That YHVH is One Person and Jesus Christ Another, Proved from Acts 4:24-30

And when they heard this, they lifted their voices to God with one accord and said, “O Lord, it is You who made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that is in them, 25 who by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David Your servant, said,

‘Why did the Gentiles rage,

And the peoples devise futile things?

26 ‘The kings of the earth took their stand,

And the rulers were gathered together

Against the Lord and against His Christ.’

27 For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur. 29 And now, Lord, take note of their threats, and grant that Your bond-servants may speak Your word with all confidence, 30 while You extend Your hand to heal, and signs and wonders take place through the name of Your holy servant Jesus.”

Acts 4:24-30 NASB

In this passage we read a prayer of the apostles Peter and John after they had been released from prison, and had been threatened by the Sanhedrin. In it, we have a window into the theology and christology of these two preeminent apostles, and of the early church in general. Of particular interest here is the fact that they quote Psalm 2:1-2 in their prayer, as having been fulfilled in the events that they had witnessed surrounding Jesus the Nazarene, thus giving us an apostolic commentary on Psalm 2.

Of note firstly is that in Psalm 2, the title “Lord” is used as a filler for the proper name of God, YHVH. Given that, if we interpret this prayer as being consistent with itself, we may reasonably understand ‘Lord’ throughout the prayer to be a filler for this name. Sometimes people run away with this idea of ‘Lord’ being a replacement for YHVH, and subsequently read the name ‘YHVH’ into many texts where the authors likely never intended it, but only intended to say ‘Lord’, the equivalent of ‘Master’. But here, especially given the connection with Psalm 2, I will suggest we have good reason to see ‘Lord’ as a placeholder for the divine name YHVH.

We may note then that the prayer begins by addressing YHVH as the Creator of all things- “the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that is in them”. The person being prayed to is the one Creator, then, the same YHVH Who said “I, the LORD, am the Maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself And spreading out the earth all alone” (Isa 44:24 NASB). If all things were made by this one Creator, then it follows necessarily that He alone is uncreated. The person being addressed here as YHVH then is the Supreme Being, the one uncaused Creator of all things, the God of Israel.

They next make mention of what YHVH spoke by the Holy Spirit through David, and quote the first two verses of Psalm 2. Note the end of verse two: the rulers were gathered together “against YHVH and His anointed” (that is, His Christ), who is also identified as “Your holy Servant Jesus”. Here we have nothing less than Jesus Christ being clearly distinguished by the apostles Peter and John as another person besides YHVH, the one God, the Maker of all things.

We must read the passage so, since it’s obvious that the anointed and the Anointer cannot be one and the same person, or that the servant of one cannot be the same with the one they serve. The anointed of YHVH is clearly one besides YHVH here, one who He has acted upon to anoint as His Messiah. And in calling Jesus the Servant of YHVH, YHVH and Jesus are again clearly distinguished; since it’s obvious that the servant and the one served are persons distinct from one another, according to the very definition of the term ‘servant’.

We have here then the testimony of two leading apostles, that the Lord Jesus Christ is another person besides the one God, YHVH, the Maker of all things. Let us note, lest any trinitarian try to escape these conclusions, that if Jesus were here said to have been anointed by the Father, any trinitarian would regard it as a proof that Jesus is a distinct person from the father; if Jesus had here been called the Servant of the Father, likewise, no trinitarian would shy from declaring, against modalism, that this is proof that Jesus is another person besides the Father. But here we have something far less comfortable for the trinitarian: Jesus is not merely said to be the anointed of the Father, or the Servant of the Father, although he is these things, but is clearly said to be the anointed and Servant of YHVH, the Maker of all things. Just as much, then as such statements would rightly be said to prove that Jesus is a distinct person from the Father, so these statements prove that Jesus is not YHVH the Maker of all things, but another person distinct from Him.

Later in Psalm 2, we further read that the Messiah, or anointed, of YHVH is His Son:

“He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.”

verse 7

Notice, then, that Jesus Christ is not simply said to be the Son of the Father, but of YHVH. It is clear, here, that YHVH is indeed a person, the Father of Jesus, not a multi-personal being. YHVH here is spoken to as a person: “You made”, “Who… said” “You anointed”. This YHVH created, planned and purposed, anointed, spoke, healed, and is being asked to intervene on behalf of men- it is obvious from these things that the YHVH being spoken to is a person.

But perhaps a trinitarians will still try to object, despite all the evidence, that this is a ‘being’ and not a ‘person’ denoted here by the name YHVH. Why then is a ‘being’ spoken to as a person, then? It is granted that YHVH is a being; but is this being a personal or impersonal being? If it is impersonal, then how does it speak? How does it create, or act, or heal? Why pray to an impersonal being? Undoubtedly the being spoken of here is a personal being. We must then ask, does any peculiar term exist which denotes ‘a personal being’? The word ‘person’ denotes just such a thing. To say that the YHVH spoken of here then is truly a person could not be more appropriate.

We must recall that a person is, according to definition, a rational individual being- and YHVH here clearly fits that description. That YHVH is spoken of as one singular entity here, anyone will admit: that is, He is an individual being. That YHVH is ‘rational’ is clear from the fact that He speaks, purposes and plans, intelligently creates, etc. By definition then, YHVH here is indisputably a person. And this person is clearly distinguished from Jesus Christ, who is the “Anointed”, “Servant”, and “Son” of this person.

We see then that for the apostles Peter and John, the one God, YHVH, the Supreme Being, the Creator of all things, is only one person, the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, and that Jesus Christ is a person wholly distinct from YHVH. And, of course (lest the trinitarians try here to insert their cavil of distinguishing being and person) that to be a distinct person means that he must necessarily be a distinct individual being also; for a person just is a rational individual being, as we have said. To be another person, then, is to be another rational individual being; and so we see that the one God is one rational individual being, and Jesus Christ is another.

Finally, a brief thought experiment: if the doctrine of triune God were true, and YHVH God Almighty were one being that is three persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then how would this passage read? Would this prayer, and Psalm 2 quoted in it, make any sense? Is a triune YHVH an interpretive option? Let us consider, if YHVH is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then it follows that: Jesus Christ will be the Anointed of the Father, and the Holy Spirit, and of himself; Jesus Christ will be the Servant of not only the Father, but also the Holy Spirit, and also, of himself; and finally, Jesus Christ will be the Son, not only of the Father, but also of the Holy Spirit, and also, of himself. This is very obviously both impossible and utterly contrary to the teaching of the Bible; Jesus was not anointed by Himself; and to suppose that Jesus has the Holy Spirit as a second father, is quite absurd; and how absurd is it to suppose that anyone could be their own servant, or their own Son, such that Jesus should be a servant and Son to himself? Yet let us mark well, that if YHVH the God of Israel, God Almighty, is three persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then for Jesus to be the Anointed, the Servant, and the Son of YHVH will require all of the absurdities mentioned above.

