Sign In Sign-Up

Welcome!

Close

Would you like to make this site your homepage? It's fast and easy...

Yes, Please make this my home page!

No Thanks

  Don't show this to me again.

Close

It is clear in these verses that God and "the Holy Spirit" are equated, and this has caused Trinitarians to claim that this proves their case that God and "the Holy Spirit" are the same. But these verses are clearly an example of Semitic parallelism, which is one of the most commonly employed literary devices in Scripture. "God" is equated with "the Holy Spirit." Obviously, the point is that Ananias did not lie to two different persons, but to one person, God, and the parallelism serves to emphasize that fact.

Trinitarians believe that "the Holy Spirit" is the third "person" in the three-person Trinity. Non-Trinitarians say that no "third person" exists. The original texts were all capital letters, so every use was "HOLY SPIRIT." There are times in the English versions when "spirit" is spelled with a capital "S" and times when it has a lower case "s." This is all the work of the translators, because all the early Greek manuscripts were in all capital letters. Thus, whether "HOLY SPIRIT" should be translated as "Holy Spirit" or "holy spirit" must be determined from the context (for more on capitalization and punctuation, see the notes on John 1:1).

To the non-Trinitarian, the holy spirit is either 1) another name for God the Father (in which case it is capitalized), 2) the power of God in operation, or 3) the gift of God’s nature (spirit) that is given to each believer. Peter spoke of this gift on the Day of Pentecost when he said, "you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). Because pneuma has several meanings the context of a passage of Scripture must always be studied carefully to determine the correct meaning.

God is known by many names and designations in the Bible. Elohim, El Shaddai, Yahweh, Adon, "the Holy One of Israel," "the Most High" and "the Father" are just a few. Since God is "holy" and God is "spirit," it should not surprise us that one of the names of God, the Father, is "the Holy Spirit." The distinguished scholar and author of Young’s Concordance, Robert Young, wrote: "Spirit—is used of God himself, or the Divine Mind, His energy, influence, gifts." When pneuma hagion, "holy spirit," is being used as another name for the Father, it should be capitalized, just as any name is capitalized.

When "holy spirit" refers to the spirit that God gives as a gift, it should not be capitalized. Biblically, "the Holy Spirit" is quite different from "the holy spirit." The record of the birth of Christ in Luke provides a good example of why it is important to recognize whether the "Holy Spirit" refers to the power of God or another name for God. "The angel answered, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God’ " (Luke 1:35). This verse and Matthew 1:18-20 make Jesus Christ the Son of the Holy Spirit, yet all the other references to Jesus make him the Son of the Father. Did Jesus have two fathers? Of course not. In the records of Christ’s birth, "the Holy Spirit" is another way of referring to God Himself, and not a third person in the Trinity. This eliminates the "problem" of which person in the Trinity actually fathered Jesus. So also in Acts 5:3, "Holy Spirit" is another name for God.

Romans 9:5 is one of the verses that can be translated different ways, and thus the context and scope of Scripture will help us determine the correct interpretation. Note from the examples below that translators and translating committees vary greatly in their handling of Romans 9:5:

• RSV: "to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed forever. Amen."
• Moffatt: "the patriarchs are theirs, and theirs too (so far as natural descent goes) is the Christ. (Blessed for evermore be the God who is over all! Amen.)"
• KJV: "Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."
• NAS: "whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen."
• NIV: "Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen."

Although the exact wording of the above translations differs, they fall into two basic categories: those that are worded to make Christ into God, and those that make the final phrase into a type of eulogy or doxology referring to God the Father (RSV and Moffatt).

There is good evidence from both the immediate and remote contexts that the last phrase of this verse is a eulogy or doxology to God the Father. "God over all" and "God blessed forever" are both used of God the Father elsewhere in the New Testament (Rom. 1:25; 2 Cor. 11:31; Eph. 1:3; 4:6; 1 Tim. 6:15). In contrast, neither phrase is ever used of Christ. It would be highly unusual to take eulogies that were commonly used of God and, abruptly and without comment or explanation, apply them to Christ.

Asking why the words are even in the text gives us a key to understanding them. Paul is writing about the way that God has especially blessed the Jews. The verses immediately before Romans 9:5 point out that God has given them the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the law, the worship, the promises, the patriarchs and even the human ancestry of Jesus Christ. How blessed they are! No wonder a eulogy to God is inserted: "God, who is over all, be blessed forever! Amen."

The entire context of Romans 9:5 is describing God’s blessings to the Jews, who have a heritage of being aggressively monotheistic. An insert about Christ being God seems most inappropriate. This is especially true when we understand that Paul is writing in a way designed to win the Jews. For example, he calls them "my brothers" (v. 3), and says he has sorrow and unceasing anguish in his heart for them (v. 2). Would he then put into this section a phrase that he knew would be offensive to the very Jews for whom he is sorrowing and whom he is trying to win? Certainly not. On the contrary, after just saying that Christ came from the line of the Patriarchs, something about which the Jews were suspicious, a eulogy to the Father would assure the Jews that there was no idolatry or false elevation of Christ intended, but that he was part of the great blessing of God.

It was "God" who made Jesus "Lord." Acts 2:36 says: "God has made this Jesus...both Lord and Christ." The fact that the Bible says "God" made Jesus "Lord" is in fact, a strong argument against the Trinity. It shows that "Jesus" is not "God" since it would require another to make him "Lord." This is confirmed by other Scriptures such as:

Thus it is "God" who made Jesus "Lord." These verses are strong arguments against the Trinity. They show that "God" is different from Jesus, whom He made "Lord."

