8. The New Testament Cumulative Evidence, Part 1: The Synoptic Gospels

This article begins a five-part cumulative examination of the New Testament evidence I marked in my Study Bible under the question, “Is Jesus God?” The purpose is not merely to answer individual passages commonly used to argue that Jesus is God, but to ask what portrait of Jesus emerges when the relevant passages are read together and in the context of each book.

Before turning to those disputed passages, I want to be clear about the view of Jesus that I believe Matthew, Mark, and Luke present. Matthew identifies Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of the living God, Daniel's Son of Man, Lord, prophet, Yahweh’s chosen and Spirit-anointed servant, and ultimately the one to whom “all authority” in heaven and on earth is given. Mark opens by calling him “Jesus Christ, the Son of God” and presents him as God’s Holy One, prophet, Messiah, Son of Man, and exalted Lord who is seated at God’s right hand. Luke calls him the Son of the Most High, Savior, Christ, Lord, King, Son of Man, and a prophet mighty in deed and word before God. Luke also says that the Lord God gives Jesus the throne of his father David and repeatedly portrays Jesus as anointed, led, and empowered by the Holy Spirit.

In my reading, these titles and roles form a remarkably high positive Christology without identifying Jesus as God Himself. Jesus is God’s uniquely chosen, Spirit-empowered, and exalted human Messiah—the Son through whom God reveals His character, exercises extraordinary authority, brings His Kingdom and salvation to humanity, and ultimately rules. The distinction I am making is therefore not between a “high” view of Jesus and a “low” view of Jesus. It is between Jesus being God Himself and Jesus being the extraordinarily exalted human Son, Messiah, Lord, King, servant, prophet, and representative of God whom the Synoptic Gospels describe.

Part 1 considers the major passages in Matthew and Mark that are most often used in discussions of Jesus’ deity. I have retained the substance and wording of my Study Bible commentary and identify the passage under consideration at the beginning of each argument so that the biblical text remains central. I do not reproduce a separate set of discussions from Luke because of the substantial overlap among Matthew, Mark, and Luke, though my Study Bible includes a full commentary on Luke. Luke’s unique material reinforces the same cumulative portrait and will therefore remain part of the conclusion I draw from the Synoptic Gospels as a whole.

These articles are intentionally more focused than my full Study Bible commentary. They address the major disputed passages, but the complete case is larger than those passages alone. My Study Bible follows each Gospel chapter by chapter and includes many texts that are not normally treated as “Jesus is God” proof texts but that are important for understanding who Jesus is and how he relates to God.

John contains enough major material to require its own article, so the Gospel of John will be considered separately in Part 2.

Scripture quotations added at the beginning of each section are from the World English Bible (WEB), a public-domain translation.

Matthew

1. Passage: Matthew 1:23

Is Matthew 1:23 proof of Jesus’ divinity given that “Immanuel” means “God with us”?

Because ‘God with us’ is sometimes understood to mean that Jesus is literally God in the flesh, it is important to consider whether that is what Matthew means in context.

Jesus certainly represented God and was God’s presence among the people of that time. He was filled with all the fullness of God (Colossians 2:9) and literally brought God’s presence from heaven to earth. The Church now, through the power of the Holy Spirit, brings the presence of God on earth, and will one day perfectly do that. Jesus’ incredible life and identity demonstrate that “God is with us.” From a Jewish perspective, God is Spirit, not man, so God can fill a person, but not be a person, as God is understood as an invisible Spirit without flesh. So, from this perspective, God was in Christ without Jesus being God. “Immanuel” pointed to this reality. This is especially helpful to note as Jesus and his disciples grew up as Jews. Jesus did not come to abolish the Jewish law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). He did not come to redefine the Jewish understanding of God, but to reveal the invisible God as God’s visible image (Colossians 1:15). For Jews, the idea of God literally taking on humanity would be a redefinition of how they understand God. As such, I find the Trinitarian view that this verse means Jesus is God in the flesh less compelling, as Christianity finds its root in Judaism and Jewish theology. Matthew's Jewish context creates a significant reason not to assume that “God with us” means “Jesus is literally God.”

Also, notably, this reality that Jesus brings the presence of God wherever he goes is true of all believers. All believers will be filled with all the fullness of God as Jesus is (Colossians 2:9-10) and bring God’s presence wherever they go. For biblical explanations about this idea, see Paul’s prayer for Christians in Ephesians 3:19 and Colossians 2:9-10. Colossians 2:9-10 refers to Christians being filled with God once they are reconciled to God through Christ. (Common Verses, 2010) This reality of God’s presence among His people also extends to believers, who are described as the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12) and can be “filled with all the fullness of God” (Ephesians 3:19). Therefore, the reality of God being present in and through a person does not require that person to be God. For this reason, when coupled with the Jewish understanding of God as Spirit rather than a man, I do not think Jesus’ title “Immanuel”—“God with us”—indicates that Jesus is God.

Additionally, the prophecy had an earlier fulfillment in Isaiah’s own historical setting. Isaiah 7 uses the Hebrew word almah, meaning a young woman of marriageable age, and the child in that context also bears the name Immanuel without being identified as God (Brown, Driver, and Briggs; Skinner, Isa. 7:14–16). Therefore, the name itself cannot logically require that Jesus is God. The name “Immanuel” points to the reality of Jesus bringing God’s presence to earth as God, who is Spirit (John 4:24), filled Jesus and lived IN Jesus, not because Jesus was literally God. Again, this God-filling will be a reality for all Christians for all eternity (again, see Ephesians 3:19 and Colossians 2:9), though this started with Jesus.

2. Passage: Matthew 2:11

Worship of Jesus

It is completely understandable that many readers of the New Testament consider the worship of Jesus to be proof of his divinity. The worship of Jesus is one of the main reasons why, in studying who Jesus is and whether he is God, I hesitated before adopting a different view of Jesus. From my framework, I always believed that only God was worthy of worship, so if Jesus was worshipped, that must make him God.

However, in studying the Greek words for worship and the 1st century context, I learned worship in the first century was more nuanced than I had previously understood. I now believe, based on studying the Greek and the historical Jewish context, that “worship” of Jesus in the gospels (verse 11) is not proof of deity, though Matthew is certainly presenting a very exalted view of Christ. This is primarily shown through an examination of the original Greek words for worship, what they mean, and how they are used in the New Testament. Notably, the Greek word for worship used here, “proskuneo”, is also used in the New Testament to show reverence not only towards Jesus but also to human lords and some Christians (BDAG, s.v. “προσκυνέω”; Zodhiates, s.v. “proskyneō”). See this post from earlier in this section on "Who is Jesus?" for the full Biblical explanation: [https://www.yourkingdomcome.online/post/what-about-jesus-worship](https://www.yourkingdomcome.online/post/what-about-jesus-worship).

3. Passage: Matthew 3:3

Matthew 3:3

Many believe that Jesus is being identified in this passage as Yahweh. In Isaiah, Yahweh is the “Lord” spoken of this verse. So, Jesus must be Yahweh as Matthew is quoting this verse about Yahweh and referring to Jesus. What is more, some conclude this shows that Matthew believes Jesus is Yahweh. I think this is understandable. I thought it was a good argument myself. However, in studying how Old Testament prophecies are used throughout the New Testament and also understanding the Jewish “law of agency” I changed my mind. I do not think Matthew intends to communicate here that Jesus is God.

This refers prophetically to John the Baptist preparing the way for the Lord, “Yahweh” in the Old Testament. As God’s chosen instrument, Jesus acted as God’s agent and John the Baptist prepared the way for him. But, this does not necessarily mean Jesus is literally Yahweh or that Matthew is trying to communicate that, particularly given other insights Matthew reveals about Jesus throughout the remainder of his gospel.

Consider the following:

1\\. In Judaism there is a concept called the “Jewish law of agency”. Under the “Jewish law of agency”, God’s agent, in this case Jesus, functioned as God’s representative on earth, but was not actually God (Keener, comment on John 5:30). So, Matthew identifying Jesus so strongly with Yahweh fits with this Jewish concept. Under this law of agency, God’s agent or representative receives God’s authority and acts as God would on earth. In the New Testament, Jesus is said to be “sent BY God”. Jesus, as God’s agent and representative, is one with God in purpose, not in substance. I explain this more in my commentary on John’s gospel. Under this law of Jewish agency, sometimes human representatives are even given divine titles. For example, this happened with Moses when God called Moses “God”. Moses was God’s representative before the people of Israel and Pharaoh (Exodus 7:1). Jesus is a human agent representing Yahweh, so it is entirely appropriate to reference texts about Yahweh and apply them to Jesus, Yahweh’s human agent. Calling Jesus “Lord” also fits with the Jewish law of agency, as “Lord” is certainly an exalted title. But, Acts 2:36 states that Jesus was MADE Lord by Yahweh; he was not always Lord. I think this creates a significant difficulty for identifying Jesus with Yahweh, particularly as the Yahweh of the Old Testament was always, eternally Lord, and Jesus was made Lord by this God.

2. This can also be understood as John preparing the way for the Lord God who filled Jesus. God's Spirit dwelt in Jesus and worked mightily through him. Certainly, the Lord worked in and through Jesus.

3. Moreover, simply quoting a prophecy about God in the Old Testament referring to Jesus in the New does not mean he is God as prophecies in the Bible often have double fulfillment. For example, in Hosea 11:1, the Old Testament is speaking of Israel coming out of Egypt, but in Matthew 2:15 it is quoted as Christ coming out of Egypt as a child. In Jeremiah 31:15 Rachel is weeping, and in Matthew 2:18 Rachel is “weeping” due to the children in Bethlehem being killed. In Psalm 69:2 David is asking God to deliver him from his enemies, but in Acts 1:20 Peter is talking about Judas.

(Common Verses, 2010)

4. The Bible’s entire context must be considered regarding whether to take a verse such as Matthew 3:3 as proof that Jesus is Yahweh. The above explanation is a potential interpretation that matches well with the Jewish understanding of an agent of God, and the rest of Matthew, as I will show, indicates that Jesus is not God, but God’s Son: the one who worshipped, prayed to, and called God his God. I also think it is important to keep in mind throughout reading the New Testament that by definition, at least from a monotheistic worldview, God does not have a God, as there is one God. I therefore think the fact that Jesus has a God, while the God he worships does not, creates a significant difficulty for the Trinitarian interpretation.

5. As previously stated, the Jewish framework in general was that Yahweh was an invisible Spirit, not a man. This is still the view of the Jews today. Matthew in writing this would be coming from that theological framework, and he would have been familiar with the Jewish law of agency. Given this, I think it is more likely historically and theologically speaking, from a Jewish perspective, that Matthew quoted that verse without meaning to communicate divinity. Again, this will be shown throughout Matthew’s gospel.