It is clear then, that not only is the trinitarian position foreign to the text of the Bible, but would make the passage’s meaning totally unintelligible and contradictory here. We must stick to what is clear from the text: YHVH, the Creator of all things, the one God, is one person, and Jesus Christ is His Anointed, His Servant, and His Son, another person and individual being distinct from the one God.

Arguments For Unitarianism

The Quaternity Argument

Dr. Dale Tuggy recently posted on a very important subject, one I’ve been trying to draw attention to here for quite some time: that most trinitarians view the Trinity itself as a person, creating a fourth divine person. You can read his post here. The result of such a view is that the Trinity is not truly a trinity, but a quadrinity, and that the one God of the Old Testament is not the same person as the one God in the New Testament.

After all, according to trinitarians the one God of the Old Testament, YHVH, is supposed to just be the Trinity. And if the Trinity is indeed a self or person in its own right, then since this person or self is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together, it is distinct from each (since the Father, for instance, is not Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together). But in the New Testament, this person has disappeared- the one God is always identified as one person of the Trinity, the Father (Jn 17:3, Eph 4:6, 1 Cor 8:6). So now we will have a situation where the one God of the Old Testament and the one God of the New Testament are not the same person, but two different selves or persons. While “God the Trinity” is the one God of the OT, in the NT we can only find “God the Father” identified as the one God.

This is why I have suggested before that in some respects, this semi-modalistic, four-person trinitarianism is really ancient gnostic heresy repackaged- after all, denying the identity of the one God of the OT with the one God of the NT, the Father of Jesus, was one of the main crimes of ancient gnostic heresies, something ancient writers like Irenaeus repeatedly argued against.

I’d also like to comment briefly on something the trinitarian Dr. Tuggy interacts with in his article says:

God acts and speaks as one quite a bit. Scripture affirms God is one. It also affirms God is three by identifying three distinct persons as God.

Andrew Schumacher

Here we read what I think is a pretty standard line for trinitarians, that the Bible presents God as one, but also as three. As I’ve noted elsewhere, this isn’t actually the case: while the Bible is explicit from cover to cover that God is one, we lack any statement in any book of the Bible that God is three. That is in itself a reason to be unitarian and not trinitarian, since to be unitarian is simply to affirm what the Bible actually states, and no more, while to be trinitarian involves not only believing something never stated by the Bible, but in particular something never taught by the Bible which actually contradicts what the Bible does teach. After all, it is a contradiction for the same individual thing to be numerically one and three.

But note the attempt to shoehorn in that the Bible teaches God is three: he says that the Bible teaches God is three by ‘identifying three distinct persons as God’. Firstly, we may note that one of these persons, the Holy Spirit, is never clearly identified as God– something which must be a major embarrassment to trinitarians. But secondly, even if the Spirit, like the Son, was sometimes called ‘theos’, ‘God’ or ‘a god’ (both are equally legitimate Greek translations), this would not be the same thing as saying that the Son and Spirit are the same one God. That is to say, showing that three persons are each God in some sense and showing that the one God is three persons are not the same thing.

That’s because the Bible freely speaks of there being “many gods” in a lesser sense; for example, human judges and rulers in Israel were called “gods” (Ps 82, Jn 10:34-35), and likewise angels are also called “gods” (Heb 2:7, compare Ps 8:5). So according to the Bible, there’s no contradiction in there being one God, YHVH, God Almighty, Who is the “Most High God”, “the God of gods”, and there being in a lesser sense “many gods” (1 Cor 8:5). So, if the Messiah (who is always described simply as a man) is a God, and if the Holy Spirit were a God (something that cannot be shown from the Bible), this would still fit well within a unitarian framework- nothing about it would imply that the one God is multi-personal.

For a trinitarian to show that the one God is multi-personal, despite the way scripture constantly speaks of Him as a single person, they will need to do more than show that other persons besides the Father (Who is explicitly equated with the one God several times) are called “God” or “a god”; they will need to show that the Bible actually says that the one God, the Supreme Being, YHVH, is more persons than one, the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. This, they cannot do.

Arguments For Unitarianism

The Passion of Christ: God’s Self-Sacrifice?

In a couple of recent public debates between Trinitarians and Biblical Unitarians on the Trinity, an argument has come up from the trinitarian side that I would like to address here. The argument is this: the passion and death of Christ is not God’s sacrifice of another, but God’s self-sacrifice for us. This is then praised for its beauty, its show of love and its demonstration of humility. This is something, according to these trinitarians, that Biblical Unitarianism misses, much to its own hurt. But here I want to ask the question: is this idea of God’s self-sacrifice biblical?

The answer to this is short and simple: no- the Bible repeatedly and explicitly tells us not that God gave Himself for our sins, but that He gave His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ:

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:16-18 NASB

Notice the clarity here is this most famous verse: God gave who? God so loved the world that He gave Himself? No; God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son. Now, anyone can understand that a son is not one and the same with the one whose son they are, but must be another; for the very nature of sonship is to denote a relationship between two different individuals, as being father and son.

But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. 10 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. 11 And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.

Romans 5:8-11 NKJV

God demonstrated His own love for us how? By who dying for us? The trinitarians in these recent debates want to answer ‘God!’. But what does the Bible say? God demonstrates His own love for us by Christ’s death for us. We are reconciled to God, not through His own death, we are told, but through the death of His Son. And His Son is, of course, another besides Him, or else he is no real Son at all. This passage is clear in telling us that we are reconciled to God through the death of a third party, Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus, the one whom you delivered and disowned in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release Him. 14 But you disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, 15 but put to death the Prince of life, the one whom God raised from the dead, a fact to which we are witnesses.

Acts 3:13-15 NASB

Notice that the one God raised from the dead was not God Himself, but another “the one whom God raised”. Who is this? The Prince of Life, God’s servant Jesus Christ. Notice that Jesus is hear clearly distinguished from YHVH, the one God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as being His servant. No one is their own servant, but to be a servant of someone denotes a relationship between two distinct individuals.

“Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— 23 this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. 24 But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power.

Acts 2:22-24 NASB

Who got nailed to the cross and raised from the dead, God, or another, according to Peter here? Clearly another, Jesus the Nazarene. We are told that God performed wonders and signs through him; an action which again shows that they are two distinct beings, as it would be meaningless to say that one performed an action through their own self. Here we see clearly again that the one who died for our sins is not the one God, but another, His Son, Jesus Christ.

There are many other passages we might go to as well. To the claim that God redeemed us with His own personal sacrifice and not through a third party, we may simply quote 1 Timothy 2:5 (“For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” NASB) and be done with it, but all these other texts quoted above only serve to irrefutably demonstrate the point that much more clearly. God did not suffer and die for anyone’s sins, and He didn’t sacrifice Himself. Rather, the Lord Jesus Christ died for our sins and sacrificed Himself for us.