Part of the confusion surrounding this issue is that in the Old Testament, many versions do not print the name Yahweh, but instead say "Lord." Although God never commanded it, it was the custom of the Jews, out of reverence for God, not to pronounce the name of God, so they wrote "Lord" when the Hebrew text said Yahweh. Many Christian Bibles do not have God’s name clearly translated, but have "Lord" where the Hebrew has Yahweh. This confuses many Christians who see "Lord" in both the Old and New Testaments, and assume it is the same person. Also, many Christians who have some training in the Scriptures have been taught that Yahweh in the Old Testament was Jesus Christ. So, instead of seeing Yahweh in Joel and "Lord" in Romans, and then realizing that the Lord Jesus is now doing what Yahweh did, they erroneously believe the same person is acting in both places.

God made Jesus Lord and gave him all authority. This verse and others show that Jesus has taken on many of the jobs God used to do. We understand that perfectly in our culture, because we know what it means to get a promotion and take over a job someone else used to do. With the promotion and new job often comes a new title. Thus, "this same Jesus" was made "Lord" and "Christ" and was given all authority, including raising the dead and judging the people (John 5:21-27). The verses in the Old Testament that speak of God’s authority are often quoted in the New Testament and applied to Christ because God gave the authority to Christ.

This verse, when properly understood, is actually strong evidence that Jesus Christ is not God. Polytheism was rampant in Corinth, and Scripture is clear that "there is no God but one" (1 Cor. 8:4). Then the text continues with the statements that although there may be many gods and lords, for Christians there is but one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. If the doctrine of the Trinity is correct, then this text can only be construed as confusing. Here was the perfect opportunity to say, "for us there is only one God made up of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit," or something similar, but, instead, Scripture tells us that only the Father is God.

The word "follow" means "to go after," and that can mean either in time or space. The Israelites did "drink," i.e., get nourishment, from knowing about the Christ who was to come after them. The very Trinitarian NIV translates the word "follow" as "accompany," as if Jesus were accompanying the Israelites on their journey. The Greek word usually translated "follow" is akoloutheo. It appears in the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament 90 times. Even in the NIV it is translated as some form of "follow" (like "follows," "following," etc.) 83 times. The NIV translates akoloutheo as "accompanied" only twice, here and in Mark 6:1, and I submit that the NIV does so here because of the translators’ Trinitarian bias and not because the context calls for it. Although it is true that akolutheo can be translated as "accompany," it should not be translated that way here, but would be better translated as "followed." The vast majority of translations agree. As I have said, there is no verse in the Old Testament that records Jesus Christ traveling with the Israelites, so the translation "accompanied" does not fit with the rest of Scripture. Christ was the hope of Israel, and people who looked forward to him were strengthened by their anticipation of their coming Messiah.

Since this verse mentions the Israelites in the desert, the desert wanderings become the "remoter context" against which one must check any interpretation. As we have already noted, there is no reference that can be brought forward to show that Christ was either with the Israelites or was somehow following them around. Are there verses that show that the Israelites were looking forward to the Messiah? Yes, many. The Messiah’s coming was the Israelites one great hope in the days of Jesus. The meaning of this verse is that the people looked forward to the coming of the Messiah and "drank," i.e., got strength and nourishment, from knowing that he was coming.

The subject of textual criticism is very involved, and it is common that scholars differ in their opinions as to which texts are more original and which texts have been altered. In this case, there are early texts that read "Lord," and some that read "Christ," so the job of determining the original reading from textual evidence becomes more difficult. Bart Ehrman (The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture) concluded that "Lord" is the original meaning.

Every translator will testify to the importance of context in determining the correct translation of Scripture. The context makes it clear that "Lord" is the correct reading. Although there are dozens of times that the Israelites were said to tempt "God" or "the Lord" in the Old Testament, there is not even a single reference to tempting Christ. By reading the verse carefully, we obtain a vital clue to its meaning and the proper translation. The verse says that when the Israelites tempted the Lord, they were "destroyed by serpents." This phrase allows us to find the exact record in the Old Testament that is being referred to. In Numbers 21:5, the Israelites "spoke against God" and then "the Lord sent venomous snakes among them." In the record of this event in the Old Testament, "God" and Yahweh are both mentioned, but "Christ" is never mentioned. Furthermore, there is no scripture anywhere in the Old Testament that says "Christ" poured out his "wrath," and certainly not by sending serpents. Thus, if some Greek texts read "the Lord" and others read "Christ," the context points to "Lord" as the correct interpretation.

It is significant, especially in light of Trinitarian doctrine, that the three mentioned in this verse are "spirit," "Lord" and "God" instead of "spirit," "Lord" and "Father." Three objects are distinctly mentioned—God, Christ and the Spirit. If Christ and the Spirit were persons in the Trinity, the distinct mention of them would be superfluous, they being included in "God." But as one of the objects mentioned is called "God," it follows that neither of the other two can be God; for "there is none other God but one." If the three objects were the three persons in the Trinity, why is the name "God" given to one of them only?

The mention of "God" as one of the three, precludes the other two from being "God." The language of the text is plain and simple. There are three distinct things being mentioned, and any attempt to force them together into "one" distorts the simple truth being communicated by the Bible.

The fact that in some versions the verse reads that "God was in Christ" is evidence against the Trinity. If the phrase "God was in Christ" means that Christ is God, then when the Bible says that Christ is "in" Christians (Col. 1:27), it would mean that Christians are Christ. Since Christ being "in" Christians does not make us Christ, God being "in" Christ does not make Christ God. The correct understanding of the verse is that God was in Christ in the sense that God placed His spirit in Christ, and Christ is in us in the same way—via the gift of holy spirit.

There is no presentation of the Trinity in this verse. Three different things are mentioned, but they are never said to be "one," or "of one substance," or "making up one God," or anything like what would be needed for a Trinitarian formula. There are many times that three things are mentioned together in the Bible, yet Trinitarians do not make them "one" just because they are mentioned together. For example, "Peter, James and John" are often mentioned together, but that fact does not make them "one." Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are often mentioned together also, and that fact does not make them "one." If three things are actually "one," there must be a clear verse that says so, and as even Trinitarians admit, there is no such verse that articulates that the Father, Jesus and the spirit equal "one God."

