Did Fourth Century Arianism believe that the Son was a created being?


In the fourth century, the church transformed from being persecuted to being the official religion of the Roman Empire.  At the same time, a huge controversy raged with respect to the nature of Christ.  To prevent a split in the empire, the emperors could not allow disunity in the church.  They forced the church to formulate creeds, and, true to the nature of the empire, persecuted church leaders with other views.


We are not sure what Arius taught, for his books were destroyed after Nicaea, and we should not trust what his opponents wrote.  Athanasius claimed that Arius said that “there was a time when the Son was not,” but Arius wrote that the Son existed “before time.” 


The Nicene Creed of 325 makes the Son equal to the Father, but soon the church consensus shifted to Arianism, and it remained so for the next 50 years.  During that fifty-year period, Arianism was refined.  Consequently, it is important to understand what Arianism believed after these intense debates.


Today, we use the modern word “God” as the proper name of the One who exists without a cause.  There was no equivalent word for “God” in ancient Greek.  The original Bible and other ancient Greek writings use the word THEOS, which is equivalent to our modern word “god.”  The word “God,” in our translations, is an interpretation, and should only be used to refer to the One who exists without a cause. 

When THEOS refers to Jesus, it can only be translated as “God” if one assumes Nicene Christology.  In Arianism, THEOS, when it describes Jesus, or to any being other than the Father, is translated as “god.”


In Arianism:

The Father is the “only one God.” He is “the unbegotten,” which means to exist without a cause, and therefore to be the ultimate Cause of all else. 

The Son is our god, but the Father is His god.  The Son is the maker of all creation.  This elevates Him infinitely above pagan gods.  As the “only-begotten,” the Son was not created but is subordinate to the Father.

The Holy Spirit is not a Person, but as a power; subject to the Son.


Metamorphosis – The fourth century was a remarkable period.  In it, the church changed from being PERSECUTED to being the OFFICIAL RELIGION of the Roman Empire.  For all practical purposes, the church became part of the state, with the emperor as the HEAD of the church.  Adopting the character of the empire, the church PERSECUTED church leaders that do not abide by official church doctrines.

Emperor Constantine standing before the bishops

Arian Controversy – In that century also, a huge controversy raged with respect to the NATURE OF CHRIST.  The Nicene Creed—formulated in 325 at the city of Nicaea—essentially stated that the Son is EQUAL to the Father.  But within a few years, the church reverted to Arianism, which dominated the church for the next 50 years, and which taught that the Son is SUBORDINATE to the Father.  This Arian period was brought to an end when Theodosius became emperor in the year 380.  He was an ardent supporter of Nicene Christology and IMMEDIATELY declared Arianism illegal and Nicene Christology to be THE ONLY religion of the empire.  He then replaced the Arian church leadership with Nicene leaders.

Purpose – The purpose of this article is to analyze what Arianism believed in the fourth century.  Some of the historical facts mentioned in this article are described in more detail in other articles.


To understand the war between Nicene Christology and Arianism, we must appreciate the conflicting evidence in the Bible about the nature of Christ.  Many statements describe Him as divine, but many others imply that He is subordinate to God, for example:

All things have been created through Him.”  He “upholds all things by the word of His power,” has “life in Himself,” sent the Holy Spirit to His disciples, is “the first and the last,” and owns everything which the Father has.  “All will honor the Son even as they honor the Father.”  In Him, all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form.  “At the name of Jesus, every knee will bow.” Only He knows the Father. (Col. 1:16; John 5:26; Luke 24:49; Rev. 1:17; Heb. 1:3; John 5:23; John 20:28; John 16:15; Col. 2:9; Mt. 11:27; Phil. 2:10) Only the Father knows the “day and hour” of His return.  Everything which the Son has, He received from the Father, including to have “life in Himself.”  The Father sent Him and told Him what to say and do.  The NT consistently makes a distinction between Jesus and God.  For example, Jesus is today at the right hand of God.  The “one God” and “the only true God” is always the Father.  The Father is His God and He prayed to the Father.  (Mt. 24:26; John 5:22, 26; John 7:16; Philemon 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; 1 Tim. 2:5; Eph. 4:4-6; John 17:3; Rev. 3:12; John 17; Acts 7:56).