If we value the beauty and nobility of self-sacrifice, let us look to Jesus, the Son of God, who willingly gave himself up for us in obedience to the Father. Here we see not only a glorious example of great humility, as the Christ of God suffered and died like a common criminal, but also a glorious and noble example of obedience, as Philippians 2:8 points out:

Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Philippians 2:8 NASB

If we instead say that God gave Himself for our sins, we lose this example of obedience; God is not subject to another, to obey another. But Jesus Christ the Son of God gives us the perfect example of willing obedience to God, in dying for our sins according to God’s plan.

We must remember that our notions of what is beautiful or noble don’t trump truth. If God had really died for our sins, then we would have to appreciate the beauty of that. But if God didn’t die for our sins- if another besides God died for our sins- then there is no beauty in this falsehood that God died for us. In fact, we would be so far from advancing what is beautiful and noble, that we would be robbing the one who did suffer and die for us the glory due him. Jesus Christ the Son of God must get the glory for what He has done for us; it is unacceptable to rob him of that glory, by ascribing the extremely noble and praiseworthy things he has done to another, Who in fact did not do them.

While hoping to glorify God, these trinitarians are greatly dishonoring the Lord Jesus Christ. That is not pleasing to God, Who wills that on account of his obedience and sacrifice, Christ should be highly exalted to God’s right hand, should receive the name above all names, and should have every knee bow to him. All this is to the glory of the Father (Phil 2:11); if we really want to glorify God, we must stop ascribing the work of Christ to God, and glorify Christ for his amazing accomplishments, which is, we are told, to the glory of God Who sent and empowered him. In this way, we will honor both Christ and God, according to the will of God.

There remains just two more things I’d like to briefly note in relation to this trinitarian argument we are addressing. Firstly, God is immortal, and to be immortal simply means you cannot die. Trying to define death in some special way here won’t help, because being immortal means that whatever death is, God doesn’t do it. God is the living God, and is immutable, unchanging; so then, He always lives, and never dies in any way, for a living unchangeable being must always and eternally live. Any experience of death would both mean that God had changed, and that He was mortal; but we are told that God never changes (Mal 3:6), and that He is immortal (1 Tim 1:17). It should be obvious then that its not even a possibility that God died on the cross for our sins. Rather, as the Bible says, the man Jesus Christ the Son of God gave Himself for us.

Secondly, I want to note how very modalistic this trinitarian argument is. This really goes to demonstrate what I have frequently tried to draw attention to, that most modern trinitarians are actually modalists. For them, Father, Son, and Spirit are all just the same rational individual being; and of course, a rational individual being is simply a person. Now, traditional trinitarian language prevents them from calling this being, this ‘triune God’ or ‘tri-personal God’ a “person”, but when you get down to the actual concepts in play, they believe that this entity is a single person which is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Thus, for them, the Son dying is the self-sacrifice of the one God, because the Son just is that one God, that one individual who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Of course, if the Son just is the one God, however, then the Son isn’t really the Son of God at all. A son must be another besides the one whose son they are; a father-son relation necessarily denotes a relationship between two individuals. So if Jesus Christ just is the one God, he is not in any real sense the Son of the one God. Denying that Jesus is the Son of God, of course, is extremely problematic:

The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son. 11 And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12 He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.

1 John 5:1-12 NASB

Its precisely because modalism denies the Son of God, and with it, the gospel and all true Christianity, that the early church rightly identified modalism as a dangerous heresy.

Of course, if the Son just is the one God, and the Father also just is the one God, then the Son just is the Father, too. This is the rational outcome of trinitarian dogma, but its a forbidden conclusion; a good trinitarian is not allowed to reason that far. But the logic holds; if A=C, and B=C, then A=B; if the Father and Son are both identified with the entirety of the same individual being, then the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father, meaning, there really is no father-son relation at all. Father and Son become, logically, interchangeable titles for the same person.

In conclusion, then, this ‘trinitarian’ argument falls short; not only does it lack support from the Bible, but is contradicted by the Bible, which is clear in telling us that another besides God, namely His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, died for our sins. Not only this, but the argument implicitly denies God’s immortality and immutability, by claiming that the living God died. Finally, we may note that this argument would better suite a oneness pentecostal or modalist of some stripe than it would someone truly holding to a nicene trinitarianism. Most trinitarians, of course, do not hold to a nicene trinitarianism, but are very modalistic in their theology, meaning that sadly, this argument will probably remain popular among trinitarians for some time to come.

Arguments For Unitarianism

A ‘Weak Link’ of Trinitarianism: the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit

The orthodox/creedal doctrine of the Trinity is a complex doctrine, composed of many important and essential elements. It consists of important assertions about the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, and about all three together. Under each of these four broader headings can be found a number of important asserts pertaining to each, adding still more complexity. Within this complex doctrine of the Trinity, there are many weak points. We might examine trinitarian equivocation on the term person; the utter absence of any description of God as being multi-personal or triune in the Bible, and the fact that the Bible clearly reveals that God is only one person, the Father of Jesus Christ; the problematic fact that the Bible tells us Jesus’s origin, and it isn’t in ‘eternity past’; or the issue that the Bible defines divinity as relational and functional, not ontological or essential. There is no one single ‘weak point’ of the traditional doctrine of the Trinity; at many of its most important junctures, the doctrine falls apart under unbiased scrutiny, and is shattered to pieces by the Bible’s own contrary teaching about Who God is, and who the Lord Jesus Christ is.

But one important weak-point of the doctrine of the Trinity is the quarter or so of the overall doctrine which deals with the Holy Spirit. For the trinitarian, the Holy Spirit must be the third person of the one God, co-eternal and co-essential with the Father and the Son, perfectly knowing all that God knows, and a participant in every action of God. Yet, this understanding of the Holy Spirit is utterly foreign to the Bible. The Holy Spirit is presented by the Bible not as being a person of or in any way a part of the one God, but as a person entirely distinct from the one God; the Holy Spirit is presented as not knowing all things as God does; and the Holy Spirit simply cannot be proved to be God in any sense from the Bible.

Firstly we note that the Holy Spirit is a person distinct from the one God. For a closer look at why we ought to understand the Holy Spirit to truly be a person, see here. That this person is distinguished from the one God (Who is only one person, the Father), we may turn to John Biddle’s twelve arguments demonstrating that the Holy Spirit is not the one God, a few of which I hope to review in this article. These arguments show us that the Holy Spirit is not individually and numerically identical with the one God, but is genuinely another rational individual being (viz, a person) besides the one God. We shall address arguments pertaining to the notion that the Holy Spirit, as a distinct individual from the one God, shares a generic essence or divine nature with the Father, below.

Here are a few of Biddle’s arguments:

Argument 3:

He that speaketh not of himself, is not [the one] God.

The Holy Spirit speaketh not of himself.

Therefore, the Holy Spirit is not [the one] God.

