1 Peter 2:3 – Tasted That The Lord Is Gracious

1 Peter 2:3 – If you have tasted that the Lord is gracious.

1 Peter 2:4 – To whom we are approaching. He is a living stone, rejected indeed of men, but with God chosen, precious.

1 Peter 2:5 –  You also, as living stones, are built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. — World English.

Psalms 34:8 - Taste and see that Jehovah is good; blessed is the man seeking refuge in Him.

 -- Green's Literal

The above verses are often placed together in effort to prove that Jesus is Jehovah. Many assume that when Peter wrote “the Lord is gracious” that he was quoting Psalm 34:8, “Jehovah is good”, and that therefore by “the Lord” in 1 Peter 2:3, Peter meant Jehovah. The following verse applies “the Lord” to Jesus, and therefore Jesus is assumed to be Jehovah, and thus it would have to be further assumed that Jehovah is the stone that Jehovah chose, and that Jehovah is Jehovah that laid the stone (Jehovah) in Zion. (1 Peter 2:6) To keep this from being self-contradictory, the trinitarian then has to go against the default reasoning so as to call upon human imagination in order to imagine, assume and add to the scriptures that Jehovah is more than one person, and assume that it would mean that there is one person who is Jehovah who laid the stone, who is another person of Jehovah who is the stone that was laid by Jehovah. But it would have to be then further assumed and read into the scriptures that these two who are both one Jehovah -- that they are not two different Jehovahs, etc.

The trinitarian would, in effect, by use of the spirit of human imagination and formed assumptions would have the verses understood as:

1 Peter 2:3 if indeed you have tasted that the Lord [the alleged second person of the triune God] is gracious:

1 Peter 2:4 coming to him [the alleged second person of the triune Jehovah], a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God [not the triune God, but rather only the first person of the triune God], precious.

1 Peter 2:5 You also, as living stones, are built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God [not the alleged triune God, but only the alleged first person of the triune God] through Jesus Christ [the alleged second person of the triune God].

1 Peter 2:6 Because it is contained in Scripture, “Behold, I [not the alleged triune God, but rather only the alleged first person of the triune God] lay in Zion a chief cornerstone [the alleged second person of the triune God], elect, precious: He who believes in him [the alleged second person of the triune God] will not be put to shame.”

Of course, in reality, we have no scriptural reason to use the spirit of human imagination so assume, add, and read all of the above into the scriptures as shown.

Additionally, it is an assumption that Peter had Psalm 34:8 in mind when he wrote the words recorded 1 Peter 2:3. If Peter did have Psalm 34:8 in mind when he wrote the words of 1 Peter 2:3, at most one might assume it to be an indirect reference, since Peter did not use the word “good”, and since what Peter stated is not in the same structure as stated in Psalm 34:8.

Rather than assume all that the trinitarian would assume, one would best assume in line with what is revealed in the Bible, that Peter is speaking of Jesus as the one who speaks and represents Jehovah.  — — Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Matthew 22:32; 23:39; Mark 11:9,10; 12:26; Luke 13:35; 20:37; John 3:2,17,32-35; 4:34; 5:19,30,36,43; 6:57; 7:16,28; 8:26,28,38; 10:25; 12:49,50; 14:10; 15:15; 17:8,26; 20:17; Acts 2:22,34-36; 3:13-26; 5:30; Romans 15:6; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 8:6; 11:31; Colossians 1:3,15; 2:9-12; Hebrews 1:1-3; Revelation 1:1.

Whether Peter had Psalm 34:8 in mind or not, the context, however, would indicate that Peter, by use of “the Lord” in 1 Peter 2:3, did not mean that as stating that Jesus is Jehovah. Such a claim that Peter was stating that Jesus is Jehovah in 1 Peter 2:3 would make the context totally confusing, to say the least, and even self-contradictory.

Some points we might consider: As all the Bible writers do, Peter depicts “God” — the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Exodus 3:14,15) — as one person, and not as more than one person, and he distinguishes “God” from Jesus. “God” is depicted in 1 Peter 1:3 as “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”. In Acts 3:13-26, Peter depicts the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as one person who raised up Jesus as a prophet like Moses. In 1 Peter 1:21, “God” is depicted as having raised Jesus from the dead, and having giving glory to Jesus. In 1 Peter 2:4, “God” is depicted as one person who chose Jesus. In 1 Peter 2:5, the sacrifices of the church are acceptable to “God” through Jesus, and thus Jesus is not included in “God”. In 1 Peter 3:18, “Christ” is distinguished from “God”, as Jesus is depicted as the one who brings us to “God”. In 1 Peter 3:22, we find that Jesus is at the right hand of “God”, is thus being excluding from being “God”. Indeed, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is depicted as only one person throughout Peter’s letter, as we find to be true throughout the entire Bible.

If we belong to the Lord Jesus, we taste of his graciousness. We can say: “His fruit was sweet to my taste.” (Song of Solomon 2:3) As we come to Jesus and sit down under his shadow with great delight, we hear his words as recorded in the Bible, and learn of his sacrifice and of his resurrection. Nevertheless, to taste of this graciousness of Jesus is same as tasting of the goodness of his God and Father, since it is through Jesus that one can gain access to the Father. (John 14:6) Jesus has declared his God to us. (John 1:18) Jesus has given us the words of His God. (Deuteronomy 18:15-19; John 3:34; 14:10) Jesus, in the days of his flesh, demonstrated the goodness of his God and Father, and he has shown that goodness to those who believe on him; and will yet show that goodness to the world in the coming age when the glory of Jehovah will fill the earth. -- Isaiah 6:3; 35:2; 40:5; Habakkuk 2:14

Acts 20:28 – Whose Blood?

Does what is stated in Acts 20:28 give reason to imagine and assume that Jesus is God Almighty, or that God is more than one person?

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. – Acts 20:28, King James Version.

Many of our trinitarian neighbors (and some others) would have us believe that this text means that the Almighty God himself died for the church. If so, then, the Almighty God himself died, which of course, scripturally is totally impossible. If God Almighty had flesh and blood, this would make him lower than the angels. — Psalm 8:5; Hebrews 2:7.

We first want to point out that it was the only true God (John 17:1,3), the "one God" of 1 Corinthians 8:6, who prepared the body of flesh and blood for Jesus by means His Holy Spirit. (Matthew 1:18,20; Hebrews 10:5) Since Jesus, while in the days of his flesh (Hebrews 5:7), was directly the Son of God, the blood running through the veins of Jesus' flesh was indeed the blood of his God and Father, for that blood came from him. This, however, does not mean that we need to imagine that Jesus is God Almighty, etc.

We might note that the Alexandrine manuscript as well as some other manuscripts read as “to shepherd the church of the Lord which…” Thus the New English Bible renders this verse: “Keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has given you charge, as shepherds of the church of the Lord, which we won for himself by his own blood.” The Antigua Version de Casidoro De Reina, Revisada por Cipriano de Valera (1602), Revision de 1960, reads “iglesia del Senior”, that is, “church of the Lord” instead of “iglesia de Dios” (Church of God).

However, let us look at how several other translations render this verse:

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. — New Revised Standard Version.

Take heed 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 the blood of his own Son. — Revised Standard

So keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock which the Holy Spirit has placed in your care. Be shepherds of the church of God, {F32 } which he made his own through the blood of his Son. {F33} — Today’s English

===

FOOTNOTES:

F32: God; [some manuscripts have] the Lord.

F33: through the blood of his Son; [or] through the sacrificial death of his Son; [or] through his own blood.

Be careful for yourselves and for all the people the Holy Spirit has given to you to care for. You must be like shepherds to the church of God, which he bought with the death of his own son. — New Century Version

Take heed, therefore, to yourselves and to all the flock, in which you the Spirit Holy placed overseers, to shepherd the church of God, which He purchased through the own blood. — Jay Green’s Interlinear.

Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to all the flock, wherein the Holy Spirit has set you as overseers, to shepherd the assembly of God, which he has purchased F184 with the blood of his own. F185

========

FOOTNOTES:

F184: Middle voice; reflexive: see Note e, Heb. 1.3.

F185: I am fully satisfied that this is the right translation of ver. 28. To make it a question of the divinity of Christ (which I hold to be of the foundation of Christianity) is absurd. It has been questioned whether ‘of his own’ can be used thus absolutely in the singular. But we have it in John 15.19, and in the neuter singular for material things, Acts 4.32. The torturing of the passage by copyists arose, I believe, from not seeing, the real sense of it; a touching expression of the love of God. — Darby Translation

Thus Darby, although believing that Jesus is God Almighty, realizes that it is “absurd” to look to this scripture as proof of the trinity doctrine, although we know many do so.

If it was actually the blood of God, it would mean that such blood was of  He whose glory is greater than the angels, rather than the blood of man, whose glory is lower than the angels. (Psalm 8:5; 1 Corinthians 15:39-41; Hebrews 2:7). It would mean that it was not the blood of the man Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:5,6), and thus  there has been no ransom, for it is the blood of one lower than the angels — a human — that was needed to make satisfaction for the sin of Adam. (Of course, we realize the trinitarians claim that Jesus was both a spirit being in nature and a human being in nature at the same time, and they often style this the “dual natures” or "hypostatic union" of Christ, but no scripture reveals such a concept.) Jesus, being our high priest appointed by the only true Supreme Being, offers his own blood to the only true Supreme Being; he is not the the only true Supreme Being who receives the sacrifice. — Psalm 8:5; John 17:1,3; Hebrews 2:9; 3:1,2; 9:14.