Arius – The words Arian and Arianism are derived from the name of Arius (c. 250–336); a church leader who had significant influence at the beginning of the fourth century.  His teachings initiated the Arian controversy and Emperor Constantine called the council at Nicaea specifically to denounce Arius’ teachings. 

We are not sure what Arius taught. After Nicaea in 325, the emperor gave orders that all of Arius’ books be destroyed and that all people who hide Arius’ writings, be killed.  Very little of Arius’ writings survived, and much of what did survive are quotations selected for polemical purposes in the writings of his opponents.  Reconstructing WHAT Arius actually taught, and—even more important—WHY, is, therefore, a formidable task.  There is no certainty about the extent to which his teachings continued those of church fathers in previous generations.

Letter to Eusebius – We have a brief statement of what Arius believed in a letter he wrote to the Arian archbishop of Constantinople; Eusebius of Nicomedia (died 341).  He wrote as follows:

We say and believe … that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that he does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by his own will and counsel he has subsisted (existed) before time and before ages as perfect as God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not. For he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted because we say that the Son has a beginning but that God is without beginning. — Theodoret: Arius’s Letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, translated in Peters’ Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, p. 41


Distinction – Arius made a clear DISTINCTION between the Son and God, for he wrote:

The Son existed “as perfect as God” and
“The Son has a beginning but that God is without beginning”.

The unbegotten is that which exists without a causeSince the Son is the only-begotten, He is not part of that which exists without a causeFor Arius, the Father alone is unbegotten. 

He does not derive his subsistence from any matter for He derived His subsistence (existence) only from God. 

He existed by his own will and counsel, which means that He existed as an independent Person with His own will; distinct from God. 

He existed before time and before ages, which may be understood to mean that He was begotten by God before time began.

He existed as perfect as God, only begotten and unchangeable.  The phrase “only begotten” identifies the Son as unique.  There is no other like Him.  He is as perfect as God and unchangeable.  This indicates the extremely high view of the Son which Arius.  Sometimes people say that Arius taught that the Son was a created being.  That statement misrepresents Arius.

Before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not. For he was not unbegotten. Here, Arius implies that HE DOES NOT KNOW HOW the Son was begotten.  That is hidden in the mystery of the infinite.  But it remains clear that He was not unbegotten.  In other words, He exists by the will of God, the Father.

The Son has a beginning but God is without beginning.  We explain below how the Son can have a beginning if He existed before time.


In the fourth century, Athanasius was the arch-enemy of Arianism and the great advocate of the homoousian (Nicene) theology.  He quoted Arius as saying:

“If the Father begat the Son,
then he who was begotten had a beginning in existence,
and from this, it follows there was a time when the Son was not.”

Today, this quote by Athanasius is quite famous and is still used to characterize Arius’ teaching. But Arius wrote to Eusebius—in the quote above—that the Son existed “before time.”  This seems to contradict what Athanasius wrote.  We do not know whether Arius really wrote the words quoted by Athanasius or whether they were an emphasis put on Arius’ words to discredit him.

Since the Trinity doctrine is generally accepted in the church today, most Christians regard Athanasius as the hero of the fourth century who stood for ‘the truth’ when ‘the whole world’ was Arian.  Athanasius is counted as one of the four great Eastern Doctors of the Church in the Catholic Church. On the other hand, in his own time, the church accused him of horrible crimes.  We are not able to judge either way today, but Athanasius was a prolific writer, and we can judge his spirit by his writings.  For this purpose, listen to the following podcasts:

Assessing Athanasius and his Arguments
Athanasius’s On the Nicene Council


Eternal generation – In the Trinity doctrine today, the Son had no beginning but always existed with the Father.  The Bible is clear that He is begotten by the Father but that is explained with the concept of eternal generation: The Father always was the Father; there never was a time that the Father was not the Father.

