Watch “The God of Jesus” – A most excellent video explaining the truth about God and Jesus.
Categories
Yes. Jesus Christ is not God. The Trinity is Not Biblical.
He is the Son of God… never God the Son.
The orthodox Trinity teaches that there is one God existing eternally as three distinct, coequal persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Biblical Unitarians reject that formulation because Scripture repeatedly identifies the Father as the one God, while presenting Jesus as God’s human Son, Messiah, servant, mediator, and appointed Lord.
“To us there is but one God, the Father…
and one Lord Jesus Christ.”
— 1 Corinthians 8:6
“That they might know thee the only true God,
and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”
— John 17:3
“There is one God, and one mediator between God and humanity,
the man Christ Jesus.”
— 1 Timothy 2:5
The biblical distinction is consistent:
- God sent Jesus.
- God anointed Jesus.
- God performed miracles through Jesus.
- Jesus prayed to God.
- Jesus submitted his will to God.
- Jesus died.
- God raised Jesus.
- God exalted Jesus.
- Jesus now mediates between God and humanity.
“Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God…
by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him.”
— Acts 2:22
That is not one divine person speaking to another divine person within one being. It is the one God working through His chosen Messiah.
The “Jesus Math” of Romans 5
Romans 5 presents redemption through a deliberate parallel:
Adam + disobedience = condemnation
Jesus + obedience = righteousness and life
“For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners,
so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.”
— Romans 5:19
Adam was a genuine man who freely disobeyed. Jesus is the corresponding man who freely obeyed.
The redemptive contrast depends upon Jesus being the faithful human counterpart to Adam—the last Adam—not God performing an obedience He was metaphysically incapable of withholding.
“The first man Adam was made a living soul;
the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.”
— 1 Corinthians 15:45
Jesus’ victory matters because his obedience was real.
Jesus:
- was tempted;
- possessed his own will;
- trusted his Father;
- learned obedience through suffering;
- resisted sin;
- remained faithful unto death.
“Not my will, but thine, be done.”
— Luke 22:42
“Though he were a Son,
yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered.”
— Hebrews 5:8
“He humbled himself, and became obedient unto death…
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him.”
— Philippians 2:8–9
The word “wherefore” matters. God exalted Jesus because of his faithful obedience.
God cannot be tempted—but Jesus was
Scripture says:
“God cannot be tempted with evil.”
— James 1:13
Yet Jesus:
“Was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.”
— Hebrews 4:15
Biblical Unitarians take both statements seriously. Jesus was genuinely tempted because he was genuinely human. His sinlessness was the result of perfect faith and obedience—not an inability to sin because he was God.
If temptation could never possibly result in disobedience, then it would not correspond meaningfully to ours.
God is not a man
Scripture explicitly distinguishes God from humanity:
“God is not a man.”
— Numbers 23:19
“I am God, and not man.”
— Hosea 11:9
Jesus, however, is repeatedly called a man:
“The man Christ Jesus.”
— 1 Timothy 2:5
“A man approved of God.”
— Acts 2:22
“By that man whom he hath ordained.”
— Acts 17:31
The Bible does not call Jesus “God the Son.” It calls him:
- the Son of God;
- the Son of Man;
- the Christ;
- the last Adam;
- the mediator;
- the servant of God;
- the Lord appointed by God.
When Jesus asked, “Whom say ye that I am?”,
Peter did not answer,
“God the Son, the second person of the Trinity.”
He answered:
“Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
— Matthew 16:16
Jesus called that confession revelation from the Father.
“Come in the flesh” does not mean “God became flesh”
John writes:
“Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ
is come in the flesh is of God.”
— 1 John 4:2
“Many deceivers… confess not
that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.”
— 2 John 7
The confession is that Jesus the Messiah truly came as a human being.
John does not say, “Every spirit that confesses God came in the flesh.”
Had Christ’s deity been the indispensable test of Christian faith, these passages offered an obvious place to state it. Instead, John’s confession is:
“Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God,
God dwelleth in him.”
— 1 John 4:15
The Holy Spirit
Biblical Unitarians understand the holy spirit primarily as God’s own spirit, power, presence, and activity, not a third coequal divine person.
It is:
- God’s Spirit;
- poured out by God;
- given by God;
- God working within believers;
- the power by which Jesus was conceived, anointed, and empowered.
“The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee,
and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee.”
— Luke 1:35
The parallelism identifies the holy spirit with the operative power and presence of the Most High.
What about Matthew 28:19?
Matthew 28:19 names the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together. But naming three does not establish that all three are coequal persons within one divine essence.
Elsewhere, God, Christ, angels, apostles, and believers can be listed together without becoming one being.
Acts consistently records baptism in the name of Jesus Christ:
- Acts 2:38
- Acts 8:16
- Acts 10:48
- Acts 19:5
Matthew 28:19 must therefore be interpreted within the whole biblical witness—not treated as though it states the later Nicene definition.
The simplicity of the biblical confession
The Gospel does not require someone to confess a fourth-century metaphysical formula.
It requires faith that:
- there is one God, the Father;
- Jesus is His Son and Messiah;
- Jesus died for our sins;
- God raised him from the dead;
- God appointed him Lord and Christ;
- salvation comes through allegiance to him.
“If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,
and shalt believe in thine heart
that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”
— Romans 10:9
Notice the distinction: Jesus is Lord; God raised him.
The Biblical Unitarian conclusion
Jesus is not diminished by refusing to call him God.
He is:
- the uniquely begotten Son of God;
- the promised Messiah;
- the perfect image of God;
- the sinless last Adam;
- the mediator of the new covenant;
- the one who freely obeyed unto death;
- the man that God raised from the dead;
- the Lord that God exalted above every other human authority;
- the coming King and Judge.
Jesus is worthy of honor precisely because he trusted, obeyed, suffered, overcame, and freely laid down his life.
Adam, a perfect man, brought condemnation through disobedience.
Jesus Christ, the perfect man and Son of God, brought redemption through obedience.
“For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.”
That is the straightforward Christology of Romans 5.
One God: the Father.
One Lord: Jesus Christ.
One perfect plan of redemption accomplished
through the obedience of God’s Son.
The Biblical Unitarian case does not require explaining away every verse that has ever been used in support of the Trinity.
