), a copyist might well raise the
question, Does God have blood?, and thus be led to change  theou to kuriou. If,
however, kuriou were the original reading, there is nothing unusual in the phrase to
catch the mind of the scribe and throw it off its balance. This and other considerations
led the Committee (as well as a variety of scholars) to regard  theou as the original
reading.

Instead of the usual meaning of dia tou haimatos tou idiou, it is possible that the
writer of Acts intended his readers to understand the expression to mean "with the
blood of his Own." (It is not necessary to suppose, with Hort, that huiou may have
dropped out after tou idiou, though Paleographically such an omission would have
been easy.) This absolute use of ho idios is found in Greek papyri as a term of
endearment referring to near relatives. It is possible, therefore, that "his Own" (ho
idios) was a title that early Christians gave to Jesus, comparable to "the Beloved" (ho
agapetos); compare Ro 8.32, where Paul refers to God "who did not spare tou idiou
huiou" in a context that clearly alludes to Gn 22:16, where the Septuagint has tou
agapetou huiou.

Without committing itself concerning what some have thought to be a slight

probability that tou idiou is used here as the equivalent of tou idiou huiou, the
Committee judged that the reading theou was more likely to have been altered
to kuriou than vice versa. (Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New
Testament (Second Edition) A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’
Greek New Testament Fourth Revised Edition [Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft; ISBN:
3438060108], pp. 425-427; underline emphasis ours)

The NET Bible translators write:

112tc The reading "of God" (tou' qeou', tou qeou) is found in Í B 614 1175 1505 al vg sy; other witnesses have "of the Lord" (tou' kurivou, tou
kuriou) here (so Ì74 A C* D E Y 33 1739 al co), while the majority of the later minuscule mss conflate these two into "of the Lord and God" (tou'

kurivou kaiV [tou'] qeou', tou kuriou kai [tou] qeou). Although the evidence is evenly balanced between the first two readings, tou' qeou' is decidedly
superior on internal grounds. The final prepositional phrase of this verse, diaV tou' ai{mato" tou' ijdivou (dia tou {aimato" tou idiou), could be

rendered "through his own blood" or "through the blood of his own." In the latter translation, the object that "own" modifies must be supplied
(see tn below for discussion). But this would not be entirely clear to scribes; those who supposed that ijdivou modified ai{mato" would be prone to
alter "God" to "Lord" to avoid the inference that God had blood. In a similar way, later scribes would be prone to conflate the two titles, thereby
affirming the deity (with the construction tou' kurivou kaiV qeou' following the Granville Sharp rule and referring to a single person [see ExSyn 272,

276-77, 290]) and substitutionary atonement of Christ. For these reasons, tou' qeou' best explains the rise of the other readings and should be
considered authentic. (Source; underline emphasis ours)

The notes to the Catholic version of the Holy Bible, New American Bible (NAB), say:

[28] Overseers: see the note on Philippians 1:1. The church of God: because the
clause "that he acquired with his own blood" following "the church of God" suggests
that "his own blood" refers to God's blood, some early copyists changed "the church
of God" to "the church of the Lord." Some prefer the translation "acquired with the
blood of his own," i.e., Christ. (Source)

Here is what the late renowned Catholic NT scholar Raymond E. Brown wrote:

… "The Holy Spirit has made you overseers to feed the church of God which he
obtained with his own blood." There are two problems about the italicized words: One
concerns a variant reading ("the church of the Lord"); the other concerns grammatical
understanding. As for the variant, "the church of God" is slightly better attested than
"the church of the Lord." Moreover, the reasoning why later copyists might have
changed an original "the church of God" to "the church of the Lord" is somewhat
stronger than for a change in the opposite direction. Overall, then, the weight of the
argument favors "the church of God" as more original.

251. Although "the church of the Lord" occurs seven times in the Greek OT, it does
not occur elsewhere in the NT, while "the church of God" occurs eleven times in the
epistles attributed to Paul; thus here copyists of the NT might have changed an
original but highly unusual "the church of the Lord" to the more customary
expression. On the other hand "the church of God" could have struck copyists of the
NT as objectionable because the sequence would then seem to be speaking of
God’s blood; accordingly they might have changed the phrase to refer to "the Lord
(Jesus)." (Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament [Paulist Press, Mahwah NJ,
1994], pp. 177-178; bold and underline emphasis ours)

Finally, Bowman states:

5. Acts 20:28: "the church of God which He purchased with His own blood." The
variant readings (e.g. "the church of the Lord") show that the original was understood
to mean "His own blood," not "the blood of His own [Son]" (since otherwise no one
would have thought to change it). Thus all other renderings are attempts to evade the
startling clarity and meaning of this passage. (The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the
Trinity: An Outline Study; source)

There is additional evidence from the apostolic and early Church fathers to
substantiate that the original reading did refer to God purchasing the Church with his
own blood.

I have become acquainted with your name, much-beloved in God, which you have
acquired by the habit of righteousness, according to the faith and love in Jesus Christ
our Saviour. Being the followers of God, and stirring up yourselves by the blood of
God, you have perfectly accomplished the work which was beseeming to you. For, on
hearing that I came bound from Syria for the common name and hope, trusting
through your prayers to be permitted to fight with beasts at Rome, that so by
martyrdom I may indeed become the disciple of Him "who gave Himself for us, an
offering and sacrifice to God," Ephesians 5:2 [you hastened to see me]. I received,
therefore, your whole multitude in the name of God, through Onesimus, a man of
inexpressible love, and your bishop in the flesh, whom I pray you by Jesus Christ to
love, and that you would all seek to be like him. And blessed be He who has granted
unto you, being worthy, to obtain such an excellent bishop. (Epistle of Ignatius to the
Ephesians, Chapter 1. Praise of the Ephesians; source; bold and underline emphasis
ours)

Chapter 3. Remarks on Some of the "Dangers and Wounds" Referred to in the

Preceding Chapter

If these things are so, it is certain that believers contracting marriages with Gentiles
are guilty of fornication, and are to be excluded from all communication with the
brotherhood, in accordance with the letter of the apostle, who says that "with persons
of that kind there is to be no taking of food even." Or shall we "in that day" produce
(our) marriage certificates before the Lord's tribunal, and allege that a marriage such
as He Himself has forbidden has been duly contracted? What is prohibited (in the
passage just referred to) is not "adultery;" it is not "fornication." The admission of a
strange man (to your couch) less violates "the temple of God," less commingles "the
members of Christ" with the members of an adulteress. So far as I know, "we are not
our own, but bought with a price;" and what kind of price? The blood of God. In
hurting this flesh of ours, therefore, we hurt Him directly. What did that man mean
who said that "to wed a 'stranger' was indeed a sin, but a very small one?" whereas in
other cases (setting aside the injury done to the flesh which pertains to the
Lord) every voluntary sin against the Lord is great. For, in as far as there was a power
of avoiding it, in so far is it burdened with the charge of contumacy. (Tertullian, To
His Wife; source)

XXXIV. This visible appearance cheats death and the devil; for the wealth within, the
beauty, is unseen by them. And they rave about the carcass, which they despise as
weak, being blind to the wealth within; knowing not what a "treasure in an earthen
vessel" 2 Corinthians 4:7 we bear, protected as it is by the power of God the
Father, and the blood of God the Son, and the dew of the Holy Spirit. But be not
deceived, you who has tasted of the truth, and been reckoned worthy of the great
redemption. But contrary to what is the case with the rest of men, collect for yourself
an unarmed, an unwarlike, a bloodless, a passionless, a stainless host, pious old men,
orphans dear to God, widows armed with meekness, men, adorned with love. Obtain
with your money such guards, for body and for soul, for whose sake a sinking ship is
made buoyant, when steered by the prayers of the saints alone; and disease at its
height is subdued, put to flight by the laying on of hands; and the attack of robbers is
disarmed, spoiled by pious prayers; and the might of demons is crushed, put to shame
in its operations by strenuous commands. (Clement of Alexandria, Who is the Rich
Man That Shall Be Saved?; source; bold and underline emphasis ours)

As Bowman asks:

5. As Harris himself points out, as quickly as the early second century Ignatius could
write about "God's blood" (Ignatius's Epistle to the Ephesians, 1:1). Where did
Ignatius get such language? Is it best explained as an Ignatian innovation or as
reflecting Paul’s words in Acts, originally spoken to the Ephesian Christians (Acts
20:17, 28)? The Ephesian connection gives weight to the latter view. (Is the NWT's
"the Blood of his Own" the Most Likely Translation?)

Bowman further shows that "his own blood" was how the Church and scholars read it
for the first eighteen centuries:

Although most contemporary English versions render the last part of the verse in the
same way as the NASB (ESV, NIV, NKJV, HCSB, and others), many scholars and
commentators in recent decades have preferred the rendering found in the NRSV (and
also in REB). There is no doubt as to the reason for this preference: those who dispute
the conventional translation find the language, which expresses the idea of God’s
having "blood," difficult if not impossible to entertain.

A little lesson in grammar is unavoidable in order to understand the problem with the
NRSV interpretation. The disputed words usually translated "his own blood" but
translated "the blood of his own Son" in the NRSV are tou haimatos tou idiou (word
for word, "the blood, the his-own"). The word idiou ("his own") is an adjective, which
normally we would understand as modifying the noun haimatos ("blood"). The word
order here, with the adjective following the noun with a second article between them,
is perfectly normal and common in Greek. Another example of this construction
appears in the very same verse: "the Holy Spirit" (to pneuma to hagion, word for
word, "the Spirit, the Holy"). It was not until the latter half of the nineteenth
century, that anyone proposed that the words here in question did not mean "his
own blood."

The basis for the alternate translation "the blood of his own Son" is that Greek can use
adjectives as if they were nouns (the technical term is substantivally). Many modern
scholars argue that tou idiou is such a substantival use of the adjective, and therefore
means "of his Own," comparable to the use of the adjective "the Beloved" (Eph. 1:6)
as a kind of term of endearment.
This reinterpretation of the text is grammatically possible and difficult to disprove
absolutely, but it is hardly the most natural understanding. As we mentioned,
eighteen centuries went by before anyone came up with it. The New Testament
nowhere calls Jesus "his Own" (ho idios), nor was this term ever picked up in the
early church as a designation for Jesus. The substantival use of ho idios (or any
grammatical variation, such as ton idion) is, in fact, rare in the New Testament, and in
the singular occurs only once–and even then not in reference to a specific person
(John 15:19). On the other hand, ho idios functions as an adjective following the
noun–just as in Acts 20:28–in several New Testament texts (John 1:41; 5:43; 7:18;
Acts 1:25).

We are inclined to agree with Nigel Turner, a twentieth-century scholar of Greek

grammar, who called the alternate translation of Acts 20:28 "a theological expedient,
foisting imaginary distinctions into a spontaneous affirmation, and is not the natural
way to take the Greek." As the Catholic scholar Charles DeVine commented sixty
years ago, it is nothing more than an attempt "to avoid at all costs the full force of the
expression ‘God’s own blood.’" (Bowman & J. Ed Komoszewski, Putting Jesus in
His Place: The Case For The Deity of Christ [Kregel Publications, 2007], Part 3:
Name Above All Names: Jesus Shares the Names of God, Chapter 12. Immanuel:
God With Us, pp. 145-146; bold and underline emphasis ours)

And:

30. The first scholars to propose the alternate translation "the blood of his own"
appear to have been J. A. Bengel and F. J. A. Hort; see Harris, Jesus as God, 139; and
Charles F. DeVine, "The ‘Blood of God’ in Acts 20:28," CBQ 9 (1947): 405. (Ibid.,
pp. 330-331)

There is one main objection which Murray J. Harris raises against the view that Acts
20:28 is speaking of God’s blood that we would like to address:

There can be no objection (on broad a priori grounds) to understand the verse to refer
to Jesus, for elsewhere the NT refers to Jesus as and depicts him as theos acquiring the
church through his death. But it is the startling collocation of theos and haima that
prompts a legitimate objection to this view. Although the concepts of haima
theou and pathemata theou are common fare in the second and third centuries, nothing
resembling these expressions is found in the first century. New Testament descriptions
of Christ’s redemptive death as well as his life always avoid blending unqualified
affirmations of his deity (such as theos) with terms that can be related only to his
humanness (such as haima). Nowhere, for instance, do we read of "the cross of God"
(cf. John 19:25; Gal. 6:14) or that at Golgotha "they crucified God" (cf. John 19:18) or
that "God died and rose again" (cf. 1 Thess. 4:14). On the other hand, early in the
second century Ignatius can write with unembarrassed directness of "the blood of God
(haimati theou)" (Eph. 1:1) and "the passion of my God (tou pathous tou theou mou)"
(Rom. 6:3).

34. When I argue that the concept of haima theou is anachronistic in the first century
so far as extant records indicate, this is not because such a concept grazes the edge of
patripassianism; only if theou in this phrase were misinterpreted to refer to the Father
rather than Christ would there be danger of doctrinal deviation. Rather, it is because
the NT stops short of predicating human attributes or characteristics of Christ as
God (such as "the blood of God") and divine attributes or characteristics of Christ as
man (such as "the omnipotence of Jesus of Nazareth"). But it was inevitable that, as
the church later grappled with the implications of the "hypostatic union" of the human
and divine natures in Christ, there should arise some such doctrine as communicatio
idiomatum (koinonia idiomaton, "sharing of attributes") as a means of safeguarding
both the reality of Christ’s humanity and deity and the unity of his person. All this
makes one uneasy with the reasoning of Renie (282) regarding Acts 20:28: "The
duality of nature in Jesus is clearly indicated"–since Jesus is both God and man, one
may speak of the "blood of God." Like Calvin (Acts 184), Renie refers to the doctrine
of communicatio idiomatum (282-83). (Harris, pp. 137-138)

The problem with Harris’ objection is that the NT writers do precisely the very thing
he denies, namely, speak of Jesus’ humanity when they have his Deity in view and
vice-versa. Note, for instance, the following NT examples:

"No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of
Man." John 3:13

"Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?"
John 6:62

These texts speak of the Son of Man coming down from heaven, even though we
know that Jesus only became the Son of Man the moment he took on a human nature
at his virginal conception and birth. Thus, he didn’t exist as the Son of Man, a title
which denotes his Deity being clothed in humanity which he took at the Incarnation,
when he was in heaven.

Paul says something similar:

"Thus it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being’; the last Adam
became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and
then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is
from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is
the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the
image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven." 1
Corinthians 15:45-49

Again, Jesus wasn’t a man when he came down from heaven. Finally:

"The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came
into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost." 1 Timothy 1:15

The name Christ Jesus was given to God’s Son at the Incarnation, just as the
following passages show:

"‘She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people
from their sins.’ … When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord
commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a
son. And he called his name Jesus." Matthew 1:21, 24-25

"And the angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with
God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call
his name Jesus.’" Luke 1:30-31

"For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord."
Luke 2:11

"And at the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was called Jesus, the
name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb." Luke 2:21

As such, Christ Jesus wasn’t his name in heaven before his descent to the earth.

Here is another example:

"None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not
have crucified the Lord of glory." 1 Corinthians 2:8

Paul speaks of the Lord of glory being crucified, a clear reference to Jesus’ Deity,
even though it was in his humanity that he was put to death on the cross.

These citations show that the NT writers deemed it entirely appropriate to attribute
characteristics of Jesus’ Deity to his humanity and vice-versa, i.e. the Son of man
coming down from heaven or the Lord of glory being crucified, despite the fact that
Jesus didn’t exist as a man before his heavenly descent nor was his Divinity nailed to
the cross but his humanity. The inspired authors of Scripture evidently felt that such
language helped them to reinforce the point that Christ is a single Person with two
distinct natures.

What we therefore find in the writings of Ignatius and subsequent fathers is nothing
more than a continuation of what is already present within the NT corpus. This
explains why fathers like Ignatius could write with "unembarrassed directness" of the
blood or passion of God since they were simply echoing the tradition that they had
received from their theological forebears, specifically from the Apostles and their
companions.

In light of the foregoing, there is no reason why Paul couldn’t speak of the blood of
God, especially when elsewhere in his writings he even calls Jesus God. As the late
A.T. Robertson, one of the greatest NT Greek scholars that ever lived, said:

… The church of God (thn ekklhsian tou qeou). The correct text, not "the church of
the Lord" or "the church of the Lord and God" (Robertson, Introduction to Textual
Criticism of the N.T., p. 189). He purchased (periepoihsato). First aorist middle
of peripoiew, old verb to reserve, to preserve (for or by oneself, in the middle). In the
N.T. only in Luke John 17:33; Acts 20:28; 1 Timothy 3:13. The
substantive peripoihsin (preservation, possession) occurs in 1 Peter 2:9 ("a peculiar
people" = a people for a possession) and in Ephesians 1:14. With his own blood (dia
tou aimatoß tou idiou). Through the agency of (dia) his own blood. Whose blood?
If tou qeou (Aleph B Vulg.) is correct, as it is, then Jesus is here called "God" who
shed his own blood for the flock. It will not do to say that Paul did not call Jesus God,
for we have Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Titus 2:13 where he does that very thing,
besides Colossians 1:15-20; Philippians 2:5-11. (Robertson’s Word Pictures of the
New Testament; source; underline emphasis ours)

It seems that Paul was aware that the Ephesian elders would not miss the point he was
making, especially when he had spent three years teaching them the whole counsel of
God. The apostle knew that the elders wouldn’t mistakenly think that he was
confusing the dual natures of Christ or that he was mistaking the Person of the Son
with the Person of the Father. These men had spent enough time with him to realize
that he was simply affirming the full Deity of Christ as well as the union of his two
natures in a single Person, i.e. that even though Jesus had both a Divine and human
nature he is still one undivided Person.

Thus, whereas there are no convincing exegetical reasons for rejecting the view that
Acts 20:28 refers to Jesus as the God who shed his blood for his Church there are
plenty of good reasons for accepting this as an explicit testimony to the Deity of
Christ.
Finally, and more importantly, even though we have argued that the reading "the
church of God which he purchased with his own blood" is the correct one, our belief
in the absolute Deity of Christ does not hinge upon this specific passage. Trinitarians
do not need the testimony of Acts 20:28 to prove that Christ is perfect Deity since
there are plenty of other passages which establish this point beyond any doubt.

