10. The New Testament Cumulative Evidence, Part 3: Acts and Paul's Epistles

Parts 1 and 2 examined the major Gospel passages I marked in my New Testament Study Bible under the question, “Is Jesus God?” This article continues that cumulative examination through Acts and the letters of Paul. But before turning to the individual proof-texts, I want to begin with the larger and more basic question: What do Acts and Paul actually say, positively and repeatedly, about who Jesus is?

I think this is the best place to begin because a Christology should not be built first from a small number of difficult or disputed verses. It should begin with the ordinary language an author uses again and again. Only after that larger portrait is established should we ask whether passages such as Romans 9:5, Romans 10:13, Philippians 2, Colossians 1, or Titus 2:13 require us to revise it.

Before the Proof-Texts: What Acts and Paul Say Jesus Is

The Christology of Acts and Paul is extraordinarily high. Jesus is not presented as merely a teacher, prophet, or unusually good man. He is God’s human Son and Messiah, the Lord through whom God saves and rules, the risen King, the mediator between God and humanity, the image of God, the head of the Church, the one through whom God reconciles creation, and the returning Judge before whom humanity will ultimately answer. My argument is therefore not that the New Testament gives Jesus a small place. It gives him the highest place God has given to a human being.

Acts: the man God made Lord and Christ

Acts establishes an extraordinarily high human Christology with remarkable consistency. Jesus is not presented as merely a teacher or ordinary prophet. He is God’s holy Servant, Son, Messiah, Lord, Savior, Prophet, Righteous One, Prince of Life, Davidic King, and appointed Judge. Salvation comes through him. Forgiveness is proclaimed through him. Humanity is called to believe in him. He has been exalted to God’s right hand and given supreme authority under God. Yet Acts repeatedly and explicitly identifies this exalted Jesus as a man and distinguishes him from the God who sends, empowers, raises, glorifies, exalts, and appoints him.

Peter establishes this framework in the first major Christian sermon after Jesus’ resurrection:

The wording is striking. Jesus is “a man approved by God,” and the miracles associated with Jesus are works “which God did by him.” God is the source of the power; Jesus is the man through whom God works.

Peter then says:

And later:

This may be one of the clearest summaries of Jesus’ identity in the New Testament. God raises Jesus. God exalts Jesus. Jesus receives the Holy Spirit from the Father. And God makes Jesus both Lord and Christ. Jesus really is Lord. Acts does not diminish that title. But his lordship is the exalted status God gives him. Yahweh does not need anyone to make Him Lord; Jesus does. The same is true of “Christ”: Jesus is God’s anointed Messiah.

Acts 3 reinforces the distinction even more strongly. Peter tells Israel:

Notice who Peter identifies as God: “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers.”

And what does this God do?

He glorifies His Servant Jesus.

Jesus is then given extraordinarily exalted titles: the Holy One, the Righteous One, the Prince of Life. These titles should not be minimized. Yet even while giving Jesus these extraordinary titles, Peter maintains the same distinction: they killed Jesus, and God raised him from the dead.

Peter continues:

Jesus is therefore the Christ whom God sends, the Prophet whom the Lord God raises up, and God’s Servant.

This is very significant. The promised prophet is raised up “from among your brothers.” Jesus belongs to humanity. God is the One who raises this human prophet and commands humanity to listen to him.

Acts 4 gives us an extraordinary glimpse of how the earliest Spirit-filled Church itself understood Jesus. The believers pray:

The early Church identifies the One they are praying to as the Sovereign Creator who made heaven and earth. Then, in the very same prayer, they identify Jesus as “your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed.”

The distinction is extremely difficult to miss:

God is the Sovereign Creator.

Jesus is God’s holy Servant.

God anoints Jesus.

And when the believers ask for signs and wonders to occur “through the name of your holy servant Jesus” (Acts 4:30), God answers by filling them with the Holy Spirit. Acts therefore presents the same pattern in Jesus and in the Church: extraordinary works happen because God supplies the power through His Spirit.

Acts 5 continues:

Again, who is God?

“The God of our fathers.”

And who is Jesus?

The man this God raised and exalted to become Prince and Savior.

Jesus truly is Savior. But Acts explains the source of his saving authority: God exalted him as Savior.

The chapter then summarizes the preaching of the apostles:

This becomes extraordinarily important when we ask what the earliest Christian gospel actually was.

Acts repeatedly records sermons, missionary preaching, conversions, evangelism, defenses before rulers, and summaries of apostolic teaching. Again and again the proclamation is:

Jesus is the Christ.

Jesus is the Son of God.

Jesus is Lord.

God raised Jesus from the dead.

God exalted Jesus.

Salvation comes through Jesus.

What Acts never plainly records as the apostolic proclamation is: “Jesus is God.”

That absence matters. If believing that Jesus is Almighty God were the central defining confession of Christianity, Acts would be an extraordinary place for Luke to state it. Yet when Luke summarizes what the apostles preached, he repeatedly tells us that they proclaimed Jesus as the Christ whom God raised and exalted.

Stephen’s speech and death continue exactly the same Christology. Stephen recalls Moses’ prophecy:

Stephen does not identify Jesus as the God who spoke to Moses. He identifies “the Lord our God” as the One who will raise up Jesus, the promised human prophet.

Then, immediately before Stephen dies:

This is an extraordinarily exalted picture of Jesus. The risen Son of Man stands in heaven at God’s right hand.

But Luke’s wording still distinguishes them: Stephen sees the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. Jesus is not described as the God whose glory Stephen sees. He is the exalted Son of Man beside God.

Acts also tells us exactly what Paul began preaching immediately after his conversion:

Luke could hardly give us a better opportunity to tell us what Paul newly discovered about Jesus.

What does Paul immediately proclaim?

Jesus is the Son of God.

Jesus is the Christ.

Luke does not say Paul went into the synagogues proving that Jesus was God. He identifies the content of Paul’s new Christian proclamation in exactly the categories Acts has already been using.

Peter’s preaching to Cornelius in Acts 10 is equally important:

Again, this is extremely high Christology.

Jesus possesses tremendous supernatural power.

Jesus is raised from death.

Jesus will judge the living and the dead.

But every element of his extraordinary status is connected back to God:

God anoints Jesus.

God gives him the Holy Spirit and power.

God is with him.

God raises him.

God appoints him Judge.

Jesus is therefore not simply called “Judge” as though this proves inherent deity. Acts tells us precisely why he is Judge: God appointed him.

Paul gives essentially the same message in Athens:

This may be one of the strongest passages in Acts for understanding Jesus’ identity. God will judge the world.

How?

“By the man whom he has appointed.”

The universal Judge through whom God will judge humanity is explicitly called a man.

God appoints this man.

God authenticates this man by raising him from the dead.

This is not a low Christology. God has elevated this man to an almost unimaginably great position: the entire world will ultimately answer through him. But the very verse that gives Jesus this universal judicial authority simultaneously calls him the man whom God appointed.

Acts 13 gives the same human Messianic framework through Jesus’ descent from David. Paul recounts Israel’s history and says:

Jesus is the promised descendant of David through whom God brings salvation.

Paul then declares:

Again, Jesus’ role could hardly be greater.

Forgiveness is proclaimed through this man.

Justification comes through him.

He is Israel’s promised Savior.

But God is the One who brings the Savior and raises him from death.

Jesus is not the God who brings the Savior. Jesus is the Savior God brings.

And finally, Paul gives one of the clearest summaries of his entire ministry in Acts 20:

That single sentence beautifully summarizes the relationship Acts has presented from beginning to end: repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus.

Jesus truly is our Lord. Faith in him is essential. Through him we receive forgiveness, salvation, resurrection, and reconciliation with God.

But Jesus is the Lord through whom we are brought to God. He is not simply collapsed into the identity of the God toward whom humanity repents.

The cumulative Christology of Acts is therefore remarkably coherent.

Jesus is a man approved by God. He is God’s holy Servant. He is God’s Son. He is the promised Prophet like Moses raised from among his brothers. He is the descendant of David. He is the Christ, God’s anointed King. He is the Holy and Righteous One. He is the Prince of Life. He is Savior. He is Lord. He is the exalted Son of Man at God’s right hand. He is the Judge of the living and the dead.

And yet Acts consistently explains how this human Messiah possesses such extraordinary authority: God works through him. God anoints him. God is with him. God raises him. God glorifies him. God exalts him. God makes him Lord and Christ. God appoints him Savior and Judge.

Acts therefore gives Jesus the highest place imaginable for a human being without identifying him as the God who gives him that place.

This is also why I think the apostolic preaching itself is so important. Acts records the earliest Christian proclamation in extraordinary detail, yet the apostles are never portrayed as going throughout the Roman world preaching, “Jesus is God.” They preach Jesus the Christ, the Son of God, the risen Lord, the Savior whom God raised and exalted.

Apart from the disputed wording of Acts 20:28, Acts never plainly identifies Jesus as God. Instead, the book repeatedly distinguishes Jesus from “the God of our fathers,” “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” and the God who raised, glorified, and exalted him.