Although this verse is used by some to support the Trinity, a careful reading shows that it actually contradicts it. The three mentioned in the verse are "God," "Jesus Christ" and the "Holy Spirit" (which I believe should be accurately translated as "holy spirit"). Yet the Trinitarian position is that "God" is composed of the Father, Christ and the Spirit. So the fact that the verse mentions "God" separate from Christ and the holy spirit is strong evidence that they are indeed separate from "God" and that there is no Trinity.

This verse does not mean that we have fellowship with the "person," the Holy Spirit, who is part of the Trinity. It refers to the fellowship that Christians have with each other because of the presence of God’s gift, holy spirit, in each of us. The "fellowship of the spirit" is a phrase that is also used in Philippians 2:1, and the text note on this verse in the NIV Study Bible is fairly accurate. It says: "The fellowship among believers produced by the Spirit, who indwells each of them." "Spirit" should be replaced with "spirit," (because it refers to God’s gift) and translate "who" as "which" ("spirit" is neuter in the Greek text), but the point is made beautifully. The fellowship of the spirit is the fellowship Christians enjoy with other believers because of the presence of the spirit in each of us.

Again the context is the great key in discovering what a verse is saying. The context of the last phrase is plainly given in the words immediately before it: "the church, which is his body." Christ does indeed fill everything in every way for his Church, as other verses in the New Testament verify. We know, however, that Christ’s authority stretches even beyond his Church, for God gave "all authority" to him (Matt. 28:18). Thus, it is possible, although the context of this verse would not demand it, that it refers to the wide-ranging authority that God gave to Christ. This verse does not prove the Trinity, it simply confirms what other scriptures teach, i.e., that Christ is the Head of his Body, the Church, that God has set everything under his feet, that he is Lord and that he has been given all authority.

A lot has been written on the subject of accommodating Old Testament verses to New Testament circumstances, and we refer interested readers to any good theological library. One illustration of this is the title, "the First and the Last," (see the notes on Rev. 1:17). Another is the prophecy in Hosea 11:1. Hosea is speaking of Israel coming up out of Egypt, but in Matthew 2:15 God accommodates the meaning to Christ coming out of Egypt as a child. Another good example is Jeremiah 31:15. In that prophecy, "Rachel," the mother of Benjamin, was weeping because her children, the Israelites, were taken captive to Babylon. She was told not to weep because "they will return from the land of the enemy" (31:16). However, the verse about Rachel weeping was lifted from its Old Testament context and accommodated to the killing of the children in Bethlehem around the birth of Christ (Matt. 2:18).

Another example occurs in the accommodating of Psalm 69:25 to Judas. In Psalm 69, David is appealing to God to deliver him from his enemies. He cried to God, "Those who hate me without reason outnumber the hairs of my head" (v.4). He prayed, "Come near and rescue me, redeem me because of my foes" (v.18), and he continued, "May their place be deserted, let there be no one to dwell in their tents" (v.25). Peter saw by revelation that Psalm 69:25 could be accommodated to Judas, and spoke to the disciples around him: "It is written in the Book of Psalms, ‘May his place be deserted, let there be no one to dwell in it’" (Acts 1:20).

Since it is clear that prophecies in the Old Testament are brought into the New Testament and accommodated to the New Testament circumstances, it is easy to understand that some prophecies of God working in the Old Testament are pulled into the New Testament and applied to Christ. That is completely understandable because now Christ has "all authority" and has been made Head over the Church. He has been set above all principalities and powers, and given a name above every name. So, when God accommodates a prophecy or a scripture about Himself to Christ, it does not mean that Christ is God any more than Hosea 11:1 being accommodated to Christ means that Christ is actually the nation of Israel.

1. Using this verse, some Trinitarians try to make Christ into God by what is known as the "Granville Sharp Rule." The following explanation is lengthy, but it is necessary to show that this "rule" has been properly analyzed and shown to be invalid for proving the Trinity. Granville Sharp was an English philanthropist, who began to study the grammar of the New Testament in order to demonstrate that his Trinitarian beliefs were correct and that Christ was God. From his study of the New Testament, he declared that when the Greek word kai (usually translated "and") joins two nouns of the same case, and the first noun has the definite article and the second does not, the two nouns refer to the same subject. This is the principle behind the "rule," but there are a large number of exceptions to it that must be noted.

There are problems with the Granville Sharp "Rule." First, it is impossible to prove that it was a rule of grammar at the time of the apostle Paul. Nigel Turner, a Trinitarian, writes,

Unfortunately, at this period of Greek we cannot be sure that such a rule is really decisive. Sometimes the definite article is not repeated even when there is a clear separation in idea.

Buzzard writes about Titus 2:13, also supposedly an example of the Granville Sharp rule:

A wide range of grammarians and Biblical scholars have recognized that the absence of the definite article before "our Savior Jesus Christ" is quite inadequate to establish the Trinitarian claim that Jesus is here called ‘the great God’ " (p. 130).

The point is, that when Scripture refers to "our Great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," it can refer to two separate beings—1) the Great God and 2) the Savior, Jesus Christ. Andrews Norton wrote a clear evaluation of the Granville Sharp Rule as it applies to the Trinity in Statement of Reasons for Not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians. [For the ease of the reader, we have taken the liberty to translate into English some of the Greek words he uses.] Norton writes:

The argument for the deity of Christ founded upon the omission of the Greek article was received and brought into notice in the last century by Granville Sharp, Esq. He applied it to eight texts, which will be hereafter mentioned. The last words of Ephesians 5:5 may afford an example of the construction on which the argument is founded: "in the Kingdom of Christ and God." From the article being inserted before "Christ" and omitted before "God," Mr. Sharp infers that both names relate to the same person, and renders, "in the kingdom of Christ our God." The proper translation I suppose to be that of the Common Version [the King James], "in the kingdom of Christ and of God," or, "in the kingdom of the Messiah and of God."