Hence, to the Trinitarian it doesn’t really matter whether this passage identifies Jesus
as God or whether it speaks of God purchasing the Church with the blood of his Son
since either reading perfectly comports with Trinitarianism. In fact, the second
reading would provide additional support for the unity and equality of the three
Divine Persons of the Holy Trinity since it mentions their involvement in the
acquisition and preservation of believers: the Holy Spirit who appointed the overseers,
God the Father to whom the Church belongs, and Jesus Christ his own Son who
acquired the flock by his precious blood.

The anti-Trinitarian, however, cannot allow the evidence to speak for itself.(2) Those
who deny the Trinity must find some way to make sure that the data doesn’t support
the reading which has God purchasing the Church with his blood.

The Trinitarian, therefore, has the comfort of allowing the textual and exegetical
evidence to speak for itself and to follow the data wherever it may lead. The anti-
Trinitarian does not, that is unless s/he is willing to change his/her views to make
them agree with the Holy Scriptures.

Endnotes

(1) The reading, church of the Lord (ekklesia kuriou), would still be a reference to

Deity since Lord in this context functions as the Greek synonym or equivalent of the
Divine name Yahweh. In fact, ekklesia kuriou occurs seven times in the Greek version
(Septuagint [LXX]) of the Hebrew Bible, and always in connection with the
congregation which belongs to Yahweh (Deuteronomy 23:2-4, 9 [English vv. 1-3, 8];
1 Chronicles 28:8; Micah 2:5). Thus, to speak of the church of the Lord is to speak of
the church of God, since Lord here refers to the one true God revealed in inspired
Scripture, Yahweh.

(2) The only anti-Trinitarian group that would have no problem accepting this reading
would be Modalists since they believe that Jesus is the human manifestation of the
Father. Thus, for them a text that speaks of God having blood would be taken as a
proof-text supporting their view that Jesus is the same Person as the Father.
Interestingly, it is the alternate interpretation which would cause problems for their
beliefs since that reading clearly distinguishes God from his Son, showing that they
are not the same Person. For a thorough refutation of Modalism we recommend the
following link: http://christiandefense.com/oneness.htm

The Real Truth of John 1:1

A Muslim Becomes a Bible Expositor

Sam Shamoun

Muslim apologist Ebrahim Saifuddin has written an article (*) accusing Christian
translators of mistranslating and distorting the meaning of John 1:1. We encourage the
readers to first consult his article before reading our response.

In order to help the readers to better grasp and fully appreciate the issues that are
involved in properly understanding the text of John 1:1 we will post the verse here by
breaking it down into three separate lines:

1a – En arche een ho logos

"In [the] beginning was the Word."

1b – kai ho logos een pros ton theon

"and the Word was with the God."

1c – kai theos een ho logos

"and God was the Word."

Note that the word for God in the third line doesn’t have the definite article and that it
is placed before the verb "was." We will discuss the significance of this placement
later in our rebuttal.

Mr. Saifuddin believes that translators have deceived the readers by distorting the
second and third lines of the verse in order make it appear as if Jesus is being equated
with God. Mr. Saifuddin’s comments suggest that John wasn’t teaching that Jesus, in
his prehuman existence as the Word, was fully God in essence and that Christian
translators are dishonestly implying that he was by rendering the third clause of the
verse as, "and the Word was God."

Now this is a very serious charge which presupposes that the Muslim writer is quite
familiar with the original languages of the Holy Bible or at least has a mastery
of Koine Greek, the language of the NT documents. Such an accusation further
implies that Mr. Saifuddin has studied and understands the intricacies of the grammar
and syntax of John 1:1, and that he is adept enough to realize the significance of John
placing the noun theos before the verb een.

In light of this we proceed to see just how familiar Mr. Saifuddin truly is with these
issues.

In the above example, ‘ho’ is basically an article. In the English language there are 2
articles, ‘the’ which is a definite article and ‘a’ which is an indefinite article. In Greek
however there is only 1 article which is definite.

When ‘logos’ is put after ‘ho’ it becomes ‘the word’ and with the absence of ‘ho’, it remains
as ‘word’. However this is not where the great deception really is. The part with the great
deception will come below…

Transliterated: theos

Pronounced: theh’-os

This word ‘theos’ does not only mean ‘God’ with a capital ‘G’. According to the "Thayer’s
Greek Definitions", the first meaning of this word ‘theos’ is written to be:

"A god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities."

One of the meanings of this word as explained by Strong’s Greek Dictionary is:

"A deity."

Here is the full entry for theos (Strong's # G2316) in the BlueLetterBible Lexicon:

1) a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities

2) the Godhead, trinity
a) God the Father, the first person in the trinity
b) Christ, the second person of the trinity
c) Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity
3) spoken of the only and true God
a) refers to the things of God
b) his counsels, interests, things due to him
4) whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any
way
a) God's representative or viceregent
 1) of magistrates and judges   (Source)

Strong’s lists as a definition of theos, "the Godhead, trinity," "Christ, the second
person of the Trinity." It is not surprising that he would present these as possible
definitions of theos since Strong was a Trinitarian who was convinced that the NT
teaches the doctrine of the Trinity, that there is only one God subsisting in three
eternally distinct, yet inseparable Persons.

Interestingly, this same site provides the comments of Thayer’s Greek lexicon
regarding the issue of Jesus being called God in the NT:

2. Whether Christ is called God must be determined from Jn. i. 1; xx. 28; 1 Jn. v. 20;
Ro. ix. 5; Tit. ii. 13; the matter is still in dispute with theologians.

Hence, we have two lexicons disagreeing on whether the NT addresses Jesus as God
in an absolute sense, i.e. Jesus is fully God in essence.

This means that, to be on the safe side, it is better to claim that there are several NT
passages that apply the noun theos to Christ and that the context will determine
whether he is being called God in an absolute sense. The chief aim of the article is to
examine John 1:1 in order to determine whether Jesus is called theos absolutely, or in
a more restricted and qualified sense as Mr. Saifuddin contends.

As seen above, ‘theos’ also means ‘god’ i.e. any god. Greek has no such law like English
where we can differentiate between ‘god’ and ‘God’ by the use of the capital letter or small
letter. Hence to indicate whether ‘theos’ is referring to any ‘god’ or ‘God’, the language uses
‘articles’.

Depending on whether a word is the ‘subject’ or the ‘direct object (accusative)’ in a

sentence, (ho) or (ton) is used respectively.

Verifying the English Translation

Do note that when ‘theos’ is the subject, then it is written as  (theos) and when it is the
direct object (accusative) then it is written as (theon).
In the Greek text of the verse John
1:1, it can be seen that there is an article before and the text is thus written as … which
is transliterated to be ton theon’ and should be translated as ‘the God’ or one can even
translate it as only ‘God’. The point is that using the definite article, the word refers to God
and not to the other meanings of the word ‘theos’ i.e. ‘a god’ or any god or goddess.

A brief note at this point. First, it is not always the case that the English language uses
the article to indicate whether the passage is speaking of the one true God since one
can translate theos simply as God with a capital G to communicate this point, just as
Mr. Saifuddin himself noted. Second, Mr. Saifuddin is being inconsistent here since
he says that the use of the article before theos refers to God and not to any god or
goddess. Yet he later contradicts this position by claiming that ho theos in 2
Corinthians 4:4 refers to Satan, not to the one God:
Random Translations by Christendom

Not only does Christendom not translated John 1:1 properly, it is seen that they have been
randomly translating the terms ‘ho theos’ and ‘ton theon’. For example lets take a look at 2
Corinthians 4:4.

In that verse ‘ho theos’ is translated as ‘the god’ with a small ‘g’ to refer to Satan. In the
same verse ‘ton theon’ is translated as ‘God’. This is a clear ‘pick and choose’ tactic being
practiced by Christendom.

We have already addressed the meaning of 2 Corinthians 4:4 in this article. So we will
not be dealing with this text here.

In the second instance where we see ‘theos’, it is written as … and there is no article before
it. If this word would have been referring to ‘God’, then we would have seen the article ‘o’
(ho) before it. The article ‘ho’ is used before the word if it is the subject. However we see
that there is an absence of a definite article. Thus it means that in this place, ‘theos’ should
be translated as ‘god’ or ‘a god’ and not as ‘God’.

Mr. Saifuddin’s comments show a rather naïve understanding of the use (or non-use)
of the Greek definite article. It is not at all correct to assume that theos without the
article refers to someone or something other than the one God, and should therefore
be translated as ‘god’ or ‘a god.’ The NT data doesn’t support this assertion
since theos is used both with or without the article to denote the one true God. As
noted NT Evangelical scholar Murray J. Harris states:

"To those Jews or Gentile ‘God-fearers’ of the first century A.D., who became the
first converts to Christianity and who knew the Scriptures in their Greek dress, the
term theos would probably have seemed extremely rich in its connotations and yet at
the same time very varied in its applicability. Rich in meaning, because it summed up
everything that distinguished God from humans, signifying godhood as opposed to
manhood and representing in Greek the two basic generic terms for God
(el and elohim) that were used in the Hebrew OT; it denote the one supreme God
whom Jews worshiped as Creator and Redeemer; it was not infrequently found in the
LXX where the sacred name YHWH stood in the Hebrew Text. Varied in application,
because it could be used to refer to deity in general, a particular heathen god or
goddess, pagan deities at large (along with their images), angels, human rulers or
judges, persons of valor or rank, godlike persons, as well as the one true God of Israel.
What was more, on occasion it was simply equivalent (in the form tou theou) to the
adjective "mighty."
"Neither in LXX Greek nor in secular Greek is a firm or a fine distinction drawn
between the articular and the anarthrous  theos, with ho theos denoting, for a example,
a specific god and theos designating deity in general or emphasizing the qualities of
godhood. This is not to say that the use of the article is totally capricious or that the
above distinctions are never drawn. But it does mean that in certain contexts it is as
possible for ho theos to refer generically to divinity as it is for  theos to denote God or
a particular god." (Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to
Jesus [Baker Book House, Grand Rapids MI, 1992], p. 29; underline emphasis ours)

And:

"b. Frequently Interchangeable

How valid are such distinctions? From three converging lines of evidence it becomes
abundantly clear that in NT usage ho theos and theos ARE OFTEN
INTERCHANGEABLE.

"First, when it is a dependent genitive, theos will be articular or anarthrous, generally

depending on the state of the preceding noun; this is the canon of Apollonius. Thus in
1 Corinthians 3:16a (ouk oidate hoti naos theou este;), theos is anarthrous
because naos is anarthrous, and naos is anarthrous because it is predicative. In the
following verse (1 Cor. 3:17), however, Paul twice uses ho naos tou theou. Examples
are too numerous to be cited in full where either tou theou or theou is attached to the
same noun occurring twice or more within the same book. While this oscillation may
often be grammatically or theologically conditioned, and not capricious, the fact of the
possible interchangeability remains.

"Second, table 2 lists examples where the same preposition is used with both articular
and anarthrous theos within one NT book (or, in the case of Mark 10:27, within a
single verse). Even though a definite grammatical or stylistic principle sometimes
accounts for the presence or absence of the article, it remains true that the same basic
fact (such as divine origin or agency) may be expressed by articular theos or by
anarthrous theos.

"In the third place, in the NT theos (like kurios) is virtually a proper name and
consequently shares the imprecision with regard to the use of the article that seems to
mark all proper names.

"It is therefore NOT POSSIBLE to maintain that whenever  theos is anarthrous it

differs from ho theos in meaning or emphasis." (Pp. 37-38; capital and underline
emphasis ours)
To support Harris’ statement we will present several examples from the NT,
specifically from the writings of John, where theos is used without the article to
denote the one true God:

"There came a man who was sent from God (theou); his name was John." John 1:6

"Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to
become children of God (theou)— 13children born not of natural descent, nor of
human decision or a husband's will, but born of God (theou)." John 1:12-13

"No one has ever seen God (theon), but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's
side, has made him known." John 1:18

"But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that
what he has done has been done through God (theo)." John 3:21

"Jesus replied, ‘If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you
claim as your God (theos), is the one who glorifies me.’" John 8:54

"Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have
anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God (theou)."
John 16:30

"The Jews insisted, ‘We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he
claimed to be the Son of God (huion theou).’" John 19:7

"How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children
of God (theou)! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is
that it did not know him. Dear friends, now we are children of God (theou), and what
we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall
be like him, for we shall see him as he is." 1 John 3:1-2

"Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father (theou patros) and from Jesus Christ,
the Father's Son, will be with us in truth and love… Anyone who runs ahead and does
not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God (theon); whoever continues
in the teaching has both the Father and the Son." 2 John 1:3, 9

And here are some verses where theos appears both with and without the article in the
same context, yet without any change in meaning:
"He came to Jesus at night and said, ‘Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come
from God (theou). For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing
if God (ho theos) were not with him.’ John 3:2

"Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come
from God (theou) and was returning to God (ton theon);" John 13:3

"No one has ever seen God (theon); but if we love one another, God (ho theos) lives
in us and his love is made complete in us." 1 John 4:12

"For although they knew God (ton theon), they did not honor him as God (theos) or
give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts
were darkened." Romans 1:21

"Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father
(theo patri) and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace. We give thanks
to God (to theo) always for all of you, constantly mentioning you in our prayers,
remembering before our God and Father (to theou kai patros) your work of faith and
labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ. For we know,
brothers loved by God (tou theou), that he has chosen you, … For not only has the
word of the Lord sounded forth from you in Macedonia and Achaia, but your faith
in God (ton theon) has gone forth everywhere, so that we need not say anything. For
they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and
how you turned to God (ton theon) from idols to serve the living and true God
(douleuein theo zonti kai alethino), and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he
raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come." 1 Thessalonians
1:1-4, 8-10

"As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God’s
(theou) varied grace: whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God (theou);
whoever serves, as one who serves by the strength that God (ho theos) supplies—in
order that in everything God (ho theos) may be glorified through Jesus Christ. To him
belong glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen." 1 Peter 4:10-11

Moreover, there are certain passages where ho theos is applied to Christ:

"All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: ‘The virgin
will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel’—
which means, ‘the God [is] with us (Meth hemon ho theos).’" Matthew 1:22-23

That Matthew is identifying Jesus as ho theos can be clearly seen from what he says at
the conclusion of his Gospel:
"and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with
you always (ego meth humon eimi pasas), to the very end of the age." Matthew
28:20

Thus, Matthew has ended his Gospel the way he began it, by affirming that Jesus is
indeed Immanuel, the God who is with all true believers till the very end of the age.

Other places where Jesus is identified as "the God" include:

"while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of the great God of us
and Savior, Jesus Christ (tou megalou theou kai soteros hemon ‘Iesou Christou),"
Titus 2:13

"Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the
righteousness of the God of us and Savior Jesus Christ (tou theou hemon kai
soteros ‘Iesou Christou) have received a faith as precious as ours:" 2 Peter 1:1

As if this weren’t amazing enough, there are verses in John where theos is applied to
the Father and ho theos to the Son!

"Jesus said, ‘Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go
instead to my brothers and tell them, "I am returning to my Father and your Father, to
my God and your God (kai theon mou kai theon humon)."’" John 20:17

"A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them.
Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, ‘Peace be
with you!’ Then he said to Thomas, ‘Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out
your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.’ Thomas said to him,
‘The Lord of me and THE God of me! (ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou)’ Then
Jesus told him, ‘Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who
have not seen and yet have believed.’" John 20:26-29

If Mr. Saifuddin’s reasoning is sound then this means that Jesus is the God or God
whereas the Father is simply a god or god!

The foregoing data should put to rest Mr. Saifuddin’s erroneous assertion that the use
(or lack) of the Greek article somehow impacts the meaning of theos in such a way as
to change the meaning from God to ‘god’ or ‘a god.’ The following Evangelical
scholars state it best:

"In identifying Jesus as God, Thomas, of course, was not identifying him as the
Father. Earlier in the same passage, Jesus had referred to the Father as his God. It is
interesting to compare Jesus’ wording with the wording of Thomas. Jesus told Mary
Magdalene, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and to your
God’ (theon mou kai theon humon, John 20:17). As in John 1:1 and John 1:18, the
Father is called ‘God’ in close proximity to a statement affirming that Jesus is also
‘God.’ Here again, as in John 1:18, we do not see the apostle John distinguishing
between the Father as ‘the God’ (ho theos) and Jesus the Son as only ‘God’
(theos without the article). In fact, whereas Jesus calls the Father ‘my God’ without
the article (theon mou, 20:17), Thomas calls Jesus ‘my God’ with the article (ho theos
mou, 20:28)! One could not ask for any clearer evidence that the use or nonuse of
the article is irrelevant to the meaning of the word theos. What matters is how the
word is used in context…" (Robert M. Bowman Jr. & J. Ed Komoszewski, Putting
Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ [Kregel Publications, Grand
Rapids, MI 2007], Chapter 12. Immanuel: God with Us, p. 143; bold emphasis ours)

With this in the background we can now comment on the reason why John, in the
third clause, omitted the definite article before theos and placed it before the verb.

According to NT Greek grammarians, John’s placing the noun before the verb is
significant in that it stresses the qualities or nature of the subject. The positioning
of theos before the verb een is what scholars call a preverbal (before the verb)
predicate nominative. A predicate nominative is:

"‘Nominative’ refers to the case in which a noun is used either as the subject or to
further identify the subject …" (Bowman, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ, & the
Gospel of John, p. 25)

"A predicate noun is a noun which functions as the predicate or subject complement

in a sentence. The word man is a predicate noun in each of the following sentences:
‘George was a man’; ‘George was the man’; ‘George is a tall man’; ‘My friend
George was at one time an important man in the town.’ In John 1:1c, ‘and the Word
was God,’ God (theos) is a predicate noun. The term is also used frequently for a
predicate noun, because the noun is in the nominative case…" (P. 33)

Since John has already identified the Word as the subject of the verse this means
that theos in the third clause is a subject complement or a noun which further
identifies the subject. In other words, theos serves to describe the nature and essence
of the Word.

Furthermore, if John had put the article before the noun he would have made the
Word identical to the Father, e.g. John would be teaching that the Father and the Word
were one and the same Person:
"The text before us is the opening line of the Gospel of John and therefore the first use
in that book of theos. In this context the use of the definite article in the
expression pros ton theon clearly serves to identify as theon (‘God’) the person
commonly known to John’s readers (who accepted the God of the Old Testament as
the true God) as such–specifically, the person whom Jesus called ‘the Father,’ and
whom the apostles later were to call ‘God the Father.’ That is, ton theon in John 1:1b
refers specifically to God the Father. This conclusion is shown to be correct by the
references later in the ‘Prologue’ to John’s Gospel to the Father as the One with
whom the Word existed (John 1:14, 18).