A more fundamental question must first be answered:
Can the orthodox definition of the Trinity survive the Bible’s clearest statements about the relationship between God and Jesus Christ?
The traditional definition requires the Father and Son to be eternally coequal persons within the one God.
Yet Scripture repeatedly gives us statements that appear incompatible with that definition when read according to their ordinary meaning.
Jesus identifies his Father as:
“The only true God.”
— John 17:3
Paul identifies the one God as:
“One God, the Father.”
— 1 Corinthians 8:6
Paul distinguishes that one God from:
“One Lord Jesus Christ.”
— 1 Corinthians 8:6
Paul further writes:
“There is one God, and one mediator between God and humanity,
the man Christ Jesus.”
— 1 Timothy 2:5
Jesus says:
“My Father is greater than I.”
— John 14:28
Jesus admits that the Father possesses knowledge that he does not:
“Neither the Son, but the Father.”
— Mark 13:32
Even after his resurrection Jesus says:
“My God and your God.”
— John 20:17
And even after all Christ’s enemies have been vanquished, Scripture says:
“Then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him [GOD]
that put all things under him.”
— 1 Corinthians 15:28
This creates a cumulative problem for the traditional definition.
- The Father is called the only true God.
- The Father is identified as the one God.
- Jesus has a God.
- That God is greater than Jesus.
- That God knows things Jesus does not know.
- That God performs works through Jesus.
- That God raises Jesus from the dead.
- That God gives Jesus authority.
- That God makes Jesus Lord and Christ.
- And ultimately Jesus remains subject to that God.
These are not isolated descriptions occurring only during Jesus’ mortal weakness.
They occur:
- before his death,
- during his ministry,
- after his resurrection,
- during his exaltation,
- and even at the culmination of his future kingdom.
The usual Trinitarian response is that some of these statements refer only to Jesus according to his human nature or to his temporary role within the economy of salvation.
But that explanation introduces categories that these passages themselves never state.
Scripture does not say:
“The Father’s divine nature is greater than Jesus’ human nature.”
It says:
“The Father is greater than I.”
It does not say:
“Jesus knew the hour according to his divine nature
but did not know it according to his human nature.”
It says:
“Neither the Son, but the Father.”
It does not say:
“The human nature of Christ has God as its God.”
The resurrected Jesus says:
“My God.”
And 1 Corinthians 15 takes the distinction all the way to
the completed kingdom:
The Son himself will be subject to God.
The simpler biblical model requires no division of Jesus into competing sets of attributes.
- There is one God, the Father.
- Jesus is His Son.
- God sent him.
- God empowered him.
- Jesus obeyed Him.
- God raised him.
- God exalted him.
- God appointed him Lord.
And Jesus remains forever subject to the God who gave him that authority.
That framework fits the biblical statements exactly as they stand:
- “One God, the Father.”
- “One Lord, Jesus Christ.”
The Biblical Unitarian case therefore does not rest merely upon finding alternative explanations for Trinitarian proof texts.
It rests upon whether the traditional definition itself can be reconciled with the Bible’s repeated and explicit distinction between the one God and His Son, Jesus Christ.
Categories
The Divine Representative
The Divine Representative:
An Illustrative Guide to Agency in the Bible
Ancient legal frameworks often operate under a logic that feels foreign—almost magical—to the modern Western mind. To the original authors and readers of the biblical text, the relationship between God and His representatives was governed by a sophisticated legal framework known as agency. This is the “master key” that unlocks passages which otherwise appear contradictory or paradoxical. By understanding the ancient Jewish concept of the Shaliah, we move beyond modern confusion into a world of mediated presence and functional identity.
1. Foundations: What is a ‘Shaliah’?
The foundation of biblical representation is the Hebrew term Shaliah (שָׁלַח), derived from the root shalach, meaning “to send out.” This is no minor linguistic ornament; the verb shalach occurs 852 times in the Tanakh (Old Testament / Hebrew Bible), signaling its centrality to the biblical narrative.
In the Jewish legal tradition, a Shaliah is an agent authorized to act on behalf of another. The core legal dictum governing this relationship is:
“A person’s agent is regarded as the person himself.”
This is not a claim of shared nature (ontology), but a claim of shared authority (function). When a duly appointed agent performs a task, the law regards the act as having been committed by the Principal (the Sender), who bears full responsibility for the outcome.
The Mechanics of Representation
| Term | Definition & Role | Biblical Example |
|---|---|---|
| Principal (Sender) | The source of authority and will. The Principal is legally bound by the agent’s actions. | Yahweh commissioning Moses at the bush. |
| Agent (Sent / Shaliah) | The authorized representative. The agent’s voice and actions carry the full weight of the Principal. | The Angel of Yahweh. |
The “Power of Attorney” Logic
To make this “grokkable,” consider two modern analogies:
- The Ambassador: An official envoy accredited to a foreign sovereign. When an ambassador signs a treaty, they are not expressing a personal opinion; they are the voice of their nation. Legally, the nation has signed the document.
- Power of Attorney: If you grant someone “Power of Attorney,” the bank recognizes their signature as your signature. The agent and principal are legally indistinguishable in that transaction.
The Ethical Bound: A crucial nuance in the Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion is that “there can be no agency to do a wrongful act.” An agent’s authority is strictly bound to the Principal’s character and command. If the agent deviates from the Sender’s will, the legal bond of agency is severed.
If a signet ring can make a man “as Pharaoh,” then the spoken word can make a man “as God,” a pattern that begins with the physical leaders of Israel’s history.
2. The Principal and the Agent in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh)
In the Tanakh, God frequently utilizes human and heavenly agents to manifest His visible presence and execute His will.
Joseph & Pharaoh: The Signet Ring When Pharaoh promoted Joseph, renaming him Zaphenath-Paneah, he handed him his signet ring. This was the ultimate transfer of agency. Joseph could stamp a decree, and it carried the weight of the throne. This culminates in a striking moment in Genesis 44:18:
“Then Judah approached him and said, ‘I beg your pardon, my lord… since you are Pharaoh.'” While English translations often insert the word “like,” the Hebrew text literally reads “you are Pharaoh.” Judah is acknowledging the “legal fiction” of agency: to stand before Joseph was, functionally and legally, to stand before the King of Egypt.