The argument of Sharp is defended by Bishop Middleton in his Doctrine of the Greek Article. By attending to the rule laid down by him, with its limitations and exceptions, we shall be able to judge of its applicability to the passages in question. His rule is this:

Norton makes some great points and shows the irrelevance of the Granville Sharp Rule in "proving" the Trinity. Because no ambiguity between Christ and God would arise in the minds of the readers due to the omission of the article, it can be omitted without a problem. Likewise, there was no need for a second article in Matthew 21:12 in the phrase, "all the [ones] selling and buying," or in Ephesians 2:20 in the phrase, "the apostles and prophets," because no one would ever think that "sold" and "bought" meant the same thing, or that "apostles" and "prophets" were somehow the same office. This same is true all over the Bible. There is no need for a second article if no confusion would arise without it. The "rule" therefore begs the question. It can be made to apply only if it can be shown that an ambiguity would have arisen in the minds of the first century readers between Christ and God. Because the whole of Scripture clearly shows the difference between Christ and God, and that difference would have been in the minds of the believers, the Granville Sharp "Rule" is not a valid reason to make Christ God.

2. Ephesians 5:5 mentions the kingdom of Christ and of God. There is a time coming in the future when the earth as we know it now, with all its wickedness, disease and death, will be destroyed and it will be made into a place of justice, peace and happiness. Christ taught about this future earth when he said, "The meek will inherit the earth" (Matt. 5:5). The future Kingdom that will be set up on earth has many names in Scripture. It is called the "Kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 4:17, etc.) and the "Kingdom of God" (Mark. 1:15, etc.). In what is known as "the Lord’s Prayer," Jesus called it "your [i.e., the Father’s] kingdom" (Matt. 6:10). Jesus again called it the Father’s kingdom in Matthew 13:43. As well as calling it his Father’s kingdom, Jesus called it his own kingdom in Luke 22:30, and it is called "the kingdom of His dear Son" in Col. 1:13 (KJV). The reason both God and Christ are named as having the kingdom is apparent. In the Millennial Kingdom, Christ will rule with God’s authority, and in the final kingdom there will be two rulers (Rev. 21:22—22:1). From the above evidence, it is quite fitting and proper to call the future kingdom "the kingdom of Christ and of God." Since it is so well attested that the kingdom will be the kingdom of God, a phrase well known in Scripture, there is no reason to remove "God" from Eph. 5:5 by grammatical juggling (the Granville Sharp Rule would make the word "God" a double reference to Christ and remove the Father from the verse), and every reason to see that He should be in the verse along with Jesus Christ.

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. (KJV)

These verses in Philippians are very important to Trinitarian doctrine and they must be examined thoroughly. Amazingly, when done so, keeping the rules of objectivity laid down under Objectively arriving at "What the Bible says", they most clearly show that Paul did not consider Jesus was God; in fact he considered Jesus to be a person separate from "God." Not just separate from "the Father" (which Trinitarians don’t dispute), but separate from "God."

The Greek for verse 6 reads:

HOS EN MORFEE THEOU HUPARCHOON OUCH HARPAGMON HEEGEESATO TO EINAI ISA THEOO

Translated literally and in all capitals, this would read:

We note that there is no definitive article before the first "theou," so it can be translated both as "THE GOD" and "A GOD." However, as we have noted under John 1:1, that argument is not conclusive. In fact in this verse itself, there is no definitive article before the second "theoo" too, although that clearly refers to God.

So what is it? "A god" or "the God." Let’s keep our theological biases aside and start by looking at the context. Firstly, we note that verse 9 says that it was "God" who exalted him to the highest place (not "the Father" exalted him, but "God" exalted him). That itself makes Jesus different from "God". Not just separate from "the Father" (which Trinitarians don’t dispute), but separate from "God." Similarly, verse 11 distinguishes Jesus and God.

Now for Jesus to be an example of humility, he had to be a person who was not God. If he were God and he "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped" then it does not become an example of humility. Nobody tries to grasp at equality with oneself, or one’s own nature, or one’s own position, or one’s own status. Let’s understand this in detail.

Firstly, no-one tries to grasp at equality with oneself - I never try to "grasp at equality with Awdhoot Khandekar" because I am always "equal to Awdhoot Khandekar", I am always "at equality with Awdhoot Khandekar." Secondly, no-one tries to grasp at equality with one’s own nature - I never try to "grasp at equality with a human being" because I am always "equal to a human being", I am always "at equality with a human being," since I am a human being. A monkey may try to "grasp at equality with a human being" since he is not a human being. If he tries to do so, it can be given as an example of either pride or self-deception. If he does not do so, he can be given as an example of humility. Because he is not a human being. But if he does not try to "grasp at equality with a monkey" it is an example of nothing, neither pride nor humility. Thirdly, no-one tries to grasp at equality with one’s own position – the CEO of a company never tries to "grasp at equality with the position of the CEO of the company" because he is "equal to the CEO of the company", he is "at equality with the CEO of the company," since he is the CEO of the company. A peon in the company may try to "grasp at equality with the CEO of the company" since he is not the CEO of the company. If he tries to do so, it can be given as an example of either pride or self-deception. If he does not do so, he can be given as an example of humility. Because he is not the CEO of the company. But if he does not try to "grasp at equality with a peon" it is an example of nothing, neither pride nor humility. Fourthly, no-one tries to grasp at equality with one’s own status, or level in society or before God. I am a middle-class person, living in a middle class locality. I never try to "grasp at equality with a middle-class person, living in a middle class locality" because I am "at equality with a middle-class person, living in a middle class locality," since I am one. A slum-dweller may try to "grasp at equality with a middle-class person," since he is not a middle-class person. If he tries to do so, it can be given as an example of either pride or self-deception. If he does not do so, he can be given as an example of humility. Because he is not a middle-class person. But if he does not try to "grasp at equality with a slum-dweller" it is an example of nothing, neither pride nor humility. Or I may try to "grasp at equality with a super-rich person," since I am not a super-rich person. If I try to do so, I can be given as an example of either pride or self-deception. If I do not do so, I can be given as an example of humility. But if I do not try to "grasp at equality with a middle-class person" it is an example of nothing, neither pride nor humility.

