Articles

Link to the Letter

This is a letter from the Cappadocian father, Gregory of Nyssa, in the 4th century to a man named Ablabius. Ablabius was facing a question that Unitarians still argue today, and he reached out to Gregory, the leading authority of the time on the Trinity, about how to answer this question. The question is:

Peter, James, and John, being in one human nature, are called three men: and there is no absurdity in describing those who are united in nature, if they are more than one, by the plural number of the name derived from their nature. If, then, in the above case, custom admits this, and no one forbids us to speak of those who are two as two, or those who are more than two as three, how is it that in the case of our statements of the mysteries of the Faith, though confessing the Three Persons, and acknowledging no difference of nature between them, we are in some sense at variance with our confession, when we say that the Godhead of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is one, and yet forbid men to say there are three Gods? 

In other words, if three men are called “three men,” while all sharing one nature (namely: human nature) then why shouldn’t we call the Trinity “three gods” when they all share one nature? Doesn’t it seem that there is some sense in which there actually are 3 Gods, the the underlying question.

Gregory admits that the question seems to force one of two positions. He says:

“For by the force of the question, we are at first sight compelled to accept one or other of two erroneous opinions, and either to say there are three Gods, which is unlawful, or not to acknowledge the Godhead of the Son and the Holy Spirit, which is impious and absurd.”

He goes on to say that we basically should seek to find an answer to the dilemma, but even if we don’t have a solid answer, we should hold to whatever apostolic tradition we have received (which he believes, is the Trinity). He states that the reason we shouldn’t say “three gods” is so that we do not conflate our view with polytheism. He then gives his first answer to the problem:

We say, then, to begin with, that the practice of calling those who are not divided in nature by the very name of their common nature in the plural, and saying they are many men, is a customary abuse of language, and that it would be much the same thing to say they are many human natures… When we address any one, we do not call him by the name of his nature, … but we separate him from the multitude by using that name which belongs to him as his own — that, I mean, which signifies the particular subject. Thus there are many who have shared in the nature — many disciples, say, or apostles, or martyrs— but the man in them all is one; since, as has been said, the term man does not belong to the nature of the individual as such, but to that which is common. For Luke is a man, or Stephen is a man; but it does not follow that if any one is a man he is therefore Luke or Stephen: but the idea of the persons admits of that separation which is made by the peculiar attributes considered in each severally, and when they are combined is presented to us by means of number; yet their nature is one, at union in itself, and an absolutely indivisible unit, not capable of increase by addition or of diminution by subtraction, but in its essence being and continually remaining one, inseparable even though it appear in plurality, continuous, complete, and not divided with the individuals who participate in it.

So what is he talking about here? Basically, he’s making the argument that when we call “Peter, James, and John” by the term “three men” (the word men being plural), we are actually doing so incorrectly. If “man” refers to the human nature, and each is of the same human nature, we do not have 3 human natures. “Man” is a universal property. Think of how Paul speaks of man in Romans, or the Hebrews writer when quoting the Psalms. “What is man that you are mindful of him?” Or, “through one man, death spread to all men.” All humans are “man.” We all share the same essence of being “man.” We do not share a different essence, or different kind of humanity than Adam. It is Adam’s humanity that is given to us. There is one nature between Adam, and myself. Strictly speaking, one man, not two men.

There’s a difference between an instance of a property and the property itself. So among dogs, we have poodles, huskies, and labs. Yet they all share the one essence of being “a dog.” They are different kinds of dogs, but the nature is common. The nature is one. The poodle is a dog in the exact same way the husky is a dog. While it may be idiomatic to refer to them as “dogs,” and “canines,” there’s only one kind of thing there, namely, dog. In a room full of humans, there’s only one kind of being there. Human.

When we say “there are three humans” we are implying that there are three natures rather than individuals. However, Peter, James, and John, are all one nature. They are all part of human nature. When you see these three, you see one human nature. You do not see a different nature in Peter than you do in John. Thus, it isn’t actually correct to call them three humans. But one, singular, human, when referring to the nature.

However we don’t address people by their nature. If I am in a crowd and I say “human, raise your hand,” every human would raise it. When I say “man” or “human,” I’m referring to the general nature. Not the individual. So if Jesus is “God” by nature, and we call him “God,” we are not referring to the person as a different God than the Father, and we are not referring to the person as “God,” we are just speaking of what they are.

We speak of individuals by that which individuates them. Calling someone by their nature does not individuate them from anyone else in that nature. If I look at Peter, James, and John, I cannot specify any one of them by saying “man,” I’m simply referring to the one shared nature. If we were to call the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, “three gods,” we are assuming they each have a different kind of nature, and each does not have the same nature as each other. This would be to assume the husky is more of a dog than a poodle, and a poodle is a dog in a different way than the Labrador.

Imagine I have a bucket of red paint. I have 3 boards of wood. I paint each wooden board with that same red paint. I couldn’t say that there are three different ways in which each board is red. I couldn’t say that there are “three reds.” I could say that I have three different things that are red. That are each red. In which case, “red” is singular. I do not have “many reds,” I have many “things which are red.” Similarly, we would not have “many gods,” we would have “many things that are God.” Singular.

This is Gregory’s point. If we say that three men are three humanities, we are actually speaking incorrectly. Three individuals, each being human, would not mean multiple humanities. So also, three, each of which are divine in nature, would not make 3 divinities, or 3 gods. Rather, three individuals that are God.

He ends this quote by noting that “Luke is man, Stephen is man, but every man is not Stephen.” This is an old Aristotelian argument. When we denote “Luke” or “Stephen” or “persons” of an essence like humanity, then we necessarily assume some kind of distinction. This is the difference between an individual (or instantiation) and an essence. The difference between “man” and “Luke.” The difference between “the Son” and “God.”

And as we speak of a people, or a mob, or an army, or an assembly in the singular in every case, while each of these is conceived as being in plurality, so according to the more accurate expression, man would be said to be one, even though those who are exhibited to us in the same nature make up a plurality. 

Gregory makes several more statements and arguments in this letter. He makes an argument from apophaticism, he makes an argument from energy, and he also makes a pass at the fact that they don’t believe that we count “Gods” by their nature (the Arians were the first to count Gods in this way). I may go into these in detail in later posts, but they are much less common.

Unitarians today use the argument, “If three that are men are three men, can’t we call three that are God three Gods?” Maybe we can “call” it that, but that doesn’t mean this is in fact the case. As we see, this is a breakdown in language as well. This isn’t the way we commonly communicate this idea. We aren’t looking to score debate points. Even if we persuade someone that we can “call” them three gods, it doesn’t follow that there are three Gods. Many Trinitarians count “gods” by their nature. And they argue, “they are one God because they all share one nature.” It is interesting that Gregory never even makes this argument. His argument is, rather, “we shouldn’t even call them three gods because we don’t count things by their nature.” Even if Trinitarians themselves don’t know the answer, we should be more educated than they on their arguments and beliefs. We also need to make honest arguments. The three gods angle in this form isn’t a good argument against them. Especially those who properly understand the Trinity. Little do many Trinitarians know, this has been debated centuries ago. This isn’t a good argument against them. We should strive to be honest when debating them, as we want them to be with us. Also… we really need to do better about reading the early writers.

This argument could be used against Arians. As they do not believe the divine nature of the Father is the same nature as the son, but that the son has “a lesser divine nature.” This is why the “a god” reading of the JWs is pure polytheism. You have the God, and a god, this is two gods. This isn’t the same as counting two men, who share human nature and are therefore “one man,” but this is a man and a dog. Two things. If the second thing is not merely “called” a god, but is to believed to be some kind of God, then we have two gods. Since a trinitarian does not believe the Father is divine in a different way than the Son, you can’t credit them with having a god and another God. If you count by natures, you only have one God.

This is a topic I have been asked to speak on for a very long time and I have always neglected it because of how weak the foundation of the argument is. People often have a vague hint that there are these nebulous titles used of Jesus in Revelation that might mean he’s God, and yet they have no idea what these titles mean. As is usually the case, a simple reading of context is enough to dispel the assumption. However, trinitarians have turned this into a grandiose debate littered with poor assumptions. I am finally addressing these issues, and as you can see, Trinitarians have miserably dropped the ball on this one, as always.

Trinitarian Argument 1

Trinitarians very often use a form of argumentation that is very unstable. A typical example of how they will word this argument is:

“In the Bible, God says he is the first and last and the Alpha and Omega, which means he’s God. So when Jesus calls himself the Alpha and Omega, it means he’s God.”

Essentially, this argument put into a syllogism would be:

• P1. God is called X
• P2. Jesus is called X
• C. Jesus is God.

Or:

• God = X
• Jesus = X
• X = X
• Jesus = God

In these formulations, we can see many problems with this approach. There are many titles for God, which are used of people in the Bible that Trinitarians will never say are God.

• God is called Lord. Abraham is called Lord.
• God is called saviour. Judges are called saviours.
• God is “God.” Moses is called God.
• God is called the King of Israel. David is the king of Israel.

Simply put, saying that God is called X (a certain title), and someone else is called the same X, does not mean the two are identical. This is why I have mostly ignored these “Alpha and Omega, first and last” arguments. They begin on an unsound argument.

Saying that God = X, Jesus = X, Jesus = God, is also another poor argument for two reasons. First, there’s an equivocation fallacy that’s very easy to miss. Really, what Trinitarians are saying by this is:

• The Father = X,
• Jesus = X
• X = X
• Jesus = God
• Jesus =/= the Father

Trinitarian Argument 2

They will look through the Bible and find that the Father is called a certain name. Then, they find the name given to Jesus. But they do not say this makes Jesus the Father, but it makes Jesus the same God as the Father. This is a problem. We are equivocating on the word “God” because in the first instance, it is the Father. In the second instance, it is “the Trinity.” An exact example would be the following:

P1. God called Israel out of Egypt. P2. Jude 5 says that Jesus led Israel out of Egypt. C. Therefore, Jesus is God.