Arius, as quoted above, wrote that “the Son has a beginning but … God is without beginning.”  But in the same statement, he wrote that the Son existed “before time and before ages.”  Did Arius contradict himself?  I wish we had Arius’ book to explain his own words but would like to propose the following explanation:

God created time.  God is that which exists without a cause, and time exists because God exists.  God, therefore, exists outside time, cannot be defined by time and is not subject to time.  We cannot say that God existed ‘before time’, for the word “before” implies the existence of time, and there is no such thing as time before time.  Therefore, we prefer to say that God exists ‘outside time’.

Since God created time, time had a beginning and is finite.

God created all things through the Son.  Therefore, God created time through the Son.  It follows that there never was a time when the Son did not exist.  Arius, therefore, could validly write that the Son existed “BEFORE TIME.”

There exists an infinity beyond the boundaries of time.   All the power and wisdom that we see reflected in this physical universe, comes out of that incomprehensible infinity beyond time, space and matter. In that infinity beyond time, Arius wrote, “THE SON HAS A BEGINNING.” This is not a beginning in time, for there is no such thing as time in infinity.

This explains why Arius could both claim that the Son existed before time and had a beginning.  Also following this line of thinking, Arius never said that “there was a time when the Son was not,” as Athanasius claimed.


Forced unity – Under the stern supervision of the emperors, who demanded unity in the church to prevent a split in the empire, the fourth-century church fathers were unable to allow different views about Christ to co-exist within the church.  The church’s view of Christ changed from time to time, but, nevertheless, it always formulated a view of Christ and, through persecution, forced all Christians to abide by the formal church doctrine.

Numerous synods – The fifty-year Arian period resulted in numerous synods, including at Serdica in 343,  Sirmium in 358 and Rimini and Seleucia in 359.  The pagan observer Ammianus Marcellinus commented sarcastically: “The highways were covered with galloping bishops.”

Numerous creeds – The best-known creed today is the Nicene Creed, but no fewer than fourteen further creeds were formulated between 340 and 360, depicting the Son as subordinate on the Father, e.g. the Long Lines Creed.  Historian RPC Hanson lists twelve creeds that reflect the Homoian faith—one of the variants of Arianism—including the creeds of Sirmian (357), Nice (Constantinople – 360), Akakius (359), Ulfilas (383), Eudoxius, Auxentius of Milan (364), Germinius, Palladius’ rule of faith (1988. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. pp. 558–559).

Arianism evolved – During the fifty years between Constantine and Theodosius, Arianism was refined and nuanced, relative to what Arius believed.  Consequently, although Arius’ views are important, it is far more important to understand what version of Arianism the church adopted after Arius’ views and the Nicene Creed were intensely debated in the decades following Nicaea.


Before we discuss what Ulfilas wrote, we need to explain the difference between the word “God” and the words used in the New Testament:

In modern languages, we differentiate between the words “god” and “God:”

When we use a word as a proper name, we capitalize the first letter.  The word “God” therefore has a very specific usage: It is the PROPER NAME of one specific being; the One who exists without cause.

The word “god,” on the other hand, is a general category name used for all supernatural beings.  It is even for human beings with exceptional qualities.

Only capital letters – The capital “G” therefore makes a huge difference.  But, when the Bible was written, and also in the fourth century, there were no capital letters.  Or, more precisely, the ancients wrote only in capital letters.  The distinction between upper and lower case letters did not yet exist.  According to the article on the timeline of writing in Western Europe, the ancients used Greek majuscule (capital letters only) from the 9th to the 3rd century BC.  In the following centuries, up until the 12th century AD, they used the uncial script, which still was only capital letters. Greek minuscule was only used in later centuries.


Since the word “God” is a name for one specific Being, the original New Testament does not contain any one word with the same meaning as “God.”  The New Testament writers used the word THEOS, which is the same word that was used for the plethora of Greek gods and which is equivalent in meaning to our modern word “god.”  The word theos was also used for beings other than the one true God, even for “the god of this world” (2 Cor. 4:4) and for human judges (John 10:35). Therefore, by describing the Father and the Son as “god,” the Bible and the fourth-century writers only indicated that the Father and the Son are immortal beings; similar to the immortal Greek gods.  The word “god’” DOES NOT ELEVATE THE FATHER AND THE SON ABOVE THE PAGAN GODS.