4. Passage: Matthew 3:16–17

How can Jesus be God if the Spirit only filled him and dwelt in him upon his baptism?

The Trinity Doctrine states that the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct persons who are both fully God, co-eternal, and one. I think these verses show this is not true: Jesus was not one and co-eternal with the Holy Spirit. Until Jesus was (about) 30 on the day of his baptism, according to Luke’s gospel, he was not anointed with the Holy Spirit. Being anointed with the Spirit and empowered means, from my reading, that Jesus now has the Spirit in a unique way that he did not have the Spirit before he was baptized. I don’t think it makes logical sense to hold the Son and Spirit are eternally one and indivisible as God and this has always been the case, while also holding the Son was anointed by the Spirit at his baptism. What does anointing of the Spirit mean apart from Jesus receiving the Holy Spirit? In every other instance of someone being baptized with the Holy Spirit, it means the person did not have the Holy Spirit, and then received the Holy Spirit. Why would this only be different with Jesus? I think being anointed with the Holy Spirit means he was not anointed before. And if he was not anointed before, he was not always “eternally one” with the Holy Spirit as there was a time when he did not fully have the Holy Spirit.

Further, God calls Jesus “my beloved Son”. The Bible never states that Jesus is God the Son, though that term is used by the majority Church. He is God’s Son, the same title all God’s male children receive. I think that Jesus being anointed by the Holy Spirit at his baptism is very problematic for the Trinitarian viewpoint that Jesus was eternally one with the Holy Spirit. The most straightforward reading is that Jesus received a new and unique anointing and empowerment by the Holy Spirit at his baptism—something he did not possess in the same way beforehand.

5. Passage: Matthew 4:1–11

How can Jesus be God if he was tempted?

I do not think Jesus interacts with the devil in his temptations like he is God. I think Jesus interacts with the devil in his temptations like he is a genuine human being without divinity. He responds saying he lives by eating the words of God. How does that make sense if he is God Himself? God’s Words sustain Jesus, and according to Jesus in this passage, this God and His Words are distinct from him. He also says to Satan that he should not put God to the test, talking about God again in the third person (v. 7). Jesus gives no indication that he is the Lord God. Finally, he tells Satan he should worship God and only serve God, describing God as someone distinct from himself that he intends to worship and serve (v. 10).

What is more, as previously stated, James 1:13 is very direct: God CANNOT be tempted. If God cannot be tempted, and Jesus was, it follows Jesus is not God. Trinitarians suggest Jesus is the eternal Son who possesses both a fully divine nature and a fully human nature. Jesus' temptation was real according to his human nature, while his divine nature could not be tempted by evil or sin.

This breaks down on several levels. First, the Bible never explicitly says that Jesus had a divine and human nature—two natures. Additionally, the Bible reveals in 2 Peter 1:4 that ALL Christians are “partakers of the divine nature,” so participation in the divine nature is not something unique to Jesus. While Trinitarians do believe Jesus possesses the divine nature in a unique way, making him deity in a way that Christians will never become, I do not see Scripture making this distinction. Instead, Scripture suggests Christians will be fully conformed to Christ’s image, which I genuinely do not think is possible if he actually is a “God-man.”

Further, I do not think this explanation makes logical sense. A person is either tempted, or the person is not tempted. They can’t have one side that is tempted and one that is not. How is that genuine temptation? Hebrews 2:17 especially reveals the challenges of the Trinitarian view: Jesus was made in every way like humanity. If that is true, he could not have been fully God and fully man, as he would decidedly not be like the rest of humanity. For him to have been genuinely tempted, he had to be made like us in every respect, which Hebrews says he was: he could not have been a God-man. If he was actually a God-man, that would mean he was made VERY different than the rest of us.

James, along with every other New Testament author, makes no such allowance for a “God-man” being tempted in his human nature while not being tempted in his divine nature, which is the Trinitarian view. As mentioned above, human nature is fully compatible with participation in the divine nature. All followers of Christ are called to become “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4). Therefore, biblical participation in the divine nature does not itself make a person God.

James 1:14 goes on to describe human temptation as involving desire that draws and entices a person. How precisely this applies to Jesus’ temptations raises further questions about his genuine humanity and moral development, which I address later. For the present argument, the central contrast is already clear: James says that God cannot be tempted by evil, while the Gospels explicitly present Jesus as genuinely tempted.

Hebrews later says that Jesus learned obedience through suffering and was “made perfect”—brought to completion (Hebrews 5:8–9). That developmental language further supports his genuine humanity. What it means for Jesus’ moral development and the traditional doctrine of lifelong sinlessness is a separate question, which I address in a two-part series, starting with this article: [12. Jesus’ Moral Development: What Does It Mean That He Was “Made Perfect”?](/post/12-jesus-grew-learned-obedience-and-was-made-perfect)

As a devout Jew, in response to Satan tempting him to worship Satan, Jesus in the temptation narrative says he should only worship GOD, who, if he aims to worship, he logically does not believe is himself. Nothing in the text indicates Jesus thinks he is God - quite the opposite. Besides, again, the Jews had no concept (and still do not) of God becoming a man. God and man are completely distinct in Jewish thought. The Old Testament shows that, Jesus and the rest of the New Testament authors show that, and Judaism still shows that.

If Jesus actually thought he was Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament, why did he not respond to Satan differently? He could have, for example, said HE is the one to be worshipped, not Satan. But that is not what Jesus says. He says, referring to God in the 3rd person, that the God he worships throughout the gospel of Matthew is the One to be worshiped, not Satan.

The plainest interpretation of this temptation story is that Jesus is not God and does not think he is. This is emphasized even more by James 1:13, as again Scripture explicitly says God CANNOT be tempted. If Jesus is genuinely tempted as Matthew describes here, while James explicitly says that God cannot be tempted, I conclude that Jesus is not God.

6. Passage: Matthew 4:23–24

Are Jesus’ miracles proof of deity?

Many believe that Jesus' miracles demonstrate his divine authority and show he is God. However, Scripture shows that Jesus’ disciples and the early Church also did miraculous signs like healing people and even raising the dead. The book of Acts in particular shows this. Jesus even said that his followers would do greater things than him (John 14:12), and Jesus says he can do nothing apart from God (John 5:19, John 5:30). In the first sermon recorded after Jesus’ ascension, Peter shares how Jesus’ miracles were done by God through Jesus (Acts 2:22). So, his miracles are not proof of deity as other humans also perform miracles, and his power does not come from him but from God.

7. Passage: Matthew 6:9–13

Does the Bible teach that prayers should be offered to Jesus?

Most of my life, I have been taught that Jesus is God, and as such prayers offered to Jesus are completely appropriate.

But in examining Scripture, Jesus, over and over, exhorts his listeners to pray to the Father, not to him. If he actually is God, why does he never encourage prayer to himself? If he actually is God, why does he consistently model prayer to the Father, and there are no examples of the Father praying back to Jesus?

The predominant model I see throughout the New Testament is prayer directed to the Father, or to God, in Jesus’ name rather than prayer directed to Jesus himself. There are several passages that are understood by many Christians as prayer or invocation directed to Jesus, which I address in my full study linked below. However, after examining these passages alongside the broader New Testament pattern, I have ultimately concluded that prayer should be offered to God rather than to Jesus. I think Jesus praying consistently to God, God not praying back to Jesus, and Jesus’ repeated exhortation to pray to the Father presents a challenge for Trinitarian theology that states that the Father and the Son are co-equal and both fully God.

I realize that is a controversial conclusion, but I think there is substantial Scriptural evidence. You can read my full argument here: [Implication 3- Should Christians pray to Jesus?](https://web-sandbox.oaiusercontent.com/post/is-jesus-god-part-17-implication-3-praying-to-jesus-and-knowing-him)

8. Passage: Matthew 7:21–23

Jesus is called “Lord” throughout the Bible. Is this proof of deity?

Many believe that Jesus being called “Lord” supports his divine identity, particularly where the title is connected with Old Testament passages about Yahweh or with worship and divine authority. Some think Jesus being “Lord” is proof of divine identity, as God is also called “Lord.”

However, Scripture paints a different picture. Acts 2:36 states that God “made” Jesus both Lord and Christ. I think this creates a significant distinction between Jesus and the God who made him Lord: Jesus receives this status from God. Yahweh, the Lord God of the Old Testament, does not receive His lordship from anyone. For this reason, I do not think Jesus being called “Lord” should automatically be understood as identifying him as Yahweh.

Also, just because the verse says “Lord” does not mean the author is referring to God. Romans 10:9 also refers to Jesus as Lord, saying, “That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” The Greek word for Lord is kurios, and is used to denote respect and nobility throughout the New Testament. Other people besides God and Jesus are called “Lord”. One Biblical Unitarian blog gives the following examples:

- Property owners are called “Lord” (Matt. 20:8, “owner” = kurios).- Heads of households are called “Lord” (Mark 13:35, “owner” = kurios).- Slave owners are called “Lord” (Matt. 10:24, “master” = kurios).- Husbands are called “Lord” (1 Pet. 3:6, “master” = kurios).- A son calls his father “Lord” (Matt. 21:30, “sir” = kurios).- The Roman Emperor is called “Lord” (Acts 25:26, “His Majesty” = kurios).- Roman authorities are called “Lord” (Matt. 27:63, “sir” = kurios) (BDAG, s.v. “κύριος”).

If Jesus was God simply because he was called Lord, many other people would also be God, which is obviously problematic. Again, God made Jesus “Lord”; Acts 2:36 says, “God has made this Jesus…both Lord and Christ.” God, the Yahweh of the Old Testament, does not need anyone to make Him Lord. Jesus’ title as “Lord” does not inherently mean he is God.

(Common Verses, 2010)

9. Passage: Matthew 7:28–29

Is the fact that Jesus taught as one who had authority proof of his deity?

Many believe that Jesus’ extraordinary authority—over sin, demons, nature, life and death, and ultimately judgment—is evidence of his divine identity. Further, within Trinitarian theology, this authority belongs to Jesus because he is the divine Son.

However, Matthew reveals that all of Jesus’ authority was given to him (Matthew 28:18). He says this in the final verses of Matthew. I think this presents a significant challenge to interpreting Jesus’ authority as proof that he is God, because God has inherent authority over everything and does not need to be given authority. Jesus, in contrast, receives his authority.

This also fits with the Jewish concept of agency, in which God’s human agent can be given tremendous authority to act on God’s behalf without actually being God.

10. Passage: Matthew 8:23–27

Jesus Calms a Storm

Many believe that Jesus calming the storm demonstrates his divine authority over creation and parallels the Old Testament's portrayal of God as having authority over creation. Therefore, many understand this miracle as supporting Christ’s deity.

