11. The New Testament Cumulative Evidence, Part 4: Hebrews and the General Epistles

This article continues the cumulative New Testament examination by turning to Hebrews and the later letters represented in my Study Bible proof-text discussions: James, 2 Peter, 1 John, and Jude. But before beginning with the difficult verses, I want to begin somewhere more basic and, I believe, more important: Who do these books positively and repeatedly say Jesus is?

I think that question should establish the framework. A Christology should not be built first from a small number of disputed grammatical constructions, textual variants, or unusually exalted expressions. We should first listen to the ordinary language these writers use again and again about God and Jesus, and then ask whether the major proof-texts require us to overturn that larger portrait.

Before the Proof-Texts: What These Letters Say Jesus Is

The Christology of these letters is extraordinarily high. Jesus is not presented as merely a teacher, prophet, or unusually righteous man. He is God’s Son, the Messiah, Lord, Savior, heir, King, High Priest, mediator, advocate, the one through whom salvation comes, and the human being whom God brings to astonishing authority and glory. Hebrews in particular gives one of the most elevated portraits of Jesus anywhere in the New Testament.

My argument is therefore not a “low Christology.” I am not trying to make Jesus smaller. I believe these books present Jesus as the greatest and most exalted human being in God’s creation—the Son whom God appoints over the coming world, the Lord through whom God saves, the perfected High Priest who brings humanity to God, and the pattern of what God intends human beings ultimately to become.

Hebrews: God’s human Son, perfected High Priest, brother, heir, and King

Hebrews begins with God and His Son. God speaks through the Son. God appoints the Son heir. God anoints him. God gives him a throne and a superior name. God places him at His right hand. Jesus is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact imprint of His nature, but Hebrews still calls the One who anoints Jesus “[Jesus'] God” (Hebrews 1:9).

The letter then becomes even more explicitly human. Jesus is made lower than the angels and crowned with glory and honor (Hebrews 2:7–9). He tastes death “by the grace of God” (2:9). God perfects the pioneer of salvation through suffering (2:10). Jesus calls other human beings his brothers and sisters (2:11–12). He shares flesh and blood with them (2:14), becomes like his brothers and sisters “in all things” (2:17), suffers when tempted (2:18), and becomes the merciful and faithful High Priest who represents humanity before God.

Hebrews later calls Jesus the Apostle and High Priest of our confession (3:1), the Son over God’s house (3:6), the Great High Priest who can sympathize with human weakness (4:14–15), and the one who learned obedience through suffering, was made perfect, became the source of eternal salvation, and was designated by God as High Priest (5:8–10). He is the mediator of a better covenant (8:6; 9:15; 12:24), the pioneer and perfecter of faith (12:2), and the great shepherd whom “the God of peace” brought again from the dead (13:20).

That is an astonishing Christology. But it is also a profoundly human and developmental Christology. Hebrews does not describe an eternally static divine person merely appearing to undergo human experiences. Its repeated language is receiving, suffering, learning, becoming, being perfected, being designated, inheriting, being anointed, and being exalted. In my reading, Hebrews presents God bringing His genuine human Son to become perfect through genuine development. God, in contrast, does not become perfect through development.

James: the glorious Lord Jesus Christ, distinguished from the one God

James opens by calling himself “a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ” (James 1:1). Jesus is the glorious Lord and Messiah whose coming Christians await (James 2:1; 5:7–8). That is a very high place: Jesus is the Lord of the Christian community and the returning Messiah.

At the same time, James’ categories remain straightforward. God and the Lord Jesus Christ are distinguished. James says that God is one (2:19). He describes God as the Father of lights and “our God and Father” (1:17, 27). And he states categorically that God cannot be tempted by evil (1:13), while the wider New Testament—including Hebrews itself—says that Jesus genuinely was tempted. I therefore believe James fits naturally with Jesus as God’s exalted human Lord rather than as the one God whom James distinguishes from him.

2 Peter: Lord and Savior, beloved Son, and coming King

Second Peter repeatedly gives Jesus the titles Lord and Savior. His eternal kingdom is the kingdom into which believers hope to enter (2 Peter 1:11), and Peter looks toward “the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1:16). Jesus therefore occupies an extraordinary royal and saving role.

But Peter also gives us a remarkably clear relational picture. Immediately after the disputed wording of 2 Peter 1:1, he distinguishes “God and Jesus our Lord” (1:2). At the transfiguration Jesus receives from God the Father honor and glory, and the Father declares, “This is my beloved Son” (1:17). The greatness of Jesus is therefore not diminished by distinguishing him from God. Peter’s own picture is precisely that God gives honor and glory to His beloved Son and appoints him as the Lord and Savior whose kingdom is coming.

1 John: the Son of God, Messiah, Savior, advocate, and bearer of eternal life

First John may give the clearest relational Christology of these later letters. Jesus is repeatedly the Son of God and the Christ. The Father sends His Son into the world so that humanity may live through him (1 John 4:9). God sends His Son as the atoning sacrifice for sins (4:10) and as Savior of the world (4:14). Jesus is “the righteous one” and our advocate with the Father (2:1). Eternal life is God’s gift, and that life is in His Son (5:11–12).

John also insists upon Jesus’ genuine humanity: Jesus Christ has come “in the flesh” (4:2). He sheds blood, lays down his life, and is the Son concerning whom God Himself gives testimony (5:6–10). The Son comes to give us understanding so that we may know “Him who is true” (5:20). Again, the pattern is not a small Jesus. It is an enormous role for the Son whom God sends, through whom God gives life, and through whom the invisible God is made known. But it is still a human Jesus distinguished from the one God.

Jude: our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom believers look to God’s salvation

Jude identifies himself as a servant of Jesus Christ and speaks of believers as belonging to God the Father and being kept for Jesus Christ (Jude 1). Christians await “the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life” (Jude 21). Jesus is therefore the Lord whose mercy is bound up with the hope of eternal life.

Yet Jude also preserves the distinction between Jesus and God. In the critical-text form of his closing doxology, glory is directed to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord (Jude 25). That pattern is deeply consistent with the other letters examined here: God is the ultimate source and Savior; Jesus is the uniquely exalted Lord through whom God’s saving work is carried out and through whom humanity comes to God.