"The significance of theon being definite in Clause B, then, is to identify the One

spoken of there as a specific person– God the Father. If, then, theos in Clause C were
to be ‘definite’ in the same way that theon is in Clause B., it would then be saying
that the Word was God the Father. Such a statement would contradict Clause B and
imply some sort of modalistic view of God [the belief that there are not three Persons,
but three manifestations or modes of a single Person], which of course trinitarians
oppose (though JWs often misconstrue the doctrine of the Trinity as teaching
modalism)

"This conclusion–that theos in Clause C could not be definite without contradicting

Clause B and implying heresy–should not be misunderstood to be a denial that Jesus
is God… the point that is being made here is that for theos to be definite in this
context–after just using the definite ton theon to refer specifically to the person of the
Father–would be modalistic. This does not mean that theos cannot ever be when
applied to Christ, nor does it mean that Christ cannot be called theos with the definite
article ho. Christ is, in fact, called ‘God’ with the definite article in several other texts
(John 20:28; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 5:20). It is true, however, that none of the
passages calls Christ simply ho theos without qualification, evidently because this
expression was so firmly associated with the person of the Father. Thus he is called
‘my God,’ ‘our God and Savior,’ ‘our great God and Savior,’ and ‘the true God and
eternal life’–all using the definite article, all indisputably identifying Christ as the
Almighty God of the Old Testament, but all avoiding identifying him as the person of
the Father." (Robert M. Bowman, Jr., Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ, & the
Gospel of John [Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, June 1995], Chapter 3.
Definite or Indefinite?, pp. 40-41; bold emphasis and comments within brackets ours)

Bowman goes on to say:

"We have argued that the shift from ton theon (the accusative for of ho theos) to the
anarthrous theos in John 1:1 indicates a shift in nuance, such that the Word is called
"God" in the fullest sense yet without identifying him as the person of God the
Father. This argument requires that a shift from ho theos to theos in Scripture does
not normally indicate a change in its basic meaning. On the other hand, the JWs’
interpretation of John 1:1 crumbles further if it can be shown that normally such a
shift within a short space does not indicate major change of meaning …"

And after citing a few examples where theos appears with and without the article in
the same context, Bowman rightly concludes:

"The above passages do not conform to the same syntax as the anarthrous predicate
nominative uses of theos preceding the verb discussed earlier. However, they do serve
as a confirmatory evidence that a shift from ho theos to theos does not indicate a
change in the meaning of the word." (Bowman, Chapter 4. The Word: "God" or "a
God"?, pp. 60-61; bold emphasis ours)

The late renowned Greek NT scholar A.T. Robertson agrees with Bowman:

With God (pros ton teon).

Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with
God. Pros with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face
to face with each other. In 1 John 2:1 we have a like use ho pros: "We have
a Paraclete with the Father" (paraklhton exomen pros ton patera). See proswpon pros
proswpon (face to face, 1 Corinthians 13:12), a triple use of pros. There is a
papyrus example of pros in this sense to gnwston ths pros allhlous sunhteias, "the
knowledge of our intimacy with one another" (M.&M., Vocabulary) which
answers the claim of Rendel Harris, Origin of Prologue, p. 8) that the use of
pros here and in Mark 6:3 is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but
this is Koine, not old Attic. In John 17:5 John has para soi the more common
idiom.

And the Word was God (kai theos hn ho logos).

By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying h o

theos hn ho logos. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ho
logos and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The
subject is made plain by the article (ho logos) and the predicate without it
(theos) just as in John 4:24 pneuma ho theos can only mean "God is spirit," not
"spirit is God." So in 1 John 4:16 ho theos agaph estin can only mean "God is
love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly
say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar_, pp. 767f.
So in John 1:14 ho Logos sarx egeneto, "the Word became flesh," not "the flesh
became Word." Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also
because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what
Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the
other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an
equality. (Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament; source; underline
emphasis ours)

Thus, by omitting the article John avoided identifying the Word as the God with
whom he was, which would make Jesus identical to the Person of God the Father.

In light of the foregoing, here are some legitimate ways of rendering John 1:1 in order
to bring out all of the above points more clearly:

"and the Word was fellowshipping with God [the Father], and the Word as to his
nature was God."

"and the Word was enjoying intimate communion with God [the Father], and was
fully God in essence."

Or to quote some English translations:

"And the Word was with God and the Word was [what] God [was]." The New
Testament: An Understandable Version (Source)

"and the Word was with [or, in communion with] God, and the Word was God [or,
was as to His essence God]." Analytical-Literal Translation (Source)

"and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God." NET Bible

The notes to the NET Bible explain it best:

3tn Or "and what God was the Word was." Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support
the translation of ?e?? (qeos) as definite ("God") rather than indefinite ("a god") here.
However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate
nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite.
Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous
predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb.
A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering "the word was
God." From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect
to anarthrous ?e?? in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and
Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence
(just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English "the Word was divine"
(Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since "divine" as a descriptive term is not used in
contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation "what God was the Word was" is
perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word
was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the
persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had
formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine
distinctions indicated by "what God was the Word was" would not be understood by many
contemporary readers. Thus the translation "the Word was fully God" was chosen because it is
more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which
"became flesh and took up residence among us" in John 1:14 and is thereafter
identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The
previous phrase, "the Word was with God," shows that the  Logos is distinct in person
from God the Father.

sn And the Word was fully God. John’s theology consistently drives toward the
conclusion that Jesus, the incarnate Word, is just as much God as God the Father. This
can be seen, for example, in texts like John 10:30 ("The Father and I are one"), 17:11
("so that they may be one just as we are one"), and 8:58 ("before Abraham came into
existence, I am"). The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with
the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, "the Word was with God"); rather it
affirms that the Word and God are one in essence. (Source; underline emphasis ours)

Mr. Saifuddin continues:

Correct Translation

The correct translation for John 1:1 would then be as such:

In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was a god.

Mr. Saifuddin has basically adopted the rendering used by the New World Translation
Bible produced by the Jehovah’s Witnesses:

"In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a
god."

Yet contrary to this Muslim’s assertion the rendering a god IS NOT the correct
translation since this flies in the face of the theology of John:

"How can you believe if you accept praise from one another, yet make no effort to
obtain the praise that comes from the only God?" John 5:44

"Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ,
whom you have sent." John 17:3
As a Jewish monotheist John would not have believed that the Word was some
separate and lesser god who existed alongside the one true God of all. Nor does such a
view comport with theology of the Hebrew Scriptures:

"To you it was shown, that you might know that the LORD is God; there is no other
besides him … know therefore today, and lay it to your heart, that the LORD is God
in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other." Deuteronomy 4:35, 39

"See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive;
I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand." Deuteronomy
32:39

Hence, the rendering "a god" may be possible within a pagan or polytheistic context
but not within the worldview of the Biblical writers. Murray J. Harris sums it up
perfectly:

"The translation ‘a god’ is found in the New World Translation, Jannaris (‘Logos’ 24,
but ‘a God’ on p. 20), and Becker (65, 68, 70: ‘ein Gott’). The reasons for rejecting
this rendering–represented in none of the major English translations of the twentieth
century– have been set out in &D.3.a (1) above." (Harris, Jesus as God, pp. 67-68;
italic emphasis ours)

And:

"… Since the basic function of the article is deictic, to add precision to thought by
emphasizing individuality or identity, the non-occurrence of the article with a noun
may point to the nonparticularity, the indefiniteness, of the concept. Accordingly,
from the point of view of grammar alone, theos een ho logos could be rendered ‘the
Word was a god,’ just as, for example, if only grammatical considerations were taken
into account, humeis ek tou patros tou diabolou este (John 8:44), could mean ‘you
belong to the father of the devil. But the theological context, viz, John’s monotheism,
makes this rendering of 1:1c impossible, for if a monotheist were speaking of the
Deity he himself reverenced, the singular theos could be applied only to the
Supreme Being, not to an inferior divine being or emanation as if theos were simply
generic. That is, in reference to his own beliefs, a monotheist could not speak of
theoi nor could he use theos in the singular (when giving any type of personal
description) of any being other than the true God whom he worshiped. On the other
hand, when the polytheistic inhabitants of Malta affirmed that Paul was theos, they
were suggesting that he had or deserved a place among their own pantheon of gods.
‘They said that he was a god’ is therefore a proper translation of elegon auton einai
theon (Acts 28:6)." (Harris, Jesus as God, p. 60; bold and italic emphasis ours)
Moreover, there is additional evidence to support that John believed that the Word
was God in the absolute sense. Here, once again, is the verse in question, this time
providing some additional context for clarity:

"In the beginning was (een) the Word, and the Word was (een) with God, and the
Word was (een) God. He was (een) with God in the beginning. Through him all
things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was
life, and that life was the light of men… He was in the world, and though the world
was made through him, the world did not recognize him … The Word became
(egeneto) flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of
the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:1-4, 10,
14

The first clue that John was teaching that the Word is fully God comes from the use of
the Greek verb een, which is the imperfect tense form of the verb eimi. The
word een implies continuous existence or action in the past. Just how continuous will
depend primarily upon the context itself. In the case of John 1:1, een is used to denote
the Word's continuous past existence before the very beginning of creation (cf. 1:3).

This means that since the Word was already existing before the start of all creation he
therefore has no beginning or end. In other words, for the Word to be existing before
creation came into being basically means that he is eternal. It further shows that he
was existing in eternal fellowship and communion with the God who, in the context,
is the Father (cf. 1:14, 18). The use of the verb within this specific context also
implies that the Word eternally existed as God, or existed in the nature of God before
creation itself.

To put all of this in simpler terms, there was no point in time when the Word didn’t
exist with the Father and in the nature of God. Harris writes:

"… In itself John 1:1a speaks only of the pretemporality or supratemporality of the
Logos, but in his conjunction of en arche and een (not egeneto) John implies the
eternal preexistence of the Word. He who existed ‘in the beginning’ before
creation was himself without a beginning and therefore  uncreated. There was no time
when he did not exist. John is hinting that all speculation about the origin of the
Logos is pointless. The imperfect tense een (= Latin erat), which here denotes
continuous existence is to be carefully distinguished from esti (‘he is’), which would
have stressed his timelessness at the expense of any emphasis on his manifestation
historically (cf. 1:14), and from egeneto, which would have implied either that he was
a created being (‘he came into existence’) or that by the time of writing he had ceased
to exist (= Latin fuit)." (Harris, p. 54; italic and underline emphasis ours)
And:

"… In the first proposition of verse 1 John affirms that the Logos existed before time
and creation and therefore implicitly denies that the Logos was a created being. In the
second, he declares that the Logos always was in active communion with the Father
and thereby implies that the Logos cannot be personally identified with the Father. In
the third, he states that the Logos always was a partaker of deity and so implicitly
denies that the Logos was ever elevated to divine status. The thought of the verse
moves from eternal preexistence to personal communion to intrinsic deity… only
because the Logos participated inherently in the divine nature could he be said to be
already in existence when time began or creation occurred and to be in unbroken and
eternal fellowship with the Father. This would justify regarding theos as emphatic,
standing as it does at the head of its clause. (Harris, Jesus as God, p. 71; italic and
underline emphasis ours)

Moreover, John in 1:3 and 10 states that the Word is the Agent who made all things
(by all things John means all created things). Not only does this prove that the Word is
eternal, since he existed before creation came into being, but this also indicates that he
is the Maker of every created thing. Yet to be the One who brought all creation into
being proves beyond any reasonable doubt that John believed that the Word was God
in the fullest and absolute sense of the term.

This becomes all the more evident when we read such statements in light of the OT
Scriptures which emphatically teach that Yahweh alone created everything:

"He ALONE stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea. He is the
Maker of the Bear and Orion, the Pleiades and the constellations of the south." Job 9:8

"This is what the LORD says— your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am
the LORD, who has made all things, who ALONE stretched out the heavens, who
spread out the earth by MYSELF," Isaiah 44:24

"It is I who made the earth and created mankind upon it. My own hands stretched out
the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts… For this is what the LORD says— he
who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he
founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited— he says: ‘I
am the LORD, and there is no other.’" Isaiah 45:12, 18

Hence, if Yahweh is the sole Creator and yet John says that the Word (who is the Lord
Jesus in his prehuman existence) fashioned and made every created thing then this
implies that John believed that the Word who became flesh is none other than Yahweh
God. Note the logic behind this argument:
 A. Yahweh alone created all things (cf. Job 9:8; Isa. 44:24).
B. Christ as the preincarnate Word created all things (John 1:1-3, 10, 14).
C. Therefore, Christ the Word is Yahweh God.

Here is another way of putting it:

A. Yahweh is the only one who made all creation.

B. Christ as the preincarnate Word made all creation.
C. Therefore, Christ the Word is Yahweh God.

At the same time John says that even before creation the Word was having fellowship
with God the Father. And yet John taught that there is only one God! (Cf. John 5:44,
17:3)

All of these factors lead us to the conclusion that John clearly believed that the one
eternal God exists as a multi-Personal Being. The fourth Evangelist (as he is
sometimes called) was proclaiming the revealed truth that the eternal Being of the
Godhead is so infinitely complex that there is actually more than one Person who
exists as this one true God, namely, the Father and the Son (along with the Holy
Spirit).

Mr. Saifuddin sits in judgment on all Christian translators by impugning their integrity
and calling into question their translation skills:

However we find that Christendom tries to put a veil over this problem in the Bible
and all of them falsely translate the verses in a way to imply by hook or crook that the
Word was also God.

Such bold talk from one who, as we have seen, really doesn’t understand the issues
involved regarding the proper translation of John 1:1.

We conclude our discussion by adapting and modifying Mr. Saifuddin’s closing

statements.

Conclusion

The Muslim world has been trying hard (but failing every time) to obscure the correct
meaning of John 1:1 since this is one of the clearest and more explicit passages
supporting the absolute Deity and eternal Personhood of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Muslims also want people to erroneously believe that the only verse that comes
closest to establishing the doctrine of the blessed Trinity is 1 John 5:7, a passage
which many Biblical scholars believe to be a later interpolation by a copyist.
However, such is not the case since the teaching of the Trinity is based on the overall
teachings of the Holy Bible, and not on some isolated and scattered references that are
found here and there. In fact, what we find is that as more investigations are made into
the Greek texts of the New Testament the Deity of Christ becomes more firmly
established (http://deityofchrist.com/). Muslims must therefore realize that Christians
clearly see through their petty attempts of distorting the message of God’s preserved
Word, the Holy Bible, and will not put up with the games that their apologists and
polemicists try to play with the inspired text of Holy Scripture.

Moreover, it is an undeniable fact that the textual tradition of the Holy Bible
demonstrates that God has preserved his Word so that Christians can be certain that
what they are reading today is the very message which the original authors of
Scripture wrote down by inspiration. We therefore invite our Muslim friends to
abandon their false prophet and their false book, which has been corrupted over time
(*), and embrace the teachings of God’s Word found only in the Old and New
Testaments.

Further Reading

http://www.aomin.org/JOHN1_1.html
http://forananswer.org/John/Jn1_1.htm
http://forananswer.org/Top_JW/Scholars%20and%20NWT.htm
http://forananswer.org/Top_Uni/ECF_Jn1_1.htm
http://forananswer.org/Top_JW/ScholarsAndCopticJohn.htm
http://forananswer.blogspot.com/2006/10/john-11-in-sahidic-coptic-translation.html
http://forananswer.blogspot.com/2006/10/hoskyns-and-coptic-john-11.html
http://forananswer.org/Top_JW/JWs%20and%20Jn1_1.htm

Answers to 12 Anti-Trinitarian Arguments

Sam Shamoun

The following article is a response to a Muslim that issued the following 12 arguments
against the doctrine of the Trinity. Before responding, we would first like to define
what the historic Christian position of the Trinity is.
[ Remark: Originally I came across this article without indication regarding its author and I responded to it as such. I
have now found out, that the source is the book Jesus A Prophet of Islam by Muhammad `Ata ur-Rahim, and this
argument is also made online under the title John Biddle's "Twelve Arguments Refuting The Deity of the Holy
Spirit" by Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi (MENJ). Therefore we list the following article also within the MENJ
rebuttal section. ]

First, the Trinity entails believing in one and only one eternal, invisible, immaterial,
omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient Creator. Second, the doctrine of the Trinity
also entails believing that there are three eternally distinct yet inseparable Persons
who do not act independently from the others, but in perfect unity. The three Persons
of the Godhead do not function separately and apart from the other members. Rather,
they always work in perfect harmony. Hence, historic Trinitarianism does not teach
that the three distinct Persons seek out their own personal initiatives since to do so
would destroy the perfect and inseparable unity of the Godhead.

Furthermore, by the term "Person" we mean that the three members of the Godhead
are conscious agents who are aware of their own personal existence as well as the
existence of the others. Because of this, the three Persons are able to have intimate
communion and fellowship amongst themselves. By the use of the term "Person" we
do not mean to imply that there are three material entities that occupy space or exist
within time.

Finally, the historic Christian position on Jesus Christ is that he is one divine eternal
Person having two distinct natures and wills. Jesus Christ is the God-man
(theanthropos), perfect God and perfect man united in one Person.

With this just stated we now proceed to the 12 arguments:

1) Whoever is distinguished from GOD is not GOD.

Response:

This is faulty logic since it assumes several things. It first assumes that the term "God"
has only one referent, namely the Father. Yet, this fails to take into consideration that
the term "God" has different referents in different contexts. Cf. John 1:1, 20:28; Acts
5:3-4; Romans 9:5; Hebrews 1:8-9; 1 John 5:20; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1

Second, it assumes that only one Person shares the eternal Being of God, i.e. the
Father. Hence, anytime Scripture distinguishes between the Father and the Son or the
Holy Spirit it is therefore assumed that neither the Son nor the Spirit can be God since
the Father alone is God. Yet, this begs the question since the Holy Bible testifies to
the absolute Deity of all three Persons.

Third, it assumes that whenever Scripture distinguishes between the persons of the
Godhead, this is interpreted to mean a distinction of Being as opposed to Person. Yet,
the Scripture is not distinguishing between the nature or Being of the three Persons of
the Godhead. Rather, it is distinguishing amongst the three Persons that coexist within
the Being of the one true God.

2) He who gave the Holy Spirit to the Israelites is Jehovah alone, therefore
Holy Spirit is not Jehovah.

