12. The New Testament Cumulative Evidence, Part 5: Revelation, the Hypostatic Union, and Other Trinitarian Evidence

This final article completes the cumulative New Testament examination by turning to Revelation and then to the broader theological arguments often used to reconcile the biblical evidence with the doctrine that Jesus is God.

But before beginning with the disputed titles, throne scenes, worship passages, or the Hypostatic Union, I want to begin with a more basic question:

Who does Revelation positively and repeatedly say Jesus is?

I think that question should establish the framework. Revelation gives Jesus some of the highest honor, authority, glory, and titles anywhere in Scripture. My argument is not that Revelation presents a small Jesus. Quite the opposite. It presents Jesus as the faithful Son, slain and risen Lamb, Messiah, conqueror, Davidic King, judge, bridegroom, ruler of the nations, and Lord whom God places at the center of His final restoration of creation.

The question is whether Revelation requires us to take one further step and identify this extraordinarily exalted Jesus as the Lord God Almighty Himself.

Before the Proof-Texts: What Revelation Says Jesus Is

Jesus is the faithful witness, the risen ruler, and the Son of God

Revelation introduces Jesus with an extraordinary cluster of titles:

“Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth” (Revelation 1:5).

That is already a remarkably high Christology.

Jesus is the faithful witness: the one who faithfully reveals and testifies to what comes from God.

He is the firstborn of the dead: the one who died and now lives forever, standing at the head of resurrected humanity.

He is the ruler of the kings of the earth: God’s Messiah elevated over every earthly ruler.

Revelation also explicitly calls him “the Son of God” (Revelation 2:18). He is the one who receives authority from his Father and then gives authority to those who overcome (Revelation 2:26–27). He has the key of David (Revelation 3:7). He is holy and true. He searches hearts. He gives the crown of life. He has authority over death and Hades.

This is not merely the portrait of a teacher or prophet.

It is the portrait of God’s uniquely exalted Son and Messiah.

Jesus is the human Messiah who overcame and was enthroned

One of Revelation’s most important statements about Jesus comes from Jesus himself:

“I also overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne” (Revelation 3:21).

That sentence gives us a remarkable sequence.

Jesus overcame.

Then Jesus sat down with his Father on His throne.

His enthronement is connected to his victory.

And Jesus immediately makes this the pattern for his followers:

“He who overcomes, I will give to him to sit down with me on my throne.”

I think this is enormously important for understanding Revelation’s Christology. Jesus’ glory is not presented as something that makes genuine humanity irrelevant. His victory and enthronement become the pattern into which other human beings are invited. Christians overcome with him, reign with him, sit with him, and eventually share in the restored rule of God’s creation.

Revelation therefore does not present Jesus as someone who no other human being could possibly be like.

It presents him as humanity brought to extraordinary victory, glory, and kingship under God. And this humanity Christ's followers are invited into.

Jesus is the Lion of Judah, the Root of David, and the slain Lamb

Revelation 5 identifies Jesus as:

“the Lion who is of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David.”

At the end of the book Jesus again says:

“I am the root and the offspring of David” (Revelation 22:16).

These are profoundly messianic and human categories. Jesus belongs to Israel’s story. He is the promised Davidic ruler.

Yet when John turns to see the conquering Lion, he sees a Lamb standing as though it had been slain.

That image lies at the heart of Revelation’s Christology.

Jesus conquers through faithful suffering.

He dies.

He lives again.

And heaven declares him worthy.

Why?

Revelation tells us:

“You were killed, and bought us for God with your blood” (Revelation 5:9).

And again:

“Worthy is the Lamb who has been killed to receive the power, wealth, wisdom, strength, honor, glory, and blessing!” (Revelation 5:12).

Jesus is not treated as ordinary. He receives cosmic honor.

But Revelation gives a reason for that worthiness: he was slain, he overcame, and he redeemed people for God.

This is an extraordinarily exalted Christology built around what Jesus faithfully accomplished.

Jesus is God’s Christ, King, judge, and agent of the final victory

Revelation repeatedly calls Jesus God’s Christ.

When the kingdom of the world becomes God’s kingdom, heaven declares:

“The kingdom of the world has become the Kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ” (Revelation 11:15).

Revelation 12 likewise speaks of the authority of “his Christ.”

Jesus is God’s Messiah—the King through whom God establishes His reign.

This gives Jesus astonishing authority.

But again, Revelation’s categories remain relational:

God is the Almighty.

Jesus is the King who carries out God’s judgment.

God is the Lord whose Christ Jesus is.

Jesus is the Messiah through whom the kingdom comes.

Jesus is the Lamb at the center of God’s restored creation

By the end of Revelation, Jesus stands at the center of the New Jerusalem.

The city has no temple because “the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its temple” (Revelation 21:22).

God’s glory illuminates the city, and “its lamp is the Lamb” (21:23).

The river of life proceeds from “the throne of God and of the Lamb” (22:1).

The saints reign with Christ. They are priests of God and of Christ. The bride belongs to the Lamb. Jesus shares God’s throne and participates in God’s rule over the renewed creation.

This is about as high as a human Christology can possibly go.

Jesus is not an ordinary human being standing somewhere beneath heaven’s important figures. He is the Lamb beside the throne, the supreme Messiah, the bridegroom, the King of kings, and the one through whom God’s redemptive purpose reaches its climax.

Revelation’s Jesus is not “merely a man”

I therefore do not think the real choice is:

Jesus is God

or

Jesus is merely a man.

Revelation itself gives us a much richer category.

Jesus is God’s uniquely exalted human Son and Messiah.

He dies and lives again.

He overcomes.

He receives authority.

He sits with his Father.

He redeems people for God.

He reigns over the nations.

He judges on God’s behalf.

He receives extraordinary praise.

He shares in God’s throne and the glory of the restored creation.

And yet he continues to speak of “my God.”

That combination is exactly what I am trying to preserve.

In my understanding, Revelation does not lower Jesus by distinguishing him from God. It shows what God has done through and for His faithful Son.

So before considering any individual deity proof-text, this is the positive Christology I think Revelation asks us to see:

Jesus is God’s Son, Lamb, Messiah, faithful witness, resurrected human ruler, conqueror, Davidic King, judge, bridegroom, and Lord—the one whom God has exalted to the highest place in His restored creation.

The following sections ask whether Revelation’s strongest deity proof-texts require us to go beyond that portrait and identify Jesus as the Lord God Almighty Himself.

Scripture quotations added at the beginning of each discussion are from the World English Bible (WEB).

Revelation

1. Passage: Revelation 1:1–8

God Gives the Revelation to Jesus; “The Almighty”

Revelation 1:1–8 (WEB)

Revelation opens by clearly distinguishing God from Jesus Christ. The revelation belongs ultimately to God: it is “the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him.” God is the One who gives the revelation; Jesus is the one who receives it and communicates it to his servants. This fits the consistent New Testament pattern in which Jesus receives knowledge, authority, and revelation from God rather than possessing them independently.