If Jesus’ deity were the central identity claim of the apostolic gospel, this consistent pattern would be very surprising.

But if the apostolic message was that God had raised up, empowered, vindicated, and exalted the human Messiah Jesus as Lord and Savior of the world, Acts reads remarkably naturally from beginning to end.

That, I believe, is the Christology of Acts: Jesus is the human Messiah whom the God of Israel made Lord and Christ.

Romans through Galatians: God’s Son, Lord, mediator, firstborn brother, and last Adam

Romans continues the same relationship. Jesus is God’s Son, descended from David according to the flesh, Lord, Messiah, Savior, intercessor, and the one through whom humanity is reconciled to God. God raises him from the dead; peace is with God through Jesus; reconciliation is to God through Jesus; eternal life is God’s gift in Christ. And Christians are not placed in an eternally different category of being from Jesus: they are “fellow heirs with Christ,” destined to be “conformed to the image of his Son,” so that Jesus becomes “the firstborn among many brothers” (Romans 8:17, 29). The direction of Paul’s thought is repeatedly from God, through Christ, and back to God.

First Corinthians makes the distinction even more explicit: “for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him” (1 Corinthians 8:6). Jesus is God’s Son, Christ, Lord, Passover sacrifice, risen King, “second man,” and “last Adam.” God raises Christ; God subjects all things to him; and at the consummation Christ himself is subjected to God, “that God may be all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:24–28). Yet this does not diminish Jesus. The same chapter says believers will bear the image of the heavenly man and share his resurrected, immortal glory (1 Corinthians 15:45–49).

Second Corinthians calls Jesus God’s Son, Lord, Christ, and “the image of God.” God reconciles the world to Himself through Christ (2 Corinthians 5:18–19). Paul even says that Christ “lives through the power of God,” and immediately parallels Christians with him: “we will live with him through the power of God” (2 Corinthians 13:4). Galatians likewise presents Jesus as God’s Son, Lord, Messiah, and redeemer. God raises him, sends him, and brings adoption through him. Jesus gives himself according to the will of “our God and Father” (Galatians 1:4), while Christians become God’s children and have Christ formed in them.

Ephesians through Colossians: exalted above creation, yet still distinguished from God

Ephesians gives Jesus breathtaking authority. He is Messiah, Lord, Savior, head of the Church, and the one through whom God reconciles humanity and brings believers to Himself. But Paul still calls the Father “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Ephesians 1:17). It is that God who raises Jesus, seats him at His right hand, places all things under his feet, and appoints him head over all things for the Church (Ephesians 1:20–22). Through Christ believers have access to the Father in the Spirit (Ephesians 2:18). Jesus is supreme under God; his supremacy is bestowed by the God who is his God.

Philippians gives Jesus universal honor. He is God’s uniquely exalted human Son, Messiah, Lord, Savior, King, and the pattern Christians are commanded to follow. He is “in the form of God,” yet he does not grasp at equality with God. He humbles himself and becomes obedient even to death. Therefore God highly exalts him and gives him the name above every name (Philippians 2:6–11). Every knee will bow to Jesus and every tongue confess him as Lord—but Paul explicitly says this universal confession is “to the glory of God the Father.” Jesus’ exaltation does not compete with God. It displays the glory of the God who exalted him.

Colossians may contain Paul’s highest language about Christ. Jesus is “the image of the invisible God,” “the firstborn of all creation,” the one in whom, through whom, and for whom all things were created, the one who is before all things, the head of the body, the firstborn from the dead, and the one in whom all the fullness of deity dwells bodily. I do not want to minimize a single one of those statements. Yet Paul still frames them relationally: Jesus is the image of the invisible God; God’s fullness dwells in him; God raises him; and God reconciles all things to Himself through him (Colossians 1:15–20; 2:9–12).

Thessalonians, Timothy, and Titus: the returning human Lord, mediator, Judge, and Savior

The later Pauline letters continue the same pattern rather than replacing it. In 1 Thessalonians, believers turn from idols “to serve a living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead” (1 Thessalonians 1:9–10). Jesus is the returning Lord and deliverer; God is the living and true God who raised him. In 2 Thessalonians Jesus returns with mighty angels, judges, reigns, and is glorified in his people, while Paul still distinguishes “our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father” (2 Thessalonians 2:16).

First Timothy may state the relationship most plainly of all: “there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5). Jesus is the human Messiah, Lord, Savior, mediator, and ransom for all. First Timothy simultaneously calls God immortal and invisible while describing Jesus as the man who came into the world, testified before Pilate, and will appear again at the time God determines. Second Timothy calls Jesus the risen Messiah, “of the offspring of David,” and the appointed Judge and King. Titus likewise distinguishes “God the Father” from “Christ Jesus our Savior,” while giving Jesus an immense saving role: he gives himself to redeem and purify a people, and God pours out the Holy Spirit through him (Titus 1:4; 2:14; 3:4–6).

The cumulative positive Christology

Taken together, these books present a remarkably consistent picture. God is the ultimate source: Jesus is the uniquely chosen human Son through whom God acts. God sends him. God anoints him. God works through him. God raises him. God exalts him. God gives him authority. God makes him Lord and Christ. God seats him at His right hand. God subjects creation to him. God reconciles the world through him. God will judge through him. Jesus, in turn, obeys God, represents God, reveals God, mediates between God and humanity, brings creation back to God, and finally subjects all things to God so that God may be all in all.

This is the human Christology I am arguing for. Again: this is not a “low” Christology. Jesus is not merely one human among many. He is God’s uniquely exalted Son, the Messiah and Lord of humanity, the image in whom God is revealed, the mediator of salvation, the risen and returning King, and the human being through whom God restores creation. His authority is real because God truly gives it to him. His glory is real because God truly exalts him. His lordship is real because God truly makes him Lord. And his humanity matters because he is also the pattern of what God intends humanity to become: the firstborn among many brothers, the last Adam whose image believers will bear, the one with whom Christians will live, reign, and share glory.

With that larger portrait established, we can now turn to the passages most commonly used to argue that Paul nevertheless identifies Jesus as God Himself. These texts deserve careful treatment. Some are genuinely difficult, and some give Jesus language originally associated with God. The question is whether they overturn the much larger pattern above—or whether they can be understood naturally within the biblical categories of Messiahship, divine agency, typology, exaltation, image, indwelling, and God acting through His appointed human Son.

Acts

1. Passage: Acts 20:28

Acts 20:28

Scripture (ESV):

If Jesus is not God, why do many translations say that God purchased the Church “with His own blood”?

There are two important issues in this verse: a textual variant and a grammatical question.

First, ancient manuscripts differ. Some read “the church of God,” while others read “the church of the Lord.” If “Lord” is original and refers to Jesus, the difficulty disappears: Jesus, the Lord, purchased the Church with his blood. The manuscript evidence, however, has led many modern critical editions and translations to prefer “the church of God.”

Even with the reading “church of God,” however, the Greek does not necessarily require the meaning “God’s own blood.” The phrase is dia tou haimatos tou idiou—literally something like “through the blood of His own.” The adjective idios (“one’s own”) can function substantivally, so some interpreters understand the sense as “through the blood of His own [one]”—that is, His own Son. On that reading, God obtained the Church through the blood of the One who uniquely belongs to Him, Jesus Christ.

I believe the larger context of Acts favors distinguishing God from Jesus rather than using this difficult phrase to overturn that consistent pattern. Throughout Acts, Jesus is the man God anointed with the Holy Spirit and power (Acts 10:38), the one God raised from the dead (Acts 2:24; 13:30), the Savior God brought from David’s descendants (Acts 13:23), and the one God exalted and appointed (Acts 2:36; 5:31; 10:42). Peter even describes Jesus as “a man approved by God…through mighty works which God did through him” (Acts 2:22).

God, moreover, is Spirit (John 4:24), whereas Jesus genuinely possessed flesh and blood and truly died. A Trinitarian will answer that the divine Son acquired human blood through the incarnation, so this point by itself does not refute Trinitarian theology. But neither should Acts 20:28 be treated as though the Greek unambiguously says, “Jesus is God because God has blood.”

The verse is textually and grammatically disputed. In my understanding, the reading that best fits Acts as a whole is that God obtained His Church through the blood of His own Son, Jesus Christ—the human Messiah whom God sent, anointed, raised, and exalted.

Romans

1. Passage: Romans 9:5

Romans 9:5

Scripture (WEB):

Romans 9:5 is a genuinely disputed passage. The earliest Greek text did not contain the modern punctuation that determines where one sentence ends and another begins, so the final words can be punctuated in more than one grammatically possible way. Some translations understand them as describing Christ: “the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised” (NIV). Others understand them as a separate doxology to God. The RSV, for example, reads: “of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.” Significantly, even translations that put “God” with Christ frequently acknowledge the alternative in their footnotes. The NIV gives as alternatives: “Messiah, who is over all. God be forever praised!” and “Messiah. God who is over all be forever praised!” The NRSVUE likewise acknowledges the separate doxology as a possible translation.

