John Carroll’s Blog

John 6:57a KJV

57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father:

 

“As the Father is the fount of life to Christ, so Christ is the fount of life to us.” Robertson’s Word Pictures

 

“Christ means that although he is man, yet his flesh can give life, not by its own nature, but because his flesh lives by the Father, that is to say, sucks and draws out of the Father that power which it has to give life.”  Geneva Notes

 

“The Father is the source of life and so “I live because of the Father” (kagō zō dia ton patera).” Robertson’s Word Pictures

 

It is indisputable that this verse teaches that Jesus lived (derived life source) by the Father.  The LIVING Father was the life source of the Son.

 

Jesus so lived by the Father that the only reason that he came to do his will.  For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me (John 6:38 KJV).

 

John 5:16-21, 30 KJV

16 And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.

17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

 

Here the Jews are angry at Jesus because healed on the Sabbath and Jesus defends his actions by say that he was not working ALONE, but “my father worketh…, and I work” (See John 14:10).[1]  Jesus defended his actions by affirming and inseparable union with the Father (See also John 10:30).[2]  Jesus makes even a stronger argument in verse 19.

 

18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

 

They accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath and blasphemy.  Also John 10:30-33 [3] provides a great parallel to this passage.

 

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

 

Jesus response to the Jews was, if you say that I have broken the Sabbath, “the Son CAN DO NOTHING OF HIMSELF, but what the seeth the Father do: for what things soever the he doeth, these ALSO DOETH THE SON LIKEWISE”.  Here Jesus affirms that not only does he do nothing apart from the Father, But that he CAN DO NOTHING apart from the Father.  Jesus argues that if you say that I have broken the Sabbath then the Father must have, because I only do what I see the Father do.

 

20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

 

The Father quickeneth, even so the Son quickeneth.

 

30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

 

Here Jesus only judges what he hears from the Father.

 

Jesus could not act or live apart from the Father.  Apart from the father he can do nothing, no works, hear or speak anything, because he lived by the Father. 

 

FINE FLOUR MINGLED WITH OIL

 

A beautiful picture of the inseparable union of the Father and Son is found in the metaphor that Jesus uses often in the New Testament that he is the Bread.  Numbers 6:14-16[4] speaks of fine flour mingled with oil.  This is a picture of his body.  The oil often in scripture symbolized Spirit. The flour represents humanity.  The incarnation is fine flour/humanity mingled with oil/deity.  When the fine flour mingled with oil was baked together you could not separate the flour from the oil.  They were, to borrow the words of Elder Steve Epely, “fused but not confused”.  You can distinguish the flour and oil but you cannot separate them.  You could recognize the oil and you could recognize the flour, but they were fused into one bread.

GENISIS: The Purpose of Creation.

EXEDOUS: The People Called Out of Egypt

LEVITICUS: The Royal Priesthood

NUMBERS: The Church in a Wilderness Destined for the Promised Land

DEUTERONOMY: The Lot of God’s Inheritance

JOSHUA: Possessors of the Promise

JUDGES: The Delivered From the Enemy

RUTH: We are the Redeemed

1 & 2 SAMUEL: A Mother Desperate for Sons

1 & 2 KINGS: So Great a People

1 & 2 CHRONICLES: His People Called by His Name

EZRA: United to Build God’s House

NEHEMIAH: A City Revived

EASTER: The Bride with Access to the Throne

JOB: The Patient Man

PSALMS: The Blessed Man

PROVERBS: A Wise Man

ECCLESIASTES: The Learned Man

SONG OF SOLOMON: The King’s Espoused

            1: The One Whom His Soul Loveth

            2: His Fair One

            3: Seeker of our soul’s lover

            4: Spouse

            5: His Dove

            6: Fairest Among Women

            7: Beloved

            8: One that found favor in his eyes

ISAIAH: Sought out, a city not forsaken

JEREMIAH: His People

LAMENTATION: Precious Sons of Zion

EZEKIEL: Bones Revived from the Graveyard

DANIEL: The People Who Do Know Their God

HOSEA: Healed Backslider

JOEL: Children of Zion

OMOS: Tabernacle of David Raised Up and Called by his Name

OBADIAH: Fire and Flame Conquering our Enemies

JONAH: Gentiles to Whom God Showed Mercy

MICAH: The Remnant of Israel

NAHUM: Consoled and Avenged by God

HABAKKUK: God’s Embraced

ZEPHANIAH: Daughter of Jerusalem

HAGGAI: The Latter House

ZECHARIAH: Apple of His Eye

MALACHI:  His Jewels

MATTHEW: Pearl of Great Price

MARK: Good Ground for the Sowers Seed

LUKE: We are they who dug deep and built upon a rock

JOHN: Sheep of his Fold

ACTS: Church of God who he hath purchased with his own blood

ROMANS: The Justified

1 & 2 CORINTHIANS: The Sanctified

GALATIANS: The Redeemed from the Curse of the Law and the True Israel of God

EPHESIANS: The Body of Christ, the fullness of him that filleth all and all

PHILIPPIANS: Lights in a crocked and perverse nation

COLOSIANS: Faithful Brethren in Christ

1 & 2 THESSALONIANS: The Caught Up

1 & 2 TIMOTHY: Church of the Living God Pillar and Ground of Truth

TITUS: God’s Elect

PHILEMON: Prisoners of the Lord Jesus Christ

HEBREWS: General Assembly and Church of the Firstborn

JAMES: Precious Fruit of the Earth                           

1 & 2 PETER: Chosen Generation and Peculiar People.

 1, 2, & 3 JOHN: Beloved and His little children

JUDE: Church that prays in the Holy Ghost

REVELATION: Chapter by Chapter

 

            1-3: Seven Golden Candle Sticks

            4: Worshipers of the One on the Throne

            5: Kings and Priest unto our God

            6: Slain for the Word of God Dressed in White Robes

7: We are the Sealed Who Came out of Great Tribulation with Our Robes Washed in the Blood of the Lamb.

8: The Saints who’s Prayers are offered with Incense

9: Planting of the Lord

            10: Mystery of God

            11: The Saints that Fear His Name

12:  The Brethren that Overcome the Accuser by the Blood of the Lamb and the Word of our Testimony.

13: The Saints

14: Redeemed From the Earth, Virgins Not Defiled by Women

15: Them that have gotten the victory of the beast, his image, the number of his name and that sing the song of Moses and the Lamb

16: Them that watch and Keep our Garments

17: Called, Chosen and Faithfull

18: We are they who came out of Babylon

19: They which are called unto the Marriage Supper of the Lamb

20: They which have part in the first resurrection

21: The Holy City, New Jerusalem prepared as a Bride adorned for her husband

22: We are the servants which have his name in our foreheads and that shall see his face.