Verse 2 continues the distinction between “God’s word” and “the testimony of Jesus Christ.” These expressions should not be pressed as though they alone prove that Jesus is not God, since “testimony of Jesus” can describe testimony about or from Jesus. Nevertheless, within the immediate context of verse 1, the distinction is significant: God gives the revelation to Jesus, and Jesus bears witness to what God has given him.

Revelation therefore begins with the same relationship found throughout the New Testament: God is the ultimate source, while Jesus is His faithful witness and messenger. Jesus is extraordinarily exalted, but he is still distinguished from the God who gives him the revelation.

Jesus has a God—the Father. Revelation 1:6 explicitly speaks of “his God and Father.” This is enormously significant for understanding Jesus’ identity. Jesus does not merely distinguish himself from the Father; he identifies the Father as his own God.

In my understanding, this is incompatible with Jesus himself being the one God. God, by definition, does not have a God over Him. Yet Jesus has a God whom he worships, serves, obeys, and to whom he is ultimately subject. This same relationship appears after his resurrection when Jesus says, “my God and your God” (John 20:17).

This fits the monotheistic framework inherited from Judaism: there is one supreme God, and Jesus is His Messiah, Son, Lord, and King. Revelation will highly exalt Jesus, but it continues to distinguish him from the God who is his God and Father.

The speaker here is explicitly “the Lord God … the Almighty.” The Greek title pantokratōr (“Almighty”) is repeatedly used in Revelation for God (Revelation 4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7, 14; 19:6, 15; 21:22), and Scripture never explicitly gives this title to Jesus by name (BDAG, s.v. “παντοκράτωρ”).

Jesus is extraordinarily exalted as Lord, Messiah, King, and Son of God, but “the Almighty” is the title of God. Revelation itself continues to distinguish Jesus from this God.

2. Passage: Revelation 1:17–18; 2:8

The First and the Last; Jesus Was Dead

Revelation 1:17–18; 2:8 (WEB)

If Jesus is not God, why did John fall at his feet as though dead?

John’s reaction does not establish that Jesus is God. The vision of the glorified Jesus is overwhelming and terrifying, and Scripture contains other examples of human beings falling down in fear before angels or other supernatural manifestations without believing that those beings are God. In Revelation itself, John later falls at the feet of an angel (Revelation 19:10; 22:8–9). His physical reaction therefore demonstrates the overwhelming glory and authority of the risen Jesus, but it does not by itself establish Jesus’ deity.

This makes particular sense given Jesus’ exalted position. Hebrews says that Jesus has become greater than the angels (Hebrews 1:4). If encounters with angels could overwhelm human beings, it should not surprise us that encountering the glorified Lord and King of the Church could cause John to collapse in fear.

“The First and the Last”

Revelation 2:8 records Jesus saying:

“These things says the first and the last, who was dead and has come to life.”

Some argue that because God calls Himself “the first and the last” in Isaiah 44:6, Jesus’ use of the same title proves that Jesus is God. But sharing a title does not necessarily mean sharing identity.

Scripture sometimes applies the same exalted title to different individuals without identifying them as the same being. For example, Artaxerxes is called “king of kings” in Ezra 7:12, while Scripture elsewhere uses “King of kings” in reference to God and to Jesus. Obviously, Artaxerxes is neither God nor Jesus. The meaning of a title must therefore be determined from its context rather than assuming that everyone who bears the same title must be the same person.

The context of Isaiah 44:6 is also important. God says:

“I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God.”

When Jesus uses the expression in Revelation, however, he does not repeat the declaration, “besides me there is no God.” Instead, he immediately identifies himself as the One “who was dead and has come to life.” That description itself distinguishes Jesus from God in an important respect: Jesus truly died, whereas God is immortal.

Jesus’ use of “the first and the last” therefore does not have to mean, “I am the God of Isaiah 44.” It can describe his unique position within God’s redemptive purposes.

I address more fully why Jesus might have the title "First and Last" in Part 2 of "Who is Jesus?"

For the purposes of this article, Revelation 1:17–18 does not require Jesus to be identified as God. It presents him as the overwhelmingly glorious, resurrected, and exalted Lord who was dead and is now alive forevermore, and whom God has placed at the center of His redemptive purposes.

3. Passage: Revelation 3:1–12

Jesus Repeatedly Calls the Father “My God”

Revelation 3:1–6, 12 (WEB)

Jesus “has the seven Spirits of God.” Revelation elsewhere places these seven Spirits before God’s throne and describes them as sent out into all the earth (Revelation 1:4; 4:5; 5:6). I understand this imagery as representing the fullness of God’s Holy Spirit, likely echoing the Spirit’s sevenfold description in Isaiah 11:2.

Notice the wording: Jesus has the Spirit of God. The Spirit is identified as belonging to God, while Jesus possesses and sends the Spirit according to the authority God has given him. This fits the wider New Testament pattern in which Jesus is anointed with, receives, and ministers through God’s Spirit (Luke 4:18; Acts 2:33; 10:38). Thus, even in his exalted state, Jesus is presented in relationship to the Spirit of God, rather than simply being identified as God Himself.

Again, Jesus speaks of God as “my God.” This is especially significant because these are the words of the risen and glorified Jesus—not merely Jesus during his earthly ministry. Even after his resurrection and exaltation, Jesus still has a God.

Jesus says the same thing in John 20:17: “I ascend to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.” His God is the same God as the disciples’ God. Jesus therefore stands with his brothers and sisters in relationship to, dependence upon, and worship of the one God.

If Jesus has a God, I do not believe he can himself be that God. God, by definition, does not have a God over Him. Trinitarian theology attempts to explain this by appealing to Jesus’ humanity while also affirming his deity, but the straightforward language remains: the exalted Jesus repeatedly calls another Person “my God” in a way that is not reciprocated by that God. Jesus is not God; he is God’s Son, Messiah, and exalted Lord.

Jesus repeatedly refers to the Father as “my God”—four times in a single verse (verse 12). Even as the risen and exalted Messiah, Jesus still has a God over him. In my understanding, this is extraordinarily difficult to reconcile with Jesus himself being the one God, because God does not have another God.

The distinction is especially clear here: the temple belongs to “my God,” the divine name is “the name of my God,” the New Jerusalem comes down “from my God,” and Jesus separately speaks of “my own new name.” Jesus therefore distinguishes himself from the God whose name he bears and whose authority he represents.

Revelation highly exalts Jesus, but it does not erase this relationship: the Father remains Jesus’ God, while Jesus is God’s Messiah, Son, Lord, and King. In my understanding, Jesus is therefore not God Himself, but the exalted human Son of God.