The minor premise is clear from Joh. 16. 13. “But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.” (NASB) The major premise is proved thus: God speaks of Himself; therefore if there be any one that speaks not of himself, he is not God. The antecedent is of itself apparent; for God is the primary Author of whatsoever he doth; but should he not speak of Himself, He must speak from another, and so not be the primary, but secondary author of His speech; which is absurd, if at least that may be called absurd, which is impossible. The consequence is undeniable. For further confirmation of this Argument, it is to be observed, that to speak or to do any thing not of Himself, according to the ordinary phrase of the Scripture, is to speak or do by the shewing, teaching, commanding, authorizing, or enabling of another, and consequently incompatible with the supreme and self-sufficient Majesty of God. Vid. John 5. 19. 20, 30. Joh. 7. 15, 16, 17, 18, 28. John 8. 28, 42. Joh. 11. 50, 51. John 12. 49, 50. John 14. 10, 24. John 15. 4. John 18. 34. Luke 12. 56, 57. Luke 21. 30. 2 Cor. 3. 5.

Argument 8:

He that changes place, is not [the one] God.

The Holy Spirit changes place:

Therefore, the Holy Spirit is not [the one] God.

The Major premise is plain: for if God should change place, he would cease to be where he was before, and begin to be where he was not before; which everteth his Omnipresence, and consequently, by the confession of the adversaries themselves, his Deity. The Minor premise is ocularly apparent, if following the advice of the adversaries, you will but go to Jordan; for there you shall have the holy Spirit in a bodily shape descending from heaven, which is the terminus a quo; and alighting upon Christ, which is the terminus ad-quem, Luke 3. 21, 22. Joh. 1. 32. Neither let any man alledge, that as much is spoken of God, Exod. 3. and chap. 20. and Gen. 18. For if you compare Acts 7. 30, 35, 38, 53. Gal. 3. 19. Heb. 2. 2, 3. and chap. 13. 2. with the foresaid places, you shall find, that it was not God himself that came down, but only an Angel, sustaining the Person and Name of God; which hath no place in the history touching the descent of the holy Spirit.

Argument 9:

He that prayeth unto Christ, to come to judgement, is not [the one] God.

The Holy Spirit doth so:

Therefore, the Holy Spirit is not [the one] God.

The Major premise is granted. The Minor is evident from Revel. 22. 17. compared with the 12 verse. “The Spirit and the bride say, “Come.”… He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming quickly.”” (NASB). Neither let any man think to elude this proof, by saying, that the Spirit is here said to pray, only because he makes the Bride to pray: for when the Scripture would signify the assistance of the Holy Spirit in causing men to speak, it is wont to affirm, either that the Holy Spirit speaks in them, as Matth. 10. 20. or that they spake by the Holy Spirit, as Rom. 8. 15. We have received the Spirit of adoption, by whom we cry, Abba, Father. But here it is expressly said, that the Spirit and the Bride say, Come; not the Spirit in the Bride, nor the Bride by the Spirit.

The interested reader is referred to Biddle’s complete presentation of his arguments, linked above, for more arguments demonstrating that the Holy Spirit is not the one God, but another individual being besides the one God.

We may also here note that the Holy Spirit, by the admission of all trinitarians being a person distinct from the Father, does not, according to the Lord Jesus Christ, know all things:

But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.

Mark 13:32 NASB

If no one but the Father alone knows the day or the hour, and the Holy Spirit is a person distinct from the Father, then it is plain that the Holy Spirit does not know the day or the hour of Christ’s return. In the case of Jesus saying that he does not know, in this passage, the trinitarians have the cavil of appealing to his having two natures or of having emptied himself somehow, and arguing that he both knew and did not know at the same time. But never do we read of the Holy Spirit undergoing an incarnation, or of emptying itself. Yet the Holy Spirit did not know this, but only the Father did. This disproves the trinitarian claim that the Holy Spirit, as person of triune God, shares one mind with the other persons of the Trinity, and knows all things. God is omniscient; the Holy Spirit is not. This shows that the Holy Spirit is not individually the same as the one God, Who knows all things, and also, according to the logic of the trinitarians, shows that the Holy Spirit is not co-essential with the Father at all, as to be omniscient is considered an ‘essential’ attribute of God, which any person who has the same generic essence must then also possess.

The Holy Spirit, then, is shown to not be individually the same as the one God, but distinct from Him. Some primitive forms of trinitarianism, however, would have no problem with such a proposition; they would simply assert that the Spirit is generically co-essential with the one God, the Father, and so shares a common nature with the Father and is “true God of true God”. This point we have already shown false, by the fact that the Holy Spirit is not omniscient, something which, according to trinitarians, is an attribute of the divine essence, and must be possessed by any person co-essential with God the Father.

However, we may also simply note that there is no basis for supposing the Holy Spirit is generically co-essential with the Father in the Bible. In the case of Jesus, trinitarians twist passages that call Jesus “God” or “a god”, and say that the divinity Jesus possesses is essential and ontological. This is not the case; deity in the Bible is always relative, relational, and functional; it is not a species or essence. However, in the case of the Holy Spirit, unlike that of Christ, there are simply no passages of the Bible from which one might prove that the Holy Spirit is God. In no text of scripture can it be shown that the Holy Spirit is called “God” or “a god” such that this confession might be twisted to support the notion that the Spirit shares a generic essence with the Father.

On this point, we must note what most trinitarians will readily acknowledge in any other circumstance, that a passage of the Bible which may be interpreted as supporting any doctrine x, if it can also validly be interpreted as not supporting doctrine x, cannot be ushered as proof of doctrine x. Yet, trinitarians ignore this when it comes to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit; in a scramble to find something, anything, in the whole Bible which would identify the Holy Spirit as God, they come up empty-handed. Therefore, they typically appeal to a couple of passages which absolutely do not prove that the Holy Spirit is “God”, but which, with some difficulty, may be interpreted as calling the Spirit “God”, as one of multiple valid interpretations. That is, these passages can be read as calling the Holy Spirit “God”, but can also be interpreted validly as saying no such thing. Therefore, neither of them can in any way honestly be represented as proof that the Holy Spirit is God.

These passages are Acts 5:3-4 and 1 Corinthians 12:4-6:

But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”

Acts 5:3-4 NASB

Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons.

1 Corinthians 12:4-6 NASB

The first passage can best be read as being based upon the notion that God was working in the apostles by the instrumentality of the Holy Spirit He had given them. Since God worked through Peter by the agency of the Holy Spirit, to lie to Peter was to lie to the Holy Spirit working in Peter; and by lying to the Holy Spirit who was acting as God’s agent, also lied to God. There is simply no need, and no basis in the text of the passage itself, for saying that “God” here in verse four is being used in reference to the Holy Spirit. While this interpretation cannot absolutely be ruled out, it is an unnatural reading, given how throughout the Bible the Holy Spirit is distinguished from God, and is not a necessary interpretation. Since this text can ultimately be taken either way, however, no trinitarian can rightly claim that this is proof that the Holy Spirit is God.