This is an amazing miracle, but I think an important question is: how did Jesus do it? Through power inherent in himself, or through the power of God? Jesus repeatedly says that he can do nothing from himself (John 5:19, 5:30), and elsewhere Scripture explicitly describes God as performing miracles through Jesus and Jesus as empowered by the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:22; Acts 10:38; Matthew 12:28). Further, verse 27 says, “What sort of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him?” Their immediate response is to marvel at what kind of man could possess such authority; Matthew does not have them respond by identifying Jesus as God.

I therefore do not think this miracle by itself is proof of deity. Jesus' miracles are repeatedly connected with the power of God and the Holy Spirit. Further, Jesus says in John 14 that his disciples will do greater works than him—and the disciples are certainly not God. Even in the Old Testament, extraordinary events involving creation occurred through human servants of God. Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and the text emphasizes that Yahweh “listened to the voice of a man” (Joshua 10:12–14). Elijah announced that there would be no rain except according to his word, and God worked through him during the resulting drought (1 Kings 17:1). Therefore, while Jesus certainly possesses extraordinary power and authority given by God, I do not think the calming of the storm requires the conclusion that Jesus is God. I understand Matthew instead to be presenting Jesus as God's extraordinarily empowered and exalted human Messiah.

11. Passage: Matthew 8:28–29

Is the fact that Jesus is the “Son of God” proof of divinity?

Many believe that “Son of God” refers to Jesus’ unique relationship with the Father and supports his divine identity. They believe the Son eternally shares the Father’s divine nature but is a distinct person from the Father.

The demons know he is the Son of God. However, in Jewish thought, “Son of God” does not inherently identify someone as God. Son-of-God language can indicate a unique relationship with God and a kingly or messianic status, both of which describe Jesus. Moreover, Scripture uses son-of-God language for Adam (Luke 3:38), the Davidic king (Psalm 2), Solomon (1 Chronicles 22:9–10), and Israel (Exodus 4:22). Therefore, I do not think the demons calling Jesus the “Son of God” necessarily means they are identifying him as God, though their comments about torment certainly point to Jesus’ extraordinary authority over them. Finally, believers themselves are called sons or children of God, so the title cannot inherently mean that the person bearing it is God. I also think it is helpful to note once again that the title “God the Son” is not found in Scripture but developed as part of later Christian theological terminology.

12. Passage: Matthew 9:35–38

Which Lord is Jesus referring to here? Him or God?

God is also called “Lord” throughout the Bible, so it is important to use context to determine whether the “Lord” being referred to is Jesus or God. Given that Jesus has already taught the disciples to pray to the Father, not to him, and that he speaks here of the “Lord of the harvest” in the third person, I think the most natural reading is that Jesus is referring to the Lord God, his Father, rather than to himself. Yahweh, the God and Lord of the Bible, is therefore the “Lord of the harvest” in my reading. This is further supported by Matthew 11:25, where Jesus prays to the Father and calls Him “Lord of heaven and earth.” Thus, within Matthew, Jesus explicitly identifies his Father as Lord while distinguishing himself from Him. I think this provides good reason to understand the Father as the “Lord of the harvest” here as well. Context is key.

13. Passage: Matthew 10:23 / Daniel 7:13–14

Is “Son of Man” a title of divinity?

“Son of Man” is understood by many Christians primarily in light of Daniel 7, where the Son of Man receives everlasting dominion, glory, and the service of the nations. Jesus’ use of this title—especially in passages where he claims authority to judge and reign—is therefore understood by many Trinitarians as supporting his divinity.

However, I do not think “Son of Man” is itself a title of divinity, even though the Son of Man in Daniel 7 is an extraordinarily exalted figure. The expression “son of man” is fundamentally human language, and Daniel describes the figure as “one like a human being.” Scripture also repeatedly distinguishes the God of Israel from humanity. For example, Numbers 23:19, Hosea 11:9, and 1 Samuel 15:29 distinguish God from human beings. Jesus says that “God is spirit” (John 4:24), and God is repeatedly described as invisible (for example, Colossians 1:15). In light of these passages, I find it difficult to understand “Son of Man” as a title that itself identifies Jesus as God. I instead understand Jesus’ use of “Son of Man” as identifying him with the extraordinarily exalted human Messiah of Daniel 7, and I do not think this means he is ontologically God.

Daniel 7:13–14 says:

“As I watched in the night visions, I saw one like a human being coming with the clouds of heaven. And he came to the Ancient One and was presented before him. To him was given dominion and glory and kingship, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that should not pass away, and his kingship shall never be destroyed.”

One reason some Christians see evidence of Jesus’ deity here is the extraordinary status of this figure: he comes with the clouds of heaven, receives everlasting dominion, and is served by all peoples and nations. These are remarkable claims and should not be minimized.

Nevertheless, they do not necessarily identify this figure as God. The Aramaic verb translated “serve” is pelach. In Daniel it is frequently used for religious service, which helps explain why some interpreters regard its use in Daniel 7:14 as significant evidence for the divine status of the Son of Man. However, the word itself does not settle the question. The use of pelach should be interpreted within the larger context rather than treated by itself as proof that the Son of Man is God. For example, Daniel 7:27 may use pelaḥ for service rendered to the people of the holy ones, although the singular pronoun can also be understood as referring to the Most High. The verse therefore cannot simply be assumed to establish that pelaḥ intrinsically denotes worship or service reserved exclusively for God (Brown, Driver, and Briggs, s.v. “פלח”; Collins, Daniel).

More importantly, Daniel’s vision distinguishes the “one like a human being” from the Ancient One. The human figure comes to the Ancient One, is presented before him, and is given dominion, glory, and kingship. In my view, this distinction is crucial. The Son of Man does not appear here as the Ancient One himself, but as the exalted figure to whom the Ancient One grants authority and an everlasting kingdom.

This pattern is consistent with numerous New Testament passages in which God gives Jesus authority, kingship, judgment, and exaltation. Jesus’ authority is therefore immense without necessarily making him the God who gave him that authority. Daniel 7 presents an astonishingly exalted human Messiah: one who reigns over the nations and whose kingdom will never be destroyed. But his exaltation is received from God.

Therefore, I do not think “Son of Man” should be understood as a title meaning “God” or “God the Son.” As a reference to Daniel 7, however, it is an extraordinarily significant Messianic title. It points to Jesus’ kingship, universal authority, and exalted status. Matthew is continuing to present Jesus as the promised and highly exalted Messiah while, in my reading, maintaining a distinction between Jesus and the God who gives him his kingdom and authority.

Finally, when Daniel 7 is read as a whole, the Son of Man is not the only recipient of extraordinary exaltation. Daniel 7:18 says that “the holy ones of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever—forever and ever.” Daniel 7:22 likewise says that judgment was given for the holy ones and that the time came when they possessed the kingdom. And Daniel 7:27 says that “the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven” shall be given to “the people of the holy ones of the Most High.”

This is significant because the kingdom given to the Son of Man in verses 13–14 is also given to the holy ones in the interpretation of the vision. The Son of Man and the saints are therefore closely associated in receiving God’s everlasting kingdom. This does not erase the extraordinary status of the Son of Man, but it does caution against assuming that receiving everlasting dominion and a kingdom necessarily identifies someone as God.

Daniel 7:27 may even use pelaḥ for service rendered to the people of the holy ones, although this is disputed because the singular pronoun may instead refer to the Most High. I therefore would not base my argument on that interpretation. Even if the final “him” refers to God, the broader point remains: Daniel portrays God’s holy ones themselves as receiving the kingdom and dominion.

For this reason, I do not think Daniel 7 requires the conclusion that the Son of Man is ontologically God. I agree with Trinitarian interpreters that Daniel portrays the Son of Man as an extraordinarily exalted Messianic figure who receives universal authority from God. Where I differ is with the conclusion that this exaltation necessarily identifies him as God. Within Daniel 7 itself, authority and kingship are granted by the Ancient One, and the holy ones also participate in the kingdom that the Son of Man receives.

14. Passage: Matthew 11:25–27

Who is Lord of heaven and earth?

Many believe that Jesus is the eternal Son who has always reigned with God the Father and the Holy Spirit over the earth. Jesus is Lord of heaven and earth, and has always been.

However, I do not think Jesus is the eternal Lord of heaven and earth, as he is never explicitly called “Lord of heaven and earth” in the Bible. The Father is. Again, Jesus had to be made Lord by God; he was not always Lord (Acts 2:36). This is further proof that Jesus is not God, as God is Lord eternally. What is more, all things have been handed over to him by his Father (verse 27). If Jesus was God, nothing would need to be handed over to him – it would already be his, because God owns everything. Jesus is not God, and as a devout Jew, Jesus worships the Father – the one God from the Old Testament. I do not think, given that context, Jesus would call the Father “Lord of heaven and earth” and at the same time think he also is God and co-equal with this God. After Jesus’ resurrection, he was GIVEN all authority: not before, as Matthew reveals in chapter 28 of his gospel. This fits with the framework already mentioned: the Jewish law of agency, where a human agent acts for God on earth and has God’s authority.

This interpretation does not diminish Jesus’ lordship. Jesus truly is Lord, King, and Messiah, and God eventually entrusts him with universal authority after his resurrection. My disagreement concerns the source and nature of that authority: I understand Jesus’ lordship as authority given to him by God rather than as evidence that Jesus is himself the eternal God who possesses all authority inherently.

15. Passage: Matthew 12:8

Lord of the Sabbath

Jesus being “Lord of the Sabbath” demonstrates his extraordinary authority over the Sabbath. Many Christians understand this as evidence of divine identity: because God instituted the Sabbath, Jesus’ claim to be its Lord is understood as an exercise of divine prerogative.

I do not agree with this conclusion. In Matthew, Jesus has just identified the Father as “Lord of heaven and earth” and declared that “all things have been delivered to me by my Father” (Matthew 11:25, 27). This provides an important framework for understanding the remarkable authority Jesus exercises in the following chapter: Jesus possesses immense authority, but Matthew has also explicitly identified that authority as something received from the Father. Again, my understanding of God is that God does not need to be given authority, he inherently has authority. I think the fact that Jesus received all his authority and power from God presents a great challenge to the Trinitarian reading of Scripture that Jesus is God.

Acts 2:36 similarly says that “God has made him both Lord and Christ.” Trinitarian Christians understand this as Jesus' Messianic enthronement and do not believe it excludes his eternal divine lordship. I understand this passage differently: God is the one who appoints and exalts Jesus as Lord and Messiah, showing Jesus is not the eternal Son who is fully God. This is consistent, in my reading, with Matthew's statement that authority is given to Jesus by the Father (Matthew 11:27; 28:18).

Jesus therefore possesses extraordinary authority—including authority over the Sabbath. But extraordinary, God-given authority does not equal ontological deity. I understand Matthew as portraying Jesus as God's uniquely exalted human Messiah and Lord, exercising the authority God has entrusted to him.