4. Passage: Revelation 3:14

“The Beginning of God’s Creation”

Revelation 3:14 (WEB)

Jesus calls himself “the Beginning of God’s creation.” This is an important statement. The Greek word archē can mean beginning, origin/source, or ruler, which explains why translations differ: some have “the beginning of God’s creation,” others “the ruler,” and others “the originator.” The translation “beginning” is therefore not a mistranslation; it is a genuine lexical possibility (BDAG, s.v. “ἀρχή”; NET Bible, Rev. 3:14 n. 4).

I believe “the beginning of God’s creation” fits the larger biblical picture I have developed throughout this study. Notice first the relationship expressed in Jesus’ own words: creation belongs to God—it is “God’s creation.” Jesus speaks of himself in relation to that creation rather than simply identifying himself as the God who created it.

If archē is understood here in its temporal sense of “beginning,” the statement is particularly significant for Jesus’ identity as a created being rather than the Creator Himself.

At minimum, this verse should not simply be quoted as though archē unquestionably means “originator” and therefore proves that Jesus is the Creator. The Greek itself allows “beginning of God’s creation,” which is exactly how the WEB, ESV, NASB, RSV, and other translations render it. I therefore believe this passage is consistent with Jesus belonging to God’s creation, while occupying an absolutely unique position within it as God’s faithful and true Witness, Messiah, and exalted Son.

5. Passage: Revelation 3:21

Jesus Overcame and Was Seated on His Father’s Throne

Revelation 3:21 (WEB)

Jesus was not always seated on this throne. He says that he first “overcame” and then “sat down with my Father on his throne.” His enthronement therefore follows his faithful victory; it is something he receives after overcoming.

Jesus then promises a striking parallel to Christians: those who overcome will likewise sit with him on his throne, just as he overcame and sat with his Father on His throne. Believers therefore share in Christ’s exalted reign, just as Christ shares in the authority of God who exalted him.

This distinction is important. God does not need to overcome in order to become worthy to sit on His throne; He is inherently God and sovereign. Jesus, by contrast, describes himself as overcoming and then being enthroned with his Father. His authority is exalted and extraordinary, but it is received within relationship to God. Jesus is not God; he is God’s victorious and exalted Messiah, and those who overcome will share in his reign.

6. Passage: Revelation 4–5

The One on the Throne and the Lamb

Revelation 4:8–11; 5:5–14 (WEB)

Notice carefully before whom the twenty-four elders cast their crowns: they cast them before the One sitting on the throne, whom they explicitly call “our Lord and God.” Why is this Being worthy to receive glory, honor, and power? “For you created all things, and because of your will they existed and were created.” Revelation 4 therefore directs this particular act of worship—the casting of crowns—to God the Creator.

This distinction is important because Christian worship songs sometimes use the imagery of casting our crowns before Jesus. But that is not actually what Revelation describes. The Bible never depicts anyone casting crowns before Jesus. The crowns are cast before God, the One seated on the throne, specifically in worship of Him as Creator of all things. I therefore think we should be careful not to transfer biblical imagery directed specifically toward God onto Jesus.

Jesus is not even introduced as the Lamb in this heavenly throne-room vision until Revelation 5. When he appears, he is clearly distinguished from the One sitting on the throne: the Lamb approaches Him and takes the scroll from His right hand (Revelation 5:6–7). The distinction could hardly be more visually clear—God is seated on the throne; Jesus approaches God and receives something from Him.

Revelation 5 certainly gives Jesus extraordinary praise and honor, and the elders even fall down before the Lamb. I do not want to minimize that. But notice why Jesus is declared worthy: “You were slain, and purchased for God with your blood people from every tribe, language, people, and nation” (Revelation 5:9). God in chapter 4 is praised because He created all things; Jesus in chapter 5 is praised because he was slain and redeemed people for God. Even a traditional Trinitarian commentary recognizes this literary distinction between the chapter 4 song celebrating creation and the chapter 5 song celebrating the Lamb’s redemptive work (Mounce).

I believe this distinction is enormously important. God is worthy because He is the Creator of everything. Jesus is worthy because of what he faithfully accomplished—he suffered, was slain, conquered, and redeemed humanity for God. Revelation gives tremendous honor to Jesus without confusing him with the God whose purposes he accomplished.

So when Christians sing about casting their crowns before Jesus, I think they are taking imagery that Revelation specifically directs toward God the Creator and applying it to the Lamb. I would not call those Christians intentionally blasphemous—they are generally worshiping according to what they sincerely believe—but I do think the biblical distinction should be preserved. In Revelation, the crowns are cast before God. The Lamb receives his own extraordinary praise for a different reason: he was slain and redeemed humanity for God.

Notice how clearly Revelation distinguishes between God and the Lamb. The Lamb approaches God, who is seated on the throne, and takes the scroll from His hand. They are not presented as the same individual. Jesus is then given extraordinary praise—but Revelation itself tells us WHY he is worthy.

Is the Lamb declared worthy here because he is the God who created all things? No. That praise was just given to the One seated on the throne: “You are worthy, our Lord and God... for you created all things” (Revelation 4:11). The Lamb is praised for a different reason: “You were killed, and bought us for God with your blood... and made us kings and priests to our God” (Revelation 5:9–10). Jesus is worthy because of his extraordinary faithfulness, love, sacrifice, and victory. He gave his life and ransomed humanity FOR GOD.

That wording is profoundly significant. Jesus purchases people “for God” and makes them “priests to our God.” God is the One for whom the people are redeemed; Jesus is the Lamb through whose sacrifice God redeems them. Revelation therefore gives Jesus astonishing honor while continuing to distinguish him from God.

This does not diminish Jesus in the slightest. The entire heavenly assembly celebrates him precisely because of what he accomplished. Jesus deserves immense praise because he loved God and humanity so completely that he faithfully gave his life, even unto death, accomplishing the mission God entrusted to him. But the reasons given for praising the Lamb should not be changed into a reason the text does not give. Here, Jesus is not praised as the Creator God or God in any way; he is praised as the slain and victorious Lamb who ransomed a people FOR God.

The distinction established across Revelation 4–5 is therefore important: God is praised as the Creator and ultimate source of all things, while Jesus is praised as the Lamb who faithfully accomplished God’s redemptive purpose. The Lamb belongs at the very center of heaven’s praise, but he remains distinct from “our God,” for whom he has redeemed a people.

Revelation 5:14 is especially significant because there is a textual variant at the end of the verse. Modern critical editions read simply that “the elders fell down and worshiped,” without explicitly stating whom they worshiped. Another textual tradition, represented by the Textus Receptus, continues: “and worshiped the One who lives forever and ever” (Nestle-Aland, Rev. 5:14; Scrivener, Rev. 5:14).

Because the stronger manuscript traditions underlying modern critical editions omit the longer words, I do not think we should claim that the longer reading certainly represents the original text. But that does not strengthen the argument that Revelation 5:14 proves Jesus is worshiped as God. The shorter reading leaves the object of the final act of worship unstated; the longer reading explicitly directs that worship to “the One who lives forever and ever,” language Revelation has just used for God, the One seated on the throne.