In the first piece that I wrote on this topic I mainly attempted to prove that one who is born again can sin.  In this piece I will explain the primary verse used promote this erroneous doctrine of impeccability.

Cannot Sin

“Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.” 1 John 3:9 KJV

 

This is the primary verse that is used to forward the doctrine that a person born of God cannot sin.  We want to take a very concise look this verse and show that it does not teach the impeccability of those born again.

“No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.” 1 John 3:9 ESV

 

The ESV is very enlightening on this verse.  The one born of God cannot make a practice out of sin.  It does not mean that the one born of God cannot commit a single act of disobedience against God.  He will not have an unrestrained lifestyle.

Roberson’s Word Pictures says when commenting on the phrase “doeth not sin”,

“(hamartian ou poiei). Linear present active indicative as in 1Jo_3:4 like hamartanei  in 1Jo_3:8. The child of God does not have the habit of sin.”

 

Roberson’s Word Pictures points out that the grammar is the same with the phrase “he cannot sin”.

 

“The present active infinitive hamartanein can only mean “and he cannot go on sinning,” as is true of hamartanei in 1Jo_3:8 and hamartanōn in 1Jo_3:6.”

 

So the principle her is that one born again cannot live a life of habitual rebellion to the commandments of God.  The Holy Ghost that dwells in the believer’s life is going to convict of sin and give one power over sin, not immunity from sin. 

 

If one holds to this view of the impeccability of the saints, then a born again person could never commit any sin of any kind.  Including sins of over-eating, self-righteousness, gossip, lying, and any number of other sins so often over looked when judging ourselves.

Anyone who truly thinks that he or she is impeccable is extremely foolish and deceived.  It will inevitably lead to self-righteousness and a false sense of security.  I will say without regret that this is a damnable doctrine that does not fit within the realm of acceptability to the apostolic church.  It is heresy and must not be tolerated or accepted.

The Error of Ecclesiastical Impeccability

There is a view of Ecclesiastical perfection that is held among a small minority of apostolic churches that teaches if you are truly born again, you are incapable of sinning.  This makes the doctrine of impeccability in the Christological context seem ever so small.  While there may be so small a minority of apostolic ministers that hold to this view that you may never encounter one, it is such an erroneous error that I felt compelled to write about it.  However, there are certain geographical areas where this Theo-illogical view prevails among a number of churches. 

View Defined

This view, as held by those with whom I have discussed the issue with, teaches that once a person is born again they cannot (incapable) commit sin.  They deny that repentance, water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism, as defined in Acts 2:38[1], is the new birth.  They reject John 3:3-5[2] as an initial salvation text.  They reject water in John 3:5[3] as being water baptism.  To them born again is a state of perfection that renders one incapable of being tempted or sinning.   They view obeying the Gospel, i.e. Acts 2:38[4], as conception and not birth. 

They teach, according to John 3:3-5[5], if you have not been born again (a state of sinless perfection), you will not go to heaven.  So that anyone who is in a spiritual condition to go to heaven is born again, and that no one who is capable of sinning is born again.  It is imperative that you bear this in mind as we continue through this discussion.

Johannine Thought

John’s writings on this issue are very important.  One of the two times[6] the phrase “born again” is used is scripture is in John 3:5.  This is very important, especially when you get to 1 John and his instruction to children.

Let’s examine the first admonition of the Apostle John to the “children” of God.

“My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:” 1 John 2:1 KJV

 

John writes to children that they sin not, and IF they sin WE have an advocate with the Father.  So, evidently children of God can sin.  They are children of God, so they were born again.  The word in the Greek for “little children” is “teknion”[7].

 

Teknion is used in John 13:33-35[8] as those that love one another as Christ loves us.  Those that love their brother with that kind of love are born of God.

“Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.” 1 John 4:7 KJV

 

So, the little children are born of God, yet John says, IF they sin they have an advocate with the Father.  Why would John say “IF” they sin, if they were incapable of doing so?

Further proof that “little children” are born of God is they are ready of the second coming.

“And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.” 1 John 2:28 KJV

 

 

Even though they are born again, they can still sin. 

1.       Little children if you sin- 1 John 2:1

2.      Little children let no man deceive you- 1John 3:7

3.      Little children keep yourself from idols- 1 John 5:21

 These instructions seem quite strange to people who are incapable of sinning.  Why give provision for if they sin, knowing that they could not?  Why warn them to let no one deceive them when no one can deceive them?  Why command them to keep from idols, when they are incapable of idolatry?

The New Birth Metaphor

Jesus uses the “born again” to describe the Christian experience.  The ones who holds to the view that being “born again” means that you are no longer able to commit sin destroys this metaphor.  This is like saying the only time a child can be disobedient is before he is born, but once he is born he can’t disobey his parents any more.  If perfection is what defines birth then most of us haven’t been born yet.

The Arrogance of the Claim

How could a man, actually claim to be incapable of sin?  Does anyone actually claim that?  I know a man that claims he a so completely reached a state of perfection that if he were in a room full of naked women that he could not so much as desire or be tempted by them, adultery excluded.  I question the integrity of anyone who makes such claim.  Either they are deceived or they are a liar! 

This type of claim sounds nothing like the Christian experience defined by the New Testament.  These claims of immunity sounds nothing like what is described by the authors of the New Testament.  Maybe the reason is, that the Apostles were not born again yet when they wrote the New Testament.  I ask one proponent of this view this very question and he said that he had no way of knowing.  Nothing could better illustrate the practical absurdity of this doctrine than that.

Equal With God

 

Philippians 2:6 KJV Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

 

I submit this post at the risk of being thought a theological imbecile, but here it goes any way.  Most of you know that I have been involved in a few public debates and have moderated a few others.  The foremost subject that I enjoy hearing discussed is the Godhead.  I also enjoy preaching and teaching it as well.  So here are some thoughts on this verse.

 

I will not try to analyze the entire text as that would be entirely too time consuming for the purpose of this thread.  I understand also that this is an incredibly tedious text with a lot of grammatical nuances.

 

One of the great grammatical nuances of this text is the word “form” translated from the Greek “morphe”.  This is a topic of must discussion on all sides of the Christological debate.  Does it mean nature as translated by the NIV[1], or does it means external appearance only?  There is credible scholarship on both sides of this debate.  While that would be an important and interesting discussion, that is not the intent of this thread. 

 

Then you have a great battle in theological circle as to how the phrase “equal with God” should be translated.  In an attempt to explain this passage, depending on one’s Christological view, other translations are cited that give quite a different shad of meaning to this text than the KJV does.