16. Passage: Matthew 12:18–21 / Isaiah 42:1–4

Jesus as Yahweh's Chosen Servant

Matthew quotes Isaiah 42:1–4 and explicitly applies Yahweh's chosen servant to Jesus. The structure of the prophecy is striking: God is the speaker, Jesus is His servant, and God's Spirit is placed upon Jesus. God chooses him, delights in him, empowers him with His Spirit, and commissions him to bring justice to the nations.

I do not think this passage naturally identifies Jesus as the God who is speaking. Rather, it distinguishes Jesus from God and presents him as God's chosen and Spirit-anointed servant. The distinction is relational and directional throughout: God chooses Jesus; God is pleased with Jesus; God places His Spirit upon Jesus; and Jesus carries out God's mission.

I think this passage is very difficult to explain in a Trinitarian framework, given Trinitarians hold that Jesus is part of Yahweh, and in this passage, Yahweh is sending Jesus. Is Jesus, along with the other members of the “Trinity”, sending himself? The passage does not identify God as “the Father” exclusively but simply as “Yahweh”. Again, traditional Trinitarian theology holds that the Trinity is Yahweh, the one God.

Matthew does not explain the scene in terms of one divine person commissioning another divine person within a triune God. He simply identifies Jesus as the servant whom Yahweh/God chose and upon whom Yahweh/God placed His Spirit. In my reading, this fits naturally with Jesus being God's uniquely appointed and exalted human Messiah, while a Trinitarian reading of the 3-person Yahweh (with Jesus as one of those persons) commissioning Jesus, who they understand to be as part of Yahweh, logically falls apart. Is Jesus commissioning himself in some way, if he really is Yahweh? By far the plainest reading of this text is that Jesus is not Yahweh.

Isaiah's servant, Jesus, is Yahweh's beloved chosen one, empowered by God's Spirit and destined to bring justice and hope to the nations. The text itself makes a distinction between not simply “the Father”, who is not named here, and Jesus, but between “Yahweh” and Jesus. The plainest reading of the text is that Jesus is not just distinct from the Father, but he is distinct from the God of Israel, Yahweh. Yahweh is the one who commissions and empowers, and Jesus is commissioned and empowered. This passage strongly supports the view that Jesus is not Yahweh, and I think presents a great challenge to the Trinitarian viewpoint.

17. Passage: Matthew 13:53–57

The title of “prophet”.

According to Jesus, he is a prophet. Of course, Jesus is more than a prophet—but he is not less than one. In Scripture, a prophet is someone sent by God to speak God's message to others. Jesus' identification with the prophets therefore fits the recurring biblical picture of Jesus as one sent by God and commissioned to speak His words. Jesus’ Jewish audience understood a prophet to be God's messenger, not the God who sends the messenger.

The crowds also repeatedly understood Jesus in prophetic terms. In Matthew 21:11 they say, “This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth of Galilee,” and Matthew 21:46 says that they regarded him as a prophet. This does not exhaust Jesus' identity—Matthew also presents him as Messiah, Son of God, Son of Man, and Lord—but it is part of Matthew's portrait of him.

In my reading, Jesus' prophetic identity fits naturally with his role as God's uniquely appointed Messiah: he comes from God, speaks God's words, and carries out God's mission. I therefore regard the title as one piece of the larger biblical evidence illustrating that Jesus is God’s messenger and Messiah, not God in the flesh.

Notably, Jesus explicitly identifies himself here with the prophets. Yet in Matthew—and, more broadly, in the Synoptic Gospels—Jesus never makes a straightforward statement that he believes he is God.

18. Passage: Matthew 14:13–21

Feeding the 5,000

This is an extraordinary miracle, but is this proof of deity? Jesus prays a blessing over the bread before feeding the 5,000. It is from heaven, from God, that his power comes. Matthew continues to portray Jesus as from God, filled with God’s Spirit, the Son of God, and the Messiah, but not God in the flesh. Jesus also says that he can do nothing apart from God (John 5:30), which would include this miracle. Finally, he says his disciples will do GREATER works than him, so the works themselves cannot be proof he is God (John 14:12).

19. Passage: Matthew 14:22–33

Walking on Water

Many Christians understand Jesus walking on water as evidence of his divine identity, particularly because it echoes Old Testament passages in which God is portrayed as sovereign over the waters. The disciples’ response of proskyneō toward Jesus is also understood by many as worship of Jesus as God.

I discuss the meaning of proskyneō toward Jesus more fully in my commentary in the linked article below. While proskyneō can certainly refer to worship of God, the word can also describe homage or reverence given to human beings. Its use toward Jesus therefore does not demonstrate that Jesus is God.

It is also important to notice what the disciples actually conclude after witnessing the miracle: “Truly you are the Son of God.” They do not say, “You are God” or “You are God the Son.” Trinitarian Christians understand the title “Son of God” as compatible with Jesus’ deity, but the title itself does not inherently mean “God.” Scripture uses sonship language for others who are clearly not God, including Adam (Luke 3:38), Israel (Exodus 4:22), and believers who become children of God.

The miracle itself also does not establish deity. Remarkably, Peter also walks on the water when Jesus calls him to do so. Peter obviously does not possess divine authority over creation inherently; he is enabled to perform something extraordinary through faith and divine power. This demonstrates within the very same narrative that a human being's walking on water does not necessarily identify that person as God.

Jesus also says that those who believe in him will do his works and even “greater works than these” (John 14:12). Miraculous works themselves cannot establish ontological deity, since Scripture repeatedly portrays God accomplishing extraordinary works through human beings.

Matthew is portraying Jesus in extraordinarily exalted terms. He is the Son of God and Messiah who exercises remarkable authority. However, I do not think either walking on water or receiving proskyneō worship means Jesus is God. Indeed, Peter’s participation in the same miracle demonstrates that walking on water can occur through divine empowerment without making the person who does it God.

See this post which explains that Jesus worship does not mean he is God: [https://www.yourkingdomcome.online/post/what-about-jesus-worship](https://www.yourkingdomcome.online/post/what-about-jesus-worship).

20. Passage: Matthew 15:29–31

Glorifying the God of Israel

Matthew describes extraordinary healings performed by Jesus, but the response of the crowds is significant: “they glorified the God of Israel.” Matthew does not say that the crowds identified Jesus himself as the God of Israel. Rather, Jesus performs the works, and the God of Israel receives the glory.

This distinction fits a recurring New Testament pattern in which God acts through Jesus and is glorified because of what Jesus accomplishes. Other passages, particularly in Acts, make this distinction even more explicit by describing the God of Israel as the one who raised, exalted, appointed, and worked through Jesus.

I think the most natural reading of Matthew's wording is that Jesus is God's Messiah and agent through whom God works, while “the God of Israel”, distinct from Jesus, is the one ultimately being glorified. In my reading, this contributes to the cumulative New Testament distinction between not just Jesus and the Father, but Jesus and the God of Israel as a whole. That distinction creates a significant challenge for the Trinitarian claim that Jesus himself shares the identity of the one God of Israel, who Trinitarians believe is Father, Son, and Spirit.

21. Passage: Matthew 16:13–17

Matthew 16:16

Note that Peter’s famous confession in response to Jesus’ question about his identity is not a confession that Jesus is God. Peter answers:

“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

This should first be understood within its Jewish context. For Jesus’ and Peter’s Jewish world, the Messiah, or “Christ”, was understood as God’s anointed ruler, not as “God incarnate.” Jewish Messianic expectations were diverse, and some Jewish texts portray extraordinarily exalted figures. Nevertheless, the title “Messiah” itself did not mean “God-man” or “God the Son.” The Messiah was God’s chosen and anointed king. Judaism has continued to understand the Messiah as a human being rather than God incarnate (Collins, The Scepter and the Star; Lamm).

The title “Son of God” likewise did not mean that someone was the one God of Israel. Scripture applies sonship language to people who are unquestionably human: Israel is God’s son (Exodus 4:22), the Davidic king is called God’s son (Psalm 2:7), God promises concerning Solomon, “I will be his father, and he will be my son” (2 Samuel 7:14), and Adam is called the son of God (Luke 3:38). In Scripture, “Son of God” is not a divine title, but a human one.

Peter therefore answers Jesus’ question by identifying him as God’s Messiah and God’s Son. He does not say, “You are the living God.” Rather, he says, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus accepts this confession and pronounces Peter blessed.

Trinitarians understand “the living God” here as referring personally to the Father, while Jesus, as the Son, remains fully God and shares the divine nature with the Father. On that understanding, being “the Son of the living God” does not mean that Jesus cannot also be God.

I do not find that explanation to be compelling or the most natural reading of Peter’s confession, particularly within its Jewish context. Peter was a Jew using Jewish Messianic categories. Neither “Messiah” nor “Son of God” inherently meant that the person bearing the title was Yahweh incarnate. Peter identifies Jesus as the Messiah of God and the Son of the living God. The distinction in his words is straightforward: Jesus is the Son; “the living God” is the God whose Son Jesus is and who Jesus worships and serves.

This also fits Matthew’s cumulative portrayal of Jesus through the first sixteen chapters of his Gospel. Jesus prays to God, worships and serves God, does God’s will, is God’s chosen servant, receives God’s Spirit, receives authority from God, speaks God’s words, and repeatedly identifies himself as God’s Messiah and Son. The relationship is consistently directional: God sends, chooses, empowers, reveals, gives, and commissions; Jesus is sent, chosen, empowered, receives, obeys, and carries out God’s mission.

Trinitarian theology explains this pattern through the incarnation: Jesus is understood to possess both a divine and human nature, allowing him to obey, worship, pray to, and receive authority from the Father while remaining fully God. I recognize that theological explanation, but my difficulty is that Matthew himself does not explain Jesus in those terms. He does not tell the reader that Jesus possesses a second, divine nature that accounts for these distinctions. Rather, he repeatedly presents Jesus as God’s extraordinarily exalted human Messiah and Son. Notably, nowhere in Scripture is Jesus said to have two natures, one human and one divine.

Peter’s confession is especially significant because Jesus has directly asked his disciples, “Who do you say that I am?” If there were ever an appropriate moment for the disciples to identify Jesus as God, this would appear to be one. Yet Peter’s Spirit-revealed answer is not, “You are God,” “You are Yahweh,” or “You are God the Son.” His answer is: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

This does not, by itself, prove that Jesus cannot be God. Trinitarians believe those titles are compatible with deity and interpret other passages as establishing it. But neither should Peter’s confession be transformed into something he did not actually say. His explicit answer identifies Jesus using Jewish categories of Messiah and divine sonship—categories that did not identify a person as God.