This is especially significant because verse 13 has just given extraordinary praise and honor both to the One sitting on the throne and to the Lamb. Praise and honor given to Jesus therefore need not mean that Jesus is the God being worshiped. On the shorter critical reading, the object of proskyneō is not named. On the longer reading, the object is explicitly identified in language associated with God. Neither textual form requires the conclusion that the elders are worshiping Jesus as God.

This closely parallels Philippians 2:10–11: every knee bows at Jesus’ name and every tongue confesses Jesus Christ as Lord, yet the ultimate result is explicitly “to the glory of God the Father.” Jesus is exalted and honored precisely in a way that ultimately glorifies the God who exalted him.

Thus Revelation 5 does not require the conclusion that Jesus is God. The Lamb receives astonishing honor alongside God, while the elders’ worship—particularly in the longer textual reading—is naturally directed to “the One who lives forever and ever,” the God seated on the throne.

See my fuller discussion here: 5. Jesus Is Worthy: Honoring Christ, Worshiping God.

7. Passage: Revelation 11:15–17

“Our Lord and His Christ”

Revelation 11:15–17 (WEB)

Verse 15 distinguishes clearly between “our Lord” and “His Christ.” Jesus is the Christ who belongs to and serves the Lord God; the two are not presented as the same person. God is the Lord, and Jesus is His Messiah.

The worship scene immediately reinforces this distinction. The twenty-four elders fall on their faces and explicitly “worship God” (Revelation 11:16), thanking “Lord God, the Almighty” (11:17). Where Revelation explicitly identifies the object of the elders’ worship, it repeatedly identifies that One as God—the One seated on the throne.

This pattern matters. Revelation gives Jesus extraordinary honor and authority as God’s Christ, Lamb, Son, and King, while continuing to distinguish him from the God whom heaven worships. In my understanding, this is intentional: Jesus is the exalted human Messiah of God, not the God whose Messiah he is.

8. Passage: Revelation 15:2–4

The Song of Moses and the Lamb; Worship of the Lord God Almighty

Revelation 15:2–4 (WEB)

Again and again in Revelation, the Lord God Almighty is explicitly the recipient of worship as God. Here the victorious saints sing “the song of Moses … and the song of the Lamb,” yet the praise itself is directed to God: “Great and marvelous are your works, Lord God Almighty”; “Who wouldn’t fear you, Lord, and glorify your name?”; and “all the nations will come and worship before you.”

The fact that this is called “the song of the Lamb” does not mean the Lamb himself is necessarily one of the singers, though he could be—the text says that those who overcame the beast sing the song. But it is nevertheless striking that a song associated specifically with the Lamb directs its worship toward the Lord God Almighty. This fits the larger pattern of Revelation in which Jesus has a God of his own: even the exalted Jesus repeatedly speaks of “my God” (Revelation 3:12).

God is also described here as the One who “alone” is holy. I understand this as referring to God’s unique, inherent holiness—the holiness belonging ultimately and absolutely to God Himself. Jesus is certainly called holy elsewhere in Scripture, so this verse should not be read as though no one besides God can ever be described as holy. Rather, all holiness ultimately derives from God.

Within the larger argument I have developed concerning Jesus becoming perfect and completely holy, however, this distinction is significant. God does not become holy; God inherently and eternally is holy. Jesus, by contrast, is presented elsewhere as growing, learning obedience, being made perfect, and ultimately described as the holy and righteous High Priest. Thus, I would not use Revelation 15:4 alone to prove that Jesus became holy, but I believe it fits naturally within that larger cumulative biblical picture.

Revelation therefore continues to distinguish the Lamb from the Lord God Almighty whom the nations ultimately worship. Jesus is God's Lamb and exalted Messiah; God remains his God and our God, the ultimate source and object of worship.

9. Passage: Revelation 19:1–16

God Is Worshiped; Jesus Carries Out God Almighty’s Judgment

Revelation 19:1, 4–16 (WEB)

Again, the twenty-four elders and the four living creatures fall down and explicitly “worship God who sits on the throne,” crying, “Amen! Hallelujah!” Revelation consistently distinguishes God, the One seated on the throne, from the Lamb.

The Lamb certainly receives extraordinary honor. In Revelation 5:8 the elders even fall down before him, and in Revelation 5:12–13 he receives magnificent praise because of his sacrificial victory. But falling before someone does not by itself establish that the person is God, as Scripture elsewhere uses such gestures toward exalted human and angelic figures. The important question is how Revelation itself identifies the recipients. Here, the text explicitly says that they “worshiped God.”

This distinction runs throughout Revelation: Jesus, the Lamb, is worthy of immense honor because he was slain, conquered, and redeemed a people for God; but God remains the One seated upon the throne and explicitly identified as God Almighty. The Lamb is exalted alongside God without being identified as the God whom he serves and whose purposes he fulfills. I therefore do not believe the extraordinary honor given to Jesus in Revelation requires that Jesus himself be God Almighty.

10. Passage: Revelation 20:6

Priests of God and of Christ

Revelation 20:6 (WEB)

They will be priests “of God and of Christ.” The wording clearly distinguishes God from Christ: believers serve as priests in relation to both, but Christ is not simply identified as the God of whom they are priests.

This distinction by itself does not disprove the Trinity, since Trinitarians also distinguish the Father from the Son as persons. But within Revelation’s larger pattern, it is significant. Again and again, God is the One seated on the throne and identified as “our God,” while Christ is God’s Lamb, Messiah, and exalted King.

I therefore believe Revelation 20:6 continues the same consistent distinction: God is God, and Christ is His exalted Son and Messiah. The saints will serve God and reign with Christ, but the text does not collapse Christ into the identity of God.

11. Passage: Revelation 21:22–23

The Lord God Almighty and the Lamb

Revelation 21:22–23 (WEB)

As throughout Revelation, the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb remain distinct. Jesus repeatedly speaks of God as “my God” (Revelation 3:2, 12), while Revelation identifies Jesus as the Lamb whom God exalts and through whom God accomplishes redemption.

Jesus is therefore not presented as the Lord God Almighty Himself. His role is the Lamb—the slain, risen, and exalted Messiah—and he also identifies himself with God’s people as their brother (compare Revelation 3:5; Hebrews 2:11–12). Revelation gives Jesus extraordinary honor, but it does not erase the distinction between Jesus and his God. Jesus is our Lord, Messiah, Lamb, and brother—not God Almighty.

12. Passage: Revelation 22:1–13

The Throne of God and of the Lamb; “Worship God”; Shared Titles

Revelation 22:1–5, 8–13 (WEB)

John does not say that God’s servants will “serve them.” He says, “His servants will serve/worship Him.” The Greek verb latreuō refers to sacred service or worship, and throughout Revelation this kind of worship is characteristically directed to God (BDAG, s.v. “λατρεύω”; Dunn 14–17).