The Larger Portrait Before We Reach the Difficult Verses

Taken together, these books give us a remarkably coherent Christology. Jesus is:

• God’s Son.

• The Christ and Lord.

• The Savior through whom God brings salvation.

• The heir appointed over all things.

• The human brother of those he saves.

• The Great High Priest who represents humanity before God.

• The mediator of the covenant.

• The advocate with the Father.

• The one who receives honor, glory, authority, inheritance, priesthood, and kingship from God.

• The one who suffers, learns obedience, is made perfect, overcomes, dies, is raised, and is exalted.

• The returning Lord and King whose coming and kingdom Christians await.

I believe that is the framework in which the disputed verses below should be read. The question is not whether Hebrews, Peter, John, and Jude say astonishing things about Jesus. They clearly do. The question is whether those things require us to identify Jesus as the Almighty God who appoints, anoints, perfects, sends, glorifies, raises, and acts through him.

The following sections examine the strongest passages used to make that case.

Scripture quotations added at the beginning of each discussion are from the World English Bible (WEB), unless otherwise noted. Jude 1:25 is quoted from the ASV because its public-domain text includes the critical-text wording “through Jesus Christ our Lord” discussed in the commentary.

Hebrews

1. Passage: Hebrews 1

Hebrews 1

Hebrews 1 (WEB)

Hebrews 1 is one of the passages most commonly used to argue that Jesus is God. The language about Christ is undeniably extraordinary: God created the ages through him; he is the radiance of God's glory and the exact imprint of His nature; he bears all things by a powerful word; angels bow before him; he is addressed as “God”; and language from Psalm 102 concerning the creation of heaven and earth is applied to him.

I do not think any of this language should be minimized. But neither do I believe Hebrews 1 identifies Jesus as Almighty God. In fact, throughout the chapter, God and Jesus remain distinguishable: God appoints Jesus, acts through Jesus, anoints Jesus, gives Jesus an inheritance, and ultimately exalts Jesus above the angels. The question is therefore not whether Hebrews presents Jesus as extraordinarily exalted—it unquestionably does—but whether that exaltation means that Jesus is God.

I do not believe it does.

1. “Whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the ages” — Hebrews 1:2

Hebrews begins: “God…has at the end of these days spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds [or ages].” Notice first who the grammatical subject is: God. God speaks through His Son. God appoints His Son heir. God makes the ages through His Son. The author does not simply write, “Jesus created the world.” He writes that God created through Jesus.

The Greek word translated “through” is dia. With the genitive, dia can express genuine agency, means, or mediation: something occurs through someone. That does not mean that the intermediary is necessarily passive or insignificant, but neither does it make the intermediary the ultimate source of the action.

There is also a meaningful distinction between this construction and the way Greek can identify a direct personal agent. In a passive construction, for example, hypo with the genitive can identify the person by whom something is done. Hebrews does not use a construction saying that the ages “were created by the Son” with the Son identified as the direct agent. Nor does it simply make Jesus the subject of an active verb and say, “The Son created the ages.” Instead, God is the One who makes, and the Son is the one through whom God makes (BDAG, s.vv. “διά,” “ὑπό”; Wallace).

Sin enters the world through one man, Adam (Romans 5:12), and Paul says that both death and resurrection come through a man (1 Corinthians 15:21). Therefore, something extraordinarily significant can occur “through” a human being without that person being Almighty God or the ultimate source of the action. God made the ages through His Son. Again, this is extraordinary language about Jesus, but it does not grammatically identify Jesus as the God who performs the action.

The language of inheritance points in the same direction. God appointed Jesus “heir of all things.” An heir receives an inheritance. God does not need to inherit creation from someone else; it already belongs to Him. Jesus, however, is God's appointed Son and King, to whom God gives authority and inheritance. John similarly says that the Father “has given all things into his hand.” Thus Hebrews 1:2 begins not by identifying Jesus as God, but by describing what God has done for and through His Son.

2. “The radiance of his glory and the exact imprint of his nature” — Hebrews 1:3

Hebrews then gives Jesus one of the most exalted descriptions in the New Testament: “He is the radiance of his glory and the exact imprint of his nature.” This is very exalted language. But I do not believe it means Jesus is the God whose glory and nature he perfectly expresses. Notice the relational language itself. Jesus is: the radiance of God's glory and the imprint of God's nature. He perfectly reveals Someone. This is consistent with other books in the Bible like John and Colossians. Jesus is the image of the invisible God. To see Jesus is to see what God is like because God's character, holiness, love, wisdom, glory, and presence are perfectly expressed in him.

Scripture also gives us an important reason not to equate participation in God's glory, image, and nature with identity as Almighty God. Jesus is the “firstborn among many brothers and sisters”, and those brothers and sisters are predestined to be “conformed to the image of his Son” (Romans 8:29). Jesus says that the glory the Father gave him he has given to his followers (John 17:22). Paul says Christians are called to “obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Thessalonians 2:14). Christians are being transformed into the same image “from glory to glory” (2 Corinthians 3:18). Peter goes even further and says believers will become “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4). I therefore believe Scripture presents Jesus' perfect expression of God's nature and glory as something God's other children will share.

In fact, because Scripture says Christians will ultimately be fully conformed to Christ's image, I believe the ultimate implication is much greater than Christians often recognize. If Christ is the exact imprint of God's nature, and God's purpose is to conform His children completely to Christ's image, then I believe God's final purpose is for His children also to become perfect human expressions of His nature and character. They do not become Almighty God, but they will fully share the holy, loving, glorious, divine life revealed in Christ. Therefore, the argument: “Jesus perfectly expresses God's nature; therefore Jesus must be God” does not follow, as Christians will one day be fully conformed to Christ’s own image and also share the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4).

3. “Bearing all things by the word of his power”

The latter part of Hebrews 1:3 is commonly translated something like: “upholding the universe by the word of his power.” Read in English, this can easily sound like the author is saying that Jesus independently uses his own intrinsic omnipotence to keep every part of the physical universe in existence—and therefore must be God.