We recommend the studies:

The Basis of the Atonement

The Price of Redemption - God or Man?

Nevertheless, in reality, God Almighty is a spiritual being and does not have flesh and blood. (John 3:24; 2 Corinthians 3:17) Jesus was made a spiritual being in his resurrection. (1 Corinthians 15:45) He was not a spiritual being while he was a human being. — 1 Corinthians 15:38.

At any rate, God's bodily glory -- the bodily glory of the Surpeme Being -- does not contain blood, as His bodily glory is spiritual. Blood is fleshly, earthly, terrestrial. -- Leviticus 17:11; 1 Corinthians 15:39-41.

God -- the Supreme Being -- did not die for the church; His Son -- a human being, a little lower than that angels -- died for the church and the world of mankind. -- Hebrews 2:9; 1 John 2:2..

Yet many claim that if one applies the dual natures of Jesus to Acts 20:28, one could see that the verse is referring to Jesus as God (Supreme Being). By doing this, it is claimed that "the blood" refers the God's blood. Of course, as pointed out, the Supreme Being, who is spirit, does not have blood. So how does one actually apply the idea of dual natures to the verse?  Although many, in some vague way, try to apply their "dual natures" (or, hypostatic union) concept of Jesus to this verse, they fall short in providing reasoning as to how it could be applied and make sense. Evidently one would have assume that  "God" in the verse refers to the alleged Supreme Being Jesus. But as Jesus, the Supreme Being, Jesus would not have any blood. How does one get from the Supreme Being Jesus to the blood of the human being Jesus? If it is referring to the blood of the human Jesus, then it is not the blood of the alleged Supreme being Jesus, since the alleged Supreme being Jesus never had any blood.

The Greek wording, however, indicates that the verse does not refer directly to the blood as being blood flowing in the veins of the Supreme Being (who, being a spirit being, actually has no blood), but rather to the blood of the human being Jesus, who is God's own (son, servant, prophet, etc.). Being that God provided the blood to his son, it is his own blood, but not blood as though God has a body of flesh and blood, etc.. Similarly, we often may hear it be said that a son has the blood of his father running through his veins. This does not make a son the same human being as his father.

Nothing in the verse says that Jesus is God Almighty. There is definitely nothing in the verse about three persons in one being or three persons all of whom are wholly God Almighty, or that God is more than one person, or that Jesus exists on two levels of consciousness at the same time, etc.

---Ronald R. Day, Sr., Restoration Light Bible Study Services (RLBible, ResLight)

Colossians 1:15 – Firstborn Of The New Creation?

Acts 17:31 - The Man That God Ordained

{Acts 17:31} Because he has appointed [a] day in which he comes to judge the world in righteousness by means of [a] man whom he appointed, having provided a guarantee to all, having raised him out of [the] dead."

This scripture is often presented by trinitarians and some others as proof that Jesus is still a man; and many also have offered this scripture as proof of the claim that Jesus now has two "natures", one nature alleged to be that of the Supreme Being, and another nature being that of a human being.

We should first note that "he" who appointed the day, ordained Jesus, and raised Jesus from the dead, is identified in context as being "God" -- only one person -- in harmony with John 17:1,3 and 1 Corinthians 8:6. The Greek words meaning God and "Godhead" (King James Version - Acts 17:29) of Acts 17 are therefore referring to only one person, and it is this same unipersonal "God" who has appointed a day in which the world is to judged, and who gives that guarantee to all men of that judgment by raising the one whom He ordained out of death.

Jesus, of course, sacrificed his body of flesh to pay for our sins. (Luke 22:19; John 6:51; Hebrews 10:10) The scriptures thus speak of the days of his flesh as being in the past. (Hebrews 5:7) He is no longer a human being (man) which is defined in the Bible as being "a little lower than the angels." (Psalm 8:4,5; Hebrews 2:6-8) Jesus, however, has been exalted far above the angels; he is no longer "a little lower than the angels". (Hebrews 2:9) If Jesus still has his body of flesh and bones in heaven, then Jesus never completed his sacrifice for our sins, or else he took back his sacrifice, and we have no redeemer.

Since a man, as meaning a human being, is a little lower than the angels (Psalm 8:4,5; Hebrews 2:5-8), this does not describe Jesus as he is now, for he has been highly exalted far above all dominion, including that of the angels. (Ephesians 1:3,17-23; 1 Corinthians 15:27; Colossians 2:9,10; 1 Peter 3:22) Furthermore, Hebrews 5:7 lets us know that Jesus is no longer in the days of his flesh. Indeed, since Jesus came to give his flesh for the life of the world (John 6:51), he no longer has any need to be a human being of flesh. Furthermore, since the condemnation upon Adam would have been eternal had it not been for Jesus' sacrifice, Jesus, as a human being must remain dead for all eternity in order to be the satisfaction of paying the wages of sin. (1 Corinthians 15:21,22; Romans 5:12-19; 6:23) Thus, Peter wrote: "Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring you to God." (1 Peter 3:18) And then Peter says that Jesus had been "put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit." Jesus did indeed give his body of flesh and its blood on our behalf (Luke 22:19; Hebrews 10:10). Since there is no more sacrifice for sin, as we said, Jesus has no need now to be a man, flesh, earthly, with a body which is sustained by blood. (Leviticus 17:11,14) It was not just Jesus' blood that was sacrificed, but it also his body of flesh.

Thus, whatever Paul meant by the word "man" as applied to Jesus in Acts 17:31, we can be certain that Paul was not saying that Jesus is still a human being in heaven. Indeed, elsewhere, Paul kept the glory of a celestial body and the glory of a terrestrial body separate from each other (1 Corinthians 15:35-41); the glory of the fleshly body he associated only with the terrestrial glory. He never associated the glory of the fleshly body with the celestial glory, which he obviously corresponds to the glory of a spiritual body; thus the crown of glory (Psalm 8:5; Hebrews 2:7) that belongs to "man" is the terrestrial glory, not the celestial glory. This was indeed the crown of glory that Jesus had when he became flesh (John 1:14; Hebrews 2:9), which fleshly glory Jesus sacrificed in death so that he "tasted death for every man".

The word "man" [Greek transliterated, Aner, Strong's #435] does not always mean human being. In Luke 24:4, two angels are referred to as "men". This word also describes the church as becoming a "full grown man". (Ephesians 4:13) Thus, some claim that by "man" in Acts 17:31, Paul was referring to the whole man of Jesus as Paul later described, that is, Jesus as head and the church as a body. While this may be, more than likely, however, in view of the reference Jesus' resurrection from the dead, Paul was simply being accommodating in Acts 17:31, using "man" in the sense of a person, not that he had meant to say that Jesus is still a human being, with some kind spiritualized, invisible, body of flesh in heaven. The Bible never speaks of such.

See links to relate studies at:
Is Jesus Now Flesh?

Son of Man and Son of God

What does "Son of Man" mean as related to "Son of God"? Do these two expressions mean that Jesus has two natures of existence at the same time, one of being God (Supreme Being) and the other of being man (human being)?
==================

Son of Man Vs. Son of the Man

Many do not realize that there are two different expressions in the are usually rendered in translations as "Son of Man." The actual phrase "son of man," with the indefinite "man," as applied to Jesus only appears in the Bible in a very few instances, usually referring to Jesus in the likeness of a son of man. Jesus himself -- in the Gospels -- uses the anarthrous "son of man," or "son of a man," of himself only one time as recorded in John 5:27. (See below) Only in this one verse does Jesus identify himself as being a human being. All the rest of the instances where we find "Son of Man" in most translations of the Gospels, it is not the anarthrous term used in John 5:27, but rather it is definite, "Son of the Man." 

The indefinite form of "son of a man" is also found in Daniel 7:13,14, which speaks prophetically of the Messiah. However, here is it qualified with "likeness," or some translations simply use "like." The prophecy is speaking of Jesus at a future time when God was to exalt Jesus with a bodily glory far above the angels (Acts 2:33,36; 5:31; Philippians 2:9; Ephesians 1:3,17-23; 1 Corinthians 15:27; Hebrews 1:4,6; 1 Peter 3:22), and he would no longer in the days of his flesh, a human being of flesh, a little lower than the angels.  (Hebrews 2:9; 5:7) By qualifying the term "likeness of a son of man," it is not saying that Jesus was still to be a man, and yet Jesus was in a "likeness" of a son of a man. In what way? Jesus, while in the days of his flesh (Hebrews 5:7), had experienced the pain, suffering, temptations, and sorrow as all other men, yet without sin. Thus, Jesus will forever be like a son of man, although he is no longer actually a human being, with earthly, fleshly glory that is a little lower than the angels. -- 1 Corinthians 15:39-41; Hebrews 2:9.

The expression most often used by Jesus of himself, however, is not the anarthrous son of a man, but in the Greek it has the definite article before "man," which means that it could be rendered as "Son of the Man." Why does Jesus apply this title to himself? The claim often made is that this designates him to Jesus because he was begotten of a man, and thus it is alleged to designate Jesus as a man. The phrase Jesus often used by Jesus of himself is not the same as the phrase used in Psalm 8:4; of Ezekiel many times, or as used in Hebrews 2:6. "Son of man" in Psalm 8:4 and through Ezekiel as also in Hebrews 2:5 is without a definite article, which could be translated as "son of a man." The phrase Jesus often used of himself was with the definite article, which could be rendered as "Son of the Man." Most translations, however, do not show this distinction, but render both phrases as "Son of Man."