So the second reason is that since Paul is upholding Jesus as an example of humility by the fact that "he did not grasp at equality with God," and since Jesus had to be "not God" for him to be an example of humility, the passage shows that Paul believed that Jesus was not God.

The third reason for believing that this verse is saying that Jesus was not God, is the use of the word "morphe" in this passage, and the big debate between Unitarians and Trinitarians about its meaning and translation – "outer form" or "inner nature" respectively. With the 2x2 combinations, there are four possibilities to translate verse 2:6a –

1. …who being in very nature God (NIV)
2. …who being in very nature a god
3. …who being in the form of God (KJV)
4. …who being in the form of a god

We can dismiss the third translation straightaway since Jesus definitely did not have the outer form of God! Even Trinitarians don’t assert that his outer form was that of God, that as verse 8 says, his appearance was that of man. Trinitarians contention is that his nature was that of God. And so the NIV translates it as "…who being in very nature God." Unitarians assert that this does violence to the text since "morphe" always refers to outer form, to external appearance. To which Trinitarians reply that there are some places where "morphe" is used with the meaning of "inner nature." The discussion can get very technical and I am personally not inclined to get into technical discussions beyond a point, the reason being that using technicalities, one can really "prove" anything one wants to. And beyond a point it generally boils down to trying to prove what one has decided to believe anyway rather than trying to find out the truth. I rather prefer to see how well a translation fits into its context – its immediate context, the context of the book it is found in, and the context of the entire Bible. Now amongst the four possibilities, we have already ruled out the third one since it is nobody’s case that Jesus’ outer form (or appearance) was that of God. We have to rule out the first one because as we have seen from the above discussion, Jesus’ inner nature cannot be that of God since that would render his "not grasping at equality with God" a meaningless and nonsensical phrase. He had to be something different from "God" for him "to grasp at equality with God." That can be "man" or "a god." So that leaves us with possibilities ii and iv. Both are possible and I am comfortable with both. The fourth is possible because Jesus outer form was definitely the appearance of a god (=a powerful person). Not only his miracles and his powers over nature cause people to be terrified and ask each other, "Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!" (Mark 4:41), but also the very way he taught amazed the crowds enough for them to note that he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law (Mat 7:28). The second possibility is also probable because the Bible elsewhere presents Jesus as "a god" who existed before the creation of this universe (see discussion on John 1:1). So for me, how you translate "morphe" in Php. 2:6 is irrelevant; its how you translate "theou" is what is relevant. You can take your pick as to how you want to translate "morphe." It makes no difference. The "theou" has to be translated "a god" because that fits in much better in the context.

These then are the reasons for my believing that this beautiful passage clearly shows that Paul did not consider Jesus was God; in fact he considered Jesus to be a person separate from "God." Not just separate from "the Father" (which Trinitarians don’t dispute), but separate from "God." There is plenty of material on this passage freely available, and I am presenting the following discussion as it is, without comment, prejudice, judgment, or endorsement. It is taken from another source, and since it is beyond my capability, I cannot comment on it. Interested people can go through it, and if they have any comments, can let me know.

1. Many Trinitarians assert that the word "form," which is the Greek word morphe, refers to Christ’s inner nature as God. This is so strongly asserted that in verse 6 the NIV has, "being in very nature God." We do not believe that morphe refers to an "inner essential nature," and we will give evidence that it refers to an outer form. Different lexicons have opposing viewpoints about the definition of morphe, to such a degree that we can think of no other word defined by the lexicons in such contradictory ways. We will give definitions from lexicons that take both positions, to show the differences between them.

Vine’s Lexicon has under "form": "properly the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual…it does not include in itself anything ‘accidental’ or separable, such as particular modes of manifestation." Using lexicons like Vine’s, Trinitarians boldly make the case that the "nature" underlying Jesus’ human body was God. Trinitarian scholars like Vine contrast morphe, which they assert refers to an "inner, essential nature," with schema, (in verse 8, and translated "appearance" above) which they assert refers to the outward appearance. We admit that there are many Trinitarian scholars who have written lexical entries or articles on the Greek word morphe and concluded that Christ must be God. A Trinitarian wanting to prove his point can quote from a number of them. However, we assert that these definitions are biased and erroneous. In addition, we could not find any non-Trinitarian scholars who agreed with the conclusion of the Trinitarian scholars, while many Trinitarian sources agree that morphe refers to the outward appearance and not an inner nature.

A study of other lexicons (many of them Trinitarian) gives a totally different picture than does Vine’s Lexicon. In Bullinger’s Critical Lexicon, morphe is given a one-word definition, "form." The scholarly lexicon by Walter Bauer, translated and revised by Arndt and Gingrich, has under morphe, "form, outward appearance, shape." The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel, has "form, external appearance." Kittel also notes that morphe and schema are often interchangeable. Robert Thayer, in his well-respected lexicon, has under morphe, "the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance." Thayer says that the Greeks said that children reflect the appearance (morphe) of their parents, something easily noticed in every culture. Thayer also notes that some scholars try to make morphe refer to that which is intrinsic and essential, in contrast to that which is outward and accidental, but says, "the distinction is rejected by many."