The Exodus Paradox: Who Led Israel? A new reader may be confused by the shifting credit for the Exodus:
- The Principal’s Will: “Yahweh brought the sons of Israel out of the land of Egypt” (Exodus 12:51).
- The Agent’s Action: “I will send you… that you may bring my people… out of Egypt” (Exodus 3:10).
There is no contradiction here. Because Moses is the Shaliah, his physical leadership is the means through which God’s will is enacted. To say “Moses led them” and “God led them” are both legally accurate statements within the framework of agency.
The Messenger in the Fire: The Angel of Yahweh In the Burning Bush (Exodus 3), the “Angel of Yahweh” appears, yet speaks in the first person: “I am the God of your father.” Moses hides his face because he is “afraid to look at God.” Through the lens of agency, we understand that Moses is looking at a Malak (messenger), but because that messenger is the authorized agent, Moses is functionally facing the Divine Principal.
This pattern of physical representation transitions naturally into the realm of divine speech, where the prophets become the vocal agents of the Almighty.
3. Prophets and Divine Speech: Agents of God’s Word
Prophets functioned as “Agents of God’s Word.” When a prophet spoke, the biblical text often moved seamlessly between the human messenger and the Divine Sender.
Isaiah and King Ahaz In Isaiah 7, the prophet Isaiah is physically present, delivering a message to King Ahaz. However, verse 10 abruptly states: “Then Yahweh spoke again to Ahaz.” The text credits the speech to the Principal (Yahweh) even though the Agent (Isaiah) was the one whose vocal cords produced the sound.
The Torah Through Angels While Exodus 19 suggests a face-to-face encounter between God and Israel, the New Testament authors (Acts 7:53, Galatians 3:19, Hebrews 2:2) clarify that the Law was delivered “through angels.” This indicates that the “face” Moses encountered was the authorized angelic representation:
the Shaliah—of the Divine Principal.
Check for Understanding
Question: If Moses is called “God” to Pharaoh (Exodus 7:1) and acts as God’s agent, why isn’t he considered part of the Trinity?
Answer: Understanding agency prevents us from confusing function with ontology. Moses functions as God in a legal, representative capacity, but his nature remains human. Agency is a functional category that allows a transcendent God to interact with a finite world without changing the fundamental nature of the representative.
Recognizing these Hebrew Bible patterns is the essential prerequisite for understanding how the New Testament writers framed the ministry of Jesus.
4. Agency in the New Testament: The Pattern Fulfilled
The New Testament is the flowering of the Shaliah concept. The term “Apostle” (from the Greek apostolos) is the direct equivalent of the Hebrew Shaliah, appearing 81 times in the New Testament to describe those “sent out” with authority.
The Centurion’s Servant
The discrepancy between Matthew 8 (where the Centurion comes to Jesus) and Luke 7 (where he sends elders) is a classic study in agency. Matthew focuses on the Principal (the Centurion), while Luke provides the detail of the Agents (the elders). Both accounts are “correct” because, in Hebrew thought, the agent and principal are not always clearly distinguished.
The Baptism Mystery
John 3:22 says Jesus was baptizing people, but John 4:2 clarifies: “Although Jesus himself was not immersing, his disciples were.” Because the disciples were Jesus’ authorized agents, their work was legally and narratively credited to Jesus himself.
Jesus as ‘The Apostle’
Hebrews 3:1 calls Jesus the Apostle of our confession. He is the ultimate “Sent One” who speaks only what the Father teaches Him (John 8:28).
The Reception Chain The authority of agency creates a tiered structure of reception:
- Receive the Agent: “The one who listens to you [the Apostles] hears me.”
- Receive Jesus: “Whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.”
- Receive the Principal: To receive the Son is to receive the Father (Yahweh).
This chain of representation leads us to a final synthesis of the biblical narrative.
5. Synthesis: Seeing the Recurring Pattern
Agency is not a “Unitarian” or “Trinitarian” argument in its inception; it is a biblical reality that describes how a transcendent God mediates His presence. It explains interaction without requiring a change in the “nature” of the participants. It is the Master Key that preserves the distinction between the Sender and the Sent while affirming that the work of the Agent is the work of the Principal.
The Pattern of Agency Across Scripture
| Role | Entity | Function in Agency |
|---|---|---|
| The Principal | Yahweh (The Father) | The ultimate source of all authority, will, and power. |
| The Primary Agent | Jesus (The Son) | The “Apostle” who perfectly represents the Father’s will. |
| The Secondary Agents | Apostles / Disciples | Those sent by Jesus to represent him, just as he represents the Father. |
| The Result | Credited Action | The Agent’s works (healing, teaching) are credited to the Principal. |
Conclusion
By viewing the Bible through the lens of the Shaliah, the apparent “paradoxes” of scripture dissolve into a unified legal and theological framework. Whether it is Moses standing “as God” before Pharaoh, an angel speaking for the Almighty in the bush, or Jesus acting as the
“Sent One” of the Father, the principle remains: when the authorized agent acts within the will of the Sender, it is as if the Principal Himself has acted. This foundational concept bridges the gap between the divine and the human, illuminating the profound unity of the Old and New Testaments.
Categories
Acts Chapters 3, 13 & 17
Harmony Between Paul’s Sermon (Acts 13)
and Peter’s Proclamation (Acts 3)
In Acts 13, the Apostle Paul’s address at the synagogue in Antioch of Pisidia seamlessly echoes Peter’s earlier sermon in Acts 3. Both apostles deliver a strictly monotheistic message: God the Father is the sovereign actor of salvation, and Jesus is His sinless, human Messiah, descended from King David and vindicated through the resurrection.
1. The Savior Brought from the Seed of David
- Human Lineage and Divine Promise: Paul begins by outlining Israel’s historical narrative, noting how God raised up King David. He then explicitly identifies Jesus as a direct physical descendant (seed) of David, brought by God to Israel as a Savior according to His promise.
- Echo of Peter’s Model: Just as Peter in Acts 3 identifies Jesus as the human prophet raised up from among Israel’s brethren (fulfilling Deuteronomy 18), Paul identifies Jesus as the promised human King arising from David’s royal lineage.