The NET Bible, which ultimately prefers understanding the words as referring to Christ, openly acknowledges that the difficulty is one of punctuation rather than a difference in the underlying Greek text, and lists multiple possible translations—including “the Messiah. God who is over all be blessed forever!” Therefore, Romans 9:5 cannot simply be quoted as though the Greek unambiguously says, “Jesus is God over all.” That conclusion already depends upon an interpretive decision about how Paul's sentence should be punctuated.

I believe the doxology-to-God reading fits Paul’s normal language especially well. Elsewhere Paul calls God the One “who is blessed forever” (Romans 1:25; 2 Corinthians 11:31), and elsewhere explicitly describes “one God and Father of all, who is over all” in Ephesians 4:6. Throughout Romans itself, Paul repeatedly distinguishes God from Jesus Christ: Jesus is God’s Son (Romans 1:3–4); God raised Jesus from the dead (Romans 4:24; 8:11; 10:9); humanity is reconciled to God through Jesus (Romans 5:10–11); eternal life is God’s gift in Christ Jesus (Romans 6:23); Christians are heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ (Romans 8:17); and Christ ultimately serves the purposes and glory of God. Against that consistent background, a concluding blessing—“God who is over all be blessed forever”—is entirely natural.

This interpretation is not merely a modern Unitarian invention. The RSV translation committee adopted it in the main text, while acknowledging the Christ-reference in a footnote. R. S. Franks, writing in The Doctrine of the Trinity, likewise argued that Romans 9:5 “cannot be adduced to prove that Paul ever thought of Christ as God,” emphasizing Paul's continuing Jewish monotheistic framework.

I would also be careful with the alternative argument that, even if Paul calls Jesus theos here, that would automatically mean very little because other human beings can be called “god.” Scripture certainly can use God/god language representatively—for example, Moses is made “God to Pharaoh” (Exodus 7:1), and Psalm 45 uses highly exalted royal language of the Davidic king. However, “God over all, blessed forever” would be much stronger language than simply calling someone theos. If that entire phrase refers to Christ, it would be significant evidence for a very high view of Christ. Even then, however, the verse would still need to be interpreted within Paul’s wider theology; it would not by itself establish the later doctrine that Jesus is the coequal, coeternal second person of a three-person God.

For these reasons, I do not think Romans 9:5 can responsibly function as a clear proof-text that Paul believed Jesus was God. The Greek permits more than one punctuation, respected translations have understood the final words as a doxology to God, and Paul’s overwhelmingly consistent pattern throughout Romans distinguishes God from His Son Jesus Christ. I therefore understand Paul to be saying that Christ came from Israel according to the flesh, followed by a blessing of the God who is over all: “God who is over all be blessed forever. Amen.”

2. Passage: Romans 10:5–13

Romans 10:5-13

Scripture (WEB):

Romans 10:9–13 is an important passage to consider carefully because Paul says:

“If you will confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”

First, the confession “Jesus is Lord” does not, by the word Lord (kyrios) alone, mean “Jesus is Yahweh.” Kyrios is a title of authority used for both God and human lords throughout the New Testament. Jesus truly is the supreme Lord appointed over humanity, but the title itself does not settle whether he is God.

Verse 9 also continues Paul’s distinction between Jesus and God: Jesus is the Lord whom God raised from the dead. This is the same pattern seen throughout the New Testament, where God raises and exalts Jesus and grants him authority. Acts 2:36, for example, says, “God has made him both Lord and Christ.” At minimum, Jesus’ messianic lordship is presented as something conferred upon him by God.

Verses 12–13, however, present a more difficult question:

“The same Lord is Lord of all, and is rich toward all who call on him. For, ‘Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.’”

In context, “Lord” in verse 12 most naturally refers to Jesus. Paul then quotes Joel 2:32, where the original Hebrew text refers to Yahweh: “Whoever calls on the name of Yahweh will be saved.” Trinitarian interpreters therefore understandably regard this as strong evidence that Paul is including Jesus within the identity of Yahweh.

I do not think that conclusion is required, however, particularly when this passage is understood within the biblical and Jewish concept of divine agency.

Throughout Scripture, God can authorize a representative to speak and act in His name with such extraordinary authority that the representative’s actions are treated as the actions of God who sent him. The agent does not thereby become the God whom he represents.

Moses provides an especially striking example. God tells Moses, “I have made you as God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet” (Exodus 7:1). Moses obviously does not become Yahweh. Rather, he stands before Pharaoh as God’s uniquely commissioned representative, speaking God’s words and exercising God-given authority.

The angel whom God sends before Israel provides an even stronger example of divine representation. God says:

“Behold, I send an angel before you… Pay attention to him and listen to his voice… for my name is in him” (Exodus 23:20–21).

God’s name is placed in His messenger. The messenger carries God’s authority and must therefore be obeyed, yet God still distinguishes the messenger from Himself: “I send an angel before you.” This illustrates an important biblical principle: bearing God’s name and exercising God’s authority do not necessarily mean being God Himself.

Something similar happens in Exodus 3. The narrative initially says that “the angel of Yahweh” appeared to Moses in the burning bush (Exodus 3:2), but the messenger subsequently speaks with the authority and words of God Himself (Exodus 3:4–6). The distinction between God and His messenger remains, yet God is encountered through the messenger who represents Him.

This concept helps explain how Paul can take language originally concerning Yahweh and apply it to Jesus without necessarily identifying Jesus ontologically as Yahweh. God has exalted Jesus to an unparalleled position as His Messiah and supreme representative. Jesus acts in God's name, exercises authority given by God, and mediates God's salvation to humanity. Consequently, calling upon God's appointed Lord is the means by which people call upon and receive the salvation of the God who appointed him.

This is exactly how Jesus himself describes representative agency elsewhere: “He who receives me receives Him who sent me” (Matthew 10:40; compare John 13:20). Receiving Jesus can count as receiving God precisely because Jesus represents the God who sent him. The equivalence of response does not require an equivalence of identity.

We therefore do not need to understand Romans 10 as saying, “Jesus is the Yahweh of Joel.” Paul may instead be taking a salvation promise belonging ultimately to Yahweh and showing how Yahweh now fulfills that promise through His exalted Messiah. The saving authority remains God's in origin, while Jesus exercises it as God's appointed Lord.

This fits what Scripture repeatedly says about Jesus’ authority. Jesus himself declares, “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth” (Matthew 28:18). Peter says that God exalted Jesus as Leader and Savior (Acts 5:31), and Acts 2:36 says that God made Jesus Lord and Christ. Jesus possesses astonishingly comprehensive authority, but Scripture repeatedly presents that authority as given to him by God.

Romans itself follows the same pattern. We have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 5:1); we receive reconciliation through Christ (Romans 5:11); and Paul thanks God through Jesus Christ our Lord (Romans 7:25). Jesus occupies the supreme mediatorial position between humanity and God.

Matthew 9:8 provides another example concerning authority. After Jesus heals the paralytic, the crowds “glorified God, who had given such authority to men.” Jesus genuinely exercises remarkable divine authority, yet that authority ultimately leads people to glorify the God who gave it.

I therefore understand Romans 10:13 within this same framework. Joel says that whoever calls upon Yahweh will be saved; Paul can apply that promise to calling upon Jesus because Yahweh has appointed Jesus as the Lord through whom Yahweh's salvation is now administered. To call upon God's supreme representative is to appeal to the saving authority of the God who commissioned and exalted him.

This does not make Jesus an ordinary representative. His agency is unparalleled: he is Lord of all, God's Messiah and Son, the one through whom God judges and saves the world. But supreme divine agency is not the same thing as being the God whose authority is being exercised.

It is important not to minimize the force of Paul's use of Joel. Applying a Yahweh text directly to Jesus gives Jesus an extraordinarily elevated place, and it is understandably one of the stronger arguments for identifying Jesus within the divine identity. But that interpretation is not the only way this language makes sense within a Jewish scriptural framework. Divine agency provides another coherent explanation: God's uniquely authorized representative can bear God's name, exercise God's authority, carry out God's saving work, and therefore stand in the position through which people encounter God's salvation—without becoming the God who sent and authorized him.

In my understanding, this interpretation fits the complete passage especially well because Paul simultaneously says that Jesus is Lord and that God raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus is the universally exalted Lord upon whom people call for salvation, while God remains the One who raised, exalted, and authorized him. God saves through the Lord whom He appointed.

1 Corinthians

1. Passage: 1 Corinthians 1:8

1 Corinthians 1:8

Scripture (WEB):

If Jesus is not God, how can he sustain the Church to the end? The Greek verb translated “sustain” in some Bibles is bebaioō, which means to confirm, establish, make firm, or secure. “Sustain” is therefore an interpretive translation rather than the only meaning of the word. Paul’s point is that Christ will establish the Church to the end, so that believers may be blameless in the day of his return.

This does not require Christ to possess independent divine power. Throughout the New Testament, Jesus’ authority and power are presented as coming from God, and the very next verse says, “God is faithful, through whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord” (1 Corinthians 1:9). God is the ultimate source and guarantor of the Christian calling, while Jesus is His Son through whom believers are established and brought to completion.