It should be apparent that Jesus -- in using the phrase "Son of the Man," of himself -- was speaking of himself as the Son of one man in particular. Who was this? We believe that it refers to his being the son of the man, David, of the seed of David. 

Psalms 89:36 - His seed will endure forever, His throne like the sun before me. -- World English.

Jesus is that promised seed of David. The prophets of old foretold many times of a coming Messiah who was sit on David's throne. (Isaiah 9:6,7; 11:1; Jeremiah 23:5; 33:15; Psalm 132:11) The New Testament tells us that Jesus was that seed of David, who sits on the throne of David. (Luke 1:32;  John 7:42; Acts 2:30; Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8)  Thus, we conclude that the title "Son of the Man", is a Messianic title designating Jesus as being the promised son of the man, David.  Indeed, a comparison of scriptures reveals that "Son of the Man" is a Messianic title designating Jesus as the promised son of the man, David. -- Matthew 1:1; 9:6,27; 10:23; 11:19; 12:8,23,32,40; 13:37,41; 16:13,27,28; 17:9,12,22; 18:11; 19:28; 20:18; 22:42; 24:27,30,37,39,44; 25:13,31; 26:2,24; 26:45; Luke 1:32,69; 3:31; John 7:42; Acts 13:34; Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy2:8; Revelation 3:7; 22:16 -- not an exhaustive list.

See also our study:
Seed of David

Son of God

Jesus is referred to as the Son of God, both while he was in the days of his flesh (Hebrews 5:7; (See Matthew 3:17; 17:5)), and also after he had been exalted far above all dominion, with the exception of his God. (Ephesians 1:3,17-23; 1 Corinthians 15:27; Hebrews 4:14)  Referring to before he came into the world of mankind, Jesus said:

John 10:36 - Do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You blaspheme,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God?' 

Also, Jesus spoke of being with his Father before the world of mankind had been made. -- John 17:1,5.

This would indicate that Jesus, before he became flesh, was known as the Son of God in heaven before his Father sent him into the world of mankind. The scriptures reveal that at the beginning of the world of mankind that there were many "sons of God" in heaven. (Job 38:4-7) Jesus was the firstborn Son of God, and it was through that firstborn son that all of the other angelic "sons of God" were created. (Colossians 1:15,17) Thus, this would make Jesus the only "son" directly created by God. His being the firstborn, therefore, gives him preeminence over all the other spirit sons of God. - Colossians 1:18.

Links to studies related to Colossians 1:15-18

We will conclude with the words of Benjamin Wilson (names of Bible books expanded):

If Christ was the Son of God only as we are sons of God, then he was not the son of God, but a son; nor would there be any more reason in confessing him to be the Son of the living God, as Peter and all the apostles did, than in confessing some other believer to be God’s son. But Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, and consequently the Messiah. He also required his disciples to believe this truth. (See John 9:35-37; 10:36) The belief that Jesus, the Son of Man, was also the Christ, the Son of the living God, lies at the very foundation of Christianity — on it the Church was to be built. (Matthew 16:16-18) Jesus was more than an adopted son by faith–was more than a begotten son by the word of truth; he was “the only begotten of the Father,” (John 1:14; 3:16; 1 John 4:9). The Father with audible voice, proclaimed him as his beloved Son, (Matthew 3:17; 17:5). Paul calls him God’s own Son, and his dear son, (Galatians 4:4-5; Colossians 1:13).

See also links to some of our  related studies.

---------------------------------

Son of Man a Common Jewish Title

One objects that the term “son of man” was a common title used by Jews that meant that the person was simply a human. According to this reasoning, Jesus was both “son of man” — a human being, and “Son of God” — alleged to mean that he was also the Supreme Being. The argument is usually vaguely put forth, yet sometimes declared to “clearly” show that Jesus was both man and the Supreme Being. We have never seen any attempt to explain how Jesus was and is supposedly still two “beings” at once: the Supreme Being as well as a human being. This would, in effect, mean that Jesus is two persons with two different sentiencies, one which is limited to that of being a man, a little lower than the angels, and another that is the omniscient sentiency of the Supreme Being.

Of course, we do believe that the Greek anarthrous expression “son of man” does in a general way refer to an offspring of a human being. Nevertheless, there is scriptural proof that in the Greek the definite expression “son of the man” is a Messianic title that refers to a certain offspring of a certain man, that is, it refers to the long waited for Messiah, who was to a son of a man in a special way, that is, the son of the man, David. In the Messianic sense as related to the promises, “son of man”, “Son of God”, as well as “Son of David”, are expressions that are used almost interchangeably.

Once Jesus asked his disciples: “Who do people say that the Son of  [the ] Man is?” (Matthew 16:13, New American Standard — NAS) Notice how the title is used. It is not used as though it were speaking of any son of any man, but it is used as though it was being understood as referring to a specific son of a certain man. Thus, we can see that this title was indeed being used by the Jews in a specific way, that is, as referring to promises related to one who was to come as the son of a specific man, that is, the Son of David.

The disciples responded: “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” (Matthew 16:14, NAS) From this we can see that the Jews did have a specific application of the term “the Son of Man” in mind, that is, the promised Messiah. They were not expecting the Messiah to be the Supreme Being and also a human being.

Jesus then asked them: “But who do you say that I am?” (Matthew 16:15) Peter answered: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:16) From his answer, we determine that the expression “Son of the Man” was being considered as related to the promises concerning the Messiah and “Son of the Living God.” In other words, “the Son of the Man” is made equal to “Son of the Living God”. It was evidently an expression being used by the Jews in general as denoting the promised one, the promised Messiah, the Son of David. 

John 5:27

Another objection is that Wilson stated: “The phrase [Son of the Man] as used by Jesus is always in the emphatic form, though our English versions do not show it.” Yet John 5:27 are the words of Jesus, but in this place, the expression is anarthrous, and could be rendered “son of a man”. Doesn’t this show that Jesus was being given the judgment because, not only was he the Supreme Being, but he was also a son of a man, that is, human?

John 5:27 states: “He also gave him authority to execute judgment, because he is a son of man.” (World English Bible translation) We answer that yes, Wilson evidently did overlook that this instance Jesus did not use the definite article. Jesus several times refers to himself as “Son” and to the only true Supreme Being (John 17:1,3) as his Father in the context of John 5:27. Nothing in the context shows that Jesus is being referred to as Supreme Being. Nevertheless, our trinitarian neighbors wish to read into the two expressions that somehow this makes Jesus a hypostatic union — both the Supreme Being and human being. In reality, there is no need to read such into what Jesus said. The statement is that God, the only true Supreme Being, the God and Father of Jesus, gave to the Son the authority to execute judgment “because” he is a son of man. We are left wondering why there would be any merit of Jesus’ simply being the son of any man that would be the “cause” that he would receive authority to execute judgment. The point seems to be that as pointed out in Hebrews 2:17; 5:8, he was made like his brothers, and, his sufferings while his full obedience qualified him to be given the authority to judge. Nevertheless, this was not simply “because” Jesus was the son of any man, such as Joseph, his “foster” father, for if he had been, he would have been a sinner just as Joseph; rather Jesus was counted as the promised Son of David, to whom the promises belong, having been given a special body untainted by the sin of Adam. (Romans 5:12-19; Hebrews 10:5) Thus, we have no reason to believe that Jesus intended the expression “Son of Man” in John 5:27 to mean that he was simply of a son of any man, for such a generalization would additionally make him a sinner as all men.  It is to the Son of David the promises are made concerning authority and judgment. — Psalm 2:6-9; 132:11; Isaiah 9:6,7; 11:1; Jeremiah 22:30; 23:5; Matthew 9:6; 12:8; 25:31; Matthew 26:64; 28:18; Mark 2:10,28; 13:26; 14:52; Luke 1:32; 5:24; 6:5; 21:27; 22:69; John 5:27; 3:13; Acts 13:34; Ephesians 1:15-23; Philippians 2:9-11; Hebrews 1:2.

Son of Adam?

Some say that the expression “Son of Man” simply means that Jesus was the Son of Adam, basing this on the idea that the Hebrew word for “Adam” means “man”, as used in Daniel 8:17. Others claim that Jesus spoke in Hebrew and used the exact term as recorded in Daniel 8:17. While we might consider that Jesus was indeed counted, or reckoned, as a son of Adam, due to the lineage of his foster father, and his mother, from the usage of the phrase in the New Testament, we highly doubt that this is what Jesus had in mind by the expression, “Son of the Man”, as he applied this to himself. There are some who go off into even greater extremes and claim that this title means that Jesus was actually a reincarnation of Adam. How this phrase should show that Jesus is a reincarnation of Adam is vaguely argued, to say the least, for how can stating that one is the son of a person mean that the son is the one of whom he is the son? At any rate, we believe it best to simply stay by the scriptures, rather than add all this extra-Biblical philosophy to the scriptures.

