Revelation 1:4 - Who Is, Was, To Come - Jesus?

John, to the seven assemblies that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from God, who is and who was and who is to come; and from the seven Spirits who are before his throne. -- Revelation 1:4. -- World English version of the Bible
John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is , and which was , and which is to come ; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne. -- King James Version.

The World English Bible version evidently supplies the word "God" before "who is."

Revelation 1:4 is sometimes referenced by a few trinitarians and the phrase "who is and who was and who is to come" is attributed to Jesus. Actually, the context shows that the phrase is being attributed to the God of Jesus.  In the context, "God" is presented as one person, that one person "gave" to another person  (Jesus)  the revelation. "This is the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him." Did Jesus give to Jesus the Revelation of Jesus? No, it was another person who was not Jesus, and this other one person was the One that Jesus refers to later as "my God." (Revelation 3:13) When Jesus referred to God as "my God," was he speaking of one person, or more than one person? When Jesus spoke of "my God and your God" as recorded in John 20:17, was he speaking more than one person as being his God and also the God of Mary? If Mary's God was only one person, should we not also want to have that same one person as our God?

Again, in Revelation 1:2, this unipersonal "God" is distinguished from Jesus: "[John] testified to God's word, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ."

In Revelation 1:4, John begins to write as though a letter to the seven churches. He identifies himself as the writer, but then begins to identify others from whom the message is given. He first identifies "God, who is and who was and who is to come." John identifies this person as the one on the throne by the reference to "his throne." This agrees with the many of the references in the Revelation that refers to He who is on the throne. John does not identify the one "who is and who was and who is to come" as Jesus, for he goes on in Revelation 1:5 to add another person, Jesus, saying, "and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth." In doing this, John distinguishes Jesus from the unipersonal God spoken of in Revelation 1:4. However, in Revelation 4:8 we find the One who is, was and is to come spoken of and described in Revelation 4:1 and the "one sitting on the throne." Now notice in Revelation 5:6,7:

Revelation 5:6 Then I saw one like a slaughtered lamb standing between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent into all the earth.
Revelation 5:7 He came and took [the scroll] out of the right hand of the One seated on the throne. -- Holman Christian Standard Version.

Therefore the one sitting on the throne is not Jesus, because in Revelation 5:6,7, we find Jesus depicted as the Lamb slain, who is found worthy to take the book from the right hand of the one sitting on the throne.

In Revelation 1:4, John identifies 3 different sources from which he received the message of his letter to the churches: (1) from the One who is and who was and who is to come, (2) and from the seven Spirits who are before his throne, (3) and also from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness. Therefore, John identifies at least two persons which the message is from, the Father, the God of Jesus, and Jesus, the Son of the Most High. In many translations, the seven spirits are spoken of as though persons, although it could be rendered as "from the seven spirits that/which are before his throne." If one should view these seven spirits as persons, then these seven spirits would be seven more persons from whom the the message is received, thus making up nine persons altogether.

Some have claimed that the word "and" [Greek, often transliterated as kai] in Revelation 1:5 should be translated "even" in verse 5, with the thought that this would mean that Jesus is the One who is, was and is to come in Revelation 1:4. In actuality, such an idea would make Jesus the "seven spirits" that were just mentioned before in verse 4. It would not refer back to the one spoken of as the one "who is and who was and who is to come", since there is another "kai" -- and -- in between this phrase and added "kai" -- and -- of verse 5. Nor could we say that "kai" before the seven spirits means "even" in this sense, because it would conflict with the idea that these are spirits are before the throne of the One "who is and who was and who is to come," since it would make these seven spirits the very one sitting on the throne.

What we would really have if "kai" should be rendered "even" would be:

John, to the seven assemblies that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from the one who is and who was and who is to come; and from the seven Spirits who are before his throne; even from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.

Those who promote the idea that kai is being used as cumulative usually disregard the "seven spirits", or else they will try to make "kai" before the seven spirits also mean "even", which would, in effect, mean that the seven spirits would all be before the One on the throne, but at the same be the One on the throne who has the seven spirits before him. Regardless, trying make kai before the seven spirits to mean the one who is, was and to come, and trying make Jesus himself the One who is, who was and who is to come as well as the seven spirits would certainly not give any reason to believe in the trinity doctrine.

Additionally, notice the word "from" that appears before "kai." This is the Greek word often transliterated as  "apo" -- from -- which appears before "Jesus", just as was done before "God", and again before "the seven spirits", which further indicates that "kai" is not being used here to express a cumulative force regarding one being spoken of before, but rather it is fully a further addition showing another involved from whom the message was be given.

Sometimes some will point the to latter expression of verse 5 in an effort to prove that Jesus is the one who is, who was, and who is to come, for it reads: "the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth." We have here an example of Kai being used as a cumulative list of descriptors of the one originally spoken of. However, in this case, there is nothing before each title that designates that there are separate persons being spoken of, as such as the word "apo," as we find in the earlier phrases.

The greeting of Revelation 1:4,5 is similar to John's greeting in 2 John 1:3:

Grace, mercy, and peace will be with us, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.

Here John speaks of two personages "from" whom he prays for Grace, mercy and peace, (1) from the God the Father, and (2) from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father. To translate "kai" here as "even" would make the Son of the Father actually the Father of whom he is he Son.  This might fit the doctrine often promoted as "oneness" (basically modalism), but trinitarians deny that Jesus is the Father. We might also note that John, all through his three letters, also refers to "God" as one person, not three, and that unipersonal "God" is consistently distinguished from the Son of the unipersonal God.

Likewise, from the beginning to the end of the Revelation, when one rightly attributes who is being spoken of or quoted, "God" is presented as one person, and is distinguished from Jesus, the Lamb, the Son, etc.

However, we need to also point out that most trinitarian scholars do not claim that Revelation 1:4 is speaking of Jesus. Many do claim it is referring to the Father.

There are some, however, who in some vague manner who see all three of their assumed persons being spoken of. John Gill writes:

Some understand [the phrase in Revelation 1:4] of the whole Trinity; the Father by him "which is", being the I am that I am; the Son by him "which was", which was with God the Father, and was God; and the Spirit by him "which is to come", who was promised to come from the Father and the Son, as a Comforter, and the Spirit of truth.

This application, however, would actually seem to leave Jesus, who is spoken of separately in Revelation 1:5, out of the alleged trinity.

Gill continues:

Others think Christ is here only intended, as he is in (Revelation 1:8) by the same expressions; and is he "which is", since before Abraham he was the "I am"; and he "which was", the eternal Logos or Word; and "is to come", as the Judge of quick and dead.

As already shown, this would be in conflict with Revelation 1:5; additionally, we should note as we have shown elsewhere that Revelation 1:8 is not quoting Jesus, but rather the God of Jesus. Thus the appeal to Revelation 1:8 does not support viewing the expression in Revelation 1:4 as being applied to Jesus.

However, Gill continues:

But rather this is to be understood of the first Person, of God the Father; and the phrases are expressive both of his eternity, he being God from everlasting to everlasting; and of his immutability, he being now what he always was, and will be what he now is, and ever was, without any variableness, or shadow of turning: they are a periphrasis, and an explanation of the word "Jehovah", which includes all tenses, past, present, and to come.

We agree with John Gill that it does apply to the Father, but only as the Father is depicted as the  "one God" of whom are all (1 Corinthians 8:6), not as the "first person" of a conjectured trinity that has to be imagined beyond what is written (1 Corinthians 4:6), and then  added to, and read into, the scriptures. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is not once, from Genesis to Revelation, ever presented as more than one person.