Response:

This again assumes that Jehovah is only one Person so that whenever it speaks of
Jehovah sending the Spirit, the Spirit therefore cannot be Jehovah. This again begs the
question since it assumes that Jehovah is not a tri-personal Being.

The fact is that the name Jehovah or God can refer to the Father, the Son or the Holy
Spirit. Here are some examples where the term Jehovah or God is used in reference to
the Holy Spirit:

"The Spirit of the LORD spoke through me; his word was on my tongue. The
God of Israel spoke, the Rock of Israel said to me: 'When one rules over men
in righteousness, when he rules in the fear of God," 2 Samuel 23:2-3

David equates the Spirit speaking with him as God speaking to him.

"Then Peter said, 'Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that
you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money
you received for the land? Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after
it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing
such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God." Acts 5:3-4

Lying to the Holy Spirit is the same as lying to God.

"Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is
freedom. And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are
being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes
from the Lord, who is the Spirit." 2 Corinthians 3:17-18

The Oxford Study Bible translates this passage in the following manner:

"Now the Lord of whom this passage speaks is the Spirit..."

The Greek word "Lord" is Kurios. This was the term used by the translators of the
Septuagint in translating the word Jehovah into the Greek language. Therefore, for
Paul to call the Spirit Lord is equivalent to claiming that the Holy Spirit is Jehovah
God!

Interestingly, the Jehovah Witnesses' official Bible translation, the New World
Translation understands the Greek word Kurios to mean Jehovah:

Now Jehovah is the Spirit; and where the spirit of Jehovah is there is

freedom. And all of us, while we reflect like mirrors the glory of Jehovah, are
transformed from glory to glory, exactly as done by Jehovah [the] Spirit. NWT

Hence, even a non-Trinitarian cult realizes that to say that the Spirit is Lord means
that the Spirit is actually Jehovah God!

In light of the preceding factors the passage clearly states that the Holy Spirit is the
Lord/Jehovah. Yet, at the same time the Spirit is seen as a distinct Person from the
Lord (i.e. "the Spirit of the Lord"). This passage therefore affirms both the deity of the
Holy Spirit as well as the multi-personal nature of God.

Other passages where Jehovah is used in reference to more than one person includes:

Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah - from

the LORD out of the heavens. Genesis 19:24

Jehovah is said to bring fire down from another who is said to be Jehovah in heaven.
Hence, we find two distinct Persons identified as the one true God Jehovah.

Gomer conceived again and gave birth to a daughter. Then the LORD said to
Hosea, "Call her Lo-Ruhamah, for I will no longer show love to the house of
Israel, that I should at all forgive them. Yet I will show love to the house of
Judah; and I will save them - not by bow, sword or battle, or by horses and
horsemen, but by the LORD their God." Hosea 1:6-7

Jehovah speaking to Hosea claims that he will save the house of Judah by Jehovah
their God, clearly distinguishing between two Persons as the one true God.

The LORD has a charge to bring against Judah; he will punish Jacob according
to his ways and repay him according to his deeds. In the womb he grasped his
brother's heel; as a man he struggled with GOD. He struggled with THE
 ANGEL and overcame him; he wept and begged for his favor. He found him at
Bethel and talked with him there - the LORD God Almighty, the LORD is his
name of renown! Hosea 12:2-5

The God with whom Jacob struggled was actually the Angel of Jehovah. This passage
is therefore identifying the Angel as Jehovah God.

For this is what the LORD Almighty says: "After he has honored me and has
sent me against the nations that have plundered you - for whoever touches
you touches the apple of his eye - I will surely raise my hand against them so
that their slaves will plunder them. Then you will know that the LORD
Almighty has sent me. Shout and be glad, O Daughter of Zion. For I am
coming, and I will live among you," declares the LORD. "Many nations will be
joined with the LORD in that day and will become my people. I will live among
you and you will know that the LORD Almighty has sent me to you."
Zechariah 2:8-11

Jehovah states that he is coming to dwell in Jerusalem and that the people will then
know that it is Jehovah who sent him.

Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the
LORD, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him. The LORD said to
Satan, "The LORD rebuke you, Satan! The LORD, who has chosen Jerusalem,
rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?" Zechariah
3:1-2

The Angel who is said to be Jehovah rebukes Satan by Jehovah. Again, we have two
distinct Persons identified as the one true God Jehovah.

These passages should put to rest the notion that Jehovah is uni-personal as opposed
to being multi-personal.

3) Whoever does not speak of his own accord is not God (Holy Spirit and
"Jesus" did not speak of their own accord.)

Response:

First, this again assumes that God is a singularity within unity, one Person and one
Being.
Second, this assumes that in order for Trinitarianism to be true the three Persons must
speak or act on their own initiative. This shows a gross misunderstanding of the
Trinity since the three Persons do nothing independently, but in perfect unity and
agreement. Hence, statements like the above only reinforce the belief that this one
God exists as three Persons who work in perfect accord.

In fact, Jesus in John 5 makes precisely the same point:

Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by
himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the
Father does the Son also does. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all
he does. Yes, to your amazement he will show him even greater things than
these. For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the
Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. Moreover, the Father judges
no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son
just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor
the Father, who sent him. I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and
believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has
crossed over from death to life. I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has
now come when the dead will hear THE VOICE OF THE SON OF GOD and
those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has
granted the Son to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to
judge because he is the Son of Man. Do not be amazed at this, for a time is
coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out -
those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will
rise to be condemned." John 5:19-29

This passage clearly shows that Christ and the Father are the one God since Christ
does the works that God alone can do. It also demonstrates that the distinct Persons of
the Godhead work in perfect unity and harmony, never independently.

4) Whoever is taught is not God, or, is told what to say by another ("Jesus"
speaks what he is told John 8:26)

Response:

Being told what to say or taught implies personal distinctions, that the Father and Son
are distinct Persons. This is precisely what the Trinity teaches. Since they are distinct
Persons they can communicate and have fellowship amongst themselves. This
communication and fellowship is eternal since all three Persons have coexisted
together from eternity as the One God. Cf. John 1:1-3; 8:23-24, 56-59; 17:5; Hebrews
9:14

Secondly, we must notice when this teaching between the Father and Son actually
takes place:

So Jesus said, When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will
know that I AM and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the
Father has taught me. John 8:28

Notice that in this passage Christ affirms both his Deity (the use of the Divine name of
God "I AM") and the perfect unity between the members of the Godhead, i.e. "and
that I do nothing on my own."

"Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar
like you, but I do know him AND KEEP HIS WORD. Your father Abraham
rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad." "You are
not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I AM!" At
this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away
from the temple grounds. John 8:55-59

Jesus again points to his perfect Deity and Divine preexistence as well as the perfect
unity of the Godhead.

And Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in Me, does not believe in Me
but in Him who sent Me. He who sees Me sees the One who sent Me. I have
come as Light into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not
remain in darkness. If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do
not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.
He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him;
the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day. For I did not speak on
My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a
commandment as to what to say and what to speak. I know that His
commandment is eternal life; therefore the things I speak, I speak just as the
Father has told Me." John 12:44-50 NASB
Once again Jesus emphasizes both his Deity and the perfect inseparable unity that
exists amongst the three members of the Godhead. These passages also refer to
Christ's earthly ministry where he assumed the role of a servant. Therefore, Jesus is
using terminology suitable in highlighting his role as the Father's servant who
perfectly obeys his master's instructions.

Far from disproving our position, these passages serve to reinforce the historic
Christian understanding of the Trinity.

5) He that receives from another is not God (John 16:14)

Response:

This again assumes Unitarianism, namely that there is only one Person who is God.

Secondly, these passages demonstrate that the one who receives and the one who
gives are DISTINCT PERSONS, which again is precisely what the doctrine of the
Trinity teaches. The context of this specific passage demonstrates the distinction of
Persons within the Godhead - Jesus, the Holy Spirit and the Father. Since Trinitarians
do not believe that Jesus is the same PERSON as the Father or that the Father is the
Holy Spirit we really do not see how this passage supposedly refutes our position.

6) He that is sent by another is not God (e.g. both "Jesus" and the Holy Spirit
are SENT by God)

Response:

This again demonstrates faulty logic. This argument actually establishes the
Trinitarian view, namely that one who is sent cannot be THE SAME PERSON AS
THE ONE WHO SENT HIM. Therefore, this is a straw man argument since it either
misrepresents or misunderstands what the actual doctrine of the Trinity teaches.

7) Whoever is not the giver of all things is not God. Whoever is a gift of God
is not the giver of ALL things. Whoever is a gift of God is himself given, the
gift is within the power of giver. God can never be within the power of
another (Acts 17:25)

Response:

Let us first quote the context of Acts 17:

 "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and
earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by
human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life
and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men,
that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for
them and the exact places where they should live." Acts 17:24-26

The passage speaks of God's role as Creator and Sustainer, that God creates and
provides for all mankind. Let us see if whether the God that made and sustains
creation is uni-personal or tri-personal:

Jehovah is said to be the Creator and Sustainer of all things:

He ALONE stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea. He is
the Maker of the Bear and Orion, the Pleiades and the constellations of the
south. Job 9:8-9

This is what the LORD says - your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I
am the LORD, who has made all things, who ALONE stretched out the
heavens, who spread out the earth by MYSELF, Isaiah 44:24

But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes
and rushed out into the crowd, shouting: "Men, why are you doing this? We too
are only men, human like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to
turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made heaven and
earth and sea and everything in them. In the past, he let all nations go their
own way. Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown
kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he
provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy." Acts 14:14-
17

The Son is said to be the Creator and Sustainer of all things:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were
made; without him nothing was made that has been made... He was in the
world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not
recognize him... The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.
We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the
Father, full of grace and truth." John 1:1-3, 10, 14
 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For BY
HIM all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and
invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; ALL THINGS
WERE CREATED BY HIM AND FOR HIM. He is before all things, AND
IN HIM ALL THINGS HOLD TOGETHER. And he is the head of the
body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so
that in everything he might have the supremacy. Colossians 1:15-18

In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and
in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he
appointed heir of all things, AND THROUGH WHOM HE MADE THE
UNIVERSE. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact
representation of his being, SUSTAINING ALL THINGS BY HIS
POWERFUL WORD. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down
at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven... But about the Son he says... "In
the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the
heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they
will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe; like a
garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will
never end." Hebrews 1:1-3, 8a, 10-12

Jesus has been found worthy of greater honor than Moses, just as the builder
of a house has greater honor than the house itself. For every house is built
by someone, but God is the builder of everything. Hebrews 3:3-4

Write this to the angel of the church people in Laodicea: Here are the words of
the one whose name is Truth. What he says can be trusted. He is the one who
began all that God made. Revelation 3:14 Worldwide English Translation NT
only (WE)

The Holy Spirit is said to be the Creator and Sustainer of all things:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was
formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit
of God was hovering over the waters. Genesis 1:1-2

The Spirit of God has made me; the breath of the Almighty gives me life. Job
33:4

When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the
earth. Psalm 104:30
 The fortress will be abandoned, the noisy city deserted; citadel and watchtower
will become a wasteland forever, the delight of donkeys, a pasture for
flocks, till the Spirit is poured upon us from on high, and the desert
becomes a fertile field, and the fertile field seems like a forest. Isaiah 32:14-
15

Look in the scroll of the LORD and read: None of these will be missing, not
one will lack her mate. For it is his mouth that has given the order, and his
Spirit will gather them together. He allots their portions; his hand
distributes them by measure. They will possess it forever and dwell there
from generation to generation. Isaiah 34:16-17

And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who
raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through
his Spirit, who lives in you. Romans 8:11

God is said to be the Giver of gifts:

And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets,

third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing,
those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those
speaking in different kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are
all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in
tongues? Do all interpret? But eagerly desire the greater gifts. And now I will
show you the most excellent way. 1 Corinthians 12:28-31

The Son is said to be the Giver of gifts:

But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend
yourselves. For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your
adversaries will be able to resist or contradict. Luke 21:14-15

"Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it
must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.
I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he
will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing." John 15:4-5

But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. This is
why it says: "When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave
gifts to men." (What does "he ascended" mean except that he also descended to
the lower, earthly regions? He who descended is the very one who ascended
 higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.) It was HE who
gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and
some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of
service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the
faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to
the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. Ephesians 4:7-13

And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge
and depth of insight, so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be
pure and blameless until the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of
righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ - to the glory and praise of
God. Philippians 1:9-11

The Holy Spirit is said to be the Giver of Gifts:

Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.
To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another
the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by
the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another
miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between
spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another
the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same
Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines. 1 Corinthians
12:7-11

All three Persons together are said to be the Giver of Gifts:

There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different kinds
of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but the
same God works all of them in all men. 1 Corinthians 12:4-6

The Holy Bible also states that the Father and Son share all things in common, with
the Holy Spirit apportioning the things of God to believers:

"All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son
except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to
whom the Son chooses to reveal him." Matthew 11:27

He then began to speak to them in parables: "A man planted a vineyard. He put
a wall around it, dug a pit for the winepress and built a watchtower. Then he
 rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. At harvest
time he sent a servant to the tenants to collect from them some of the fruit of
the vineyard. But they seized him, beat him and sent him away empty-handed.
Then he sent another servant to them; they struck this man on the head and
treated him shamefully. He sent still another, and that one they killed. He sent
many others; some of them they beat, others they killed. He had one left to
send, a son, whom he loved. He sent him last of all, saying, 'They will respect
my son.' But the tenants said to one another, 'THIS IS THE HEIR. Come, let's
kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.' So they took him and killed him,
and threw him out of the vineyard." Mark 12:1-8

Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he
had come from God and was returning to God; John 13:3

"But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He
will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell
you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is
mine and making it known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine.
That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known
to you." John 16:13-15

"All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me
through them." John 17:10

However, as it is written: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has
conceived what God has prepared for those who love him" but God has
revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep
things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the
man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God
except the Spirit of God. 1 Corinthians 2:9-11

"... but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, WHOM HE

APPOINTED HEIR OF ALL THINGS, and through whom he made the
universe." Hebrews 1:2

Hopefully, this should sufficiently answer the allegation.

8) Whoever changes place is not God. The Holy Spirit changes places
therefore he is not God (if God were to change places then he would cease
to be where he was before and begin to be where he was not before - which
would be a contradiction of his attribute of being omnipresent, and
 therefore of his deity. Therefore it could not have been God who came to
"Jesus", but an angel who appeared as a person in the name of God)

Response:

This commits the fallacy of false dilemma as well as the fallacy of equivocation. It
assumes that God must be immobile in order to be immutable. God is immutable in
relation to his nature and being, yet God is not immobile since God is able to manifest
his presence locally without this nullifying his omnipresence.

Hence, the Holy Spirit changing places refer to a localized manifestation of God's
presence through his Spirit. The Holy Bible clearly teaches that the Holy Spirit is
present everywhere and can dwell and fill groups of individuals while also appearing
at specific points at the same time. Cf. Psalm 139:7-12; John 14:16-17, 26; Acts 2:1-4;
1 Corinthians 3:16; 6:19. If this is not omnipresence I don't know what is!

Second, this argument cuts both ways. The Quran teaches that Allah actually changes
places and moves:

Nay! When the earth is pounded by power, AND THY LORD COMETH, and His
angels, rank upon rank, and Hell, that Day, is brought face to face - On that
Day will man remember, but how will that remembrance profit him? S. 89:21-
23

"He it is who created the heavens and the earth in six days; then He mounted
the throne." S. 57:4 - M. M. Pickthall English Translation

Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle (p.b.u.h) said, "Our Lord, the Blessed,
the Superior, comes every night down on the nearest Heaven to us when
the last third of the night remains, saying: "Is there anyone to invoke Me, so
that I may respond to invocation? Is there anyone to ask Me, so that I may grant
him his request? Is there anyone seeking My forgiveness, so that I may forgive
him?" (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Number 246)

The following hadith is taken from Al-Ahadith Al-Qudsiyyah - Divine

Narratives translated by Dr. Abdul Khaliq Kazi & Dr. Alan B. Day, published by Dar
Al Kitab Arabi - USA, 1995:

Hadith 134:
 Jabir b. Abdullah narrated that the Prophet said: Whilst the people of Paradise
were enjoying their blissful state, a light will appear above them. They will
raise their heads and lo! The Lord has risen above them and would
say: Peace be upon you, O people of Paradise! That would be in accordance
with the Qur'anic verse "Peace! A word from the Merciful Lord" (Qur'an:
36:58). The Prophet said: Then Allah would look at them and the people will
look at Him, and they will not be distracted by the joys of Paradise as long as
they were looking at Him, until Allah became veiled from them. His Light
and Blessing over them will remain in their dwellings. [Ibn Majah] (p. 191)

Therefore, using the above logic we are forced to conclude that Allah is not God since
he moves from place to place.

Finally, seeing that omnipresence is used as proof for Deity this serves to establish the
Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ since he is also omnipresent. Cf. Matthew 18:20; 28:20;
John 14:21, 23; Ephesians 1:22-23; 4:7-10; Colossians 3:11

9) Whoever prays to "Jesus" to come to judgement is not God. The Holy

Spirit does this so he is not God

Response:

This again entails circular reasoning since it assumes what is yet to be proven, namely
that God is uni-personal. The objector then proceeds to read this unproven assumption
into the text. It is therefore not surprising that the objector ends up concluding that the
Holy Spirit cannot be God since he is seen praying to the Father. This is a classic case
of eisegesis, allowing one's presuppositions to determine the meaning of the text as
opposed to allowing the text to determine one's belief.

In actuality, the Trinity teaches that the three Persons are distinct which allows for
communion and dialogue amongst themselves.

Furthermore, this argument cuts both ways and ends up proving that Allah cannot be
God. The Quran claims that Allah actually prays:

He it is who sends prayers on you (Arabic- yusallii alaykum), as do His angels...

Sura 33:43

Allah and His angels pray for the Prophet (Arabic- yasalluuna alan-Nabiyy):

O ye that believe pray for him (salluu 'alayhi), and salute him with all respect.
Sura 33:56
Since a Being that is a singularity-within-unity cannot pray (since if he did who would
he be addressing when praying?), many translations obscure the meaning of the
Arabic by inserting the word "blessing" as opposed to saying "pray". Yet the term for
blessing is derived from "baraka" which does not appear in the above citations.

In fact, Sura 33:56 is interpreted by the Muslim scholar Al-Najjary as:

The prayers of Allah are His praises for Muhammad among the angels, and the
prayers of the angels are their prayers for Muhammad, and the [angels]
praying is their blessings. The prayers of Allah are mercy, and the prayers of
the angels is to ask forgiveness [for Muhammad].