Nevertheless, we need to bear out that if Jesus had been the son of Adam in the sense that all mankind is, this would have made him also a sinner like all of us. Jesus actually had no father on earth, and thus was not contaminated with Adamic sin that pervades mankind. (Romans 5:12-19) Adam lost the dominion for man because of his sin, so that now we do not yet see all things in subjection to man. (Hebrews 2:8) Jesus did come as a human, a little lower than the angels, crowned with glory, and provided the redemption price to restore this glory and dominion to man (not to angels). — Hebrews 2:9.

Although Jesus was not actually under the condemnation through Adam (in him was life — John 1:4), he did willingly submit to undergoing the penalty of the condemnation in order to take the condemnation off Adam and the race in Adam’s loins. (Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21,22; 1 Timothy 2:5,6; Hebrews 2:9) It is in this manner that he who knew no sin was sin for us. — 1 Corinthians 5:21.

Thus the term, the Son of the Man, is not being used to represent one in condemnation, which would be the case had Jesus actually been born simply as a “son of Adam” just as the rest of the human race, for the human race are children of Adam, and through Adam are sinful flesh, dying (1 Corinthians 15:22; Romans 5:12-19 – See New American Standard), since through Adam the many — the whole human race descended from Adam — are made sinners. Had Jesus been of such sinful stock, he could not have had life (John 1:4), nor could he have died for our sins.  As the son of the man, having received a specially prepared body from God (Hebrews 10:5), Jesus in the days of his flesh was indeed, the Son of God, as was Adam before Adam sinned, the sinless Adam being a type of the Messiah. (Luke 3:38;  Romans 5:14) Nevertheless, the title, the Son of the Man, refers more especially to the inheritance of the higher dominion that is to restore man’s glory and dominion over the animal kingdom. — Daniel 2:35,44; Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:6-9; Matthew 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 16:13,27; 20:30,31; 21:29,15; 22:42; Mark 10:47,48; 12:35; Luke 1:32; 18:38,39; Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8; Revelation 5:5; 20:1-5.

Jesus was counted, or reckoned, as the seed of David because of his parents, having been born of woman under the Law, even though Jesus’ actual father was God in heaven. Jesus was therefore that antitype of Adam, who, before he sinned, had God as his Father, (Luke 3:38; Romans 5:12) Jesus’ human soul, including his body and his blood, was not tainted by the sin of Adam, as are the rest of mankind. How did Jesus’ body come down from heaven? Does this mean that Jesus was a human with a body of flesh before coming into the world? We know that Jesus’ body was formed in the womb of Mary, but the conception of the flesh was from the God of Jesus by means of the holy spirit. (Matthew 1:20) This does not mean that the flesh that was conceived  — begotten — was God Almighty, but rather, the scripture says that Jesus’ body was prepared for him by his God (Hebrews 10:5), for the purpose of its being an offering for sin. (Hebrews 10:10; John 6:51) Jesus spoke of his body, his flesh, in John 6:32 as symbolically the “bread of life” that was from the only true God, his Father, who sent Jesus. “My Father gives you the true bread out of heaven.” (John 17:1,3) Thus, while his body was formed in the womb of Mary, the God of Jesus was the one who prepared his body. His body was not tainted by the sinful flesh of mankind. (Romans 8:3) Jesus was without sin, he never fell short of the glory of God, as those who are dying “in Adam”. (Romans 3:23; 1 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5) He was not ‘by nature a child of wrath’ as mankind in general, due to the sin of Adam. (Ephesians 2:3) Having no sin, the was the “bread of life”. In him was life, a sinless life, equal ot that of Adam’s before Adam sinned, which he could offer in sacrifice for the world of mankind dying in Adam — the just for the unjust. (John 1:4; 1 Corinthians 15:3; 1 Peter 3:18) He could offer his flesh — his humanity — as a sacrifice for sin, and thus by our symbolically eating and partaking of his flesh, through faith in him, we can have life.

Matthew 16:13-16

Matthew 16:13 Now when Jesus came into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?”
Matthew 16:14 They said, “Some say John the Baptizer, some, Elijah, and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.”
Matthew 16:15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
Matthew 16:16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

The thought is presented that these scriptures present Jesus’ alleged dual natures above, one “nature” being that of a human being, “the Son of Man”, and another nature being that of the God being, represented in the expression “the Son of the living God.” What is being imagined is that “Son of Man” means his humanity, while “Son of God” means that he is the Most High.

Actually, there is nothing at all in the verses given that give us any reason to think Jesus possesses two levels of sentiency at once, one alleged to be that of the only Most High, while the other would be that of a human being, confined to a body of flesh.

The expression “Son of Man”, as already shown, should actually be “the son of the man”; the expression represents Jesus as the promised son of the man, David, who was to be the one Anointed by the only true God.

Peter stated to Jesus: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”  “The Christ” — the Anointed One — obviously refers to an event that is performed by “the [unipersonal] living God”, and Peter’s later statement agrees with this:

Acts 2:36 — “Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”

Was Jesus “made … Christ” in his humanity, or was he made Christ in his alleged being like the Most High? The trinitarian, if he agrees that it was in his humanity that Jesus was “made Christ”, logically, would have to further create assumptions so as to separate Peter’s expression “You are the Christ” from “the Son of the Living God” as to apply “You are the Christ” to his humanity and then apply “the Son of the Living God” to his alleged Supreme God being. If one claims that it was the alleged Supreme Being Jesus who was anointed, then one has to create many assumptions beyond what is written and add these assumptions to the scriptures in order to have the scriptures appear to say that it was one person of the Supreme Being who anointed another person of the Supreme Being as “the Christ”.

Actually, Peter does not say that Jesus is “God”, but rather that Jesus is “the Son of the Living God”.  The word “God” here refers to only person, and “the Son” is excluded from being “the Living God” who is referred to. Jesus is not “the Living God” of whom he is the Son.

Daniel 7:13,14

Some claim that in Daniel 7:13,14, the anarthrous “son of a man” is applied to Jesus’ return in the “clouds”.  We have given attention to this in our study “Ancient of Days“, which please see. Suffice it to say that the most scriptural conclusion is that ‘son of a man’ in Daniel 7:13 simply refers symbolically of Jesus’ being the likeness of a son of a man, having obtained from his past human experience characteristics of man which enables him to sympathize with humans, not that he actually would be a son of a man. We know that Jesus gave his human existence in sacrifice for our sins (Hebrews 10:10; 1 Peter 3:18); Jesus is no longer a son of a man, for he is, then he would still be a little lower than the angels, rather than exalted high above the angels. — Psalm 8:4,5; Acts 2:33; 5:31; Ephesians 1:3,17-23; Philippians 2:9; Hebrews 1:6; 2:6,7,9; 1 Peter 3:22.

The idea that Jesus has two “natures”, or levels of being, at once, has to be imagined, assumed, added to, and read into, what is stated in Daniel 7:13 as well as any other scripture.

For links to some of our studies related to the alleged "dual natures"/"hypostatic union" of Jesus.

Daniel 7:9,13,22 – Is Jesus the Ancient of Days?

Is Jesus the "Ancient of Days" spoken of in Daniel 7?

Daniel 7:9

I saw until thrones were placed, and one who was ancient of days sat: his clothing was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, [and] the wheels of it burning fire. -- World English.

Daniel 7:13

I saw in the night-visions, and, behold, there came with the clouds of the sky one like a son of man, and he came even to the ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. --World English.

Daniel 7:22

until the ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High, and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom. -- World English.

According to some, one of the titles (or “names”)  of Jesus is “Ancient of Days”. One has claimed: “The book of Daniel also speaks of Christ, Who is represented as both the Ancient of Days and the Son of man.” Another claims: “Jesus is the Ancient of Days, the one on the throne, our judge, our redeemer.” It is also claimed: “Daniel 7:21-22 verifies that ‘the Ancient of days’ is Jesus Christ.” These offer scriptures that, with only a surface examination, may seem to support their conclusions, but when the scriptures are examined closely, we believe that this conclusion is not valid.

On the other hand, many, if not most, trinitarian scholars do realize that the Ancient of Days is the Father of Jesus, but claim that Jesus and the Ancient of Days are both one God.

Some others claim that Jesus is the Ancient of Days and he is also the one described as like “a son of a man,” claiming the dualism or "hypostatic union" of Jesus being both God Almighty and a human being. Of course, in reality, no such concept that Jesus is two beings [God Almighty/Supreme Being and man/ human being] at the same time is ever even once presented in the Bible. It is another of the extra-Biblical concepts that has been formulated beyond what is found in the Bible, and then added to, and read into, many scriptures, in order to accommodate the trinitarian concept, which concept is also no where to be found in any scripture.

The scriptures do, however, reveal that the one who appeared like a son of man in Daniel’s prophetic vision is Jesus, and the Ancient of Days is the One described in the Revelation is He who sits on the throne, that is, Jehovah, the God of Jesus.

Who Is, Was, To Come – Jesus?