But the Greek does not actually spell out that theological conclusion. The word commonly translated “upholding” is pherō. Its basic meaning concerns bearing, carrying, bringing, or conveying. In Hebrews 1:3 it is a present participle: Christ is continually pherōn ta panta—continually bearing/carrying all things (BDAG, s.v. “φέρω”; Ellingworth 98–102; Coetsee).

“Upholding” is a legitimate contextual way of expressing this. I therefore would not argue that translations using “uphold” are simply incorrect. But neither should the English word “uphold” automatically be expanded into the much larger claim: “Jesus independently sustains every atom and galaxy in existence by his own intrinsic omnipotence.” That is an interpretation of the language, not simply a translation of it.

The phrase concerning “his power” should also not be made to carry more theological weight than the grammar can bear. In Greek texts containing the possessive pronoun, the Son is certainly its most immediate and natural antecedent. However, the pronoun itself does not establish that the power being exercised is intrinsic, underived divine omnipotence. The preceding context has already established the relationship between God and His Son: God appoints the Son and acts through him. Therefore, even if the phrase means the Son's “powerful word,” that still does not establish that Jesus is Almighty God.

Further, “of his power” can also be translated “of God’s power”. The Greek, grammatically speaking, indicates that “his” could either refer to Jesus or God: context reveals which person “his” refers to. So, this verse could be translated, “The Son is continually bearing all things by the word of God’s power.” If translated in this way, it is God who has the power, not the Son. But even if the correct interpretation is the Son, this does not mean Jesus is God (Ellingworth; Coetsee).

Either interpretation fits the pattern we repeatedly encountered in John. Jesus possesses extraordinary power and authority, but Jesus also says he can do nothing from himself; his works, words, life, authority, and glory ultimately come from the Father. Scripture does not require us to choose between saying that Jesus is extraordinarily powerful and saying that his power comes from God. Both can be true. I therefore understand Hebrews as portraying Christ as carrying all things forward through extraordinary God-given power and authority. I do not believe this language requires the conclusion that Jesus is the Almighty God who is ultimately the source of that power. Scripture witnesses to the fact that God can use human beings in amazing ways. Finally, Hebrews 1 and Hebrews in context does not support the conclusion that Jesus is God, so this phrase should ultimately be understood in that context and favor interpretations that fit contextually.

4. Jesus sits at God's right hand

Hebrews 1:3 then says that after making purification for sins, Jesus: “sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.” Again, the distinction between Jesus and God remains. Jesus does not sit on the throne as the God called “the Majesty.” He sits at God's right hand. This is the position of God's exalted Messiah and King. It is unimaginably glorious, but sitting beside God at God's right hand naturally distinguishes Jesus from the God beside whom he sits.

5. Jesus “became” superior to the angels

Hebrews then says that Jesus: “became so much better than the angels as he has inherited a more excellent name than they have.” I think this wording is extremely important. Jesus became superior to the angels. Jesus inherited a superior name. God does not need to become superior to angels. God is inherently above everything He created. Nor does God need to inherit His divine status from someone else. Hebrews, however, presents Jesus' superiority as something into which he became and connects it with something he inherited.

A Trinitarian can respond that this describes Jesus according to his humanity: the eternally divine Son was always superior to angels, while the incarnate human Jesus was exalted after completing his work. I understand that explanation. That distinction comes from the later two-natures theological framework; Hebrews itself does not explicitly make that distinction. Hebrews itself simply says that the Son became superior and inherited his superior name. Taken naturally, this sounds like the exaltation of God's Messiah rather than a description of God's eternal, unchangeable status.

6. “You are my Son; today I have begotten you”

Hebrews 1:5 quotes Psalm 2: “You are my Son. Today I have begotten you.” The author is establishing Jesus' identity as God's Son. "Begotten" naturally means that Jesus had a beginning. "Eternally begotten", an idea in Trinitarian theology, is not found in Scripture. This verse supports that Jesus had a beginning and is therefore not God. This language points to a beginning, appointment, or new status rather than to ‘eternal begetting.’ At minimum, Hebrews itself does not use the later phrase ‘eternally begotten’ (Ellingworth; Goldingay, Psalms, Volume 1).

7. “Let all God's angels worship him”

Hebrews 1:6 says: “Let all God's angels worship him.”The Greek word is proskyneō. This word can certainly describe worship offered to God, but it is not restricted to worship of deity. It can also describe bowing, homage, or reverence offered to human rulers and other exalted figures. Thus the fact that angels render proskyneō to God's Son does not establish that the Son is God. Hebrews is arguing that the Son has been exalted above the angels: so, he was not always above the angels. The angels' homage beautifully fits that point: God's appointed King has been given a position above them.

8. “Your throne, O God” — Hebrews 1:8–9

One argument for Jesus' deity in Hebrews 1 is verse 8: “But of the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.’” At first glance, this appears decisive: God appears to call Jesus “God.” There are grammatical discussions concerning whether the phrase could instead mean something like “God is your throne,” but my argument does not depend upon establishing that alternative translation.

The author is quoting Psalm 45, a royal psalm originally addressed to an Israelite human king who was also called God (Goldingay, Psalms, Volume 2). This demonstrates that exalted elohim/theos (“God”) language can occur in relation to God's appointed ruler without identifying that ruler as Yahweh Himself. The earthly king in Psalm 45 is certainly not God, though he was called “God”! Scripture similarly uses “god” language for Moses in his representative role (Exodus 7:1). So, simply calling someone by the term “God” is not proof they are Yahweh, the God of Israel.

The immediate context of this verse supports the above paragraph. The quotation continues: “You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.” So, the same person who has just been addressed as “God” is immediately said to have a God. “God, your God.” And that God anoints him and exalts him above his companions. This should also shape how we understand the use of “God” in verse 8, as Yahweh, the God of Israel, does not have a God. Other beings can be called “God” without having the same identity as Yahweh. Jesus is God's supremely exalted King, as the individual called “God” in Psalm 45 was a king. He is not the God who anoints him.

9. Did Jesus lay the foundations of the original universe? — Hebrews 1:10–12

Hebrews 1:10–12 presents one of the most difficult passages for my interpretation:

“You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,

and the heavens are the works of your hands.