Oddly, Gill contradicts himself when he comments on Revelation 1:8, for related to this verse, Gill claims that He who is, was, and is to come, is Jesus rather than the Father. 

Throughout the book of Revelation, rather than being pictured as being He who is, was and is to come who is siting on the throne, we find that Jesus is pictures as being the slain lamb. He who is, was, and is to come is never slain. (Revelation 17:14)  Thus Jehovah, He who is, was and is to come, is not the Lamb, nor is the Lamb the Almighty God who sits on the throne. In the book of Revelation, the God from whom Jesus received the Revelation is depicted as being Jesus' God.

Revelation 1:6 - and he made us to be a kingdom, priests to his God and Father; to him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.  -- World English Bible version

Revelation 2:7 - He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the assemblies. To him who overcomes I will give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the Paradise of my God.  -- World English Bible version

Revelation 3:2 - Wake up, and establish the things that remain, which were ready to die, for I have found no works of yours perfected before my God. -- World English Bible version

Revelation 3:12 - He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will go out from there no more. I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from my God, and my own new name. -- World English Bible version

Jesus' God is the one sitting on the throne. Jehovah is He who is, was and is to come, who is sitting on the throne. Jesus is not He who is, was and is to come who sits on the throne, but Jesus is the Lamb who takes the scroll from He who is (present), was (in the past) and is to come (in the future), who sits on the throne. Jehovah, being the One who continues to exist from all eternity past to all eternity future (Psalm 90:2), never dies. However, the scriptures show that the Lamb did die. The Lamb is differentiated from being the Almighty God throughout the Revelation. -- Revelation 1:4,5,8; 4:2,8-10; 5:1-8,12,13; 6:1,16; 7:9,10,15,17; 11:17; 13:8; 14:1,4,10; 15:3; 17:14; 19:4,9; 21:5,14,22,23; 22:1,3.

1 Corinthians 10:4 - That Rock Was Christ

Ignatius and Our God

Ignatius is often cited as believing that Jesus is Jehovah because of the application of "God/god" to Jesus as found in the writings often attributed to him. It is claimed that since Ignatius had been taught by the apostle John, that he should know the truth.

We do not have any original autographs of the letters of Ignatius. The Greek copies we have date from about the 3rd or 4th century; some claim as late as the 6th century. Many of the extant copies have two different versions of many of the letters. Most scholars reject the longer versions as being forgeries; some reject the shorter versions, and some reject a cross between them. Some scholars reject all of the extant copies of Ignatius' writings as being forgeries, or at least as being alterations of what Ignatius originally wrote.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/PATRISTC/IGNATIUS.HTM

Ignatius, however, was not a Hebrew, and it is highly doubtful that he actually understood the Hebraic usage of the words for "God/god".

The claim that he was a student of the apostle John does not mean that his writings reflect what John believed, anymore than the writings of Joseph Rutherford can be used to reflect what Charles Taze Russell believed.

I do not have the letters attributed to Ignatius in the Greek, nor in the Latin. I am left to mostly depend on somebody's translation of those letters into English. From the translations, I cannot tell in the letters to the Ephesians, Traillians, the Smyrneans, Polycarp and the Romans if Ignatius is attributed to referring to Jesus in the sense being "our Supreme Being," or, in accordance with Hebraic general usage, as "our might / our strength", similar to such Hebraic usage as found in Genesis 31:29; Deuteronomy 28:32; Exodus 7:1; Nehemiah 5:5; Psalms 36:6; 82:1,6; Proverbs 3:27; John 10:34-36. I assume that the extant short copies do refer to Jesus in the sense of "our Supreme Being". Nevertheless, it is possible that Ignatius originally referred to the Father as "our God", as did Paul (Galatians 1:4; Philippians 4:20; 1 Thessalonians 1:3; 3:9,11,12), and that later copyists copied it as being applied to Jesus rather than the Father. Otherwise, being of Gentile descent rather than Hebrew descent, Ignatius, not being Hebrew, and due to the apostasy that had already begun in the first century, may himself not have been aware of the Hebraic usage of the words for "God/god" and thus may have actually misunderstood John 20:28 as referring to Jesus in sense of "my Supreme Being."

Epistle to the Ephesians

Introduction to Ignatius of Antioch

Regardless, in none of the letters attributed to Ignatius have I found any mention of the idea that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is more than one person.

Additionally, are we to assume that any of the letters attributed to Ignatius rellect what John or the apostels believed in every detail?

1 Timothy 3:16 - Mystery of the Godhead?

1 Timothy 3:16 - Mystery of Godliness Revealed

Titus 2:13 - The Great God

"Looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus." -- Titus 2:13, New American Standard

This scripture is often listed, sometimes paralleled with scriptures such as Isaiah 45:21, as proof that Jesus is Jehovah God Most High., the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Does this scripture actually give proof of such?

See the study:
Aside From Jehovah, There is No God

First of all, there is nothing in the scripture about three persons in one God, nor is there any scripture that identifies Jesus as being the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; such ideas have to imagined using the spirit of human imagination, formed into dogma, then the assumed dogma has to be added to, and read into the scripture.

Titus 2:13
prosdechomenoi teen makarian elpida kai epiphaneian
AWAITING THE HAPPY HOPE AND MANIFESTATION
4327 3588 3107 1680 2532 2015
tees doxees tou megalou theou kai swteeros heemwn
OF THE GLORY OF THE GREAT GOD AND OF SAVIOR OF US
3588 1391 3588 3173 2316 2532 4990 1473_8
christou ieesou
OF CHRIST JESUS,
5547 2424 -- Westcott & Hort Transliterated Interlinear

This scripture can possibly be translated different ways, depending upon the translator's understanding of what is being said, or bias. Albert Barnes, although he contends that Jesus is being called the great God in Titus 2:13, does state: "It is uncertain whether these words should be read together thus, 'the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ, the great God and our Savior,' or separately, as of the Father and the Son, 'the glory of the great God, and of our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.'" Since, Jesus is definitely NOT the "one God" of whom are all (1 Corinthians 8:6), the correct procedure should be to view Titus 2:13 from that perspective. The Greek form for "God" above is transliterated as "THEOU", a form of "THEOS."

Nevertheless, according to Hebraic usage, the words from which forms of the Greek word for Theos are translated from the Hebrew also are used in a more general sense of Might, Strength. The Christian certainly receives his strength through Jesus. Of course, Jesus is the One of Power sent by the only true God, Jehovah, who gives Jesus his power, and Jesus is the savior sent by the only true God, Jehovah. Jesus is theos -- deity, a powerful one -- and is therefore true theos in a secondary sense, but not in the sense of being the only true Supreme Being, the Source of all might. In the Bible, only the God and Father of Jesus is spoken of as having the attribute of being "one God" of whom are all. (1 Corinthians 8:6) Even as the saints are called *theoi*, so it would be proper to call Jesus *theos*, as the one given power and authority by Jehovah. -- John 10:34,35; 17:1,3 -- See also Psalm 82.

Additionally, "the Lord Jesus Christ" could be referring to the word "glory". Jesus will indeed, in effect, come as "the glory" of his God and Father (Ephesians 1:3), as he is the "sun of righteousness." -- Malachi 4:2, and Jesus comes in the glory of his God and Father.  -- Matthew 16:27; Mark 8:38; Luke 9:27.

Nevertheless, we highly doubt that it was Paul's intent to speak of Jesus as the "great God." 