The word “God,” in the translations of the New Testament and other ancient Greek writings, is, therefore, an INTERPRETATION.  When the translator believes that THEOS refers to the One who exists without a cause, THEOS is rendered as “God.”  But when Paul wrote spoke about the THEOS of the pagan nations, the New Testament translates that as “god.”  And when they translate THEOS, when it refers to Jesus, as “God,” they do it on the assumption of Nicene Christology.


To indicate that the Unique Being is intended, the Bible writers added words such as “only,” or “true” or “one” to THEOS.  Most often they added the definite article “the” to THEOS to indicate the Father. 

In the Nicene Creed, both the Father and the Son are “true god.” The Bible never identifies the Son as “true god.” In the Bible, the “true god” is always the Father.  For example:

You, the only true God, and
Jesus Christ whom You have sent” (John 17:3)

You turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God,
and to wait for His Son from heaven” (I Thess. 1:9-10).

So that we may know Him who is true;
and we are in Him who is true,
in His Son Jesus Christ.
This is the true God and eternal life” (1 John 5:20).

But then translators translate the Greek equivalent of “true god” as “true God.”  Not only is this faulty translation, the word “true” in the phrase “true God” is SUPERFLUOUS, for there is only one “true God.”  Since “God” already indicates the only true god, “true god” should be translated “true god” or “God.” 


Germanic missionary – The Goth Ulfilas (c. 311–383) was ordained as bishop by the Arian Eusebius of Nicomedia and returned to his Gothic people to work as a missionary.  He translated the New Testament into the Gothic language and is credited with the conversion of the Gothic people, which resulted in the wide-scale conversion of the Germanic peoples. 

Ulfilas’ Arianism – What he believed is perhaps a good reflection of the Arianism that was generally accepted in the church between Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381).  He wrote:

I, Ulfila … believe in only one God the Father, the unbegotten and invisible, and in his only-begotten Son, our lord/master and God, the designer and maker of all creation, having none other like him. Therefore, there is one God of all, who is also God of our God; and in one Holy Spirit, the illuminating and sanctifying power … Neither God nor lord/master, but the faithful minister of Christ; not equal, but subject and obedient in all things to the Son. And I believe the Son to be subject and obedient in all things to God the Father (Heather and Matthews. Goths in the Fourth Century. p. 143 –  Auxentius on Wulfila).



Only one God – Ulfilas believed in “only one God,” who he identified as the Father.  Actually, this was the standard opening phrase of all ancient creeds.  The Nicene Creed starts with the words, “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.”  But then it continues to perhaps contradict this opening phrase by adding that the Son is “true god from true god”.

The unbegotten – The Father is “the unbegotten.”  Arius also mentioned “the unbegotten,” which is that which exists without a causeThat also means that the Father is the ultimate Cause of all else.  

Invisible – Ulfilas adds that the Father is invisible.  This is also stated a number of times in the New Testament.  Certainly, in the past, there were appearances (theophanies) of God, but an appearance is vastly different from God Himself.  An appearance does not contain God in His fullness.  It is not possible for God in His fullness to be seen, for He exists outside this visible realm.


Unique – Ulfilas also believed “in his only-begotten Son, our lord/master and God, the designer and maker of all creation, having none other like him.” The phrases “only-begotten” and “none other like him” identify the Son as utterly unique. 

Not created – Arius wrote that the Son was “begotten, or created, or purposed, or established.”  In other words, Arius did not make a clear distinction between begotten and created.  But after Nicaea, Arianism emphasized that the phrase “only begotten” means that the Son was NOT CREATED.  See, for example, the Long Lines Creed.  Ulfilas similarly wrote that the Son is the “designer and maker of all creation.”  If He made all things, presumably then He was not made Himself.  

Same substance – “Begotten” implies that the Son came from the being or substance of the Father in a way that humans probably are unable to understand:

Equal – In Nicene Christology, just like a human son is of the same substance as his father, the Son is of the SAME SUBSTANCE as the Father.  The Nicene Creed uses the Greek word homoousian; from homós (same) and ousía (being or essence).  In Latin it is consubstantial.  The idea is, since the Son is of the same substance as the Father, that He is in all respects EQUAL with the Father.