They will perish, but you continue…”

The author is quoting Psalm 102, where this language refers to God as Creator. Christians therefore understandably argue that Hebrews is applying the Psalm directly to Jesus and thereby identifying Jesus as the Creator of the original heavens and earth. I take that argument seriously. But I do not think it is the only possible way to understand what Hebrews is doing. The first reason comes directly from the immediate context. Only a few verses later, after continuing the discussion of Jesus and the angels, Hebrews says:

“For it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking.”

—Hebrews 2:5

I think the phrase “about which we are speaking” is extremely significant. The author does not introduce “the world to come” as though he were abruptly beginning an unrelated subject. He says that this is the world he has been talking about.

Remember that the chapter divisions were not part of the original text. Hebrews 1 flows directly into Hebrews 2. Hebrews 1 discusses the Son's inheritance, kingship, superiority to angels, enthronement, and the transformation of heaven and earth. Hebrews 2:5 then resumes the angel comparison and explicitly identifies “the world to come” as the subject under discussion. That gives substantial contextual reason to ask whether Hebrews 1:10–12 is using Psalm 102's creation language in relation to the coming creation over which Christ has been appointed ruler.

This becomes even more interesting in Hebrews 2:5–9. Immediately after identifying the subject as the world to come, the author quotes Psalm 8 concerning humanity's dominion over creation and applies it to Jesus:

“You made him a little lower than the angels.

You crowned him with glory and honor,

and subjected all things under his feet.”

The world to come is not subjected to angels. It is subjected under the exalted human Son. I therefore believe Hebrews 2:5 is a strong contextual argument for understanding the creation language of Hebrews 1 in relation to the new creation instead of trying to communicate that the Son, Jesus, created the original Genesis creation, particularly given contextual evidence in Hebrews and the New Testament that Jesus is distinct from and not the God of Israel (Church 269–86).

There is another important interpretive principle here. New Testament authors frequently take Old Testament passages with an original historical referent and apply them typologically, prophetically, or Christologically to later persons and events. The original Old Testament referent therefore does not necessarily exhaust the later application of the passage.

For example: Matthew applies Isaiah 7:14 to Jesus (Matthew 1:22–23). Matthew applies Hosea 11:1—originally speaking about Israel coming out of Egypt—to Jesus coming out of Egypt (Matthew 2:15). Matthew applies Jeremiah 31:15 to the slaughter surrounding Jesus' childhood (Matthew 2:17–18). Acts 13:33 applies Psalm 2:7 to Jesus. Hebrews itself takes Psalm 45's royal language and applies it to Jesus. John 19:37 applies Zechariah 12:10 to Jesus' crucifixion.

The point is not that New Testament authors arbitrarily change Scripture to mean anything they wish. They do not. Rather, they see earlier biblical persons, events, and language as patterns that can be brought to fuller expression in Christ and God's later redemptive work.

This matters enormously for Hebrews 1:10–12. Psalm 102 originally speaks about God's creation of heaven and earth. But that fact alone does not prove that Hebrews must be saying, “Jesus personally performed the original act described in Psalm 102.” We have to ask how Hebrews is reapplying the Psalm in its own argument. And Hebrews itself gives us an important clue only a few verses later: “the world to come, about which we are speaking.” Thus my argument is not: “The New Testament reuses Old Testament texts, so Psalm 102 can mean whatever I want it to mean.” It is: The New Testament repeatedly demonstrates that an Old Testament passage's original meaning does not automatically determine every aspect of its later Christological application. Hebrews' own immediate context must therefore determine how Psalm 102 is being applied—and Hebrews 2:5 explicitly identifies the world to come as the world under discussion. For that reason, I believe the new-creation interpretation is contextually strong.

Jesus did not independently create the original universe as Almighty God. Rather, through his death, resurrection, exaltation, and coming rule, he lays the foundation for the world to come—the renewed creation over which God has appointed him ruler.

10. “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool”

Hebrews 1 concludes by quoting Psalm 110: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.” Again, Jesus sits at God's right hand. And God says that He will make Jesus' enemies his footstool. This continues the pattern running throughout the chapter: God appoints the Son heir. God makes the ages through the Son. The Son reflects God's glory and nature. The Son sits at God's right hand. The Son becomes superior to angels. The Son inherits a superior name. God is Jesus' God. God anoints Jesus. God exalts Jesus above his companions. God places Jesus at His right hand. God ultimately subjects Jesus' enemies beneath him.

The chapter unquestionably gives Jesus extraordinary glory, authority, and supremacy. But I believe the repeated distinction between God and the Son whom God exalts is equally unmistakable.

11. Conclusion

Jesus is God's uniquely exalted Son. He is God's heir. God works through him. He perfectly expresses God's glory and nature. He has been exalted above the angels. Angels bow before him. God has given him an eternal throne. He is God's anointed King. He sits at God's right hand, and the coming world will be subjected beneath him. But none of that requires Jesus to be the Almighty God who gives him these things. In fact, Hebrews repeatedly describes Jesus in categories of receiving, becoming, inheriting, being anointed, being exalted, and sitting beside God.

Therefore, I do not believe the message of Hebrews 1 is:

Jesus is God.

I believe it is:

God has exalted His Son above everything else.

The Son is greater than the angels—not because he is God, but because God has brought His human Son to extraordinary glory, authority, perfection, and kingship.

And Hebrews 2 immediately begins to explain why.

James

1. Passage: James 1:13–15

James 1:13-15

James 1:13–15 (WEB)

James says something categorical about God: God cannot be tempted by evil. Yet the New Testament repeatedly says that Jesus was tempted, including explicitly being tempted by the devil (Matthew 4:1–11; Luke 4:1–13). Hebrews goes even further, saying that Jesus was “tempted in all points like we are” (Hebrews 4:15).

The contrast is direct:

God cannot be tempted by evil.

Jesus was tempted by evil.

Therefore, Jesus does not possess this defining attribute of God.