We present below several translations of Titus 2:13 that render this verse in various ways:

"while we wait for the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ". -- New Revised Standard Version

"Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God, and our Savior Jesus Christ;" -- The Webster Bible

"Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;" -- King James Version

looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory (Footnote: 1) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; -- Footnote: (1) Or of our great God and Saviour ) -- American Standard Version

Looking for the blessed hope and coming of the glory of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ, -- Douay-Rheims

expecting the blessed hope; namely, the appearing of the glory of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ; -- Living Oracles

looking for the blessed hope, and the manifestation of the glory of the great God, and our Life-giver, Jesus the Messiah; -- Murdock

Prepared to welcome the happy hope and forthshining of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Christ Jesus, -- Rotherham

Regarding Titus 2:13 Paul S. L. Johnson states

Tit. 2:13 is also alleged as a proof of the trinity by some, who to find in their thought, render the words in question as follows: 'the appearing of the glory of our Great God and Savior Jesus Christ.' This rendering is not preferred by a majority of learned trinitarians, though it is a possible rendering. Rendered as in the A.V., A.R.V. text, and a majority of modern translations, not our Lord Jesus but the Father is here called God. The fact that, properly translated, Paul never calls Jesus God, but always contrasts Him as Lord with the Father as God, is decisive on which is the right translation. Again, the connection (v. 11) naturally suggests that the bright shining is of the Father and of the Son. St. Paul's use of language, calling the Father God over 500 times and never once calling Jesus God, must rule in this case as to which is the right translation. Force, too, is added to our view by the words [A.R.V.] *the glory of the Great* God." -- Ephiphany Studies in the Scriptures, Volume 1, God, pages 525,526. -- (One should note that this was written back in the 1930s, before many of the modern translators had sought to render this verse to read in favor of the trinitarian view.)

We should also note that Titus 3:6 definitely shows that it is the Father who shed the holy spirit "through Jesus Christ our Savior." And we also can look at Titus 1:4: "to Titus, my true child according to a common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God, the Father, and the Lord, Jesus Christ, our Savior." (World English Bible translation) Here Paul clearly distinguishes between God the Father and the Lord Jesus. "God" in Titus 1:4 does not mean three persons, it means one person, and Jesus is not included as "God". This gives further evidence that Titus 2:13 does not reflect a triune God, or that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

The revealing (epiphaneia) spoken of in Titus 2:13 probably refers to the time when the glory of Jehovah is revealed to all flesh, not to Jesus' appearance (Phaneroo) at his first advent, as spoken of in 1 Timothy 3:16. -- Isaiah 40:5; 11:9; Psalm 72:19.

The millennial kingdom of Christ will not only be the time of revealing of the glory of God and Christ, but also of the seed of Abraham, the chosen sons of God of this age. -- Romans 8:19; Galatians 3:26,29; 1 John 3:2.

Additionally, Titus 2:14 adds "who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds." This scripture shows that the man Jesus -- not God -- "gave" himself. Who did the man, Jesus Christ, 'give himself' to? To God himself! (1 Timothy 2:5,6; Hebrews 9:24; 10:10) Thus a little reasoning indicates that Jesus is not the same as the unipersonal God to whom he gave himself.

See also:
Barry Hardy's comments at:
https://groups.google.com/groups?selm=19980706.191409.3222.0.barryhardy%40juno.com

But someone argues: The rule of Greek grammar that applies here is that if there are two nouns separated by the word "kai" (and), then if each noun has an article with it, they refer to different things. But if only one of them has an article, they refer to the same thing. In these cases, we have two nouns ("God" and "Saviour"), separated by the word "kai", with only one of them having an article. According to this "rule" of Greek grammar, these two words refer to the same person.

What is often called the rules of grammar are not inherently rules of a language, but are made so by men who create such rules based on study of general usage. Such "rules" usually always have exceptions, which is also true of this "rule", as seen in the Septuagint of Proverbs 24:21. Granville Sharp is attributed to formulating the above rule which he presented in a book in 1798, long after Paul and Peter had written their letters. It would be an assumption to think that Paul had such a rule in mind when he wrote the above to Titus.

Nevertheless, according to Sharp's rule: "When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill], if the article o, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e. it denotes a farther description of the first-named person." (Sharp, Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article, 3.) Sharp's sole purpose in his study was to promote the idea that Jesus is Jehovah, so he did not include "things" in his rule, thus he narrows his study to substantives (that is., nouns, substantival adjectives, substantival participles) of personal description, not those which referred to things, and only in the singular, not the plural. He states that "there is no exception or instance of the like mode of expression, that I know of, which necessarily requires a construction different from what is here laid down, EXCEPT the nouns be proper names, or in the plural number; in which case there are many exceptions ." In other words, he found a way to exclude or provide exceptions to his rule so as to make it appear that the rule would support the idea that several passages are saying that Jesus is Jehovah God Almighty.

Conversely, Sharp claimed that if two nouns of the same case are connected by a "kai" (and) and the article (the) is used with both nouns, they refer to different persons or things. If only the first noun has the article, the second noun refers to the same person or thing referred to in the first. -- Curtis Vaughn, and Virtus Gideon, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament" (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1979), p. 83.}" But Sharp came up with exceptions to this rule so that it would not apply to John 20:28.

Since writing the above, we have been given some quotes of various scholars concerning Titus 2:13, that we believe would be beneficial here:

The repetition of the art[icle] was not strictly necessary to ensure that the items be considered separately." -- A Grammar of the New Testament Greek, (Volume # was not supplied), by James Hope Moulton and Nigel Turner.

Unfortunately, at this period of Greek we cannot be sure that such a rule [Sharp's] is really decisive. -- Grammatical Insights into the New Testament, 1965, by Nigel Turner

It will probably never be possible, either in reference to profane literature or to the NT, to bring down to rigid rules which have no exception,... -- A Grammar of the New Testament Greek, by Alexander Buttmann

The grammatical argument ... is too slender to bear much weight, especially when we take into consideration not only the general neglect of the article in these epistles but the omission of it before "Savior" in 1 Timothy 1:1; 4:10. -- The Expositor's Greek Testament, by N. J. D. White

Let us look at an interlinear of Titus 2:13:

prosdechomenoi teen makarian elpida kai epiphaneian
AWAITING THE HAPPY HOPE AND MANIFESTATION
4327 3588 3107 1680 2532 2015
tees doxees tou megalou theou kai swteeros heemwn
OF THE GLORY OF THE GREAT GOD AND OF SAVIOR OF US
3588 1391 3588 3173 2316 2532 4990 1473_8
christou ieesou
OF CHRIST JESUS,
5547 2424
Westcott & Hort Greek / English Interlinear
NEW TESTAMENT coded with Strong's numbers
(as obtained from the Bible Student's Library DVD)

It should be obvious from the above that the Greek structure here is highly complex. First we have an article before two nouns -- two things -- connected by kai for which the Christian is awaiting -- teen makarian elpida kai epiphaneian -- the happy hope and manifestation. It is apparent that in this verse that there are two things being waited for -- "hope" and "manifestation", although one article is present, both of which are related to "glory" that is to be manifested at that time -- the glory of the great God and our Savior, Jesus Christ. (Compare Romans 8:19,24,25) The manifestation is followed by a phrase describing what the manifestation is: "of the glory of the great God and of Savior of us, Jesus Christ." We again have an article used of the possessive; the article before glory is of the great God and Savior of us. Thus the "glory" is applied to two nouns, "God" and "Savior". It is speaking of the glory of God and it is speaking of the glory of our Savior. As one reads this, we don't think anyone would see in this that the reference to the great God and the savior are speaking of one person, except that their minds had been preconditioned to think of the expression in such terms. We certainly don't think Paul was trying to structure his sentence in such a way to leave the impression that Jesus is God Almighty. Regardless of whether one would think that THEOS in Titus 2:13 is applied to Jesus or not, one would still have to call upon the spirit of human imagination to think that it means that Jesus is the Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And, if one wishes to think of trinity regarding this verse, he still has to use the spirit of human imagination so to think that THEOS means the second alleged person of the alleged triune God, which God is never once mentioned in the Bible.