Subordinate – In Arianism, on the other hand, “begotten” means that the Son’s existence was caused by the Father, and that He is dependent on the Father, who alone is the uncaused Cause of all things.  Arianism claims that the Bible reveals Him as SUBORDINATE to the Father; both before and after His existence as a human being. 


Our God – The Son is “our … God” in this translation of Ulfilas’ statement, but this is faulty translation.  It should be rendered “our god,” with a small “g.”  As explained above, the word “God” did not yet exist when Ulfilas wrote.  He merely used the general word for the pagan gods.  To say that the Son is “god” simply means that He is supernatural, like the pagan gods.  What really sets Him apart from the pagan gods is not the title “god,” but that He is “the designer and maker of all creation.”

God, the Father – All instances of the word “God” in the quote from Ulfilas should be translated “god;” even when referring to the Father.  Ulfilas made a distinction between the Father and the Son and the pagan gods in HOW he described Him, namely as the “only one god” who is “god of all” and also “god of our god.” 

God of our God – As Ulfilas wrote, “there is one God of all, who is also GOD OF OUR GOD.”  In other words, the Father is the Son’s god.  The Bible similarly describes Jesus as “only-begotten god” (John 1:18) and “mighty god” (Isaiah 9:6); the Lord of the universe (1 Cor. 8:6), but the Father as Jesus’ “God” (e.g. Rev. 3:2, 12; Heb. 1:8-9; John 20:17).  Paul described the Father is the Head of Christ. 

Subordinate – Ulfilas closed by saying, “I believe the Son to be subject and obedient in all things to God the Father.” 


Subject and obedient – Ulfilas furthermore believed “in one Holy Spirit, the illuminating and sanctifying power … Neither God nor lord/master, but the faithful minister of Christ; not equal, but subject and obedient in all things to the Son.” That the Holy Spirit is “neither God nor lord” implies that Ulfilas did not think of the Holy Spirit as a Person, but as a power, and a power that is subject and obedient in all things to the Son.

Therefore, the Son is SUBORDINATE to the Father and the Holy Spirit is SUBORDINATE to the Son. 


Ulfilas did not believe is the Trinity.  For him:

The Father alone was God. 
The Holy Spirit is not a Person.
There is no mention of three Persons in one Being.

It is often said that Arians do not believe in the traditional doctrine of the Trinity, which is true.  However, the concept of the Trinity, as we know it today, did not yet exist in Arius’ day. 

First 300 years – In the first three centuries, the church fathers did not think of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as three Persons in one Being.  Tertullian did use the word “trinity,” but he used it to refer to a group of three distinct beings; not use in the sense of a single being. 

Nicene Creed – Neither does the Nicene Creed contain the Trinity concept, as a careful reading of that creed will show.  The purpose of that creed was to say that the Son is equal to the Father; not say that they are one Being; the same God.  It does say that they are homoousios (of the same substance), but that does not mean that they are one being.  We may argue that human beings are of the same substance, and that does not make us all one being. 

The Trinity doctrine was formulated later in the fourth century, perhaps by the Cappadocian Fathers, probably in response to the Arian criticism that the Nicene Creed creates the impression of two gods and can be accused of polytheism.


In fact, as debates raged during the five decades after Nicaea, in an attempt to come up with a new formula, different forms of Arianism developed.  Three camps are identified by scholars among the opponents of the Nicene Creed:

The Homoiousios Christians (only an “i” added to “homoousios”) accepted the equality and co-eternality of the persons of the Trinity, as per the Nicene Creed, but rejected the Nicene term homoousios.  They preferred the term homoiousios (similar substance).  They were called “semi-Arians” by their opponents. (See homoousia).

Homoian Arianism maintained that the Bible does not reveal whether the Son is of the same substance as the Father, and we, therefore, should not speculate about such things. They avoided the word ousia (substance) altogether and described the Son as homoios = like the Father.  Although they avoided invoking the name of Arius, in large part they followed Arius’ teachings.  RPC Hanson (The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. pp. 557–559) lists twelve creeds that reflect the Homoian faith in the years 357 to 383.