Nevertheless, the designation in Daniel 7:13 may seem to some to refer to Jesus simply as a man, as it is applied to the mankind in general in Psalm 8:4 and Hebrews 2:6, and to Jesus specifically as a man in Hebrews 2:9, as he was in the days of his flesh. (Hebrews 5:7) If we carefully anslyze what is stated, we find that Daniel does not say that he saw “the son of man,” but that he saw one “like” a son of a man. This would indicate an appearance of the one who comes in the clouds as though he were a son of a man, but not actually so, evidently similar to the the way the angels appeared to Abraham as “men”, when they were not actually men. Many translations add the word “the” before “son of man”, but the Hebrew does not have it. Likewise, there is no definite article before the word “man”. In other words the expression in Daniel 7:13 is indefinite on both nouns, while the expression -- in the New Testament Greek -- that is usually used of Jesus to designate him as the Messiah is literally translated as “son of the man,” containing to definite article before the word for "man", which apparently designates the Messiah the son of the man David. In Matthew 24:30; 26:64; Mark 13:26; 14:62; Luke 21:27, for instance, we find that Jesus is depicted, not as one like a son of a man, but as the "Son of the Man," evidently referring to Jesus with a Messianic title as being the promised son of the man, David. (Matthew 1:1; 9:6,27; 10:23; 11:19; 12:8,23,32,40; 13:37,41; 16:13,27,28; 17:9,12,22; 18:11; 19:28; 20:18; 22:42; 24:27,30,37,39,44; 25:13,31; 26:2,24; 26:45; Luke 1:32,69; 3:31; John 7:42; Acts 13:34; Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8; Revelation 3:7; 22:16) Most translations, however, fail to distinguish between the two phrases, "son of a man," and "son of the man," so the distinction between the two terms are not made apparent. In Revelation 14:14, however, the expression in the Greek is not definite, but indefinite, "son of a man," and corresponds to Daniel 7:13. In both scriptures, Jesus is spoken of as being like a son of man, not that he was actually human being.

We also should note that in Daniel we are dealing with a vision of symbolism, which symbolism represent realities. In those visions, what Daniel saw being symbolically depicted is how Jesus appears symbolically to the world, as with clouds. This symbolism is also used in Isaiah 5:30, which coincides with the time of trouble that Daniel (Daniel 12:1) later speaks of. “They shall roar against them in that day like the roaring of the sea: and if one look to the land [earth], behold, darkness [and] distress; and the light is darkened in the clouds of it.” Clouds are also be used in the Bible in connection with glory. (Exodus 16:10; 40:35) Jesus speaks of his coming with glory, saying: “then the sign of the Son of [the] Man will appear in the sky. Then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of [the] Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory.” (Matthew 24:30) “I tell you, henceforth [after this] you will see the Son of [the] Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of the sky.” (Matthew 26:64) “Then will they see the Son of [the] Man coming in clouds with great power and glory.” (Mark 13:26) “You will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of the sky.” (Mark 14:62) And the angel of Jehovah stated in the Revelation concerning Jesus: “He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, including those who pierced him. All the tribes of the earth will mourn over him.” (Revelation 1:7) Thus the one like a son of man is described by Jesus being the same as the son of the man (the man, David), that is, Jesus himself. 

Daniel 7:13 - I saw in the night-visions, and, behold, there came with the clouds of the sky one like a son of man, and he came even to the ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. -- World English.

Obviously, two persons are depicted here: The ancient of days and the "done like a son of [a] man." 

The “Ancient of Days” is understood by many Protestant  Bible commentators to be applied to the God and Father of Jesus,  and from the trinitarian standpoint, it is often assumed to represent the first person of their alleged triune God. John Gill states regarding the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7:9:

And the Ancient of days did sit; on one of the thrones pitched, as chief Judge: this is to be understood of God the Father, as distinct from the Messiah, the Son of God, said to be like the Son of man brought unto him, Daniel 7:13 and is so called, not only because he is from everlasting, and without beginning of days; but chiefly because he is permanent, and endures for ever; his years fail not, and of his days there will be no end; and he will be when these empires, signified by the four beasts, will be no more; and very fit to be Judge of them, because of his consummate wisdom and prudence, signified also by this phrase; and the divine Father of Christ is still more proper, because it is in Christ's cause the judgment will proceed; and this in order to introduce him openly into his dominions in the world.

Concerning the one like a son of man in verse 13, Gill states:

And, behold one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven; not Judas Maccabaeus, as Porphyry; nor the Roman people, as Grotius; nor the people of Israel, as Aben Ezra; nor the people of the saints of the most High, as Cocceius; but the Messiah, as most Christian interpreters, and even the Jews themselves, both ancient and modern, allow. 

Gill, John. "Commentary on Daniel 7".

"The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible".

  https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/geb/daniel-7.html. 1999.

Matthew Henry says regarding Ancient of Days in Daniel 7:9:

The Ancient of days - God Almighty; and this is the only place in the sacred writings where God the Father is represented in a human form.

And regarding he who is like a son of a man:

The Messiah is here called the Son of man--one like unto the Son of man for he was made in the likeness of sinful flesh, was found in fashion as a man. I saw one like unto the Son of man, one exactly agreeing with the idea formed in the divine counsels of him that in the fulness of time was to be the Mediator between God and man. He is like unto the son of man, but is indeed the Son of God. Our Savior seems plainly to refer to this vision when he says (John 5:27) that the Father has therefore given him authority to execute judgment because he is the Son of man, and because he is the person whom Daniel saw in vision, to whom a kingdom and dominion were to be given.

Henry, Matthew. "Complete Commentary on Daniel 7:4".

"Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible".

 https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/mhm/daniel-7.html. 1706.

Adam Clarke states of Ancient of Days in verse 9:

The Ancient of days - God Almighty; and this is the only place in the sacred writings where God the Father is represented in a human form.

Regarding verse 13, Clarke states:

One like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven - This most certainly points out the Lord Jesus, אנש בר bar enosh, the Son of miserable man; who took our nature upon him that he might redeem us unto himself. To prove himself to be the Messiah he applies, before the high priests, these words of the Prophet Daniel to himself Matthew 24:30.

Near before him - The Ancient of days.

Clarke, Adam. "Commentary on Daniel 7:4".

"The Adam Clarke Commentary".

https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/acc/daniel-7.html. 1832

We believe that the “Ancient of Days” represents Jehovah, the God and Father of Jesus, but the idea that the Ancient of Days is the first person of an alleged triune God has to be assumed in the realm of human imagination, added to, and read into what is stated. 

We have been asked two questions:

a.  Who is the Ancient of Days? Our answer is that the Ancient of Days is Jehovah, the God and Father of Jesus.

b.  Was He the one sitting on the throne of whom the Son of Man came or he is the one coming for the saints to possess the kingdom? Our answer is that the Ancient of Days is the one sitting on the throne, and that the Ancient of Days is not the one who is like a son of man.

The person who asks the above questions concludes from these questions that  “the Father and the Son are one God.”

Although we are not certain exactly the purpose of for the questions, evidently it is in some vague way meant to claim that Jesus and His God and Father are one God. Apparently, the thought is that by connecting some of the words that are related to both Ancient of Days and also the one designated as like a son of man, that this means that both are God.

Some claim that Jesus is the Ancient of Days because judgment is spoken of in connection with the Ancient of Days, and we read that Jesus judges the living and the dead. (1 Timothy 4:1) The reality is that the Ancient of Days (Jehovah) comes to judge the world through the one whom he as ordained, his Son Jesus Christ. (Psalm 96:13; 98:9; Acts 17:13; Romans 2:16) This does not mean that the one whom God ordained to judge the world is God, or a person of God.

Jesus stated:

John 5:22 - For neither does the Father judge any man, but he has given all judgment to the Son.

The God and Father of Jesus does not directly do the judging; he has committing all the judging to His Son.

Thus, in Acts 17:13, we find that one person who is God in the preceding verses will judge by means of Jesus, whom God has ordained to do such judging. But there will more who will be judging along with Jesus:

Speaking prophetically, Daniel says:

“Judgment was given to the saints of the Most High, and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.” — Daniel 7:22.

This speaks of the saints, in that the authority to judge was given to the saints.

The language used in Daniel 7:22 is basically the same language that is used of Jesus in John 5:22:

For neither does the Father judge any man, but he has given all judgment to the Son. — World English.

Additionally, Paul states:

Don’t you know that the saints will judge the world? — 1 Corinthians 6:2.

And we also read:

Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly I tell you, that you who have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on the throne of his glory, you also will sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. — Matthew 19:28.

Likewise, John wrote prophetically of those who participate in the first resurrection:

I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. — Revelation 20:4.

Furthermore, the Hebrew word translated as given in Daniel 7:27 is the same word that is used in Daniel 7:27, which states:

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 High. Their kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey them.

In Daniel 7:27, it is not that the kingdom is given on behalf of the saints, but rather it means that the kingdom is given to the saints, and they actually receive the authority and power to rule. Likewise, in Daniel 7:22, it is not that the judgment is given on behalf of the saints, but rather the power and authority is given to saints so that they judge both the world of mankind and the angels.  -- 1 Corinthians 6:2,3.

The Ancient of Days is said to come to judge, and also the son comes to judge, but by a comparison of scriptures we realize that  the Ancient of Days comes to judge representatively through, or by means of his Son, whom he has ordained. (Acts 17:31) As we stated, however, none of this means that Jesus and his God are both one God, etc. Any such thought has to imagined and assumed upon what the scriptures actually say.

But the real point is that he who is like a son of a man is brought before He who is "Ancient of Days." Jesus, being the brought before the Ancient of Days, is therefore, not the Ancient of Days before whom he brought.

The Ancient of Days corresponds to He who is on the throne, He who is, was and is to come, of Revelation 1:4,8; 4:8-10; 5:1,7; 6:16; 7:10,15; 19:4; 21:5.