There is even more to this, for let us read the verses before:

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

Titus 2:12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; -- King James Version.

Now we know that "grace" or "favor" did not make some physical appearing, but rather the knowledge through Christ concerning the grace of God appeared to all the men being spoken of, that is, Christians, both Gentile and Jew, teaching them how to live in this evil world while they awaited the happy hope and manifestation of the glory. Thus Paul is summing up the work of the first advent and the second advent, as to what is revealed at both events. The parallel between the advents is "grace" and "glory". The grace is of God through Christ. (Titus 1:3) The "glory" is of the great God and our Savior, the latter who is then identified as Jesus Christ. Thus the whole idea is the glory of our great God and the glory of our Savior, which glory we are awaiting the manifestation of.

As seen from Westcott & Hort's Interlinear, the Greek has the possessive *heemwn*, which appears after *swteeros*, which, according to the usual construction, would also demand an article before that which is possessed, that is, *swteeros*. There is no definite article before swteeros, so we go looking for a definite article earlier, which we find before *megalou theou*, "great God". Then this article is applied to both "great God" and "Savior." Since there is no separate article applied to Savior, some wish to conclude that one person is referred to as both God and Savior. Still, there we have no reason to think that this was Paul's intention, and there is certainly nothing definite in this conclusion. Sharp himself had to make exceptions to his rules in order to seemingly narrow them down for his purposes.

In view of the context, we do not believe that Paul here was constructing this sentence this way to show that Jesus is God Almighty, regardless of how one applies or makes exceptions for Sharp's rule in this verse. One still has to use the spirit of human imagination to think that it means that Jesus is Jehovah, and further use of the spirit of human imagination to think that it means one person of a triune Jehovah. It does appear more likely that he just wrote what seemed to him to be a way of saying that we are awaiting the appearance of both the glory of the great God and of our Lord Jesus. Nevertheless, even if Jesus is being called 'Great God", we should connect the phrase "Great God" here with the phrase with the more general Hebraic usage of such, that is, of Jesus as the Great Mighty One, rather than to call upon the spirit of human imagination so as to think that Paul was saying that Jesus is the Most High. This application would still not make Jesus into God Almighty, but as a Great One of Power, as made so by the Almighty Jehovah.

Then there is something else to consider concerning Titus 2:13 and Sharp's rules. As noted above, he provided exceptions to his rules if the nouns were proper nouns. Some argue that "God" and "Savior" in Titus 2:13 are semantic equivalents to such proper names, as titular names, and therefore Sharp's exception to his rule should apply to this verse.

Some claim that only Jehovah can be savior, and thus since Jesus is referred to as savior in Titus 2:13, that means that Jesus is Jehovah. Several scriptures show that besides (or apart from) Jehovah there is no savior. (Isaiah 43:11; 45:11; Hosea 13:4) None of these scriptures, however, say that Jehovah cannot sent someone who is not himself as a savior, for the Bible records many whom Jehovah sent as saviors to Israel as recorded in the Old Testament. These saviors whom Jehovah sent are besides (apart from) Jehovah since Jehovah sent them. -- Nehemiah 9:27.

Overall, actual proof is lacking in Titus 2:13 that Jesus is Jehovah. The arguments presented for such are questionable, to say the least. One has to first assume that Jesus is God Almighty, then read this into the scripture, and then say that this is proof, which is, in effect, circular reasoning. Without all the circular reasoning that has been imagined toward the verse, it is not that difficult to understand in harmony with the entire Bible.

See also our studies:
Only Jehovah Saves

No Savior Besides Jehovah

==========

Does The Above Deny the Deity of Jesus?

No, denying that Jesus is his God is not the same as denying that Jesus is deity. Jesus' being deity does not mean that Jesus is his God. Jesus is never depicted as being the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but this does not mean that Jesus is not deity, a mighty spirit being.

For some of our studies related to:
The Deity/Divinity of Jesus

See also our studies on:

Who are the Gods?

Hebraic Usage of the Titles for 'God'

Why Is Jesus Called Elohim/Theos?

Did Thomas Refer to Jesus as the Supreme Being?

Written by Others -- We do not necessarily agree with all presented:

Titus 2:13 - The Trinity Delusion

Is Jesus God in Titus 2.13?

Romans 9:5 - The God Who is Over All

(This study has not yet been fully updated from the old site)

Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. -- King James Version

To them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah. May he who is God over all be blessed forever. Amen. -- New Revised Standard Version -- Footnote rendering.

To them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.  -- Revised Standard Version

Whose are the fathers, and of whom is the Christ - according to the flesh - he who is over all, God, blessed unto the ages. Amen. -- The Emphasized Bible translation

Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! [1] Amen. -- New International Version.

Footnote: Or Christ, who is over all. God be forever praised!

Or Christ. God who is over all be forever praised!

hwn hoi pateres kai ex hwn ho christos to

OF WHOM THE FATHERS, AND OUT OF WHOM THE CHRIST THE (THING)

3739 3588 3962 2532 1537 3739 3588 5547 3588

kata sarka ho wn epi pantwn theos

ACCORDING TO FLESH, THE (ONE) BEING UPON ALL (THINGS), GOD

2596 4561 3588 1511_1 1909 3956 2316

eulogeetos eis tous aiwnas ameen

BLESSED (ONE) INTO THE AGES; AMEN.

2128 1519 3588 0165 0281 -- Westcott & Hort Interlinear

(as obtained from "The Bible Student's Library" CD-ROM)

Please note that the original Greek had no punctuation; the punctuation is supplied by either later copyists or by translators. Thus, the commas may be placed at different points, which can change the emphasis. Our preferred rendering:

Whose are the fathers, and of whom is the Christ - according to the flesh - he who is over all. God be blessed forever! Amen.

One of the proof texts that trinitarians (as well some others) use as a proof that Jesus is God Almighty is Romans 9:5. In actuality, there is nothing in Romans 9:5 about a triune God, nor that Jesus is a person of such a God. Nor is there anything in the statement that would actually say that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Thus, such ideas have to be added to, and read into, what is stated.

This is the way it reads in the KJV: "Of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen." We notice above that the NIV gives two alternative translations as a footnote; also the RSV as well as the NRSV do not translate it as the KJV. According to these translations it is not Christ who in this verse is spoken of as over all; rather it is "God". This does agree with Jesus' statement in John 10:29: "My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all." And Jesus identifies his Father as the "only true God." -- John 17:1,3.

Since the correct rendering of this passage is in dispute even among scholars who believe in the trinity, we conclude that the Greek sentence structure [See Appendix Two] does not lead us to a definite understanding of this verse, therefore we need to consider the contextual evidence and other scriptures speaking about Christ and speaking about God for an understanding of this scripture. We need to consider if it was Paul's intent to say that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, or if he was simply giving honor to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The third possibility (that we considered highly unlikely) is that Paul was referring to Jesus as a mighty one, but not as the only true Supreme Mighty One, the source of all might. -- John 17:5; 1 Corinthians 8:6.