2. God as the Sole Primary Actor
- God Directs the Narrative: Throughout Acts 13, Paul repeatedly identifies God the Father as the sole initiator and source of power:
- God chose the patriarchs.
- God led Israel out of Egypt.
- God raised up David.
- God brought the Savior Jesus.
- God raised Jesus from the dead.
- Distinction Between Sender and Sent: Like Peter, Paul maintains a strict biblical distinction between the one true God who performs the raising and exalting, and Jesus, who is the obedient recipient of God’s redemptive plan.
3. Psalm 16 and the Exalted Davidic Heir
- Contrast Between David and Christ: Paul quotes Psalm 16
(“You will not permit your holy one to experience decay”) to demonstrate the mechanics of the resurrection:- King David served God’s purpose in his own generation, died, was buried, and underwent physical corruption.
- The one whom God raised up (Jesus) did not experience decay.
4. Forgiveness Proclaimed Through a Genuine Man
- Justification Through God’s Agent: Paul concludes his sermon by declaring that “through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you”, offering justification that the Law of Moses could never provide.
- Delegated Authority in Action: Salvation is not presented as an uncreated deity dying, but as God executing His redemptive plan through a sinless human representative whose obedience and resurrection grant life to all who believe.
Summary Comparison Matrix
| Theme | Peter’s Sermon (Acts 3) | Paul’s Sermon (Acts 13) | Unitarian Synthesis |
| Jesus’s Identity | God’s obedient servant (pais) and promised prophet like Moses. | The promised Savior from the physical seed of King David. | Jesus is a genuine human Messiah fulfilling Old Testament promises. |
| The Resurrection | God glorified and raised His servant Jesus from the dead. | God raised Jesus from the dead, fulfilling Psalm 16. | God the Father is the sole agent who resurrects and exalts His Son. |
| David vs. Jesus | David foretold Christ’s resurrection and ascension. | David died and saw decay; Jesus saw no decay because God raised him. | Jesus is the exalted, incorruptible Davidic King ruling at God’s right hand. |
| Gospel Call | Repent so sins are blotted out through God’s servant. | Forgiveness of sins is proclaimed through this man. | Redemption is achieved by God operating through His human ambassador (shaliah). |
5. Key Conclusion
Both Peter in Acts 3 and Paul in Acts 13 present an identical christological framework. Neither apostle preaches a multi-person Godhead or an incarnation of Almighty God. Instead, they proclaim the foundational truth of Biblical Unitarian monotheism: the God of Israel has fulfilled His promise by raising up His human Messiah, Jesus, and establishing him as Lord and Savior over all creation.
How Paul’s Sermon at Athens (Acts 17) Reinforces Monotheism
In Acts 17:22–31, the Apostle Paul presents the Gospel to a pagan, Greek philosophical audience at the Areopagus in Athens. Because his listeners had no background in the Hebrew Scriptures, Paul constructs his message from foundational principles. Rather than introducing a multi-person Godhead or an incarnate deity, Paul presents a strictly monotheistic framework: God the Father is the solitary Creator of all things, and Jesus is the designated human being who will judge the world on God’s behalf.
6. The One True God as the Universal Sovereign Creator
- The Creator of Heaven and Earth: Paul introduces God as the sole architect of the cosmos who “made the world and everything in it.” He does not dwell in man-made temples, nor is He served by human hands as though He needed anything, seeing that He Himself gives life, breath, and all things to humanity.
- Transcendence and Independence: By defining God as the self-sufficient source of all existence, Paul establishes absolute monotheism, excluding any notion that God shares His uncreated essence with another person or entity.
7. Judgment by an Ordained Man (Anēr)
- The Specificity of Christ’s Humanity: In Acts 17:31, Paul announces that God has fixed a day on which “He will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom He has ordained.”
- The Greek Term Anēr: Paul intentionally uses the Greek word anēr (a specific human male), rather than a vague or abstract term. Jesus is explicitly identified not as God the Judge, but as a genuine human being appointed to execute judgment on God’s behalf.
- Delegated Judicial Authority: This aligns seamlessly with Jesus’s own words in the Gospels—that the Father has given him authority to execute judgment precisely because he is the Son of Man. The act of judging the world is a delegated office conferred by the Father upon His human Messiah.
8. Vindication Through God’s Resurrecting Power
- God as the Active Resurrector: Paul explains that God provided assurance of this future judgment to all people “by raising him from the dead.”
- Passive Recipient of Divine Power: Throughout the Book of Acts, God the Father is the sole active agent who resurrects Jesus. The resurrection serves as God’s official public accreditation and endorsement of His human representative.
Summary Comparison Matrix
| Theme in Acts 17 | Traditional / Trinitarian Framing | Biblical Unitarian Synthesis |
| Identity of God | Multi-personal Godhead acting in creation. | The single, uncreated Creator who gives life to all things. |
| Identity of the Judge | Second person of the Trinity coming to judge. | A genuine human man (anēr) ordained and appointed by God. |
| Role of the Resurrection | Proof of Jesus’s self-existent divine power. | Proof provided by God that He has vindicated His human agent. |
9. Key Conclusion
Paul’s sermon at Athens strips away all ambiguity. Before a pagan audience with zero Jewish background, Paul did not preach a Triune Godhead or a dual-nature deity. He proclaimed one supreme God, who created all things, and one human Messiah, whom God raised from the dead to act as His ultimate judge and representative over creation.
Categories
Acts 3 Christology
In Acts 3, Peter’s sermon to the men of Israel at the Temple provides a clear blueprint of early apostolic christology. Rather than presenting Jesus as God Incarnate, Peter outlines a strictly monotheistic framework:
God the Father is the sole God of the patriarchs, and Jesus is His distinct, human servant foretold by Moses and the prophets.
1. Jesus as God’s Servant (Pais)
- Explicit Servant Title: Peter explicitly refers to Jesus as God’s servant (“The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob… glorified His servant Jesus” and “God, having raised up His servant, sent him to bless you”) – Acts 3:13, 26.
- Distinction Between God and Jesus: By using the title servant, Peter maintains a clear boundary between Yahweh (the God of the fathers who performs the glorifying and sending) and Jesus (the obedient servant who is glorified and sent).