If we understand God to act in prophets and Christians through the agency of the Holy Spirit He has given us, then of course the Spirit would be involved in the incident in Acts 5. The passage can easily be understood as saying that by lying to Peter, they lied to the Holy Spirit working in him; and by lying to the Spirit by which God worked through Peter, they lied to God. The same sort of dubious logic trinitarians wish to use here, which ignores the possibility of acting through an agent, will equally ‘prove’ that the Holy Spirit is an angel in Acts 10:19-22 (NASB):

“While Peter was reflecting on the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, three men are looking for you. 20 But get up, go downstairs and accompany them without misgivings, for I have sent them Myself.” 21 Peter went down to the men and said, “Behold, I am the one you are looking for; what is the reason for which you have come?” 22 They said, “Cornelius, a centurion, a righteous and God-fearing man well spoken of by the entire nation of the Jews, was divinely directed by a holy angel to send for you to come to his house and hear a message from you.”

Acts 10:19-22, NASB

Lest we dismiss this identification of the one who appeared to Cornelius as an angel as an error on Cornelius or his servants’ part, we may also note that Luke calls this person an angel earlier in the chapter, in vs 3 and 7. Who had Cornelius send for Peter then? The Holy Spirit says he sent the men personally, yet Luke says an angel is the one who appeared to Cornelius and had the men sent. Is the Holy Spirit identified as an angel here? Certainly, that’s a possible reading (just as reading the Holy Spirit as being identified as “God” in Acts 5 is a possible reading), yet this cannot be proved to be what the passage is saying; the Holy Spirit could have worked through an angelic agent to send the men, and so, not be identified here as an angel. The same concept of agency used here allows us to understand that the Holy Spirit and God are two distinct persons in Acts 5 though; if Acts 5 is “proof” that the Holy Spirit is God, Acts 10 is equally “proof” that the Holy Spirit is an angel. The fact is, neither proposition can truly be proved from either passage, but only remain possible, yet unnecessary, interpretations.

The second passage trinitarians try to usher as proof that the Holy Spirit is God, 1 Corinthians 12:4-6, is best understood as referring to the Holy Spirit only by “Spirit”, and to be referring to Jesus as “Lord”, and the Father as “God”. This follows the pattern of the way Paul speaks all throughout his epistles, where “God” is used for the Father, “Lord” for the Son, and “Spirit” for the Holy Spirit. We see this pattern in places like Ephesians 4:4-6, 1 Corinthians 8:6, and in many, many other places.

There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

Ephesians 4:4-6, NASB

yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

1 Corinthians 8:6, NKJV

If we simply read 1 Corinthians 12 in conjunction with the rest of Paul’s writings, it seems the most natural and reasonable reading is that Paul is referring to the Holy Spirit, the Lord Jesus, and God the Father in this passage, and is not applying the titles “Lord” and “God” to the Holy Spirit. Someone can argue that its possible to interpret these titles as being applied to the Spirit here, and that is technically true. Although it is neither the best nor the most natural reading, the passage can be interpreted that way; but this is only one possible interpretation, and not a necessary conclusion from the text. That means that this text, like Acts 5, cannot honestly be claimed to prove that the Spirit is God, but the most that can be said is that such a reading is one possible reading.

We see then that there is no passage from which a person may prove that the Holy Spirit is ‘God’ or ‘a god’. Even if there were such a passage, this could not rightly be taken as a statement of co-essentiality; but no such passage exists anyway. There is not even a verse that trinitarians can twist on this subject to claim to have proved that the Spirit is co-essential with God the Father.

This point, in itself, if rather damning for trinitarianism. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link; if the ontological divinity of the Holy Spirit cannot be proved from the Bible, then, since this is a necessary component of orthodox trinitarianism, neither will it be possible to ever prove the doctrine of the trinity from the Bible. This might not bother Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, who are fine with merely saying that the Spirit’s divinity is “suggested” or implied, but never stated in the Bible, and who can simply rely on tradition as a substitute for revelation on this point, without being inconsistent with their theological system. However, for Protestants, who deny that tradition is of equal authority with the Bible, this poses an enormous problem; if the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be proved from the Bible, as is shown by the absence of any biblical proof for the Holy Spirit being God or ontologically divine, then the doctrine of the trinity is simply not to be accepted. If we will base our doctrinal beliefs about God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit on the Bible itself, and eschew other sources as unreliable, then we must reject the doctrine of the Trinity.

The trinitarian doctrine of the Holy Spirit is then seen to be one of the weakest pillars of trinitarian orthodoxy; the doctrine of the ontological divinity of the Holy Spirit is as essential to orthodox trinitarianism as it is weak and indefensible from scripture. This doctrine is rarely examined in depth, probably precisely because it is felt to be so weak. Trinitarians must stop ignoring this problem and the massive implications it holds for the doctrine of the trinity; our concern must not be to defend ‘orthodoxy’, but to faithfully believe what God has revealed about Himself, His Son, and His Holy Spirit.

Arguments For Unitarianism

Is the Silence of the Synoptic Gospels on Pre-existence a Problem for Trinitarians?

The doctrine of literal pre-existence teaches that Jesus Christ existed prior to his miraculous conception in Mary, and subsequent virgin birth (which the apostle Matthew tells us is the origin of Jesus Christ). But both the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) as well as all the evangelistic sermons preached by the apostles recorded in the book of Acts, are silent on the matter, never mentioning or teaching that Jesus existed before his conception by the Holy Spirit in Mary. Is the silence of the synoptic gospels on the matter of literal-pre-existence a problem for trinitarians?

The standard trinitarian response is a resounding ‘no’. This would be an invalid argument from silence, they say. Its possible that the apostles Matthew, Peter, and Paul all believed Jesus literally pre-existed, and just didn’t include this detail in their preaching and in their accounts of the gospel (Mark is generally regarded as a summary of what Peter preached, and Luke is based on Paul, among other sources). Thus the silence on this matter does not prove anything about whether or not these authors believed in literal pre-existence, it is argued.

I offer the following argument in response to that answer:

Trinitarians insist that the doctrine of the trinity, including a belief in the literal pre-existence of Jesus, is essential to Christian faith, and required for salvation. If that is true, then it follows necessarily that any presentation of the gospel which would be sufficient to be a basis for saving faith, must include the doctrine of the trinity, and specifically, that Jesus literally pre-existed. Yet the doctrine of literal pre-existence seems to be totally absent from Matthew, Mark, and Luke’s presentation of the gospel, as well as from every single evangelistic sermon in the book of Acts. These presentations of the gospel are clearly sufficient to impart saving faith; therefore, it follows that belief in literal pre-existence must not be essential to salvation. Yet, according to the logic of traditional trinitarianism, then, the doctrine of literal pre-existence must then be false. That’s because they teach that if it is true, it must be required for salvation; they inextricably link the questions of whether or not it is true, and whether or not it is essential to Christianity. Thus, if one of these claims can be shown false (that it is essential to Christianity), then by their logic the other claim must also be false (that literal pre-existence is a true doctrine). The absence of literal pre-existence from the synoptics shows us it is not required for salvation; therefore, it must be false.