The following things favor a rendering that Paul intended to offer the praise to the God of Jesus:

Such a statement of praise to the God of Israel is in place here in view of the great favors to Israel, as the context reveals. The apostle Paul enumerates these favors as having been given to his people, culminating in Christ's advent, which is a prophecy of the return of the special favor to Israel, and thus he renders praise to God because of those favors that Israel had. Paul frequently makes such a statement of praise to the God and Father of Jesus. (Romans 1:25; 11:36; 16:27; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 11:31; Galatians 1:4,5; Ephesians 1:3; 3:20,21; Philippians 4:20; also see 1 Peter 5:11 and see Appendix One below.) The only other similar instance in Paul's writings is 2 Timothy 4:18, which is also disputed as to whom the praise is being offered. See Appendix 5.

One of the possibilities is that Paul meant: "He who is God over all be blessed forever". Who did Jesus say is "greater than all", but the only true God, his God and Father? (John 10:29; 17:1,3) Nevertheless, even in the "all things" that are given to Jesus by the only true God, the only true God is excepted, indicating his power as being the source of all power and His glory as the being only source of all power would mean that He is greater than all, including greater than Jesus. (1 Corinthians 15:27). Thus, if Paul intended to say that Jesus is "over all", in harmony with the rest of the scriptures, he must have meant this in the sense that the God of Jesus has given Jesus this power and authority, as he tells us in Ephesians 1:3,17-23.

Furthermore, what is meant by over "all"? In all probability, it means over both Jew and Gentile, since this is what is being discussed in the context. Does this mean all Jews have the God of Abraham as their Father? Jesus already answered this when he told the Jewish religious leaders: "You are of your Father, the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father." (John 8:44) Thus, the term "over all" signifies the power of either the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, or the power of Jesus that God has given to him, which is "over all", over both Jew and Gentile.

It is generally believed by trinitarians and some others that *ho on* (or as it appears in the above interlinear: *ho wn*) acts as a relative pronoun relating back to Jesus. As we have shown, some trinitarian translators have rendered the verse in such a way as to show that it is referring to God, thus to try to seek support from this scripture for the trinity doctrine, or the belief that Jesus is Jehovah, based on this phrase, is very weak. We should remember that the word "Christ" means "Anointed One". The One who anointed Jesus is definitely Jehovah, the God of Jesus. -- Psalm 45:7; Isaiah 61:1; Acts 2:36; 10:36-38,42.

Nevertheless, as relating to "who is" the phrase *ho on* could be properly rendered "he who is" as relating to the one who anointed Jesus, the One who is over Jesus the Anointed One, that is, God. If it is speaking of Jesus, and we believe it is, then it would have to be speaking of the power that the God of Abraham has given to Jesus, as we have shown.

The added phrase or sentence "God be blessed forever" can be seen to be Paul's addition to what had been stated in Romans 8:39: "neither the world above nor the world below -there is nothing in all creation that will ever be able to separate us from the love of God which is ours through Christ Jesus our Lord." (Today's English Version) This verse is in agreement with 1 Corinthians 8:6, which shows that the God and Father of Jesus is the source, while Jesus is the instrument. This verse certainly shows a distinction between "God" and "Christ Jesus", and therefore the distinction would be carried on into the context of Romans 9:5, thus the addition of the phrase (or sentence, depending on which way one looks at it): "God be blessed forever." Thus, our conclusion is that this final part of the verse does indeed offer praise, not to Jesus, but rather to the God and Father of Jesus.

Additionally, to conclude that this phrase is stating that Jesus is God Almighty would contradict the universal teaching of the scriptures that the only true Supreme Being, the source of all MIGHT, is the Father, who, as God Almighty alone, is such. (Genesis 17:1; Deuteronomy 3:24; Isaiah 43:13; Revelation 1:8; John 17:1,3; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 15:27,28) Thus, from this scriptural evidence alone (and there is much more which would support the same truths, we conclude that the correct understanding of this verse is the one which recognizes the final statement of praise as relating back to Paul's comments about God. Further, if the "who is over all" refers to Jesus, in harmony with the rest of the scriptures, *pantwn* (Strong's #3956) would refer to the "all things" relative to such as have been subjected to Christ by the One [Jehovah] who is over Jesus. -- Psalm 2:8; Daniel 7:13,14; Matthew 11:27; 28:18; Luke 1:32 (Compare Isaiah 9:6,7); John 3:35; 5:26,27; 13:3; 17:22; 1 Corinthians 15:27,28. See also our study:

Jesus is Not Jehovah

While we do not at all believe that the phrase "God be blessed forever" applies to Jesus, even if we suppose that Paul is applying this statement to Jesus as the *theos* -- one of power -- who is over all -- that is, "all" things that have subjected to him by Yahweh -- this does not mean that Jesus is the same being as Yahweh who sent him, who spoke to him, who anointed him and made all things subject to him. We have noted elsewhere) that the term *theos*, as applied to Jesus, does not necessarily mean that he is Yahweh, the One who spoke to him and anointed him. -- Psalm 2:7,8; 45:7 (See Hebrews 1:9); Isaiah 61:1 (See Luke 4:18-21).

One should not think that we are disputing the superiority of Jesus over all creation as that superiority has been given to him by Jehovah, nor that we are denying his deity*, but we should remember that it is Jehovah -- the only true God (Supreme Power, the source of all power, John 17:1,3; 1 Corinthians 8:6)-- that has made Jesus preeminent over all these things (Isaiah 61:1-4; Matthew 28:18; John 3:34,35; 5:22,23; Ephesians 1:20-22; Philippians 2:9,10), with the recognition that this preeminence also excludes Jehovah who is over Jesus. -- John 14:28; 1 Corinthians 3:23; 11:3; 15:27.

==========

We recognize the term "deity" from Hebraic usage, based on the meaning and usage of the Hebrew words from which theos (and its variations) is translated from, that is, forms of the Hebrew word often transliterated as EL (Strong's 410, 430, etc.). This word carries the basic meaning of "strength, power, might." With this in mind, scripturally, the nature of deity pertains to "strength, power and might" beyond what is normal. As applied to Jehovah, it designates him as the only Might, the only true Power in the universe, for he is the sole source of all power and might, and thus possesses the nature of God internally without any external source needed. Thus when Jehovah, the only true INNATE EL [MIGHT, POWER], provided power or might to Moses, Jehovah himself said he had made him ELOHIM [powerful] to Pharaoh. (Exodus 7:1) The judges of Israel, to whom Jehovah had given special power and authority, are referred to as ELOHIM in Exodus 21:6; 22:8,9,28. The angels, to whom Jehovah has given greater power than mankind, are also referred to as ELOHIM in Psalm 8:5 (see Hebrews 2:7). Also, when Jesus referred back to the use of elohim in Psalm 82:6 he used the plural of theos (theoi) and applied this word the sons of God to whom the Word of God came. (John 10:34,35) In none of these scriptures is deity applied in the sense of being equal to Jehovah, or being the Supreme Being.

Thus regardless as to which way one renders the verse, this verse does not mean that Jesus is Jehovah nor does it provide support for adding to the scriptures the philosophy of three persons in one God. There is definitely nothing the verse that presents a triune God, nor does the verse support the idea that Jesus is Jehovah.