 

Allow me, for the purpose of this thread, to assume that “equal with God” is the best and most accurate rendering of this passage and give some possibilities of this verse of scripture from an Oneness perspective.

 

TRINITARIAN ARGUMENT

 

I am making the following statement based on debate experience and not an official statement from official Trinitarian doctrine found in the Councils or elsewhere.  The argument is frequently forwarded by Trinitarian debaters that the word “equal” necessarily infers two persons in the Godhead.  They argue that, In order to determine equality you must have separate items for the purpose of comparison.  You cannot have equality with only one thing.  I think you understand the point without me having to belabor the point.  So, the argument is, for Jesus to be “equal with God” he must be a separate person.

 

GRAMATICAL RESPONSE

 

The Greek word for “equal” is “isos”[2].  This is the same word that is used in Acts 11:17[3] as “like” gift.  This like gift is the one that fell at the beginning (Pentecost)[4].  So Peter is defending the conversion of the Gentiles in chapter 10 by say that the Holy Ghost that they, the Gentiles, received is the same Holy Ghost as the one he received on the day of Pentecost.  He uses “isos”, not as a term of contrast, but a term of identity.  The isos/like gift indentifies the gift of Acts 10 as the gift of Acts 2.

 

ATTRIBUTE OF ESCLUSIVITY

 

God asked the question in the Old Testament, who is like me or my equal (Isaiah 40:25 & Isaiah 46:5).  Then He answers his own question by saying that he has no equal and that none is like him I(Isaiah 46:9).  God has no equal and there is none like him, so that if you find one who is equal with God you have found God and not another.

 

Let me illustrate it as follows.  A fingerprint is an attribute of esclusivity.  No one has a fingerprint that is equal to mine.  If you find a finger print that is equal to mine, you have found my finger print.  Because it is something that belongs only to me, equality in this way would be identity, not contrast.

 

To further illustrate this poin, what if someone with a prior criminal record committed a murder and left his fingerprint somewhere at the scene of the crime for CSI to find?  While they may not know at the scene of the crime who the perpetrator, once they get back to the crime lab and run the fingerprint the crime lab data base and they find a fingerprint in the database that EQUALS the one at the crime scene they have indentified the murder.  So again equality is proof of identity in this case.

 

When you run the fingerprint of God through the data base of scripture you are going to come up with Jesus.  Since only God is what God is and Jesus is equal with God he must be God.  Jesus possessed and possess every essential attribute of deity.  Truly He is EQUAL WITH GOD! 

 

Pardon the elementary nature of this post and thread.

Romans 3:28-30 KJV “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. 29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: 30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.”

 

VERSE 28:

 

It is obvious from the entire context of these passages that the discussion is justification by faith in Jesus Christ.

 

“Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:” Romans 3:22 KJV

 

Of course, inseparably connected to faith is the object of faith.  Faith is only as good as the object of faith.  So, justification by faith, is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.   

 

“To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.” Romans 3:26 KJV

 

 

VERSE 29:

 

The subjects of this justification by faith, Paul argues is Jew and Gentile.  He is not God only of either Jew or Gentile, but at once God of them both.  It seems to me that the term “God of” has reference in the context to the purposes of justification.  He is arguing that justification by faith for both Jew and Gentile is faith in Jesus.  This argument is furthered in the next verse.

 

VERSE 30:

 

Paul continues by saying, “Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.”

 

It seems to me that “the circumcision” is the Jew and the old covenant (Acts 10:45), and “the uncircumcision” is the Gentile/Pagan.  With this, Paul says that the circumcision is justified BY faith, and the uncircumcision THROUGH faith.  Why the difference?  Is there a difference? What’s the difference?  The Greek proposition for BY is ‘ek’.  The circumcision is justified ‘ek’ faith.  What does ‘ek’ mean to this passage?

           

            “out of” Thayer

 

The Greek for the uncircumcision being justified THROUGH faith is ‘dia’.

 

            “a primary preposition denoting the channel of an act” Thayer

 

Roberson’s Word Pictures, commenting on Romans 3:30, says it like this,

“Ek denotes source, dia intermediate agency or attendant circumstance.”

 

When the Jew, who believed in Jehovah, placed his faith in Christ he did not have to use a different faith than the faith he had in Jehovah.  He is justified ‘ek’ (out of) the faith that he already possessed.  The reason that he can be justified ‘ek’ (out of) by placing an existing faith in Christ is because Jesus was their Jehovah manifest in the flesh, therefore the object of faith had not changed.

 

The Gentile cannot by justified ‘ek’ faith, they must by justified ‘dia’ faith.  So,that the Gentile had to had to be justified THROUGH the faith that the Jew was justified BY.  The pagan gentile, his faith had been in pagan gods, so he could not be justified “out of” that faith, he had use the faith of the jew to be justified.  This is expressed well by Vincent’s Word Studies,

 

Rom 3:30  By faith - through faith (ἐκ  - διά) “Some make the two prepositions equivalent. The difference may be explained from the fact that the real Jew has already a germinating faith from the completion of which justification arises as fruit from a tree. So Wordsworth: “The Jews are justified out of (ἐκ) the faith which their father Abraham had, and which they are supposed to have in him The Gentiles must enter that door and pass through it in order to be justified.”

 

So that the God of the old is the Jesus of the new.  When you take Jehovah the circumcision believed in and the Jesus the uncircucision believed in, you have ONE GOD.  Jehovah of the Old is Jesus of the New.  God manifest in the flesh (1Timothy 3:16)

The following has been edited from another project that I am working on.  I hope you enjoy! 

My contention will be that there is only one race, the human race.  This is borne out by the definition of the word race.  It means “the descendants of a common ancestor”.[1]   As you will see later in the chapter, in the Christian world view, that common ancestor is the first man and woman, Adam and Eve.   And Compton’s Encyclopedia says, “Biologically, all people belong to a single species (Homo sapiens)”[2].  There is not scientific warrant for dividing men into different species.  

