It seems as though it was almost overnight that my X/Twitter feed became overrun by Unitarians. For as long as I have been discussing theology online, the prevalence of Unitarians has never been so apparent as it is right now. I have had multiple interactions with these folks (who don’t follow my account but always seem to find my posts) but I have decided that it is time to simply write out a full response to their position, rather than simply arguing over different texts in long and drawn out threads online. The defense that you will see in this article is going to be one in favor of the classical Christian doctrine of the Trinity, or the Triunity of God and specifically the deity of the Son. What I wish for my readers to see is that my defense will not be merely on the basis of traditions, creeds or philosophy. It is my position that the doctrine of the Trinity is a Biblical doctrine—as a matter of fact, the strongest defense of the Trinity is the one that is made from the text of Scripture. We will begin by stating a definition of Unitarianism, from their own sources, and then we will move on to see if their claims can stand up to the light of the Holy Scriptures. What will be demo
What is Unitarianism?
Unitarianism, broadly speaking, is simply the belief that in extension to there being only one true God (i.e. monotheism, a belief held by Trinitarians as well) that there is also only one Person of this one true God. With a definition this broad, there would actually be multiple groups that would fit in this definition. Jehovah’s Witnesses, Muslims and even modern religious Jews would all fit this broad definition of unitarianism. But there is also a capital “U” group known specifically as Unitarians, and it is this particular group that we will be addressing here. Much of this argumentation will be completely valid as well against the other groups, it is just that the distinctives of those other groups are not what we will be looking at1.
One of the first accounts that I encountered in the recent “resurgence” of Unitarians online is the “Official Twitter account of the Unitarian Christian Alliance”. I include a screenshot of their account here for two reasons: One, their header actually contains one of the key Scriptural points I am going to address and two, their website will be the source of the definition of Unitarianism we will be responding to.
This definition, title the “UCA Affirmation” is taken directly off of their website and will be quoted in full, as it is not very long at all:
We believe and proclaim in accordance with the Scriptures that:
Only the Father of Jesus is the one true God.
The unique man Jesus is his Messiah/Christ.
God the Father sent Jesus, gave him his message, empowered him, and endorsed him “with deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did through him.”
Jesus obeyed God, laying down his life so that we can have the hope of resurrection to eternal life.
God raised Jesus from the dead and exalted him to his right hand, making Jesus the one Lord under the one God.
Short version
The one God is the Father alone, and Jesus is his human Messiah, who is now exalted as Lord and Savior.2
As you can see, the distinguishing points are the two assertions that
Only the Father is God and
Jesus is merely a human
As you can see from reading their statement of faith, the key way in which Unitarians will deal with the New Testament language describing Jesus as Lord is the assertion that for Jesus, being “lord” is merely a position that God granted a strictly human person at a particular point in time.
What is God’s Triunity?
Up until this point, a classic definition of the Trinity has been assumed. Before dealing with the Scriptural argumentation we should at least give a definition of what the Christian position being defended is.
The doctrine of the Trinity simply is the statement that there is One True God, and within this One True God there are three distinct Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Distinct- meaning the Father is not the Son, the Father is not the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Son. All three Persons are of one substance, one being, one essence though the essence is not divided. So it's not that the Father has 1/3 of the essence, the Son has 1/3 and the Spirit has 1/3. Each Person has the whole divine essence. The three Persons of the Trinity, being distinct from one another are able to relate to one another, and hence in John 17 when Jesus is praying to the Father, there is only One True God, and God the Son is praying to God the Father.3
A full defense of the Trinity would involve a defense of the deity and personality of the Spirit amongst other things. The specific topic that will be defended in this article is the deity of the Son of God.
The Shema
A very common argument you will receive from Unitarians will attempt to reason from the premise of monotheism to the conclusion that there is only one Person of God. I have heard similar forms of argument in my encounters on the street with Jehovah’s Witnesses. Perhaps a reason this argument seems compelling to many is that a case for monotheism can be very easily made from the Scriptures. It is exceedingly clear that Yahweh in the Older Testament claims to be the one true God (See especially Isaiah chapters 40-48), and even the New Testament Scriptures are very much in harmony with this, with even Jesus Himself referring to His Father as “the only true God” in John 17:3.