The context therefore strongly favors understanding “Him” as God—the One whose servants worship Him and behold His face. This fits Revelation’s consistent pattern: the Lamb receives extraordinary honor because of his sacrifice and exalted role, while worship in the fullest sense is repeatedly directed to God.

Thus, even though “the throne of God and of the Lamb” is shared, John does not erase their distinction or say that God and the Lamb together are the one God being worshiped. The Lamb reigns alongside God as His exalted Messiah, while God remains the ultimate object of His servants’ worship.

The angel gives John an extraordinarily clear command: “Worship God.” John attempts to fall down in worship before the angel, but the angel immediately refuses it and redirects him to God. Revelation therefore maintains the fundamental principle that worship as God belongs to God alone.

This does not mean Jesus is unworthy of extraordinary honor. Revelation 5 gives the Lamb immense praise, glory, and honor because he was slain and redeemed people for God. But receiving such honor does not necessarily identify Jesus as the God whom the angel here commands John to worship. Revelation consistently distinguishes the Lamb from God, while nevertheless exalting the Lamb above every other human being.

Jesus is also repeatedly identified elsewhere in Scripture as a prophet. Moses foretold that God would raise up a prophet like himself from among Israel’s brothers (Deuteronomy 18:15–19; Acts 3:22–23; 7:37), and Jesus explicitly refers to himself as a prophet (Matthew 13:57; Luke 4:24; John 4:44). Jesus therefore belongs within the prophetic pattern of human beings sent by God to speak His words—even though he is far greater than the prophets who preceded him.

I therefore see no contradiction between giving Jesus the extraordinary praise Revelation gives him and maintaining the angel’s command here: “Worship God.” Jesus is worthy of praise, glory, honor, allegiance, and obedience because of who he is and what he accomplished. But that does not require us to identify him as God. Revelation can exalt the Lamb tremendously while still directing ultimate worship to God Himself.

See the discussion at Revelation 1:17–18 concerning Jesus sharing some of the same titles as God. The use of titles such as “the First and the Last” or “the Alpha and the Omega” does not, by itself, establish that Jesus is God; Scripture can apply the same or similar exalted titles to distinct persons. Jesus remains throughout Revelation distinct from “his God” and from the Lord God Almighty.

The Hypostatic Union and Other Trinitarian Arguments

1. The Hypostatic Union: Doesn’t the Hypostatic Union from the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451 aptly describe Christ as both man and God?

The Hypostatic Union Definition from the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451:*Christ has two natures, human and divine, united in one person without confusion, without change, without division, without separation* (Council of Chalcedon; Ayres).

I do not think this definition proves that Jesus is God. It is a theological framework developed to explain how Jesus can simultaneously be fully human and fully God despite the very different things Scripture says about God and about Jesus.

Second Peter 1:4 is interesting in this regard because Christians themselves are said to “become partakers of the divine nature.” This obviously does not mean that Christians literally become God. Rather, believers participate in what comes from God and increasingly reflect His character.

I do not think 2 Peter 1:4 directly refutes the Hypostatic Union, because Chalcedonian theology uses “divine nature” in a much more technical sense than Peter necessarily does. But it does establish an important point: biblical language about participating in or reflecting the divine nature does not, by itself, establish that a person is God.

All Christians will ultimately become completely conformed to Christ’s image and live in complete holiness. In that sense, I think living fully in the nature God gives us is actually part of what it means to become fully human as His image bearers.

But this is not really the central issue the Hypostatic Union is intended to solve.

The Hypostatic Union is proposed to explain how Christ can be truly human and truly God at the same time—particularly how Jesus can apparently lack characteristics Scripture attributes to God and yet still possess them through another nature.

For example, Scripture presents God as omniscient, omnipotent, unchanging, invisible, unable to be tempted, and inherently independent. Yet Scripture presents Jesus as not knowing everything, dependent upon God for his works, changing and developing, visible, genuinely tempted, and reliant upon the Father and the Holy Spirit.

The traditional explanation is that these statements apply to Jesus according to his human nature, while the opposite characteristics remain true according to his divine nature.

I was taught this explanation for most of my life. I do not think this explanation is logical or coherent. More importantly, Scripture itself never explains Jesus this way.

The Bible never says that Jesus possesses one human nature that does not know something while simultaneously possessing another divine nature that does know it. When Jesus’ knowledge is discussed, Scripture speaks about Jesus himself: the Son.

This is where I think the law of non-contradiction becomes extremely important.

The law of non-contradiction says:

Something cannot be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same respect. (Aristotle, Metaphysics IV.3)

The traditional response is that the Hypostatic Union avoids contradiction precisely because the two attributes are not being affirmed in the same respect: one belongs to Jesus’ divine nature and one to his human nature. I would argue that in reality, Jesus' characteristics are still being applied "in the same respect" as they are referring to him, so I do think laws of logic are broken. One person simply cannot know everything and not know everything at the same time. This IS a logical contradiction.

More importantly than logical contradiction:

Where does Scripture tell us to divide the attributes of the one person Jesus between two different natures in this way?

Consider two examples.

1. Jesus is supposedly fully God and fully man. God is omniscient, yet Jesus does not know everything.

Jesus says concerning the timing of his return:

“But no one knows of that day and hour, not even the angels of heaven, but my Father only.” (Matthew 24:36)

The parallel in Mark is even more explicit:

“No one knows...not even the Son, but only the Father.” (Mark 13:32)

Who does not know?

Jesus does not say, “My human nature does not know, although my divine nature does.”

He says the Son does not know.

If the Son is one person, this creates a serious question for the Hypostatic Union. Does the person Jesus know when he is returning or does he not?

Classical theology answers: he knows according to his divine nature and does not know according to his human nature.

But again, Scripture never gives this explanation. It simply presents the Son as not knowing something the Father knows.

If Jesus had previously been eternally omniscient, another question follows: what happened when he became human? If he actually stopped knowing something, then he changed. If he never stopped knowing it, then in what meaningful sense can Scripture say that the Son did not know it?

I do not think simply invoking two natures, something decided centuries after Jesus' resurrection, resolves this. It creates a philosophical explanation that must itself be demonstrated from Scripture: and, it is not demonstrated from Scripture.

2. Jesus is supposedly fully God and fully man. God is omnipotent, yet Jesus repeatedly describes himself as dependent upon God.

Jesus says:

“The Son can do nothing of himself.” (John 5:19)

He similarly says:

“I can of myself do nothing.” (John 5:30)

And:

“The Father who lives in me does his works.” (John 14:10)

Again, who is speaking?

Jesus does not say, “My human nature can do nothing of itself, while my divine nature is simultaneously omnipotent.”

Jesus himself says that he can do nothing of himself and that the Father dwelling in him does the works.

The traditional explanation is that these statements concern Jesus in his humanity. But the distinction between an independently omnipotent divine nature and a completely dependent human nature is being supplied by later theology centuries after Jesus' ascension. It is not stated by Jesus.