The question now is, if there is only one race, then how can there be racists?  If there is only one race then there are no other races to hate.   “Racism has many definitions, the most common and widely accepted being the belief that humans are divided into more than one race,”[3]  This agrees with The World Book Encyclopedia, “Racism is the belief that human beings can be divided into races”.[4]  Racism has also been defined as, “a doctrine or teaching, without scientific support, that claims to find racial differences in character, intelligence, ect…”[5]  Notice, it says, “without scientific support”.  It has no biological basis, only an Ideological basis.  “The concept of races as representing separate subspecies of Homo sapiens has little if any biological significance”.[6] In fact, “Many physical anthropologists now believe that, because there is as much genetic variation among the members of any given race as there is between the groups identified as different races, the concept of race is unscientific and unsound and racial categories are arbitrary designations.”[7] A racist then is one who unnecessarily divides peoples into different races, and not simply someone who hates or discriminates against people of other races.  The whole purpose of the term race is to divide peoples into groups for the purpose of creating hierarchy so that one can rule over the other.  Ask yourself the question, what is the purpose of assigning race to peoples, nationalities, or ethnic groups?  “The term race is inappropriate when applied to national, religious, geographic, linguistic, or ethnic groups,”[8]

The only outcome that results of dividing people into different races is division?  Certainly the primary reason to divide people into races is that someone or some group feels superior to the other, and therefore wishes to distance themselves from the lesser or to dominate them.  The dividing of men into races has its roots in evolution, and cannot be harmonized with the Christian world view that is rooted in creation.  The Christian world view is regardless of color, geography, family name, gender, or any other parameters that one may choose to rest the basis of his racism on, that we are all created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26).   

As is stated earlier, the ideology of race was designed as the premise by which to establish hierarchy and superiority of some and the subspecies of others.  This of course is the ideology that is the basis for the thinking that allows men to justify the awful crimes that have been committed against humanity such as the notorious acts of genocide and slavery that have been perpetrated against society.  “The rise of the Atlantic slave trade, which gradually displaced an earlier trade in slaves from throughout the world, created a further incentive to categorize human groups in order to justify the subordination of African slaves.”[9]  It is this kind of thinking that allows men like Hitler to slaughter millions of Jews in the name of racial cleansing. 

I am now going to make a theological argument in support of my position on this issue.  The great champion of Christian theology, Paul the Apostle, provided for us great and irrefutable principles on which to make this case.   Paul makes this bold statement, “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;”[10]

While there may be different nationalities, we are all the same race.  We as a global people are a race.  Within that one human race are nations, cultures and ethnicities.  There are some fundamental keys that are revealed in Acts 17:26.  Luke is showing the common origin and creation of all man.  We as Christians believe that Adam and Eve are the parents of the human race.  Adam calls his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all living (Gen 3:20).  Paul’s language in Acts 17:26 is a clear declaration of the common origin of man and is supported by all respected Christian scholarship.  The word blood, though logically necessitated, is not found in certain text.  According to Adam Clarke, “In AB, some others, with the Coptic, Ethiopic, Vulgate, Itala, Clement, and Bede, the word ‘haimatos’, blood, is omitted.”[11]  The point that Clarke is making is the verse is saying, “He hath made of one (meaning Adam) all nations of men;”[12]  John Gill in commenting on Acts 17:26 says, “That is, of one man’s blood; the Vulgate Latin version reads, “of one”; and the Arabic version of De Dieu reads, “of one man”; of Adam, the first parent of all mankind, and who had the blood of all men in his veins: hence the Jews (u) say, “the first man was דמו של עולם, “the blood of the world”;”[13]  He goes on to quote the Jews as saying, “the reason why man was created alone (or there was but one man created) was, on account of families, that they might not be stirred up one against another;”[14]   

So, if race means descendants of a common ancestor, and one believes the scriptural record that there is one common ancestor, then one must conclude that there is only one race.  It is stated both accurately and articulately in Barnes’ commentary on this text when he says, “All the families of mankind are descended from one origin or stock. However different their complexion, features, or language, yet they are derived from a common parent. The word blood is often used to denote “race, stock, kindred.” This passage affirms that all the human family are descended from the same ancestor; and that, consequently, all the variety of complexion, etc., is to be traced to some other cause than that they were originally different races created.”[15]  To say that there are different races one must hold some world view other than the world view that is rooted in the evidence-based faith that all men have their common origin in the Creator.

How could one suppose that we are different races when we all have the same parents?  We all came from one man and one woman as shown to us in the Genesis record.  If you can figure a way to make a brother or sister who has the same parents of different races then you have figured a way to make you and anyone from anywhere in the world a different race.  What is true in an isolated and immediate family is also true the global family.  I too, like Dr. King, believe in the brotherhood of mankind.  From Adam and Eve men were eventually dispersed to different parts of the world.  That dispersal is recorded in Genesis 11:9 that from Babel God scattered men throughout all the earth.  And from there different cultures, languages, and nations began to develop.

Paul advances another powerful argument in scripture.  He says, “All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds (1 Cor 15:39).”  Here Paul makes an incredible argument.  His premise is that not all flesh is the same.  There is ONE KIND of men, another kind of beast and another kind of birds and another kind of fish.  In other words, all fish is the same kind, all birds are the same kind, all beasts are the same kind, and all men are the same kind.  Beast meaning four legged animal as opposed to fish and fowl.  Just as sure as there are variations in all of the categories they are considered to be the same kind of flesh.  So with the minute variations of that exist within men, we to regardless of the particular bounds of our habitation we are all one blood and one kind of flesh.  Black, white, brown, yellow, and any variation of skin color that you can think of from any nation under the earth are all one blood and one kind of flesh.  We might not be one color of flesh, but we are all the same kind of flesh, that is human flesh.  What makes us the same kind?  According to Genesis 1:21-27, what makes a kind is that it has the ability to reproduce offspring after its kind.  In other words, if it can mate it is the same kind.  Just as sure as a black dog can mate and have offspring with a white dog means that they are the same kind, a white person mating and having offspring with a black person means they are the same kind.  If they were not of the same kind they could not reproduce.   

So, as I stated, I think that the term race or interracial is a flawed and inadequate expression.  It is flawed both from English grammar, as well as Christian theology.  It is also considered flawed by many of today’s scientist.  The American Academic Encyclopedia commenting on the word race says, “today many scientists reject the use of the term in the human context.”  As you noticed, I did not spend a lot of time attempting to explain the differences in physical characteristics.  If you are interested in that kind of approach, I highly recommend One Blood by Ken Ham.

 

1.      Psalm 110:1-“God talks to himself as to a different person, referring to “thou” and “I” separately. The two “Lords” are completely unrelated words in the Hebrew: “Yehovah” and “Adoni” respectively.”

 

Psalm 110:1 is a frequently used passage in the oneness vs. trinity discussion.  I want to begin by agreeing with part of your premise.  There are two different Hebrew words mentioned in this passage. 

 

H3068 yeh-ho-vaw’ From H1961; (the) self Existent or eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God: - Jehovah, the Lord. Compare H3050, H3069.

 

This word was used exclusively of deity.  The other word Lord is from the following Hebrew word.

 

H113  aw-done’ From an unused root (meaning to rule); sovereign, that is, controller (human or divine): - lord, master, owner. Compare also names beginning with “Adoni-”.