The other thing that makes this argument compelling, for some, is that a purely rationalistic basis, unitarianism seems to fit most reasonably with the claim with monotheism. For some folks, to confess that God is One Being and three Persons just doesn’t make sense. It is not rational. I would like to submit to you, that throughout the history of the Christian church, the greatest threat to Christian orthodoxy has been rationalism. What happens is that men take a propositional truth from the Scriptures, and they then begin to reason logically from that proposition to some rationalistic conclusion, rather than keeping their thoughts grounded in the Scriptures. The Unitarian takes the proposition, found throughout the Bible, that there is only one God and assumes that this must mean that there is only one Person of God as well.
As you saw in the header of the official UCA X account, a favorite text for the Unitarians is the classic monotheistic affirmation from the book of Deuteronomy known as the Shema.
“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one” - Deuteronomy 6:4 (ESV)
Emphasis will be stressed upon the claim that the Lord (Yahweh) is one. Is this really the death-knell for Christian Trinitarianism? Well, what exactly is proved by this text? That Yahweh is one. There is no direct claim that Yahweh exists in only one Person, all that is said is that Yahweh is one. This does not do anything other than establish monotheism. Trinitarians believe that there is only one Yahweh, before Him there was no other and neither shall there be any after Him (Isaiah 43:10). Trinitarians confess that Yahweh is one.
In something that is really amazing to me, the other verse quoted (partially) in the header of the UCA X account comes from 1 Corinthians chapter 8, the full verse will be quoted for you here:
“ yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” - 1 Corinthians 8:6 (ESV)
The Unitarian believes that this further bolsters their position, given Paul’s clear affirmation of monotheism. But unwittingly, the Unitarian who quotes this verse is staring at the very refutation of their utilization of the Shema. Notice the parallels between this verse in 1 Corinthians and the language of the Shema: “lord”, “God”, “one”. What you see the Apostle Paul doing is expanding the Shema, retaining the Oneness of the monotheism that it teaches while incorporating the plurality of Persons who share in this oneness, the Father and Jesus Christ.
While the parallels can be seen when comparing the two verses in English, they become more apparent when one examines the text in the Greek language alongside the the LXX (Greek Septuagint) rendering of the Shema.
In the figure above, even if you cannot read the original language you can at least see visually the similar terminology. Notice that in the LXX rendering of the Divine name Yahweh, the Tetragrammaton (יְהוָ֥ה) the Greek term used is κύριος (kyrios) meaning “lord”. This is an important thing to keep in mind, as this will be relevant for most of the Biblical passages I intend to examine. The LXX is the most common source of Old Testament citations in the new (since the New Testament is written in Greek) and so for the Apostle Paul, there is no issue in referring to God, Yahweh as κύριος. The term κύριος can of course be used in many different ways, and so this is not to argue that every instance of the term κύριος is literally referring to God Himself, the point is simply that κύριος can be an acceptable term used by the Apostles to refer to God, given that to them it is a permissible translation of the Divine name Yahweh (יְהוָ֥ה) itself. To make this point just a bit more clear, a literal English translation of the LXX at Deuteronomy 6:4 would be “The Lord is God”.
Given that this is what Deuteronomy is saying, it is nothing overly shocking to hear the Apostle Paul affirm in 1 Corinthians 8:6 that “for us there is one God” whom Paul explicitly identifies as “the Father” with the exalted language “from whom are all things and for whom we exist’.
What the Unitarian fails to consider is that, in addition to the affirmation that there is one God, and that the Father is this one God, is that Paul can effortlessly take the very words of the Shema and apply them to Jesus when he says “καὶ εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς” (and one Lord, Jesus Christ).
Why is it that the Apostle Paul can both affirm Jewish monotheism while also applying these sacred words of divinity to Jesus Christ (who is differentiated from the Father)? The only way to make sense of this while keeping your thinking grounded in the Scriptures themselves is to affirm that for Paul, there is one true God and yet a plurality of Persons who share this one divinity. This is demonstrated in the very beautiful expansion of the Shema given to us in 1 Corinthians 8. It is a direct refutation of Unitarian belief, ironically found in their favorite verses to quote.
Jesus is Yahweh
Some may find the Christian assertion rather shocking when they hear us proclaim, passionately and emphatically that there is one Yahweh, and yet we feel free to identify a plurality of Persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) with this one name. As I have already conceded, on purely rationalistic grounds this might seem far too difficult to believe, but if one’s heart is committed to submitting to everything the Holy Scriptures teach, while you may not end up with a complete understanding of this assertion, you will be left with no other option but to affirm it yourself.