I therefore think the logical problem remains significant.

If Jesus is one person, is that person inherently omnipotent or not? If Jesus literally possesses all power inherently because he is Almighty God, what does it mean for that same person to truthfully say, “I can of myself do nothing”?

The Hypostatic Union answers these questions by assigning apparently opposite characteristics to different natures within the same person.

But Scripture repeatedly speaks much more simply:

Jesus depends upon God.

Jesus receives power from God.

Jesus is anointed by God.

God works through Jesus.

Jesus can do nothing of himself.

I think the more straightforward explanation is that Jesus really is what these passages present him to be: a human being uniquely filled, empowered, indwelt, and exalted by God, but not God Himself.

Again, Scripture never explicitly teaches the Hypostatic Union. The words “two natures” are never used of Jesus, nor does any biblical author explain apparent contradictions between the attributes of God and Jesus by saying that one set belongs to Jesus’ human nature and another set to his divine nature.

That does not automatically prove the doctrine false. Theological terminology can sometimes summarize truths taught throughout Scripture even when the exact terminology does not appear in the Bible.

But given how much theological work the Hypostatic Union is required to do, I think we should require strong biblical evidence for it.

Instead, I see a doctrine developed centuries later to reconcile passages that become far less contradictory if Jesus is simply understood as the human Messiah whom God indwelt, empowered, raised, and exalted.

So I do not think the Hypostatic Union successfully establishes that Jesus is God. I think it is a centuries later theological solution to a problem created largely by first assuming that Jesus must be God.

2. Why trust a largely biblical unitarian interpretation over the Trinitarian interpretation, especially when biblical unitarians make up a small minority of Christians?

Note: First, to clarify: I am not a Biblical Unitarian. My theology of the Holy Spirit—that the Spirit is God together with the Father—in particular distinguishes my theology from Biblical Unitarianism. However, I am very grateful for Biblical Unitarian scholarship, and many of the arguments I use regarding Jesus’ full humanity rather than his deity have been informed by Biblical Unitarian scholars.

I do not think the primary question should be whether we trust biblical unitarians or Trinitarians.

The question is:

What is true according to Scripture?

And, secondarily, what can history tell us about how Christian doctrine developed?

The fully developed doctrines Christians now associate with the Trinity and the two natures of Christ were formally articulated over several centuries. Nicaea occurred in AD 325, Constantinople in AD 381, and Chalcedon in AD 451 (Ayres; Council of Nicaea; First Council of Constantinople; Council of Chalcedon).

There were certainly earlier Christians who believed very exalted things about Jesus, and some early Christian writings contain ideas that later contributed to Trinitarian theology. Therefore, the fact that the final formulations came centuries later does not, by itself, prove them false.

But neither does their eventual acceptance by the majority of the Church prove that they are true.

The question remains whether these later formulations accurately describe what Jesus, the apostles, and Scripture actually teach.

I do not agree with Biblical Unitarians on everything—again, most significantly, I believe Scripture shows that the Holy Spirit is God. But I personally find many Biblical Unitarian interpretations concerning Jesus’ deity substantially more convincing than the traditional Trinitarian interpretations.

Here are several reasons why.

A. Scripture should interpret Scripture.

If Jesus is God in the traditional Trinitarian sense, numerous passages create serious apparent contradictions with what Scripture elsewhere says about God.

God is invisible; Jesus is visible.

God knows everything; Jesus does not.

God is inherently omnipotent; Jesus says he can do nothing of himself.

God cannot be tempted; Jesus was genuinely tempted.

God does not change; Jesus grew, learned obedience, and was made perfect.

God needs nothing; Jesus depends upon God.

God is the One worshipped; Jesus worships God.

God has no God; Jesus repeatedly says that he has a God.

The two-natures doctrine is offered to reconcile these statements, but if that later framework is not assumed at the outset, another interpretation becomes much simpler:

God is God, and Jesus is the human Messiah, Son, Lord, and representative of God.

Under that interpretation, the apparent contradictions disappear.

I also think many of the Biblical Unitarian explanations of disputed passages make better sense of the immediate context, the broader biblical context, and in some cases the original Greek or Hebrew.

Their arguments should be judged on the same basis as Trinitarian arguments:

What does Scripture actually say?

B. Scripture—not tradition—is the Christian’s ultimate authority.

Some may ask:

Why would God allow His Church to be wrong for centuries about something this important?

How could a relatively small minority of Christians be right when so many Christians throughout history have believed Jesus is God?

Which should we trust: centuries of Christian theology or a minority interpretation?

I think the answer is:

Neither, simply because of who holds the position. We should trust God.

A majority believing something for a very long time is important historical evidence and should not be casually dismissed. But majority belief does not transform an interpretation into Scripture.

For Protestant Christians especially, the Church’s doctrines must ultimately be tested by the Word of God.

The real question is not:

“Has the Church believed this for centuries?”

The real question is:

“Does Scripture teach it?”

The history surrounding the development and enforcement of Trinitarian doctrine is also complicated and, at points, violent. Violence associated with a doctrine does not logically prove that the doctrine itself is false. Christians can behave terribly while defending something true.

But neither should that history be romanticized as though later ecclesiastical consensus were unquestionably the work of the Holy Spirit.

Human beings remain capable of error even when they gather in councils, hold ecclesiastical authority, or sincerely believe they are defending God.

That is one reason I think Christians are wise to test even deeply established doctrines against Scripture.

I address this history much more fully in my "Christian History" page: https://www.yourkingdomcome.online/blog/categories/christian-history.

C. God is not the author of confusion.

God is not trying to deceive us about who He is.

If God tells us that He is invisible, He is invisible.

If God tells us that He knows everything, He knows everything.

If God reveals Himself as omnipotent, omnipresent, Spirit rather than man, perfect, and completely independent, those descriptions should establish the framework through which we evaluate claims about who God is.

Jesus does not fit many of those descriptions.

The traditional answer is that he possesses those attributes according to one nature while lacking them according to another.

But Scripture never tells us to read Jesus that way, and, I would argue, that reading is not logical: either someone has divine attributes, or they do not, they cannot have divine attributes and not at the same time.

The Biblical Unitarian interpretation does not require that framework. God remains God, and Jesus remains the human Messiah whom God sent, empowered, raised, and exalted.

I therefore think that interpretation creates substantially fewer tensions with the explicit biblical descriptions of God and Jesus.

I do not understand why God would allow confusion about Jesus’ identity to persist for so long if Jesus is not God.

But not understanding why God permitted something is very different from establishing what God has revealed to be true.

We live in a fallen world. Human beings are capable of theological error. Scripture repeatedly warns God’s people about deception. The Church has been wrong about major interpretations of Scripture before and has had to correct them. I discuss several examples on my “Christian History” page.

Therefore, history and majority opinion cannot finally answer the question for us.

The question remains:

Who is Jesus according to the Bible?

3. “God cannot be understood.”