Therefore, even if verse 8 refers directly to Jesus as the one who establishes the Church, this does not establish that Jesus is God. God can—and throughout Scripture does—work through His exalted Son to establish, strengthen, judge, save, and ultimately perfect His people.

2. Passage: 1 Corinthians 8:6

1 Corinthians 8:6

Scripture (WEB):

This is an important passage because Paul has just affirmed Jewish monotheism: “there is no God but one” (1 Corinthians 8:4). He then identifies this one God:

“Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.”

Some Trinitarian interpreters understand Paul to be reformulating the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4—“Yahweh our God, Yahweh is one”—by placing “God” with the Father and “Lord” with Jesus, thereby including Jesus within the identity of the one God. This is a serious interpretation and should not be reduced to the argument that simply calling Jesus Lord makes him God.

Nevertheless, I do not think Paul’s wording requires that conclusion. Paul explicitly calls the Father “the one God”, while Jesus is “the one Lord.” These are not interchangeable descriptions. Elsewhere Scripture says that God made Jesus Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36), showing that Jesus’ messianic lordship is bestowed upon him by God. The Greek title kyrios (“Lord”) can describe God, but it is also widely used for human masters and authorities; therefore, the title itself does not mean “Yahweh.”

Notice also Paul’s carefully differentiated language: everything is “from” the Father and “for” the Father, whereas everything is “through” Jesus Christ. God is presented as the ultimate source and goal, while Christ is the one through whom God accomplishes His work. This fits the repeated New Testament pattern of divine agency: God works through His appointed Messiah.

Even if “all things” here includes the original creation, this distinction remains. Something being accomplished through Jesus does not require Jesus to be the ultimate source of that work or God Himself. Scripture repeatedly describes God accomplishing His purposes through agents while remaining the source of their authority and power. Thus, creation or new creation occurring “through” Christ can naturally describe Christ as God’s supreme agent. I explain later how God did create through Christ while Christ remained human.

I also think the immediate context leaves open an important new-creation dimension. Paul is addressing the Christian community—“for us”—and describing their existence in relation to God and Christ: “we [are] for Him” and “we [are] through him.” Paul elsewhere describes believers as a new creation in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17). Therefore, Christ’s role in bringing the reconciled people of God into existence should not be overlooked, even if the phrase “all things” is understood more broadly.

Most importantly, Paul has just said, “there is no God but one,” and then identifies “one God, the Father.” In my understanding, that is extraordinarily significant. If Paul intended “the one God” to mean Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, he does not express that here. Instead, he distinguishes the one God, the Father, from the one Lord, Jesus Christ, while presenting Jesus as the one through whom the purposes of God are accomplished.

This does not diminish Jesus. Paul gives him an unparalleled position: he is the one Lord through whom God works and through whom the Church exists. But supreme lordship and divine agency are not the same thing as being the God who grants that lordship and acts through him.

I therefore understand 1 Corinthians 8:6 not as identifying Jesus as the one God, but as presenting a clear relationship: one God—the Father, from whom and for whom are all things; and one Lord—Jesus Christ, through whom God accomplishes His purposes.

Note: This verse does not directly address the identity of the Holy Spirit. My conclusion that the Spirit is also God rests on other passages in which Scripture identifies the Spirit with God and Yahweh. The immediate contrast here is between God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. However, because the Holy Spirit is repeatedly identified as God’s own Spirit and elsewhere acts and speaks as God, I understand the Spirit to be included within the identity of the one God together with the Father. See my full argument for the Spirit’s deity and personhood here: https://www.yourkingdomcome.online/blog/categories/who-is-god.

3. Passage: 1 Corinthians 10:4–5

1 Corinthians 10:4-5

Scripture (WEB):

What does Paul mean when he says “the Rock was Christ”? Is he saying that Christ literally traveled through the wilderness with Israel? The Old Testament narrative never states that Jesus Christ personally followed Israel through the wilderness. Rather, Paul is interpreting Israel’s experience spiritually and typologically. He calls the manna “spiritual food,” the water “spiritual drink,” and its source a “spiritual rock.” A few verses later he explicitly says that these events happened as “examples” or “types” (typoi) for us (1 Corinthians 10:6). The context therefore already tells us that Paul is seeing Christ represented within Israel’s wilderness experience.

There was also a Jewish tradition that a miraculous well or rock accompanied Israel through the wilderness, which may lie behind Paul's language that the rock “followed” or “accompanied” them. Scholars differ over exactly how directly Paul is using that tradition, but the Greek does indeed say that the spiritual rock accompanied them.

When Paul then says “the rock was Christ,” this does not have to mean that the literal rock was personally Jesus Christ any more than other biblical identifications require literal identity. Paul himself says, “Christ our Passover has been sacrificed” (1 Corinthians 5:7): Jesus was not literally the animal slaughtered in Egypt; the Passover lamb prefigured and represented him. Likewise, the wilderness rock can be understood as representing Christ—the one through whom God ultimately gives spiritual life. Some commentators explicitly understand “the rock was Christ” in this typological sense.

This interpretation fits the Old Testament patterns Paul is drawing upon. Israel's miraculous food and water anticipated the greater spiritual provision associated with Christ. The Passover lamb foreshadowed Christ; the manna anticipated the true bread from heaven (John 6:32–35); Israel's priesthood anticipated Christ's high-priestly ministry; and Moses promised that God would raise up a prophet from among Israel's brothers (Deuteronomy 18:15–19). Paul can therefore say that Israel “drank from Christ” because the spiritual provision God gave them pointed forward to and found its ultimate meaning in Christ.

I recognize that many Christians understand this passage differently and see it as evidence that Christ was personally present with Israel in the wilderness. There are scholars who argue precisely that, including interpretations connecting Paul's “rock” language with Old Testament descriptions of God as Israel's Rock. Therefore, I would not claim that the typological interpretation is the only possible reading. But neither does the statement “the rock was Christ” require the conclusion that Jesus literally existed as God in the wilderness. Within a passage saturated with spiritual and typological interpretation, understanding the rock as a type or spiritual representation of Christ is a legitimate and coherent reading.

Finally, Hebrews 9:28 says, "...so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him." Hebrews 9:28 contrasts Christ’s past sin-bearing advent with his future saving appearance. I therefore do not think this verse by itself settles whether Christ could have manifested in some way before his birth in Bethlehem.

4. Passage: 1 Corinthians 10:9

1 Corinthians 10:9

Scripture (WEB):

There is an important textual variant in 1 Corinthians 10:9. Some manuscripts read “Christ” (Christon), while other very important manuscripts read “the Lord” (kyrion), and a smaller number read “God.” Although many modern translations choose “Christ,” I believe “the Lord” is the better reading, particularly when both the textual evidence and the Old Testament context are considered.

“Lord” is not a poorly attested or secondary reading that can simply be dismissed. It is supported by several extremely important ancient manuscripts, including Sinaiticus (א), Vaticanus (B), C, P, and 33, among others. Moreover, a substantial line of major textual scholars and critical Greek editions historically preferred “Lord.” Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf’s eighth edition, Westcott and Hort, and the Nestle text through its twenty-fifth edition printed “Lord,” as did the first and second editions of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament. There is therefore significant manuscript and scholarly support for reading “Lord” here.

The context, in my judgment, makes “Lord” even more compelling. Paul is referring directly to the wilderness incident recorded in Numbers 21:5–6. But what does Numbers actually say happened?

The Israelites “spoke against God and against Moses,” and as a result YHWH sent fiery serpents among the people. The Old Testament text does not say that Israel tested Christ. It says that Israel rebelled against God—the LORD.

Thus, when Paul warns:

“Let us not test the Lord, as some of them tested…”

the language corresponds naturally and directly to the Old Testament account he is citing. Israel tested the LORD in the wilderness; Paul warns Christians not to test the Lord as they did. There is no need to insert Christ into an Old Testament narrative that itself identifies the One being rebelled against as God.

“Lord” has very strong ancient manuscript support, was preferred by numerous major textual critics and critical editions, and fits the Old Testament source exceptionally well. I therefore believe “Lord” should be preferred in 1 Corinthians 10:9, referring to the Lord God whom Israel tested in the wilderness.

Even if someone concludes that “Christ” was original, however, this verse still would not by itself prove that Jesus is the God of the Old Testament. Paul has already said just a few verses earlier that “the rock was Christ” (1 Corinthians 10:4). Paul obviously does not mean that the literal physical rock in the wilderness was personally Jesus; he is interpreting Israel’s wilderness experience christologically, seeing Christ represented or anticipated within it. Thus, even the reading “Christ” would require interpretation rather than automatically establishing the equation Jesus = YHWH.

But I do not believe we need to begin there. There is substantial textual support for “Lord,” substantial historical scholarly support for “Lord,” and, most importantly, “Lord” fits the actual Old Testament event Paul is referencing. For these reasons, I believe “Lord” is the best reading of 1 Corinthians 10:9.

This verse therefore should not be used as evidence that Jesus is the God whom Israel tested in the wilderness. Jesus is not the God of the Old Testament. He is God’s Christ.