 

The second word lord is not exclusively divine.  As you can see in the definition it can refer to humanity or deity.  You already admitted that the second lord was a separate person.  So if the second lord is a deity that is different from the first LORD, then you have two deities.   The Bible teaches abundantly that there is only one Lord (Deut 6:4).  So, since we have the deity covered in the world LORD, then the word Lord must refer to humanity or you have two gods.

 

This of course is prophetic of messiah, though it does have an immediate fulfillment.  The question now becomes, how is this verse applied in the NT?

 

Matthew 22:41-45 KJV

41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,

42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.

43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,

44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

45 If David then call him, Lord, how is he his son?

 

In this discourse Jesus proves by Psalms 110:1 that he is David’s Lord when they said he was David’s son.  He asked, if he is David’s son, why did David call him Lord, thus proving he was Lord.  He asked the same question in reverse, if he is David’s Lord, which he just proved he was, how is he is son. 

 

Jesus did not deny that he was David’s Lord or David’s son, he just wanted to know how he could be both.  Here is the answer.

Revelation 22:16 says that Jesus is the Root (Father/LORD/Deity) and offspring (Son/Lord/Humanity) of David.  As God Jesus was the LORD of David and as man he was Lord of David. 

 

This is a prophecy of the glorification of the incarnate messiah back to a place of power and authority.  This is not one person sitting on the literal right hand of another person.  It is prophetic language of the glorification of the man.

           

One of the essential doctrines of scripture is the omnipresence of God.  Where is the literal right hand of a God who is everywhere?  Right hand is symbolic not literal.  The following are just a couple quotes from Trinitarian scholarship supporting this idea.

 

W.E. Vine- Pg. 978

“Metaphorically of power or authority, Acts 2:33;”

 

 Thayer- Pg. 128

“That these expressions are to be understood in this figurative sense, and not of a fixed and definite place in the highest heavens”

 

                                                       

2.     Micah 5:4-“Here, he, the Messiah, is doing things “in the name of the LORD his
God.” God is not deliberately inducing a belief in a false doctrine.”

 

This is an obvious reference to a future Messiah that would come to the earth through the virgin birth as a man (v.2).  As a man he has no power or authority on his own (Matt 5:19), so he will use the power of the spirit (Luke 4:14, John 14:10).  He was God and Man (1 Tim 3:16). 

 

So, as a man he would work and operate under the power and authority of the spirit of the Father.

 

If this verse describes a divine person that is doing things is the name of his God, then this divine person has a God therefore you have two Gods.  This destroys any claim that you could make that you believe in one God.  The logical conclusion of your position is polytheistic anyway.

 

3.     Matthew 25:34-“The King, the Son of man, on his throne, refers to his Father. I have no idea what this is intended to communicate in the light of an absence of the Trinity.”

 

Any time Jesus says, my father, he is speaking from his humanity.  Deity has no father, because Deity is eternal, not begotten.  This is a contrast of deity and humanity.

 

4.     Luke 23:46-“Jesus’ body, it has been said, is praying here to God’s Spirit inside
himself. That is equal to saying that his body is talking by itself.”

 

Hebrews 5:7 KJV

7  Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;

 

This passage makes it clear that the way that Jesus pray was as a man in his flesh.  Do you assume that his is one God praying to another God?  My question to you is, how can God pray to God and still be God.

 

Prayer is always man to God.  To understand this in any other way seems impossible and incomprehensible.

 

This also fulfills the prophecy of Psalms 65:2, that “all flesh” must come to God.  As our example he had to fulfill that verse because he had days of flesh (Heb 5:7).

 

If you would like for me to elaborate more on a specific aspect of this verse I would be happy to.

 

5.     John 1:1-2-“Again, I have no idea what this is intended to communicate in the light of an absence of the Trinity.”

 

The word that God created with (v. 3) was, and God said.  Read Genesis 1.  Read Joseph Henry Thayer on logos.  The primary usage of logos is something spoken.  In the beginning God used his spoken word to create.

 

If you have a more specific question about the text I will be happy to answer it for you.

 

6.     John 5:22-“Either the Father and the Son are separate, or this verse, and actually this whole chapter, is full of apparent contradictions.”

 

This issue here is not whether there are distinctions between the Father and the Son, there are.  But separate persons are a different story.  You think there are apparent contradictions if the Father and Son are not separate persons/beings.  I say, there are not only apparent, but real contradictions, if they are separate persons according to your view.  The Trinitarian view is that the Father and the Son are eternally coequal.

 

This view is destroyed in light of verse 19, where the Son is incapable of himself.  According to you he shares the same deity as the Father, and thus they are co-equal, therefore if co-equal, then the Father can do nothing of himself either.  Neither can the co-equal Holy Ghost.

 

Obviously verse 19 sets the tone for the entire text, the son not being able to do anything of himself, refers to the humanity of Christ.  This is the contrast that explains most every objection that can be raised in the N.T. against the oneness view of Christ, flesh and spirit, the dual nature (1 Tim 3:16, Phil 2:6-8 NIV).

 

Another proof that the son refers to the humanity if verses 31 & 34.   Jesus says that his witness is NOT true (v. 31), because he receives not the witness of man (v. 34).

 

As far as 5:22 goes, this is the exact point.  Judgment has been given to the man.

 

Acts 17:31 KJV

31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.      

 

It seems absurd to me that phrases like, the son can do nothing of himself, and my witness is NOT true, can refer to some co-equal divine person with the Father.  Deity and human of the oneness view, and not co-equality of the Trinitarian view, provides logical and contextual answers!

 

7.     John 17:22-“It appears, without the Trinity, that Jesus is praying that we, the saints,might be, not just share, but be, one sprit, one being and one member in
him (see 1 Corinthians 12:14); indivisible and indistinguishable.”

 

Here again the answer lies in the dual nature of Christ.  This concept is laid out in 17:3 when Jesus contrast himself as the one sent from the Father as the only true God.

 

What was sent was made (Gal 4:4), what was made was the flesh (Rom 1:3).  So, in John 17:3 it sets for the sent Jesus (Humanity), and the only true God (Deity).  Once again deity and humanity is the contrast of the context.

 

We are to be one like the Father and Son.  Just as the son was submitted to the spirit of the Father, so we are to submit one to another (1 Peter 5:5, Ephesians 5:21).  I wish I had the time and space to exhaust this concept.  The concept is unity.

 

The text of 1 Corinthians 12:14 is a great illustration of how believers are one as the Father and Son are one.  It is correct that without the Trinity you have saints as one person.  But, you misunderstand 1 Corinthians 12:14 to mean that we are to be one member, we are not.  We are to be one person, but not one member.