Ibn 'Abbas says:

"The tribe of Israel said to Moses: ‘Does your God pray?’ God called upon him
and said: ‘Yes, I do pray, and my angels [pray] upon my prophets’, and Allah
then sent down this verse: ‘Allah and His angels pray ...’" [quoted by Ibn
Katheer on Surat Al-Ahzaab 33:56]

In fact, the very word salli is used elswhere in relation to Muhammad praying for
others:

Take alms of their wealth, wherewith thou mayst purify them and mayst make
them grow, and pray for them (wa salli alayhim). Lo! thy prayer (salataka) is
an assuagement for them. Allah is Hearer, Knower. S. 9:103 Pickthall

Perhaps the objector can explain this for us.

10) He who is told by God through an intermediary what he is to say i.e.

"Jesus" has an understanding distinct from God therefore "Jesus" is not God.

Response:

Again, this assumes that the Being of God only encompasses one Person as opposed
to encompassing the three Persons. Furthermore, the Holy Bible uses the term God in
different contexts to refer to different things and persons. See above for references.
All this statement proves is that the Father and Son are distinct Persons not
distinct Beings. Their Persons are distinct, yet their Being is the same.
Finally, this fails to take into consideration that Jesus is God as well as man.
Therefore, Christ had and continues to have both a divine and human consciousness.
In his divine consciousness, he is all-knowing and immutable. Cf. Luke 10:22; John
1:45-49; 2:23-25; 16:30-31; 21:17; 1 Corinthians 1:24, 30; 4:4-5; Colossians 2:2-3;
Hebrews 1:10-12; 13:8; Revelation 2:23; Jeremiah 17:10

Yet, as man his knowledge was finite and mutable; Mark 13:32; Luke 2:40, 52

11) Whoever hears from God and what he i.e. "Jesus" is to say is taught by
God. The Holy Spirit does so.

Response:

We have answered this already. See our response to # 4.

12) Whoever has a will distinct from God is not God the holy spirit has a will
which is distinct from the will of God (Romans 8:26-27) and whoever follows
the will of God i.e. "Jesus" is NOT God (BECAUSE THEY ARE INSEPERABLE!
(according to you and Athanasius)

Response:

Correction. That the three Persons all have will demonstrates that they are PERSONS,
not mere abstract forces. Therefore, this argument only proves that the Holy Spirit is a
Person and not just a force since he is said to have a will.

Furthermore, the term "will" does not appear in Romans 8:26-27. Rather, we find the
term used in 1 Corinthians 12:

Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.
To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another
the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by
the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another
miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between
spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another
the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same
Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines. 1 Corinthians
12:7-11
This passage affirms that the Holy Spirit is God, the third Person of the Trinity. This
is due to the fact that the Holy Spirit is able to empower and equip all Christian
believers with the gifts of God. The only way for the Spirit to be able to do so is if he
is all-powerful, all knowing and ever present. Furthermore, this passage also
demonstrates the Holy Spirit's sovereignty since he gives gifts to whomever he is
pleased to give it to. In other words, the Holy Spirit is free to do as he wills with any
believer as the Spirit sees fit. Therefore, this proves that the Holy Spirit is the
Sovereign Lord of all creation.

Finally, that Christ seeks to fulfill the Father's will and not his own affirms a) that the
Father and Son are distinct Persons, b) that the Father and Son are not mere abstract
forces but intelligent and conscious agents and c) that the Son is in perfect union with
the Father and therefore seeks to fulfill the latter’s will.

This ends our rebuttal. We pray that the God and Father of our risen Lord and Savior
Jesus Christ grant all who read this paper the grace of his Holy Spirit to believe in
him. Jesus is Lord forever!

"60 Questions For The Christians" Answered

Part 1: Trinity

By Sam Shamoun

Some years ago, Alharamain Foundation published "60 Question for the Christians",

an article designed to raise doubts in the Christian Faith. This article has been spread
widely and is found on several Muslim websites (1, 2, 3, to list just a few). In the
following, we want to give answers to those supposedly difficult questions.

TRINITY
According to most Christians, Jesus was God incarnate, full man and full God. Can
the finite and the infinite be one? "To be full" God means freedom from finite forms
and from helplessness, and to be "full man" means the absence of divinity.

Answer:

The questioner commits a categorical fallacy and attacks a strawman. Historic

Christianity has never taught that God at the Incarnation became finite, or that God
became helpless. Informed Christians do not claim that the infinite and the finite
became one, but rather that the infinite and finite were united in the one Person of the
Lord Jesus Christ. Christ was both God and man simultaneously without these natures
fusing or mixing together. These two natures always remain distinct.

Question 1. To be son is to be less than divine and to be divine is to be no one’s son.

How could Jesus have the attributes of sonship and divinity altogether?

Answer:

The questioner assumes that the term "son" carries only one meaning. This fails to
take into consideration that the term son has a broad range of meanings throughout the
Holy Bible. The Holy Bible often uses the term "son" in a spiritual and metaphorical
manner. (Cf. Hosea 1:10; John 1:12-13; Galatians 4:4-7; 1 John 3:1-2, 9-10; 4:4-7;
5:1-2, 18-19)

Scripture also uses the term to describe the nature, position, status and/or class of
being that a specific person or group shares. When the phrase "son of" is used it often,
but not always, implies membership and/ or participation in a specific class. Several
examples help demonstrate this point:

"When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to
them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married
any of them they chose… The Nephilim were on the earth in those days-and also
afterward-when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by
them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown." Genesis 6:1-2, 4 (Cf. Job 1:6,
2:1, 38:7)

Many ancient and modern translations understand the preceding verses to be referring
to supernatural angelic beings:

"supernatural beings" TEV1, CEV

"heavenly beings" TEV2, New Jewish P.S.,
"angels" LXX Codex Alexandrinus, Moffatt
"sons of heaven" NAB

This being the case the phrase "sons of God" as used of angels points to their status as
heavenly creatures, spirit beings who originate from heaven, belonging to the spiritual
realm where God dwells as opposed to humans who are of earthly origin, from dust.
(Cf. Genesis 2:7; 3:19)
"While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men (lit., sons of Belial) of
the city surrounded the house…" Judges 19:22

"Eli’s sons were wicked men (lit., sons of Belial); they had no regard for the LORD."
1 Samuel 2:12

According to the New Testament, Belial or Baal is another name for Satan. (Cf.
Matthew 12:24-27; 2 Corinthians 6:15) The phrase "sons of Belial" refers to
individuals who were evil and wicked, qualities associated with Satan. In other words,
these individuals were wicked and therefore belonged to the Devil. The Lord Jesus
made a similar point when addressing the unbelieving Jews of his day:

"You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out YOUR
FATHER’S DESIRES. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the
truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he
is a liar and the father of lies." John 8:44

Other examples include:

"By the word of the LORD one of the sons of the prophets said to his companion,
‘Strike me with your weapon,’ but the man refused." 1 Kings 20:35

To be called a son of the prophets meant that one belonged to the class of prophets
and was therefore a prophet.

"So the sons of the singers were assembled from the district around Jerusalem, and
from the villages of the Netophathites," Nehemiah 12:28 NASB

Again, to be called a son of the singers meant that one belonged to the class of singers
and was therefore a singer.

Similarly, Jesus is called the unique Son of God because he shares in the nature of
God. Jesus belongs to that class of being and existence that is true of God alone.
Therefore, for Jesus to be God’s Son means that Jesus is truly and fully divine much
like Jesus’ use of the Son of Man meant that Christ was truly and fully human.

Question 2. Christians assert that Jesus claimed to be God when they quote him in
John 14:9: "He that has seen me has seen the Father". Didn’t Jesus clearly say that
people have never seen God, as it says in John 5:37: "And the father himself which
Has sent me, has borne witness of me. You have NEITHER HEARD HIS VOICE AT
ANY TIME NOR SEEN HIS SHAPE"?

Answer:

The questioner has falsely assumed that to say that Jesus is God is equivalent to
saying that Jesus is the Father. The questioner has assumed his conclusion from the
outset, namely that God is a uni-personal Being as opposed to being tri-personal.
Therefore, the questioner has presumed that anytime Jesus or the New Testament
claims that Jesus is God implies that Jesus is the Father.

Yet the doctrine of the Trinity entails that there are three distinct Persons who are the
one God. The Persons are equal in nature and essence, not in Person. They are
distinct. The passage alluded to above states that the group that Jesus was addressing
had never seen God THE FATHER. The passage is not stating that no one has ever
seen GOD. The New Testament clearly teaches that Jesus is God revealed in visible
form:

"No one has ever seen GOD, but God the One and Only (i.e. Jesus), who is at THE
FATHER’S SIDE, has made HIM known." John 1:18

"And THE FATHER who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have
never heard HIS voice nor seen HIS form, nor does his word dwell in you, for you do
not believe the one HE sent." John 5:37-38

The Holy Bible clearly teaches that no one has seen or is able to see the Father in his
unveiled essential glory and nature:

"to keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus
Christ, which God will bring about in his own time-God, the blessed and only Ruler,
the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in
unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might
forever. Amen." 1 Timothy 6:14-16

Yet Christ claims that he has seen God. Christ also claims to fully and perfectly know
the Father in the very same manner that the Father knows the Son:

"No one has seen THE FATHER except the one who is from God (i.e., Jesus); only
he has seen THE FATHER." John 6:46
"All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except
the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the
Son chooses to reveal him." Matthew 11:27

This makes Christ more than human since no mere human can see or fully
comprehend the person and nature of the Father.

The reason why Christ can claim to have seen and know the Father is because Christ
himself is in very nature God, being the very precise image and exact representation
of the Father’s character and essence:

"The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the
light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not
preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus'
sake. For God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ made his light shine in our
hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of
Christ." 2 Corinthians 4:4-6

"Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature
God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself
nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being
found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-
even death on a cross!" Philippians 2:5-8

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation." Colossians
1:15

"For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form," Colossians 2:9

"but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all
things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of
God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his
powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right
hand of the Majesty in heaven." Hebrews 1:2-3

This is precisely why Christ could say that he who sees him sees the Father:

"And Jesus cried out and said, ‘He who believes in me, believes not in me but in him
who sent me. And he who sees me sees him who sent me.’" John 12:44-45

"Philip said, ‘Lord show us the Father and that will be enough for us.’ Jesus answered:
‘Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long
time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, "Show us
the Father"? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me? The
words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me who is
doing his work.’" John 14:8-10

Since Christ is equal to the Father is in essence and nature, having all the attributes of
God perfectly and completely, he alone perfectly reveals God to man. It does not
mean that Christ is the Father, but that he alone is able to reveal the Father completely
since he is the exact representation and reflection of the Father’s nature and glory,
being God in physical form. Hence, what the Father is invisibly, Christ is visibly.

Question 3. Christians say that Jesus was God because he was called Son of God, Son
of Man, Messiah, and "savior". Ezekiel was addressed in the Bible as Son of Man.
Jesus spoke of "the peace makers" as Sons of God. Any person who followed the Will
and Plan of God was called SON OF GOD in the Jewish tradition and in their
language (Genesis 6:2,4; Exodus 4:22; Psalm 2:7; Romans 8:14). "Messiah" which in
Hebrew means "God’s anointed" and not "Christ", and "Cyrus" the person is called
"Messiah" or "the anointed". As for "savior", in II KINGS 13:5, other individuals
were given that title too without being gods. So where is the proof in these terms that
Jesus was God when the word son is not exclusively used for him alone?

Answer:

The questioner commits the fallacy of false analogy and the fallacy of equivocation.
The questioner does not take into consideration that various titles may have different
meanings depending upon the context. For example, the use of "son of man" in
reference to Ezekiel is to highlight his humanity and mortality. Yet Jesus is identified
as the heavenly Son of Man of Daniel’s vision, the One who is given sovereign rule
over all flesh and who receives an eternal kingdom:

"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man,
coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led
into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples,
nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an
everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will
never be destroyed." Daniel 7:13-14

Now compare the above citation with Jesus’ "Son of Man" statements:
"For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and
then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth,
some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man
coming in his kingdom." Matthew 16:27-28

"Peter answered him, ‘We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be
for us?' Jesus said to them, 'I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the
Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on
twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses
or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive
a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. But many who are first will be
last, and many who are last will be first.’" Matthew 19:27-30

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit
on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and
he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep
from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then
the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father;
take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.’"
Matthew 25:31-34

"Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been
given to me.’" Matthew 28:18

"If anyone is ashamed of ME and MY WORDS in this adulterous and sinful

generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's
glory with the holy angels." Mark 8:38

Therefore, the use of the title Son of Man in relation to Christ is to highlight his divine
authority and his sovereign rulership.

The title also serves to highlight Jesus’ humanity. The "Son of Man" is used to
demonstrate Christ’s willingness to become man in order to identify with the
humanity that he came to redeem:

"It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, about which we are
speaking. But there is a place where someone has testified: ‘What is man that you are
mindful of him, THE SON OF MAN that you care for him? You made him a little
lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory and honor and put
everything under his feet.’ In putting everything under him, God left nothing that is
not subject to him. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him. But we see
Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and
honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death
for everyone. In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and
through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect
through suffering. Both the one who makes men holy and those who are made
holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers. He says,
‘I will declare your name to my brothers; in the presence of the congregation I will
sing your praises.’ And again, ‘I will put my trust in him.’ And again he says, ‘Here
am I, and the children God has given me.’ Since the children have flesh and blood,
he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds
the power of death-that is, the devil-and free those who all their lives were held in
slavery by their fear of death. For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham's
descendants. For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in
order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and
that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself suffered
when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted." Hebrews 2:5-
18

In point of fact, Jesus uses the phrase "Son of Man" to denote both his divine
prerogatives and divine functions. For instance, Jesus as the Son of Man is the Lord of
the Sabbath (Matthew 12:8), forgives sins (Mark 2:1-12), judges all flesh (Matthew
25:31-46; John 5:27), and sits at God's right hand (Mark 14:62).

The same is true with the title son of God. Certain individuals are called "son of God"
either because they were part of God’s Covenant community and recipients of his
promises, they lived in submission to God’s decrees, and/or because of their personal
faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Yet Jesus is the divine preexistent Son of God, the One
through whom God made all things:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever
believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not SEND his Son
INTO the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever
believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned
already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." John
3:16-18

"‘Yes, Lord,’ she told him, ‘I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who
was to come INTO the world.’" John 11:27

"For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful
nature, God did by SENDING his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin
offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man," Romans 8:3
"But when the time had fully come, God SENT his Son, born of a woman, born
under law," Galatians 4:4

"For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the
kingdom of THE SON he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of
sins. HE is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by
HIM all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible,
whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by
HIM and for HIM. HE is before all things, and in HIM all things hold together.
And HE is the head of the body, the church; HE is the beginning and the firstborn
from among the dead, so that in everything HE might have the supremacy."
Colossians 1:13-18

"In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in
various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by HIS SON, whom he
appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. THE SON is
the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining
all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat
down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven." Hebrews 1:1-3

"But about THE SON he says… ‘In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the
foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will
perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up
like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your
years will never end.’" Hebrews 1:8a, 10-12

"This is how God showed his love among us: He SENT his one and only Son INTO
the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but
that he loved us and SENT his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins… And we
have seen and testify that the Father has SENT his Son to be the Savior of the
world. If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he
in God." 1 John 4:9-10, 14-15

Even though it is quite true that Cyrus is referred to as God’s Anointed, the Hebrew
Scriptures point to one Person in particular who was to be greater than all the rest.
This one would be the final and supremely anointed one of God and would be from
the house of David.

It should be pointed out that prophets, priests and kings were generally consecrated to
their respective positions by being anointed with God’s special oil prepared by the
priests. This anointing symbolized the person’s divine commission, that the individual
had been set apart and empowered by God to assume a specific role or position. (Cf.
Exodus 30:22-31; 1 Samuel 10:1, 16:12-13; Jeremiah 1:5)

This in a sense made them types of the Messiah that was to come into the world, since
the Messiah was to be a prophet, priest and king.

As prophet, the Messiah would deliver God’s words to the people:

"The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own
brothers. You must listen to him. For this is what you asked of the LORD your God at
Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, ‘Let us not hear the voice of the
LORD our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die.’ The LORD said to
me: ‘What they say is good. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among
their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I
command him. If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in
my name, I myself will call him to account.’" Deuteronomy 18:15-18

As priest, he would atone for sins and live forever to intercede for God’s people:

"The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘you are a priest forever after
the order of Melchizedek.’" Psalm 110:4

In fact, the OT teaches that the Messiah would usher in everlasting righteousness and
eradicate sin once and for all through his own death. The scriptures indicate that this
was take place before the destruction of the second temple:

"Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been
revealed? He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry
ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance
that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows,
and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was
despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he took up our infirmities and carried
our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and
afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our
iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his
wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to
his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was
oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to
the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his
mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his
descendants? FOR HE WAS CUT OFF FROM THE LAND OF THE LIVING;
for the transgression of my people he was stricken. He was assigned a grave with
the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was
any deceit in his mouth. Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him
to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his
offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his
hand. After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light [of life] and be satisfied;
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their
iniquities. Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the
spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was
numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made
intercession for the transgressors." Isaiah 53:1-12

"Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish
transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in
everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most
holy. Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree  to restore and rebuild
Jerusalem until the Anointed One (the Messiah), the ruler, comes, there will be
seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but
in times of trouble. After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One WILL BE CUT
OFF and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy
the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until
the end, and desolations have been decreed." Daniel 9:24-26

As king, he would reign over the nations forever:

"Why do the nations conspire, and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the Earth set
themselves, and the rulers take council together, against the LORD and His
Anointed (Messiah), saying, ‘Let us burst their bonds asunder, and cast their cords
from us.’ He who sits in the heavens laughs; The LORD has them in derision, then He
will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in His fury, saying, ‘I have set MY
KING on Zion, my holy hill.’ I will tell of the decree of the LORD; He said to me,
‘You are MY SON, today I have begotten you. Ask of me and I will make the
nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession. You shall break
them with a rod of iron, and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.’ Now therefore,
O kings, be wise, be warned o rulers of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, with
trembling kiss HIS SON, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way; For his wrath
is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in HIM." Psalm 2:1-11

And,

"The LORD says to my Lord: ‘Sit on my right hand, till I make your enemies your
footstool’." Psalm 110:1
These passages proclaim that this specific Messiah predicted to come would be the
Son of God, the King of all the nations who sits on God’s right hand forever, the
Eternal Priest of God, as well as God’s prophet/spokesperson to the people.