The above evidence shows that scholars disagree about the use of the word morphe in Philippians. When scholars disagree, and especially when it is believed that the reason for the disagreement is due to bias over a doctrinal issue, it is absolutely essential to do as much original research as possible. The real definition of morphe should become apparent as we check the sources available at the time of the New Testament. After all, the word was a common one in the Greek world. We assert that a study of the actual evidence clearly reveals that morphe does not refer to Christ’s inner essential being, but rather to an outward appearance.

From secular writings we learn that the Greeks used morphe to describe when the gods changed their appearance. Kittel points out that in pagan mythology, the gods change their forms (morphe), and especially notes Aphrodite, Demeter and Dionysus as three who did. This is clearly a change of appearance, not nature. Josephus, a contemporary of the Apostles, used morphe to describe the shape of statues (Bauer’s Lexicon).

Other uses of morphe in the Bible support the position that morphe refers to outward appearance. The Gospel of Mark has a short reference to the well-known story in Luke 24:13-33 about Jesus appearing to the two men on the road to Emmaus. Mark tells us that Jesus appeared "in a different form (morphe)" to these two men so that they did not recognize him (16:12). This is very clear. Jesus did not have a different "essential nature" when he appeared to the two disciples. He simply had a different outward appearance.

More evidence for the word morphe referring to the outward appearance can be gleaned from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament from about 250 BC. It was written because of the large number of Greek-speaking Jews in Israel and the surrounding countries (a result of Alexander the Great’s conquest of Egypt in 332 BC and his gaining control over the territory of Israel). By around 250 BC, so many Jews spoke Greek that a Greek translation of the Old Testament was made, which today is called the Septuagint. The Septuagint greatly influenced the Jews during the New Testament times. Some of the quotations from the Old Testament that appear in the New Testament are actually from the Septuagint, not the Hebrew text. Furthermore, there were many Greek-speaking Jews in the first-century Church. In fact, the first recorded congregational conflict occurred when Hebrew-speaking Jews showed prejudice against the Greek-speaking Jews (Acts 6:1).

The Jews translating the Septuagint used morphe several times, and it always referred to the outward appearance. Job says, "A spirit glided past my face, and the hair on my body stood on end. It stopped, but I could not tell what it was. A form (morphe) stood before my eyes, and I heard a hushed voice (Job 4:15 and 16). There is no question here that morphe refers to the outward appearance. Isaiah has the word morphe in reference to man-made idols: "The carpenter measures with a line and makes an outline with a marker; he roughs it out with chisels and marks it with compasses. He shapes it in the form (morphe) of man, of man in all his glory, that it may dwell in a shrine" (Isa. 44:13). It would be absurd to assert that morphe referred to "the essential nature" in this verse, as if a wooden carving could have the "essential nature" of man. The verse is clear: the idol has the "outward appearance" of a man. According to Daniel 3:19, after Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego refused to bow down to Nebuchadnezzar’s image, he became enraged and "the form (morphe) of his countenance" changed. The NASB says, "his facial expression" changed. Nothing in his nature changed, but the people watching could see that his outward appearance changed.

For still more documentation that the Jews used morphe to refer to the outward appearance, we turn to what is known as the "Apocrypha," books written between the time of Malachi and Matthew. "Apocrypha" literally means "obscure" or "hidden away," and these books are rightly not accepted by most Protestants as being part of the true canon, but are accepted by Roman Catholics and printed in Catholic Bibles. Our interest in them is due to the fact that they were written near the time of the writing of the New Testament, were known to the Jews at that time and contain the word morphe. In the Apocrypha, morphe is used in the same way that the Septuagint translators use it, i.e., as outward appearance. For example, in "The Wisdom of Solomon" is the following: "Their enemies heard their voices, but did not see their forms" (18:1). A study of morphe in the Apocrypha will show that it always referred to the outer form.

There is still more evidence. Morphe is the root word of some other New Testament words and is also used in compound words. These add further support to the idea that morphe refers to an appearance or outward manifestation. The Bible speaks of evil men who have a "form" (morphosis) of godliness (2 Tim. 3:5). Their inner nature was evil, but they had an outward appearance of being godly. On the Mount of Transfiguration, Christ was "transformed" (metamorphoomai) before the apostles (Matt. 17:2; Mark 9:2). They did not see Christ get a new nature, rather they saw his outward form profoundly change. Similarly, we Christians are to be "transformed" (metamorphoomai) by renewing our minds to Scripture. We do not get a new nature as we renew our minds, because we are already "partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4), but there will be a change in us that we, and others, can tangibly experience. Christians who transform from carnal Christians, with all the visible activities of the flesh that lifestyle entails, to being Christ-like Christians, change in such a way that other people can "see" the difference. 2 Corinthians 3:18 says the same thing when it says that Christians will be "changed" (metamorphoomai) into the image of Christ. That we will be changed into an "image" shows us that the change is something visible on the outside.

We would like to make one more point before we draw a conclusion about "morphe." If the point of the verse is to say that Jesus is God, then why not just say it? Of course God has the "essential nature" of God, so why would anyone make that point? This verse does not say, "Jesus, being God," but rather, "being in the form of God." Paul is reminding the Philippians that Jesus represented the Father in every possible way.

So what can we conclude about morphe? The Philippian church consisted of Jews and converted Greeks. From the Septuagint and their other writings, the Jews were familiar with morphe referring to the outward appearance, including the form of men and idols. To the Greeks, it also referred to the outward appearance, including the changing outward appearance of their gods and the form of statues. The only other New Testament use of morphe outside Philippians is in Mark, and there it refers to the outward appearance. Also, the words related to morphe clearly refer to an outward manifestation or appearance. We assert the actual evidence is clear: the word morphe refers to an outward appearance or manifestation. Jesus Christ was in the outward appearance of God, so much that so he said, "He who has seen me has seen the Father." Christ always did the Father’s will, and perfectly represented his Father in every way.