It is also notable that throughout Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus never straightforwardly says, “I am God.” Trinitarians argue for his deity from various sayings, titles, actions, and Old Testament allusions, and those arguments deserve to be considered individually. John contains several particularly important and difficult passages concerning Jesus’ identity, which I address in my commentary on that Gospel. But in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus’ explicit identity claims center upon being the Messiah, Son of God, Son of Man, Lord, prophet, and God’s chosen servant—not upon a straightforward declaration that he is the God of Israel.

For this reason, I think Peter’s confession strongly fits the cumulative distinction Matthew has been presenting between Jesus and God. Jesus is not insignificant or merely an ordinary prophet. He is the Christ, God’s uniquely chosen King, and the Son of the living God. These are extraordinarily exalted claims. But neither title means “God,” and within their Jewish context they naturally distinguish God’s Messiah and Son from the God whose Messiah and Son he is.

I therefore understand Peter’s confession exactly as it reads: Jesus is the Messiah and Son of the living God, not the living God Himself.

22. Passage: Matthew 22:41–46 / Psalm 110:1

The Lord said to my Lord

I agree with many Christians that Jesus’ quotation of Psalm 110:1 presents the Messiah as greater than David and possessing extraordinary authority. The Messiah is invited to sit at God’s right hand while God makes his enemies his footstool. Some Trinitarians understand this extraordinary exaltation, together with the New Testament’s broader use of Psalm 110, as evidence of Jesus’ divine identity. I agree that the passage presents Jesus in remarkably exalted terms, but I do not think it identifies him as God.

The Hebrew of Psalm 110:1 is important. It reads:

“YHWH says to my lord (laʾdoni), ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.’”

The first figure is explicitly YHWH, the God of Israel. The second figure is called adoni, “my lord.” The Masoretic Hebrew therefore distinguishes YHWH from the lord whom YHWH addresses. Jewish translations likewise render the verse, “The LORD said to my lord.”

The distinction between adoni and the divine title Adonai is also significant. Adoni is the ordinary form meaning “my lord” or “my master,” commonly used for human superiors, kings, rulers, husbands, and others in positions of authority. Adonai, by contrast, developed as a distinctive divine title and as the traditional substitute spoken in place of the divine name YHWH (Brown, Driver, and Briggs 11).

For this reason, I do not think the second “lord” in Psalm 110:1 should simply be treated as another designation for YHWH. The text portrays YHWH speaking to and exalting another lord. Jesus applies this Messianic figure to himself.

This fits the pattern I have been tracing throughout the New Testament: God exalts Jesus and gives him authority. Psalm 110 does not portray the Messiah taking YHWH’s throne or being identified as the YHWH who speaks. Rather, YHWH gives the Messiah the extraordinary privilege of sitting at His right hand and promises to subject the Messiah’s enemies beneath him.

The text presents two distinguishable figures: YHWH, who speaks and exalts, and the Messiah, who is addressed and exalted and distinct from, so not, Yahweh.

In my reading, this is significant evidence against identifying Jesus himself as YHWH. Jesus is not diminished by this distinction. Quite the opposite: he is the Messiah whom YHWH places at His right hand, a position of extraordinary honor and authority. But receiving that position from YHWH is not the same thing as being YHWH.

So I understand Jesus’ use of Psalm 110:1 as affirming his extraordinary Messianic lordship, not as claiming to be the God of Israel.

(Common Verses, 2010)

23. Passage: Matthew 24:36

Not Omniscient

How can Jesus be God if he is not omniscient?

Jesus says plainly that he does not know the day or hour of his return. In Mark 13:32 he also says:

“But of that day or that hour no one knows—not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”

Trinitarian Christians generally explain this through the incarnation and the doctrine of Christ’s two natures. According to Trinitarian Christology, Jesus is one person who possesses both a fully divine nature and a fully human nature. In his divine nature, the Son remains omniscient; in his human nature, he can genuinely experience limited knowledge. Thus, Jesus’ statement that he does not know the hour is understood as referring to his human knowledge rather than denying the omniscience of the divine Son.

I do not find this persuasive, and I think this explanation defies God-given logic. I do not think someone can know something and not know something at the same time.

The text itself appears remarkably straightforward. The Father knows something that the Son does not know. Jesus distinguishes himself not only from the angels and other human beings but specifically from the Father: “nor the Son, but only the Father.”

God is omniscient. He does not lack knowledge. Yet Jesus explicitly says that he lacks knowledge of something the Father knows. In my reading, the most natural and logical conclusion is therefore that Jesus is not the omniscient God.

The traditional response introduces an additional distinction: Jesus does not know according to his human nature, while simultaneously knowing according to his divine nature. But Jesus does not make that distinction here. He does not say, “My human nature does not know, although my divine nature does.” He simply says that the Son does not know and the Father does. Further, Scripture never explicitly states that Jesus possesses two natures, one omniscient and one limited in knowledge. The formal language of Christ existing “in two natures” became Christian orthodoxy in the fifth century, especially in the Definition of Chalcedon in A.D. 451 (Ayres; Council of Chalcedon). Christians developed this framework in an attempt to hold together passages portraying Jesus as genuinely human with passages they understood as identifying him as divine.

I recognize that the doctrine did not suddenly appear from nowhere in 451; Christians had debated Jesus’ divinity and humanity for centuries before Chalcedon. Nevertheless, the precise two-natures framework is a theological explanation developed by the Church largely in the 5th century rather than language Jesus or the New Testament writers themselves use.

For that reason, I think we should first allow Jesus’ statement to mean what it most naturally communicates before bringing a much later Christological framework to it:

The Father knows. The Son does not know.

I also do not think appealing to “two natures” removes the conceptual difficulty. Jesus is one person, not two persons. Yet when the one person Jesus says, “I do not know,” the traditional explanation is that he simultaneously does know according to another nature. Please, ask yourself honestly: does this make sense? Personally, I do not think one person cannot know something while at the same time knowing something which they do not know. At a minimum, this framework is adding to what the biblical text simply says here. The Trinitarian explanation requires the reader to distinguish between two levels of knowledge within the one Jesus even though Jesus himself simply distinguishes the Son who does not know from the Father who does.

This matters because omniscience is not a minor characteristic of God. To be God is to possess divine knowledge without limitation. If Jesus genuinely does not know something, then in the ordinary meaning of the word he is not omniscient.

Saying, “Jesus is omniscient, but he does not know this,” is a logical contradiction from my perspective. I therefore think this passage provides very strong evidence that Jesus is not God.

This does not diminish Jesus. Scripture portrays Jesus as possessing extraordinary knowledge, revelation, wisdom, prophetic insight, and intimate knowledge of God without requiring him to know everything inherently. God can reveal to His Messiah whatever He chooses to reveal. Indeed, the distinction Jesus makes here fits the larger pattern throughout the New Testament: the Father is greater than the Son, which Jesus explicitly states in John (John 10:29, John 14:28).

In my reading, Jesus is exactly what the New Testament repeatedly presents him to be: God’s uniquely chosen and exalted human Messiah, possessing extraordinary authority and knowledge from God while remaining distinct from the omniscient God whom he calls Father.

I therefore take Jesus’ statement seriously and straightforwardly: if the Son does not know what God knows, then the Son is not omniscient. And if Jesus is not omniscient, I do not believe he can be the omniscient God.

24. Passage: Matthew 26:39–44

Two wills?

Trinitarian Christian theology teaches that Jesus possesses two wills because he possesses two natures: a divine will and a human will (Third Council of Constantinople). According to this understanding, Jesus’ human will is genuinely human and therefore capable of experiencing fear, anguish, and reluctance toward suffering, while his divine will remains perfectly united with the will of the Father. Jesus’ prayer, “not as I will, but as you will,” is therefore understood as his human will submitting perfectly to the divine will.

I understand this explanation, but I do not find it compelling.

In Gethsemane, Jesus’ words appear remarkably straightforward. He does not want to undergo what is ahead of him. He prays that, if possible, the cup might pass from him. Yet he courageously chooses submission to his Father:

“Nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.”

The passage therefore presents Jesus’ will and the Father’s will as distinguishable. Jesus desires one outcome; the Father wills another. Jesus then freely and obediently surrenders his own desire to God’s will.

In my reading, this makes profound sense if Jesus is a genuinely human Messiah submitting himself to God. I find it much more difficult to understand if Jesus is himself the same God whose will he is surrendering to.

Trinitarian Christology answers this difficulty by saying that Jesus has two wills. His human will recoils from suffering, while his divine will remains identical with the divine will of the Father. Thus, according to this framework, Jesus can truthfully say, “not my will, but yours,” while simultaneously possessing another will that is fully united with the Father’s.

I find this explanation illogical and, more importantly, lacking biblical support - not just in Matthew, but in the entire Bible. Scripture never says that Jesus possesses two wills. Jesus does not say, “My human will does not want this, although my divine will does.” He simply speaks of my will and your will—his own will and the will of his Father. The distinction presented by the text is between Jesus and God, not between two different wills located within Jesus.

If we begin instead with Jesus’ actual words, the picture seems much simpler: Jesus has a will of his own, God has a will, and Jesus chooses to surrender his will to God’s. I believe that distinction is significant evidence that Jesus is not God, as God only has one will.

The point is not merely that Jesus experiences fear or anguish. A Trinitarian can reasonably respond that genuine humanity includes those experiences. The deeper issue is that Jesus explicitly distinguishes what he wills from what God wills, and then submits himself to God. To me, that is the language of obedience, not divine ontological equality.

I also think this understanding makes Jesus’ sacrifice more—not less—extraordinary. Jesus did not march toward suffering because, as God, he inherently possessed the same will as the One requiring the sacrifice. He was a genuinely human man facing terrifying suffering and death. He did not want the cup before him, yet out of love, faith, and obedience he surrendered himself completely to his Father. That is an amazing act of courage.

Jesus’ greatness in this scene is precisely that his obedience is real. There is something he genuinely does not want to endure, and nevertheless he says, in effect, “Not what I want, Father, but what You want.” I do not think we need to posit an additional divine will within Jesus to understand these words. Indeed, I think doing so can unintentionally lessen the force of the struggle Matthew portrays. Jesus’ surrender is powerful because the will being surrendered is genuinely his one will.

The text gives us Jesus’ will and the Father’s will. Jesus’ will is distinguishable from God’s, and Jesus submits his will to God’s. In my reading, the most natural explanation is that Jesus is God’s fully human Messiah, not God the Son possessing a second human will alongside His divine will.

If Jesus went to Calvary as a fully human man, not deity, I think his sacrifice is more amazing, not less. Gethsemane reveals the depth of his faithfulness. Jesus faced suffering he desperately wished to avoid and nevertheless freely surrendered himself to God for the sake of others. This demonstrates incredible character, sacrifice, and love.

I therefore see this passage as strong evidence of both Jesus’ genuine humanity and his distinction from God: Jesus had a will that could differ from the Father’s, and in extraordinary obedience he chose the Father’s will over his own for the sake of humanity.