That Jesus is the one spoken of in these passages becomes quite clear when reading
the New Testament:

"In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named
Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of
David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And he came to her and said, 'Hail, O favored
one, the Lord is with you!' But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered
in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, 'Do not be
afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in
your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and
will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the
throne of his Father David, and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and
of His kingdom there will be no end." Luke 1:26-33

"Now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders. But this is
how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his
Christ would suffer. Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped
out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, and that he may send the
Christ, who has been appointed for you-even Jesus. He must remain in heaven until
the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his
holy prophets. For Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a
prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he
tells you. Anyone who does not listen to him will be completely cut off from
among his people.’ Indeed, all the prophets from Samuel on, as many as have spoken,
have foretold these days." Acts 3:17-24

"When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. ‘Sovereign
Lord,’ they said, ‘you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in
them. You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father
David: "Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the
earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the Lord and
against his Anointed One." Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with
the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy
servant Jesus, whom you anointed. They did what your power and will had decided
beforehand should happen." Acts 4:24-28

"But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to
which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes
through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have
sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through
the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of
atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice,
because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-he
did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who
justifies those who have faith in Jesus." Romans 3:21-26

"Every high priest is selected from among men and is appointed to represent them in
matters related to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. He is able to deal gently
with those who are ignorant and are going astray, since he himself is subject to
weakness. This is why he has to offer sacrifices for his own sins, as well as for the
sins of the people. No one takes this honor upon himself; he must be called by God,
just as Aaron was. So Christ also did not take upon himself the glory of becoming a
high priest. But God said to him, ‘You are my Son; today I have become your
Father.’ And he says in another place, ‘You are a priest forever, in the order of
Melchizedek.’ During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and
petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he
was heard because of his reverent submission. Although he was a son, he learned
obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the source of
eternal salvation for all who obey him and was designated by God to be high
priest in the order of Melchizedek." Hebrews 5:1-10

"He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that
tribe has ever served at the altar. For it is clear that our Lord descended from
Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. And what we have
said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, one who has
become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis
of the power of an indestructible life. For it is declared: ‘You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek’… And it was not without an oath! Others became priests
without any oath, but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him: ‘The
Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: "You are a priest forever."’ Because
of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant. Now there have
been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but
because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able
to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives
to intercede for them. Such a high priest meets our need-one who is holy, blameless,
pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests,
he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for
the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all WHEN HE
OFFERED HIMSELF. For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but
the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect
forever." Hebrews 7:13-17, 20-28

"When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went
through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say,
not a part of this creation. He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and
calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all BY HIS OWN BLOOD,
having obtained eternal redemption… For Christ did not enter a man-made
sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear
for us in God's presence. Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the
way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his
own. Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the
world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away
with sin BY THE SACRIFICE OF HIMSELF. Just as man is destined to die once,
and after that to face judgment, SO CHRIST WAS SACRIFICED ONCE to take
away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but
to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him." Hebrews 9:11-12, 24-28

"And by that will, we have been made holy THROUGH THE SACRIFICE OF
THE BODY OF JESUS CHRIST once for all. Day after day every priest stands and
performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can
never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for
sins, HE SAT AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD. Since that time he waits FOR
HIS ENEMIES TO BE MADE HIS FOOTSTOOL, because by one sacrifice he
has made perfect forever those who are being made holy… And where these have
been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin." Hebrews 10:10-14, 18

In regards to the title "savior", the questioner assumes that the use of the same time for
other prophets and messengers refutes any divine significance it may have when used
of Christ. The questioner fails to realize that no informed Christian claims that the
term by itself implies divinity. Rather, the context indicates whether the phrase
contains any divine overtones.

In relation to the passage cited by the questioner, the term is used to refer to God’s use
of human agents to deliver his people from oppression and captivity:

"In the twenty-third year of King Joash son of Azariah of Judah, Jehoahaz son of Jehu
began to reign seventeen years. He did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, and
followed the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, which he caused Israel to sin; he did not
depart from them. The anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, so that he gave
them repeatedly into the hand of King Hazael of Aram, then into the hand of Ben-
hadad son of Hazael. But Jehoahaz entreated the LORD, and the LORD heeded
him; for he saw the oppression of Israel, how the king of Aram oppressed
them. Therefore the LORD gave them a savior, so that they escaped from the hand
of the Arameans; and the people of Israel lived in their homes as formerly." 2 Kings
13:1-5

Yet Jesus is a different kind of Savior, one who not only saves God’s people from
oppression but from the consequence of sin, which is eternal separation from God in
hell:

"She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus for he will save his people from
their sins." Matthew 1:21

"The next day he (John the Baptist) saw Jesus coming toward him and declared, ‘Here
is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" John 1:29 

"They said to the woman, ‘It is no longer because of what you said that we believe,
for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is truly the Savior of the
world.’" John 4:42

"I do not judge anyone who hears my words and does not keep them, for I came not to
judge the world, but to save the world." John 12:47

"Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into
the world to save sinners-of whom I am the worst." 1 Timothy 1:15

"and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and
the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our
sins by his blood, and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God
and Father-to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen." Revelation 1:5-6

No other prophet ever claimed to be the savior of the world or a savior from sin. This
honor belongs to Jesus Christ alone.

In his zeal to disprove the divinity of Christ, the questioner overlooked a very
interesting point. Despite the fact that the Holy Bible presents certain individuals that
share similar titles and functions of Christ, not one single individual combines all
these titles and functions together. This honor belongs to the Lord Jesus alone. This in
itself sufficiently demonstrates Christ’s preeminence and superiority and sufficiently
refutes the questioner’s attempts to nullify the uniqueness and supremacy of our Lord
and Savior Jesus Christ.

 
Question 4. Christians claim that Jesus acknowledged that he and God were one in the
sense of nature when he says in John 10:30 "I and my father are one". Later on in John
17:21-23, Jesus refers to his followers and himself and God as one in five places. So
why did they give the previous "one" a different meaning from the other five "ones?

Answer:

The questioner once again commits the fallacy of equivocation and of false analogy.
The term "one" can have different meanings in different contexts. In John 17:21-23,
oneness implies being one in purpose and unity, that the disciples will work in perfect
harmony and be one in accord much like the Father and Son are in their relationship
with one another.

Yet the context of John 10:30 shows that oneness here isn’t simply limited to unity
and purpose, but includes power and essence as well:

"My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I GIVE THEM
ETERNAL LIFE, AND THEY SHALL NEVER PERISH; NO ONE CAN SNATCH
THEM OUT OF MY HAND. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than
all; NO ONE CAN SNATCH THEM OUT OF MY FATHER'S HAND. I AND MY
FATHER ARE ONE." John 10:27-30

Jesus is one with the Father in essence and nature since Christ grants eternal life and
has the power to preserve his believers from perishing. Yet for Christ to be able to
both preserve life and grant eternal life makes him God since only God can do these
things:

"See now that I myself am He! There is no god besides me. I PUT TO DEATH AND I
BRING TO LIFE, I HAVE WOUNDED AND I WILL HEAL, AND NO ONE CAN
DELIVER OUT OF MY HAND." Deuteronomy 32:39

"The LORD brings death AND MAKES ALIVE; he brings down to the grave and
raises up." 1 Samuel 2:6

"‘You are my witnesses,’ declares the LORD, ‘and my servant whom I have chosen,
so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god
was formed, nor will there be one after me. I, even I, am the LORD, and apart
from me there is no savior. I have revealed and saved and proclaimed- I, and not
some foreign god among you. You are my witnesses,’ declares the LORD, ‘that I am
God. Yes, and from ancient days I am he. NO ONE CAN DELIVER OUT OF MY
HAND. When I act, who can reverse it?’" Isaiah 43:10-13
Accordingly, the New Testament teaches that Christ raises the dead from the grave:

"I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear THE
VOICE OF THE SON OF GOD AND THOSE WHO HEAR WILL LIVE… Do not be
amazed at this, for a time is coming WHEN ALL WHO ARE IN THEIR GRAVES
WILL HEAR HIS VOICE AND COME OUT- those who have done good will rise to
live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned." John 5:25, 28-29

For Jesus to be able to do that which God alone can do implies that Jesus is God.
Furthermore, for Christ to be able to do what the Father does implies that the Father
and the Son are equal in nature, since the scriptures clearly teach that they are distinct
in Person:

"But if I do judge, my decisions are right, BECAUSE I AM NOT ALONE. I

STAND WITH THE FATHER, who sent me. In your own Law it is written that
the testimony of TWO MEN is valid. I am one who testifies for myself; MY
OTHER WITNESS IS THE FATHER, who sent me." John 8:16-18

This means that both the Father and the Son are the one true God. They are not one
and the same person, but rather they are one in nature and power.

Question 5. Is God three-in-one and one in three simultaneously or one at a time?

Answer:

The questioner fails to explain what does three-in-one precisely mean? Does it mean
that God is one Person in three Persons simultaneously? If so, then Trinitarians do not
believe this. Does it mean that God is one Being in three Beings simultaneously?
Again, the answer is definitely no. If it means that God is one infinite Personal Being
simultaneously existing in three distinct, yet inseparable Persons then the answer is
yes.

Yet here we must define what Trinitarians mean by "Being" and "Person". Dr. James
R. White helps explain the difference between the two terms:

It is necessary here to distinguish between the terms "being" and "person." It would be
a contradiction, obviously, to say that there are three beings within one being, or three
persons within one person. So what is the difference? We clearly recognize the
difference between being and person every day. We recognize what something is,
yet we also recognize individuals within a classification. For example, we speak of
the "being" of man---human being. A rock has "being"---the being of a rock, as
does a cat, a dog, etc. Yet, we also know that there are personal attributes as well.
That is, we recognize both "what" and "who" when we talk about a person.

The Bible tells us there are three classifications of personal beings---God, man, and
angels. What is personality? The ability to have emotion, will, to express oneself.
Rocks cannot speak. Cats cannot think of themselves over against others, and, say,
work for the common good of "cat kind." Hence, we are saying that there is one
eternal, infinite being of God, shared fully and completely by three persons, Father,
Son and Spirit. One what, three who's. (Dr. James R. White, A Brief Definition of
the Trinity: http://aomin.org/trinitydef.html; bold emphasis ours)

Hence, by "Person" Trinitarians mean that there are three conscious agents within the
one Being of God who are aware of both their own personal existence and the
existence of the other members. Because of this, the three Persons are able to have
intimate communion and fellowship amongst themselves. By using the term "Person"
Trinitarians are not saying that there are three material entities that occupy space or
exist within time.

Question 6. If God is one and three simultaneously, then none of the three could be
the complete God. Granting that such was the case, then when Jesus was on earth, he
wasn’t a complete God, nor was the "father in Heaven" a whole God. Doesn’t that
contradict what Jesus always said about His God and our God in heaven, his Lord and
our Lord? Does that also mean that there was no complete god then, between the
claimed crucifixion and the claimed resurrection?

Answer:

This is the fallacy of false dilemma. Who says that the three cannot be completely
God at the same? This is not a biblical argument. Rather it is an argument stemming
from the questioner’s finite reasoning and understanding. Seeing that the questioner is
neither God nor an authority on what God can or cannot do he is no position to tell us
that Jesus on earth and the Father in heaven means that neither Person could be
completely God.

The questioner assumes that for Jesus to be on earth while the Father was in heaven
somehow implies that God was separated into distinct parts. This fails to take into
consideration that all three members of the Godhead are omnipresent. The fact that the
three Persons are omnipresent implies that they always remain in constant communion
and are always together:
"Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go
up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. If I rise
on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea, even there your hand
will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast. If I say, ‘Surely the darkness will
hide me and the light become night around me,’ even the darkness will not be dark to
you; the night will shine like the day, for darkness is as light to you." Psalm 139:7-12

"‘Am I only a God nearby,’ declares the LORD, ‘and not a God far away? Can
anyone hide in secret places so that I cannot see him?’ declares the LORD. ‘Do not I
fill heaven and earth?’ declares the LORD." Jeremiah 23:23-24

"The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what
pleases him." John 8:29

"Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you
do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the
Father is in me, and I in the Father." John 10:37-38

"Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The
words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, LIVING IN ME,
who is doing his work." John 14:10

"And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you
forever- the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him
nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you." John
14:16-17

"Jesus replied, ‘If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love
him, and WE will come to him and make OUR home with him.’" John 14:23

"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through
their message, that all of them may be one, Father, JUST AS YOU ARE IN ME
AND I AM IN YOU. May they also be in US so that the world may believe that you
have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as
we are one: I IN THEM AND YOU IN ME. May they be brought to complete unity
to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved
me." John 17:20-23

"Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in
you?" 1 Corinthians 3:16
"Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not
realize THAT CHRIST JESUS IS IN YOU-unless, of course, you fail the test?" 2
Corinthians 13:5

"And God placed all things under his feet (i.e., Christ) and appointed him to be head
over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills
everything in every way." Ephesians 1:22-23

"But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. This is why it
says: ‘When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men.’
(What does ‘he ascended’ mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly
regions? He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the
heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.)" Ephesians 4:7-10

"Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian,

slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all." Colossians 3:11

In light of the preceding passages, verses speaking of the Father in heaven are not to
be taken literally, nor does it mean that the Father and Son were separated due to
location. Rather, the reference to heaven refers to God’s highly exalted status above
all things, that God is the Sovereign Ruler of all creation:

"In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and
exalted, and the train of his robe filled the temple." Isaiah 6:1

"The LORD is exalted, for he dwells on high; he will fill Zion with justice and
righteousness… ‘Now will I arise,’ says the LORD. ‘Now will I be exalted; now will
I be lifted up.’" Isaiah 33:5, 10

"For this is what the high and lofty One says- he who lives forever, whose name is
holy: ‘I live in a high and holy place, but also with him who is contrite and lowly
in spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly and to revive the heart of the contrite.’"
Isaiah 57:15

"You will be driven away from people and will live with the wild animals; you will
eat grass like cattle and be drenched with the dew of heaven. Seven times will pass by
for you until you acknowledge that the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms
of men and gives them to anyone he wishes. The command to leave the stump of the
tree with its roots means that your kingdom will be restored to you when you
acknowledge that Heaven rules." Daniel 4:25-26
This is in contrast to the Son ‘s lowly position on earth since during this time Christ
existed in the form of a slave. After the resurrection Christ regained the exalted
position that he willfully set aside when becoming man:

"For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life
as a ransom for many." Mark 10:45

"For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for
your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich." 2
Corinthians 8:9

"Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature
God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself
nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And
being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to
death- even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and
gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee
should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that
Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Philippians 2:5-11

The phrase "heaven", therefore, does not necessarily refer to a location where God
dwells but to God’s exalted position.

However, there is a spiritual dimension called heaven where spirit beings like angels
and disembodied saints like the prophets dwell in perfect fellowship and communion
with God and with one another.

Question 7. If God is one and three at a time, then who was the God in heaven when
Jesus was on earth? Wouldn’t this contradict his many references to a God in Heaven
that sent him?

Answer:

First, for the meaning of heaven see our answer above. Second, the questioner either
misunderstands the doctrine of the Trinity or deliberately misrepresents it. Jesus’
reference to "a God in Heaven that sent him" refers to the Father. Since Trinitarian
theology teaches that the Father and Son are distinct Persons, this question poses no
problem to Trinitarian belief.

 
Question 8. If God is three and one at the same time, who was the God in Heaven
within three days between the claimed crucifixion and the claimed resurrection?

Answer:

The answer is rather simple. All three Persons remained God while the body of the
Lord Jesus lay in the tomb.

Implicit in the question is the assumption that death implies non-existence. Yet
according to Scriptures death does not mean non-existence, but rather refers to
separation. The Scriptures tell us that as a result of man's sin two types of separation
have occurred. The first is spiritual "death" where a person is severed from having
fellowship with God, being separated from God's holy presence. Hence, instead of
God's love abiding upon an individual, it is the divine wrath that rests upon him. Yet
even here God in his perfect forbearance doesn’t annihilate man even though he is
displeased with is wicked fallen condition, but waits patiently until man repents or
until his sin reaches a point in which God in his perfect justice must act by bringing
judgment and destruction.

The second type of "death" that the Holy Bible refers to is physical death. This is
where the soul departs from the body and the body returns to the ground from which it
came. Therefore, Christ did not cease to live when he died on the cross. Rather,
Christ’s soul was still consciously alive during the three days his body laid in the
tomb:

"Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple, AND I WILL RAISE IT AGAIN IN

THREE DAYS.’ The Jews replied, ‘It has taken forty-six years to build this temple,
and you are going to raise it in three days?’ But the temple he had spoken of was
HIS BODY. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had
said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken." John
2:19-22

"The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life--only to take it up again.
No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay
it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my
Father." John 10:17-18

The only way that Christ could be able to raise himself from the dead is if Christ were
still consciously alive. This establishes that Christ did not cease to exist for those three
days that his body lay in the tomb. Both Christ’s divine nature and his human soul
were still conscious during that period of time.
Interestingly not only is the questioner's definition of death unbiblical, it is also
contrary to the Quran:

"Think not of those, who are slain in the way of Allah, as dead. Nay, they are living.
With their Lord they have provision." S. 3:169

This echoes the words of the Lord Jesus Christ:

"But in the account of the bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the
Lord ‘the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ He is not the
God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive." Luke 20:37-38

So in answer to the question the one true God always exists as three distinct Persons
even during the entombment of Christ’s physical body.

Question 9. Christians say that: "The Father(F) is God, the Son(S) is God, and the
Holy Ghost(H) is God, but the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Ghost,
and the Holy Ghost is not the Father". In simple arithmetic and terms therefore, if F =
G, S = G, and H = G, then it follows that F = S = H, while the second part of the
statement suggests that F ¹ S ¹ H (meaning, "not equal"). Isn’t that a contradiction to
the Christian dogma of Trinity in itself?