However, if we look at Hosea 11:1, we find, “out of Egypt I called my Son.” Exodus 4:22 says that Israel is God’s firstborn son. Malachi says that Israel has one God and Father. Who is the “God” that led Israel out of Egypt? None of these places can be applied to “the Trinity.” Israel isn’t the son of the Son. The Son isn’t the Father of Israel. So, in premise 1, we have “the Father called Israel out of Egypt.” So if Jesus called them from Egypt, then the conclusion should be, “Jesus is the Father.”

Saying that God the Father is called something, and Jesus is called something, wouldn’t result in Jesus being the same God as the Father necessarily. It would result in Jesus being the Father. We can neither equivocate nor simply write off modalism because it doesn’t fit our Trinitarian perspective.

The second problem is the meaning of “=” or “is.” There is an “is” of identity and an “is” of predication. If I say “God is my Father,” I mean that everything I say about “my Father” will always be true of “my God” because these are identical. To say “Mary” and “the mother of Jesus,” we are speaking about the same identity. Both are identical in every way. If Mary was at the foot of the cross, then the mother of Jesus was at the foot of the cross. However, if we say that Sarah “is” loud, we are not saying that everything loud is the person Sarah. This is a predication, or a description of Sarah. Sarah is showing the trait of being loud. In the Trinitarian argument, they will take, “the Father is X” as a predication, they will take “Jesus is X” as a predication, but they will take “Jesus is God” as an identity. This is inconsistent.

Simply put, these kinds of arguments don’t work. They may be used to underscore a preconception, but they aren’t convincing to anyone who doesn’t already believe it. Stating that Jesus shares the same title as the Father does not flatly prove he is God. Many of these arguments are leveled by Trinitarians. The titles: God, Lord, Saviour, King, redeemer, rock, are all said to be used of both God and Jesus, so Jesus must be God. Yet, every one of these titles are used of some other human somewhere in the Bible. Interestingly enough, there are certain titles never used of any humans in the Bible, but used of God, and these are never used of Jesus. Yahweh, el shaddai (God almighty), Ancient of Days, heavenly Father, Majesty on high, Lord of hosts, all titles used of God and never used of Jesus.

Trinitarians generally like to play on these “Alpha and Omega, first and last” titles because these are among the only titles used of God, used of Jesus, and not used of anyone else. So Trinitarians turn these titles into statements which mean “I am God,” and then use them as arguments against Unitarians to prove that Jesus is God. But is that even what these titles mean?

The Three Titles

There are three sets of titles used together in the Bible:

• First and the Last
• Alpha and Omega
• Beginning and End

In 2 verses, two or three of these titles are used together. There is 1 verse in which “Alpha and Omega” is used on its own. And there are 3 versed which use “first and last” on its own. I will list all the scriptures below.

• First and Last

Isaiah 44:6: Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.

Isaiah 48:12: “Listen to me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I called! I am he; I am the first, and I am the last.”

Revelation 1:17-18: And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as though dead. And He placed His right hand upon me, saying, “Fear not. I am the First and the Last, and the Living One. And I was dead, and behold I am living to the ages of the ages, and I have the keys of Death and of Hades.”

• Alpha and Omega

Revelation 1:8: “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says Lord God, the One being, and who was, and who is coming, the Almighty.“

• Alpha and Omega, First and Last, Beginning and End

Revelation 21:6: And He said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the one thirsting I will give of the spring of the water of life freely.”

Revelation 22:13: I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

What “the First and the Last” Means

The title “first and last” is used in the OT in Isaiah. In Isaiah 44:6, the statement is: “I am the first and the last, besides me, there is no God.” The phrase “first and last” clearly means the first and last of the gods. This is not to say that Isaiah is pushing monolatry or henotheism. It is to say, out of all the many so called gods (1 Corinthians 8:5), I am the first God before they existed, and in the end, I will be the last God that exists when they are all destroyed. In Isaiah 48:12, the same can be understood by reading verse 13, which speaks about God’s creation of all things. God is the “whole” of creation in this passage. He is the God who made all things, and he is above any other gods that people serve. Notice that it says, “Israel, whom I called.” Note back to Hosea 11:1 and Matthew 2:15, it is the Father who called Israel, his son.

In Revelation 1:17, this phrase is used of Jesus, who called himself “the first and the last.” Trinitarians will often see that Isaiah 44:6 says that “first and last” means that he’s God in this passage, so they just assume that “first and last” means he’s God in this passage as well because the same title is used. But Jesus tells you exactly what he is the first and the last of as God says in Isaiah 44 and 48. Jesus says: “I am the First and the Last, and the Living One. And I was dead, and behold I am living to the ages of the ages, and I have the keys of Death and of Hades.” The first refers to “the living one,” and the last refers to “I was dead.” Is it really plausible to think Jesus is announcing that he’s God in the same title that he’s announcing that he was dead? God is immortal. A trinitarian would wish to say that Jesus died according to his human nature, but he is God according to his divine nature. Jesus is qualifying the phrase, “first and last,” which they think means “God,” with “I was dead.” An honest trinitarian must admit that Jesus is referring to his human nature that was dead as “the first and the last” in this passage.

“First and last” refers to the whole of something. In this case, Jesus is talking about conquering death. He was dead but is alive forever and has the keys of death. This means that he has the power to unlock death, and it has no power over him or anyone he wishes to free. Jesus’ being “the first and last” is about his being the firstborn from the dead. Notice that this is what he is just called in Revelation 1:5 a few verses earlier. Note also that in verses 5, it says that he “freed us by his blood.” Firstborn of the dead, first and last of the dead. Revelation 2:8 reads: “And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: ‘The words of the first and the last, who died and came to life.'” Again, notice how being “the first and last” is predicated of one who is dead. “God died?” Or was it a man who died?

When Jesus speaks of being the first and last, it is very clear that he is not claiming to be the same first and last as the God who called Israel in the OT. He’s the first and the last of the dead. (See Romans 14:9)

Revelation 1:8

Revelation 1:8 uses the phrase “Alpha and Omega.” Some Trinitarians have mistakenly assumed these words to be about Jesus. Most Trinitarian scholars do not argue that Jesus is speaking the words in. In many red letter Bibles, they do not quote these words in red as if Jesus is the speaker. In many Bibles, they will also begin a new paraphrase with verse 8 to disconnect it from the context because they believe the Father begins to speak here. This is because the passage says: “says the Lord God…. the Almighty.” Even though these Trinitarian translators and scholars typically believe Jesus is the lord God and Almighty, these titles are used often of the Father, and aside from this verse, never used of Jesus. “Lord” is used of Jesus (and, according to some of these Trinitarians, “God” is also used of Jesus), but never the title “the Lord God.” It would be rather incongruous to assert that the one time Jesus is called either of these two titles, both are used of him here in this ambiguous text.

Many Trinitarians are reading Revelation 1:7, which speaks about “his coming with the clouds.” They assume this is Jesus in his second coming, Jesus must be the speaker here, and so Jesus is still the speaker in verse 8. I believe the NKJV translators take this approach because they actually do red letter this verse. However, there are two faulty assumptions made here, beyond the ones we’ve just considered. First, there’s no necessity to assume the same speaker is speaking in verses 7 and 8. This could have easily been the Father beginning to speak in verse 8. This is common in the book of Revelation. Speakers often change quickly and without warning, and it can be very hard to tell who is speaking due to the style of writing. Second, it is a faulty assumption to assume that just because someone is coming in the clouds, it must be Jesus. The NT does say that the Father is coming as well. “And now, little children, abide in him, so that when he appears we may have confidence and not shrink from him in shame at his coming. If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that everyone who practices righteousness has been born of him” (1 John 2:28-29). We are never said to be born of Jesus, but we are children of the Father, born of him. The appearance of our Father. (See also my article on Titus 2:13)

I do believe verse 7 is about the coming in the clouds of Jesus, but verse 8 is switching to the Father speaking. However, my point is to say that we can not assume that the Father can’t be the speaker in verse 7 just because it speaks of a coming in the clouds, because this is also said of the Father. Trinitarians, in general, will not appeal to this verse. Of the 3 occurrences in Revelation (or the NT for that matter) of “Alpha and Omega,” they usually regard the other two as being about Jesus. It is actually in the Trinitarian’s favour to say that Revelation 1:8 is the Father. Otherwise, you have this title being used only of Jesus. If Jesus only uses this title, then it can’t be argued to be a title exclusive to God or used only of God and Jesus. So they reserve Revelation 1:8 to be of the Father usually.

The textus receptus includes “the beginning and the end” in Revelation 1:8. We know that this is not original to the text, which is why I did not include it here. It is a textual variant. Also, in Revelation 1:11, “the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last,” are also a textual variant that is retained in the KJV and NKJV. It is not contained in the original manuscripts.

Revelation 21:6

Revelation 21:6 is used commonly by Trinitarians to prove that Jesus is called “the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.” The beginning and end of what? Trinitarians often like this to be unqualified so that they are allowed to free interpretation of this title and say it means whatever they want. It can mean that he’s God, or eternally existing, or the whole of creation, making him uncreated, etc. Verse 5 tells us what he is the “whole” of.

Revelation 21:5-6: And the One sitting on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” And He says, “Write this, because these words are faithful and true.” And He said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the one thirsting I will give of the spring of the water of life freely.”

Verse 1 tells us: “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea is no more.” We are speaking about a new heavens and a new earth. Verse 5 says that “I am making all things new.” This is about the new creation. We also see “it is done,” echoing the final words of God after creation is finished. Compare this to Jesus’ final words on the cross as well. The end of the old creation, the beginning of the new creation. So when Revelation 3:14 calls Jesus “the beginning of God’s creation,” what do you think it might be referring to?