Schema, as Kittel points out, can be synonymous with morphe, but it has more of an emphasis on outward trappings rather than outward appearance, and often points to that which is more transitory in nature, like the clothing we wear or an appearance we have for just a short time. As human beings, we always have the outward form (morphe) of human beings. Yet there is a sense in which our schema, our appearance, is always changing. We start as babies, and grow and develop, then we mature and age. This is so much the case that a person’s outward appearance is one of the most common topics of conversation between people when they meet.

Like the rest of us, Christ was fully human and had the outward form (morphe), of a human. However, because he always did the Father’s will and demonstrated godly behavior and obedience, he therefore had the outward "appearance" (morphe) of God also. Also, like the rest of us, his appearance (schema) regularly changed. Thus, in Philippians, 2:8 schema can be synonymous with morphe, or it can place an emphasis on the fact that the appearance Christ had as a human being was transitory in nature. The wording of Philippians 2:6-8 does not present us with a God-man, with whom none of us can identify. Rather, it presents us with a man just like we are, who grew and aged, yet who was so focused on God in every thought and deed that he perfectly represented the Father.

2. After saying that Christ was in the form of God, Philippians 2:6 goes on to say that Christ "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped" (NIV). This phrase is a powerful argument against the Trinity. If Jesus were God, then it would make no sense at all to say that he did not "grasp" at equality with God because no one grasps at equality with himself. It only makes sense to compliment someone for not seeking equality when he is not equal. Some Trinitarians say, "Well, he was not grasping for equality with the Father." That is not what the verse says. It says Christ did not grasp at equality with God, which makes the verse nonsense if he were God.

3. The opening of verse 7 contains a phrase that has caused serious division among Trinitarians. It says, "But made himself of no reputation" (KJV), "but made himself nothing" (NIV), "but emptied himself" (NASB, RSV, NRSV, New American Bible). The Greek word that is in question is kenos, which literally means, "to empty." For more than a thousand years, from the church councils in the fourth century until the nineteenth century, the orthodox position of the Church was that Christ was fully God and fully man at the same time in one body. This doctrine is known as the "dual nature of Christ," and has to be supported with non-biblical words like communicatio idiomatum, literally, "the communication of the idiom." This refers to the way that the "God" nature of Christ is united to the "man" nature of Christ in such a way that the actions and conditions of the man can be God and the actions and conditions of God can be man. Dr. Justo Gonzalez, an authority on the history of the Christian Church, notes, "The divine and human natures exist in a single being, although how that can be is the greatest mystery of the faith." Biblical truth is not an "incomprehensible mystery." In fact, God longs for us to know Him and His truth.

In Germany in the mid-1800’s, a Lutheran theologian named Gottfried Thomasius began what has now developed into "Kenotic Theology." This thinking arose out of some very real concerns that some Trinitarians had about dual nature theology. First, dual nature theology did not allow Christ’s full humanity to be expressed. Second, it seemed to turn Christ into an aberration: very God and very man at the same time. Third, "if Jesus were both omniscient God and limited man, then he had two centers, and thus was fundamentally not one of us". Kenotic Theology (which has since splintered into a number of variants) provided a "solution" to these problems. Since Philippians 2:7 says Christ "emptied himself," what he must have "emptied" was his God-nature, i.e., sometime before his incarnation, Christ agreed to "self-limitation" and came down to earth as a man only.

Trinitarian theologians have vehemently disagreed among themselves about Kenotic Theology, and some orthodox theologians have even called its adherents "heretics." The central criticisms of Kenotic Theology are: First, being only a little more than a hundred years old, it is simply not the historic position of the Church. Second, orthodox theologians say that it is not biblical, and that Philippians 2:7 does not mean what kenotic theologians say it means. And third, Kenotic Theology forces God to change—God becomes a man—which causes two problems for orthodox Trinitarians: God cannot change, and God is not a man.

We agree with the Kenotic theologians who say that dual nature theology does not allow Christ’s humanity to be expressed, and that it creates a "being" who is really an aberration and "fundamentally not one of us." However, we also agree with the orthodox Trinitarians who take the biblical stance that God is not a man, and that God cannot change. We assert that it is Trinitarian doctrine that has caused these problems, and that there simply is no solution to them as long as one holds a Trinitarian position. We assert that the real solution is to realize that there is only one True God, the Father, and that Jesus Christ is the "man accredited by God" who has now been made "both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:22 and 36). Then Christ is fully man and is "one of us," and God is God and has never changed or been a man.

4. While Trinitarians have argued among themselves about the meaning of Philippians 2:6-8, an unfortunate thing has occurred—the loss of the actual meaning of the verse. The verse is not speaking either of Christ’s giving up his "Godhood" at his incarnation or of his God-nature being willing to "hide" so that his man-nature can show itself clearly. Rather, it is saying something else. Scripture says Christ was the "image of God" (2 Cor. 4:4), and Jesus himself testified that if one had seen him, he had seen the Father. Saying that Christ was in the "form" (outward appearance) of God is simply stating that truth in another way. Unlike Adam, who grasped at being like God (Gen. 3:5), Christ, the Last Adam, "emptied himself" of all his reputation and the things due him as the true child of the King. He lived in the same fashion as other men. He humbled himself to the Word and will of God. He lived by "It is written" and the commands of his Father. He did not "toot his own horn," but instead called himself "the son of man," which, in the Aramaic language he spoke, meant "a man." He trusted God and became obedient, even to a horrible and shameful death on a cross.

The Philippian Church was doing well and was supportive of Paul, but they had problems as well. There was "selfish ambition" (1:15; 2:3) and "vain conceit" (2:3), arguing and lack of consideration for others (2:4 and 14) and a need for humility, purity and blamelessness (2:3 and 15). So, Paul wrote an exhortation to the believers that, "Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus" (2:5). He then went on to show how Christ did not grasp at equality with God, but was completely humble, and as a result God "highly exalted him." The example of Jesus Christ is a powerful one. We do not need to make sure people notice us or know who we are. We should simply serve in obedience and humility, assured that God will one day reward us for our deeds.