I make a lot of claims here, that act as premises in my argument. If someone disagrees with my conclusion, they should be able to identify either one or more false premises, or else an error in my reasoning. I invite trinitarians to do so. For sake of clarity, I will reiterate my argument as follows:

Premise 1: If the doctrine of literal pre-existence is true, it is essential to Christian faith, and required for salvation.

Premise 2: If any doctrine must be known and believed by a person in order to be a Christian and be saved, it is part of the gospel.

Premise 3: Thus, following from P1 and P2, if the doctrine of literal pre-existence is true, then it is an essential part of the gospel.

Premise 4: No account of the gospel which is sufficient to provide a basis for saving faith can leave out any essential element of the gospel.

Premise 5: Thus, following from P3 and P4, if literal pre-existence is true then it must be present in every sufficient presentation of the gospel.

Premise 6: The doctrine of literal pre-existence is absent from many sufficient presentations of the gospel in the New Testament.

Conclusion: The doctrine of literal pre-existence is false.

Now, my conclusion follows logically from my premises; my argument is sound. So, if someone wishes to show my conclusion wrong, they will need to identify which premise or premises are false.

Premise 1, that if the doctrine of literal pre-existence is true, it is essential to Christian faith, and required for salvation, is simply the teaching of historical creedal trinitarianism. The Nicene and pseudo-athanasian creeds both define belief in the trinity, particularly including belief that Jesus literally pre-existed, as something that is essential to Christianity, that a person must believe to be saved. Those who don’t believe literal pre-existence are repeatedly damned to hell by these creeds.

Not only is premise 1 something that anyone who believes creedal trinitarianism is committed to by the creeds themselves, but its also something which seems to be somewhat obvious. If Jesus Christ isn’t a man (the greatest of all men) who took his origin from the virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit, but rather is a spiritual being who has existed eternally with God the Father, co-equal and co-eternal with Him, through whom all things in the universe were made, this is a hugely important aspect of Jesus’s identity. The Bible warns us against the perils of believing in a false Jesus (2 Cor 11:4), so getting Jesus’s baseline identity right seems to be pretty important for a person’s salvation. Thus it’s difficult to see how something like the doctrine of Jesus’s literal pre-existence could be true, and yet not be required for salvation, if for no other reason than for sake of actually identifying the real Jesus Christ preached by the apostles, rather than a false Jesus.

Premise 2, that if any doctrine must be known and believed by a person in order to be a Christian and be saved, it is part of the gospel, seems obvious. I’m understanding the ‘gospel’ here as a message of good news which necessarily encompasses all that a person must believe in order to be saved. I understand the basic means by which a person is saved, reconciled to God, and becomes a genuine Christian to be faith and repentance; the faith aspect of that is what we’re dealing with here. If there are certain things a person must believe to be saved, then the gospel message must encompass all these. Or else, a person could believe the entire gospel, and still not be saved, which defeats the whole purpose. A gospel that can’t save isn’t a gospel at all.

Premise 3 (following from P1 and P2, if the doctrine of literal pre-existence is true, then it is an essential part of the gospel) simply follows necessarily from P1 and P2; if P1 and P2 are true, then P3 must also be true.

Premise 4, that no account of the gospel which is sufficient to provide a basis for saving faith can leave out any essential element of the gospel, also seems fairly obvious. If an account of the gospel left out an essential element of what must be believed to be saved, then it would not provide a sufficient basis for saving faith. A person could believe the entire message and still not be able to be saved, due to lacking some essential doctrine.

Premise 5 follows necessarily from P3 and P4: if literal pre-existence is true then it must be present in every sufficient presentation of the gospel. That’s because if the doctrine is true, it is essential to the gospel, and no essential element of the gospel can be absent from any sufficient presentation of the gospel. If P3 and P4 are true, P5 necessarily follows.

Premise 6, that the doctrine of literal pre-existence is absent from many sufficient presentations of the gospel in the New Testament, is easy to see just by reading the synoptic gospels and the evangelistic sermons in the book of Acts. Its quite obviously absent from these accounts. We can see that these accounts are sufficient presentations of the gospel by the fact that this was the intended purpose of the accounts being given; Matthew, Mark, and Luke weren’t trying to get their readers part way to saving faith, but provide them with a full account of the message of the gospel, such that anyone who believed what they wrote could be saved. But we have even fuller evidence that these accounts are sufficient from the preaching in the book of Acts. We see that thousands upon thousands of people who heard the sermons of Peter and Paul recorded in the book of Acts were saved upon believing the message they heard; this makes it obvious that the message they heard was a sufficient presentation of the gospel. We see this especially clearly in the case of Cornelius, his household, and friends, in Acts chapter 10. Upon hearing a very simply summation of the gospel from Peter, the whole group was saved, God unmistakably showing his acceptance of these new converts by pouring out the Holy Spirit upon them. After this, they were accepted by the church and baptized as Christians. Yet the message they heard and believed, which was sufficient for them to be saved, and to be accepted as genuine Christians by both God and the apostolic church, did not include any mention of literal pre-existence. We have then, in both the synoptic gospels and the book of Acts, many examples of sufficient presentations of the gospel that do not include the doctrine of literal pre-existence.

The conclusion, as noted above, that the doctrine of literal pre-existence is false, follows necessarily from these six premises. At the end, we have the situation of ‘if proposition y is true, condition x will be met’, ‘x’ here being that the doctrine will be present in every sufficient presentation of the gospel. Yet premise 6 shows us that condition x is not met, therefore falsifying proposition y, the doctrine of literal pre-existence.

To return then to our original question, the answer is undoubtedly ‘yes’- the absence of the doctrine of literal pre-existence from the synoptic gospels is an enormous problem for trinitarians. This isn’t something that can be explained away as the inclusion or exclusion of an extra detail, like the virgin birth, or various miracles Jesus performed, because unlike those, the doctrine of literal pre-existence is such that if it is true, then according to traditional trinitarian thinking it must also be necessary for salvation to believe for salvation, unlike such other details. That makes all the difference, as the above argument demonstrates.

Arguments For Unitarianism

Reasoning About Literal Pre-existence

I present the following as a challenge to those who believe that Jesus literally pre-existed his conception by the Holy Spirit in Mary:

We may reason that either:

A) Jesus and the apostles did not teach that Jesus literally pre-existed his conception by the Spirit in Mary, and so, belief in literal pre-existence is to be rejected, or

B) Jesus and the apostles did teach that he literally pre-existed, and so the doctrine ought to be accepted.

If B is true, then either:

1) Belief in literal pre-existence is part of the gospel and necessary to be saved, or

2) belief in literal pre-existence is not part of the gospel, and is not required for salvation.

We may safely rule out option 1, because:

In the synoptics, and Paul and Peter’s evangelistic sermons in Acts, the gospel is generally presented fully enough that a person who believes all of what is presented would have sufficient faith to be saved. This is obvious from the very purpose of the synoptic gospels, and proved by the fact that many who heard the sermons of Paul and Peter in Acts were saved and received into the church as Christians. Yet, none of these presentations of the gospel ever include teaching that Jesus literally pre-existed. Thus, it is shown to be unnecessary for salvation, to believe in literal pre-existence, and that the doctrine, whether true or false, is not part of the gospel.