But the question still stands, “Who is speaking these words?” Is it Jesus or the Father? Does Jesus call himself the Alpha and Omega in this verse as many trinitarians assume? All we need to do is read the next verse.

Revelation 21:7: The one overcoming will inherit all things, and I will be his God, and he will be My son.

Who is our Father? Whose son are we? Is Jesus ever our Father? No. The speaker here is God the Father.

Revelation 22:13, Who is the Speaker?

Revelation 22:13: I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

Finally, we come to the final reference of this phrase. This is the verse Trinitarian scholars will most likely attribute to being spoken of by Jesus of the 3 passages we’ve looked at so far. But is Jesus the speaker here? Many Trinitarians assume so because verse 12 says: “I am coming quickly… to give to each as his work.” It sounds like the second coming of Jesus. But as we have seen previously, this does not mean that the Father is excluded. This isn’t a very good reason to assume the Son is the speaker here if this is the only justification. However, if we read this entire passage, some interesting things can be noted.

Revelation 22:1-16: And he showed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, flowing out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the middle of its street and of the river, on this side and on that side, was a tree of life, producing twelve fruits, yielding its fruit according to each month; and the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. And there will not be any curse any longer. And the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and His servants will serve Him. And they will see His face, and His name will be on their foreheads. And there will be no night there, and they have no need of the light of a lamp and of the light of the sun, because the Lord God will enlighten upon them, and they will reign to the ages of the ages. And he said to me, “These words are faithful and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent His angel to show His servants the things that must come to pass in quickness.” “And behold, I am coming quickly. Blessed is the one keeping the words of the prophecy of this book.” And I, John, am the one hearing and seeing these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel showing these things me. And he says to me, “See that you not do this. I am your fellow servant, and with your brothers the prophets, and with those keeping the words of this book. Worship God!” And he says to me, “Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book; for the time is near. The one being unrighteous, let him be unrighteous still; and he who is filthy, let him be filthy still; and he who is righteous, let him practice righteousness still; and he who is holy, let him be holy still.” “Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to each as is his work. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.” Blessed are those washing their robes,a that their right will be to the tree of life, and they shall enter into the city by the gates. Outside are the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the sexually immoral, and the murderers, and the idolaters, and everyone loving and practicing falsehood. “I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to all of you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star.”

We begin with “the throne of God and the Lamb.” Both the Father and Son are in view (where is the Spirit?). We see that “the Lord God” is the subject in view. They will see his face, have his name, and his light will be their light. Then we read that God sent his angel to testify these things to John. And he says, the angel says, “I am coming quickly.” John bows to worship at the angel’s feet, the one speaking these things, and the angel says to “worship God.” Notice that the angel is not God. But what does he go on to say? Again, he says, “I am coming quickly,” and, “I am the Alpha and the Omega.” We end with Jesus having sent his angel to testify these things. So, who spoke these words? The angel? God? Jesus?

As stated earlier, it is sometimes hard to tell who is the speaker at any given time in this book, as the subject and speaker can change often and with little warning. Though, this book begins in verse one with: “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants what things it behooves to take place in quickness. And He signified it through having sent His angel to His servant, John.” God gave a revelation to Jesus (which he would not need to do if he and Jesus share a will and omniscience), whoch Jesus gave to his angel to give to John. This is to say that this revelation is given by an angel. This book ends with what we just read in Revelation 22:16 with: “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you.” In this chapter, we can see very clearly that it is an angel speaking these things.

Trinitarian Arguments Fail

It will not work to say that “Angel just means messenger, and Jesus is the messenger here.” Because the angel explicitly says not to worship himself but to worship God. If Jesus is God, and Jesus is this messenger, he would have no need to say this.

It will also not work to say that the angel says this on behalf of Jesus or quoting Jesus. The reason why this objection will not work is because of the way in which Trinitarians frame this argument. They say that only God can say these words. Only God can declare to be the Alpha and the Omega. So, if an angel speaks these words in the first person, even on behalf of Jesus, this contradicts their argument. More importantly, this contradicts their greater argument from the OT that Jesus is the angel of the Lord because this angel uses divine titles in the first person. If the Trinitarian wishes to say that Revelation 22 is an angel speaking on behalf of Jesus, using divine titles in the first person, and yet this angel isn’t God, then the same argument can be made against them in the OT that the angel uses divine titles in the first person on behalf of the Father.

Alpha and Omega of What?

Some have argued based on what is said at Revelation 22:20: “The One testifying these things says, ‘Yes, I am coming quickly.’ Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!” They say that this shows that the one coming quickly who is the Alpha and Omega is in reference to Jesus. The angel is speaking on his behalf, applying the title “Alpha and Omega” to Jesus. This seems to be true. Yes, the angel does apply this title to Jesus here, and only here. But what does the title mean?

We saw in Revelation 21:1-6 that this title is used in reference to new creation. Revelation 22 is still following this same theme. We have reference to the tree of life and mankind having a closeness with God. These are eschatological themes in the Bible directly related to the end times. New creation is still the topic. Jesus is the head of the new creation. He is the “first and the last of the dead” (Revelation 1:17-18, 2:8), he is “the head of the church, the beginning, the firstborn of the dead” (Colossians 1:18, Revelation 1:5), all creation is reconciled to God in Christ (Colossians 1:20), and anything in Christ is a new Creation (1 Corinthians 5:17). Jesus is the beginning of God’s creation (Revelation 3:14) by being his firstborn from the dead (Acts 13:30-33, Hebrews 1:3-5, see my article for more details). God began a new creation in Jesus when he raised him from the dead as Lord and life-giving Spirit (1 Corinthians 15:45). He became the second Adam. The second kind of new humanity, a new humanity in which we partake in God’s Spirit (2 Peter 1:4, Hebrews 6:4). Ephesians 1:10 says that God is, quite literally, “bringing all things to a head in Christ.” All creation is being summed up in Christ, being brought to its head in him. Jesus is the head of new creation. It would not be wrong at all to call him the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last of new creation. He is the first creation to be reconciled to God. He is the first creation to be raised in a resurrected body. He was the firstborn of the new creation when he was raised from the dead. He was given the keys to death and the grave to have power over life and death. He breathes the Spirit of life and sends the Spirit to whom he pleases. Everything begins in him, and all things will end with him. It is at the end of his reign when all things are turned back over to the Father so that God may be all in all (1 Corinthians 15:24-28). Jesus is the beginning and the end, the whole of this new creation.

Author and Finisher

A similar title is used of Jesus in Hebrews 12:2. He is said to be “the author and finisher of our faith.” This is sometimes variously translated, but the words “author” and “finisher” both express the idea of the beginning and end of something in totality. In other words, Jesus is the founder and ender of our Christian faith. Why? Because he began the ministry of the Spirit (reference to 2 Corinthians 3), and he is the one who brings us into perfection through his millennial reign. Jesus is the Alpha and Omega of everything from God during these last days. He is God’s word (Revelation 19:13), and God’s word is final. Jesus accomplishes and fulfills all that God has promised.

Conclusion

We should have no problem stating that Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last, whether he spoke these words of himself or not. Whether the angel stated this or whether it was directly to the Father in these passages, they are still true of Jesus. They are only true of Jesus insofar as he is the “all” of the new creation and our faith, the new covenant arrangement. Trinitarians are making a terrible mistake in conflating these titles to mean that the speaker is God. If Jesus wished to say that he were God, he could have easily done so. However, context has nothing to do with this. “God” is always the one who is next to the lamb. Not including the lamb himself. “To God and the Lamb.” In calling Jesus the Alpha and the Omega, we understand what his role is as king of God’s kingdom. This in no way makes him God. It makes him the head of the body and Lord of the living and the dead (Romans 14:9).

Anthropology is the theological study of man. “Anthropos” is Greek for human. When the Bible speaks of man as a living soul, body and soul, the spirit of man, having human nature, what exactly is “man?” This is the question Anthropology discusses.

What is man

Alva Huffer in his Systematic Theology follows a very simple and straightforward explanation of what man is. Body + spirit = soul. He uses the creation of Adam as a template for what all men are. “Adam” after all, literally means “human.” When God made the first man (Genesis 2:7), it is described in these three steps:

• God made man from the dust of the ground
• He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life
• He came to be a living soul

We find he is made from dust (body), breath is given to him (spirit) noting that breath and spirit are the same word in both Hebrew (ruach) and Greek (pneuma), and he came to be a living soul. The union of life energy, or spirit, and the body creates a soul. Spirit is not something man is but rather something he has. The human is a body that is energized, much like a machine that has no power until it is plugged in. Spirit is much like an electrical spark. The human body is very similar to a battery. Our brain is powered by electrical shocks which send neurotransmitters over synaptic gaps. This is how our brain cells correspond to each other, more or less. When the human dies, his spirit goes out (Psalm 146:4, Ecclesiastes 12:7). The body does not have life anymore. No more electrical pulses. The cord to the machine is cut. While the machine is powered, this is what we call “a soul.” A living entity.

What about animals? Are they not living bodies as well? Yes they are. This is why they too are called “souls” (Genesis 1:20, though the word is often translated “creatures” the Hebrew word nephesh, soul, is actually used of the animals here and in many other places). A soul is not a ghost which man possesses and is released at death. It is not specific only to man. It is also a living animal as well.