Perhaps a Unitarian reads the above discussion concerning the Shema and says that, “while, yes, similar language is indeed used but in the New Testament God and Lord are two different persons. While Jesus may be identified as κύριος, it is not in the same way the LXX uses that term to refer to Yahweh”.
In my experience, the very common claim you will get from Unitarians is that “Lord” simply refers to an office held by Christ and has nothing to do with deity. Is this really so? In this section we are going to look at some important texts that explicitly identify Jesus as Yahweh. We are going to look at John 12, 13, Hebrews 1 and finally Romans 10.
John 12
In the Gospel of John there is a continuing theme concerning the Jewish unbelief in the person of Jesus. The Jewish unbelief is identified as a “hardening” placed upon them by God for the purpose that they would disbelieve, thereby fulfilling God’s plan in the self-sacrifice of Christ on the cross. In John 12:37-41 the Evangelist quotes two separate passages from the prophet Isaiah concerning the hardening of the Jews that God foretold hundreds of years before. Of particular note to us is the passage quoted in verse 40, “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them”. The passage being quoted is Isaiah 6:10. This should be a familiar passage to most Christians, as Isaiah 6 is where we see Isaiah’s glorious temple vision of the Lord:
“In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said:“Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!” And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke. And I said: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!”” - Isaiah 6:1–5 (ESV)
After Isaiah’s proclamation of what he sees we read about the forgiveness the Lord gives him, and Isaiah’s subsequent message of what he is to proclaim to the people of Israel (the very judgement that John quotes in John 12:40). There is no question that Isaiah is seeing a vision of God Himself, Yahweh, (I have emphasised in the above quotation where the divine name is being used).
Well, right after John’s citation of a verse following this precise passage, the Evangelist John makes this comment, “Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him”. Remember now, that the context of the passage in John is the Jewish disbelief in the Person of Jesus. “they still did not believe in him” (John 12:37). It is in this context that John says “Isaiah saw his glory and spoke of him”. Now if one simply reads the passage in John 12 according to normal understandings of grammar, it is clear that the subject of the pronoun “him” does not change, in both instances Jesus is the “him”.
But John says Isaiah saw his glory and spoke of him. Well, whose glory did Isaiah see? John says that he saw Jesus’ glory. But you go and read Isaiah, and it is Yahweh’s glory that Isaiah sees. Now, for the Trinitarian there is no contradiction. The Trinitarian reads these passages and sees that the Apostle John is saying this passage about Yahweh is about Jesus. This fits perfectly with the Trinitarian understanding that Jesus is Yahweh, and it is the only way to read the text unless one desires to insert a contradiction into the Bible.
John 13
In the very next chapter, we get another powerful instance in which an Old Testament passage about Yahweh is applied to Jesus Himself. The only difference is that in this instance, the affirmation comes from Jesus’ own mouth. In John 13 Jesus is going to prophesy Judas’ betrayal of Him, and there is something particular Jesus wants us to learn from His ability to prophesy this event.
“Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them. I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have chosen. But the Scripture will be fulfilled, ‘He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.’ I am telling you this now, before it takes place, that when it does take place you may believe that I am he.” - John 13:16–19 (ESV)
In the original Greek text, there is no pronoun “he” after “I am”, it is simply ἐγώ εἰμι (ego eimi). You will recognize that in the Old Testament, “I AM THAT I AM” is the divine name revealed to Moses from the burning bush, and the Lord tells Moses to say to the people of Israel “I AM has sent me to you” (Exodus 3:14). There are many times in John where Jesus will claim ἐγώ εἰμι “I am”, notably in John 8:58 where He says, “Before Abraham was, I am” and the Jews pick up stones to stone Him. The reason why I have decided to highlight this lesser known “I am” statement in John 13 is because of its Old Testament background.
In the section of Isaiah sometimes referred to as “The Trial of the False Gods” in Isaiah 40-48, Yahweh is demonstrating His superiority and truthfulness over and against the foolishness of the idols of the peoples. One of the key ways in which Yahweh demonstrates His power is His ability to prophesy future events before they take place. In Isaiah 43, God tells those who are faithful Israelites that they are going to be His witnesses in proclaiming this truth about Him over and against the claims of the idolaters. And so, in the context of foretelling future events before they take place in order to demonstrate who Yahweh is, this statement is made:
“You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.” - Isaiah 43:10 (ESV)4
There are two striking parallels between these passages, Isaiah 43 and John 13, that simply cannot be glossed over. In both instances, there is a focus on the ability to prophesy future events before they take place. In both instances, the faithful who receive this teaching are called “servants”. In both instances, these servants are said to have been “chosen”. And finally, in both instances, the resultant conclusion is true belief in who the one prophesying is “you may know and understand that I am” (Isaiah 43:10), “you may believe that I am” (John 13:19).
