1 Corinthians 12:4-6 - Various Kinds of Gifts, But One Spirit

1 Corinthians 12:4 - Now there are various kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit.
1 Corinthians 12:5 - There are various kinds of service, and the same Lord.
1 Corinthians 12:6 - There are various kinds of workings, but the same God, who works all things in all. -- World English Bible version.

The above verses are sometimes referenced as claiming to present all three persons of the triune Godhead. Evidently, what is being imagined and assumed is that the word "spirit" in verse 4 is in reference to the third person of the triune Godhead, and the "Lord" in verse 5 is in reference to the second person of the alleged triune Godhead, and that "God" in verse 6 refers to the first person of the alleged triune Godhead. Of course, in reality, "God" in these verses refers to only one person. There is nothing in these verses that presents "God" as being more than one person, or as being three persons.

Paul is here explaining that although there are a diversity of gifts of the spirit, we should not think that each gift of the spirit is a separate spirit. They are all of the one spirit, from the one God and Father of Jesus, through the one person whom Jehovah has anointed and made to be the "Lord" through whom are all. -- Psalm 2:26; 45:7; Isaiah 61:1; Ezekiel 34:23,24; John 10:29; 17:1,3; Acts 2:23,36; 4:27; 10:38; Hebrews 1:9; 1 Corinthians 8:6.

While the verses do demonstrate how God, His Holy Spirit, and His Son, all work together in agreement, we find nothing in the verse that says these three are all the "one God" of whom are all. (1 Corinthians 8:6) Only Jehovah, the God and Father of Jesus (Micah 5:4; Ephesians 1:3), is being identified here as "God."

If one drops the meaning of "three persons in one God," the word "trinity" could be used of all three as being one in agreement, purpose, but the idea of "three persons in one God" is not expressed in these verses, or anywhere else in the Bible.

Godhead in the King James Version

By Ronald R. Day, Sr. -- Much needs to added to this study, but I have decided to present what I have already completed.

A term often used to describe the trinity is that of "Godhead." Trinitarians often refer to the "three persons of the Godhead." On one site we are told that "God is one and that there are three distinct persons within the Godhead." And then it is claimed: "It is important to know where Scripture presents the members of the Godhead as sharing in the divine nature equally, meaning that one is not somehow more divine than another and underscoring that all three members are fully and equally one-and-the-same God." Of course, in reality, we do not find anywhere in the Bible anything about there about the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as being three persons, or even more than one person. He is always presented as being only one person.

On another site, we find a quote 1 John 5:7 from the King James Version and states: "Obviously, this verse speaks of three Persons all being God, all three being one. Notice, the Godhead is not three Gods; but three Persons in one Godhead." Really? Actually and obviously, there is nothing at all in 1 John 5:7 about God consisting of three persons. The idea has to be added to, and read into, what is stated in 1 John 5:7 of the King James Version. The Greek Textus Receptus of this verse does not use the masculine form of the Greek word for one, often transliterated as "heis", as Paul used in the expression "one God" in 1 Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 4:6; and 1 Timothy 2:5. The form found in the Greek Textus Receptus is "hen", which the neuter form of "one". However, the word for "God" in Koine Greek is masculine, and thus the Greek grammar would demand the masculine form of "one", if "one God" is what is meant by "one" in Textus Receptus of 1 John 5:7. For more related to 1 John 5:7 and John 10:30, see our studies: The Oneness of Jesus and His God; 1 John 5:7 - Does This Speak of Three as One God?; and 1 John 5:7 - The Usage of "Hen" and Trinity.

What does the word "Godhead" itself mean, and where did it come from? The English word "Godhead" is, of course, not actually found in the original languages of the Bible. Thus, the English meanings given to this word may or may not correspond with the Biblical usage of any Hebrew or Greek word.

According to Webster, "godhead", with a small "g", means, 'divine nature or essence." This meaning does not, of itself, designate three persons of whom are one Supreme Being. It could be used to designate one or more persons as having the divine nature or divine essence. Of itself, it would not designate the nature or essence of each as being equal.