25. Passage: Matthew 26:63–66

Was Jesus killed for claiming to be God?

Trinitarian Christians often argue that Jesus was condemned in large part because he made claims that implicitly identified him with God. His authority to forgive sins, his relationship with the Father, his application of exalted Old Testament imagery to himself, and other statements were understood by some of his opponents as blasphemous. John even records opponents accusing Jesus at one point of being a man who was “making yourself to be ‘a god’” (John 10:33). I will fully explain that verse in my commentary on John. The text is not saying Jesus was claiming to be Yahweh, though Jesus’ opponents are certainly accusing him of claiming to be an exalted figure.

I think an important question should be asked: Where do the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ trial actually say that he was condemned because he claimed, “I am God”?

In Matthew's account, the high priest says:

“I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.”

Jesus responds by affirming the claim and then says that they will see “the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” The high priest declares this blasphemy, and the council judges Jesus worthy of death (Matthew 26:63–66). The wording itself distinguishes Jesus from “the living God” whom the high priest invokes. At minimum, the text does not present the charge as a straightforward claim by Jesus, “I am God.”

Jesus identifies himself as the Messiah, Son of God, and Danielic Son of Man who will sit at God's right hand and come with the clouds. This is a highly exalted claim. But the text never says that Jesus answered, “Yes, I am God,” nor does the high priest say, “He has blasphemed because he claims to be God.” The explicit identity under discussion is the Christ, the Son of God, followed by Jesus’ claim concerning the exalted Son of Man. Notably, in Judaism, there are other categories of blasphemy besides claiming to be God. For example, in Deuteronomy 18:20, “But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.” It is entirely reasonable to suppose, given the religious leaders’ response to Jesus, that they think he falls into the category of Deuteronomy 18:20 and deserves to die. They did not think he was speaking the words of God.

The same basic pattern appears in Mark. The high priest asks, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” Jesus answers affirmatively and speaks of the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming with the clouds. The council then condemns his statement as blasphemy (Mark 14:61–64).

And when John narrates Jesus’ actual trial before Pilate, the religious leaders say:

“We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.” (John 19:7)

Again, the stated accusation is “Son of God,” not an explicit statement from Jesus that “I am God.” This distinction matters because “Son of God” does not mean “God.” Biblical sonship language is used for figures who are not themselves the God of Israel.

There is another important distinction concerning Jesus’ actual execution. When the religious leaders bring Jesus before the Roman authorities, the accusation is framed politically. Pilate asks Jesus whether he is “the king of the Jews” (Matthew 27:11), and Luke states the accusation explicitly: Jesus is charged with presenting himself as “Messiah, a king” (Luke 23:2).

Thus, the Gospel accounts contain several related issues: the Jewish leadership condemns Jesus for what it regards as blasphemous claims concerning his Messianic authority, while before Rome the issue becomes his claim to kingship. I therefore think the common statement “Jesus was crucified because he claimed to be God” adds to what Scripture actually says about Jesus’ crucifixion.

Matthew also tells us something about the leaders' motivation. Matthew explicitly identifies envy as a motive for handing Jesus over (Matthew 27:18; compare Mark 15:10).

Jesus’ claims are very exalted. He identifies himself as the Messiah, Son of God, and Son of Man who will be exalted to God's right hand and vindicated with heavenly authority. But this does not mean he was claiming to be God. He was claiming to be God’s representative and agent, God’s Messiah, the Son of God.

Further, I do not think we should turn those claims into a statement Jesus does not actually make at his trial. Jesus is condemned after identifying himself as God's Messiah and Son and claiming extraordinary authority. The Gospel trial narratives do not portray him straightforwardly declaring, “I am God,” and then being executed for that explicit claim.

In my reading, the trials fit the pattern I have seen throughout the Gospels: Jesus understood himself as God's uniquely exalted Messiah and Son—the one destined to sit at God's right hand—not as God Himself.

26. Passage: Matthew 27:46–54

Jesus’ Death

Trinitarian Christians believe that Jesus truly died, while maintaining that God is immortal. Traditional Christology explains this through Jesus’ two natures: Jesus genuinely experiences death according to his human nature, while his divine nature remains immortal and does not cease to exist. Thus, Trinitarians do not believe that the divine nature died or that God ceased to exist. Rather, they believe that the one person of the Son genuinely experienced human death while remaining fully divine.

I do not find this convincing.

Scripture says that Jesus died. Scripture also describes God as immortal. Yet Scripture never explains Jesus’ death by saying that one of his natures died while another remained incapable of death. That distinction comes from the later two-natures framework of Trinitarian Christology rather than from Matthew’s account itself.

This creates, in my view, a serious difficulty for the belief that Jesus is God.

If God is inherently immortal and cannot die, while Jesus genuinely died, the straightforward conclusion seems to be that Jesus is not the immortal God. The Trinitarian response is that Jesus died “according to his human nature” but remained alive and immortal “according to his divine nature.” I recognize that this is how the traditional doctrine attempts to reconcile the two claims, but I find the explanation to contradict God-given logic, and, more importantly, not explicitly taught in the passage.

What does it mean to say that Jesus died, while simultaneously saying that the divine nature belonging to this same Jesus did not die? If Jesus is one person, in what sense did the person fully experience death while also remaining, according to another nature, incapable of dying?

I continue to think the simpler reading of Scripture is also the best and more natural one: Jesus died because Jesus was mortal. God, by contrast, is immortal, so Jesus is not God.

The crucifixion narrative itself also continues the distinction Matthew has presented throughout his Gospel.

Those mocking Jesus say:

“He saved others, but he can’t save himself. If he is the King of Israel, let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him. He trusted in God. Let God rescue him now, if He wants him; for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’” (Matthew 27:42–43)

The language is striking. Jesus is identified as the Son of God, while the mockers speak of God as the One in whom Jesus trusts and from whom Jesus might be rescued:

Jesus trusts in God.

God may rescue Jesus.

Jesus claims to be God’s Son.

Whatever conclusions one ultimately draws about Jesus’ identity, the narrative itself presents Jesus and God as distinguishable figures.

Trinitarians would respond that “God” here refers specifically to the Father, while Jesus remains God the Son. I understand that explanation. But once again, Matthew does not explain the distinction in terms of one divine person relating to another within a three-person God. The language on the page is much simpler: Jesus trusts in God and is called God’s Son.

The distinction becomes even more powerful in Jesus’ own final cry:

“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46)

Jesus is quoting Psalm 22:1, and that context should absolutely be recognized. His words connect his suffering to the righteous sufferer of the Psalm and ultimately to the Psalm’s movement toward vindication.

But the fact that Jesus quotes Scripture does not erase what he actually says. Jesus addresses someone else as “my God.”

I find this extraordinarily significant.

God does not have a God above Himself. The God of Israel is the ultimate God—the One whom others worship, trust, pray to, and call “my God.” Yet Jesus himself cries out to God as “my God.”

Trinitarian theology explains this by saying that Jesus, according to his genuine humanity, can call the Father “my God” while still sharing the divine nature with Him. Again, I understand the theological explanation. But Jesus does not say, “According to my human nature, You are my God, although according to my divine nature I am equally God.” He simply cries:

“My God, my God.”

I think we should allow that statement to carry its natural force.

Jesus has a God.

He trusts in God.

He prays to God.

He cries out to God.

He calls God “my God.”

And then Jesus dies.

In my reading, these facts fit naturally together because Jesus is not the God whom he worships. He is God’s Son, Messiah, and Lord—the uniquely chosen man who trusted God faithfully and ultimately surrendered his life in obedience to Him.

This does not diminish Jesus’ death. Quite the opposite.

Jesus truly died. He did not merely appear to die, nor did he pass through death with no genuine vulnerability because an immortal divine nature made death impossible for him. He was a genuinely mortal human being who faced suffering and death and willingly entrusted himself to God.

That makes his sacrifice profoundly courageous.

Jesus did not want to suffer. He prayed in Gethsemane for another way if one were possible. Yet he surrendered his will to the Father, endured humiliation and crucifixion, cried out to his God in anguish, and ultimately gave his life.

I believe Matthew presents an extraordinary human Messiah—not the immortal God temporarily experiencing death through one of two natures, but the Son of God who genuinely died in faithful obedience to the God he loved and trusted.

The traditional two-natures explanation attempts to explain how simultaneously God cannot die and yet Jesus died. I do not think logic or Matthew gives us that explanation. The text simply gives us a Jesus who is mortal, who has a God, who trusts that God, who calls Him “my God,” and who dies.

For this reason, I think Jesus’ death provides powerful evidence that Jesus is not the immortal God.

Matthew’s Gospel culminates not in God Himself dying, but in God’s Son and Messiah faithfully giving his life, after which God raises and exalts him.

That, in my reading, is both the more straightforward reading of the text and an extraordinarily exalted picture of Jesus, our Savior.

27. Passage: Matthew 28:18–20

The Baptism Formula

Jesus’ command to baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” places the Father, Son, and Spirit together within one extraordinarily important baptismal formula. Trinitarian Christians see this as significant evidence for the three-person nature of the one God, particularly because Jesus uses the singular word “name” rather than “names.”

I agree that this verse is important and that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are deliberately placed together. However, I do not think the verse itself teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons who together constitute one God.

A. “All authority has been given to me”

Immediately before giving the baptismal command, Jesus says:

“All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth.”

I think the word “given” is extremely significant.

God possesses ultimate authority inherently. He is the Creator and source of all things. Jesus, however, says that his authority has been given to him.

Trinitarian Christians explain this by distinguishing Jesus’ eternal divine nature from his Messianic role as the incarnate Son. On this understanding, Jesus eternally possesses divine authority as God, while receiving universal Messianic authority in his incarnate and risen role.

I recognize that theological explanation, but Matthew does not make that distinction here. He simply says that Jesus has been given all authority.

This fits the pattern Matthew has presented throughout his Gospel: Jesus receives authority, revelation, power, and a kingdom from God. In my reading, this makes much more natural sense if Jesus is God’s uniquely exalted Messiah rather than the God who inherently possesses all authority.

I therefore think Matthew 28:18 actually presents a significant difficulty for using Jesus’ authority as proof that he is God. Jesus possesses extraordinary, universal authority—but the text explicitly says that authority was given to him.

In contrast, the Father and the Spirit, though they have unique roles, inherently have authority and were eternally Lord (see the Old Testament, and for the Spirit, specifically 2 Corinthians 3). Jesus’ power also comes from the Father and the Holy Spirit, not himself. Scripture portrays the Father and the Spirit as omnipotent and omniscient, but not Jesus. This makes the baptismal formula proving a three-person God difficult as the Father and the Spirit have attributes of God Jesus does not.