Once again, you have an Old Testament passage about Yahweh that the New Testament applies to Jesus. What should be noted here is that in the context of Isaiah, the ability to prophesy future events was supposed to be the proof that Yahweh is the one true God and that there is no other. We would have to think that Unitarians would confess, along with Isaiah, that the ability to do this is sufficient proof that there is no god besides Yahweh, since no other god can do this. Does the Unitarian also grant Jesus’ ability to do the same thing with Judas’ betrayal? If the Bible teaches us the ability to prophesy future events is a unique ability of Yahweh, and Jesus has this same ability, what does this tell us about Jesus? Furthermore, when you examine the parallel between the two texts, it is unmistakable that Jesus wishes us to see this parallel. You have servants chosen by the Lord, who are given proof of who their Master is by their Master’s ability to prophesy.
Hebrews 1
In Hebrews chapter 1 and the sections following, you have the absolute uniqueness and supremacy of the Son set over and against all created things beginning with the statement made in verse 3 that “He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of His nature, and He upholds the universe but the word of His power”. This claim is not merely that the Son has a highly exalted status that was given to Him by God, but literally the text says that the Son is the exact imprint of the nature of God. What can this possibly mean other then the Christian belief that the Son is of the same divine nature as the Father? This honestly would be enough to refute the Unitarian claim, but I specifically want to highlight the Old Testament citations where we see passages about Yahweh applied to the Son of God.
“But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”
And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.”” - Hebrews 1:8–12 (ESV)
Given the introductory comment “of the Son” it cannot be disputed that the author beliefs both passages he is quoting are directly about the Son of God, who is Jesus Christ.
The first passage quoted from is Psalm 45 (specifically verses 6-7) where the person being addressed is identified as God. If the Person spoken of is God, and Hebrews says this is about the Son, then that means that the Son is God, right? The Unitarian will point out that in the same section quoted, the Psalmist refers to the God of the one being addressed, “God, your God”. The argument will then be that there is a God whom the Son considers to be His God. The Unitarian will then likely point out that in Psalm 45:1-2, the person being addressed is “the king” identified as “the most handsome of the sons of men”. The conclusion drawn from these things will be that because a human king is being addressed, who himself has a God that this clearly cannot be in reference to a divine Person. The Old Testament is filled with examples where human rulers are referred to as “god” and so there is nothing in this text that would lead to the conclusion that the Son of God is a Divine Person. Now this argument at first seems compelling because all of its premises are true. It is true that the person spoken of is a human king who recognizes and pays homage to God. It is also true that there are instances in the Old Testament where human judges are referred to as gods (for example, Psalm 82). But these are all premises that are granted by the Trinitarian. As a matter of fact, the first two propositions are essential to a Trinitarian understanding! Trinitarians believe Jesus has a true human nature, that He is the messianic king, and that as a man He worships God the Father. The Trinitarian sees Psalm 45 as being about a king who is both God and man, the Godman.
The Unitarian and the Trinitarian both have arguments as far as the citation of Psalm 45 is concerned, and so are we left at a stalemate at this point?
No, because the very next citation is from Psalm 102. This citation is also said to be of the Son (there is no break in the text) and Psalm 102, when examined contextually, is specifically about Yahweh. The author to to the Hebrews is quoting verses 25-27 from the LXX (where it is identified as Psalm 101) which uses the term Κύριε (kyrie), a derivative of the term κύριος which we have already seen is a common translation of the Divine name in the LXX. If you look at Psalm 102 in Hebrew (or your English Bible for that matter) you will find that the divine name, Yahweh, is mentioned 8 times. The Psalm is consistently, from beginning to end, referring to Yahweh, and Yahweh is the one who of old “laid the foundation of the earth” (Psalm 102:25) which is creation language that no Jew would have ever applied to anyone other than Yahweh.