Somatology

Soma is the Greek word for “body,” somatology is the theological study of the body. You are your body. You are a living body. “Dust you are and to dust you will return.” We often speak of the body idiomatically as if it is something else, or our minds and thoughts as if they are something other than ourselves. But we are our bodies and our brains. The body is celebrated in the Bible, and is spoken of as a good thing. Much of life’s pleasures come from our bodies. The enjoyment of a romantic relationship, eating good food, having a drink, the pleasures of the body. But we have to keep our bodies in check. Sin wants to push us to gluttony. Paul speaks very negatively about “the flesh,” and many have mistaken his statements as if they are gnostic. Paul isn’t talking about the physical body being a bad thing, he celebrates the time when our bodies will be clothed with immortality (1 Corinthians 15:53, 2 Corinthians 5:4). The “flesh” refers to sin, those carnal desires that our bodies would pursue if our minds didn’t keep it in check. Desire is balanced, and that is what the Law was made for. To teach man how to set limits. To sex, to violence, to eating and drinking, etc. The body should not be damned as the gnostics did, but should be appreciated and respected. As the Apostles Creed stated: “we believe in the resurrection of the body.”

Death

Life is when a human receives spirit. When a human is conceived in the womb, they receive spirit from God which energizes them. They grow into bodies which are born and live their lives until death. Death is when the body loses its life force. Their spirit which has energized them. “the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it” (Ecclesiastes 12:7). God has given man the ability to conceive and form a body, but God is the giver of life to all of us, individually. Each of us receives our spirit from God and each of us owes him our lives. Just as God breathed life into Adam, he does so with everyone who is conceived.

Psychopannychism/Soul Sleep

Psychopannychism is the belief that the soul sleeps in death. The idea that the soul is in a sleeplike condition, not aware of time, not conscious of its surroundings, not animated or able to effect others. The most common metaphor for death in the Bible is “sleep” (1 Kings 2:10, 11:43, 14:20, 22:50, 2 Kings 14:16, 15:7, 16:20, 20:21, 21:18, Job 14:10, 12, Psalm 13:3, 17:15, Ecclesiastes 9:5, Jeremiah 51:57, Daniel 12:2, Mark 5:39, John 11:11, Acts 7:60, 13:36, 1 Corinthians 7:39, 11:30, 15:6, 20, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18). This is because not only is the body in a sleep like state, outstretched laying down (Job 7:21, 14:10), and for the reasons listed above, but also because those asleep can be called awake. There is a time when the dead will rise (John 5:28-29). The dead are in this state of unconsciousness, but they will be called awake for judgement. Everyone must appear before the judgement seat of Christ, whether living or dead, righteous or unrighteous (2 Corinthians 5:10). Until that time, the “intermediate” state of the dead are to be asleep. Not a disembodied spirit or soul who can be contacted from beyond the grave, not a spirit which haunts a location, not granting the living signs and strength. They are as active in your life as they are when they were asleep.

Mortalism

Mortalism is the belief that a soul can die. Sometimes this and soul sleep are blurred together, but I distinguish them slightly. The soul is asleep in death, because it will be awakened and brought back to life at judgement (Hebrews 9:27). Those who are judged to righteousness are granted our reward of immortality. The soul is now “life-giving spirit” (1 Corinthians 15:45, compare 2 Corinthians 3:18, and Philippians 3:21). For those souls which are resurrected for judgement, and are judged to receive death, the second death, the soul dies. The soul is “destroyed.” This contrasts with the typical assumption that the soul is immortal and cannot die. However, “the soul which is sinning, it itself will die” (Ezekiel 18:4, 20). “Fear the one who can destroy both body and soul in Gehenna” (Matthew 10:28). The soul is mortal. It can die. Every soul which is not granted immortality will be put to death.

Conditional Immortality

Conditional immortality is antithetical to the idea of natural immortality. Natural immortality is the assertion that man is naturally immortal. Immortality is not something which has to be given or granted by God on their view. Natural immortality assumes that immortality is unconditional, every soul is immortal because souls are naturally immortal. If the soul is immortal and cannot die, and every human is an immortal soul, then every human is naturally immortal. This seems quite obviously wrong, given as we’ve seen above, that souls can die and be destroyed, but also because immortality is a gift, it’s the reward for righteousness (Luke 20:36, John 3:16, 6:50, 8:51, 11:26, Romans 2:7, 6:23, 1 Corinthians 15:22, 54, 2 Timothy 1:10, 1 Peter 1:23, Revelation 20:4-6). In these passages, we see that receiving “eternal life, immortality,” and “the second death has no hold over,” are all rewards we receive for believing in Jesus, keeping his commandments, giving up our lives for him, and being righteous. There are conditions to receiving immortality. Man is not naturally and inherently immortal, endowed with an immortal soul which survives death to be alive in another form/state.

The Soul

In Plato’s book “the Phaedo,” we have the last moments of Socrates before he is sentenced to death. Socrates followers mourn for him, and much to the surprise of every normal individual, Socrates scolds them, harshly, for weeping for his death. Socrates sees death as a victory. As a philosopher, one of the greatest things to him in life is the ability to think, reason, and rationalize. To engage in debates and conversation. His body got in the way of that. Needing sleep and to be fed and taken care of were all stopping him from doing the great work of philosophy. Death would finally give him a way of doing so. He would be freed from this ankle weight called a body. He states: “is not death just the separation of the soul from the body?” His soul could do the great work of philosophy forever without the holding back of the body.

A common belief about the soul is that the body cannot possibly do immaterial things, such as think, love, feel. How does a physical object like a rock express thought and emotion? It can’t. The alchemical golem, which has some sort of metaphysical life given to it can now possess these qualities. The rock needs something immaterial to express these immaterial things. This is what many people thought, so anything which seemed as if it couldn’t be the result of a physical object, was attributed to “the soul.” Some metaphysical ghost in the body which did these immaterial things. Nobel Prize winner, Francis Crick, wrote a book called: The Astonishing Hypothesis (the scientific search for the human soul). In this book, he explores these very things and makes note of what we now all know today. These so called “immaterial” processes, such as thought and emotion, are actually very much from the physical brain. When Phineas Gage had a metal railroad rod blown through his head, a normal man with normal emotions became wildly animalistic. When SM-046 had part of her brain (the amygdala) calcified, basically turned into stone, she could no longer feel fear. When physical things happen to the physical brain, this shouldn’t effect the metaphysical “soul” if it truly is the ghost within us. After studying these sorts of issues, Crick comes to the astonishing hypothesis: “we are nothing more than a pack of neurons.” The scientific search for the human soul shows that, if there is such a metaphysical thing such as a soul, it isn’t responsible for these things people like Socrates attributed towards it. It is undetectable. People thought that we are souls, trapped in a body, waiting to escape into the Astral realm, or “heaven.” It seems that this is incorrect.

The early gnostics had a very similar view as Socrates. They believed that the material realm, the physical world, is fallen and corrupted. It is the “black cube” in which we are trapped, the lowest world from the fall of kabalah. You had to achieve gnosis (knowledge) to escape this world. They believed that when you died, this immaterial part of you would try and leave this physical world of existence and knowledge is how you navigated in the afterlife. Many of the early church fathers believed in Socrates definition of the soul as well, and thus, anthropologies which involve the human soul leaving the human body and escaping to heaven started to form and develop very early on from platonic philosophies. This theory didn’t come from the Biblical worldview. This came from some mistaken interpretations. The belief that the human soul is an immaterial part of the human which escapes the body at death was defined in these exact terms by Socrates, not the Bible.

In Numbers 6:6, we read: “All the days of his life as a Nazirite for the LORD he shall not come up to a dead person.” That word for “dead person” or in some translations, “a dead body,” is the Hebrew word for soul, nephesh. Quite literally, he shall not touch a dead soul (see also Leviticus 19:28, 21:11, Numbers 9:6, 10, 19:11, 13, for more references to dead souls). The dead soul is the body that is laying there. It shouldn’t be touched or the soul that touches the dead soul is unclean. Dead persons are dead souls. Note this as well: Psalm 16:10: “For You will not abandon my soul to Sheol, nor will You let Your Holy One see decay.” Sheol, or Greek Hades (compare the LXX or Acts 2:27) is the realm of the dead. It is where the dead are. If a soul goes to the realm of the dead, are we really to say that the soul is “still alive?” In Thayer’s Greek lexicon, under ψυχή, one definition and usage is: “the soul as an essence which differs from the body and is not dissolved by death.” Under this, it gives Acts 2:27 and 31, which quote the above Psalm, as justification for this definition of an immortal soul which survives death. The claim being that when David asks God not to abandon his soul to the realm of the dead, the soul must be alive going somewhere. The soul is alive in the realm of the dead. In verse 31, this is applied to Jesus. The question must be, “was Jesus in Hades for 3 days?” If the answer is yes, then the claim is that a soul which is alive is in the world of the dead and not dead. In fact, nothing dead is in the realm of the dead. If the answer is no, then Jesus did not spend 3 days dead. Did Jesus even die? Did just his body die but Jesus is actually an immortal soul that didn’t die? Do any of us die, then, if we are immortal souls? Is it true that the punishment of sin is death, or do none of us truly ever die? Was Satan correct when he told Eve “you surly will not die?”

The Bible does make a distinction between body and soul. We are not saying that the body and the soul are identical. The soul is the body when it is endowed with life. When the body does not have life, the person is a dead soul. When living, this person is a living soul. Notice how the Bible distinguishes body and soul: “Because of this I say to you, do not worry about your soul, what you should eat or what you should drink; nor your body, what you should put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?” (Matthew 6:25) Do not worry about giving your soul food and water to live, or giving your body clothing. Notice the distinction. The soul needs food and water to live. Man doesn’t need clothing to live. If the soul is this immortal immaterial entity, then why does it need food and water? Does the body need food and water? The soul is the whole living body. Even a dead body can be clothed. We clothed the dead appropriately before burial. But to live, to be a living soul, you must have food and water.

The Resurrection Body

Part of the gospel message is our reward in the kingdom of our spiritual resurrection bodies. It is sometimes rather concerning to hear mainstream Christians attempt to explain how an immortal soul leaves the body and goes to heaven, but why Paul speaks about the mortal putting on immortality and receiving everlasting life. They do not seem to truly believe that there is a resurrection body.