The second meaning Webster gives is Godhead (capitalized), which is defined as "a: GOD sense 1; b: the nature of God especially as existing in three persons —used with the."  In English, "God" (capitalized) usually -- but not always -- signifies "Supreme Being." If the English word "GOD" is limited to this meaning, then this usage of Godhead would signify (in English) the Supreme Being. The second meaning, however, would give the meaning of "the Godhead" the actual trinitarian meaning of one God who is three persons. Definition "a" would fit the usage made by oneness believers, who speak of the "oneness of the Godhead," but definition "b" would not fit their usage. 

Thus, it would seem that its meaning in English is determined mostly by context, who is using the word, and how it is being applied.

Etymologically, Webster states of "godhead": "Middle English godhed, from god + -hed -hood; akin to Middle English -hod -hood." Thus, etymologically, it would mean, "godhood."

The word "Godhead" is found three times in the King James Version of the Bible: Acts 17:29; Romans 1:20; and Colossians 2:9. 

Acts 17:29

Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. -- King James Version.

Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold, or silver, or stone, engraved by art and design of man. -- World English Bible version.

You may wish to see the online Greek Analysis of Acts 17:29.

When Paul spoke these words, was he speaking of three persons all of whom are God?

The Greek form from which Godhead in the King James Version is rendered is the word often transliterated as Theion (Strong's Greek #2304).  This is an adjective neuter form of the Greek word often transliterated as THEOS, meaning GOD. Strong's #2304  is given several different meanings by scholars (most of whom are trinitarian). Thayer notes that the Greeks used this word "to denote the divine nature, power, providence, in the general, without reference to any individual deity." However, Wayne Jackson states: "In Acts 17:29 the Greek term is theion, signifying 'divinity' or 'the Deity; (with the definite article) – a perfect way to express the concept of the true God as opposed to the conflicting gods of Greek paganism." We can agree that, in context, Paul was using this word to describe the true Divine being as opposed to the gods of the Greeks. However, such a thought is not inherent in the word Theion itself. Being an adjective form of THEOS (Strong's G2306), it would, as used in the New Testament, correspond to forms of the Hebrew words EL (Strong's H410, H430, etc), which have the basic meaning of might, power, strength. These Hebrew forms in the Bible are usually used of Jehovah as meaning the Supreme Might, but they are also used of other persons or in other ways than meaning the Supreme Mighty One. See out study The Hebraic Usage of the Titles for "God" Thus, as an adjective, its basic meaning would refer to might, power, strength. For the more traditional definitions of Strong's 2304, see Bible Hub's Greek 2304. 

In Acts 17:29, however, it is obviously referring to the quality of being the Supreme Mighty One (the Supreme Being). In context, who was Paul referring to? Was he referring to more than one person, or only one person as being God? 

Acts 17:30
The times of ignorance therefore God overlooked. But now he commands that all people everywhere should repent,

Acts 17:31
because he has appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he has ordained; of which he has given assurance to all men, in that he has raised him from the dead.” -- World English Bible version.

Obviously, Paul was speaking of only one person as "God" who has the quality of being the Omnipotent Supreme Being, since in verses 30 and 31, "God" is presented as being one person and Jesus is presented as being "the man [person] he [God] ordained." Thus, the most logical conclusion is that Jesus is not included in THEION of Acts 17:29, but rather it is referring only to the God and Father of Jesus. -- Ephesians 1:3. -- See also our study: "The Man That God Ordained."

We should note forms of Strong's G2304 are also found in 2 Peter 1:3,4; in both instances the King James Version rendered Strong's G2304 as "divine." 

Romans 1:20

In Romans 1:20, we find the word "Godhead" is rendered from a form often transliterated as theiótēs (Strong's #2305), an abstract form of the word THEOS. This form of THEOS appears only this one time in the Bible. Applying the Hebraic usage to this term would make it mean "divinity/mightiness." There is no reason, however, to think that this is not referring to the exclusive mightiness/divinity of the same one person who is "God" in Romans 1:2,3,8,9, who is distinguished from being Jesus in these verses.