 

The members of this text are, feet and hands verse 15, ears and eyes verse 16.  In the context of the body of Christ saints are not view as individual persons, but part of one.  One believer is an ear or a hand, not an entire person. When you put all the members together you have one body, and that is Christ.  Where you have one body, you have one person.   The following verses prove that believers are to be one person.

 

Galatians 3:28 RV

28 There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female: for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus.

 

Galatians 3:28 ASV 

28 There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus.

 

The following is Trinitarian scholarship on this verse.

 

One man (heis). No word for “man” in the Greek, and yet heis is masculine, not neuter hen. “One moral personality” (Vincent). Robertson’s Word Pictures

 

All one. One person, as it were, “one new man” (Eph 2:15), of which Christ is the head. The People’s New Testament

 

one–Greek, “one man”; masculine, not neuter, namely “one new man” in Christ (Eph 2:15). Jamieson, Fausset, Brown

 

Just for good measure lest look at Ephesians 2:15.

 

Ephesians 2:15 ALT

15 having done away with [or, having annulled] the hostility in His flesh, the law of the commandments in ordinances, so that from the two He should create in Himself into one new person [or, humanity], making peace,

 

Ephesians 2:15 CEV 

5 destroy the Law of Moses with all its rules and commands. He even brought Jews and Gentiles together as though we were only one person, when he united us in peace.

 

Your scholarship on Ephesians 2:15.

 

Of twain one new man - Of the two - Jews and Gentiles - one new spiritual person. Barnes Notes

 

Believers are one person.  So, I could not agree more with John 17:22 that we are to be one even as the Father and the Son are one.

 

8.    1 John 5:7-“Christians cannot accept a suggestion that the scriptures are
nearly universally corrupt.”

My answer to this question is going to be two-fold.  First of all we will look text, and secondly and explanation from the KJV.  I assume by your above statement that you anticipate an argument on the text.  This is an argument that you cannot win, if you are arguing that the KJV rendering of this text is the only legitimate translation.

           

                        1 John 5:7-8 ASV

7 And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.

8 For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one.

 

1 John 5:7-8 ALT

7 Because three are the Ones testifying:

8 the Spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are into the one [fig., agree as one].

 

1 John 5:7-8 BBE

7 And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is true.

8 There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood: and all three are in agreement.

 

1 John 5:7-8 CEV

7 In fact, there are three who tell about it.

8 They are the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and they all agree.

 

1 John 5:7-8 Darby

7 For they that bear witness are three:

8 the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and the three agree in one.

 

1 John 5:7-8 EMTV

7 For there are three that bear witness:

8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.

 

1 John 5:7-8 ESV

7 For there are three that testify:

8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.

 

1 John 5:7-8 GNB

7 There are three witnesses:

8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and all three give the same testimony.

 

1 John 5:7-8 GW

7 There are three witnesses:

8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood. These three witnesses agree.

 

1 John 5:7-8 ISV

7 For there are three witnesses-

8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood-and these three are one.

 

1 John 5:7-8 NASB

7 And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth.

8 For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

 

1 John 5:7-8 NASU

7 For there are three that testify:

8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

 

1 John 5:7-8 NIV

7 For there are three that testify:

8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

 

1 John 5:7-8 RV

7 And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.

8 For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one.

 

1 John 5:7-8 WEB

7 For there are three who testify:

8 the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and the three agree as one.

 

1 John 5:7-8 WNT

7 For there are three that give testimony– the Spirit, the water, and the blood;

8 and there is complete agreement between these three.

 

Also the YLT, AMP, LITV, & MKJV have the Father, Word, and Spirit in italics indicating that it was not in the original text.  I would also like to point out, as a rule, the translations that it is in have heavy Catholic influence.

 

To quote some of your greatest modern Trinitarian scholarship is to tip the scales in my favor.

 

“For there are three who bear witness (hoti treis eisin hoi marturountes). At this point the Latin Vulgate gives the words in the Textus Receptus, found in no Greek MS. save two late cursives (162 in the Vatican Library of the fifteenth century, 34 of the sixteenth century in Trinity College, Dublin). Jerome did not have it. Cyprian applies the language of the Trinity and Priscillian has it. Erasmus did not have it in his first edition, but rashly offered to insert it if a single Greek MS. had it and 34 was produced with the insertion, as if made to order. The spurious addition is: en tōi ouranōi ho patēr, ho logos kai to hagion pneuma kai houtoi hoi treis hen eisin kai treis eisin hoi marturountes en tēi gēi (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth). The last clause belongs to 1Jo_5:8. The fact and the doctrine of the Trinity do not depend on this spurious addition. Some Latin scribe caught up Cyprian’s exegesis and wrote it on the margin of his text, and so it got into the Vulgate and finally into the Textus Receptus by the stupidity of Erasmus.”  Robertson’s Word Pictures

 

“This verse is not found in the Revision or in any ancient MS. It is no doubt an interpolation.” People’s New Testament

 

“But it is likely this verse is not genuine.”  Adam Clarke

 

“It is missing in all the earlier Greek manuscripts, for it is found in no Greek manuscript written before the 16th century.”  Albert Barnes Notes

 

“These words are rejected by the general verdict of critical authorities.” Vincent’s Word Studies

 

This only scratches the surface of the overwhelming evidence in this matter.  Before you jump on any wagon that I don’t accept the inspiration of scripture, I tell you without hesitation that I do.  The infallibility is what was originally written and not in any translation, including the KJV.  I don’t want this to come down to an argument about KJV infallibility, because I will answer it from the KJV.  But, to ignore the evidence that I have presented, for your own personal study, would be foolish.  The number of translations and scholarship are against you on this issue.

 

Even if you were right and the KJV was the only possible translation it still does not help your cause.  Notice what it does not say.  It does not say that there are three separate persons that bear record.  It does not even say that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost bear record.  It says the Father, Word, & Spirit. 

 

What you have is the Father, who is the only God (John 17:3, Malachi 2:10, Ephesians 4:6), and his word and his spirit.  I am a being with word and spirit and I am not three persons.  The Father’s word is not a separate person, and neither is the Father’s spirit a separate person from him.

 

If you take the KJV, the language is different in relationship to the Water, blood, and spirit, and the Father, Word, and Spirit.  The WB & S agree in one, the WF &  S ARE one.   The agreement in one that you are trying to force on the three persons of your godhead is assigned to the WB & S and not the FW & S.

 

If you can see how you are one person with a word and a spirit, then you ought to be able to understand how God is one person with a word and a spirit.