Answer:

In answer to the questioner, there is no contradiction. The doctrine of the Trinity

teaches that the three Persons are equal in nature, but not equal in Person. Their
nature is identical since all three are fully God, but their Persons are distinct.
Furthermore, we find it rather insulting, in fact blasphemous, that God should be
reduced to a mathematical equation. The Holy Bible clearly teaches that God is unlike
anything in creation since he is over and beyond our finite perceptions and analogies
of him:

"Among the gods there is none like you, O Lord; no deeds can compare with
yours. All the nations you have made will come and worship before you, O Lord;
they will bring glory to your name. For you are great and do marvelous deeds; you
alone are God." Psalm 86:8-10

"The heavens praise your wonders, O LORD, your faithfulness too, in the assembly of
the holy ones. For who in the skies above can compare with the LORD? Who is
like the LORD among the heavenly beings? In the council of the holy ones God is
greatly feared; he is more awesome than all who surround him. O LORD God
Almighty, who is like you? You are mighty, O LORD, and your faithfulness
surrounds you." Psalm 89:5-8

"Who is like the LORD our God, the One who sits enthroned on high, who stoops
down to look on the heavens and the earth?" Psalm 113:5-6

"Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, or with the breadth of his
hand marked off the heavens? Who has held the dust of the earth in a basket, or
weighed the mountains on the scales and the hills in a balance? Who has understood
the mind of the LORD, or instructed him as his counselor? Whom did the LORD
consult to enlighten him, and who taught him the right way? Who was it that taught
him knowledge or showed him the path of understanding? Surely the nations are like a
drop in a bucket; they are regarded as dust on the scales; he weighs the islands as
though they were fine dust. Lebanon is not sufficient for altar fires, nor its animals
enough for burnt offerings. Before him all the nations are as nothing; they are
regarded by him as worthless and less than nothing. To whom, then, will you
compare God? What image will you compare him to?" Isaiah 40:12-18

"‘To whom will you compare me? Or who is my equal?’ says the Holy One. Lift
your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the
starry host one by one, and calls them each by name. Because of his great power and
mighty strength, not one of them is missing." Isaiah 40:25-26

"No one is like you, O LORD; you are great, and your name is mighty in power. Who
should not revere you, O King of the nations? This is your due. Among all the wise
men of the nations and in all their kingdoms, there is no one like you. They are all
senseless and foolish; they are taught by worthless wooden idols. Hammered silver is
brought from Tarshish and gold from Uphaz. What the craftsman and goldsmith have
made is then dressed in blue and purple- all made by skilled workers. But the LORD
is the true God; he is the living God, the eternal King. When he is angry, the earth
trembles; the nations cannot endure his wrath." Jeremiah 10:6-10

Even the Quran agrees:

"Say: He is Allah, the One! Allah, the eternally Besought of all! He begetteth not nor
was begotten. And there is none comparable unto Him." S. 112:1-4

In light of the above, it is simply foolish to base a denial of the Trinity on a

mathematical equation.

 
Question 10. If Jesus was God, why did he tell the man who called him "good master"
not to call him "good" because accordingly, there is none good but his God in Heaven
alone?

Answer:

If one reads the passage carefully one will see that Jesus did not say that he was not
good. Christ rather asked the rich man why does he call Jesus good. Jesus was trying
to lead the man into questioning whether he really believed Jesus was absolutely good
in the same sense that God is. If the rich man really believed Jesus was good in an
absolute sense, he should be willing to give up everything for Christ. Being God,
Jesus demands and deserves unconditional devotion and self-sacrificial love. This is
precisely what Jesus goes on to tell the rich man:

"Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, `You lack one thing; go, sell what you
own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then
come, follow me." Mark 10:21 NRSV

The rich man must give up everything for Jesus if he wants to be perfect before God.
Only God can demand this kind of devotion, a devotion that Jesus arrogates to
himself. This point is brought out more clearly in Matthew 10:37-39:

"Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever
loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever does not take
up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Those who find their life will lose it,
and those who lose their life for my sake will find it." NRSV

Again in Luke 14:26-27, 33:

"Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, yes,
even life itself, cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not carry the cross and follow
me cannot be my disciple… So therefore, none of you can be my disciple if you do not
give up all your possessions." NRSV

No Israelite prophet ever pointed others to himself, but rather pointed men to God. For
Jesus to demand this kind of devotion affirms that he is God. Otherwise, demanding
this kind of devotion would be blasphemous if Jesus were only a prophet.

To solidify the point that Jesus was not denying that he was absolutely good in the
same sense that God is, we quote the following passages:
"I am the GOOD Shepherd. The good shepherd lays his life down for the sheep… I
am the GOOD Shepherd. I know my own and my own know me." John 10:11, 14
NRSV

Not only is Jesus affirming his absolute goodness, but also applies a title of Yahweh
God to himself:

"Yahweh is my Shepherd, I shall not want." Psalm 23:1

"Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel, you who lead Joseph like a flock!" Psalm 80:1
NRSV

Jesus also claims to be completely sinless, having absolutely no unrighteousness

within him:

"Those who speak on their own seek their own glory; but the one who seeks the glory
of him who sent him is true, and there is nothing false in him." John 7:18 NRSV

"And the one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what
is pleasing to him." John 8:29 NRSV

"Which of you convicts me of sin?…" John 8:46 NRSV

No one was able to point to even one sin that Jesus committed. For Jesus to be
absolutely good strongly argues the case that he is God. To summarize:

A. Only God is absolutely good.

B. Yet, Jesus claims to be absolutely good.
C. Therefore, Jesus is claiming to be God.

Question 11. Why do Christians say that God is three-in-one and one in three when
Jesus says in Mark 12:29: "The Lord our God is one Lord" in as many places as yet in
the Bible?

Answer:

The heart of Trinitarianism is that there is absolutely one true God. The Trinity does
not teach that there are three Gods. Therefore biblical references indicating that there
is only one God affirm, rather than deny, Trinitarian belief. The Bible teaches that
although there is only one God, there are three Persons addressed as God: The Father
(1 Peter 1:2), the Son (Matthew 1:22-23; John 20:28; Colossians 2:9; Titus 2:13), and
the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4; 2 Corinthians 3:17-18).

In fact, had the questioner continued reading in Mark he would have found Jesus
affirming the tri-unity of God:

"While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, ‘How is it that the teachers
of the law say that the Christ is the son of David? David himself, speaking by the
Holy Spirit, declared: "The Lord said to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand until I put
your enemies under your feet.’" David himself calls him "Lord." How then can he
be his son?’ The large crowd listened to him with delight." Mark 12:35-37

The Lord Jesus identifies two Persons as Lord, the Messiah and God. Christ also
affirms the personality of the Holy Spirit since it is the Spirit that spoke through
David, inspiring the latter to write the passage cited by Jesus, Psalm 110:1.

Therefore, when Mark 12 is read within its intended context we discover that Israel's
one Lord is a tri-personal Being, refuting the questioner’s assumption.

Question 12. If belief in the Trinity was such a necessary condition for being a
Christian, why didn’t Jesus teach and emphasize it to the Christians during his time?
How were those followers of Jesus considered Christians without ever hearing the
term Trinity? Had the Trinity been the spinal cord of Christianity, Jesus would have
emphasized it on many occasions and would have taught and explained it in detail to
the people.

Answer:

The questioner falsely assumes that for the Trinity to be true the term itself must be
used. This commits a chronological fallacy as well as non sequitur. To read back into
the times of Jesus terms hammered out through centuries of debate is erroneous. The
term Trinity was coined by Christians to define as best as they could the clear and
explicit biblical teaching that the one true God exists as three Persons. The Church
tried to remain faithful to the message of Jesus and the Apostles, safeguarding it from
all the false and heretical views that began to creep into the Christian community.

The fact is that both the Lord Jesus, as well as his disciples, clearly emphasized and
explained that the one true God exists in three distinct yet inseparable Persons. They
did so by giving us statements regarding the nature of God that, when combined
together, present an irrefutable case for the Trinity. This is something that we have
attempted to prove throughout this article.

Question 13. Christians claim that Jesus was God as they quote in John 1:1 "In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God". This
is John speaking and not Jesus. Also, the Greek word for the first occurrence of God is
HOTHEOS which means "the God" or "God" with a capital "G", while the Greek
word for its second occurrence is "TONTHEOS", which means "a god " or "god" with
a small "g". Isn’t this dishonesty and inconsistency on the part of those translating the
Greek Bible? ? Isn’t such quotation in John 1:1 recognized by every Christian scholar
of the Bible to have been written by a Jew named Philo Alexandria way before Jesus
and John?

Answer:

First, the questioner grossly misrepresents the Greek of John 1:1. Yet, the questioner
is not original here. Others such as Ahmad Deedat, Zakir Naik and Misha’al al-Kadhi
have also made the same gross mistake in their attempts of refuting the clear witness
of John 1:1 to the absolute and eternal Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The fact is that neither HOTHEOS nor TONTHEOS appear at all in either the first or
second occurrence of the passage. The first occurrence reads ton theon and this is used
of the Father, whereas the second occurrence simply reads theos:

En arche en ho Logos:
In the beginning was the Word

kai ho Logos en pros ton theon:

and the Word was with/towards the God

kai theos en ho Logos:
and God was the Word.

Using the logic employed by the questioner we would be forced to conclude that the
Father with whom the Word was is "a god" but not the true God since the Father is
called ton theon.

Second, the questioner accuses translators of being dishonest for not placing a small
"g" when translating the second occurrence of theos. Yet the questioner is seemingly
unaware that the reason why most translations choose to capitalize theos when it is
used for Christ is that this is something implied in Scripture itself. The scriptures
clearly teach that there is only one true God and that this true God exists as three
Persons. All other gods are either false or representatives of the true God. Yet none of
them are God by nature.

In order to make this distinction clear, God appears with a capital "G" when referring
to the true God and with a small ""g" when used of others. The reason why God
appears with a capital "G" as opposed to lower case "g" for Christ is that the Holy
Bible clearly teaches that Christ is neither a false god nor one who only represents
God to man. The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is fully God in nature.

Third, the questioner tries to undermine the authority of John 1:1 by highlighting the
fact that John, not Jesus, is speaking at this point. Yet this fails to take into
consideration that John was both a monotheistic Jew and a devout follower of Jesus.
Therefore, one must account for the reason why John would embrace a fellow Jew as
being both the prophesied Christ as well as the Creator God in the flesh. The only
reasonable explanation that accounts for John’s belief in the Deity of Christ is that this
was something the Apostle personally learned from the Lord Jesus himself and which
the resurrection affirmed beyond any reasonable doubt.

That John actually wrote the fourth Gospel is affirmed not only by early Christian
writers and historians, but by early Islamic historians as well:

"Among the things which have reached me about what Jesus the Son of Mary stated
in the Gospel which he received from God for the followers of the Gospel, in
applying a term to describe the apostle of God, is the following. It is extracted FROM
WHAT JOHN THE APOSTLE SET DOWN FOR THEM WHEN HE WROTE
THE GOSPEL FOR THEM FROM THE TESTAMENT OF JESUS SON OF
MARY: ‘He that hateth me hateth the Lord. And if I had not done in their presence
works which none other before me did, they had not sin: but from now they are puffed
up with pride and think that they will overcome me and also the Lord. But the word
that is in the law must be fulfilled, "They hated me without a cause" (i.e. without
reason). But when the Comforter has come whom God will send to you from the
Lord's presence, and the spirit of truth which will have gone forth from the Lord's
presence he (shall bear) witness of me and ye also, because ye have been with me
from the beginning. I have spoken unto you about this that ye should not be in doubt.’

"The Munahhemana (God bless and preserve him!) in Syriac is Muhammad; in Greek

he is the paraclete." (Ibn Ishaq, Life Of Muhammad, trans. Alfred Guillaume, pp. 103-
104 bold and capital emphasis ours)
The preceding citation comes from John 15:23-16:1. Ibn Ishaq affirms that John
actually wrote the Gospel that has been attributed to him and that what he was writing
was the actual Gospel that God had given Jesus to give to his followers.

Finally, the assertion that "every Christian scholar of the Bible" recognizes that Philo
of Alexandria originally wrote John 1:1 is simply erroneous. One will not find
anything like John’s prologue in Philo’s extant works.

What one does find are similarities between Philo’s Logos theology and John’s
Logos-Christology that help solidify the thoroughly Jewish flavor of John’s Gospel.
These similarities dispel the erroneous assertions that John’s Gospel was borrowing
from Greek pagan conceptions of God and creation.

The difference between Philo and John is that in John’s theology the Logos and the
Messiah were actually one and the same Person with John also teaching the
Incarnation of the Logos, something foreign to Philo. Messianic Jewish Scholar
Michael L. Brown states:

"… Interestingly, Philo of Alexandria, the greatest Jewish philosopher of the day and
a man who was, roughly speaking, a contemporary of Jesus, had much to say about
the logos. As explained in the Oxford Dictionary of Jewish Religion:

Although in a sense an aspect of the Divine, the Logos often appears as a separate
entity, namely, a half-personal emanation of God. The concept was appropriated by
Philo in order to bridge the gap between the transcendent God of Judaism and
the divine principle experienced by human beings. This view of the Logos as a
mediating principle between God and material creation could link up with the
biblical references to the creative ‘Word of God’, by which the heavens were
made (Ps. 33:6) and with the concept of memra (Aram.; ‘word’) in Targum
literature (especially as it appears in Targum Onkelos).

"Although Philo spoke of the logos more than fourteen hundred times in his writings,
there are a few examples that are especially important. To quote New Testament
scholar Larry Hurtado:

Philo also calls the Logos ‘the second god’ (ton deuteron theon) and states that the
‘God’ whose image Adam was created in Gen. 1:27 is actually the Logos, which the
rational part of the soul resembles. It is impossible (according to Philo) to think of
anything earthly being a direct image of God himself… [and] Philo also calls the
Logos ‘mediator’ (mesites).
"Philo also refers to the logos as ‘firstborn’ (protogonon), ‘archangel,’ ‘Name of
God,’ and ‘governor and administrator of all things,’ stating that the ‘Divine Word’
(theois logos) is the ‘chief’ of God’s powers. The unique revelation that John is
bringing is that this Word (Hebrew, davar; Aramaic, memra’;
Greek, logos) actually became flesh and made his dwelling among us. ‘The Word
became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of
the One and Only, who came forth from the Father. Full of grace and truth’ (John
1:14). Jesus came to bring God near! The logos became flesh and blood.

"While Philo’s description of the logos may have been philosophical, speaking of

divine attributes in highly personified terms, John’s usage was very real. Through
Jesus, the living Word, God made himself known. The Memra/Logos, an extension of
the Lord himself- in on sense God and in another sense with God- came down among
us.

"If John simply wrote, ‘God became a human being,’ that would have given a false
impression, leading one to think that the Lord was no longer filling the universe or
reigning in heaven, having abandoned his throne to take up residence here. Instead,
John tells us that it was the divine Word that became a human being, and through the
Word we know God personally." (Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus
Volume Two, Theological Objections [Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI, 2000], pp. 21-
22 bold emphasis ours)

This should silence the assertion that John was plagiarizing Philo, since the former
describes the eternal Logos/Word of God as a distinct divine Person from God the
Father that became man in the person of the Messiah.

Question 14. Wasn’t the word "god" or "TONTHEOS" also used to refer to others as
well as in II Corinthians 4:4 "(and the Devil is) the god of this world" and in Exodus
7:1 "See, I have made thee (Moses) a god to Pharaoh"?

Answer:

First, Satan is not called God but rather "the god of this age". This simply means that
Satan is the ruler of this present evil age since all creation in its fallen sinful state is
under the domain of the devil. It is only in Christ that one is set freed from Satan’s
control. (Cf. Luke 4:6; John 8:34-36, 12:31, 14:30; Galatians 1:4; Ephesians 2:2;
Hebrews 2:14-15; 1 John 3:8, 5:19)
Second, the questioner is wrong since "TONTHEOS" does not appears in 2
Corinthians 4:4. Rather, the Greek ho theos appears in a genitive construction. The
genitive construction is used to show possession. In the case of 2 Corinthians
4:4, theos is used to indicate that Satan is "god" in a possessive sense, i.e. that the
devil has been granted supreme control over this present wicked age. We find the
New Testament using theos in a similar manner elsewhere:

"whose end is destruction, whose god is their appetite (hos theos koilia), and whose
glory is in their shame, who set their minds on earthly things." Philippians 3:19 NASB

This verse refers to individuals that sought to gratify their sensual desires, living for
the pleasures of the body, mind, and soul. In so doing, they ended up making their
carnal desires their god, being enslaved to such desires. (Cf. 2 Peter 2:19)

Much like these individuals’ appetite was not actually "God" neither is Satan actually
"God." Rather, Satan is "god" in a qualified sense for the reason indicated above. He
is not the supreme and true God of all.

Third, Exodus 7:1 was originally written in Hebrew and only later translated into
Greek during the year 280 BC. In Exodus 7:1 Moses is said to be a God
(Hebrew, elohim) to Pharaoh. The term elohim is used of the true God, Moses,
Israelite judges, human spirits, angels and of false gods. (Cf. Exodus 4:16; 20:3; 21:5-
6; 22:8-9; Judges 16:23; 1 Samuel 28:13; Psalm 82:6; 86:8)

Yet both Old and New Testaments teach that Jesus is God in the true and absolute
sense. Jesus is given titles and attributes that belong to God alone. We present the
following citations along with the rabbinic interpretation that affirms the Messianic
understanding of these passages:

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government shall be upon
his shoulders, and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty
God (El Gibbor), The Father of Eternity (Avi Ad), The Prince of Peace." Isaiah 9:6

Rabbinic Interpretation:

"For to us a Son is born, to us a Son is given; and His name is called from of old,
Wonderful, Counselor, Eloha (God, Arabic- Allah), The Mighty, Abiding to
Eternity, THE MESSIAH, because peace shall be multiplied on us in His
days." Targum Jonathan

And:
"Behold the days come, saith the LORD that I will raise unto David a righteous
Branch… And this is his name whereby he will be called: JEHOVAH (YHWH)
OUR Righteousness." Jeremiah 23:5-6

Rabbinic Interpretation:

"What is the name of the KING MESSIAH? R. Abba son of Kohana

said, ‘JEHOVAH’, for it is written: This is HIS name whereby HE shall be called,
JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." Midrash On Ezekiel 48:35; Targum Jonathan

And:

"Listen to me, O Jacob, Israel, whom I have called: I am he; I am the first and I am
the last." Isaiah 48:12

"Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said
unto them, ‘Whom seek ye?’ They answered him, ‘Jesus of Nazareth.’ Jesus said unto
them, ‘I AM he’… As soon as he said unto them, ‘I AM he’, they went
backward, and fell to the ground." John 18:4-6

"And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me,
saying unto me, `Fear not; I am the first and the last. I am he that liveth, and
was DEAD, and behold, I am alive forevermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and
of death." Revelation 1:17-18

The others are only called God in a figurative or representative sense since neither
men nor angels are ever said to be God in nature. The Scripture never accords these
"gods" with divine prerogatives, attributes or titles.