It is indisputable that in applying Psalm 102 to the Son, the author of the Hebrews is taking a passage about Yahweh and saying that the one being described is the Son of God. For the Trinitarian, there is no contradiction. The Unitarian belief cannot stand in the face of this text.
Romans 10
I wanted to look at just one last text in which Jesus is identified as Yahweh. The passage we will be looking at in the tenth chapter of Romans that in order to miss it you would have to be blind.
“because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”” - Romans 10:9–13 (ESV)
The discussion in Romans 10 is that in light of the already established truth that God shows no partiality between Jew and Gentile (Romans 2:11) that the Gospel is to be promiscuously proclaimed to all, both Jew and Gentile “for the same Lord is Lord of all”. The promise made by the Apostle Paul is that anyone, whether Jew or Greek, who confesses with their mouth that “Jesus is Lord” and believes in His resurrection will be saved. You see that there is a direct connection between the confession “Jesus is Lord” and being saved. This probably just sounds like Christianity 101 to most evangelicals, nothing that we need to spend too much time thinking about, but if we just run right past this section without looking at it a little more closely we will miss what is essentially a smoking gun proof that Jesus is Yahweh.
As previously mentioned, the Unitarian is committed to the idea that κύριος is nothing more than an office of Christ and not a divine title. But notice that in verse 13 you have a quotation from the prophet Joel where the promise is made “everyone who calls upon the name of the LORD will be saved” (Joel 2:32). In the original Hebrew of Joel, the divine name Yahweh is used, while of course the LXX translates the name into the Greek Κυρίου (Kyriou). Joel is clearly promising that whoever calls upon the name of Yahweh (rendered “Lord” in the Greek) will be saved.
Now in Romans 10 Paul is discussing the fact that whoever, whether they be Jew or Greek, if they confess Jesus to be Lord they will be saved. And then in order to support his argument he quotes a passage from Joel where Joel is saying whoever calls upon the name of the Lord (Yahweh) will be saved. If Paul believes that this verse supports his argument, and the same person is being referred to as “Lord” both in verse 9 and in verse 13 then this is a clear place in which Jesus is identified as Yahweh. If Paul is talking about belief in Jesus both in verse 9 and in verse 13, then this means that the one Joel spoke of (unless Paul misunderstands the text) is both Jesus and Yahweh, meaning Jesus is Yahweh.
If verses about Yahweh are being applied to Jesus, then κύριος cannot simply be an office Jesus holds, but in these instances must be a personal identifier of His divinity.
A Brief Response to Dale Tuggy
Current Chair of the UCA is a gentleman by the name of Dale Tuggy who has publicly advocated and defended the Unitarian position, most notably in his debate with Christian Apologist Dr. James White on the thesis statement “Is Jesus Yahweh?”5 with Tuggy affirming the negative. I recommend people listen to that debate, as you can listen to some of the points I am arguing here contested by perhaps the leading opponent of Unitarianism.
In Tuggy’s opening statement he makes a remark that I believe showcases what his central argument is, where I believe the flaw in his position can really be exposed. Beginning around the 31:13 time mark, Tuggy makes the following statement:
“I will establish that the New Testament Jesus is a real man who is not fully Divine, which rules out His being Yahweh”
To help you see the argument, let me attempt to reword it as a modus ponens: if Jesus is a real man, then he is not Yahweh. Since Jesus is a real man, he is not Yahweh.
I believe that if you listen carefully to Tuggy’s statements throughout the debate, this is his key argument. He goes to the Scriptures in order to demonstrate that Jesus truly is a man (a point not disputed by orthodox Trinitarians) and reasons from that premise that Jesus can’t be God. The problem with this argumentation is simply that Tuggy’s conclusion does not follow from his premise. The Christian position is not that Jesus is only Divine. The Christian position is that Jesus is the Godman—One Person existing in two natures, a Divine and a human nature. Simply proving that Jesus is a man is not a valid refutation of the Christian position, because it is in agreement with what the Christians are saying. What Tuggy would need to prove is that it would be impossible for God to join a human nature to a Divine Person, something he has not done and that I do not believe can be done.
I have written on the topic of Islam, and specifically the Quran, in the past. You can find that by clicking here.
Taken from my book The Will of Him Who Sent Me, pages 5-6.
Ironically, this is the verse from which Jehovah’s Witnesses get their name and yet, the parallel to this verse in John 13 refutes JW claims. This is a fact that I have shared with JWs on the street.