The traditional Trinitarian response is that Jesus was tempted according to his human nature while remaining unable to be tempted according to his divine nature. But James does not say that God cannot be tempted in His divine nature while nevertheless being tempted in another nature. He simply says that God cannot be tempted by evil. Scripture likewise never explains Jesus’ temptations by saying that only one of two natures was being tempted.

Jesus’ temptation was real. He experienced what James describes as impossible for God. This is therefore powerful evidence that James did not understand Jesus to be God. Jesus is the genuinely human Son of God who was tested and tempted, remained faithful, and overcame temptation. God is the One who, by His very nature, cannot be tempted by evil.

2. Passage: James 2:19

James 2:19

James 2:19 (WEB)

James states plainly: “God is one.” He does not say that God is three persons, nor does he ever use the expression “God the Son.”

Just as importantly, James himself distinguishes this one God from Jesus. From the opening verse of the letter, James identifies himself as “a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ” (James 1:1). His normal categories are therefore clear: God and the Lord Jesus Christ are distinguished.

This fits the wider New Testament presentation of Jesus as God’s Son, not as the God whose Son he is. Jesus himself worships God—“We worship that which we know” (John 4:22)—prays to God, obeys God, and speaks of God as someone other than himself.

Therefore, when James affirms the foundational Jewish confession that “God is one,” there is nothing in James indicating that Jesus is included within that one God as a second divine person. Instead, James distinguishes God from the Lord Jesus Christ.

The New Testament never says that God is “three in one,” never calls Jesus “God the Son,” and repeatedly distinguishes Jesus from God. James 2:19 fits that same pattern: there is one God, and Jesus is the Lord Messiah who is distinct from Him.

2 Peter

1. Passage: 2 Peter 1:1

2 Peter 1:1

2 Peter 1:1 (WEB)

If Jesus isn’t God, why do many translations render this verse “our God and Savior Jesus Christ”?

The Greek of 2 Peter 1:1 can certainly be read that way, and many scholars argue that its grammatical construction favors understanding “God and Savior” as two titles for the one person Jesus Christ. I do not think that grammatical argument should simply be ignored.

However, that is not the only way this verse has been translated or understood. The KJV reads:

“through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”

The ASV is even more explicit:

“in the righteousness of our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ.”

And J. B. Phillips rendered it:

“in the righteousness of our God, and saviour Jesus Christ.”

These translations understand God and Jesus as distinct persons.

The earliest Greek manuscripts did not contain modern English punctuation. Therefore, punctuation necessarily reflects a translator’s interpretation. A comma after “God”—“our God, and Savior Jesus Christ”—would make the two-person understanding immediately apparent in English. Of course, a comma cannot by itself override Greek grammar; the real question is whether Peter intended one referent or two. But translators do have to make that interpretive decision when presenting the sentence in English.

And this is where Peter’s own context becomes extremely important.

Apart from this disputed verse, Peter does not call Jesus “God” anywhere in either 1 Peter or 2 Peter. Instead, he repeatedly and consistently distinguishes God from Jesus Christ.

Peter begins his first letter by distinguishing “God the Father” from Jesus Christ (1 Peter 1:2). Immediately afterward he says:

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 1:3).

Jesus therefore has a God and Father. Peter then says that believers have faith in God, who raised Jesus from the dead and gave him glory (1 Peter 1:21). Jesus does not raise and glorify himself as God; God raises and glorifies Jesus. Peter says Christ suffered “to bring you to God” (1 Peter 3:18), and after his resurrection Jesus is “at the right hand of God” (1 Peter 3:22).

Second Peter continues exactly the same pattern.

Immediately after the disputed verse, Peter writes:

“Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord” (2 Peter 1:2).

That is a striking contextual fact. In verse 1, many translations make Peter suddenly call Jesus God; in the very next sentence, Peter once again uses his normal language and distinguishes God from Jesus our Lord.

Then in the same chapter Peter describes Jesus receiving something from God:

“He received from God the Father honor and glory” (2 Peter 1:17).

God the Father says concerning Jesus:

“This is my beloved Son.”

Peter’s categories are therefore extremely clear in the immediate context: God is the Father; Jesus is His Son who receives honor and glory from Him.

This pattern continues throughout Peter’s letters. Peter ordinarily calls Jesus Christ, Lord, Son, and Savior. When Peter says “God,” he refers to the Father—the One who raises Jesus, glorifies Jesus, speaks about Jesus, and to whom Jesus brings humanity.

That makes it exegetically significant that the only apparent exception is a single grammatically disputed phrase in 2 Peter 1:1.

Trinitarian interpreters appeal to what is commonly called the Granville Sharp construction: one article governs the two singular personal nouns “God” and “Savior,” which normally points toward one referent. That is a real grammatical argument. But grammar must still be interpreted within an author’s actual usage and context (Wallace 272, 276–77, 290).

And Peter gives us unusually strong contextual evidence about what he normally means.

When he wants to speak of Jesus, his characteristic title in 2 Peter is:

“our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:11; 2:20; 3:18).

When he wants to distinguish Jesus from God, he does exactly that:

“God and Jesus our Lord” (2 Peter 1:2).

Therefore, there are two possibilities in 2 Peter 1:1:

1. Peter exceptionally calls Jesus “God and Savior” here, despite never otherwise calling Jesus God in either letter; or

2. Peter is speaking of God and our Savior Jesus Christ, consistent with the distinction he makes throughout both letters and explicitly in the very next verse.

Given Peter’s overwhelmingly consistent usage, I think the second reading deserves considerably more weight than it is often given.

And even if the first grammatical reading is correct—even if Peter does exceptionally use the title theos for Jesus here—that still would not by itself establish that Jesus is Yahweh, Almighty God. Scripture can use theos for exalted representatives of God: Moses is made “God” to Pharaoh (Exodus 7:1), and Psalm 45 addresses the Davidic king as “God,” a text later applied to Jesus.

So either way, 2 Peter 1:1 does not overturn Peter’s larger theology.

Peter’s repeated picture is remarkably consistent:

God is the Father.

Jesus is God’s Son.

God raises Jesus.

God gives Jesus glory.

Jesus sits at God’s right hand.

Jesus brings us to God.