For a defense of the Spirit’s personhood and deity see this part of my blog: [https://www.yourkingdomcome.online/blog/categories/who-is-god](https://www.yourkingdomcome.online/blog/categories/who-is-god).

For a fuller explanation of the Father’s attributes and how they differ from Jesus see this post, specifically the diagram: [4. Comparing God and Jesus: What Does Scripture Say About Their Defining Characteristics?](https://web-sandbox.oaiusercontent.com/post/is-jesus-god-part-1-who-is-god-a-biblical-definition)

B. “I am with you always”

Jesus then promises:

“Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

Some Christians understand this as evidence of Jesus’ omnipresence. How could Jesus remain with believers throughout the world and throughout history unless he is God?

I do not think that conclusion necessarily follows.

Omnipresence means being present everywhere at once. Jesus does not say here, “I am everywhere.” He promises his disciples that he will be with them as they carry out the mission he has entrusted to them. I do not think this statement can simply be assumed to mean that Jesus possesses the divine attribute of omnipresence.

Paul even uses similar relational language concerning himself:

“For though absent in body, I am present in spirit...” (1 Corinthians 5:3)

I am not suggesting that Paul’s spiritual presence and Jesus’ continuing presence with the Church are necessarily identical. Jesus clearly occupies a unique position of authority. The point is simply that biblical language about being “present” or “with” people does not automatically mean literal omnipresence or deity.

Even if Jesus possesses a unique ability to remain spiritually present with his Church, this would not by itself establish deity. If God has given Jesus all authority, God is certainly able to empower His Messiah to remain active among and present with His people.

I therefore do not think Jesus’ promise to remain with his followers proves that he is omnipresent or God.

C. “In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”

The major Trinitarian argument from this passage concerns Jesus’ command:

“baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

The word “name” is singular. Trinitarians often understand this as evidence that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share one divine identity: one “name,” yet three persons.

I understand why this wording is significant. Nevertheless, I do not think the singular word “name” proves that all three are one God.

The verse does not say:

“The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God.”

It does not say:

“God is three persons.”

Nor does it say:

“The Father, Son, and Spirit share one divine essence.”

Those are theological conclusions drawn from this and other passages rather than statements Matthew explicitly makes here.

In biblical language, a “name” can represent authority, identity, reputation, character, or the cause under which something is done. Therefore, being baptized “in the name of” the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can naturally signify identification with and submission to the united work, authority, and purpose of all three without requiring the conclusion that they constitute one being.

Genesis 48:16 provides an interesting comparison. Jacob prays concerning Joseph’s sons:

“...the angel who has redeemed me from all evil, bless the boys; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac...”

Here singular “name” language is associated with multiple persons—Jacob, Abraham, and Isaac—without suggesting that those individuals share one numerical identity or constitute one being. This demonstrates an important principle: singular “name” language associated with multiple persons does not automatically mean that those persons are one being.

Luke 9:26 provides another useful comparison. Jesus says:

“For whoever is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.”

The Son of Man, the Father, and the holy angels are associated with a single “glory” construction. No one concludes that the Son, Father, and angels therefore constitute one being.

The grammar is not precisely identical to Matthew 28:19. My point is narrower: a singular noun can be associated with several distinct persons without making those persons one ontological entity.

For this reason, I do not think the singular word “name” can bear the theological weight sometimes placed upon it.

What does the threefold formula mean?

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are unquestionably united in God’s saving work.

The Father is the source of the mission.

Jesus is God’s risen and exalted Messiah, to whom universal authority has been given. Jesus was also used by God to save the world.

The Holy Spirit is God, working in and among God’s people to sanctify them and accomplish the Great Commission.

There is therefore nothing surprising about all three appearing together in the baptismal formula.

Trinitarian Christians understand this unity ontologically: Father, Son, and Spirit are three persons sharing the one divine being. I understand the unity differently. I believe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are profoundly united in authority, purpose, relationship, and the work of salvation without together constituting a three-person God.

Matthew 28:19 does not prove the Trinity Doctrine simply by placing the three together. Matthew has already associated Father, Son, and Holy Spirit earlier in his Gospel, most notably at Jesus’ baptism. Jesus is baptized, God’s Spirit descends upon him, and God speaks from heaven:

“This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”

That passage presents all three together, yet also distinguishes them: God speaks, Jesus is God’s Son, and God’s Spirit descends upon Jesus.

I think Matthew 28 should be understood within that same relational framework.

God has exalted Jesus and given him universal authority. Jesus commissions his disciples. The Holy Spirit participates in God’s work among His people. They are profoundly united—but Matthew never says that this unity means they are three persons within one God.

For this reason, I do not think Matthew 28:19 should be treated as an explicit statement of the doctrine of the Trinity.

It is certainly a threefold baptismal formula.

It certainly places the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together in an extraordinarily important way.

It certainly demonstrates profound unity among them.

But none of those observations by themselves establish:

Father + Son + Holy Spirit = one God consisting of three persons.

That conclusion requires additional biblical evidence which, as I will show throughout this Study Bible, does not exist.

In fact, the immediate context begins by distinguishing Jesus as the one who receives universal authority. In my reading, this fits the pattern Matthew has presented throughout his Gospel: God is the source, Jesus is God’s uniquely exalted Son and Messiah, and the Spirit is God, working through and among God’s people.

I therefore understand the baptismal formula as expressing the profound unity of God, His Son, and His Spirit in the Christian mission—not as revealing that God Himself consists of three persons.

Mark

1. Passage: Mark 1:1

The Son of God

Mark begins his Gospel by identifying its subject: Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Jesus is God’s Son, distinct from God Himself. Mark does not call him “God the Son,” but “the Son of God”—a title also used of God’s human children, none of whom are thereby God. The title itself therefore does not mean that Jesus is God.

2. Passage: Mark 1:2–3 / Isaiah 40:3

Preparing the Way of Yahweh

This prophecy originally concerns preparing “the way of Yahweh” (Isaiah 40:3). In the New Testament, John the Baptist prepares the way for Jesus. This is an important passage and should not be minimized. However, applying a Yahweh passage to Jesus does not necessarily mean that Jesus is literally Yahweh.

A central biblical and Jewish concept helps explain this: agency. An authorized agent could represent the one who sent him so fully that receiving, rejecting, hearing, or encountering the agent could be treated as receiving, rejecting, hearing, or encountering the sender. Jesus himself repeatedly uses this principle: “He who receives me receives him who sent me” (Matthew 10:40; compare John 5:23; 12:44–45; 13:20). Yet Jesus and the One who sent him remain distinct persons. Representation does not require identity.

This principle is especially important for understanding Jesus. Scripture consistently presents him as God’s uniquely appointed Messiah and supreme agent. God sends him, gives him authority, puts His words in his mouth, performs works through him, and anoints him with the Holy Spirit and power (John 5:19, 30; 7:16; 12:49; Acts 2:22; 10:38). Jesus can therefore represent God with extraordinary fullness without being the God whom he represents.

John preparing the way for Jesus can consequently also be described as preparing the way of Yahweh, because Yahweh was coming to His people through His chosen Messiah. The arrival of God’s supreme representative was the arrival of God’s saving rule and activity among them. This is much like Jesus saying, “Whoever sees me sees him who sent me” (John 12:45). Jesus does not mean that he literally is the Father; he means that the Father is revealed and represented through him.

God’s own Spirit also dwelt in and worked powerfully through Jesus. God “anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power,” and Jesus performed his ministry because “God was with him” (Acts 10:38). Peter similarly says that Jesus was a man through whom God performed miracles (Acts 2:22). Thus, when John prepared Israel for Jesus, he was preparing them for the saving presence and work of Yahweh coming through the Messiah whom Yahweh had sent and empowered.

Moreover, the New Testament sometimes applies Old Testament passages to Jesus even when their original referent was someone else. Hosea 11:1 originally concerns Israel being called out of Egypt, yet Matthew 2:15 applies it to Jesus. Jeremiah 31:15 originally portrays Rachel weeping over Israel’s children, yet Matthew 2:18 applies it to the children killed in Bethlehem. Acts 1:20 likewise applies language from Psalms concerning David’s enemies to Judas. New Testament application therefore does not automatically transfer every aspect of the original referent’s identity to the new referent.

I therefore think this passage powerfully presents Jesus as the one through whom Yahweh comes to His people, but that is different from saying Jesus is Yahweh. Within the biblical pattern of divine agency, Jesus can bear God’s authority, reveal God, accomplish God’s works, and even fulfill language concerning Yahweh precisely because he is God’s uniquely appointed representative. The passage therefore establishes the extraordinary greatness and authority of Jesus, but it does not by itself establish that Jesus is God.

(Common Verses, 2010)

3. Passage: Mark 1:24

The Holy One of God

The unclean spirit identifies Jesus as “the Holy One of God.” Jesus does not correct this identification. The title itself distinguishes Jesus from God: he is God’s Holy One—the one who belongs to God and has been uniquely set apart by Him. The phrase does not identify Jesus as God Himself, but as the holy one of God. This fits Mark’s opening identification of Jesus as “the Son of God” and the Gospel’s consistent distinction between Jesus and God.

4. Passage: Mark 2:5–12

Forgiving Sins

While the scribes say in verse 7 that only God can forgive sins, no Spirit-filled person in the Bible states that principle. The scribes were religious leaders whom Jesus repeatedly challenged for misunderstanding God and His ways, so their theological conclusion should not simply be assumed to be correct. Further, Scripture shows that God can give human beings authority relating to the forgiveness of sins. In John 20:23, Jesus tells his apostles, “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them.” The apostles are obviously not God. Therefore, possessing God-given authority to forgive sins does not by itself make someone God. Mark’s own conclusion to the episode is also significant. After Jesus heals the man and forgives his sins, the people are amazed and glorify God (v. 12). They do not conclude that Jesus himself is God; rather, they praise God because of what has happened through Jesus. The passage therefore fits naturally with Jesus acting with authority given to him by God, rather than proving that Jesus is God.

(Common Verses, 2010)

5. Passage: Mark 3:11

The Son of God

The demons correctly identify Jesus as “the Son of God,” and Jesus does not correct that identification; he only commands them not to make him known. Mark therefore continues the same distinction seen throughout the Gospels: Jesus is God’s Son, not God Himself. The title identifies his unique relationship to God and his messianic authority, but it does not itself mean that he is the God whose Son he is.

6. Passage: Mark 5:7

The Son of the Most High God

This conversation draws a striking distinction between Jesus and God. The demon identifies Jesus as “Jesus, Son of the Most High God”—Jesus is the Son, while someone else is “the Most High God.” “Son of God” does not by itself mean “God”; Scripture can use son-of-God language for others, including Adam (Luke 3:38).