Some studies written by others that include a study of Romans 9:5 (we do not necessarily agree with all conclusions presented):

The Doctrine of Christ

The Trinity Delusion: Romans 9:5

Wrested Scriptures: Romans 9:5

Appendix One

Romans 1:25 - Who exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

We have been criticized for using this scripture, since the Father is not mentioned. The context indicates that God is the Father of the one being referred to as sent by God -- his Son -- in verses 1-9, thus "God" does refer to the Father of Jesus. Of course, Jesus identifies the one who sent him as the "only true God" in John 17:1,3. One trinitarian states concerning this verse: "On the contrary, it is speaking of praise for the Creator of the creatures which Paul tells us in another letter is none other than Christ (Col. 1:16,17)." As we have shown elsewhere, Jesus himself speaks, not of himself as the Creator, but of the only true God as the Creator. See our studies:

Did Jesus Have a Beginning?

Colossians 1:16 and the Creator

Romans 11:36 - For of [Greek ek, out of] him, and through [Greek di] him, and to him, are all things. To him be the glory for ever! Amen.

This scripture is claimed by some to apply to Jesus, with the argument that Jesus is the Creator, the Almighty God. Nevertheless, the context shows that it is Jehovah who is being spoken of, not Jesus. Verse 2 (Romans 11:2) shows that this is referring to the God of Israel, whom Jesus spoke of as his Father. (Exodus 3:6,15,16; Matthew 22:32; Mark 12:26; Luke 20:37; John 8:54) Verse 34 (Romans 11:34) is an indirect quote from Isaiah 40:13, which reads: "Who has directed the Spirit of Jehovah, or being his counselor has taught him?" All through Romans 11 "God" is spoken of as both the Father of Jesus, and also as the God of Israel.

Taken in isolation, and with the rendering of the Greek words ta panta as "all things", and in comparing Colossians 1:16, one could think that Paul is saying that this is speaking of creation, but as we have pointed out many times, "ta panta" almost always refers to what is being spoken of in context. Of course, God is the source of all creation, but specifically Paul here attributes God as the source and provider of wisdom, knowledge and unsearchable judgments, as shown in the context by verses 33-36, although Paul is probably referring to all that is implied in these things, that is, God's entire plan of salvation from beginning to end, which results will be to the glory of God. The application of these things are from God, through God to Jesus now and the church reckonedly now, and actually in the age to come, and to the world after the glorification of the church, and all of this is to God, to his glory.

Related online (we do not necessarily agree with all conclusions given by these authors):

Some Clarity of DIA

It is claimed that the same wording is used of Jesus in Colossians 1:16,17, where is it applied to Jesus. There we read that "all things have been created through him, and to him." In the context Colossians 1:16,17 we find that both God, Jesus and the church are being spoken in relationship to each other. The church is to increase in knowledge of God, be strengthened with all power, giving thanks to the Father, who made them fit to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light, who delivered them out of darkness into the Kingdom of the Son. (Verses 10-13) Then Paul gives attention to Jesus, and describes him as the image of the invisible God (spoken of in verses 10-13). So we have a relationship shown in these verses that indicates that God, in Jesus, created all the things being spoken of [ta panta], so all these things have been created through him, and to him. Thus this scripture is speaking of these relationships, and in that of creation, and is not speaking of the same thing as recorded in Romans 11:36, where God is spoken of, and in in the context of his wisdom, knowledge and judgments.

 See also our studies on:

Romans 10:13 and The Trinity/Oneness Doctrines

Did Jesus Have a Beginning?

Colossians 1:16 and the Creator

Romans 16:27 - To the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever! Amen

Here we have a clear distinction between the only wise God, and Jesus Christ. The glory is being given to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ. It should be apparent that even though in the Greek "to whom" is closest to the name "Jesus Christ", that it is "God" that is the antecendent of the pronoun "whom".

2 Corinthians 1:3 - Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort.

This scripture expresses a distinction between "the God and Father" from "our Lord Jesus Christ". It should be apparent that the one being spoken of as "blessed" is not Jesus, but the Father of Jesus. It should also be apparent that "the Father of mercies", although this phrase follows the name of Jesus Christ, it is not referring to Jesus Christ, but rather back to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Nevertheless, one trinitarian states: "The question is, does it refer to the person of the Father? And if so, to Him only?" The question is vague, to say the least. Of course, there is no reason at all to think that it is being addressed to any other than the God and Father of our Lord Jesus. The argument is put forth that in verse 2 God is called "out Father" and in verse 3 he is identified as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Then it is argued that both of these titles could imply equally the Father and the Son, because Jesus is called "everlasting father" (Isaiah 9:6) and supposedly functions toward the church as father. Isaiah 53:10; John 21:5 and Hebrews 2:13 are supplied to support the claim that Jesus is "our Father", that is, that he is the Father of the church. From this the thought is read into several scriptures that "our Father" refers to both the Father of Jesus and to Jesus.

There are at least two ways that Jesus could be referred to as the Father of the saints, but in no way does this make him the Almighty God, who is his Father. The saints are first reckoned on the plane of the human being made alive by partaking of the New Covenant and its benefits of the age to come. So, at least initially they could be recognized as children of Jesus on the plane of the restoration of the world of mankind, but in this age they are quickly counted as children of God for the purpose of becoming the seed of Abraham as heirs of God. (Romans 8:14,17; 9:8; Galatians 3:26,29;1 Corinthians 15:21,22) Also, the disciples could be recognized as Jesus' children in that they have been given to him by the Father. (John 6:39; 10:29; 17:6; Hebrews 2:13) Thus, in John 21:5, Jesus states to his disciples: "Children, have you anything to eat?" Jesus does not state that the disciples are his children, but he does call them "children" even as the apostles Paul and John does likewise (2 Corinthians 6:13; Galatians 4:19; 1 John 2:1,12,13,18,28; 3:1,2,7; 3 John 1:4), as children of God who have been placed under their care. None of this makes either Jesus nor the apostles into God Almighty, who is the our Father and the Father of Jesus.

2 Corinthians 11:31 - The God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, he who is blessed forevermore, knows that I don't lie.

The Greek sentence structure is similar to Romans 9:5, but it should be apparent that it is referring to the God and Father of the Lord Jesus, and not Jesus, who is being spoken of as blessed forever, even though in the Greek ho on is closer to the name "Jesus" than it is to "God and Father". See also comments on 2 Corinthians 1:3.

Galatians 1:4,5 -- who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us out of this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father -- to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen

Again, this should be apparent that the glory forever and ever is being ascribed to "our God and Father." Nevertheless, some use similar arguments concerning this verse as with 2 Corinthians 1:3, which see above.

One trinitarian states concerning this verse: "In verse 3 we have a specific reference to the person of the Father, but that doesn't negate what the rest of Scripture says about the two natures of Christ. Namely, what v. 3 states about the salvation grace that comes equally from the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. We also must not overlook the work of the Holy Spirit who applies that to us (Titus 3:5), making the work of salvation the work of God Triune." Galatians 1:3 reads: "Grace to you and peace from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ." It still remains that there is nothing in this that would make the persons of the Father and Jesus one God, or that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is more than one person. Such an idea has to be read into what Paul said. Strictly speaking, the verse is not about salvation, but is a prayerful greeting for favor and peace from God and Jesus to be with the church in Galatia.

Ephesians 1:3 - Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord, Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ.