2. Fulfillment of the “Prophet Like Moses” (Deuteronomy 18)
- Raised Up From Among the Brothers: In Acts 3, Peter directly quotes Moses’ prophecy from Deuteronomy 18: “Yahweh your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers.”
- Human Lineage and Agency: Just as Moses was a human leader, prophet, and mediator chosen from among the Israelites, Jesus is identified as the promised prophet coming from the exact same human brethren. He acts as God’s supreme spokesman whom the people are commanded to hear and obey.
3. The Leader to Life (Archegos)
- Pioneer of Salvation: In Acts 3:15, Peter notes that while the people killed the prince/captain of life, God raised him from the dead.
- Empowered and Led by God: Jesus being the captain or pioneer unto life does not mean he is self-existent deity; rather, he was taught, guided, and led to life by God, becoming the exalted human leader who opens the path of resurrection for others.
4. The Seed of Abraham Bringing Delegated Blessing
- Fulfilling the Abrahamic Covenant: Peter closes his address by pointing to the covenant God made with Abraham (“And in your seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed”).
- Turning People from Iniquity: God fulfilled this covenant promise by raising up His servant Jesus and sending him to turn people away from their sins. The work of redemption is performed by God through His anointed human representative (shaliah).
Summary Matrix of Acts 3 Christology
| Acts 3 Element | Trinitarian / Traditional Claim | Biblical Unitarian / Textual Reality |
|---|---|---|
| Title of “Servant” (Pais) | Interpreted as a dual-nature God-man. | Identifies Jesus as the obedient, human servant glorified by the God of the fathers. |
| Prophet Like Moses | Assumed to mean a divine incarnation. | Fulfills Deuteronomy 18: a human prophet raised up from among Israel’s brothers. |
| Captain of Life (Archegos) | Claimed as intrinsic divine omnipotence. | Designates the exalted human pioneer granted life and authority by God. |
| Sending of the Servant | God sending a second person of Himself. | The Father (the sole God) sending His anointed human ambassador to bless humanity. |
Key Conclusion
Peter’s sermon in Acts 3 contains no record of a Triune Godhead or an uncreated deity taking on flesh. Instead, it presents a seamless continuation of Old Testament monotheism: the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the only true God, and Jesus is His prophesied human servant and prophet, vindicated through the resurrection and sent to grant repentance and salvation.
Across the apostolic sermons and narratives in Acts, the historical testimony of the earliest Christian church consistently presents one God—the Father alone—and Jesus as a sinless human being who was approved, anointed, raised from the dead, and exalted by God to serve as His messianic Lord and King.
1. The Identity of God and Jesus in Apostolic Preaching
The sermons recorded throughout Acts establish a clear, fundamental distinction between Almighty God and Jesus of Nazareth:
- A Man Approved and Empowered by God (Acts 2:22): In the inaugural sermon of the church, Peter explicitly defines Jesus not as God Incarnate, but as “a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him”. The text presents God as the ultimate source of power and Jesus as the human instrument through whom God operated.
- Made Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36): Acts explicitly states that “God has made that same Jesus… both Lord and Christ”.
A Biblical Unitarian framework highlights that Almighty God (Yahweh) inherently possesses underived lordship and cannot be made Lord by another. Jesus’s lordship is an appointed, delegated office granted by the Father upon his resurrection. - Judged by an Ordained Man (Acts 17:31): In Paul’s sermon to the Athenians, God is identified as the creator who “will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he has ordained”, offering proof to all by raising him from the dead. The apostolic message centers on a human representative chosen and vindicated by God.
- The Davidic Seed and Savior (Acts 13:23): In Paul’s sermon at Antioch, the Gospel is defined as God fulfilling His promise to Israel by raising up a Savior, Jesus, from the physical seed and lineage of King David. Salvation is proclaimed through the work God accomplished through this exalted man.
2. Syntactical and Textual Analysis of Key Proof-Texts
- The Damascus Road Vision (Acts 9:3–6): Trinitarians argue that Jesus appearing in a blinding light and receiving the title “Lord” (kurios) proves his deity. However, kurios is a standard title for human masters, rulers, and exalted figures. Jesus speaks from heaven as God’s exalted Messiah identifying with his persecuted body (the church), not as Yahweh Himself.
- Grammatical Analysis of the Resurrection (Acts 5:29–31): Trinitarians cite passages like John 2:19 to argue Jesus raised himself. Grammatical analysis of Acts 5:30 shows that the Greek verb for “raised” is in the active voice with God as the subject and Jesus as the direct object. Jesus does not middle-voice act upon himself;
he is the passive recipient of God’s resurrecting power. - Textual Nuance in the “Blood of God” (Acts 20:28): Trinitarian claims that Acts 20:28 proves God has literal blood rely on specific English translations. Syntactical analysis and textual variants reveal that the Greek genitive construction is properly rendered “the church of God which he obtained with the blood of His own [Son]”.
God the Father, being spirit, does not possess physical blood; the blood shed belonged to His human Son. - Stephen’s Martyrdom (Acts 7:59): Claims that Stephen prayed to Jesus as God fall apart under textual scrutiny. The word “God” does not appear in the original Greek text (it was added in italics by translators). Stephen called upon the exalted Lord Jesus to receive his spirit because God granted Jesus authority over life, death, and judgment.
3. Anointing, Agency, and Federal Headship
- The Necessity of Anointing (Acts 10:38): Peter summarizes Jesus’s ministry by stating that “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power… for God was with him”. If Jesus were intrinsically God, he would not require anointing with God’s Spirit or power, nor would scripture state that “God was with him.”
- Prophetic Foreknowledge vs. Pre-Existence: Claims of
pre-existence (such as the spiritual rock in 1 Corinthians 10:4 or glory before the world in John 17:5) are resolved through the Hebrew concept of prolepsis and prophetic foreknowledge. As confirmed in 1 Peter 1:20, Christ was foreknown before the foundation of the world in God’s plan and promise, but was only manifested in reality in the last times. - Federal Headship (Adam vs. Christ): The redemptive architecture requires a genuine human representative. Just as one human man (Adam) brought sin and mortality to humanity through disobedience, God provided another human man (Jesus, the “last” Adam) to undo the curse through perfect obedience. Outsourcing redemption to a dual-nature deity would invalidate true human federal headship.