 

9.     Revelation 4-5-“If you deny the Trinity, these chapters are confusing at best; God looking for himself, coming to himself and standing in his own presence.”

 

You do understand because of the genre of this book that his is not a literal scene in Revelation 5.  This is imagery and symbols.  I hope you understand that it would take a long time to do a verse by verse of both chapters that you have referenced.  So, what I am going to do is explain point of these verses.

 

Revelation 5:3-4 KJV

3 And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.

4 And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon.

 

The idea of chapter 5 is that not MAN could be found.  This is a picture of the mediation of the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim 2:5). But, what is not happening is one person is mediating to another person.

 

Isaiah 59:15-16 KJV

15 Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the LORD saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgment.

16 And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained him.

 

Here as in Revelation 5, heaven was looking for a man and none could be found.  God needed and intercessor (a go between) between him and man.  So, what was God’s response to this situation?  His own arm because his intercessor and brought salvation unto him.

 

So, God’s intercessor was his own arm.  Who was the arm of God?

 

Isaiah 53:1-2 KJV

1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?

2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

 

The arm of the LORD was a HE.  Christ the man was the arm of the LORD.  See how that parallels with Revelation 5.  Christ the man was the arm of the LORD.  If you can take a person’s arm and make it a separate person out of it then and only then can you make a separate person of the messiah from the LORD.

 

So that in Revelation 5:6-9 when no man could be found, the lamb that was slain came before the throne and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat on the throne.  Obviously this a picture of the man Christ Jesus of 1 Timothy 2:5.  That man/intercessor was the arm of the LORD and not a separate person.  This is a picture of the work of messiah.

 

2 Corinthians 5:19 KJV

19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

 

10.Genesis 11:7-“God talks to himself, using the plural verb “neerdaah,”    translated “let us go down.” This is a different argument from the one relating to Elohim.”

 

There are a number of different way in which this verse can be explained in light of the plural, let us.  A lot of Jewish sources are going to explain in as angels.  This is definitely that case of the “us” passage of Isaiah 6.  This is a common explanation of Jewish writers that God was speaking to Angels.

 

Secondly is the plural of majesty, which is also the explanation of even Trinitarian scholarship.  Plurals were used in scripture of one person.  For example, the following case of Daniel.

 

Daniel 2:24 KJV

24 Therefore Daniel went in unto Arioch, whom the king had ordained to destroy the wise men of Babylon: he went and said thus unto him; Destroy not the wise men of Babylon: bring me in before the king, and I will show unto the king the interpretation.

 

Daniel 2:36 KJV

36 This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king.

 

Even in our English language plural pronouns can be used by a singular individual.

 

There are rules of language that allows or a single person to use plurals, but no rule that I am aware of, especially in scripture, where a singular pronoun, like I or me, can be used of a plurality of persons.  The number of times that God is called he, him, I, or me, are more that in have the energy to count.

 

Also, Adam Clarke (A Trinitarian) says, when commenting on Genesis 11:7, that Genesis 18:21 is where you should look for the meaning of the phrase “let us”.  The following is what Genesis 18:21 says.

 

Genesis 18:21 KJV

21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

 

This is only one of many references where the same word is translated in reference to one person (Genesis 12:10, 24:16).

 

This all being said, I think that it is worth pointing out that the original audience to who this was given, the Jews, none of them share the multi-person theory of God that you hold.  The Jews understand their own language better than anyone, including either one of us, and they don’t believe that Genesis 1:26, 11:7, or Isaiah 6 means that the LORD is multiple persons. 

Now that I have answered all of your questions, I have 10 of my own that I would like for you to answer.

 

1.       How many God’s are there?

2.      Is Jesus God?

3.      Do you believe that Jesus was at once God and man, thus possessing two natures (1 Timothy 3:16, Philippians 2:6-8)?

4.      According to John 17:3, who is the only God?

5.      In so much as you believe that the plural pronouns in reference to God means a plurality of persons, when the singular pronouns are used does it refer to only one person?

6.      In Colossians 2:9 does all the fullness of the Godhead dwell bodily IN HIM i.e. Christ? 

7.      Does the term “everlasting father” in Isaiah 9:6 have reference to the deity or the humanity of Jesus?

8.     Please define your view of the Trinity.

9.      Can singular pronouns such as I and me ever refer to a plurality of persons either in scripture or grammar (Hebrew, Greek, or English)?

10.  If the Father, Son, & Holy Ghost are three different persons and each of them is God, how is that not three God’s?

            This is one of the most common arguments that is used by Trinitarians to prove multiple persons in the godhead. When God said let us make man they insist that it be a m

Gen 1:26-27 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.  27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. KJV

I. THE CONTEXT

The context itself provides an excellent place to start. Verse 27 is where God did what he determined to do in verse 26. When God fulfilled the “Let Us” of verse 26, it was the “His Own” and the “He” of verse 27. God created man in HIS own image and in the image of God created HE him. Not THEIR own image, and not in the image of God created THEY him. If God had intended to convey the idea of multiple persons, he sure muddied the water with the singular terms that he used in verse 27.

II. WHAT DOES US MEAN

A. Grammatically

They usage of the Hebrew phrase “let us make man” cannot be shown beyond reasonable doubt to be a plurality of persons based on the way that it is used elsewhere in scripture.

Gen 1:26 And God⁴³⁰ said,⁵⁵⁹ Let us make⁶²¹³ man¹²⁰ in our image,⁶⁷⁵⁴ after our likeness:¹⁸²³ and let them have dominion⁷²⁸⁷ over the fish¹⁷¹⁰ of the sea,³²²⁰ and over the fowl⁵⁷⁷⁵ of the air,⁸⁰⁶⁴ and over the cattle,⁹²⁹ and over all³⁶⁰⁵ the earth,⁷⁷⁶ and over every³⁶⁰⁵ creeping thing⁷⁴³¹ that creepeth⁷⁴³⁰ upon⁵⁹²¹ the earth.⁷⁷⁶

The phrase used for let us make man is from the Strong’s 6213. I am going to keep this extremely simply, yet provide a point of reference for further study. I simply want to point out how this phrase is uses elsewhere in scripture. Follow the 6213 in all of the following verses that I will show you. Also, I will limit my examples, for fear of redundancy, to the creation account.