Therefore, I do not think it is sound to take one disputed construction in 2 Peter 1:1, translate it in the way most favorable to Jesus being called God, and then use that one phrase to redefine everything Peter says everywhere else about the relationship between God and Christ.

Context matters. And in Peter’s context, God and Jesus are consistently distinguished.

(Common Verses, 2010)

1 John

1. Passage: 1 John 3:20

1 John 3:20

1 John 3:20 (WEB)

John says plainly that God “knows all things.” Compare this with Jesus’ own words in Matthew 24:36: “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.” Jesus explicitly distinguishes his own knowledge from the Father’s: there was something the Father knew that the Son did not know.

If God truly knows all things, while Jesus did not know all things, I believe this is strong evidence that Jesus is not God. God does not falsely claim omniscience, and Jesus does not falsely claim ignorance. The most straightforward reading is that God is omniscient; Jesus is not. Jesus is God’s Son, dependent upon the Father for what he knows and receives, rather than God Himself.

2. Passage: 1 John 4:2

1 John 4:2

1 John 4:2 (WEB)

John gives a remarkably concrete test concerning Jesus:

“Every spirit who confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God.”

The genuine humanity of Jesus is therefore essential to the Christian confession. Jesus Christ truly came in the flesh. He was not merely appearing to be human, nor was his humanity an illusion.

This is significant because Jesus himself says that “God is Spirit” (John 4:24). God, by nature, is Spirit; Jesus Christ, however, is repeatedly presented as a human being who came in flesh, suffered, bled, and died. In my understanding, this fits naturally with the larger biblical presentation of Jesus as God’s human Son rather than God Himself.

At the same time, I want to be careful not to claim that this verse by itself disproves every form of Trinitarian Christology. Trinitarian Christians also confess that Jesus genuinely came in the flesh. Their explanation is that the eternal Son remained divine while assuming a complete human nature. I disagree with that interpretation, but 1 John 4:2 alone does not directly address or refute the later two-natures formulation.

What the passage does establish very strongly is that we must never explain Jesus in a way that diminishes or obscures his genuine humanity. John’s concern is not merely that Christians use the correct title for Jesus; they must confess the real Jesus Christ who came in flesh.

This becomes particularly important within the larger biblical case I have been developing. Jesus is tempted, suffers, learns obedience, grows, dies, is raised by God, is exalted by God, and serves as humanity’s mediator before God. I believe these descriptions are most naturally understood if Jesus is genuinely and completely human rather than an immortal God living simultaneously behind a human nature.

Verse 3 warns against a spirit that refuses the true confession of Jesus Christ. I think this warning should still be taken seriously. Any Christology that effectively makes Jesus less than genuinely human—or makes his humanity functionally unlike ours—risks undermining precisely what John insists must be confessed. Jesus Christ truly came in the flesh.

In my understanding, the biblical confession is therefore not that God Himself became a human being, but that God’s Messiah and Son was a genuine human being in whom God dwelled and through whom God acted. John’s emphasis on Jesus coming “in the flesh” fits that understanding remarkably well.

2. Passage: 1 John 4:12

1 John 4:12

1 John 4:12 (WEB)

John makes a striking statement: “No one has seen God at any time.” Yet John himself had seen Jesus. He had lived with him, spoken with him, touched him, watched him teach and perform miracles, and seen him after his resurrection. Thousands of other people also saw Jesus. Nevertheless, John still says that no one has seen God.

The immediate context reinforces the distinction. God sent His Son into the world (verse 9); God loved us and sent His Son as the atoning sacrifice for our sins (verse 10); and then John says, “No one has seen God at any time” (verse 12). God is the One who sends; Jesus is God’s Son who is sent.

I therefore believe this is significant evidence that John does not identify the visible human Jesus with the God whom he says no one has seen.

A Trinitarian can respond that “God” here specifically means the Father: people saw Jesus according to his humanity while the invisible Father remained unseen. I understand that interpretation. However, John himself does not insert that qualification into the statement. He simply says that no one has seen God, despite having personally seen Jesus.

This fits the larger Johannine pattern: Jesus reveals God, represents God, is sent by God, and makes the invisible God known—but he is repeatedly distinguished from the God whom he reveals. In my understanding, the most natural explanation is that Jesus is God’s visible human Son and perfect revelation, not the invisible God Himself.

3. Passage: 1 John 5:7–8

1 John 5:7-8

1 John 5:7–8 (WEB)

1 John 5:7–8 (KJV): “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” Some older English Bibles, most notably the KJV, contain the highlighted Trinitarian statement. However, these words—commonly called the Comma Johanneum—are not found in the earliest Greek manuscripts of 1 John and are overwhelmingly regarded by modern textual scholars as a later addition rather than part of John’s original text (Metzger 647–49). The wording appears first within the Latin textual tradition and only much later enters a small number of Greek manuscripts. The oldest known Greek manuscript containing the passage in its actual text dates to approximately the 14th century. (Bible.org) For this reason, most modern translations do not include the Trinitarian sentence in the biblical text. The NIV, for example, reads: “For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.” The ESV and NET similarly omit the reference to “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost” because the manuscript evidence does not support it as original. (NET Bible) Therefore, 1 John 5:7–8 cannot legitimately be used as evidence that John originally taught that “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit... are one.” Whatever conclusions someone reaches about the Trinity must be established from other biblical texts; this particular Trinitarian wording was not part of the original text of 1 John.

4. Passage: 1 John 5:20

1 John 5:20

1 John 5:20 (WEB)

If Jesus is not God, why does 1 John 5:20 appear in some translations to call him “the true God and eternal life”?

This is one of the strongest verses that can be used to argue that John directly calls Jesus God, and I do not think the grammatical question should be minimized. The final sentence says, “This is the true God and eternal life.” The Greek pronoun houtos (“this one” or “he”) can refer to the nearest antecedent, which here is Jesus Christ. For that reason, many Christians understand the statement as referring directly to Jesus (Brown 625).

However, pronouns do not invariably refer to the nearest noun. Their antecedent must ultimately be determined from grammar and context, and the preceding sentence creates an important distinction:

“We know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ.”