Summary Comparison Matrix
| Passage | Trinitarian Claim | Biblical Unitarian / Textual Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Acts 2:22, 36 | Jesus is God acting on earth. | Jesus is a man accredited by God; God made him Lord and Christ. |
| Acts 5:30 | Jesus raised his own body from the dead. | Greek active syntax shows God is the sole subject who raised Jesus (the object). |
| Acts 7:59 | Stephen worshipped Jesus as God. | The word “God” is absent in Greek; Stephen appealed to God’s exalted agent. |
| Acts 10:38 | Intrinsic divine omnipotence. | Jesus was anointed by God with the Spirit because God was with him. |
| Acts 20:28 | Proves God has physical blood. | Greek genitive context refers to the blood of God’s own Son. |
Key Conclusion
The Book of Acts contains no record of the apostles preaching a Triune Godhead or a multi-personal Yahweh. Instead, the early church proclaimed absolute monotheism: the Father is the only true God, and Jesus of Nazareth is His sinless, human Messiah, who was raised from the dead and exalted to God’s right hand to grant repentance and forgiveness of sins.
Agency explains how Almighty God (Yahweh) interacts with creation through designated representatives—both angelic and human—and provides the foundational context for understanding Jesus as God’s fully empowered, human Messiah without confusing the representative with the sole true God.
1. Linguistic Foundations & Definition of Agency (Shaliah)
The concept of agency is deeply rooted in ancient Near Eastern culture, rabbinic jurisprudence, and biblical text:
- The Fundamental Principle: The core dictum of Jewish agency law states: “A person’s agent is regarded as the person himself” (Talmud Nedarim 72b, Kiddushin 41b). Whatever lawful act a duly appointed representative performs is legally credited directly to the principal who authorized them.
- Key Terminology:
- Hebrew (Shalach / Shaliah): The verb shalach (“to send out”) appears hundreds of times in the Hebrew Bible. The noun shaliah denotes a legal agent, emissary, or delegate authorized to act in place of another.
- Greek (Apostolos): Translates the Hebrew concept of shaliah. An apostolos (apostle) is literally “one sent out” as an official envoy or commissioner to represent the sender.
- Modern Equivalents: Agency functions identically to modern legal concepts like Power of Attorney, where a designated proxy’s signature carries full legal authority,
or an Ambassador, whose official declarations bind the nation they represent. - Distinction Between Principal and Agent: Agency maintains a strict boundary between the Principal (the supreme authority/sender) and the Agent (the representative/sent one). The agent carries the principal’s authority, name, and backing, but is never identical in nature or identity to the principal.
2. Hebrew Bible Evidence of Agency (Tanakh)
The Hebrew Bible demonstrates that acts performed by agents are consistently attributed directly to Yahweh as the principal source:
- Angelic Representatives (Malak Adonai):
- Destruction of Sodom (Genesis 19): The angels explicitly state that Yahweh sent them to destroy the city, yet Lot and subsequent texts state that Yahweh destroyed Sodom. The actions of the sent messengers are identified as the action of Yahweh.
- Wrestling at Peniel (Genesis 32 & Hosea 12:4): Jacob declares he saw God face to face, but Hosea clarifies that Jacob wrestled with an angel (malak). Seeing God’s authorized representative is idiomatically termed
“seeing God”. - The Burning Bush (Exodus 3): The Angel of Yahweh appears in the flame and speaks in the first person on God’s behalf (“I am the God of your father”). The agent delivers the principal’s direct speech.
- Giving of the Law
(Deuteronomy 5 vs. Acts 7 / Galatians 3):
While Deuteronomy records Yahweh speaking face to face on Mount Sinai, New Testament writers clarify that the Law was delivered through angels/messengers.
- Human Agents Representing Yahweh:
- Exodus from Egypt: While Yahweh states “I brought Israel out of Egypt,” numerous passages state that Moses and Aaron brought Israel out. Moses acted as God’s shaliah, wielding divine authority on earth.
- Striking the Nile (Exodus 7): Yahweh declares “I will strike the waters,” but commands Aaron to stretch out his staff and strike the river. Aaron performs the physical act, which is credited to Yahweh.
- Conquering Canaan (Deuteronomy 31): Text states both that Yahweh will cross ahead of Israel and that Joshua will cross ahead of Israel. Joshua acts as Yahweh’s human representative leading the army.
- Prophetic Speech (Isaiah 7): Isaiah delivers words to King Ahaz, and the narrative immediately follows with “Yahweh spoke again to Ahaz.” The words spoken by the human prophet are recorded as God Himself speaking.
- Human-to-Human Agency:
- Eleazar for Abraham (Genesis 24): Abraham sends his senior servant to secure a bride for Isaac. Laban and Bethuel receive Eleazar’s gifts and proposal as if Abraham and Isaac were acting directly.
- Joseph and Pharaoh (Genesis 41 & 44): Pharaoh bestows his signet ring upon Joseph, granting him absolute administrative control over Egypt. When Judah addresses Joseph, the Hebrew text states “You are Pharaoh,” recognizing Joseph as Pharaoh’s official proxy.
3. New Testament Application: Jesus as the Exalted Agent of God
The New Testament applies the shaliah model directly to Jesus Christ, establishing his role as the supreme human Messiah sent by the Father:
- Jesus as the Apostle of God (Hebrews 3:1): Jesus is explicitly named the Apostle (the chief shaliah or sent one) of our confession.
- Total Dependence on the Father: Jesus consistently affirms his status as an agent:
- Origin of Words: “My teaching is not mine, but His who sent me” (John 7:16).
- Origin of Works: “The Father abiding in me does His works”
(John 14:10). - Origin of Authority: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Matthew 28:18).
- Submission of Will: “I seek not my own will but the will of Him who sent me” (John 5:30).
- Harmonizing Gospel Accounts via Agency:
- The Centurion’s Request (Matthew 8 vs. Luke 7):
Matthew records the centurion speaking directly to Jesus; Luke reveals that the centurion sent Jewish elders and friends as his agents.
Matthew reports the principal; Luke details the agents. - Request of the Sons of Zebedee
(Mark 10 vs. Matthew 20):
Mark attributes the request to James and John; Matthew notes their mother spoke on their behalf as their agent. - Baptism in Judea (John 3:22 vs. John 4:1–2):
John 3 states Jesus was baptizing people, but John 4 clarifies that Jesus himself did not baptize, but his disciples did. The disciples’ work was credited to their Master.