Again, Hebrews 9:28 says, "...so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him." Hebrews 9:28 contrasts Christ’s past sin-bearing advent with his future saving appearance. I therefore do not think this verse by itself settles whether Christ could have manifested in some way before his birth in Bethlehem.

Ephesians

1. Passage: Ephesians 4:8

Ephesians 4:8

Scripture (WEB):

If Psalm 68 is speaking about God, but Paul applies the passage to Christ, does this prove that Jesus is God?

Ephesians 4:8 draws from Psalm 68:18. In Psalm 68, the one ascending victoriously is God, while in Ephesians Paul applies the imagery to Christ’s ascension and his giving gifts to the Church. Trinitarians therefore reasonably point to this passage as evidence that Paul is placing Jesus in a role originally attributed to God.

However, the New Testament’s application of an Old Testament passage to Jesus does not by itself prove that Jesus is the same person as the one originally described. The New Testament repeatedly takes Old Testament events, persons, and words and applies them typologically to Christ or to later events without asserting that the original and later subjects are literally the same person.

For example, Hosea 11:1 originally refers to Israel: “Out of Egypt I called my son.” Matthew 2:15 applies that language to Jesus coming out of Egypt. Jesus is not therefore Israel literally; rather, he fulfills and embodies Israel’s story.

Likewise, Jeremiah 31:15 describes Rachel weeping for her children, while Matthew 2:18 applies the passage to the killing of the children in Bethlehem. And Acts 1:20 applies Psalm 69:25 and Psalm 109:8 to Judas, even though those Psalms originally arose in different historical circumstances.

Therefore, simply because Paul takes imagery that Psalm 68 applies to God and applies it to Christ does not establish that Christ is God. It shows that Christ fulfills and participates in the victorious role represented in the Psalm.

This fits the larger New Testament picture of Jesus as God’s exalted Messiah and representative. God gives authority and gifts through Christ, and Christ carries out roles on God’s behalf. Receiving and exercising a role associated with God does not necessarily make the recipient Yahweh Himself.

Ephesians itself repeatedly distinguishes God from Christ. Earlier Paul says that “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ” raised Jesus from the dead and seated him at His right hand (Ephesians 1:17–20). In Ephesians 4 itself, Paul distinguishes “one Lord” from “one God and Father of all” (Ephesians 4:5–6). That immediate context is especially important when interpreting verse 8.

So Ephesians 4:8 certainly gives Jesus an extraordinarily exalted role, but it does not require the conclusion that Jesus is Yahweh. Paul can apply the imagery of God’s victorious ascent to the Messiah whom God raised, exalted, and appointed as Lord.

(Common Verses, 2010)

Philippians

1. Passage: Philippians 2:5–11

Philippians 2:5-11

Scripture (WEB):

The Greek word morphē, translated “form” in Philippians 2:6, means form, shape, appearance, or the form in which something exists or is manifested. The NIV translates the phrase as “being in very nature God,” but “very nature God” is an interpretive rendering rather than a literal translation of morphē. Paul does not simply write, “Jesus was God.” He says that Jesus was “in the form of God.” That distinction should not be passed over.

I understand this language in light of the larger biblical presentation of Jesus as the one who supremely represents and images God. Paul elsewhere calls Jesus “the image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15). Jesus revealed God’s character, glory, holiness, and purposes and functioned as God’s supreme human representative. Thus, being “in the form of God” does not by itself establish that Jesus is the Almighty God whom he represents.

The other New Testament occurrence of morphē is also worth considering. Mark 16:12 says that Jesus “appeared in another form” to two disciples. Whatever precisely this means, morphē there cannot simply mean Christ has an unchanging divine essence, since he is said to appear in a different morphē. This at minimum cautions against treating the word itself as though it inherently means “essential [divine] nature”.

At the same time, I recognize that many Trinitarian scholars understand morphē in Philippians 2 as expressing more than mere outward appearance—something closer to a mode or condition of existence that reflects what a person truly is. Even if that broader meaning is accepted, however, I do not believe it proves that Jesus is God. Scripture can speak of human beings sharing what belongs to God without thereby identifying them as God Himself. Jesus uniquely images God, and believers themselves are promised participation in the “divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4). Possessing or expressing qualities of the divine nature is therefore not the same thing as being the Almighty God.

The next phrase is equally important. Philippians 2:6 says that Jesus did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped, seized, exploited, or used for his own advantage. The precise meaning of the Greek word harpagmos is debated, and translations differ. Some understand Paul to mean that Jesus already possessed equality with God but refused to exploit it for himself. I understand the passage differently, particularly in light of the larger biblical Adam-Christ pattern presented by Paul, who authors Philippians.

Jesus is the faithful counterpart to Adam. Adam reached beyond the position God had given him—tempted by the promise that he could “be like God” (Genesis 3:5). Jesus did the opposite. Although he bore God’s image and occupied an extraordinary position as God’s Son, he did not grasp at equality with God or use his status for his own advantage. Instead, he humbled himself, took the form of a servant, became obedient, and ultimately submitted even to death on a cross.

This reading makes excellent sense of Paul’s ethical purpose in the passage. Paul is telling Christians to have the same mind that was in Christ: do not exalt yourselves; humble yourselves and serve others. Jesus is the supreme example of a human being refusing self-exaltation and submitting himself completely to God.

And the remainder of the passage is especially important. Jesus’ supreme exaltation is not presented as something he simply possesses inherently because he is God. Paul says:

“Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name which is above every name.”

God exalted Jesus. God gave Jesus the name.

The word “therefore” matters. Jesus humbled himself, became obedient even to death, therefore God highly exalted him. His exaltation follows his obedience and suffering. This same pattern appears throughout the New Testament: Jesus suffers faithfully, dies, is raised by God, and is then glorified and enthroned.

Isaiah 53 similarly says:

“Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many... because he poured out his soul to death.”

Jesus receives extraordinary glory because of his faithful obedience unto death. He did not exalt himself; God exalted him.

This creates a serious difficulty, in my understanding, for identifying Jesus as the Almighty God. God does not need another being to elevate Him to divine supremacy or bestow upon Him the name above every name. God is inherently supreme. Jesus, however, is highly exalted by God because of what he faithfully accomplished.

The passage also says that every knee will bow to Jesus and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. This is unquestionably extraordinary honor. The language echoes Isaiah 45:23, where every knee bows to Yahweh, and Trinitarian Christians understandably see this as powerful evidence for Jesus’ deity. I take that connection seriously.

However, Paul himself tells us where this universal acknowledgment ultimately leads:

“to the glory of God the Father.”

Jesus is God’s appointed Lord and King, and honoring the Son whom God has exalted honors the God who exalted him. Bowing before God’s supreme Messiah therefore does not mean identifying that Messiah as the God who appointed and exalted him.

Nor does the title “Lord” (kyrios) establish that Jesus is Yahweh. Kyrios is used throughout the New Testament for persons possessing authority, and Acts 2:36 explicitly says that God made Jesus both Lord and Christ. Jesus’ lordship is given to him by God. Philippians 2 presents the same pattern: Jesus obeys, God exalts him, God gives him the supreme name, and creation acknowledges the authority God has given him.

There is another fundamental distinction in the passage: Jesus dies. He “became obedient to death, yes, the death of the cross.” God, by contrast, is immortal. The traditional Trinitarian response is that Jesus died according to his human nature while remaining immortal according to his divine nature. But Philippians itself does not divide the subject in this way. It simply tells us that Jesus humbled himself, obeyed God, died, and was subsequently exalted by God.

Paul could have said plainly, “Jesus is God.” He does not. Instead, he describes Jesus as being in the form of God, refusing self-exaltation, becoming obedient unto death, and then being highly exalted by God and given supreme authority—all ultimately “to the glory of God the Father.”

I therefore do not believe Philippians 2:5–11 teaches that Jesus is God. I believe it presents something extraordinarily beautiful: God’s Son reflected God, refused to exalt himself, humbled himself in obedience, gave his life for others, and was therefore exalted by God as Lord and King over creation.

Jesus’ exaltation does not compete with God’s glory. It displays it.

For my fuller discussion of why praise, honor, bowing, and proskyneō directed toward Jesus do not necessarily identify him as God, see: 5. Jesus Is Worthy: Honoring Christ, Worshiping God

Colossians

1. Passage: Colossians 1:15–20

Does Colossians 1 identify Jesus as the Creator God?

Colossians 1:15–20 is one of the passages most frequently used to argue that Jesus is God. I certainly understand why. Paul places Christ in an extraordinary relationship to the entire creation: all things were created in him, through him, and for him; he is before all things; and in him all things hold together. These are extraordinary statements. But do they actually identify Jesus as God the Creator?

I do not believe they do.

As explained in the introduction to Colossians, I believe Jesus genuinely preexisted his life in first-century Israel while remaining distinct from God and genuinely human. I do not think his preexistence should be explained away. At the same time, preexistence does not itself establish deity. The fact that someone existed before his earthly birth tells us something extraordinary about his history; it does not, by itself, tell us that he is Almighty God.