He who is like a son of a man in Daniel 7:13 corresponds to the figurative "lamb" of Revelation 5:6,8,12,13; 6:1,16; 7:9,10,14,17 and he who is like a son of a man in Revelation 1:13; 14:14. In Daniel 7:13, the one like a son of man is brought before the Ancient of Days; in Revelation 5:7, the lamb is pictured as coming before He who is the throne, and takes the book out of the right hand of him who is on the throne. Jesus, therefore is not being pictured in Daniel 7 as the Ancient of Days, but as the one who is brought before the Ancient of Days.

Some Related Studies:

Revelation 1:8 - Is Jesus or Jehovah Being Quoted?

Son of Man and Son of God


Comments/Objections

One has presented several objections/assertions regarding our conclusion that the Ancient of Days refers, not to Jesus, but his God. We addressing these one at a time below:

1) "Since Jesus Christ has no beginning of Days nor end of life." The fact is no scripture presents such an idea. Some may read such an idea into Hebrews 7:3, but that is not what it says. See our study:

Melchizedek and Jesus' Priesthood

2) "And since he is God." Assuming "God" here to mean "Supreme Being," the fact is that no scripture presents Jesus as being the Supreme Being. In the Bible, only the God and Father of Jesus is presented as being the Supreme Being. See our study:

Jesus is not Jehovah (Yahweh)

3) "The reference you provided is provided by the Holy Spirit to help us distinguish between the Father and the Son." Since the one God of whom are all (1 Corinthians 8:6) is always distinguished from being the Son of the one God of whom are all, yes, the same distinction is presented in Daniel 7.

This statement, however, is evidently meant to refer to the trinitarian 3 persons of God. Since the Bible never presents the one God of whom are all (1 Corinthians 8:6) as being more than one person, the idea of distinguishing the imagined and assumed persons of the imagined and assumed trinitarian God scripturally has no relevance to Daniel 7.

4) "As God, Jesus had no beginning!" Again assuming "God" to mean Supreme Being, no scripture presents Jesus as as the Supreme Being, and no scripture presents Jesus as having no beginning, although this idea is read into several scriptures. See links to various studies provided on our page:

Did Jesus Have an Eternal Past?

5) "As a man, he cane into existence approximately 2,000 years ago in the little town of Bethlehem." This we agree with; the Logos of God, who was with God, was before a became flesh, a mighty spirit being, but he was not the Supreme Being whom he had been with. The body (substance) that Jesus had before he became flesh was that which Paul likened to a celestial body -- substance), which Paul contrasts with the terrestrial, flesh, physical body (substance). (1 Corinthians 15:39-41) Jesus, while he was in the days of his flesh (Hebrews 5:7), possessed the sinless glory of a human being (Romans 3:23; 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5), a little lower than the angels. -- Psalm 8:4,5; Hebrews 2:6-9.

Before he became flesh, however, he had a different glory -- a different body (substance), the celestial glory, which he asked to be returned to him. Thus, he did not possess two forms of substance at once as trinitarians and oneness believers claim. -- John 17:5.

See our studies on Jesus' Prehuman Existence

6) "The Jewish understanding of God only permits for the belief in a Mono (singular) theistic understanding." Monotheism as a word is definted aside from the Bible. As such it is not in the Bible. The Jewish adoption of this term, we believe, is appropriate, however, in the definition given is the belief that there is only one God. "God" with a capital "G" usually refers to Supreme Being. The Bible does present only one Supreme Being, and Paul identifies that one Supreme Being as being the God and Father of Jesus. -- 1 Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 1:3.

If however, "monotheism" is defined as meaning that forms the Hebrew and Greek words for God (often transliterated as EL and THEOS) cannot be used of any except Jehovah or false gods, this would  be incorrect, since the Bible does use these words of many others than Jehovah or false gods, and thus they can be used also of the Son of the Most High without meaning that Jesus is the Most High Jehovah. See our study:

The Hebraic Usage of the Titles for "God"

7) "The Schema of Deuteronomy 6:4 allows for a unified plurality of being for the Lord." We are assuming that this is meant to say that there is something written in Deuteronomy 6:4 that gives meaning to the trinitarian claim that Jehovah is three persons. Some claim that the word "one" can mean more than one person, and it can, as speaking of one group, figurative body, family, etc. In such, however, one one member of the group is never equal to the totality of group. If this is applied to the trinity doctrine, it would mean that Jesus is part of, but not wholly and fully, the Supreme Being; it would mean that the Father is part of, but not wholly and fully the Supreme Being, and likewise with Jehovah's Holy Spirit. The reality is that there is nothing in Deuteronomy 8:6 that supports the trinitarian claims. For more related to this, see our study:

The Meaning of Echad

1 Corinthians 2:8 – Lord Of Glory

The Lord of Glory

When Paul wrote of Jesus as "Lord of glory" in 1 Corinthians 2:8, was he saying that Jesus is Jehovah?

For had they known it, they wouldn’t have crucified the Lord of glory. — 1 Corinthians 2:8, World English.

The claim is sometimes made that 1 Corinthians 2:8 proves that Jesus is Jehovah (Yahweh), “the King of glory.” The way this is allegedly proved is that 1 Corinthians 2:8 is crossed with the following scriptures, by which it is supposed that this proves that Jesus is Jehovah (Yahweh):

{Psalm 24:7} Lift up your heads, you gates! Be lifted up, you everlasting doors, and the King of glory will come in.
{Psalm 24:8} Who is the King of glory? Jehovah strong and mighty, Jehovah mighty in battle.
{Psalm 24:9} Lift up your heads, you gates; yes, lift them up, you everlasting doors, and the King of glory will come in.
{Psalm 24:10} Who is this King of glory? Jehovah of Armies is the King of glory! Selah. — RLIV.

At most, what we can see between the two scriptures is that both Jesus and His God have an attribute of “glory”. Nevertheless, any thought that this means that Jesus is Jehovah has to be imagined, assumed, added to, and read into the scriptures. And then to get trinity into the verses, one has to imagine and assume and add to the first assumption that Jesus is a person of Jehovah, and then add this and read this also into the scriptures.

Although many speak of Jesus as the “King of glory,” this expression, as such, is never used of Jesus in the Bible. It is only used of Jehovah (Yahweh), the God and Father of Jesus, whom Jesus spoke of as the “only true God” (Isaiah 61:1; John 17:1,3). As such, the expression, “King of glory” in Psalm 24 describes Jehovah’s glory as related to His being King, the ruler of all that he has created. This glory is not something that anyone has given to Him. It is innately His glory, and His right as Most High to be this “King of glory.”

This is not to say that Jesus is not a “king of glory.” Prophetically, Jesus, in speaking of his second appearing, said, “the Son of the Man [the son of the man, David] will sit on the throne of his glory.” (Matthew 19:28) “They will see the Son of the Man coming on clouds of the sky with power and glory.” (Matthew 24:30) “He comes in the glory of himself, of the Father, and of the holy angels.” (Luke 9:26) Thus, at Jesus’ second appearing, his rulership at that time, the power and authority given to him by the only Most High, could be described as a “king of glory.” Unlike Jehovah, however, this kingship of Jesus is given to him from Jehovah his God, in whose strength Jesus stands (Micah 5:4), and Jesus’ kingship is that of lineage of David, who sat on the throne of Jehovah . (1 Chronicles 29:23) All the glory of his rulership is given to him by the only Most High, Jehovah, and reflects the glory of Jehovah, to praise of Jehovah. — Psalm 2:6-8; 45:7; 110:1,2; Isaiah 9:6,7; 11:2; 42:1; 61:1-3; Jeremiah 23:5; Daniel 7:13,14; Matthew 12:28; 28:28; Luke 1:32; 4:14,18; 5:17; John 3:34; 5:19,27,30; 10:18,36-38; Acts 2:22; 10:38; Romans 1:1-4; 1 Corinthians 15:27; 2 Corinthians 13:4; Colossians 1:15,16; 2:10; Ephesians 1:17-22; Philippians 2:9-11; Hebrews 1:2,4,6,9; 1 Peter 3:22.

Does what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 2:8 support the claim that Jesus is Jehovah (Yahweh), the “King of Glory?” Paul wrote: “which none of the rulers of this world has known. For had they known it, they wouldn’t have crucified the Lord of glory.” Jesus is here spoken of as the “Lord of glory.” “The Lord of glory” was crucified. Except in the sense that what was done to Jesus was also considered to be done to the God and Father of Jesus (John 15:23), Jehovah, the only Most High Himself was not crucified. Jesus was made “Lord” by Jehovah. (Isaiah 6:1; Acts 2:36) Jesus’ being made “Lord” and “Christ” by Jehovah does not mean that Jesus became Jehovah.

Our trinitarian neighbors may say that it was not "God the Son" that was crucified, but that it was simply Jesus' manhood that was crucified. If so, it would seem to say that the fleshy body of Jesus is the "Lord of glory", and thus, one would wonder how such would mean that Jesus is Jehovah, the King of glory, who is not a man, having the glory that is a little lower than the angels. -- Psalm 8:5; Hebrews 2:7,9.

It is possible, however, that 1 Corinthians 2:8 refers to Jesus' sinless glory as a human, since, unlike all the offspring of Adam, he never fell short of the glory of his God while he was in the days of his flesh. -- Romans 3:23; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 1 Peter 2:22.