In my discussions with others concerning the Trinity, more than one person has defended the doctrine by simply saying that God cannot be understood.

God is mysterious and infinitely above us. Therefore, if parts of the Trinity do not make sense, this can almost be treated as evidence in its favor:

Of course it does not make sense. Who can understand God?

But is that what Scripture teaches?

There is an important distinction here.

Scripture does teach that we cannot comprehend God exhaustively.

God is infinite. We are not. There will always be realities about God beyond the limits of human understanding.

But that is very different from saying that God cannot truly be known or understood at all.

Throughout the Bible, God intentionally reveals Himself so that His people can know Him.

Jeremiah 9:23–24 says:

“Thus says the Lord: ‘Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, let not the mighty man boast in his might, let not the rich man boast in his riches, but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I delight, declares the Lord.’”

God explicitly says that a person can understand and know Him.

Not exhaustively.

But genuinely.

God also promises that those who seek Him will find Him:

“Then you will call on me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.” (Jeremiah 29:12–13)

According to God, He can be truly known, understood, and found.

Therefore, I do not think “God is mysterious” should ever be used as a way to stop asking whether a theological proposition is coherent or biblical.

Mystery and contradiction are not the same thing.

A mystery is something we do not fully understand.

A contradiction says that something is true and not true in the same respect.

God’s greatness certainly exceeds our understanding. But God’s transcendence does not make contradictions true.

So I would not say:

“The Trinity is difficult to understand, therefore the Trinity is false.”

That argument would be too simplistic.

But I would say:

If a doctrine about God’s identity repeatedly appears logically contradictory, is never explicitly defined in Scripture, and requires later philosophical distinctions to reconcile statements that otherwise read straightforwardly, its incomprehensibility should not be treated as evidence that it must be true.

It should cause us to examine the doctrine more carefully.

God wants us to know Him.

And if a simpler biblical understanding preserves both God’s self-revelation and basic logic without requiring us to affirm apparently contradictory things about Him, I think that interpretation deserves serious consideration.

4. “Just because God and Jesus are distinct does not mean Jesus is not God.”

This is true.

Simply proving that the Father and Jesus are distinct persons does not, by itself, disprove the Trinity. Trinitarian theology already teaches that the Father and the Son are distinct persons.

But the reverse is also true:

The fact that God and Jesus are distinct does not prove that Jesus and God are two distinct persons part of a 3 person Godhead.

The important question is what kind of distinction Scripture actually presents.

Throughout the New Testament, the word “God” overwhelmingly refers to the Father, while Jesus is referred to as Jesus, Christ, the Son, Lord, Messiah, Savior, and other titles.

There are a small number of disputed passages in which Jesus is called theos (“God”), or in which the grammar may identify him that way.

But the overwhelmingly ordinary New Testament pattern is something like:

“God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

God and Jesus are repeatedly distinguished from one another.

More importantly, their relationship is repeatedly unequal in ways that go beyond merely being two different persons.

Jesus is sent by God.

Jesus is anointed by God.

Jesus is empowered by God.

Jesus obeys God.

Jesus worships God.

Jesus prays to God.

Jesus belongs to God.

God is Jesus’ head.

Jesus receives authority from God.

God raises Jesus from the dead.

God exalts Jesus.

God makes Jesus Lord and Christ.

Jesus repeatedly calls God “my God.”

The Trinitarian interpretation must therefore say that the person repeatedly called God is God the Father, while the person repeatedly distinguished from Him as Jesus Christ or the Lord Jesus is nevertheless equally the same one God according to his divine nature.

Again, that interpretation is possible only after the larger Trinitarian framework is supplied.

The more straightforward reading, in my view, is that when the New Testament repeatedly speaks about God and Jesus, it means exactly what those words naturally suggest:

God is God, and Jesus is God’s Messiah and Son.

Jesus is incomparably exalted.

He is God’s appointed Lord, Savior, King, mediator, judge, and representative.

But he remains dependent upon, submitted to, sent by, empowered by, and ultimately subject to the One Scripture calls God.

I think that interpretation requires substantially less theological reconstruction of the ordinary language of the New Testament.

And if God wanted Christians to understand that Jesus is literally “God the Son,” equal in divine nature with the Father while also possessing a distinct human nature, it is reasonable to ask why Scripture never simply says so.

God could have called the Father “God the Father” and Jesus “God the Son” throughout the New Testament.

But He did not.

Paul explains extraordinarily complex theological topics in great detail. Yet nowhere does Paul stop and explain:

God is one being consisting of three coequal persons, and Jesus is one of those divine persons who possesses two complete natures, one human and one divine.

That formulation came later.

The fact that later Christians developed terminology not found verbatim in Scripture does not automatically make the terminology false.

But when that terminology becomes necessary to explain why the Bible repeatedly appears to say something substantially simpler, I think we should at least ask whether the early Church may have believed something different than what the majority Church believes now.

Maybe Scripture continually distinguishes God from Jesus because God and Jesus really are distinct in precisely the way the language naturally suggests. God is Jesus' God, and Jesus is God's human (only) Son.

Maybe the Trinity Doctrine is not true.

Cumulative Conclusion: Which Christology Better Explains Revelation?

After working through Revelation’s major proof-texts and the broader Trinitarian arguments, I think it is important to put both sides of the evidence together.

The Trinitarian case deserves to be taken seriously

Revelation unquestionably contains passages that explain why many Christians identify Jesus as God.

Jesus calls himself “the First and the Last", "the Alpha and the Omega", and "the Beginning and the End".

The Lamb receives astonishing universal praise alongside the One seated on the throne.

Jesus shares the throne of God.

The Lord God Almighty and the Lamb together function as the temple of the New Jerusalem.

Jesus possesses authority over death, judges the nations, searches hearts, rules with absolute messianic authority, and bears titles of astonishing majesty.

I understand why Christians read these passages and conclude that Revelation is including Jesus within the identity of God. I do not think those arguments should be treated as though there is no evidence behind them.

There is.

The question is whether that interpretation best explains all of Revelation’s evidence.

Revelation also gives us a remarkably persistent distinction between God and Jesus

When I step back from the individual proof-texts, another pattern becomes impossible for me to ignore.

Revelation begins with God giving the revelation to Jesus.

Jesus is the faithful witness who receives and communicates it.

Jesus speaks of “his God and Father.”

The risen Jesus repeatedly says “my God.”

Jesus has the Spirit of God.

Jesus says that he overcame and then sat down with his Father on His throne.

The Lamb approaches the One seated on the throne and receives the scroll from His hand.

The One on the throne is praised because He created all things.

The Lamb is praised because he was slain and purchased people for God.

Jesus makes people priests to our God.

The kingdom belongs to “our Lord and His Christ.”

The elders explicitly worship God and address Him as “Lord God, the Almighty.”

The victorious saints sing the song of the Lamb while directing worship to the Lord God Almighty.

Jesus carries out the wrath of God, the Almighty.