The same distinction is important when Paul says that creation came through Christ. I believe this language can genuinely refer to God's original creation. But saying that God created through Christ does not necessarily identify Christ as the ultimate source of creation. Scripture repeatedly distinguishes between God, from whom something ultimately comes, and the person through whom God accomplishes it.

With that distinction in mind, let us examine Paul's words carefully.

“The image of the invisible God”

Paul begins:

“He is the image of the invisible God.”

I think this description is extremely important. Paul does not simply write, “Christ is the invisible God.” He calls Christ the image of the invisible God.

An image reveals someone who is otherwise unseen. It makes that person known. There is therefore an important distinction built into Paul's language between God, who is invisible, and Christ, who is God's image.

Jesus reveals God. This agrees beautifully with what we repeatedly saw in John: to see Jesus is to see the Father because the Father dwells in Jesus, speaks through him, works through him, and reveals Himself through him with extraordinary fullness.

But revealing God is not the same thing as being the God being revealed.

This distinction is especially significant because Paul specifically describes God here as invisible. Jesus was visibly seen, heard, touched, crucified, and raised. The God whose image he bears is invisible.

That does not make Christ insignificant. Quite the opposite. Calling Jesus God's image gives him an extraordinary revelatory role. God's character, will, wisdom, love, authority, and presence are made known through him. But the category Paul gives us is still image of God, not simply “the invisible God Himself.”

A simple illustration may help. An image can genuinely reveal someone without being identical to the person revealed. Jesus is obviously far more than a photograph or ordinary representation. He is God's uniquely exalted Son and image. But the basic distinction still matters: the image and the One whose image he bears are distinguishable.

“The firstborn of all creation”

Paul continues: “the firstborn of all creation.”

This expression also deserves careful attention.

The Greek phrase does not by itself settle whether “firstborn” primarily describes chronological priority, supremacy, inheritance, or some combination of these ideas. Scripture can use firstborn language literally, but it can also use it to express status and preeminence.

Therefore, I do not think the phrase “firstborn of all creation” by itself proves either that Jesus was the first creature or that Jesus is the uncreated Creator God, though “firstborn” could mean the first living creature. 

Paul later calls Jesus: “the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.”

That wording is interesting because Paul calls Jesus firstborn and then speaks of the resulting preeminence. The ideas are closely related, but they are not simply identical words.

Within the larger biblical evidence, I believe Jesus genuinely existed before his earthly life. “Firstborn of all creation” is certainly compatible with that conclusion. But preexistence still does not equal deity. A preexistent Son can be extraordinarily ancient, uniquely related to creation, and supreme over creation without therefore being the God from whom everything ultimately comes.

The title itself does not settle Jesus' metaphysical identity.

“For in him all things were created”

Paul next writes that: “in him all things were created.”

Some English translations render this “by him,” but the Greek preposition is en. Its ordinary range includes ideas such as “in,” “within,” “among,” “in the sphere of,” or, depending on context, a relationship or circumstance in which something occurs (Bauer et al., s.v. “ἐν”).

The verb “were created” is also passive. Paul does not write here in the active voice, “Christ created all things.” He says that all things were created in him.

That does not minimize Christ's relationship to creation. The following phrases make that relationship extraordinarily strong. But I think it is important to allow Paul's actual language to stand rather than immediately replacing it with the stronger proposition, “Jesus independently created everything by his own divine power.”

Paul says that creation exists in relation to Christ, through Christ, and for Christ. We should ask what those expressions mean before deciding who Christ must therefore be.

Is Paul talking about the original creation?

Some Biblical Unitarians understand Colossians 1:15–20 primarily in terms of the new creation rather than the Genesis creation. There are reasons for that reading, especially because verses 18–20 clearly move into Christ's relationship to the Church, resurrection, and reconciliation.

Nevertheless, I believe verses 16–17 include the original creation.

Paul speaks comprehensively of: “all things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities.”

That sounds broader than the Church alone. Paul appears to be placing Christ in relation to the entire created order.

I therefore do not think we need to avoid the difficult language by arguing that Paul cannot possibly mean the original creation.

I believe he can.

The harder question is this: If Jesus is not God, how could God have created all things through him?

I think Scripture itself provides the answer.

“All things have been created through him and for him”

Paul writes: “All things have been created through him and for him.”

The phrase “for him” does not require Jesus to be God. God can create something for His Son. Scripture repeatedly describes God as giving Christ authority, inheritance, rule, kingdom, glory, and ultimately all things.

Creation being “for” Christ therefore fits naturally with Christ as God's uniquely appointed Son and heir.

But “through him” requires more explanation.

The Greek is di’ autou, from dia with the genitive. Dia with the genitive can describe something occurring through, by means of, by the agency of, or through the mediation of another (Bauer et al., s.v. “διά”).

That is important because the person through whom an action occurs is not necessarily the ultimate source of that action.

Paul makes this distinction particularly clearly in 1 Corinthians 8:6: “yet to us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we live through him.”

Paul does not collapse the Father and Jesus into the same role. He identifies one God, the Father, as the One from whom all things come, and Jesus Christ as the one through whom they come.

Whatever else we conclude from that verse, its grammatical distinction is significant: From God. Through Christ.

That means I do not have to deny that creation came through Christ in order to maintain that Christ is distinct from God.

Indeed, I think it is better to affirm Paul's language fully.

God created.

God created through His Son.

The Son's participation in creation is therefore extraordinary and should not be minimized. But mediation does not automatically establish identity with the ultimate source.

The New Testament repeatedly uses this same pattern of divine action through Jesus.

God performs miracles through Jesus. God speaks through Jesus. God judges the world through the man He appointed. God reconciles the world through Christ.

Resurrection itself comes through a man: “For since through a man came death, through a man came also the resurrection of the dead” (1 Corinthians 15:21).

The fact that resurrection comes through Jesus does not mean Jesus must be God in order for God to raise the dead through him.

The same grammatical principle applies to creation. If Scripture says God created through Christ, that establishes an extraordinary mediatorial role for Christ. It does not, by the word through itself, tell us that Christ is the God who acts through him.

Creation through Christ and preexistence

This also helps clarify Jesus' preexistence.

If the original creation genuinely came through Christ, then Christ must in some sense have existed in relation to God’s creative work before his life in first-century Israel. This conclusion also fits Jesus’ statement about ascending “where he was before” (John 6:62) and his prayer concerning the glory he had with the Father before the world existed (John 17:5).

I believe that.

I do not think the language should simply be explained away.

But the conclusion is preexistence, not automatically deity.

Those are two different claims.

To say: Jesus existed before his earthly life does not logically mean: Jesus is Almighty God.

And to say: God created through Jesus does not logically mean: Jesus is the ultimate source from whom creation comes.

Paul himself can distinguish those categories: the Father is the One from whom all things come; Christ is the one through whom they come.

For the purposes of this Study Bible, I do not think it is necessary to reconstruct exactly how Jesus participated in God's original creative work. I do have a broader biblical understanding of how Jesus may have preexisted while remaining genuinely human, but I do not develop that reconstruction here. My purpose in this commentary is narrower: to establish what I believe Scripture positively says—that Jesus genuinely preexisted his earthly life, that God created through him, and that neither of those claims by itself requires the conclusion that Jesus is God. Further, when Colossians 1 is read within the context of Scripture as a whole, I do not believe its extraordinary language about Christ ultimately identifies him as God.

I would rather affirm what the text positively says without forcing it into the conclusion that preexistence or mediation necessarily equals deity.

Creation “in him,” “through him,” and “for him”

Taken together, Paul's three expressions are extraordinary: In him. Through him. For him.

They place Christ as very significant in God's purpose for creation.

Creation exists in relation to him.

God's creative work occurs through him.

Creation is ultimately for him, as God's appointed Son, heir, Lord, and King.

This presents an extraordinarily exalted Christology.

But extraordinary exaltation is not the same thing as identifying Christ with the God who exalts him.

God can place His Son at the center of His purpose without His Son being the God from whom that purpose ultimately originates.

“He is before all things”

Paul continues:

“He is before all things.”

This may include temporal priority: Christ existed before the “all things” Paul has just described. It may also emphasize preeminence: Christ stands before or above all things in rank.

I think both ideas fit the larger passage.

The statement therefore contributes to the cumulative biblical case that Jesus genuinely preexisted his earthly life. But once again, being before creation does not, by itself, establish that Jesus is God.

Scripture can present Jesus as genuinely preexistent, extraordinarily exalted, and uniquely involved in God's creative work while still distinguishing him from the God who sends him, empowers him, exalts him, and gives him authority.

“In him all things hold together”

Paul then says: “and in him all things hold together.”

This phrase is also commonly used as evidence that Jesus must be God because he supposedly sustains the physical universe by his own inherent divine power.

The Greek verb can carry the sense of holding together, cohering, consisting, or standing together (Bauer et al., s.v. “συνίστημι”). “Hold together” is therefore a legitimate translation.

But I do not think we should automatically expand Paul's statement into: Jesus independently uses omnipotent divine power every instant to keep the physical universe from ceasing to exist.

That is a theological interpretation of the phrase, not simply what the phrase itself says. Paul says that all things hold together in Christ.