There are Trinitarian theologians who assert that the word eikon (from which we get the English word "icon," meaning "image," or "representation") means "manifestation" here in Colossians, and that Christ is the manifestation of God. However, the word eikon occurs 23 times in the New Testament, and it is clearly used as "image" in the common sense of the word. It is used of the image of Caesar on a coin, of idols that are manmade images of gods, of Old Testament things that were only an image of the reality we have today and of the "image" of the beast that occurs in Revelation. 2 Corinthians 3:18 says that Christians are changed into the "image" of the Lord as we reflect his glory. All these verses use "image" in the common sense of the word, i.e., a representation separate from the original. 1 Corinthians 11:7 says, "A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God." Just as Christ is called the image of God, so men are called the image of God. We are not as exact an image as Christ is because we are marred by sin, but nevertheless the Bible does call us the "image" of God. Thus, the wording about being the image of God is the same for us as it is for Christ. The words in the Bible must be read and understood in their common or ordinary meaning unless good reason can be given to alter that meaning. In this case, the common meaning of "image" is "likeness" or "resemblance," and it is used that way every time in the New Testament. Surely if the word "image" took on a new meaning for those times it referred to Christ, the Bible would let us know that. Since it does not, the use of "image" is the same whether it refers to an image on a coin, an image of a god, or for both Christ and Christians as the image of God.

The second thing the passage says about Christ is that he is "the firstborn over all creation." Should it be "over" or "of?" There is no help from the Greek since it just reads "prototokos pasees kseoos" which literally is "firtsborn all creation" The KJV had translated it as "the firstborn of every creature" but the corrseponding verse shows the NIV translation is better because it fits in better. Verse 16 assigns the reason for verse 15b that, "for by him all things were created… all things were created by him and for him." So the passage is not talking of the fact that God created Jesus first (mentioned at other places in the Bible), but the fact that it was Jesus who created the rest of the creation and which is why he has supremacy over all creation.

The phrase in verse 17 that "he is before all things" only proves that Jesus existed before everything else, not that he was co-existent with God at all times (see notes on John 1:1).

It is difficult to make "Christ" into a "mystery" in the biblical sense of the word. In Greek, the word "musterion" does not mean "mystery" in the sense of something that cannot be understood or comprehended by the mind of man. It just means a "secret," something that was hidden but is then made known. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words under "mystery," has this to say about musterion: "…not the mysterious, but that which…is made known in a manner and at a time appointed by God." This is actually very clear in Colossians 1:26 and 27, which speak of the "mystery" that has now been "made known" to the believers.

Thus, a biblical "mystery" can be understood, in contrast to the Trinitarian "mystery," which is beyond comprehension. In the Bible, once a "secret" is revealed, it can be understood. But the "Trinity" and the "two natures" cannot be understood at all. Trinitarian theology speaks of the "mystery" of Christ in the sense that his incarnation and dual nature are impossible for us to understand. The Greek text, however, is implying no such thing.

The difficulty in translating the verse, "the secret of God, namely Christ," can be plainly seen. Although some of what Christ accomplished for us can be called a secret, and some of the things he went through were certainly hidden from the Jews, the Man Jesus Christ is the great subject of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. It is much more accurate to translate Colossians 2:2 as, "the secret of the Christ of God." There is a "secret" in the New Testament that is clearly set forth in the Epistles. The word "musterion," i.e., "secret," is used to refer to the "administration of the God’s grace" in which we are living now. Ephesians 3:2 and 3 reads, "Surely you have heard about the administration of God’s grace that was given to me for you, that is, the secret [musterion] made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly." Thus, when Colossians refers to "the secret of the Christ of God," it is referring to the Grace Administration, which was a secret hidden before the foundation of the world, but revealed to Christians today (see Eph. 3:2-9; Col. 1:27 and Gal. 1:11-12, and keep in mind that the word translated in many versions as "mystery" should be "secret").

Trinitarians are very open about the fact that the doctrine of the Trinity is a "mystery" in the sense of being beyond human comprehension. But with the correct biblical definition of "mystery" as "secret," i.e., "something that anyone can understand once it has been revealed or unveiled," one can ask, "Where does the idea that the Trinity is mysterious and beyond comprehension come from?" That concept is found nowhere in Scripture. There is not a single verse from Genesis to Revelation that a Trinitarian can produce to show that one God exists in three persons and that this is a mystery beyond human comprehension. Yet they continue to say things like, "You can’t understand it because it is a mystery." The Trinity is a "mystery beyond comprehension" in that it is an invention of man and not actually in the Bible at all.

The word "fullness" demonstrates that the verse is speaking of something that one could also have just a part of. It makes no sense to talk about the "fullness" of something that is indivisible. God is indivisible. We never read about "the fullness of God the Father" because, by definition, God is always full of His own nature. Therefore, the verse is not talking about Christ being God, but about God in some way providing Christ with "fullness." What this verse is saying is made clear earlier in Colossians: "God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him" (Col. 1:19). That is true. John 3:34 adds clarification: "For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the spirit without limit."

The fact that Christ has "all the fullness" of God does not make him God. Ephesians 3:19 says that Christians should be filled with "all the fullness of God," and no one believes that would make each Christian God.

If Christ were God, it would make no sense to say that the fullness of God dwelt in him, because, being God, he would always have the fullness of God. The fact that Christ could have the fullness of God dwell in him actually shows that he was not God. 2 Peter 1:4 says that by way of God’s great and precious promises we "may participate in the divine nature." Having a "divine nature" does not make us God, and it did not make Christ God. "We are indwelt by God through His holy spirit". Likewise Christ, who was filled with holy spirit without limits, had the fullness of "Deity" dwelling in him.