The saints are priests of God and of Christ.

The New Jerusalem distinguishes the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb.

And at the end of the book the angel gives the simple command:

“Worship God.”

These are not isolated statements.

They form the ordinary relational structure of the book.

The distinction is more than merely saying the Father and Son are different persons

A Trinitarian can correctly respond that distinguishing God from Jesus does not, by itself, disprove the Trinity. Trinitarian theology already distinguishes the Father from the Son.

I agree.

But Revelation’s distinction goes beyond simply placing two divine persons beside one another.

The relationship is directional.

God gives; Jesus receives.

God is Jesus’ God; Jesus never becomes God’s God.

God is the Creator; Jesus is the Lamb who redeems creation for God.

God is the Almighty; Jesus carries out the Almighty’s judgment.

Jesus overcomes and is enthroned; God is the One whose throne he shares.

Jesus is God’s Christ; God is never Christ’s Christ.

That asymmetry matters.

The later Trinitarian solution is to say that these statements describe Jesus according to his human nature while other texts reveal his divine nature.

I understand how that framework works within classical theology.

But Revelation itself never tells us to divide Jesus this way.

It never says:

Jesus has a God according to his human nature, but according to his divine nature he is equally the same God.

It simply presents the glorified Jesus as still saying:

“my God.”

The human-Messiah model lets Revelation’s ordinary language remain ordinary

This is where I believe the human Christology has greater explanatory power.

If Jesus is God’s human Messiah whom God raises, perfects, exalts, enthrones, and gives authority to, then Revelation’s repeated statements can be read directly.

Jesus has a God because he genuinely has a God.

Jesus receives revelation because God genuinely gives it to him.

Jesus receives authority because God genuinely grants him authority.

Jesus overcomes and sits on his Father’s throne because his exaltation follows his victory.

The Lamb receives extraordinary praise because God has exalted the one who faithfully accomplished His redemptive mission.

Jesus can share God’s throne without becoming God Himself because Scripture repeatedly allows God to share rule, glory, authority, and even His own throne with those He exalts.

In fact, Revelation itself proves that sharing Christ’s throne does not make someone Christ: Jesus promises that believers who overcome will sit with him on his throne just as he overcame and sat with his Father on His throne.

Shared rule does not require shared identity.

The highest Revelation texts still fit an exalted human Messiah

The strongest Trinitarian passages therefore do not have to be minimized.

Jesus can be called the First and the Last because God has placed him at the beginning and culmination of humanity’s redemptive story: a dynamic I address more in "Who is Jesus?" Part 2.

Jesus can share titles used of God because Scripture can use the same exalted titles for distinct persons without collapsing their identities.

Jesus can receive universal honor because God has made him Lord and King.

The Lamb can stand beside the throne and share in its rule because God has exalted His Messiah over creation.

Jesus can be the lamp of the New Jerusalem because God’s glory is revealed through him.

Jesus can be King of kings and Lord of lords because God has subjected the nations to him.

None of those claims makes Jesus ordinary.

They make him the greatest human being God has ever exalted.

The Hypostatic Union does not seem necessary to explain the evidence

I understand why classical Christianity developed the two-natures model.

If one begins with the conviction that Jesus must be fully God, then passages in which Jesus lacks divine attributes require an explanation. The Hypostatic Union provides a systematic way to say that one set of statements belongs to his humanity while another belongs to his deity.

But I do not think Revelation itself requires that solution.

Nor do I see Scripture explicitly teaching the two-natures framework that the solution depends upon.

The same Jesus who possesses breathtaking heavenly authority still says “my God.”

The same Jesus who shares God’s throne still distinguishes himself from God.

The same Jesus who receives cosmic praise is praised because he was slain and redeemed people for God.

The same Jesus who judges the nations executes the wrath of God, the Almighty.

The human-Messiah reading allows all of those statements to remain statements about the one person Jesus rather than dividing apparently opposite attributes between two natures.

Mystery, tradition, and majority belief cannot decide the question

I also do not think the doctrine becomes stronger simply because it is mysterious or because most Christians have believed it for centuries.

Christian tradition deserves respect.

The theological work of generations of Christians deserves to be taken seriously.

And I do not assume that a minority interpretation is right merely because it is a minority interpretation.

But none of those considerations can finally determine what Scripture means.

Nor should “God is mysterious” or "the Trinity is a mystery" become a way of insulating a doctrine from examination. God certainly exceeds our complete understanding, but Scripture also presents God as Someone who genuinely reveals Himself and wants to be known.

The ultimate question must remain:

Which Christology best explains the biblical evidence?

Why I believe the human Christology is stronger

After considering both sides, I believe the human-Messiah Christology is the stronger model.

Not because every difficult text instantly becomes easy.

Some Revelation passages remain genuinely difficult, particularly the shared titles and the extraordinary honor given to the Lamb.

But I believe my model explains both sides of the evidence with fewer additional assumptions.

It takes literally the repeated distinction between God and Jesus.

It takes literally Jesus’ statements that the Father is “my God.”

It takes literally that Jesus receives revelation, authority, throne, and victory in relationship to God.

It takes literally that Jesus dies and lives again.

It takes literally that he overcomes and is then enthroned.

It takes literally that the Lamb purchases people for God.

And it can still take completely seriously Revelation’s highest language about Jesus: his cosmic authority, universal honor, messianic titles, shared throne, judgment, kingship, and central place in the new creation.

I do not need to make Jesus God in order to take those passages seriously.

I need to take seriously just how far God can exalt a faithful human Son.

Revelation gives us an extraordinarily high human Christology

So my conclusion is not:

Jesus is only human, therefore Revelation’s exalted language must be explained away.

My conclusion is almost the opposite.

Revelation shows how extraordinarily glorious God intends His human Messiah to become.

Jesus is the faithful witness.

The Son of God.

The firstborn from the dead.

The Lamb who was slain.

The Lion of Judah.

The Root and offspring of David.

The Christ of God.

The one who overcame.

The one who sits with his Father on His throne.

The bridegroom.

The King of kings and Lord of lords.

The ruler who judges the nations.

The Lamb at the center of the New Jerusalem.

The one with whom God’s people will reign.

That is not a diminished Jesus.

It is an astonishing vision of the glory God gives His Son.

And, in my understanding, it fits the cumulative New Testament portrait better than the later claim that this same Jesus is simultaneously the Almighty God whose revelation he receives, whose Spirit he has, whose throne he shares, whose judgment he carries out, whom he calls “my God,” and for whom he redeemed humanity.

I recognize that many sincere Christians reach a different conclusion. The Trinitarian reading has a long history and provides one framework for reading Scripture.

But after examining the New Testament cumulatively, I believe the simpler and more coherent conclusion is:

God is God.

Jesus is God’s Son and Messiah.

And God has exalted this human Son to a place of glory, authority, honor, and kingship beyond anything Christians often imagine possible for a human being.

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