Within the larger passage, Christ stands at the center of God's purpose for creation. Creation is in him, through him, for him, and ultimately reconciled through him.

Thus, saying that creation coheres or holds together “in Christ” can describe his extraordinary place within God's ordering and purpose without requiring the conclusion that he is the Almighty God.

Again, the distinction between God as source and Christ as God's appointed mediator remains possible.

“The head of the body, the church”

Paul now moves unmistakably into the new creation: “He is the head of the body, the church.”

Christ is God's appointed head of the Church. He is our Lord, King, Savior, and leader. This extraordinary authority does not itself make him God. Throughout the New Testament, authority is something God gives Christ.

Jesus can therefore occupy the supreme position within redeemed humanity while remaining the Son whom God appointed and exalted.

“The beginning, the firstborn from the dead”

Paul continues: “He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead…”

Jesus is the beginning of resurrected humanity.

“Firstborn from the dead” does not mean that no one had ever previously been restored to mortal life. Scripture records earlier resurrections. Rather, Jesus stands at the beginning of the resurrection life that ultimately conquers death.

He is therefore the beginning of God's renewed humanity and restored creation.

Once again, Paul's emphasis is extraordinary exaltation.

“That in everything he might be preeminent”

Paul then explains the purpose: “that in everything he might be preeminent.”

This helps us understand the extraordinary language throughout the passage.

God's intention is that Christ become preeminent in everything.

But notice the distinction between being preeminent under God and being God Himself.

God exalts Jesus. God gives Jesus authority. God places all things under him. God makes him Lord and Christ. God makes him head of the Church. God works through him to reconcile creation.

Jesus can therefore be unimaginably exalted without being identical with the God who exalts him.

“All the fullness was pleased to dwell in him”

Paul continues: “For all the fullness was pleased to dwell in him.” Colossians 2:9 later intensifies this language: “For in him all the fullness of deity dwells bodily.”

That is extraordinary language and should not be minimized.

But notice the language itself: dwells in him.

John repeatedly presents the Father as dwelling in Jesus. Jesus says: “The Father who lives in me does the works.”

Paul also uses fullness language for believers. In Ephesians 3:19 he prays that Christians may be: “filled with all the fullness of God.”

Paul obviously does not mean that Christians become Almighty God.

Similarly, Colossians 2:10 says that believers have been filled in Christ.

None of this erases Christ's uniqueness. Jesus embodies God's presence and fullness in an extraordinary way. But divine fullness dwelling in a human being does not logically require that the human being be identical with the God whose fullness dwells in him, particularly given God is described elsewhere as Spirit, not flesh.

In my reading, Jesus is God's uniquely exalted human Son in whom God's presence, Spirit, wisdom, authority, character, and life dwell with extraordinary fullness.

“Through him to reconcile all things to himself”

Finally Paul writes: “and through him to reconcile all things to himself…”

The distinction we observed earlier appears again. God reconciles. Christ is the one through whom God reconciles.

Paul does not collapse the two roles.

The God to whom creation is reconciled and the Christ through whom the reconciliation occurs are distinguishable.

This pattern appears throughout the New Testament:

God acts through Jesus. God performs miracles through Jesus.

God speaks through Jesus. God judges through Jesus.

God raises the dead through Jesus. God reconciles through Jesus.

And here, I believe, God's creative work itself is described as occurring through Jesus.

The pattern does not diminish Christ. It establishes him as God's uniquely appointed Son and mediator.

“Whether things on the earth or things in the heavens”

Paul closes this section by saying that through Christ God reconciles: “all things…whether things on the earth or things in the heavens, making peace through the blood of his cross.”

The scope is breathtaking.

God is not merely redeeming isolated individuals. God is reconciling creation. This agrees with Romans 8, where creation itself groans under corruption and awaits liberation together with the glorification of God's children.

Thus Colossians 1 begins with creation and ends with the reconciliation of creation.

And Christ stands in the middle of both:

In him. Through him. For him.

And finally:

Through him, back to God.

I do not believe this passage requires the conclusion that Jesus is God the Creator.

I believe it presents something different, though still extraordinary: God is the ultimate source of creation. Jesus genuinely preexisted his earthly life. God created all things in relation to, through, and for His Son. God has now made that same Son preeminent over creation. And through him, God is reconciling creation back to Himself.

Preexistence does not itself establish deity.

Being involved in God's original creative work does not itself establish deity.

Even being the one through whom God creates does not itself establish deity, because “through” language identifies mediation or agency rather than necessarily identifying the ultimate source.

Paul himself gives us the distinction: “one God, the Father, from whom are all things … and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things” (1 Corinthians 8:6).

That distinction allows us to take Colossians 1 with complete seriousness without immediately identifying Jesus as the God whose image he bears, whose fullness dwells in him, who exalts him, and to whom creation is ultimately reconciled.

Colossians 1 therefore gives us an extraordinarily high view of Jesus.

He is God's image.

He genuinely preexisted his earthly life.

Creation is in him, through him, and for him.

He is before all things.

All things hold together in him.

He is head of the Church. He is firstborn from the dead. He is preeminent.

God's fullness dwells in him.

And God reconciles all creation through him.

I believe all of those claims can be affirmed without taking the additional step of identifying Jesus as God.

2. Passage: Colossians 1:27

What does “Christ in you, the hope of glory” mean?

Scripture (WEB):

See this blog post for an explanation of Christ being “in” the Church and how that does not mean he is God:

https://www.yourkingdomcome.online/post/6-remember-the-titans-the-church-as-one-team

Of course, Christ is “the hope of glory”. Without Christ and his sacrifice and resurrection, Christians would have no hope of their own resurrection and glory.

Titus

1. Passage: Titus 2:13

Titus 2:13

Scripture (WEB):

If Jesus isn’t God, why is he called “our great God” in this verse?

Titus 2:13 is one of the relatively few New Testament passages in which the Greek can be read as applying the title “God” to Jesus. The dominant interpretation among current New Testament scholars is that the phrase “our great God and Savior” refers to Jesus Christ. The Greek construction—with one article governing “God and Savior”—gives real grammatical support to that interpretation, and I do not think that should be ignored.

However, this is not the only grammatically argued reading. Trinitarian New Testament scholar Gordon Fee, for example, concluded that Jesus is not called “God” in Titus 2:13. Instead, he understood “Jesus Christ” as identifying “the glory of our great God and Savior” that will appear. In other words, Jesus is the visible manifestation of God’s glory at his return rather than the person being called “the great God.” Thus even scholars who affirm Christ’s deity on other grounds have disagreed over whether this particular verse actually calls Jesus God.

A two-person rendering has also appeared in major translations. The NABRE, for example, reads, “the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ,” while acknowledging the alternative reading, “our great God and savior Jesus Christ.”

The earliest Greek manuscripts did not contain modern punctuation, so English punctuation reflects a translator’s interpretation. More importantly, the real exegetical question is not simply where a comma is placed. The question is what “Jesus Christ” identifies: does it identify “our great God and Savior,” or does it identify “the glory” of that God and Savior?

I think the second possibility fits the wider New Testament description of Jesus extremely well.

Hebrews 1:3 calls Jesus “the radiance of God’s glory.” Matthew 16:27 says that the Son of Man will come “in the glory of his Father with his angels.” Titus 2:13 speaks of “the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior.” Thus identifying Jesus as the appearing of God’s glory is not an ad hoc attempt to avoid Christ’s deity; it uses established New Testament language about Jesus.

The word translated “appearing” (epiphaneia) is also repeatedly used in the Epistles for the return of Jesus Christ. Examples include 1 Timothy 6:14, 2 Timothy 1:10, 2 Timothy 4:1, and 2 Timothy 4:8; compare also 2 Thessalonians 2:8. Titus 2:13 is therefore clearly looking toward the appearing of Jesus Christ. On the glory-reading, Christ himself is the visible manifestation of the glory of the otherwise invisible God.

The wider context of Titus is also important.

Titus repeatedly distinguishes God from Jesus:

“Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ” (Titus 1:1).

Grace and peace come from “God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior” (Titus 1:4).

Later, Titus 3:4–6 says that “God our Savior” poured out the Holy Spirit upon us “through Jesus Christ our Savior.”

Thus both God and Jesus can be called “Savior” in Titus, but they remain personally distinguished. “Savior” by itself therefore does not tell us which person Paul means in Titus 2:13. What the letter does show very consistently is that Paul can speak of God and Christ Jesus side by side as distinct persons.

This makes the glory-reading of Titus 2:13 especially natural to me: Jesus is the appearing of the glory of the great God and Savior whom he represents and reveals.

But even if the dominant grammatical interpretation is correct—even if Paul does directly call Jesus “our great God and Savior” in Titus 2:13—the theological question is still not finished.

The Greek word theos, “God,” does not automatically mean Yahweh, the Almighty God every time it is applied to someone.

Scripture can use divine terminology representatively for human beings who exercise God-given authority. God tells Moses, “I have made you God to Pharaoh” (Exodus 7:1). Psalm 45 addresses the Davidic king as “God,” and Hebrews 1 later applies that royal text to Jesus. Neither Moses nor the Davidic king was Yahweh simply because divine terminology was applied to him.