As we have seen above, man is, now, a living soul. When he does, his life goes out, and he is a dead soul, in a sleeplike state. The first resurrection occurs at what many call “the rapture.” This is the return of Jesus where all of his servants will be caught up together with him in the clouds and we will all be changed. This is the change into our resurrection bodies. The dead receive theirs first, as they are being raised in those bodies. The living will receive theirs as they meet together. This is the wedding of the bride of Christ when we are joined in one body, the resurrection body. The second resurrection are those who are raised to judgement. If they are judged righteous, they are part of what we call “the wider hope.” They didn’t receive the second death, but they didn’t accept Christ in their lives and endure to the end. Those who are judged to punishment will be thrown into the lake of fire, to be annihilated. This is the death of the soul permanently.

What, then, is the resurrection body? Philippians 3:21 says: ” by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.” Our resurrection body will be like Jesus’ resurrection body. So if we study his body, we will see what ours will be like. When Jesus was raised from the dead, many people wonder if he was flesh until the ascension and became a spirit, or if he was raised as a spirit and not flesh.

Some will say Jesus was raised as a spirit, because he appeared to people in a different form (Mark 16:12), and to the apostles in a way they did not recognize. They surely would have known it was him if he was raised in his same body (Luke 24:13-31).

Then, others will say: Of course Jesus was raised in his body of flesh. The body in the tomb was missing because that body got up when it was raised from the dead (John 20:1-13). Thomas touched the holes in the hands and side of the body which was crucified. Surely Jesus didn’t just materialize as a spirit and fake these holes to pretend to be in that same body (John 20:25-27). Jesus even denies being a spirit in Luke 24:39: “Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”

So is Jesus flesh or is he spirit? He is both. That’s what a new creation is. This self same body of flesh clothed in spirit. It was the actual body of Jesus appearing in a locked room and yet having the same holes of his crucifixion. So why does Jesus say “a spirit does not have flesh and bones as I have?” He is not just a spirit like an angel who appears as a man. These angels appear as men and are sometimes mistaken as men, but they do not have flesh and bones. He is a new creation. A new creation does have flesh and bones as he does. Doesn’t Paul say that flesh and blood can’t enter heaven? So then how can Jesus be flesh still when he ascends? No, Paul doesn’t say this. In 1 Corinthians 15:50 says: “flesh and blood is not able to inherit the kingdom of God, nor does decay inherit immortality.” Flesh and blood doesn’t inherit the kingdom of God. That is the kingdom in heaven, and also upon the earth. Notice what he says in the next verse: “Behold, I tell to you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed… the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.” We can’t enter the kingdom of God as we are now as flesh and blood. We must be changed. We must put on immortality. Looking at Jesus’ resurrection body, we note that he was not resurrected in the same unchanged body that went into the tomb. He had to be changed. He became clothed in the Spirit. So also must we be changed. We can’t enter as we are now, sinful, corrupted, mortal. We must be perfected, incorruptible and immortal. How? We must be clothed in, not just any spirit, but the Holy Spirit of God. When Jesus was raised in his resurrection body, he was raised with his body of Spirit, that is, Holy Spirit. 2 Corinthians 3-5 speaks about something very similar to 1 Corinthians 15, the statements about the resurrection body. In 2 Corinthians 3, Paul is speaking of the ministry of death as opposed to the ministry of the Spirit. In verses 17-18, he says that “the Lord (Jesus) is the Spirit, and we are being conformed to the same image.” In chapter 4:5 he says we preach Jesus as Lord, there can be no question as to who he means by “The Lord” and what he means by “the Spirit.” Compare 2 Corinthians 5:4 with 1 Corinthians 15:53-54. Putting on immortality. This body putting on the Spirit of life. The Holy Spirit. This is why we, now, receive the Spirit as a deposit, or a down-payment (Ephesians 1:17). We receive the Spirit in full when we receive immortality in our resurrection bodies, just as Jesus did. This is why Jesus can breathe the Spirit onto his disciples (John 20:22). What was once his own breath/spirit, is now the Spirit of God. Breath is a sign of life. When someone is living, breathing, they are alive. When granted the Spirit of immortality, your mortal body has been consumed in immortality. The first Adam was a living soul. He was mortal. He was alive so long as he ate the fruit of the tree of life (Genesis 3:22). The fruit is what kept his soul alive. The last Adam is life-giving Spirit (1 Corinthians 15:45). He does not need to eat fruit to live. He is not a soul which can die. The mortal has been swallowed up by immortality. The soul is now the immortal Spirit. Many people think our resurrection bodies will be just a copy of Adam’s before the fall. No. Our bodies will be greater. The earth will be greater than the garden of Eden. There’s a greatness of new creation which exceeds the original creation. If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17). Why? Because he is the first of the new creation (Colossians 1:18). Born of the dead, born of the Spirit (Acts 2:33, 13:30-33). “We no longer know Christ according to the flesh” (2 Corinthians 5:16). Jesus was a creation like Adam “in the days of his flesh,” when he learned obedience and became perfected by it (Hebrews 5:7-8). Now, we know Christ according to the Spirit. He is the comforter/parakletos from the Father (compare 1 John 2:1 to John 14:16). He is a new creation. This is the resurrection body. This is our reward.

When dealing with “the Trinity,” we often will note that there are different trinitarian models. Usually, we divide them into Eastern vs. Western, or Latin vs. Greek. Yet, there are a lot of Christological positions as well. These were defined during the same period as the Trinity was. I thought it might be helpful to compile a small list of the major branches of Christological categories. Sometimes, the best way to explain what Trinitarians believe about Jesus is by explaining what they have formally rejected concerning him. All of the categories below have been condemned by the orthodox churches as being heretical.

Psilanthropism: This phrase quite literally means “mere human,” combining these two words in Greek (and adding the suffix). This is a title for the Christological beliefs that Jesus was only a man, one nature, in his ministry.

Paulianists: This is used for the Christians who were said to follow Paul of Samosata, bishop in the mid 3rd century. His beliefs were that Jesus was only a human being with no preexistence.

Exaltation Christology: This is a term used by various scholars, notably Bart Ehrman, which is in reference to the idea that Jesus was a man who became divine at resurrection. He was “exalted” to a new nature.

Adoptionists: Adoptionism is the idea that Jesus was a man no different from any other (denying the virgin birth), who became divine in some sense at his baptism. He was “adopted” from among men as God’s son at baptism. The Ebionites were a very early 2nd century Christian group that held to this belief. It is argued that the Nazarenes, a contemporary early Jewish Christian group similar to the Ebionites, held to a similar Christology, but Jerome noted their distinction in that the Ebionites denied the virgin birth. There’s much debate on whether the Nazarenes were orthodox in their christology or not.

Dynamic Monarchianism: This is often lumped together with adoptionism in the literature with very little to no distinction made. However, the title “monarchian” generally refers to a category of theology proper, not Christology, as it refers specifically to the Father. The “monarchians” will be covered below. The “dynamic” aspect is generally in relation to how the Father works. This phrase seems to be generally used in reference to how Christians understand the relation of God to his word in John’s prologue (John 1:1-18). The dynamic monarchians are those who hold this word is an aspect or mode of the Father. They see the Father as more “dynamic” as opposed to something like divine simplicity. Marcellus of Ancyra is attributed this belief, though his views post resurrection of Christ become very much like dynamic monarchianism absorbed into monarchianism. If God has certain modes of being, his word, his wisdom, his Spirit, his glory, his breath, his power, these would make him “dynamic.” This bleeds over into Christology because of the relation of Christ to the dynamic aspect of the Father in John 1:14.

Arianism: This name comes from Arius, the 4th century presbyter in Alexandria who was deposed by Bishop Alexander for his teachings of Jesus being created by God, having a different nature than God, and for saying that we can become sons of God just as he is. Athanasius’ “Orations against the Arians” is one of the most complete works we have regarding the teachings of Arius, if he is quoting the Thalia accurately. Arianism is a christological position sometimes referred to as “subordinationism,” which is held by many prior to Arius. Ignatius of Antioch in the early 2nd century seems to hold to this view, according to the shorter manuscript family. Irenaeus of Lyons in the mid to late 2nd century is argued by some to hold to this position. Origen was declared to be the root of Arius’ teachings. However, this is improbable. Arius seems to have believed that Jesus preexisted as the first creation of God, who was like God but only sharing part of his nature. Jesus was not “fully divine” as God is, but he possesses part of the divinity of God in his preexistence. He also seems to have believed that Jesus was fully human in his earthly Incarnation, but this is not apparently clear. This belief is more affirmed by the “semi-arians,” or Eunomians, following the teachings formalized by Eunomius later in the 4th century. His writings were argued against by both Gregory of Nyssa and Basil of Caesarea, “Contra Eunomia.” There are also what some have called “neo-arianism,” in reference to teachings like that of the Bible Students which the Jehovah’s Witnesses developed from, and variously said to be held by early Unitarians like Samuel Clark and John Biddle.

Monophysitism: Sometimes, it is also called Eutychianism. This is a Christological belief of Jesus having one (mono) nature (physis). This term has always been used in regards to the belief that the one nature of Christ in his Incarnation is divine. The phrase, to my knowledge, has never been used to refer to a one nature view of Christ being only man. However, it is generally used in antithesis to dual nature Christologies. Monophysitism is a heretical view by the church, which declares that Christ has two natures in their view.