This clearly implies that unlike the others that are called "God", Jesus is God in nature
and is able to do what the other so-called "gods" are incapable of doing.

In light of the preceding factors, we once more discover the questioner committing the
fallacy of false analogy since no correlation exists between John 1:1, 2 Corinthians
4:4 and Exodus 7:1. John 1:1 clearly teaches that Jesus is God in an absolute and
eternal sense, whereas 2 Corinthians 4:4 simply points to Satan being "god" in a
qualified sense. Exodus 7:1 refers to Moses as God in a representative sense, that due
to Moses acting in the place of God he can therefore be addressed as God figuratively.
Yet the Holy Bible clearly teaches that apart from the true God there is no one that
shares God’s nature and essence. (Cf. Galatians 4:8; 2 Chronicles 13:9)

 
This ends part 1. Part 2 to follow shortly, Lord Jesus willing.

JESUS IN THE RABBINIC TRADITIONS

Sam Shamoun

The following article will briefly examine some of the Jewish rabbinic references on
the person and work of Jesus Christ. The purpose in doing so is to provide
extrabiblical evidence that supports the historical reliability of the New Testament in
providing accurate information on the life of Christ. Hopefully, once this has been
done the reader will come to appreciate the authenticity of the NT documents even
more, coming away with the impression that the Jesus of biblical faith is the Jesus of
history. The two are inseparable.

TALMUD

The Talmud is an extensive compilation of Jewish commentary and is divided into

the Mishnah and Gemara. The Mishnah is viewed as covering material up to AD. 220
and is called the Tannaite period. The Gemara is the compilation of ancient
commentaries on the Mishnah and covers material up to the fifth century and is called
the Ammoraim period. It is also believed that the Gemara actually contains older
Mishnahic statements.

The material covered within the Talmud range from issues relating to such things as
legal disputes and questions known as the Halakah. The legends, anecdotes and other
sayings used to illustrate the traditional laws are called the Haggadah.

There are essentially two Talmuds. The first is known as Talmud Yerushalmi or the
Talmud of Jerusalem, compiled around AD 400. The Jerusalem Talmud was the last
product of Palestinian rabbinic Judaism. The second, called Talmud Babli or the
Talmud of Babylon, was compiled sometime during the sixth century AD.

It is not surprising to find the Talmud referring to Jesus, his mother and his disciples.
In fact, some of the material coincides with the NT depiction of Jesus and the Jewish
ruling council's assessment of his person and mission. The following statements are
taken from the Soncino edition of the Babylon Talmud as cited in Robert A. Morey's
pamphlet Jesus in the Mishnah and Talmud. We will also be using Josh McDowell &
Bill Wilson's He Walked Among Us unless noted otherwise.
Before proceeding, we must point out that at one time the following Talmudic
references were believed to have been lost. This is due to the fact that in the
seventeenth century, Jewish rabbis took steps to expunge all references to Jesus. This
act was motivated primarily by the Church's persecution of the Jews. Josh McDowell
and Bill Wilson explain:

"... in light of the persecutions, the Jewish communities imposed censorship

on themselves to remove references to Jesus in their writings so that they
might no longer be a target of attack. Morris Goldstein, former Professor of
Old and New Testament Literature at the Pacific School of Religion, relates:

Thus, in 1631 the Jewish Assembly of Elders in Poland declared: ‘We enjoin
you under the threat of the great ban to publish in no new edition of
the Mishnah or the Gemara anything that refers to Jesus of Nazareth... If you
will not diligently heed this letter, but run counter thereto and continue to
publish our books in the same manner as heretofore, you might bring over us
and yourselves still greater sufferings than in previous times.’

At first, deleted portions of words in printed Talmuds were indicated by small

circles or blank spaces but, in time, these too were forbidden by the censors.

As a result of the twofold censorship the usual volumes of Rabbinic

literature contain only a distorted remnant of supposed allusions to
Jesus ..." (Ibid, pp. 58-59)

Dr. Robert Morey continues:

"Thankfully, copies of the uncensored pre-1631 texts can be found in Oxford

University and several other European libraries. Thus the statements about
Jesus were never actually ‘lost.’ They were published separately in numerous
editions and studied by Jewish scholars in private. No one denies these facts
any more... While the Soncino edition of the Babylonian Talmud is a censored
text, the editors usually give the uncensored original readings in a footnote.
We have put the statements about Jesus back into the text where they
originally belonged and have indicated this by [ ]." (Morey, pp. 1-2)

I. Jesus' Birth

R. Shimeaon ben 'Azzai said: I found a genealogical roll in Jerusalem wherein

was recorded, "Such-an-one is a bastard of an adulteress."
McDowell and Wilson state, on the authority of Joseph Klausner, that the
phrase such-an-one "is used for Jesus in the Ammoraic period (i.e., fifth century
period)." (McDowell & Wilson, p. 69)

According to the Jewish Tractate of Talmud, the Chagigah a certain person had a

dream in which he saw the punishment of the damned. In the dream,

"He saw Mary the daughter of Heli amongst the shades..." (John

Lightfoot, Commentary On the New Testament from the Talmud and
Hebraica [Oxford University Press, 1859; with a second printing from
Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1995], vol. 1, p. v; vol. 3, p.55)

Compare this with Luke 3:23.

MISHNAH.[104b] If one writes on his flesh, he is culpable; He who scratches a

mark on his flesh. He who scratches a mark on his flesh, [etc.] It was taught, R.
Eliezar said to the sages: But did not Ben Stada bring forth witchcraft from
Egypt by means of scratches [in the form of charms] upon his flesh? He was a
fool, answered they, proof cannot be adduced from fools. [Was he then the
son of Stada: surely he was the son of Pandira? - Said R. Hisda: The husband
was Stada, the paramour was Pandira. But the husband was Pappos b. Judah?
- his mother was Stada. But his mother was Miriam the hairdresser? - It is as
we said in Pumbeditha: This is one has been unfaithful to (lit., 'turned away
from'- satath da) her husband.] (Shabbath 104b)

R. Papa said: When the Mishnah states a MESITH IS A HEDYOT, it is only in

respect of hiding witnesses. For it has been taught: And for all others for whom
the Torah decrees death, witnesses are not hidden, excepting for this one. How
is it done? - A light is lit in an inner chamber, the witnesses are hidden in an
outer one [which is in darkness], so that they can see and hear him, but he
cannot see them. Then the person he wishes to seduce says to him, "Tell me
privately what thou hast proposed to me"; and he does so. Then he
remonstrates; "But how shall we forsake our God in Heaven, and serve idols?"
If he retracts, it is well. But if he answers: "It is our duty and seemly for us," the
witnesses who were listening outside bring him to Beth din, and have him
stoned. ["And thus they did to Ben Stada in Lydda, and they hung him on
the even of Passover." Ben Stada was Ben Pandira. R. Hisda said: The
husband was Stada, the paramour Pandira. But as not the husband Pappos b.
Judah? - His mother's name was Stada. But his mother was Miriam, a dresser
 of woman's hair? - As they say in Pumpbaditha, This woman has turned away
(satath da) from her husband, (i.e. committed adultery).] (Morey, p. 6)

Morey quotes from the Soncino edition of the Babylonian Talmud:

Footnote in Soncino: "Supposed by Tosah, to be the Mother of Jesus; cf. Shab.

104b in the earlier uncensored editions. Her description Megaddela
(hairdresser) is connected by some with the name of Mary Magdalene
whose name was confused with the name of Mary, the mother of Jesus."
(Ibid., p. 7)

Some scholars also see an allusion to the virgin birth of Christ in the term, "son of
Pandira." This is due to the fact that "Pandira" seems to be a play on the Greek word
for virgin, parthenos, the very term used in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke when
recording Jesus' virgin birth. McDowell & Wilson report:

"... Scholars have debated at length how Jesus came to have this name (i.e.,
ben Pandira) attached to his. Strauss thought it was from the Greek
word pentheros, meaning 'son-in-law.' Klausner and Bruce accept the position
that panthera is a corruption of the Greek parthenos meaning 'virgin.'
Klausner says, 'The Jews constantly heard that the Christians (the majority of
whom spoke Greek from the earliest times) called Jesus by the name "Son of
the Virgin"... and so, in mockery, they called him Ben ha-Pantera, i.e., "son of
the leopard."'... The theory most sensational but least accepted by serious
scholars was dramatized by the discovery of a first century tombstone at
Bingerbruck, Germany. The inscription read, 'Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera, an
archer, native of Sidon, Phoenicia, who in 9 c.e. was transferred to service in
Germany.'... This discovery fueled the fire of the theory that Jesus was the
illegitimate son of Mary and the soldier, Panthera. Even Origen writes that his
opponent, Celsus, in circa A.D. 178, said that he heard from a Jew that
'Miriam' had become pregnant by 'Pantheras,' a Roman soldier; was divorced
by her husband, and bore Jesus in secret.

"If 'Pantheras' were a unique name, the theory of Mary's pregnancy by the
Roman soldier might be more attractive to scholars. But Adolf Deissman, the
early twentieth-century German New Testament scholar, verified, by first
century inscriptions, 'with absolute certainty that Panthera was not an invention
of Jewish scoffers, but a widespread name among the ancients.'... Rabbi and
 Professor Morris Goldstein comments that it was as common as the names
Wolf or Fox today. He comments further:

It is noteworthy that Origin himself is credited with the tradition that Panther
was the appellation of James (Jacob), the father of Jospeh, the father of Jesus...
So, too, Andrew of Crete, John of Damascus, Epiphanius the Monk, and the
author of Andronicus of Constantinople's Dialogue Against the Jews, name
Panther as an ancestor of Jesus...

"Jesus being called by his grandfather's name would also have agreed with a
statement in the Talmud permitting this practice. Whereas Christian tradition
identified Jesus by his home town, Jewish tradition, having a greater concern
for genealogical identification, seems to have preferred this method of
identifying Jesus. Goldstein presents more evidence to argue the case
convincingly." (McDowell & Wilson, pp. 66-67)

Hence, why or how Jesus came to be called ben Pandira is an issue which scholars
have not come to an agreement.

II. Jesus' Crucifixion

"And it is tradition: On the eve of Passover they hung Jeshu [the

Nazarene]. And the crier went forth before him forty days (saying), [Jeshu the
Nazarene] goeth forth to be stoned, because he hath practiced magic and
deceived and led Israel astray. Anyone who knoweth aught in his favor, let
him come and declare concerning him. And they found naught in his
favor. And they hung him on the eve of the Passover. Ulla said, 'Would it be
supposed that [Jeshu the Nazarene] a revolutionary, had aught in his favor?'
He was a deceiver and the Merciful (i.e. God) hath said (Deut. xiii 8), ‘Thou
shalt not spare, neither shalt thou conceal him.’ But it was different with
[Jeshu the Nazarene] for he was near the kingdom.'" (Sanhedrin 43a)

Would you believe that any defense would have been so zealously sought for
him? He was a deceiver, and the All-merciful says: "You shall not spare him,
neither shall you conceal him." It was different with Jesus, for he was near to
the kingship. (McDowell & Wilson, p. 65)

III. Jesus' Resurrection

 "And he took up his parable and said, Alas, who shall live when God doeth
this! R. Simeon b. Lakish said: Woe unto him who maketh himself alive by the
name of God. [a covert allusion to Jesus.]" (Sanhedrin 106a)

IV. Jesus' Deity

Christian Author Michael Green quotes a rabbi named Eliezar, writing about AD 160,
who writes:

"God saw that a man, son of a woman, was to come forward in the future,
who would attempt to make himself God and lead the whole world astray.
And if he says he is God he is a liar. And he will lead men astray, and say that
he will depart and will return at the end of days." (Green, Who is this
Jesus? [Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1992], p. 60- cited in We Believe
Series - Basics of Christianity, Jesus Knowing Our Savior, author Max Anders
[Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995], p. 136)

"Rabbi Eliezer ha-Kappar said: God gave strength to his (Balaam's) voice so
that it went from one end of the world to the other, because he looked forth and
beheld the nations that bow down to the sun and moon and stars, and to wood
and stone, and he looked forth and saw that there was a man, born of a
woman, who should rise up and seek to make himself God, and to cause
the whole world to go astray. Therefore God gave power to the voice of
Balaam that all the peoples of the world might hear, and thus he spake: Give
heed that ye go not astray after that man, for is written, 'God is not a man that
he should lie.' And if he says that he is God, he is a liar; and he will deceive
and say that he departed and cometh again at the end. He saith and he shall
not perform. See what is written: And he took up his parable and said, 'Alas,
when God doeth this.' Balaam said, Alas, who shall live - of what nation which
heareth that man who hath made himself God." (Yalkut Shimeon,
[Salonica] sec. 725 on wayissa mishalo [Num. 23. 7], according to Midrash
Y'lamm'denue)

Another rabbi, writing a hundred years after Eliezer, states:

"Rabbi Abahu said, If a man says 'I am God,' he lies; if he says, 'I am the Son of
man' he shall rue it; 'I will go up to heaven,' (to this applies Num. xxiii 19) he
saith, but shall not perform it." (Jerusalem Talmud Taanith-65b)

V. Jesus' Disciples
 Our rabbis taught: Yeshu had five disciples - Mattai, Nakkai, Netzer, Buni,
and Todah. (Sanhedrin 43a)

The purpose for singling out only five of Jesus' disciples could be due to the fact that
other rabbis in the Talmud such as Yohanan ben Zakkai and Akiba are also said to
have five disciples. (McDowell & Wilson, p. 65)

Our teachers have taught: When R. Eliezer [the Great] was arrested
for Minuth they brought him to the tribunal for judgment. The Procurator said
to him, Does an old man like you busy himself with such idle matters? He
answered, I trust him that judges me. So the Procurator thought that he spoke
of him, whereas he spoke of his heavenly father. The Procurator said to him,
Since you trust in me you are dimissus, acquitted. When he returned home his
disciples came in to console him, but he would not accept their consolations.
R. Akiba said to him, Suffer me to tell you one thing of what you have taught
me. He answered, (Say on). He said, Perhaps [a word of] minuth came upon
you and pleased you and therefore you were arrested. (Tosefta reads: Perhaps
one of the Minim had said to thee a word of Minuth and it pleased thee?) He
answered, Akiba, you have reminded me! Once I was walking along the upper
market (Tosefta reads "street") of Sepphoris and found one [of the disciples of
Jesus of Nazareth] and Jacob of Kefar Sekanya (Tosefta reads "Sakanin") was
his name. He said to me, So [Jesus of Nazareth] taught
me (Tosefta reads "Yeshu ben Pantere"): "For the hire of a harlot hath she
gathered them, and unto the hire of a harlot shall they return"; from the
place of filth they come, and unto the place of filth they shall go. And the
saying pleased me, and because of this I was arrested for Minuth. And I
transgressed against what is written in the Law: "Keep thy way far from her" -
that is Minuth; "and come not nigh the door of her house" - that is the civil
government. (McDowell &Wilson, pp. 67-68)

Minuth means "heresy." The titles Minuth and Mnim were applied to Christians.

VI. Jesus And Healing

It happened with R. Elazar ben Damah, whom a serpent bit, that Jacob, a man
of Kefar Soma, came to heal him in the name of Yeshua ben Pantera; but R.
Ishmael did not let him. He said, "You are not permitted, Ben Damah." He
answered, "I will bring you proof that he may heal me." But he had no
 opportunity to bring proof, for he died. (Whereupon) R. Ishmael said, "Happy
art thou, Ben Damah, for you have gone in peace and you have not broken
down the fence of the Sages; since everyone who breaks down the fence of
the Sages, to him punishment will ultimately come, as it is in Scripture: 'Whoso
breaketh through a fence, a serpent shall bite him.'" (Tosefta Hullin
2.22; Jerusalem Talmud, Shabbath 14d and Abodah Zarah 40d,
41a; Babylonian Talmud, Abodah Zarah 27b)

This is an admission that the name of Jesus had power to heal others and prevent them
from dying.

TOLEDOTH YESHU
"There is another Jewish hostile manuscript called Toledoth Jeshu. This
manuscript does not refer to Jesus only, but it also relates to us a fictitious
story about what happened to his body after His death. Its author claimed that
Jesus' disciples plotted to steal Christ's body, but a certain gardener, whose
name was Judas, discovered the conspiracy. He came secretly and removed
the body from Joseph's tomb and relocated it in a newly-dug grave. When the
disciples came to the original tomb and found it empty, they proclaimed that
He had risen from the dead. Soon after, the Jewish leaders also approached
Joseph's tomb and found it empty. The gardener then took them to the newly
dug grave and showed them Jesus' body.

"Though this tradition was not compiled before the fifth century A.D., it
undoubtedly echoed an earlier Jewish tradition that was widespread among the
Jewish circles after the resurrection of Christ (Matthew 28:11-15). This
manuscript, despite its hostility to Christianity, is strong evidence for Christ's
crucifixion, death and resurrection, because it is the testimony of an avenging
foe." (Faris al-Qayrawani, Was Christ Really Crucified? [Light of Life, P.O.
Box 13, A-9503 Villach, Austria, 1997], p. 48)

To summarize the Talmudic witness to Jesus, we discover that:

 Jesus was born under unusual circumstances, leading some rabbis to address
him as ben Pandira and " a bastard of an adulteress."
 Jesus' mother Mary was Heli's daughter.
 Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover.
 Jesus made himself alive by the name of God.
  Jesus was a son of a woman. (cf. Galatians 4:4)
 Jesus claimed to be God, the son of God, the son of man.
 Jesus ascended and claimed that he would return again.
 Jesus was near to the kingdom and near to kingship.
 Jesus had at least five disciples.
 Jesus performed miracles, i.e. practiced "sorcery".
 Jesus' name has healing power.
 Jesus' teaching impressed one rabbi.

The Talmud essentially affirms the New Testament teaching on the life and person of
Jesus Christ, God's unique Son and Savior of the world.

For more information we recommend the following books:

Dr. Robert A. Morey

Jesus in the Mishnah and the Talmud
California Institute of Apologetics
PO Box 7447
Orange, CA 92863
1-800-41-TRUTH or (714) 630-6307

Josh McDowell & Bill Wilson

He Walked Among Us: Evidence For The Historical Jesus
Thomas Nelson Publishers-Nashville TN, 1993