Bible Hub Greek Analysis of Romans 1:20

Bible Hub Information About Strong's Greek # 2305

Various Translations Compared

Colossians 2:9

In Colossians 2:9, we find the word "Godhead" is rendered from a form often transliterated as theótēs, another abstract form of THEOS. This form is only used this one time in the Bible, and carries the meaning of divinity, mightiness. In Colossians 2:9, it is obvious that it is being used of only one person, and that is the Son of the Most High. Paul is saying that in Jesus' present spiritual body exists the abundance/plenitude of mightiness/power that Jesus needs to be "head of all principality and power." -- Colossians 2:10.

See our Links to Studies Related to Colossians 2:9

See also our Links to Studies Related to Godhead

Acts 8:37 - Believe That Jesus Christ is the Son of God

Acts 8:37 - Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." -- New King James Version

This verse is sometimes given to support the trinity doctrine. As it appears in the King James Version and some other translations, however, we find that "God" is referring to only one person, and Jesus is spoken of as being the "Son" of that one person who is "God." We find nothing at all here (or anywhere else in the Bible) that presents the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as being more than one person. Thus, the trinitarian actually has to create some assumptions that have to be added to, and read into what is stated in order to "see" trinity in the verse. What the trinitarian does is imagine, assume, add to, and read into the scriptures that God (the Supreme Being) begets God (the Supreme Being), just as a human being begets a human being, and thus in some vague manner this is alleged to mean that Acts 8:37 presents Jesus as being the Supreme Being. Actually, when a human being begets a human being, one has two human beings, not one human Being. Thus, if such an idea is applied to God Almighty, it would mean that if God Almighty were to beget God Almighty, one would have two God Almighies. One Supreme Being who gave birth to another Supreme Being would mean that there are two Supreme Beings. The Bible, of course, never says that God Almighty is subject to the reproduction laws God placed upon his terrestrial living creation. 

Related to this, many trinitarians often present some very strong denunications of the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation regarding this verse, because the whole verse is missing from the main text of the New World Translation. 

While we are not associated with the Jehovah's Witnesses, the claim is often made that New World Translation removes the verse because what is in the verse supports the trinity doctrine. One author states: "The reason this verse is so important is that it speaks to Jesus being God, something that the Jehovah’s Witnesses deny." https://closetojesus.org/2017/03/jehovahs-witnesses-what-about-acts-8-37/ This is odd, since there is clearly nothing at all in that verse (as it appears in the King James Version and many other translations) that presents Jesus as being God. As we pointed out, "God" is presented as only one person, and Jesus is presented as being the "Son" of that one person. While we cannot speak for the Jehovah's Witnesses, we do not see anything in the KJV rendering of the verse that would be in conflict with what they teach. As far as we know, they do, like us, believe that Jesus is the Son of God; this does not mean that Jesus is God of whom he is Son. 

Actually, Acts 8:37 is not missing from the New World Translation, for it does appear in a footnote, which states: "Some later Greek manuscripts and some ancient translations into other languages, with slight variations in wording, add: “Philip said to him: ‘If you believe with all your heart, it is permissible.’ In reply, he said: ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’” However, these words do not appear in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts and are most likely not part of the original text of Acts.​"

Some make it appear that it is only the New World Translation that does this, and endeavor to make it appear that it is missing from the New World Translation because it conflicts with JW doctrine. In fact, many modern translations do similar to the New World Translation in that the verse is missing from the main text, but is included in a footnote with an explanation that it is missing from the earliest manuscripts. Additionlly, many, if not most, that have the verse in the main text, also include a footnote showing that it is missing from earlier manuscripts. Again, we do not know of anything in the verse that would conflict with the JW doctrine. We know that it certainly does not conflict with our belief that Jesus is the Son of the Most High.

We quoted the verse above from the New King James Version. A footnote is given for this verse, which reads "NU-Text and M-Text omit this verse. It is found in Western texts, including the Latin tradition." Thus, although the NKJV includes in the main text, it also acknowledges that it is missing from earlier manuscripts.