Nestorianism: This is a dyophysite Christology. This is a form of Christology that holds to Jesus having two (dyo/di) natures (physis). Not all dyophysite christologies are heretical by orthodox standards, but this view is. Nestorius was opposed to the idea that Mary, a mere human woman, could be the theotokos (theo-God, tokos-bearer/born). He argued against the idea of Mary having the God of heaven and earth in her womb. He argued that Jesus must have received his divine nature only after the virgin birth. Nestorius argued that these two natures must belong to two persons in one body. Jesus, the human, Christ, the divine. Two persons, each with a respective nature, in one body. Orthodox christology argues for one person with two natures, and this person possesses two natures from the moment of conception and Incarnation. Nestorianism was debated in the councils of 431 in Ephesus and 451 AD in Chalcedon, along with Eutyches to a lesser extent.

Miaphysitism: This is very similar to monophysitism, but rather than just one nature, there is a mixed nature. This christology believes that the union of the human and the divine created a new nature when the logos became incarnate. They reject the idea of two distinct natures but hold to a union of both as a single nature.

Apollinarism: Or also, “Apollinarianism.” This is a form of monophysite belief which holds to the idea that Jesus lacked a human mind but possessed a human body and a divine mind. This is usually referred to as the “God in a bod” belief, which is essentially the view that Jesus had a divine nature (one nature only, monophysite) in a human body. This belief was contested during the mid 4th century during the Arian controversies. This christological belief has become more popular recently due to the work of William Lane Craig, who proposes “neo-Apollinarianism,” which I see little to no difference between what Apollinaris originally believed himself.

Docetism: This is a particular form of Gnosticism, and probably the earliest christology to arise that was unorthodox from the perspective of the apostles. This view has been said to stem from the gnostic teachings of Cerinthius, and John is writing against his views in his first epistle, possibly his other epistles, and also in his gospel account. Irenaeus writes about and against Cerinthius and speaks of supposed extrabiblical accounts of John speaking against him. This is the Christological view that Jesus was essentially a ghost. He did not truly have a human body and could not experience suffering. The gnostics had a very degraded view of the physical material reality as fallen, unlike God, and a prison by the demiurge. Jesus was an ascended being from heaven, above the demiurge, and only appeared as man, yet did not suffer or die. The very word “docetic” comes from the Greek word “to appear.” This is the christological view that is consistent only among the gnostic gospels.

Monarchianism: This term is generally a blanket term for the Father, who is head of the “monarchy.” Monarchianism is generally regarded as the belief that Jesus is the Father, whether a mode of the Father being projected on earth, an Incarnation of the Father, or in some other way, non-distinct from the Father.

Sabellian Modalism: This is a theology proper, christological, pneumatological, and triadological position. Sabellius believed that the Father becomes the Son, who becomes the Holy Spirit, each existing as a mode of the one God and all ultimately the same. It is often likened to personae, or the wearing of different masks, but behind is one person. Origen was rumoured to also be the inspiration behind Sabellius, but this is also not true. This is a kind of monarchianism.

Patripassianism: Famously coined by Tertullian, it was a mocking insult to those who believed the Father and Son to be the same person. The title comes from the words, “Father suffering.” The idea that if the Son is the Father, then the impassible Father suffered upon the cross. This is a form of Monarchianism.

Monoenergism: The doctrine that Christ only had one engery. Sergius, the first of Constantinople, posited this belief. Though he was a dyophysite, he argued that the one person with two natures only had one energy. This was rejected in the 7th century. This developed into his later views on monothelitism.

Monothelitism: The doctrine of Christ having one will. Orthodoxy holds to dyothelitism, that Christ has a human and divine will. Monothelitism was prominently promoted by Sergius of Constantinople. This doctrine was rejected in the 7th century.

Above are all the heterodox views of Christology according to the ecumenical councils. These are the various views of Christ in his ministry or in his incarnation. Lastly, we will lay out the “orthodox” view of Christology that is professed by most Christians today and is the result of the ecumenical councils and creeds against the above views.

Hypostatic Union: This is a dyophysite position that holds that Jesus has two distinct natures, human and divine, not mixed together, two wills, two energies, but one person.

Jesus says in many and multiple ways that he “came down from heaven, descended from heaven, I am from above, I am not of this world, and I have come from the Father.” All of these claims imply that Jesus in some way came down from heaven to earth. He didn’t go to heaven as a man before his death and resurrection. He also says in his ministry that he “descended,” past tense. Jesus says that he has not yet ascended to heaven by the end of his ministry (John 20:17) so he must be telling us that he descended from heaven before he was a man. Jesus had some preexistence as some spirit being with the Father before he “became flesh” (John 1:14). Jesus descended from heaven to become flesh, to become a man, and this proves that Jesus had a preexistence and did not “begin to exist as a man.” He descended from heaven when he was conceived in the womb of Mary. The eternal Logos, the Son of God, descended from heaven and hypostatically united with a human nature at conception. This is how and when he descended from heaven, from the Father, and came into the world.

John 3:13: No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man

John 3:31: The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all.

John 6:38: For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.

John 6:41: At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.”

John 6:51: I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And this bread, which I will give for the life of the world, is My flesh.”

John 6:62: Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before

John 8:23: Then He told them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.

John 16:28: I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father.

Jesus is clearly teaching that he came down from heaven, down from the Father, and entered into the world. This is preexistence to incarnation.

A Critical Error

If these verses are read closely, the problem of the Trinitarian assumption is clear even within these verses. The Trinitarian must believe that Jesus was in heaven before he was a man. They must believe that a prehuman being “came down from heaven.” This being came down from heaven to become flesh. Yet, what do we find in these verses?

John 3:13: No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man

John 6:51: I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And this bread, which I will give for the life of the world, is My flesh.

John 6:62: Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before

What do we find in all of these verses? That it is a man, flesh, that descended out of heaven. Not a prehuman, prefleshly divine being. It is a human being who came down from heaven. Do Trinitarians believe this? Do they believe human flesh came down from heaven? Do they believe a son of man, a son of Adam, a human, came down from heaven? No. They believe something else came down out of heaven to become a man. “He became flesh.” You should see a problem in how you read John 1:14 at this point as well.

No one has ascended into heaven but the son of man. The living bread that comes down from heaven is my flesh. The son of man ascending to where he was before. In every case we have a man in heaven. Trinitarians do not believe this happened past tense at this point. Each of these verses are temporally prior to John 20:17, “I have not yet ascended.” Trinitarians do not believe the son of man has ascended into heaven before his death and resurrection. Read John 3:13 again. “No one has ascended into heaven but…. the son of man.” Ascended. Past tense. The son of man ascended into heaven in John 3:13 already? A human being ascended into heaven already? Do Trinitarians believe this? “What, then, if you see the Son of man ascending to where he was before?” Do Trinitarians believe that the Son of man was in heaven before? No, they do not believe any of this. Yet, it is exactly what your Bible says.

The Trinitarian Excuses

Trinitarian responses to these facts often trample right over their initial usages of these passages. Typically they begin by trying to prove that these passages mean a prehuman Jesus came down from heaven. After these points are noted, their argument becomes “well, the son of man is what he became. What he was before he became man is what came down from heaven.” They liken this to the following example: I may say “my wife was born in Ohio.” Is it true that she was “my wife” when she was born? No. It is an idiomatic way of speaking about who she is and what she was. Many Trinitarians are reading this in this way. However, this doesn’t work, especially if they hold to a hypostatic union Christology. When Jesus says “my flesh came down from heaven,” this isn’t referring to his prehuman existence which “became flesh.” If that prehuman existence is not mixed or confused with the human nature, and only subsisting, it makes no sense to say his flesh descended. The divine nature which descended never has had flesh. We can only say this idiomatically. Are we really going to rest our Christology on an idiom? Are we prepared to truly say that the Son of man descended from heaven? Why would he not say that the Son of God descended from heaven? This would be a consistent statement with Trinitarianism. Yet, he did not.

Another stunt Trinitarians will pull is to try to argue against the statement “son of man is a title which means he is a man.” They most often say, “if son of man means he’s a man, then son of God means he’s God.” I have heard this argument too many times to count, as it is quite common. Even if I granted this and said they were correct, this still doesn’t solve their problem. They say that when he’s saying “son of man,” he’s referring to being man. When he says “Son of God,” he’s referring to being God/his divine nature. Yet, in these passages, he’s saying that a man came down from and ascended to heaven. Their argument is flawed. “God” is a title for a person. “Man” is not. It’s a general category. When someone is a son of God, it means they’re the son of the Father. When someone is a son of man, it means they are a human. Jesus asked the Pharisees whose son the Messiah would be. They correctly answered “David’s.” The Messiah is the son of David. Does that mean the Messiah is David? Jesus is the son of Mary. Does that mean he is Mary? This doesn’t work with particulars, such as “God,” the Father. Trinitarians want to act as if “God” refers to a general category of kind, similar to how “man” refers to the category “human.” But Jesus doesn’t claim to be the Son of “the divine nature.” As if the divine nature produced him and now he is divine. He points specifically to the Father as the one having bore him. When we say we are children of God, we don’t mean we are children of the whole Trinity, or anything with the divine nature. Are we children of Jesus? Is the Holy Spirit our Father, in Trinitarianism? No and no. Sometimes they will say, “in the OT, a son of the builders was another way of saying someone was a builder.” In other words, he was like a child and learned the trade of the builders from those who taught him like parents. A son of the builders was a builder. So the son of God means he’s God. Yet, we are children of God. Does that make us Gods? The term “builder” is a category. Not a particularly. Just as “man” is a category. Being a son of Adam means you have Adam’s humanity. That’s what Adam produces. Being the son of God doesn’t mean you are God. God doesn’t make other Gods as humans make other humans.