- The Centurion’s Request (Matthew 8 vs. Luke 7):
- The Chain of Delegation (Father → Jesus → Disciples):
- Jesus tells his followers: “Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives Him who sent me” (Matthew 10:40).
- When Saul persecutes believers, Jesus asks, “Why are you persecuting me?” (Acts 9:4), because mistreating sent ambassadors is legally counted as mistreating the King himself.
4. Summary Matrix of Biblical Agency
| Biblical Event / Context | Principal (Sender) | Agent (Sent One) | Implication / Synthesis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sodom & Gomorrah | Yahweh | Two Angels | Angels execute the destruction; credited to Yahweh. |
| Exodus from Egypt | Yahweh | Moses & Aaron | God leads Israel through His human ambassador (shaliah). |
| Striking the Nile | Yahweh | Aaron | Aaron strikes the water with his staff; credited as Yahweh striking the Nile. |
| Joseph’s Rule in Egypt | Pharaoh | Joseph | Joseph wears the signet ring; addressed legally as Pharaoh. |
| Centurion’s Servant | Centurion | Jewish Elders / Friends | Agents speak for the centurion; Matthew credits the words directly to the principal. |
| Jesus’s Ministry & Miracles | God the Father | Jesus the Messiah | God performs signs and wonders through Jesus (Acts 2:22); Jesus acts as God’s supreme Apostle. |
| Persecution of the Church | Jesus | Apostles / Disciples | Persecuting Christ’s sent followers is legally counted as persecuting Christ (Acts 9:4). |
Key Conclusion
Understanding agency resolves every apparent scriptural paradox regarding divine titles, deeds, and authority attributed to Jesus. Jesus acts as God, speaks for God, and executes the judgment of God without literally being Yahweh. By recognizing Jesus as the exalted human Messiah operating under delegated divine authority, the biblical narrative maintains absolute monotheism—affirming the Father as the only true God and Jesus Christ as the supreme agent whom He sent.
The “Shaliach” Secret: An Ancient Framework
In Christological hermeneutics, the “Agency Model” is not a modern theological innovation but a recovery of an ancient Jewish legal framework. At its core lies the concept of the Shaliach—the principle that “an agent is as the one who sent him.” While the agent represents the sender with plenary authority, he remains ontologically distinct from and subordinate to the sender. This distinction serves as the central pivot point in the
Unitarian-Trinitarian debate. By shifting from late-antique ontological speculation to a rigorous historical-grammatical analysis, we find a framework that explains how Jesus is “one” with the Father without being the Father Himself.
1. The Logic of the “Most High” (El Elyon)
The title El Elyon (Most High) functions as a strategic marker of absolute divine singularity. In the foundational narratives of Genesis 14 and 15, the “Most High God” is identified exclusively as the Father—the original “Possessor of heaven and earth.” The New Testament maintains this boundary with logical precision; in Luke 1:32, Jesus is identified as the “Son of the Highest.”
From a scholar’s perspective, the “Son of the Highest” cannot be the “Highest” Himself. Context explicitly rejects the conflation of these roles, as it would necessitate an individual being his own father—a categorical and logical impossibility. This creates a clear hierarchy: the Father is the inherent “Lord of heaven and earth” (Matthew 11:25), whereas the Son is the “Heir” who is granted dominion and the Davidic throne. The Father is the underived source; the Son is the derivative recipient.
2. The “Man Who Heard” (John 8:40)
John 8:40 establishes what can be described as an “ontological chasm” between the Messianic Agent and the Most High. In a direct self-identification, Jesus describes himself as:
“But now you seek to kill me, a man (anthropos) who has told you the truth which I heard from God.” (John 8:40)
The strategic value of the term anthropos cannot be overstated. By defining himself as a “man who has heard,” Jesus signals that his knowledge is derivative and contingent. If the Agent must hear and receive truth from another, it signifies a lack of inherent divine omniscience—an attribute that is ontologically non-transferable. This dependency defines the Messianic nature as one that functions within the limits of human agency, even while executing a divine commission. To “receive” truth is to be a student of God, not God Himself.
3. Pre-existence as Prophecy, Not Personhood
The statement “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58) is frequently misinterpreted through the lens of literal, literal pre-incarnate personhood. However, the Agency Model identifies this as a claim to being the “Prophesied Messiah.” In the mind and decree of God, the Messiah’s priority was established “before the foundation of the world,” much as he is the “lamb slain” in the foreknowledge of God (Revelation 13:8).
This is confirmed by the lexical data surrounding the “Root of David.” While often read as David’s “source,” the Greek term Rhiza and its Hebrew equivalent Chesh (found in the contexts of Revelation 5:5 and 22:16) explicitly define a “root” as a “sprout,” “chute,” or “descendant” that springs from the ground. Jesus is the offspring rising from David’s line, not David’s pre-existent ancestor. Furthermore, Abraham’s rejoiced “to see” Jesus’ day not because of a literal encounter, but because he saw the promise of the Messianic era from afar through faith
(Hebrews 11:13). Jesus’ superiority is one of plan and purpose, not literal chronology.
4. The Linguistic Trap of “Lordship”
A precise historical-grammatical distinction is made in 1 Corinthians 8:6: “To us there is but one God, the Father… and one Lord, Jesus Christ.”
This “Lordship” is a functional claim to Davidic Kingship rather than an ontological claim to deity. This is anchored in the linguistic nuances of Psalm 110:1: “The Lord (Yahweh) said unto my lord (Adoni).”
- Adonai (the Most High) is used 100% of the time in scripture for Yahweh.
- Adoni (my lord) refers exclusively to human superiors, such as kings.
Jesus is never called Adonai in this foundational prophecy; rather, he is the Adoni who was “made Lord” (Acts 2:36). Even the high titles of “Alpha and Omega” or “First and Last” in Revelation must be viewed through this lens of agency. These are bestowed titles signifying the Son’s delegated authority over the “New Creation,” granted to him by the original Creator.