Therefore it is shown that if B is true, it must be under condition 2, that belief in literal pre-existence is not part of the gospel, and is not required for salvation.

Yet, this can be shown to be very unlikely, for if Jesus and the apostles taught this, as a doctrine unnecessary for salvation, they must either have taught it secretly to the mature, or openly to all.

If they taught it secretly to the mature, then the claim of the gnostics that the apostles handed down secret knowledge to a few will be affirmed; and all the same arguments used to disprove these ancient gnostic claims, will prove good against the doctrine of literal pre-existence. One of these arguments will suffice, that Jesus said to his apostles: “What I tell you in the darkness, speak in the light; and what you hear whispered in your ear, proclaim upon the housetops.” (Matt 10:27 NASB). The apostles, then, as faithful servants of Christ, did not retain secret knowledge for a few, but openly proclaimed the full truth as they had received it from Jesus. It is not possible, then, that they taught literal pre-existence, as a secret doctrine imparted only to the mature.

If then they taught that Jesus literally pre-existed as a doctrine not required for salvation, and as not being part of the gospel, this teaching must have been openly proclaimed to all. This will appear unlikely, however, for the following reasons:

Anything that Jesus and his apostles openly taught, would need to be accepted by someone, if they wished to be a faithful disciple of Jesus and his apostles. To reject something openly taught by Jesus and his apostles, would mark one as a poor disciple of them. And the weightier the teaching, the more so its acceptance would be important. We might expect that Jesus and the apostles were gracious to their disciples, and were willing to bear with those of weak faith, who did not or could not accept everything they taught. Yet, the weightier the matter, the more difficult this is to imagine. In the case of minor details, such grace may be reasonably expected- but in the case of a teaching about something central to Jesus’s identity, this begins to seem incredible. Yet, surely if Jesus had literally pre-existed as the second-greatest person in the universe, second only to the Father, by whom all things in the universe were created, this would be an enormous revelation about Jesus’s identity, and it is difficult to see how such a thing could be regarded as anything less than central to his identity. So then, how is it that the disciples of Jesus and the apostles could safely reject something entirely central to the identity of Jesus? How would rejecting such a central teaching about Jesus’s identity not mark one as believing in a false Jesus? It seems truly incredible, and highly unlikely, that such a teaching about Jesus would have been something which Jesus and his apostles regarded as peripheral to the gospel and unnecessary to salvation, if they indeed taught it.

To sum up then, we have noted that either A) Jesus and his apostles did not teach that Jesus literally pre-existed his conception by the Spirit in Mary, and so, belief in literal pre-existence is to be rejected, or else that B) Jesus and the apostles did teach that he literally pre-existed, and so the doctrine ought to be accepted. We further noted that if B is true, then either 1) Belief in literal pre-existence is part of the gospel and necessary to be saved, or 2) belief in literal pre-existence is not part of the gospel, and is not required for salvation. However, we have just seen that option 1 is impossible, and that option 2 is highly unlikely. That means that, at best, option B, that Jesus and the apostles did teach that he literally pre-existed, and so the doctrine ought to be accepted, is highly unlikely; which means that conversely, option A, that Jesus and his apostles did not teach that Jesus literally pre-existed his conception by the Spirit in Mary, and so, belief in literal pre-existence is to be rejected, is highly likely.

If Jesus and his apostles did teach that he literally pre-existed, they must have done so openly, and taught it as something that was not part of the gospel and as something not essential to Christianity. Yet, how can something that would be so central to the identity of the person Jesus Christ not be essential to Christianity? Indeed, such a doctrine would seem more central to the identity of Jesus than even his identity as Christ- how then could such a doctrine not be required of all Christians, if true? These are the questions the proponents of literal pre-existence are left to answer. The only other reasonable alternative, given the New Testament data, is that Jesus and his apostles did not teach that he literally pre-existed his conception by the Holy Spirit in the virgin Mary, and so, that the doctrine of literal pre-existence is to be rejected, as not having been revealed by God.

Finally, it is worth noting that while all this reasoning is good and useful, Biblical Unitarianism is not built so much on syllogism as on scripture. For a brief introduction into the exegetical case against literal pre-existence, see here.

Arguments For Unitarianism

The Origin of Jesus

Trinitarians as well and Unitarians have historically agreed upon the fact that the Son of God is caused in some manner- the Nicene Creed itself declares that the Son is “begotten” of the Father. This belief is well-founded on both the basis of the Bible and reason.

Firstly, Jesus expressly owns that he has his life from his Father:

As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me.

John 6:57 NASB

This is clearly acknowledging the Father as the one Who has given him life- and such necessarily involves the Father in some sense being the origin and cause of the Son. And while Jesus also acknowledges that he has “life in himself”, this too he acknowledges is not originally his, but has been given to him by his Father:

For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself;

John 5:26 NASB

In addition to these clear testimonies, we may note that the very name “son” ordinarily implies that the one bearing that name has been caused by their father. Of course, there are lots of exceptions to this, as in the case of adoption, or of simply speaking figuratively; but in the case of Jesus, we may not that he is called God’s “only-begotten Son”. That’s significant, because it tells us what sort of Son Jesus is to God- his sonship is not one of adoption or merely a figure of speech, but rather Jesus is God’s Son because he has been begotten by God.

Being begotten, of course, necessarily involves being caused by the one begetting. Bible-believing Trinitarians and Unitarians generally agree up to this point- again, the council of Nicea itself presents Jesus’s generation from the Father as having great theological significance. Where Trinitarians, Arians, and Biblical Unitarians disagree on this is on when Jesus was begotten, and what precisely this generation looked like. Was this an eternal necessary act of the Father? Does it signify ex-nihilo creation of the Son before the creation of the universe? Or does it pertain to Jesus’s conception in Mary by the Holy Spirit? We shall return to these questions below.

Before moving on, however, it is worth also addressing some of the logical reasons why its important to understand that Jesus is caused by the Father, even from a historic trinitarian perspective. Historically this has been seen as important in large part because this causal relationship clearly distinguishes the Father from the Son- the one Who causes and the one who is caused, are necessarily two distinct persons. Also, we may again note that this is the foundation for the highly significant father-son relation that the Bible presents Jesus as having with God. But its also worth noting that the idea that the Son is uncaused would present something of a theological nightmare -and this is something modern evangelicals, who seem quick to throw off the historic trinitarian confession that the Son is caused by the Father, should take to heart.