There can be no mistake in this verse that Paul shows that God is the Father, and God is the God of our Lord Jesus. For any straight-forward scriptural reasoning, this should be conclusive evidence that Jesus is not God, since Jesus obviously worships Jehovah, the true God of Israel, as his God. Since Jesus has this God who is over him, then the default reasoning is that Jesus is not the God who is his God. This distinction is made again in Ephesians 1:17.-- See also John 17:1,3; 20:17; Revelation 3:12.

The inclusion of "in Christ" in the final phrase makes it evident that the this phrase describing one who has blessed us with all spiritual blessings is speaking of the God and Father, and not Jesus, even though the name Jesus immediately precedes the phrase.

Ephesians 3:20,21 - Now to him who is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us, to him be the glory in the assembly and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen.

One trinitarian remarks concerning our inclusion of this verse: "Ephesians 3:20, 21 makes no direct claim even to God, and could also certainly equally be referring to Christ who gives us power (John 1:12), and the Holy Ghost who sanctifies us by His power. (Titus 3:5, Romans 15:13)" It is certainly not true that Ephesians 3:20,21 makes no direct claim to identifying who God is, for Paul is speaking of the "Father of our Lord, Jesus Christ". (Ephesians 3:14) It is true that God Almighty has given to Jesus power which he imparts to us, thus God works in [by means of] Christ to provide this power. Titus 3:5 refers to the use of God's personal power, his holy spirit, to produce the new birth. Romans 15:13 refers to our being filled with all joy and peace in believing, that we may abound in the hope by means of the power of God's holy spirit.

Returning to Ephesians 3:20,21, we read that "to him [God] be the glory in [by means of, through] the assembly and in [by means of, through] Christ Jesus". Please note the one to whom the glory is being given is distinguished both from the church and Christ Jesus, thus it is very clear that "to him" is not speaking of either Jesus Christ even as it is not speaking of the church.

Philippians 4:20 - Now to our God and Father be the glory forever and ever. Amen.

This is straighforward, and should have no criticism that it applies to God as one person; Jesus is not even mentioned. However, some have implied that "God and Father" here represents their entire idea of the Godhead, thus claiming that it includes the three persons of Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. Of course, such a notion has to be read into what Paul says. In context, we find that God is used unipersonally in contrast with Jesus in verses 7 and 19.

1 Peter 5:11 - After you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace, who called you to His eternal glory in Christ, will Himself perfect, confirm, strengthen and establish you. To Him be dominion forever and ever. Amen.

The Textus Receptus has the Greek word "doxa" here in verse 11, but earlier manuscripts do not have it.

The word *doxa* does appear in verse 10 referring to the saints being called to God's eternal glory (doxa) in Christ.

While the word "him" is closest here to the word "Christ", it is general accepted that the antecedent of "him" is "God", not Christ.

Appendix Two

The following is a quote from G. H. Boobyer in the article, "Jesus as 'THEOS' in the New Testament', Bulletin of John Ryllands Library 50 (1967-68), page 253, as it is quoted in The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation, page 222 (We have added the common manner of scriptural references in brackets):

First there is the rarity of New Testament references to Jesus as "God" ("theos"). Some nine or ten passages occur in which Jesus is, or might be, alluded to as "God" ("theos"). Usually cited are John i.1 [John 1:1]; xx.28 [John 20:28]; Romans ix.5 [Romans 9:5]; 2 Thessalonians i.12 [2 Thessalonians 1:12; 1 Timothy iii.16 [1 Timothy 3:16]; Titus ii.13 [Titus 2:13]; Hebrews i.8f [Hebrews 1:8f]; 2 Peter i.1 [2 Peter 1:1]; and 1 John v. 20. Two or three of these, however, are highly dubious, and of the remainder, vary degrees of testual or exegetical uncertainty attach to all save one, which is Thomas' adoring acclaim of the risen Jesus in John xx.28 [John 20:28] as "My Lord and my God."

However, even the application of GOD to Jesus in John 20:28 has also been questioned due to the unusual Greek structure that Thomas used. See our study:

John 20:28 - My Lord and My God:

Appendix Three

We have been given a quote from the Expositer's Bible Commentary (Everett F. Harrison. "Romans" in The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Vol. 10. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976, p.103-4) in reference to Romans 9:5, which is supposed to give evidence in support of the trinity doctrine. Below we present some remarks cocerning what is said there.

This commentary states concerning Romans 9:5:

Several considerations favor the traditional wording, which refers "God' to Christ:1) Christ's relationship to Israel on the human side has been stated in such a way as to call for a complementary statement on the divine side. This is provided by the usual translation but not by the other rendering.

This statement would only make sense to one who would add to the Bible the assumption that Jesus was God Almighty incarnate. At most, this idea would have be read into what Paul is saying. Paul is continuing from what he was speaking about in the 8th chapter, where he had stated: "What then will we say about these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who didn't spare his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how would he not also with him freely give us all things? Who could bring a charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, yes rather, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Could oppression, or anguish, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? Even as it is written, 'For your sake we are killed all day long. We were accounted as sheep for the slaughter.' No, in all these things, we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 8:31-39) He is certainly drawing a distinction between God and Christ. Are we to think that he suddenly changes this distinction in Romans 9:5? Actually, he simply relates back to what he had been writing in chapter 8 in veneration of God, who is over all.

It is furthered claimed:

2) 'Who' can properly be coupled only with the foregoing subject (Christ). If another subject (God) is being introduced, there is no reason at all for the 'who.'

 In reality, this is not all that certain as can be seen by the different translations as we have presented above. More than likely, Paul is referring back to his earlier paragraph to God, who justifies through Jesus, and who is working all these things through Jesus as well as through the church.

Next it is stated:

3) A doxology to God can hardly be intended, since in doxologies the word 'blessed' is regularly placed before the one who is praised. Here it comes after.

The word "doxology" is not in the Bible, so we will not get into this terminology. However, a similar statement is used in Romans 1:25. Nevertheless, as we have shown, even if Paul intended this statement of praise in Romans 9:5 for Jesus, this still would not make Jesus into God Almighty, for the word theos can be legitimately used of others to whom God had exalted in power and honor.

4) A doxology to God would be singularly out of place in a passage marked by sorrow over Israel's failure to recognize in Christ her crowning spiritual blessing.

The emphasis of Romans 9:4 is not sorrow over Israel's failure, but the privileges given to Israel. All of the emphasis from Romans 8 and 9 are relating to the God of Israel. True, Paul does relate how that "they are not all Israel, that are of Israel." (Romans 9:6) He relates how Israel after the flesh had missed the calling to be God's sons in the Gospel Age, but then he shows that their hardening of heart is only temporary. (Romans 11:25,26) "For God has shut up all to disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all." (Romans 11:32) It is the overall picture that Paul is presenting of blessings both for the church and for Israel that Paul is excited about so as to exclaim veneration to God who is over all these things. See:

A Mystery Revealed - Romans 11:25

http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/doctrine/nbnewsletters.htm

Next, we read:

5) The definitive article, 'the,' is not linked in the text with 'God.' But with the foregoing words (literally, 'the one being over all'), so Paul is not trying to displace God with Christ, but is doing what John does in saying that then Word was God (John 1:1), that is, has the rank of God. In any case, this is really implied in recognizing him as 'over all'

The emphasis here is on the One who is "over all" pertaining to things given to Israel as well as the church, which was given by Jehovah the Father. Christ is mentioned as one of series of blessings given to the nation of Israel. Jesus was sent to Israel by Jehovah. Therefore, it is to Jehovah, who anointed and sent Jesus (Isaiah 61:1), that an exclamation of veneration is given.