In reality, there is no scriptural reason to imagine, assume, add to, and read into 1 Corinthians 2:8 that Paul had any intent of saying that Jesus is Jehovah of Psalm 24. There is definitely nothing there that says that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is more than one person, or that Jesus is a person of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, etc.

Illustration at top adapted from image by OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay

Romans 10:13 – Whoever Will Call On The Name Of Jehovah

“For, `Whoever will call on the name of Jehovah will be saved [Joel 2:32].'” — Romans 10:13

Some try to prove that Jesus is Jehovah (Yahweh) by pointing to Romans 10:13 and Joel 2:32. The argument is made that Paul is here calling Jesus “Lord”. Since this is a reference to Joel 2:32, where it tells us that whoever calls on the name of Jehovah will be delivered, trinitarians as well as oneness believers claim that this means that Jesus is the same (sentient?) being (or person, in the case of our “oneness” neighbors) as Jehovah. Some translations render Romans 10:13 as calling upon Jehovah (or, as some prefer, Yahweh).

The reality is that there is nothing in Romans 10 that warrants the idea that Jesus is Jehovah who spoke through the prophet Joel. Hebrews 1:1,2 shows that He who spoke to the prophets of old is only one person, and now that one person speaks through someone else who is not Himself, that is, His Son, the Lord Jesus.

Certainly, Jesus is the means that Jehovah has provided for salvation (John 3:16,17), no one can come to Jehovah but through Jesus (John 14:6), and no other means has been given by Jehovah for salvation than through the name of Jesus. (Acts 4:12) Jesus’ name means: “Jehovah saves” or “Jehovah is savior,” which ascribes the actual source of salvation to Jehovah, as all things are of Jehovah, through Jesus. (John 3:16; Romans 5:8,10; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 15:57; 2 Corinthians 5:19-21; Titus 3:5,6; Hebrews 13:21; 1 John 4:9,10) Thus to properly call upon the name of Jesus as the spokesperson and one anointed by Jehovah (Deuteronomy 18:15,18,19; Psalm 45:7; Isaiah 61:1; Matthew 12:18; Luke 4:18,21; Acts 3:13-26), would essentially be the same as calling upon the name of Jehovah. (Matthew 10:14; Mark 9:37; Luke 9:48; John 13:20; Romans 1:8; 7:25; 14:26; Philippians 1:11; 2:11) But to ascertain whether Romans 10:13 is calling Jesus “Jehovah”, let us go through the tenth chapter of Romans briefly, to see exactly who Paul speaks of.

Romans 10:1: Brothers, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God is for Israel, that they may be saved.

In verse one, Paul says he prays to God for the salvation of Israel. Who is the God of Israel? This, of course, is Jehovah. (Exodus 3:14,15; 16:12; 20:2; 34:32) In the New Testament, we learn that the God of Israel — Jehovah — is the Father of Jesus. (Deuteronomy 18:15,18,19; Matthew 23:39; Luke 13:35; John 5:43; 8:54; 10:25; Hebrews 1:1,2) Paul thus recognizes Jehovah, the God of Israel as the source of salvation. The God of Israel is differentiated from being Jesus in Romans 10:9. Thus, the default reasoning is not to imagine and assume that Jesus is being called Jehovah in verse 13, but rather that the verse is actually speaking of the one person who is Jehovah who sent Jesus, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who raise Jesus from the dead. -- Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Isaiah 61:1; John 17:1,3; Acts 3:13-26.

Romans 10:2: For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.”
Romans 10:3: For being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, they didn’t subject themselves to the righteousness of God.”
Romans 10:4: For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

In these verses, Paul discusses Israel’s relationship with God — Jehovah. He says that they are ignorant of God’s righteousness (Romans 3:22), and sought to make themselves righteous by means of obedience to the Law. Then he reveals that the righteousness of God is in Christ, who is the end of the law [covenant] to everyone who believes.
See:
“How God’s Son Condemned Sin in the Flesh”

Romans 10:5: For Moses writes about the righteousness of the law, “The one who does them will live by them.”

Paul is still speaking about the relationship of Israel with Jehovah, the God of Israel. Anyone who could keep the Law would be totally righteous, having the right to life thereby. If it were possible to do so, then righteousness and life would have come by the Law. — Galatians 3:21.

Romans 10:6: But the righteousness which is of faith says this, “Don’t say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ (that is, to bring Christ down);
Romans 10:7: or, ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead.)”

Those who seek righteousness by faith are, to the extent that God permits, not hidden from the truth. It is not something far off in heaven or in the grave. Those of faith do not have go to heaven to find the Anointed One of Jehovah, nor do they have to go to the grave to try to bring him back from the dead. This thing is not hidden from the one of faith, neither is it afar off — difficult to understand. (See also: Deuteronomy 30:11-14; notice that Paul is not directly quoting Deuteronomy, but he does use similar phraseology.)

Nevertheless, we should note that in this Paul is still writing about the relationship of Israel with the God of Israel, Jehovah. He is showing that the proper way to obtain the righteousness of God is through faith, which he goes on to show is through faith in the ransom sacrifice given by the one whom Jehovah has anointed and sent, that is, Jesus. The only way to be reconciled to Jehovah, the God of Israel is through the one whom Jehovah sent. -- John 14:6; Romans 5:10,12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21,22; 2 Corinthians 5:18,19; 1 Timothy 2:5,6; 1 John 2:2.

Romans 10:8: But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth, and in your heart;” that is, the word of faith, which we preach:
Romans 10:9: that if you will confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Here Paul points out the way to Jehovah’s righteousness as provided through Jesus. (John 3:17; Romans 3:22-24; 5:1,9,10; 2 Corinthians 5:18; Galatians 4:7; 1 Thessalonians 5:9) Paul, as usual, presents "|God' as one person who is not Jesus. We must remember that it is Jehovah who made Jesus “Lord” and “Christ” [Christ means “anointed one”] (Psalm 2:2; 45:7; Isaiah 61:1; Acts 2:36) Many read this verse as though only Jesus is spoken of, but we note the context is about Jehovah, the God of Israel, and the salvation he provides through Jesus. “God” in Romans 10:9 refers to only one person, the same person Paul wrote about in 1 Corinthians 8:6 as being the source of all, He who is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob of Exodus 3:14,15 and Acts 3:13-26.

Romans 10:10: For with the heart, one believes unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Romans 10:11: For the scripture says, “Whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

In Romans 10:11, Paul uses language similar to that of Isaiah 28:16: “So, the Lord Jehovah says this: Behold, I place in Zion a Stone for a foundation, a tried Stone, a precious Cornerstone, a sure Foundation; he who believes shall not hasten.” (Green’s Literal) Here is it Jehovah who is the provider of the sure foundation, and then he tells us that he who believes in him, that is, in the foundation provided by Jehovah, shall not be in haste. The one of faith does not have to be anxious about trying to find any other source or any other way of salvation, for it is found in the sure foundation provided by Jehovah, nor does the one of faith in this sure foundation have any reason to have any hint of disappointment or shame in the foundation provided by Jehovah. It is still to Jehovah, not to Jesus, that Israel needs to be reconciled to. Jesus, however, is the only way any can be reconciled to Jehovah, Jesus' God and Father. -- Micah 5:4; Ephesians 1:3.

Romans 10:12: For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, and is rich to all who call on him.

Here the apostle joins the God of Israel — the God and Father of Jesus — with the believing Greeks (representing those outside the law covenant). Jehovah is the same Lord (the One spoken of as Adonay [or, Adonai] in Isaiah 28:16 just referenced) over all, and will richly bless all who call on him. We believe it probable that in the first instance of "Lord" the copyists changed the Holy Name of God to a form of the word often transliterated as Kurios.* If so, then this should read "the same Jehovah is Lord of all," showing that Jehovah is Lord, not only of the Jew, but also of Greek. At any rate, the “Lord of all” is here evidently referring, not to Jesus, but rather the Lord Jehovah of Isaiah 61:1, He who anointed Jesus, making Jesus both Christ and Lord. — Acts 2:36.
*Links to some of our studies related the Holy Name in the New Testament.

Romans 10:13: For, “Whoever will call on the name of Jehovah will be saved.”

This brings us to the scripture in question. As it reads in the extant manuscripts, a word-for-word translation would be: "Whoever for that shall call upon the name of Lord will be saved." The Greek texts do not have a definite article before Kyriou (a form of Kurios, meaning Lord), which could mean that Kyriou has replaced God's Holy Name in Romans 10:13. If Paul was quoting Joel 2:36, then Paul here makes reference to whoever will call upon the name of Jehovah will be saved. If we consider scriptures leading up to this scripture, it supports the probability that Paul is making reference to Jehovah, the God of Israel, with whom both Jew and Gentile need reconciliation. That reconciliation, however, as the apostle points out, is by faith, not by the keeping of the law.  Definitely, however, if Paul was quoting Joel 2:36, we find that God's Holy Name has been changed to Kyriou  (meaning Lord) in Romans 10:13. The conclusion we come to is that throughout the New Testament, later copyists changed God's Holy Name to other words such as forms of Kurios. While we highly doubt that Paul himself substituted  a form of “Kurios” here for God’s name, even if he did it does not mean that he was not referring to Jehovah for it is Jehovah -- not Jesus -- with whom both Jew and Gentile needs to be reconciled (Romans 5:9,10), and it is from Jehovah, the Father, that a means for salvation has been provided, that is, through his Son, Jesus. — Acts 10:43; 20:21; John 3:17; 6:44; Hebrews 1:1,2.