Jesus occupies the highest role ever given to a human being. He is God’s Messiah, Son, image, agent, appointed Lord, and the one through whom God will judge and rule the world. It therefore would not be surprising for Scripture, in an appropriate representative or royal context, to apply the title theos to him without identifying him as Yahweh Himself.

This distinction is especially important because throughout Paul’s writings his overwhelmingly characteristic language is to distinguish God from Jesus Christ, ordinarily identifying the Father as God and Jesus as Lord. There are only a very small number of disputed Pauline passages in which Jesus may be called theos. Titus 2:13 is one of them.

It would therefore be unwise to build Jesus’ identity as Yahweh on one grammatically disputed title against Paul’s much larger and remarkably consistent pattern of distinguishing God from Christ.

This also must be interpreted in light of everything else Scripture says about Jesus. Jesus is tempted, while God cannot be tempted. Jesus can do nothing from himself. He speaks the words the Father gives him. He receives authority. God performs miracles through him. God raises him from the dead. Jesus prays to God, worships God, obeys God, and calls the Father “the only true God.”

Those facts cannot simply disappear because one difficult verse may apply the title theos to Jesus.

Therefore, I think Titus 2:13 can reasonably be understood in the way Gordon Fee understood it: Jesus Christ is the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior. That interpretation fits Hebrews 1:3, Matthew 16:27, the New Testament use of Christ’s “appearing,” and Titus’s consistent distinction between God and Jesus.

But even if that interpretation is wrong and Paul does call Jesus “our great God and Savior” here, Titus 2:13 still does not prove that Jesus is Yahweh. At most, it would establish that Paul can apply the title theos to Jesus in this extraordinary messianic and representative role.

The identity of Jesus must be determined from the whole biblical witness—not from one disputed grammatical construction in isolation.

Cumulative Conclusion: Which Christology Best Fits All of the Evidence?

After working through both sides of the evidence, I do not think the strongest conclusion is that the New Testament presents Jesus as God Himself. I believe the stronger cumulative reading is that Jesus is God’s uniquely exalted human Son and Messiah—the human Lord through whom God reveals Himself, saves, judges, reconciles, and ultimately restores creation.

The Trinitarian case should be taken seriously

I do not think it is fair to say that the Trinitarian case has no biblical evidence. Several passages examined above are genuinely significant. Romans 9:5 can be punctuated so that Christ is called “God over all.” Romans 10 applies Joel’s Yahweh language to calling upon Jesus. First Corinthians 8:6 may be read as placing Jesus within a reformulation of the Shema. First Corinthians 10 can be read as connecting Christ personally with Israel’s wilderness experience. Ephesians applies Psalm 68 imagery of God’s ascent to Christ. Philippians 2 places Jesus “in the form of God,” speaks about equality with God, and applies Isaiah’s universal-bowing language to him. Colossians 1 places Christ in an extraordinary relationship to all creation, and Colossians 2:9 says that all the fullness of deity dwells bodily in him. Titus 2:13 may directly call Jesus “our great God and Savior.” These are real texts, and I understand why Christians have read them as evidence for Jesus’ deity.

Any non-Trinitarian interpretation that simply ignores these passages or reduces Jesus to an ordinary religious teacher is, in my judgment, inadequate. The New Testament’s Jesus is astonishingly exalted. He bears God’s authority, receives honor that reaches the entire creation, fulfills roles and texts associated with God, reveals the invisible God, and stands at the center of God’s saving purpose. A strong human (without divinity) Christology must account for all of that.

But the other side of the evidence is much larger and much less disputed

The difficulty for Trinitarianism, in my reading, is that the passages above are not the ordinary way Acts and Paul speak about Jesus. They are the exceptional texts that require the most interpretation. The ordinary pattern is repeated across book after book: God and Jesus are distinguished; God is Jesus’ Father and God; God raises Jesus; God exalts Jesus; God gives Jesus authority; God works through Jesus; God reconciles through Jesus; Jesus mediates between God and humanity; and Jesus ultimately serves the glory and purpose of God.

Paul does not merely distinguish “the Father” from “the Son” while repeatedly telling us that both are equally the one God. He says “one God, the Father” and “one Lord, Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 8:6). He says there is “one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5). He calls the Father “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Ephesians 1:17). He says Christ lives “through the power of God” (2 Corinthians 13:4). He says God highly exalted Jesus and gave him the supreme name because of his obedience (Philippians 2:8–11). He says the Son will ultimately be subjected to God so that “God may be all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28). Acts says God made Jesus Lord and Christ, anointed him with the Spirit, raised him, exalted him, and appointed him Judge. These statements do not occur at the edges of the New Testament portrait. They form its basic grammar.

The humanity of Jesus is equally central. Jesus is repeatedly called a man. He is descended from David. He is the second man and last Adam. He is the “man Christ Jesus” who mediates between God and humanity. He is the firstborn among many brothers. Christians are fellow heirs with him, are being conformed to his image, will bear his heavenly image, are transformed into the same image, will share his resurrection life, and are called to obtain his glory. Paul’s Christology does not merely place Jesus above humanity; it also places him within humanity as its exalted head, pattern, representative, and firstborn brother.

Why I believe the human-Messiah reading is the stronger model

Trinitarian theology has developed ways to reconcile these statements with Jesus being fully God—most importantly the incarnation, two natures, and distinctions between what Jesus experiences or does according to his humanity and what belongs to him according to his deity. I recognize that this is a coherent theological framework for many Christians. My question, however, is more basic: Does Acts or Paul require us to introduce that framework in order to understand what they actually wrote?

I do not think they do. In fact, I think the human-Messiah reading allows the repeated statements to retain their most straightforward force. When Scripture says God raised Jesus, God really raised him. When God gives Jesus authority, the authority is genuinely given. When Jesus is exalted because of obedience, the exaltation genuinely follows his obedience. When Paul says Christ lives through the power of God, Jesus genuinely receives life and power from God. When Jesus mediates between God and humanity as “the man Christ Jesus,” his humanity is not incidental to the mediatorial role Paul is describing; it is central to it.

At the same time, this model does not require me to flatten the high-Christology texts. The biblical categories already available are strong enough to explain them. God can place His name and authority upon an agent without making that agent God. Scripture can apply earlier texts typologically to a later fulfillment. God can exalt His Messiah into roles that belong ultimately to God because the Messiah exercises God-given authority on God’s behalf. Jesus can be the image of God precisely because he is not the invisible God whom he images. God’s fullness can dwell in Jesus without Jesus becoming identical to the God who dwells in him—just as Paul can pray for believers to be filled with “all the fullness of God.” Creation can be described as existing in, through, and for Christ while God remains its ultimate source. And divine or royal titles can be applied representatively without collapsing the distinction between God and the one who represents Him.

That is why, when I weigh the two models cumulatively, I believe the human Christology explains more of the evidence with fewer additional assumptions. Trinitarianism can offer readings of the difficult texts that identify Jesus as God, but it then has to interpret the much larger body of distinction, dependence, mediation, bestowed authority, exaltation, and humanity through theological categories that the passages themselves do not explicitly state. The human-Messiah model begins with that larger repeated pattern and then explains the high texts through categories Scripture itself repeatedly uses: agency, representation, image, indwelling, typology, exaltation, and God working through His chosen Son.

A greater Jesus, not a smaller one

For me, this conclusion does not make Jesus smaller. It makes the biblical story of Jesus more beautiful. God takes a genuine human Son and brings him to an almost unimaginable place of authority, glory, intimacy, responsibility, and likeness to Himself. Jesus becomes Lord over humanity, head of the Church, mediator of salvation, Judge and King, the image through whom the invisible God is seen, and the one through whom creation is brought back to God. In my reading, the glory is not that these statements merely describe an already-inherent divine supremacy beneath the surface. The glory is that God genuinely gives this authority and glory to His Son, and the Son genuinely receives, obeys, suffers, dies, is raised, and is exalted.

And that has enormous implications for Christians. Paul repeatedly connects Jesus’ identity with humanity’s destiny. Jesus is the firstborn among many brothers. Christians are fellow heirs with him. They are being conformed to his image, transformed into the same image, filled with God’s fullness, raised with Christ, seated with him, destined to bear the image of the heavenly man, and called to share his glory and reign. A genuinely human Christ does not place Jesus farther from us. It makes his exaltation the great revelation of what God intends to accomplish in His human children. Jesus is supreme among humanity without ceasing to belong to humanity in the fullest sense.

I think that when the ordinary language of Acts and Paul is allowed to establish the framework, and the disputed proof-texts are then interpreted inside that framework rather than the other way around, I believe the human-Messiah Christology provides the more coherent account of the whole body of evidence. Jesus is not God Himself. He is God’s uniquely exalted human Son—the Christ, Lord, Savior, mediator, image, King, Judge, and head of restored humanity through whom God is reconciling all things to Himself.

For the complete book-by-book evidence behind this conclusion, including the full New Testament Study Bible commentary, see: New Testament Study Bible.