The problem resulting from an uncaused Son is this: if the Son is not caused by the Father, then firstly, that he is really a distinct person besides the Father is thrown into doubt. If Jesus is not caused, only two options exist: either he is a distinct uncaused entity besides the Father, and so there are two uncaused entities, which would effectively be to assert that there are two Gods, or else, if it is maintained that there is only one uncaused entity (and so only one God), then Jesus will necessarily be one and the same with the uncaused Father, and there will be no real Father-Son distinction at all. That is to say, if one asserts that the Son is uncaused, the only two options that are open to that person are polytheism and modalism- either Jesus becomes as second first principle of the universe, a second uncaused cause of all things in addition to the Father, or else he will necessarily be uncaused simply by being the Father Himself.

These significant theological problems seem to be ignored by many modern Christians, but have historically factored into creedal and confessional trinitarianism, like Arianism and Unitarianism, teaching that the Son is in some manner caused by the Father.

We now return to the above question of the time and manner of Jesus’s origination from God. We have seen above that Jesus professes himself to have his life from the Father, and that he is God’s Son, not merely in name or by adoption, but as having been begotten by God. But when was Jesus’s origin from God? And what was the manner of his generation from the Father? As be have addressed above, Trinitarians, Arians, and Biblical Unitarians all answer this question significantly differently, and so, the answers have been a matter of no small debate.

In the midst of these intense debates, I will suggest that mere theological speculation has been relied upon too much, and the Bible too little. It may come as a shock to the reader to learn that the Bible actually professes to give us an account of Jesus’s origin:

Now the [origin, genesis] of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 1:18, NASB

Matthew goes on in the following several verses to recount in summary the story of Jesus’s conception in the virgin Mary, and subsequent virgin birth. Its extremely noteworthy here that the crucial word in 18a, typically translated into English as “birth” or “generation”, is actually not the Greek word for either, but the recognizable cognate ‘genesis’. As in English, the Greek word ‘genesis’ has the basic meaning of ‘origin, source, or beginning’. We may recall the Greek name of the first book of the Bible was named ‘Genesis’ for this reason.

Translating the term as ‘birth’ or ‘generation’ here appears to be nothing more than trinitarian bias entering the translation process. Matthew knew the Greek words for ‘generation’ (gennao) and ‘birth’ (tikto), and uses both in the next few verses as he describes the virgin conception and birth of Jesus- but in verse 18, he chose a completely different word, one that is universally recognized as having the basic meaning of ‘origin’. This is crucial- Matthew is not presenting the following narrative of Jesus’s conception by the Holy Spirit and virgin birth as an account of the incarnation of a pre-existing spiritual being, as Trinitarians and Arians wish to affirm, but rather presents this account as the origin story of Jesus. This is precisely the christology of Biblical Unitarianism.

Now, we must not glance over the significance of this statement by Matthew here at the beginning of the New Testament. One may argue that something can literally pre-exist is birth, or its generation, but it is axiomatic that nothing literally pre-exists its own origin. And here we are told that the origin of Jesus Christ is his conception in the virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit, and subsequent virgin birth. That means that the person of Jesus Christ did not literally pre-exist his conception in Mary by the Holy Spirit. The Bible is telling us this in about as clear of terms as one could hope for, short of an explicit denial of literal pre-existence.

It is finally noteworthy here that Matthew does not tell us the origin (genesis) of a nature, a mere body, or a phase of Jesus’s life. Note well that according to Matthew, this is the account of the origin of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is a person, not a nature, or a body, or any other such thing; it is the very person of Jesus Christ that is in view here, and Matthew tells us the origin of this person is his conception in Mary by the Holy Spirit and subsequent virgin birth.

Interestingly, the apostle Paul seems familiar with this fact as well, and corroborates what Matthew says in Galatians 4:4;

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

Galatians 4:4, KJV

We may note that the King James Version here is much more faithful to the Greek than most modern translations, which instead read that God’s Son was “born of a woman”. Indeed, no one denies that Jesus was born of a woman, but this is not precisely what Paul has stated here; the Greek word he employs is the word ‘ginomai’, which is literally ‘to become’. It is frequently used of things coming into existence or being created in the New Testament, as in John 1:3, where it is translated ‘made’ in the phrase “all things were made by him, and without him nothing was made that has been made’. Modern translations like the NASB, attempting to more fully bring out the meaning of such passages, translate the word here as ‘come into being’, saying “All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.” Such translations reveal the opinion of translators as to actual meaning of the word ‘ginomai’ Paul employs here. Of its many hundreds of uses in the NT, modern translations almost never render the word ‘born’- with the notable exception of this passage. In the King James, the term was, in over 600 instances of the word, never once translated ‘born’.

So, what is the significance of Paul’s usage of the term here? Paul is, like Matthew, telling us Jesus’s origin. He uses a word here that means coming into being, telling us that God’s Son came into being from a woman. This dovetails nicely with what Matthew says Jesus’s origin is, that Jesus was conceived in a virgin woman by the Holy Spirit, and born of a virgin. The origin of Jesus for Paul, like Matthew, is Jesus coming forth from a woman.

While Matthew and Paul seem to straightforwardly tell us that Jesus took his origin from Mary by the Holy Spirit, its noteworthy that the language used by both these apostles is inconsistent with the view that the Son of God literally pre-existed. Matthew and Paul knew the Greek words for generation and birth, and could easily have used these words, and not wording communicating origination and coming into being, had they wished to communicate an incarnation rather than an origin. These statements of Matthew and Paul are not things that someone who believes the Son literally pre-existed, or who wants their reader to believe in his literal pre-existence, would say.

Finally, while we have generally addressed the time and manner of Christ’s origination from God, as being his generation in the virgin Mary through the agency of the Holy Spirit, and his subsequent virgin birth, we have yet to address that the Bible expressly says that this is indeed the generation (or begetting) on account of which Jesus is called the Son of God. Luke tells us:

And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.” Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.

Luke 1:31-35 NASB

Here we have it stated explicitly that the reason Jesus is called the Son of God is because of his having been begotten by God Most High in the womb of the virgin Mary, by the agency of the Holy Spirit. Jesus’s divine conception in Mary is the reason the Bible gives for him being called the Son of God- it is this begetting that makes Jesus “the only-begotten Son” of God. This runs totally contrary to Trinitarian and Arian christology, as for these viewpoints, the significance of Jesus being the Son of God is something going back long before he was conceived in the virgin Mary- either to his unique creation before the foundation of the world, or to an eternal generation. Either way, the reason that Jesus is the Son of God in these systems is something totally different than the reason the Bible gives.

To circle around to where we began, then, we can see from the Bible that Jesus is indeed caused by his Father, has his life from God, is begotten by God, and for this reason is God’s only-begotten Son. In this, historic Trinitarianism and Unitarianism agree. However, we went on to note that the explanation the Bible gives of these things is exactly the same as that given by Biblical Unitarians, and is exactly contrary to that given by Arians and Trinitarians. Jesus’s origin from the Father by being begotten by God is placed solely in time, not eternity, and identified clearly as Jesus’s miraculous conception in the virgin Mary and subsequent virgin birth; and we are told that it is on account of this miraculous generation from God that Jesus Christ is called God’s Son.

Arguments For Unitarianism