As we have said, if Jesus is being spoken of as THEOS here, it would be in a manner similar to the way Jesus quoted the reference to the sons of God to whom the Word of God came. (John 10:34,35; Luke 8:21; Acts 8:14; Galatians 3:26; Hebrews 6:5) And it is God Almighty who subjected all things to Jesus, with the exception of God Almighty. -- 1 Corinthians 15:27; Daniel 7:14; Matthew 11:27; 28:18 John 3:35; 13:3 Ephesians 1:20; Philippians 2:9-11; 1 Peter 3:22.

Appendix Four

DoxologyIn general this word means a short verse praising God and beginning, as a rule, with the Greek word Doxa. The custom of ending a rite or a hymn with such a formula comes from the Synagogue (cf. the Prayer of Manasses: tibi est gloria in sæcula sæculorum. Amen). St. Paul uses doxologies constantly (Romans 11:36; Galatians 1:5; Ephesians 3:21; etc.)
FromThe Catholic Encyclopediahttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05150a.htm

The term "doxology" and its definition were not developed until several centuries after the Bible was written, thus such a word is never used in the Bible. The definition of the word was also evidently determined by trinitarians with trinitarian terminology in mind. Thus defining the term "doxology" and then applying this definition to something written in the Bible is assuming that the writer wrote what he wrote with a definition in mind that he had never heard of, which is not likely.

Forms of the word often transliterated as *doxa*, however, are used quite often in the Bible, and do not always refer to praise of God.

"Amen" signifies "so be it", "it is true", "that which is true [faithful]", or "let it be true." The Greek word "amen" is translated in the KJV as "verily" over 100 times. The Hebrew word "Amen" is mostly used relative to curses for disobedience, although it is also used respecting blessings. In the Bible the word "Amen" does not signify that the one being spoken of as receiving the praise or honor is God Almighty.

https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/greek/281.html

https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/greek/1391.html

https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/hebrew/543.html

For however many are the promises of God, in him [Jesus] is the "Yes." Therefore also through him [Jesus] is the "Amen," to the glory of God through us. (2 Corinthians 1:20) 

Paul here definitely distinguishes Jesus from God by adding "to the glory of God".

Appendix Five

Here we will discuss the other two scriptures that are generally claimed phrases of praise applied to Jesus, that is, 2 Timothy 4:18 and 2 Peter 3:18

2 Timothy 4:18 - And the Lord will deliver me from every evil work, and will save me to his heavenly kingdom; to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen.

And the Lord shall free me from every evil work, and shall save [me] -- to his heavenly kingdom; to whom [is] the glory to the ages of the ages! Amen. -- Young's Literal Translation

Does "the Lord" and "his" here mean Jesus or is it a substitution for "Jehovah", as is often done in the extant NT manuscripts? If the "the Lord" refers to Jehovah, then the statement of praise is being given to Jehovah, not Jesus. What is the evidence?

In the first chapter, Paul refers to God as distinguished from Jesus in the following verses: 2 Timothy 1:1,2,3,6,7,8,9,; "the Lord" in 2 Timothy 1:16, 18, then, more than likely refers to Yahweh, of whom Paul has been speaking.

**** Below not yet edited...

In chapter two, "the Lord" is used in 2 Timothy 2:7, but although Paul speaks of Jesus in the earlier verses of the chapter, he still could be referring to Yahweh in verses 7.

2 Timothy 2:14 reads: "Remind them of these things, charging them in the sight of the Lord, that they don't argue about words, to no profit, to the subverting of those who hear." Some older manuscripts read "theos" here instead of "Lord". Nevertheless, in verse 15 we find that it is speaking of God.

2 Timothy 2:19 has "the Lord" twice. In both instances, Paul appears to be referring to Yahweh.

However God's firm foundation stands, having this seal, "The Lord knows those who are his," and, "Let every one who names the name of the Lord depart from unrighteousness."

The reference to "God's firm foundation" indicates that "the Lord" is referring to Yahweh in both instances. (see: Numbers 16:5; Psalms 1:6; 37:18,28; Nahum 1:7; 1 Corinthians 8:3; Galatians 4:9), although some could argue that the first refers to Jesus to whom Yahweh has entrusted his sheep. (John 10:14,27-29)

The next verses to consider are 2 Timothy 2:22: "Flee from youthful lusts; but pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart," and 2 Timothy 2:24:"The Lord's servant must not quarrel, but be gentle towards all, able to teach, patient...." Again, verse 25 mentions God, thus we have reason to believe that Paul is speaking in these instances of Yahweh.

In chapter three, Paul speaks "the Lord" in 2 Timothy 3:11: "persecutions, and sufferings; those things that happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; those persecutions that I endured. Out of them all the Lord delivered me." In the next verse he speaks of living godly in Christ, and verse 15, he speaks of the salvation of faith, which is by means of Christ Jesus. Then he speaks of the scriptures inspired of God, and the man of God, thus indicating that Paul is keeping God in the forefront, giving evidence that "the Lord" in verse 3:11 is in reference to Yahweh.

In chapter four, while the Textus Receptus has "the Lord Jesus Christ", most translations do not have "the Lord", as it evidently was added to later manuscripts. Thus we read in Darby's translation: "I testify before God and Christ Jesus, who is about to judge living and dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom." The point that trinitarians may make here, however, is that it is Jesus who will do the judging, so that the term "the Lord, the righteous judge" in verse 8 may appear to apply to Jesus, not Yahweh. This could be, but does this mean that "the Lord" in verses 14,17,18, and 22 must also be referring to Jesus? We also need to remember that the scriptures do speak of Yahweh as coming to judge, but he does the judging through his appointed agent, Jesus. (Malachi 3:1-6; Psalm 96:13; Micah 1:3; Revelaton 1:1; 22:6. Psalm 96:98; 110:1; Matthew 22:43-45; 26:64; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; Acts 2:34; 7:55: Romans 8:34; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 1:13; 10:12,13; 1 Peter 3:22; John 5:22) Paul in verse 17 speaks of the Lord who gave him power. Who had he spoken of earlier as the one who gives us power, and to whom we should be approved as workmen? (2 Timothy 1:7,8; 2 Timothy 2:15; 3:17) It is God, Yahweh, thus we have good reason to believe that "the Lord" in 2 Timothy 4:14,17,18, and probably verse 22 has reference to Yahweh, not Jesus. (Verse 22 in the Text Receptus has "the Lord Jesus Christ", whereas earlier manuscripts do not refer to Jesus Christ in this verse. Thus many read similar to Rotherham's: "The Lord, be with thy spirit. Favour, be with you.")

But we let us assume that "the Lord" here refers to Jesus, the one made Lord and Christ by the only true God. We would find that the word "doxa" was used toward Jesus, but not at the beginning of the phrase. Does this mean that Jesus is God Almighty? Absolutely not! Yes, Jesus being highly exalted by God will receive glory forever and ever. There is nothing in this that means that Jesus is God Almighty, except that one would want to read such into what Paul states here. There is no reason to read such an idea into what Paul states here, even if he meant this to be a reference to Jesus as "the Lord".

2 Peter 3:18 - But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be fthe glory both now and forever. Amen.

The only true God, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus, is the one who anointed Jesus and made him to be Lord and who sent him as to save the world. Yes, God has rewarded him with glory now and forever. Praise Yah! Amen!

****

This document is provided by Restoration Light (ResLight) Bible Study Services. This page may be freely printed and distributed as long as there are no additions or deletions to its content, including this notice.