On the other hand, if Paul was referring to the calling upon the name of the Lord Jesus, then it could mean that he was not quoting Joel 2:36, but simply making a statement regarding the one whom Jehovah sent to be our Savior. Nevertheless, Paul could have simply meant that the only way to call upon Jehovah is through Jesus.

However, in the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, when it is referring to calling upon the name of the Lord Jesus, one usually finds the definite article before Kurios, but we do not find this in Romans 10:13.  

Romans 10:14: How, then, shall they call on him whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And shall they hear without a preacher?

Again in verse 14 the thought is primarily of Jehovah, who sent his Son. No one can call upon Jehovah if they don’t believe in him through his Son, Jesus. (Romans 3:22-24; 5:1,11; 7:25; 14:26) The vast majority have never come to Jehovah, he who provided the “ransom for all” through the offering of the man, Christ Jesus, which will be testified, made known, in due time. (1 Timothy 2:5,6) Thus, in due time, all heathen will hear, and they will all be brought to a knowledge of Jehovah and his Son Christ Jesus in the age to come. — Isaiah 2:2-4.
See:
Mankind’s Course to the Day of Judgment

What we do not find in Romans 10, or anywhere else in the Bible, is the concept of a triune God. No such God is ever revealed in the Bible. Nor, does Romans 10 reveal the concept that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob of Exodus 3:14,15, as many read into several scriptures. If Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who spoke through Moses and the prophets, then, to be consistent, one would have to reason that it is Jesus in Hebrews 1:1,2 who speaks through his son, which of course, is not true.

ADDENDUM

"Name of the Lord" in the Greek

The expression, the name of the Lord, as it appears in most translations may be found at: Matthew 21:9; 23:39; Mark 11:9; Luke 13:35; 19:38; John 12:13; Acts 2:21; 8:16; 9:28; 10:48; 19:5,17; 21:13; 22:16; Romans 10:13; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Colossians 3:17; James 5:10, and some other places, depending on the translation being used. For instance, translations based on the Textus Receptus may also have it at Mark 11:10. It is interesting to note that in Matthew 21:9; 23:39; Mark  11:9,10; Luke 13:35; 19:38; John 12:13; Acts 2:21; Romans 10:13; Colossians 3:17, 2 Timothy 2:19; and James 5:10, the Greek word KURIOS is anarthrous, without a definite article. This means that in the Greek the phrase is not "name of the Lord," but rather "name of Lord." The Greek phrase for "name of the Lord" -- with the Greek article before KURIOS -- is found at: Acts 5:26; 19:13,17; 21:31; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 5:4l; 6:11; 1 Thessalonians 1:12; James 5:14. In looking at all these scriptures, we find that usually, when the Holy Name has been changed to KURIOS, it is indefinite, without the definite article, whereas, usually, when it is referring to the Lord Jesus, KURIOS is definite, with the definite article. There are exceptions, but there may be other reasons for the lack of the definite article or the use of the definite article beyond designating a proper name or not. 

by Ronald R. Day, Senior -- Restoration Light (ResLight; RlBible) Bible Study Services

Jeremiah 31:9 – Ephraim As Jehovah’s Firstborn

Who Really is the Power of God?

We have been asked the question, evidently with thought of finding support for the trinity dogma, "Who really is the power of God in the Scriptures?"

The expression "power of God" appears in the World English Bible version 12 times. (Matthew 22:29; Mark 12:24; Luke 22:69; Acts 8:10; Romans 1:16; 1 Corinthians 1:18,24; 2:5; 2 Corinthians 6:7; 13:4; 2 Timothy 1:8; 1 Peter 1:5) It is used in various ways and applied variously as to how it is represented. It is most often applied as "it", not a "who". Of course, God's power is mentioned many other times in the Bible, but I have only presented the exact expression as it appears in English as "power of God."

Matthew 22:29 - But Jesus answered them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God."

Mark 12:24 Jesus answered them, “Isn’t this because you are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God?"

Here Jesus was speaking the Sadducees who tried to trick him regarding the resurrection. Jesus does not apply the expression "the power of God" as being a "who."

Some may claim that Jesus was speaking of himself as being the "power of God"; if this is so, then it would only mean that Jesus is the instrument of God's power, and it would further mean that he recognized God as being only one person. Such would harmonize with 1 Corinthians 8:6.

Luke 22:69 From now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God.”

Here Jesus applies the expression "power of God", not as being a "who", but rather as related to his position relative to that power. Again, he does not represent "power of God" as being a "who." Additionally, it is obvious that Jesus believed "God" to be only one person, and that he was to sit at the right hand of power with that one person.

Acts 8:10 to whom they all listened, from the least to the greatest, saying, “This man is that great power of God.”

Here the people of Samaria are quoted and they do apply the expression "power of God" to a man: Simon the sorcerer. It should be obvious, however, that they were using the Greek form transliterated as "estin" (Strong's #1510)  -- is -- in the sense of representation.

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the Good News of Christ, for it is the power of God for salvation for everyone who believes; for the Jew first, and also for the Greek.

Paul here does not apply the expression to a "who" but to a "what", stating that the "Good News" is (Greek, transliterated, estin) the power of God, for a purpose, that is, for salvation. Again, it should be apparent that the Greek word "estin" is used in the sense of representation of God's power in what is being spoken of. It should also be obvious that Paul believed that "God" is only one person, and that "Christ" is the one anointed by that one person who is "God".


1 Corinthians 1:18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are dying, but to us who are saved it is the power of God.

Here Paul again uses the Greek word transliterated a "estin" in representative sense. "It" refers to the "word", which in turn is referring Paul's preaching concerning the cross (not the instrument, but the act of crucifixion that took place on the instrument).

Again, one may claim that the Word here is Jesus, although it is highly unlikely that Paul meant this. Obviously, Paul is using the term "word" to signify the message of Christ's dying on the cross, not that Jesus is the word itself.

Additionally, it should also be noted that Paul is using the term "word" as being the instrument of God's power, not that it literally is God's power.

1 Corinthians 1:23-24 - but we preach Christ crucified; a stumbling block to Jews, and foolishness to Greeks, [24] but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God.


1 Corinthians 1:23
heemeis de keerussomen christon estaurwmenon
WE BUT ARE PREACHING CHRIST HAVING BEEN PUT ON STAKE,
1473_7 1161 2784 5547 4717
ioudaiois men skandalon ethnesin de mwrian
TO JEWS INDEED FALL CAUSER TO NATIONS BUT FOOLISHNESS,
2453 3303 4625 1484 1161 3472

1 Corinthians 1:24
autois de tois kleetois ioudaiois te kai
TO THEM BUT TO THE CALLED (ONES), TO JEWS AND AND
0846_93 1161 3588 2822 2453 5037 2532
0846_99
helleesin christon theou dunamin kai theou sophian
TO GREEKS, CHRIST OF GOD POWER AND OF GOD WISDOM.
1672 5547 2316 1411 2532 2316 4678 -- Westcott & Hort Interlinear.

This is only place that one might consider a "who" as being referring to as the "power of God", although in the Greek it does not actually say that. Additionally, there is not a form of the Greek word "eimi" (is - Strong's 1510) in either 1 Corinthians 1:23 or 1 Corinthians 1:24, so translators add "is" where they believe it should be. Nevertheless, adding "is" into the verse in the way it appears in the World English (and many other translations) would be representative of the preaching of Christ, which is understood in verse 24 by what is said in verse 23. In other words, to those who believe, the preaching of Christ does not represent "foolishness" nor a "stumblingblock", but rather it represents the power of God and wisdom of God.

Again, it is obvious that Paul believed "God" to be one person, and that Christ is the one anointed by that one person who is God.

2 Corinthians 13:4 For he was crucified through weakness, yet he lives through the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we will live with him through the power of God toward you.

In this verse, Jesus is said to living through (out of) the power of God, and also the saints are spoken of living through (out of) the same power of God. In this verse Jesus is not spoken of as being the power of God, and certainly not as being "God", but rather Jesus' being alive is due to the power of God. Indeed, it should be very obvious here that Paul believed that "God" is one person, and that Jesus' life is dependent on the power of that one person who is God.

2 Timothy 1:7-9 World English Bible (WEB)

7 For God didn’t give us a spirit of fear, but of power, love, and self-control. 8 Therefore don’t be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner; but endure hardship for the Good News according to the power of God, 9 who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given to us in [Strong's 1722, instrumental, "by means of"] Christ Jesus before times eternal.

Here we find salvation connected to the expression "power of God". "God" in this expression is referring not to Jesus, but rather to only one person: the God and Father of Jesus, since Jesus is distinguished from "God" in verse 9.

1 Peter 1:5 who by [instrumental Strong's #1722, by means of] the power of God are guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

Here Peter does not apply the expression "power of God" as "who" but simply refers to it as the instrument the saints use for protection through faith.

Of course, what we do not find in any of these verses (or anywhere else in the entire Bible) is any idea that God is more than one person, or that Jesus is a person of God; indeed, throughout these verses God is only one person.