Some Trinitarians will try and say “well yes, Jesus was the son of man in his prehuman state, because Daniel 7 says that he was the son of man in heaven before coming to earth.” This is, in fact, not what Daniel 7 says. I believe people have read that Jesus is called the Son of man in Daniel, which is correct, and they reason that since the book of Daniel is temporally prior to the incarnation, he must be the son of man in his prehuman state. This argument makes it clear that they haven’t read or understood Daniel’s prophecy. First, it is a prophecy. It is a future vision which occurs after the resurrection of the Son of man. Compare Daniel 7:13-14 with Matthew 28:18. Second, Daniel says that he sees one coming before God who looks like “a son of man.” This is revolutionary because in visions, no one ever sees humans in heaven in the OT. “One who looks like a man in heaven” is in contrast to the way Seraphim and Cherubim are described. The point of the prophecy is that a man will ascend into heaven and receive glory and power from God. This is fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus (see Acts 2). Son of man isn’t a prehuman title of the preincarnate Jesus. It is the title given to someone who will come before God and receive what God grants.

As we can see, the Trinitarian excuses are simply just attempts to avoid the obvious facts. That a human being ascended and descended from heaven. “Son of man” is a man. Men have flesh. When the son of man and his flesh “descend out of heaven,” we need to just accept the facts. Not come up with contrivances to make it fit our theology.

Trinitarian Double Standards

Trinitarians understand what basic terms mean in the Bible perfectly. Yet, when the same thing is said of Jesus, a double standard appears and a massive veil comes over their eyes to where they are blind to what he’s saying. Some examples:

• When Jesus asks if the baptism of John is “from heaven or from men,” the Pharisees themselves know the answer is that his baptism is from heaven. They fear the crowds so they do not say it is from men, because the crowd would react negatively. They did not want to say his baptism was from heaven, because they feared Jesus’ response if he said “then why didn’t you believe him?” What does it mean for the baptism of John to be “from heaven?” We all understand that this means that it is of heavenly origin, man didn’t formulate the idea themselves, but God gave it to him from heaven. (see Luke 20:4)
• When we are told that every good gift comes down from the Father, we know that this means that all of our blessings, everything “good,” does not originate with man but with God. If a man is blessed with a wife, she has come from God. If a starving family is blessed with food, this good gift comes from the Father from heaven. Not from the world. No one is good but God alone. (see James 1:17)
• When we read that John the Baptist was, “a man sent from God,” where was he sent to? We know he was sent out into the world to preach. He began teaching the gospel, the good news, that “God’s kingdom is near.” We know that John was sent from God, the Father, into the world. John was a man of God and sent from him. (see John 1:6)
• When Jesus tells his apostles that he is sending them “into the world,” we know that he means that they are going down into the spiritually darkened and unbelieving world to teach them the gospel message and express God to them. (see John 20:21-22)
• When Jesus says you are “no part of this world,” how does he expect you to do that? You know he means that you are not to become attached to the things this world values, which will fade in the kingdom. Think of the rich man who kept all of the law but couldn’t let go of his wealth. Money is part of this world. If you are no part of the world, you do not love the things in the world. (see John 15:19)
• When Paul says that we are “in Christ,” what does he mean? He means that we are in Christ in the Spirit. We share that Spirit of Christ which he imparts to us, which renews us, gives us the mind of Christ, and makes us partakers in the divine nature. This is why we are new creations. We understand what it means to be in Christ, when Christ is in heaven. (see 2 Corinthians 5:17)
• When John says that the Father will abide in us, we know what he means. We are born of his Spirit and he becomes our Father. His Spirit is in us, and we are in him. He has “made his home in us.” Our bodies are the temple of God, because his presence resides in us. We know what it means for God to be “in us.” (see 1 John 4:12-14)

Nothing I’ve said is particularly controversial in this section. In leading Trinitarian commentaries and textbooks, they will give generally the same explanation. However, when Jesus says the same things about himself, everyone seems to forget what these things mean.

• Jesus is sent from God. Trinitarians take this to mean that Jesus is with God the Father in heaven, and is sent down into planet earth.

But when we are sent from God, it means something else.

• Jesus is said to come from above. Trinitarians assume this means he was in heaven pre-existing, and descended down into earth and became flesh.

But when good gifts, or John’s baptism come from heaven, it means something else.

• Jesus says he is not of this world. Trinitarians think this means he is from heaven because he has eternal prehuman origins from heaven, and his origination didn’t come from earth.

But when he says we are no part of the world “just as” he is no part of the world (just as or even as meaning in “the same way”), it means something else.

• When Jesus he is in the Father and the Father is in him, Trinitarians imagine this means that Jesus and the Father share this particular nature that no one else does, or they share energies, or there’s a perichoretic indwelling of two divine persons in each other.

But when we are said to be in Christ, or in God, or God is in us, it means something else.

• When Jesus is called God’s son, Trinitarians pretend this means that Jesus was eternally generated from God’s nature, which makes him what God is, and he is the only son God has ever had, or will ever have. No other son of God is a son of God as Jesus is.

But when we are commanded to be “begotten again” of God, or when we are called “begotten children” of God, it means something else.

• When Jesus is said to be sent into the world, Trinitarians will say that this means that he was sent down into the physical planet earth, from some other, metaphysical realm.

But when he sends us into the world just as he was sent, it means something else.

Are you beginning to notice a pattern? What’s said of Jesus is assumed to mean something completely different than when the exact same thing is said of anyone else. This is a special pleading fallacy. It is a breakdown in logical reasoning (“fallacy”) when you assume some special instance of something to prove your point. Trinitarians often believe Jesus preexisted because of these texts. They believe he existed with God before because of these texts. And yet, what happens to these passages if these special conditions are not assumed to prove the very point it’s meant to give evidence of?

Re-examining the Trinitarian Argument

It is clear that in order for Trinitarians to make a case for their claims, they must interpret what Jesus says of himself, differently than when he says it of anyone else. This is circular reasoning. 1. You assume Jesus is special because he’s God. 2. You believe he’s God because you believe these passages say he is. 3. But you believe these passages say something special about Jesus to prove he is God, because you already believe he is God. The circle loops back in on itself. The problem is that people begin with a theory and seek to prove it, so by reading the text with this theory in mind (namely in this case, that Jesus preexisted in heaven), you are certain to believe it. It is clear that this kind of double standard will not work, because often, Jesus even says that these things are “just as,” meaning “in the same way,” with us as they are with him. “You are no part of the world just as I am no part of the world.” “Just as you sent me into the world, I now send them.” “I pray that they will be with me where I am.” “I will grant to him to sit on my throne, just as the Father granted to me to sit on his throne.” “That they may be one just as we are one.” We see that the Trinitarian arguments collapse in on themselves from contradictions. They do not believe a man came down from heaven, or flesh came down from heaven, or that this man ascended into heaven, or that he alone ascended into heaven and no one else has. Let us respond in debate format to the steelman argument I presented in the first section.

Counterarguments to the Trinitarian Argument

Jesus says in many and multiple ways that he “came down from heaven, descended from heaven, I am from above, I am not of this world, and I have come from the Father.” All of these claims imply that Jesus in some way came down from heaven to earth.

It is correct that Jesus says all of these things. However, it is also correct that he says all of these things about us, his followers, as well. He is a model for us to follow, and when he commands us to “be born from heaven above,” or, sends us into the world, or, “be no part of this world,” or, to be “the light of the world,” he is not telling us to come down from heaven and incarnate as he has. He is not telling us to do something he himself hasn’t done, or something we cannot do. It is also true that these statements imply that Jesus came down from heaven and to earth. But in our careful reading, we find that it is “a man,” the Son of man, who came down from heaven. Not a prehuman being who later, after the descent, became flesh. We also must contend with the fact that this human also ascended into heaven sometime in his human life.

He didn’t go to heaven as a man before his death and resurrection.

He did. “The Son of man ascending to where he was before.” The Son of man, the human flesh, ascending to where he was before. “No one has ascended into heaven except… the son of man.” Past tense verbs. We cannot accept that Jesus, past tense, descended from heaven, but not accept that he also past tense ascended into heaven.

Jesus says that he has not yet ascended to heaven by the end of his ministry (John 20:17) so he must be telling us that he descended from heaven before he was a man.

In John 20:17 Jesus does say “do not hold onto me, for I have not yet ascended.” The kind of ascension he’s talking about here is a different kind of ascension than he is talking about in John 3:13 and 6:62. The context of each passage is critical to understand this. John 3:2-13 is all about the new birth. Being “born from above.” In this passage we read that being born from above means that you are no longer born of flesh (“no part of this world” of flesh), and you become Spirit (“that which is born of flesh is flesh, but that which is born of Spirit is Spirit”). If you are born from heaven above, you have ascended into heaven in the spirit. This is why this is baptism of the Spirit, when we receive the Spirit as a down-payment (Ephesians 1:14, Hebrews 6:4). The ascension of Jesus in John 20:17 is bodily, fully, as a new creation. When Jesus says in John 3, “no one has ascended into heaven,” he’s referring to this new birth. No one has been born again from heaven, having ascended into heaven. If Elijah and Enoch were taken into heaven, they didn’t receive their new birth of the Spirit in doing so. This is why Jesus can say this. In John 6:62, the context of this passage is the bread of life discourse, as it is commonly called. Jesus is teaching us how and why we are to eat his flesh and drink his blood, which is the bread of God, which came down from heaven. This is considered one of Jesus’ “hard sayings,” and it is quite clear that it still is today, as virtually no one seems to understand what he means. This teaching was offensive, so offensive that many of his disciples and the crowd that followed him from the day before, left him. Even though they received food until they were full, and witnessed an unparalleled miracle, they still left him because of the offense of this saying. When Jesus finishes this teaching, he asks his apostles “if this offends you, would it then also offend you if you see the Son of man ascending to where he was before?” What if you see the baptism of the Spirit that the son received at the Jordan River, which John the Baptist witnessed and attested to (John 1:32)? If this saying is too hard for you to understand, what of the teaching on the new birth? We see that Jesus is referring back to John 3 and being born again. Being born again is how Jesus’ flesh can be the bread of life, and they didn’t understand this at the time. The spirit was not yet given to them (John 7:39). “If you can’t understand earthly things, how can you understand heavenly things” (John 3:12)? Jesus isn’t talking about an ascension before he was born. And the ascension he’s speaking of is not to ascend to the right hand of the Father, which happens at his resurrection and glorification. John 20:17 speaks of a different kind of ascension.