Even more significantly, the demon says to Jesus, “I adjure you by God, don’t torment me.” He is speaking to Jesus while appealing to God. The most straightforward reading therefore distinguishes the person standing before him—Jesus—from the God by whom he makes his appeal.

This fits the larger pattern of the Gospels. Jesus is God’s Son, Messiah, servant, and uniquely authorized representative, but he repeatedly relates to God as someone distinct from and dependent upon Him. He is sent by God, empowered by God, prays to God, obeys God, and even says, “the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28).

I therefore do not think this passage naturally presents Jesus as the Most High God. Quite the opposite: the Most High God and His Son Jesus are explicitly distinguished within the demon’s own words. The passage exalts Jesus’ extraordinary authority over the demonic realm, but authority given to God’s Son is not the same thing as identifying the Son as the God who gave him that authority.

7. Passage: Mark 5:30–33

Jesus Does Not Know Who Touched Him

Jesus does not know who touched him. Mark explicitly says that Jesus “looked around to see who had done it.” The most natural reading is that Jesus was seeking information he did not yet possess. God, however, is omniscient. In my view, this is strong evidence that Jesus is not God: he does not possess one of God’s defining attributes, complete knowledge.

8. Passage: Mark 12:29–34

The Shema: The Lord Our God Is One

This account repeats the discussion found in Matthew but makes the distinction between Jesus and God especially striking. Jesus identifies the greatest commandment by quoting the Shema: “Hear, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one,” and commands Israel to love the Lord God with all the heart, soul, mind, and strength.

The scribe responds directly to Jesus: “You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him.” He then says that loving him—God—with all one’s heart, understanding, and strength is greater than sacrifices. Jesus hears this response and explicitly judges that the man has “answered wisely” (v. 34).

The distinction is difficult to miss. The scribe is standing in front of Jesus and speaking to Jesus about God. When he says that “there is no other besides him,” the “him” is the Lord God whom Jesus has just commanded him to love—not Jesus himself. Nothing in the exchange suggests that the scribe thinks Jesus is included within the identity of the one God he is describing.

Even more importantly, Jesus approves his answer without qualification. If Jesus believed that properly keeping the greatest commandment required the scribe to understand that Jesus himself was also the Lord God who must be loved with all the heart, soul, mind, and strength, this would have been an extraordinarily natural moment to say so. Instead, Jesus affirms the scribe’s thoroughly Jewish monotheistic confession and tells him, “You are not far from the Kingdom of God.”

The language “there is no other besides him” also belongs to the Old Testament’s emphatic confession that Yahweh alone is God. Deuteronomy says, “Yahweh is God … there is no other,” while Isaiah repeatedly declares that there is no other God besides Yahweh. Jesus does not revise this confession by adding himself as another divine person alongside the God being discussed.

I therefore think this passage strongly supports the conclusion that Jesus understood himself as distinct from the one God whom Israel was commanded to love. The scribe confesses one God, Jesus approves his confession as wise, and throughout the entire conversation Jesus remains the teacher speaking about that God, not identifying himself as that God.

9. Passage: Mark 12:35–37 / Psalm 110:1

The Lord Said to My Lord

Psalm 110:1 says, “YHWH said to my lord, ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies the footstool of your feet.’” Jesus applies this passage to the Messiah and therefore to himself.

This verse is sometimes used as evidence that Jesus is God, but the Hebrew actually distinguishes the two figures. The first “LORD” is YHWH, the name of God. The second is la’adoni—“to my lord.” Adoni is the form ordinarily used for a human or occasionally angelic superior, rather than for God (Brown, Driver, and Briggs 11). Thus the Psalm does not portray one God speaking to another God. It portrays YHWH speaking to David’s lord—the Messiah—and inviting him to sit at His right hand.

This distinction is significant. Jesus is the exalted Lord who sits at God’s right hand, while God is the One who places him there and promises to subdue his enemies for him. In my view, Psalm 110:1 therefore supports a distinction between God and His Messiah rather than identifying Jesus as God.

(Common Verses, 2010)

10. Passage: Mark 13:19

The Creator

Jesus speaks of creation as something God created, referring to God in the third person: “the creation which God created.” He does not say that he created it. This fits the broader New Testament pattern in which God is the ultimate Creator, while Jesus is distinguished from God. In my view, Jesus is part of God’s creation, not the God who created all things. Revelation 3:14 also calls Jesus “the beginning of God’s creation,” although that phrase is interpreted in different ways. Taken together with the wider biblical evidence, I believe these passages strongly support the distinction between Jesus and the Creator God.

11. Passage: Mark 13:32

The Son Does Not Know the Day or Hour

Jesus explicitly says that he does not know the day or hour of his return; only the Father knows. Jesus therefore does not possess omniscience in this passage. God, however, knows all things and does not lack knowledge. I therefore do not believe Jesus can be God if there are things God knows that Jesus does not.

The traditional Trinitarian explanation is that Jesus did not know this according to his human nature, while knowing it according to his divine nature. I do not find that explanation convincing or logically coherent. Scripture nowhere says here that one “nature” of Jesus knew the day while another “nature” did not. Jesus simply says that the Son does not know, but the Father does. A person cannot straightforwardly both know and not know the same fact at the same time and in the same sense.

I believe we should be very cautious about adding theological distinctions to a text in order to avoid its plain meaning. Scripture itself warns against adding to God’s words. I include myself in that warning: for years I accepted explanations of passages like this rather than allowing Jesus’ own words to speak as directly as they do.

12. Passage: Mark 14:35–36

Jesus’ Will and God’s Will

In Gethsemane, Jesus’ will is clearly distinguished from God’s: Jesus does not desire the suffering before him, yet he submits himself to what God wills—“not what I will, but what you will.” This presents Jesus and God as two distinct persons whose wills, at this moment, are not the same.

Later Trinitarian theology explains passages like this by teaching that Jesus possesses two wills, one divine and one human (Third Council of Constantinople). But the Gethsemane accounts themselves never say that Jesus has two wills. They present one will belonging to Jesus, which he voluntarily submits to the will of God.

In my view, the most natural reading is therefore not that one divine person possesses both a divine will and a human will, but that the human Messiah genuinely has his own will and chooses to surrender it completely to God. This is another powerful example of Jesus’ obedience: he does not naturally desire what is coming, but faithfully chooses God’s will over his own.

13. Passage: Mark 14:61–64

Was Jesus Condemned for Claiming to Be God?

As in Matthew’s account, Jesus identifies himself as the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed, not as God Himself. When the high priest asks whether he is “the Christ, the Son of the Blessed,” Jesus affirms that identity and then speaks of the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven. Even here, Jesus remains distinct from God: he is the Son who sits at God’s right hand, not the God at whose right hand he sits.

The leaders then accuse him of blasphemy. Mark never records Jesus saying, “I am God.” The charge arises from the extraordinary claims he makes about his messianic identity, sonship, authority, and exalted role. Therefore, I do not think this passage supports the claim that Jesus was condemned for claiming to be God. Rather, he was condemned after claiming to be God’s Messiah and Son and asserting the exalted authority God gave him.

14. Passage: Mark 15:34, 39

“My God” and “The Son of God”

Shortly before his death, Jesus cries, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34). Whatever else this quotation from Psalm 22 signifies, Jesus explicitly identifies someone other than himself as “my God.” Jesus therefore has a God. He experiences himself as abandoned by that God and cries out to Him. In my view, this is extremely difficult to reconcile with the claim that Jesus believed he himself was God: God does not have a God whom He worships, depends upon, and can experience as forsaking Him. Then, after witnessing Jesus’ death, the centurion concludes, “Truly this man was the Son of God”—not that this man was God Himself. This fits Mark’s presentation from beginning to end: Jesus is God’s Son, distinct from the God whom Jesus himself calls “my God.”

15. Passage: Mark 16:19

Jesus Sits at the Right Hand of God

In the longer ending of Mark, Jesus is “received up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God” (Metzger 102–06). Once again, Jesus and God are presented as distinct: Jesus is the one who is exalted to God’s right hand, while God is the One at whose right hand Jesus sits.

This does not mean that Trinitarians believe Jesus literally sits at his own right hand; the Trinity distinguishes the Father from the Son. The more important point is the way the text itself speaks. It does not say that God sat at the right hand of the Father, or otherwise identify Jesus as God. It calls Jesus “the Lord” and then distinguishes him from “God.” This fits the pattern throughout the Gospel: Jesus is God’s Son, Messiah, and exalted Lord, while God is the One who sends, empowers, and ultimately exalts him.

I therefore see no reason to read Jesus into the identity of God in this passage. The straightforward reading is that Jesus sits beside God in the position of supreme honor God has given him; he is not the God at whose right hand he sits.

Conclusion

Taken together, I do not believe these passages give us good reason to identify Jesus as God. When they are read in their immediate contexts and alongside the broader portrait of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels, they consistently distinguish Jesus from God while presenting him in extraordinarily exalted terms.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke give us a strong positive answer to the question, “Who is Jesus?” Matthew presents him as the Christ, the Son of the living God, Yahweh’s chosen and Spirit-anointed servant, prophet, Daniel's Son of Man, Lord, King, and the one to whom God gives universal authority. Mark presents Jesus as the Son of God, the Holy One of God, Messiah, prophet, Son of Man, and exalted Lord who sits at God’s right hand. Luke presents him as the Son of the Most High, Savior, Christ, Lord, King, prophet, and human Messiah through whom God acts; the Lord God gives him David’s throne, and the Spirit of the Lord anoints and empowers him for his mission. These are extraordinarily high claims about Jesus.

In all three Gospels, I see the following pattern: God sends, chooses, empowers, reveals, gives authority to, and exalts Jesus; Jesus faithfully carries out God’s mission, proclaims God’s Kingdom, reveals God to humanity, exercises the authority God has given him, serves and obeys God, and ultimately gives his life in faithfulness to Him. This is not, in my view, a diminished Christology. Jesus is not merely another teacher or prophet. He is God’s uniquely chosen Son and Messiah, the supreme human Lord and King through whom God accomplishes His saving work. My conclusion is simply that this extraordinarily exalted Jesus is still distinguished from the God who sent, empowered, and exalted him.

Readers may ultimately weigh some of these passages differently than I do. But after considering both the major passages commonly used to argue for Jesus’ deity and the broader portrait given by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, I believe the cumulative evidence points much more naturally to Jesus as God’s human Messiah than to Jesus being God Himself.

This article has focused on the major passages most often raised in the debate over Jesus’ deity. It is not the complete biblical case. My full New Testament Study Bible commentary works through each book chapter by chapter and includes the many additional passages that contribute to this cumulative portrait of Jesus. For readers who want the full biblical explanation, I recommend continuing their study of Matthew, Mark, and Luke with my New Testament Study Bible: https://www.yourkingdomcome.online/blog/categories/the-new-testament-study-bible.