Notice the relationships John establishes. The Son of God comes so that we may know “the One who is true.” Jesus is then identified as His Son. Thus, immediately before the disputed final sentence, John has twice referred to another Person as “the true One” and has distinguished Jesus as that Person’s Son.

For that reason, I believe there is a strong contextual case that the final statement—“This is the true God and eternal life”—continues to identify the One who is true, namely God, rather than suddenly redefining His Son as that God.

The grammar does not force this conclusion, and I would not claim that it does. The phrase “in him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ” can also be understood so closely that some readers naturally take the final houtos as referring to Jesus. This is therefore a genuinely disputed text. But precisely because the antecedent is disputed, 1 John 5:20 should not be treated as an unambiguous statement that Jesus is God.

The larger context of 1 John also matters. Throughout the letter, John repeatedly distinguishes God from His Son Jesus Christ. God sends His Son (1 John 4:9–10); Jesus is the Son whose blood cleanses us (1 John 1:7); and immediately before this verse Jesus is again called “the Son of God.” John has also said that “no one has seen God at any time” (1 John 4:12), even though John himself had seen Jesus.

This reading also fits John 17:3, where Jesus addresses the Father as “the only true God” and distinguishes himself as “Jesus Christ, whom You sent.” Thus, within the larger Johannine framework, the title “the true God” most naturally refers to the God whom Jesus reveals and whose Son he is.

I therefore do not believe 1 John 5:20 overturns the consistent distinction John has maintained throughout the letter between God and His Son. The verse is grammatically capable of being read with Jesus as the antecedent, and I acknowledge why many Christians read it that way. But I believe the contextual flow favors understanding “the true God” as the One John has just twice called “the true One”—God, whose Son is Jesus Christ.

At minimum, this verse is not clear enough to function as decisive proof that Jesus is God, particularly when interpreted within John’s repeated distinction between Jesus and the God who sent him.

Jude

1. Passage: Jude 1:5

Jude 1:5

Jude 1:5 (WEB)

There is an important textual question here. Some modern translations, including the ESV, read “Jesus” as the one who saved the people out of Egypt, while other textual witnesses read “the Lord” or “God.” The current Nestle-Aland Greek text (NA28) favors “Jesus,” while the previous edition (NA27) read “the Lord.” Therefore, this verse should not be presented as though the wording “Jesus” is undisputed (Bartholomä 143–58; Metzger).

Significantly, very early Christian evidence predating our earliest surviving manuscripts of Jude supports a non-“Jesus” reading. Clement of Alexandria, writing in the late second or early third century, comments on this verse with the wording “the Lord God … who once delivered a people out of Egypt.” This shows that an ancient form of Jude 5 identifying the Lord God, rather than Jesus, as the deliverer from Egypt was circulating extremely early (Clement of Alexandria, Comments on Jude).

If “the Lord” is original, the verse naturally refers to Yahweh, who repeatedly says in the Old Testament that He brought Israel out of Egypt. In that case, Jude 5 provides no evidence that Jesus is God.

If “Jesus” is original, however, that reading deserves to be taken seriously. It would mean that Jude attributes some role in Israel’s deliverance from Egypt to Jesus. But even then, it does not automatically follow that Jude is identifying Jesus as Yahweh Himself. That conclusion must be tested against Jude’s own theology.

And Jude gives us an extraordinarily important statement at the end of the letter:

“to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority…” (Jude 25).

Jude explicitly identifies “the only God our Savior” and then distinguishes “Jesus Christ our Lord” as the one through whom glory is given to that God. Jude does not identify Jesus as “the only God”; he distinguishes Jesus from Him.

Therefore, Jude 5 cannot simply be cited as proof that Jesus is Yahweh. First, the wording itself is textually disputed, with extremely early Christian evidence supporting a non-“Jesus” reading. Second, even if “Jesus” is original, Jude explicitly distinguishes Jesus from “the only God” later in the same letter.

If “Jesus” is the original reading, the proper question is what kind of agency or preexistent role Jude is attributing to Jesus—not whether the word “Jesus” automatically means that Jesus is Yahweh. Whatever Jude 5 means, Jude 25 gives us Jude’s clearest theological categories: there is “the only God our Savior,” and Jesus Christ is our Lord through whom God acts and is glorified.

2. Passage: Jude 1:25

Jude 1:25

Jude 1:25 (ASV)

Jude explicitly distinguishes Jesus Christ our Lord from “the only God, our Savior.” “Only” means only. There is one God, and Jude identifies Him as the One to whom glory, majesty, dominion, and authority belong forever.

And notice again the direction: this glory is given TO the only God THROUGH Jesus Christ our Lord. Jesus is not identified as the only God; he is the Lord through whom glory is given to God.

This is consistent with the pattern throughout the New Testament: God is the ultimate Savior and source of salvation, while Jesus is the Lord and mediator through whom God accomplishes His saving work. Jude’s wording is especially clear: there is “the only God” and there is “Jesus Christ our Lord.” They are distinct. Jesus is not the only God.

Cumulative Conclusion: Which Christology Best Fits These Letters?

After reading the positive portrait first and then working through the major proof-texts, I think the cumulative question becomes much clearer. There really are two bodies of evidence that need to be taken seriously.

The strongest case for identifying Jesus as God

I understand why Christians read these letters as supporting Jesus’ deity. Hebrews 1 is exceptionally exalted. Jesus is the radiance of God’s glory and exact imprint of His nature. God makes the ages through him. He bears all things by a powerful word. Angels render him homage. Psalm 45 addresses him as “God,” and language from Psalm 102 concerning heaven and earth is applied to him. If these statements are read through a Trinitarian framework already in place, they fit naturally within it.

Second Peter 1:1 supplies a real grammatical argument for reading “our God and Savior Jesus Christ” as referring to one person. First John 5:20 can grammatically be read with Jesus as the antecedent of “the true God and eternal life.” Jude 5, in the textual form preferred by many modern critical editions, can say that “Jesus” saved Israel from Egypt. These are not imaginary arguments, and I do not think a responsible non-Trinitarian reading should pretend that they carry no weight.