Gen 1:31 And God⁴³⁰ saw^{7200 (853)} every thing³⁶⁰⁵ that⁸³⁴ he had made,⁶²¹³ …

Gen 2:2 And on the seventh⁷⁶³⁷ day³¹¹⁷ God⁴³⁰ ended³⁶¹⁵ his work⁴³⁹⁹ which⁸³⁴ he had made;⁶²¹³ and he rested⁷⁶⁷³ on the seventh⁷⁶³⁷ day³¹¹⁷ from all^{4480, 3605} his work⁴³⁹⁹ which⁸³⁴ he had made.⁶²¹³

Gen 2:18 And the LORD³⁰⁶⁸ God⁴³⁰ said,⁵⁵⁹ It is not³⁸⁰⁸ good²⁸⁹⁶ that the man¹²⁰ should be¹⁹⁶¹ alone;⁹⁰⁵ I will make⁶²¹³ him a help⁵⁸²⁸ meet for him.⁵⁰⁴⁸

Gen 5:1 This²⁰⁸⁸ is the book⁵⁶¹² of the generations⁸⁴³⁵ of Adam.¹²¹ In the day³¹¹⁷ that God⁴³⁰ created¹²⁵⁴ man,¹²⁰ in the likeness¹⁸²³ of God⁴³⁰ made⁶²¹³ he him;

Gen 6:6 And it repented⁵¹⁶² the LORD³⁰⁶⁸ that³⁵⁸⁸ he had made^{6213 (853)} man¹²⁰ on the earth,⁷⁷⁶ and it grieved⁶⁰⁸⁷ him at⁴¹³ his heart.³⁸²⁰

Gen 6:7 And the LORD³⁰⁶⁸ said,⁵⁵⁹ I will destroy^{4229 (853)} man¹²⁰ whom⁸³⁴ I have created¹²⁵⁴ from^{4480, 5921} the face⁶⁴⁴⁰ of the earth;¹²⁷ both man,^{4480, 120} and⁵⁷⁰⁴ beast,⁹²⁹ and⁵⁷⁰⁴ the creeping thing,⁷⁴³¹ and⁵⁷⁰⁴ the fowls⁵⁷⁷⁵ of the air;⁸⁰⁶⁴ for³⁵⁸⁸ it repenteth⁵¹⁶² me that³⁵⁸⁸ I have made⁶²¹³ them.

Gen 7:4 For³⁵⁸⁸ yet⁵⁷⁵⁰ seven⁷⁶⁵¹ days,³¹¹⁷ and I⁵⁹⁵ will cause it to rain⁴³⁰⁵ upon⁵⁹²¹ the earth⁷⁷⁶ forty⁷⁰⁵ days³¹¹⁷ and forty⁷⁰⁵ nights;³⁹¹⁵ and ⁽⁸⁵³⁾ every³⁶⁰⁵ living substance³³⁵¹ that⁸³⁴ I have made⁶²¹³ will I destroy⁴²²⁹ from off^{4480, 5921} the face⁶⁴⁴⁰ of the earth.¹²⁷

It makes you wonder where the plurality of persons have gone. It sounds like the grammar is on our side. Surely there was no intent of the part of God to display a plurality of persons in the godhead by the use of that phrase. The Trinitarian position cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt by this phrase that multiple persons are what God was intending to convey with this verse.

Secondly, the use of us in the English does not necessitate multiple persons. Though much more could be cited, I will only list the following to point you in the right direction for more detailed research.

US- 2. royal us: used by a king or queen, or the editor of a newspaper, to mean “me” (formal)

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Here is a scriptural exapample…

Dan 2:24 Therefore Daniel went in unto Arioch, whom the king had ordained to destroy the wise men of Babylon: he went and said thus unto him; Destroy not the wise men of Babylon: bring me in before the king, and I will shew unto the king the interpretation.

Only Daniel was to go before the king.

Dan 2:36 This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king. KJV

B. Counsel

The next thing that comes into play is the ideal of counsel. Just who was God talking to when he said let us. Who does God counsel with?

Isa 40:13-14 Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counseller hath taught him. 14 With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding? KJV

Rom 11:34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counseller? KJV

Since the Bible ask the same question it must be a valid one. In this case, as in all, Bible questions have Bible answers.

Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: KJV

Who does God counsel with? The answer is, always his own will. That is how he works all things. Everything that God has ever done or ever will do his counsel has been his own will.

Wisdom was with God at creation and God counsels with his own wisdom.

Prov 8:12,14, 22-30  I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions. 14 Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom: I am understanding; I have strength. 22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. 23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. 24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. 25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: 26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. 27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: 28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: 29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: 30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; KJV

III. THE INTENT OF THE PASSAGE

I feel personally that this is the real intent of the passage. The intent of the passage looked well beyond the first Adam all the way through time to the last/second Adam.

Rom 4:17(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. KJV

We know that God speaks in the present about things to be fulfilled in the future. We have explicit evidence that this is what God was doing with Adam.

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. KJV

God said that Adam would be in his image and likeness. Let’s look at the Hebrew words for image and likeness.

IMAGE-

OT:6754 tselem (tseh’-lem); from an unused root meaning to shade; a phantom, i.e. (figuratively) illusion, resemblance; hence, a representative figure, especially an idol: KJV - image, vain shew.

LIKENESS-

OT:1823 demuwth (dem-ooth’); from OT:1819; resemblance; concretely, model, shape; adverbially, like: KJV - fashion, like (-ness, as), manner, similitude.

Now notice the similarity the figure in Romans 5:14.

FIGURE-

NT:5179 tupos (too’-pos); from NT:5180; a die (as struck), i.e. (by implication) a stamp or scar; by analogy, a shape, i.e. a statue, (figuratively) style or resemblance; specifically, a sampler (”type”), i.e. a model (for imitation) or instance (for warning): KJV - en- ex-) ample, fashion, figure, form, manner, pattern, print.

The very same idea is shared between image, likeness (Genesis 1:26) and figure (Romans 5:14).

The image of God that Adam was created in was the image/figure that was to come, that is Christ. Adam was created in the image of God, but Adam was flesh and spirit. God was spirit only in creation, but was looking form to the day that he would take on the same image in Christ that he would create Adam with. It was looking forward to the incarnation. It could be said that the US and OUR of Genesis 1:26 was the flesh/spirit, or dual nature of Christ in the incarnation. God was looking forward to when he would become a man.

IV. AN ALTERNATE EXPLINATION

The alternate explanation is that God was speaking with Angels. The evidence is based on explanations given to other plural passages.

Isa 6:8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me. KJV

It could strongly be argued that the US of this passage is the seraphims of verses 1-7. Also, from the title give to the LORD in this context, Lord of hosts. The US was God, and the hosts of heaven.

Some apply a similar scenario to the creation example in which God was speaking to the angels who were present at creation. (Job 38:4-7) I do not prefer this explanation. I prefer to view is through the eyes of Romans 5:14. When he spoke it he was communing with his own will. (Eph 1:11)