Many people make the argument from John 16:28: “I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father,” that Jesus must be saying that he is going back to the Father in the same way in which he came from the Father. This argument is flawed in several ways, but we can just see from the argument in John 20:17 that this must necessarily not be true. If Jesus is ascending in the same way he was before, then it is not true that he “has not yet ascended.” Another problem with this passage is that the Greek text does not say “going back to the Father.” It simply says, “further/moreover, I am going to the Father.” The final problem is that it is not uncommon for a phrase to be taken both metaphorically in part and literally in part. For example: “let the dead bury their dead.” It isn’t literally true that the dead can bury, but it is literally referring to the man’s dead father. When Jesus “came from the Father,” it is no different from John being “sent from God” in John 1:6. When Jesus is, “in turn, going to the Father,” it is not in the same sense as when.he came from God.

Jesus had some preexistence as some spirit being with the Father before he “became flesh” (John 1:14).

Not one of these passages say that Jesus came down from heaven “before he became flesh.” There’s nothing in any of these passages that say he came down from heaven before he was born. This is all hinged on the assumption that this must have happened before he became flesh, which Jesus tells us is incorrect at John 6:51. None of these passages are speaking of Jesus before his birth, all speak of what happened in his life and ministry. “But flesh and blood cannot enter heaven,” someone might say. That passage (1 Corinthians 15:50) says that flesh and blood cannot enter “the kingdom.” Regardless, “flesh and blood” refers tothe perishable. In other words, Paul is saying that to be in the kingdom, you must be changed to be imperishable. Your body of flesh and blood must be clothed with immortality. Read the context. It isn’t saying that a human being can’t ascend into heaven. We know that humans have ascended into heaven (2 Corinthians 12, Revelation 4:1-2).

Jesus descended from heaven to become flesh, to become a man, and this proves that Jesus had a preexistence and did not “begin to exist as a man.” He descended from heaven when he was conceived in the womb of Mary. The eternal Logos, the Son of God, descended from heaven and hypostatically united with a human nature at conception. This is how and when he descended from heaven, from the Father, and came into the world.

Much of this has already been responded to in the previous comments. But it is important to note that Jesus’ coming down from heaven is not antithetical to the statement that Jesus is a man from among men. It simply means that Jesus ascended into heaven as a man, which we already observed is what Jesus himself says. It is also important to note that nothing in John refers to Jesus’ birth from Mary. In fact, her name is never even used in this gospel. In John 2 he calls her “woman.” John doesn’t give us a birth narrative, a manger story, the conversations with Gabriel about Mary having the spirit overshadow her, the dreams of Joseph which explain this, a genealogy account, none of it. To assume that John is hammering the point that Jesus came down from heaven to earth in the womb of Mary, yet never bothers to mention this account is rather striking. It is also striking that Matthew and Luke, who do mention this conception event, forgot to mention Jesus’ prehuman origins and the incarnation entirely.

What do these verses actually mean?

John 3:13: No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man

See my full post on this verse Here

John 3:31: The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all.

Just as Jesus said earlier in this chapter, flesh is born of flesh and Spirit is born of Spirit. Jesus is born of the Spirit, born from above, and is not of the world. This is what he commanded Nicodemus, and us, to do. “You (plural) must be born again.” As Jesus also said, John is the greatest among men, but yet he is least compared to those of the kingdom. The least in the kingdom is still above the greatest of the earth. Jesus is from above, the kingdom above. As he said at his trial, “my kingdom is not of this world.” This has nothing to do with preexistence, but where the identity of a believer is. That is, from above.

John 6:38: For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.

He who came down from heaven is “the Son of man.” The Son of man came down from heaven to do God’s will, not his own. Many Trinitarians believe in the one will of the Trinity (meaning each person does not have their own individual will apart from the other persons). If Jesus, then, is speaking of not doing “his own” will, this must be the human Jesus, who has his human will in his human nature. Either way we look at it, a human is saying he came down from heaven as a human. As we will see, verse 51 plainly says that the flesh of Jesus came down from heaven. Yes, a man came down from heaven, was “sent into the world,” to teach the gospel, the will of the Father. See Luke 4:18, and 21. In this bread of life discourse, we find that Jesus “doing the will of God” is what makes him that bread of God. And that bread of God is what gives life to the world.

John 6:41: At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.”

This is very similar to the misunderstanding question literary device of John. But here, they are not asking a question, it is a narrative comment. To an ancient Jew, “bread from heaven” was the mana that Israel received in the wilderness, and which was placed in the ark of the covenant. Jesus makes reference to mana in this passage. They do not understand him when he calls himself bread from heaven. The fact that this confused the Jews who turned away from Jesus, and this also confuses many Trinitarians today is very troublesome. Trinitarians do not realized they are confused. They believe that the answer is, “the second person of the Trinity came down from heaven, literally, and became flesh. This flesh is the bread of God because it’s united with a divine nature.” How does this even make this flesh the bread of God? The question is never coherently answered. Contradictions flourish in Trinitarian writings. How does this make it proper to say that the flesh came down from heaven? Trinitarians have no answer. Yes, they are confused.

John 6:51: I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And this bread, which I will give for the life of the world, is My flesh.

The bread that came down from heaven and gives life to the world is his flesh. His flesh is what gives life to the world, and that which gives life is the bread which came down from heaven. Jesus is plainly telling us that his flesh came down from heaven. The man, Jesus, came down from heaven when he was born again in the Spirit, and that Spirit descended and remained upon him in his ministry (John 1:32). Jesus’ body is the temple of God, as he says in John 2. Paul says that our bodies are the temple of God when the Spirit resides in us. It is the same thing. Heaven was opened to him and he receives the messengers of God (John 1:51). Jesus ascended into heaven in the Spirit, he is in the Father, who is in heaven, and the Father is in him, tabernacling in this flesh (John 1:14) by his Spirit, which is his word (John 6:63). Jesus’ flesh, his body, is exactly what God commanded. “Man must not live on bread alone but on every word from the mouth of God.” Is Jesus not the one who God put his word in his mouth (Compare Deuteronomy 18:15-18 to Acts 3)? What Jesus says and what he does, this man of flesh, is every commandment of God. He does not do his own will, but the will of the Father. He is directed and guided by the Spirit of his Father. This is what it means for his flesh to descend out of heaven. His flesh is every word that comes down from God embodied. It is the Spirit of God in flesh.

John 6:62: Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before

As previously explained, if the teaching on the bread of life is offensive, then is the teaching on being born again, seeing Jesus’ baptism of the Spirit, offensive to them too? If they saw that moment when heaven was opened to Jesus, and he received the Spirit descending out of heaven upon him, and he entered into heaven, would this offend them? Would it offend them to see this man ascending to where he was before, in heaven? The next verse is key. The word which descended on him by the Spirit when he was born again, baptized in John 1, we now see Jesus explain here. “The words I speak are Spirit and life.” Word is “logos,” the same word of John 1:1 and 14. The word is Spirit, that is, Holy Spirit. When Jesus received the Spirit, he received the word of God. Does this teaching offend you?

John 8:23: Then He told them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.

Jesus is talking to the Pharisees. They are of the world and cannot understand the heavenly things of the Spirit. We are to be no part of the world just as he is no part of the world (John 17:16). This verse uses a synonymous parallelism, which means that each statement in this verse is synonymous. He says something, and repeats himself in a parallel, by using different words with the same meaning. “You are from below, I am from above,” means the same thing as “You are of this world, I am not of this world.” When Jesus commands us not to be of this world, he’s telling us that we are to be “from above.” We are to be exactly what Jesus says he is here. In the same way as he is. Born from above, not of this world, from above. Again, Jesus isn’t talking about being preexistent and from heaven before his birth, as if this would support the context of this conversation at all. He’s saying that he understands spiritual things while they only understand earthly things from below.

John 16:28: I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father.

As previously explained, if Jesus is saying he is going to the Father in the same way as he came from the Father, he could not say in John 20:17 that he has not yet ascended to the Father. Every time he appeared in some “Christophany” he ascended back to the Father. Interestingly enough, Jesus doesn’t even use the phrase “son of man” in John 20:17. He wouldn’t necessarily be referring to his human nature only here, which a Trinitarian would need for him to do. Secondly, the Greek text doesn’t say he is “going back” to the Father. The word here can mean “again,” as a repeated action, or “further, moreover, in turn, on the other hand,” as in a contrast to. I believe this is how Jesus meant it. And lastly, there’s no reason to assume that Jesus’ coming from the Father means he came in the same way he’s going. It is not controversial to say Jesus did come from the Father. John also was sent from the Father. We come from God. We are even born of him. But as we’ve seen, Jesus came from the Father as a human.

Conclusion

Trinitarians, Arians, JWs, modalists, anyone who believes these passages are proof that Jesus came down from heaven “before his birth to incarnate into flesh” all have horribly mistaken views of these passages and are missing the rather obvious, and the spiritual. Looking at this as a literal “coming down from heaven, floating into the womb of Mary and being formed into human flesh” is missing the fact that the ascension of Jesus was, as a man, and spiritual. It was at his being born again experience. This shouldn’t be so surprising for us to understand. We are also meant to be born again and have the same Spirit in us. This shouldn’t confuse us as much as it has historically. The facts are in front of us if we have eyes to see it. I truly believe that so many people don’t have a concept of the Spirit coming to them, that they can’t understand a spiritual ascension. If you have read this very long post, I leave you with this. Read 2 Corinthians chapter 12 in full and think about how it applies to this topic very carefully. “I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell….”