So the case for Jesus’ deity in these letters is not simply: “Jesus is called Lord, therefore he is God.” The strongest case is cumulative too: unusually exalted descriptions, Old Testament Yahweh texts applied to Christ, disputed instances where theos may be applied directly to Jesus, and claims about Christ’s preexistence, authority, glory, and cosmic role.

But the ordinary and repeated pattern points in another direction

The difficulty for me is that this is not the only evidence in the same books—and it is not the most frequent kind of evidence.

Hebrews repeatedly speaks of God and His Son. God appoints Jesus heir. God works through him. God is “your God” to Jesus and anoints him. Jesus sits at God’s right hand. He becomes superior to angels and inherits a superior name. He is made lower than angels, tastes death by God’s grace, shares flesh and blood with his brothers and sisters, suffers when tempted, learns obedience, is made perfect, is designated High Priest by God, and ultimately serves as mediator between humanity and God.

James begins with “God and the Lord Jesus Christ,” says God is one, and states that God cannot be tempted. Second Peter distinguishes “God and Jesus our Lord” immediately after its disputed opening verse, then says Jesus received honor and glory from God the Father, who calls him His beloved Son. First John repeatedly says that God sends His Son, gives testimony concerning His Son, gives eternal life in His Son, and that Jesus is our advocate with the Father. John says no one has seen God even though Jesus was visibly seen, and insists that Jesus genuinely came in flesh. Jude distinguishes God the Father from Jesus Christ and, in the critical-text wording of Jude 25, directs glory to the only God our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Those are not isolated phrases. They form the basic relational grammar of these writings.

Why I believe the human Christology explains the whole pattern better

For me, the decisive question is not, “Can Trinitarianism produce an explanation for each verse in which Jesus is distinguished from God?” It can. The traditional answer is usually that Jesus is God according to his divine nature while receiving, learning, suffering, being tempted, dying, being perfected, and being exalted according to his human nature.

My difficulty is that these letters themselves never explain Jesus that way. Hebrews does not stop after saying Jesus learned obedience and add, “only according to the human nature, while his divine nature already possessed perfect obedience.” It does not say that one nature was tempted while another was untemptable, that one nature became perfect while another had eternally been perfect, or that the human nature sat beside a divine nature who was already inherently supreme. Hebrews simply speaks about Jesus, the Son, and tells a genuine story of suffering, learning, perfection, priesthood, inheritance, and exaltation.

I believe the human-Messiah Christology allows that language to retain its full force best. Jesus can genuinely be tempted because he is genuinely human. He can genuinely suffer and learn obedience. His being “made perfect” can describe a real development rather than merely a change in one compartment of a person who is simultaneously eternally perfect in another compartment. His priesthood can be genuinely bestowed by God. His inheritance can genuinely be received. His exaltation above the angels can genuinely be an exaltation.

At the same time, the human reading does not require us to minimize the high texts. Scripture already gives us categories capable of explaining them. A human king can be addressed with theos language without becoming Yahweh. God can work through an agent without the agent becoming the ultimate source of the work. God’s glory and nature can be perfectly revealed in another person without that person being the God whose glory is revealed. Old Testament texts can be reapplied Christologically and typologically to later fulfillment. God can give His Messiah authority so comprehensive that the Messiah acts in God’s name, bears God’s glory, receives universal homage, judges the world, and rules the coming creation on God’s behalf.

In other words, both models have to explain something. Trinitarianism has to explain the enormous volume of language in which Jesus receives from, depends upon, learns from, is perfected by, is sent by, is glorified by, and is distinguished from God. The human-Messiah model has to explain the comparatively small number of unusually exalted, grammatically disputed, textually disputed, or typologically complex passages that can sound as though Jesus is God.

When I compare those explanatory burdens, I believe the human Christology is the simpler and more coherent reading of these letters as a whole.

Hebrews is especially important to me

Hebrews, more than perhaps any other New Testament book, is one reason I find this model compelling rather than diminishing.

The letter gives Jesus astonishing glory while simultaneously insisting upon his solidarity with humanity. He is not ashamed to call human beings brothers and sisters. He shares their flesh and blood. He becomes like them “in all things.” He is tested. He suffers. He learns obedience. He is made perfect. He becomes High Priest. And because he has genuinely passed through the human struggle, he can help those who are being tested.

If I begin by assuming Jesus is the eternally perfect Almighty God, I have to continually qualify those statements. If I begin with Hebrews’ own repeated categories—God and His Son, the Son’s genuine humanity, development, priesthood, and exaltation—the argument flows much more naturally.

And I do not think that makes Jesus less glorious. I think it makes what God accomplishes in Jesus more extraordinary. God brings a genuine human Son through suffering and obedience into perfection, gives him an indestructible priesthood, seats him at His right hand, subjects the coming world beneath him, and makes him the source and mediator of salvation for humanity.

That is an extraordinarily high human Christology.

A human Christology that takes the highest statements seriously

I therefore do not think the choice is between “Jesus is God” and “Jesus is merely a man.” That framing gives away far too much of what the New Testament actually says.

The Jesus I see in these letters is God’s uniquely exalted human Son: the radiance and image through whom God is revealed; the Messiah and Lord; the heir of all things; the King over the coming world; the brother of humanity; the perfected Great High Priest; the mediator of the covenant; the righteous advocate; the Savior through whom God gives life; and the returning Lord whose kingdom believers await.

That is far more than an ordinary human being. But I do not believe any of those titles requires him to be the Almighty God who gives him his mission, authority, perfection, priesthood, inheritance, resurrection, and glory.

I know sincere Trinitarian Christians will weigh these texts differently, especially Hebrews 1, 2 Peter 1:1, 1 John 5:20, and Jude 5. My claim is not that every difficult verse becomes effortless under my reading.My conclusion is cumulative: when the clear and repeated descriptions establish the framework first, and the difficult proof-texts are then interpreted inside that framework, I believe the human-Messiah Christology explains these writings more naturally and with fewer added assumptions than Trinitarianism does.

Jesus is not God Himself. He is God’s Son—the genuinely human Messiah whom God brings to extraordinary perfection, priesthood, authority, glory, and kingship, and through whom God is bringing His other children to salvation and glory as well.

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