Ellicott states regarding Acts 8:37:

It existed in the time of Irenæus, who quotes it (3:12), but is wanting in all the best MSS., including the Sinaitic, and many versions. The motive for the interpolation lies on the surface. The abruptness of the unanswered question, and the absence of the confession of faith which was required in the Church’s practice on the baptism of every convert, seemed likely to be stumbling-blocks, and the narrative was completed according to the received type of the prevailing order for baptism. Even with the insertion, the shortness of the confession points to a very early stage of liturgical development, as also does the reference to it in Irenæus.

Barnes states:

This verse is missing in a very large number of manuscripts (Mill), and has been rejected by many of the ablest critics. It is also omitted in the Syriac and Ethiopic versions. It is not easy to conceive why it has been omitted in almost all the Greek mss. unless it is spurious. If it was not in the original copy of the Acts, it was probably inserted by some early transcriber, and was deemed so important to the connection, to show that the eunuch was not admitted hastily to baptism, that it was afterward retained. It contains, however, an important truth, elsewhere abundantly taught in the Scriptures, that "faith" is necessary to a proper profession of religion.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges states:

The whole of this verse is omitted in the oldest MSS. It probably found its way into the text of those MSS. where it does exist from the margin. Such a margin would be formulated by those who, when the Church had become more extended, and formal professions of faith were the rule before baptism, felt that there was a want of completeness in the narrative unless some such confession were supposed to have been made. Thus the margin became a kind of exposition, and in the end found acceptance in the text.

Vincent simply states:

The best texts omit this verse.

We will add that it is not for us to determine if this verse is actually spurious. It really does not matter one way or the other. 

Related Studies

God Begets God?

 

Acts 10:34-36 - Did Peter Say Jesus is God?

 Acts 10:34 - Peter opened his mouth and said, "Truly I perceive that God doesn't show favoritism; 

Acts 10:35 - but in every nation he who fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him. 

Acts 10:36 - The word which he sent to the children of Israel, preaching good news of peace by Jesus Christ -- he is Lord of all. -- World English

By Ronald R. Day, Sr. (This study needs to be edited)

These verses are sometimes cited as proof that Peter called Jesus "God." Actually, "God" appears only once in these verses, and it is obviously referring to only one person, that is, the God and Father of Jesus. -- Ephesians 1:30.

Evidently, however, something in these verses is being interpreted to mean that Peter called Jesus "God". Directly, Peter calls Jesus "Christ," which means that he believed Jesus to be one whom Jehovah God anointed, not that Jesus is Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Rather than identifying Jesus as being the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Peter thus identifies Jesus as being the one whom Jehovah, the God of Jesus (Micah 5:4), anointed and sent. -- Psalm 2:26; 45:7; Isaiah 61:1; Ezekiel 34:23,24; John 10:29; 17:1,3; Acts 2:23,36; 4:27; 10:38; Hebrews 1:9.

Some, however, may be reading into the expression "He is Lord of all" as designating Jesus as being God Almighty. Along this line, they may cite Ephesians 4:6, where the God and Father is designated as being "over all." More than likely Peter was not actually even speaking of Jesus as being Lord of all, but rather was referring back to He who sent the word to the children of Israel. If this is the case, then Peter was referring to "God" who sent the word through Jesus as being Lord of all.

If Peter did intend to call Jesus the Lord of all, it certainly could not be used as Paul used "of all" in Ephesians 4:6, not unless one were to claim that Jesus is this God and Father. It would have to be viewed in the sense that the God and Father of Jesus has exalted Jesus, and thus made Jesus to be the Lord of all, with the evident exception of being Lord of He who exalted Jesus. Jesus would not "Lord" at all if his God, Jehovah, had not made him  both Lord and Christ (the one Lord through whom are all. -- Ezekiel 34:23,24; Isaiah 61:1,2; Acts 2:36; 1 Corinthians 8:6)

Jehovah has not just made Jesus Lord, but He has exalted Jesus to the highest position in the universe, far above all dominions, next to the only Most High. -- 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.