5. Redefining “Oneness” in John 10
When Jesus declared, “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30), he was not claiming a unity of essence, but a “Unity of Operation.” In John 10:34-36, Jesus defends himself by appealing to the “Agency defence” of Psalm 82, noting that human judges were called “gods” (Elohim) because the word of God came to them.
His defense clarifies the nature of this oneness:
- Unity of Operation: The Father is “in” the Son through the Spirit, enabling the Son to perform the Father’s works as His perfect representative.
- Consecration vs. Essence: Jesus emphasizes he was “sanctified” and “sent.” Sanctification implies a recipient of authority, which would be redundant for the intrinsic Source of all holiness.
- Son of God as Title: Jesus retreats from an essence claim to a formal Messianic office. “Son of God” is his title as the commissioned Messianic Agent, not a claim to be the Most High.
Conclusion: The Power of the Delegated King
The Agency Model provides a scriptural narrative that is internally consistent, preserving the Father’s ontological singularity as El Elyon while fully honoring the Son’s unique, delegated authority.
Jesus is the human Shaliach—the “man who heard from God,” the prophesied “sprout” of David, and the Lord who was made so by the Father’s decree.
If Jesus’ power is entirely derivative and his glory is a gift, his humanity becomes the very thing that validates our salvation. If Jesus is our representative King and the perfect Agent of the Father, how does viewing him as a man empowered by God—rather than a deity in disguise—change the way you view his obedience and his triumph on your behalf?
The digital theological arena has become a modern blood sport. Gone are the days of hushed library whispers; today’s most rigorous Christological battles are fought on YouTube panels and TikTok livestreams before thousands of spectators. A recent showdown between Chad (a Unitarian Christian) and God Logic (a Trinitarian apologist) provides a masterclass in this friction. It is a striking case study of how two parties can examine the same Koine Greek and Biblical Hebrew texts yet emerge with fundamentally different versions of reality.
For the intellectually curious, this debate offers more than just religious heat; it reveals the deep linguistic and logical puzzles that undergird Western thought. Here are five counter-intuitive takeaways from this theological collision.
1. The “Rhiza” Controversy: Origin or Offspring?
Consider Revelation 22:16, where Jesus claims, “I am the root and the descendant of David.” Traditional Trinitarianism views the “root” as the source or origin—the divine foundation from which David’s line grew. Yet, the debate unearthed a surprising linguistic counter-point rooted in “Horticulture 101.”
Citing heavy-weight Greek lexicons like BDAG and Thayer’s, the analyst pointed to the Greek term rhiza. While we usually think of a root as the ancestor of the plant, the lexical evidence suggests that rhiza can also refer to a “shoot” or “sprout”—that which springs from a root.
- The Scientific Claim: In specific growth contexts, stems can produce roots. In this biological framework, the root is a product, not just a precursor.
- The Theological Claim: If rhiza means “offspring,” then Jesus’s claim in Revelation is a poetic parallelism: he is calling himself the descendant of David twice for emphasis.
This linguistic pivot redefines Jesus from being the pre-existent Source of the Davidic line to being its ultimate, promised Product.
2. The “Man Who Heard” vs. “God Who Heard”
One of the most difficult hurdles for the Trinitarian position in this debate was John 8:40. In this passage, Jesus describes himself as “a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God.” For the Unitarian, this is a cornerstone of “God Logic” (of a different sort): a man heard truth from God.
The debate highlights a significant “pre-existence paradox.”
If Jesus is co-equal and co-eternal God, the act of “hearing truth from God” implies a redundancy that borders on the illogical. Does God need to tell God the truth?
“The Trinity is not there. Jesus’s own words: ‘I am a man who heard the truth from God.’ It doesn’t say God heard from another God. It says ‘A man heard from God.'”
This takeaway suggests that the simplest reading—a human prophet receiving divine revelation—remains a powerful challenge to the
“multi-personal” divine model, which requires complex maneuvers to explain why a divine being would speak of himself in such strictly subordinate, human terms.
3. Divine Agency: The Shaliah and the King
How can Jesus exercise divine authority, hold the “keys to death and hell,” and receive worship without being the “Most High God”? The debate offers a solution through the ancient Jewish concept of Divine Agency, or the Shaliah.
The logic is rooted in the legal principle: A man’s agent is as himself. In the ancient world, when a King sent a Shaliah to a distant land, that agent was to be treated with the exact same honor, protocol, and reverence as the King. To honor the agent was to honor the King; to reject the agent was to reject the King.
This framework explains the Adonai/Adoni distinction found in
Psalm 110:1 (“The LORD said to my lord”). While Adonai refers exclusively to Yahweh, Adoni is a title for a human superior—a king, a master, or an sent agent (also used in reference to angels). By viewing Jesus as the ultimate Shaliah, the Unitarian position argues that he holds the “keys” not because he is the source of the power, but because he is the Father’s authorized representative.
4. The Pre-Existence Paradox: Prophecy vs. Presence
Perhaps the most famous pivot in the debate is John 8:58: “Before Abraham was, I am.” While Trinitarians see this as a clear claim to the divine name and eternal presence, the Unitarian counter-argument introduces the concept of Prophetic Existence.
In this view, Jesus existed “in the mind of God” as the predetermined Messiah—the “lamb slain before the foundation of the world.” This is not a literal, pre-incarnate person walking through history, but
a “notional existence” in Jewish thought. Just as the Torah or the Tabernacle were said to exist before creation, Jesus existed as the central blueprint of God’s plan.
This takeaway is impactful because it reframes the conflict with the Jews of Jesus’s time. They weren’t necessarily stoning him for claiming to be Yahweh, but for claiming a “heaven-sent” Messianic status that they viewed as a blasphemous elevation of a man beyond the natural order.
Conclusion: The Echoes of the Search
As the dust settles on the digital arena, the observer is left with more than just a list of proof-texts. The debate itself, often marred by “crowd work,” “unfair moderation,” and the belittling of opponents, serves as a reminder that the search for truth is easily obscured by the theater of the argument.
The true takeaway is the necessity of returning to the “roots” of the language—the rhiza—ourselves. Whether one views Jesus as the Most High God in human flesh or as the Father’s perfect Shaliah, the debate proves that the theological definitions we inherit are often far more porous than we realize.
Is our understanding of the divine limited by the definitions we inherit, or are we willing to look at the “roots” ourselves?
Categories