Regardless, there is nothing in Acts 10:34-35 that states that Peter called Jesus "God." Any such thought has to be thought up beyond what is actually written, and with assumptions added and read into what is written. Since Jehovah is depicted as being the God of Jesus (Micah 5:4; Ephesians 1:3), and since Jesus is definitely not the "one God" through whom are all (1 Corinthians 8:6), the default reasoning is not to imagine, assume, add to, and read into the scriptures that Jesus is God Almighty, but rather that Jesus is not his God. 

John 9:35-38 - Did the Blind Man Say Jesus is God?

John 9:35 - Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and finding him, he said, "Do you believe in the Son of God?" 

John 9:36 - He answered, "Who is he, Lord, that I may believe in him?" 

John 9:37 - Jesus said to him, "You have both seen him, and it is he who speaks with you." 

John 9:38 - He said, "Lord, I believe!" and he worshiped him. 

By Ronald R. Day, Sr. (this study needs to be edited)

The above verses are often presented with the claim that the blind man called Jesus "God".  We have found no explanation for this claim regarding these verses, but since it is obvious that the blind man did not speak of Jesus as being "God," that something this man said is being interpreted to mean that he called Jesus "God." 

What title did the blind man call Jesus by? Not "God," but "Lord." Evidently, then, what is being imagined and assumed is that is that "Lord" means "God." Let's plug that in to see what how it would read:

John 9:35 - Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and finding him, he said, "Do you believe in the Son of God?" 

John 9:36 - He answered, "Who is he, [God}, that I may believe in him?" 

John 9:37 - Jesus said to him, "You have both seen him, and it is he who speaks with you." 

John 9:38 - He said, "{God}, I believe!" and he worshiped him. 

This idea would actually present a contradiction, in that, as recorded in verse 36, the blind man would have addressed Jesus as "God" before he knew who Jesus was. Such would actually make no sense. Why would be calling this man whom he did not know "God"?

One might claim that "Lord" in the New Testament replaces the Holy Name of God, which name is often presented in English as "Jehovah." While it is true that in many instances in the New Testament, we do find that the Holy Name has been replaced with a form of the Greek word often transliterated as KURIOS, meaning "Lord", this does not mean that every place that we find the word KURIOS, it is an instance where the Holy Name has been replaced. Definitely, this blind man did call Jesus by the name "Jehovah" as recorded in verse John 9:36, for the same reasons as already given regarding giving the word "Lord" the meaning of "God."

The Greek word "KURIOS" means: master, lord, sir. Indeed, many transltations render it as "sir" in John 9:36 and a few do so John 9:38. The failure to render it "sir" in both verses may be due to the biased idea that in John 9:38, that the blind man was in some way referring to the Jesus as God Almgighty, but that in verse 36 he was not.

John 9:36

New International Version

“Who is he, sir?” the man asked. “Tell me so that I may believe in him.”

New Living Translation

The man answered, “Who is he, sir? I want to believe in him.”

English Standard Version

He answered, “And who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?”

Berean Study Bible

“Who is He, Sir?” he replied. “Tell me so that I may believe in Him.”

New American Standard Bible

He answered by saying, “And who is He, Sir, that I may believe in Him?”

Christian Standard Bible

“Who is he, Sir, that I may believe in him? ” he asked.

Berean Literal Bible

He answered and said, "And who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?"

John 9:38

Weymouth New Testament

"I believe, Sir," he said. And he threw himself at His feet.

Young's Literal Translation

and he said, 'I believe, sir,' and bowed before him.

The fact is that the word "God" appears only once in John 9:35-38, and it that instance it refers to only one person, and Jesus referred to himself as being the "Son" of that one person. Paul identifies that one person as the God and Father of Jesus (Ephesians 1:6) and as the "one God" of whom are all. -- 1 Corinthians 8:6.

There is definitely nothing in John 9:36-38 that identifies Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as being more than one person, nor is there anything in these veses that identify Jesus as being the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

The blind man does not at all say that Jesus is God.