A third group explicitly called upon Arius and maintained that the Son is of a different substance than the Father.  They described the Son as unlike (anhomoios) the Father.

In the fourth century, these differences were taken quite seriously and divided the church; similar to the denominations in Christianity we know today.  Emperor Constantius, for example, wavered in his support between the first and the second party, while harshly persecuting the third.

Historians, unfortunately, categorize all three positions as Arianism, but there are important differences between these views.


Hebrews 1:8 refers to Jesus as “God.” Does this prove that He is God?

This is the second article in response to an article on the Trinity by the Gotquestions website.  The first article discussed the logical contradiction in the Trinity concept.  The current article responds to Gotquestions’ argument that “GOD THE SON IS DISTINGUISHED FROM GOD THE FATHER” and refers to Psalm 45:6-7 and Hebrews 1:8-9 for support.

The point is that Hebrews 1:8 refers to Jesus as “God.”  But does this prove that He is God?  Hebrews 1:8-9 is a quote from Psalm 45.  I will, therefore, discuss Psalm 45 first.  After that, I discuss the first part of Hebrews 1, and conclude with verses 8 and 9.

But before I discuss Psalm 45, note that GotQuestions refers to “God the Son” and also to “God the Father.” We DO find the title “God the Father” in the Bible; about 20 times, but the title “God the Son” IS NEVER FOUND IN THE BIBLE.  The phrase “God the Son” is the product of the Trinity doctrine and does not come from the Bible.

All bold, underlining, UPPERCASE, font sizes and italics in this article were added by myself.  Bible quotes are mostly from the NASB.

Psalm 45

Let us now discuss Psalm 45.  Verses 1 and 2 read:

1 … I address my verses TO THE KING

This, therefore, makes a distinction between God and the king of Israel.  But verses 6 to 9 continue and refer to the king of Israel as God.  Addressing the king, it says:

A scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom.

7 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;

9 Kings’ daughters are among Your noble ladies;
At Your right hand stands the queen.

This identifies the king of Israel as God.  This is confirmed by verse 9, which mentions the king’s wives.  But it also says, “GOD, YOUR GOD, has anointed You.”  In other words, the king of Israel is called God, but God is also his God.


All four instances of the word “God” in the quote from the psalm are translated from the Hebrew word elohim, which Strongs defines as “God,” with a capital “G,” or “god,” with a small “g.”  The NASB translates elohim mostly as “God,” with a capital “G,” but also about 250 times with a small “g” “god” or “gods.

The word elohim is discussed in a separate article.  Another place where we see a human being described as “god” or elohim—literally “gods”—is in Exodus 7:1, where “The LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made you a god [that is elohim] to Pharaoh.

The king is a normal human being.  Why is he called elohim?  We will respond to that question below, after we have discussed Hebrews 1.

Why is elohim translated as “God?”

But before we turn to Hebrews, there is a second matter in Psalm 45 that requires our attention.  That is the question, why did the translators of the NASB translate the word “King” in verse 1 with a capital “K?”  And why did they translate elohim, when it refers to the king, as “God” with a capital “G?” Why did they not translate elohim with a small “god,” as they did in the case of Moses, and as they do for all beings that are not God, but who are referred to as elohim?

It is not because of anything in the psalm itself, for there is nothing in the psalm that goes beyond a normal human king.  The translators capitalized these words for two reasons:

Firstly, they know that Hebrews 1 refers to Psalm 45 and interprets the king in this psalm as a type of (a symbol of) Christ.

Secondly, the translators are Trinitarians, and therefore believe that Jesus is God.

What we must realize is that, to translate elohim when it refers to the king of Israel, as “God” with a big “G,” rather than with a small “g,” is an application of the Trinity doctrine.

With this background, we can now discuss Hebrews 1:

Hebrews 1

A primary purpose of Hebrews is to exalt Jesus.  The letter, for example, commences by saying:

    • That God appointed His Son as “heir of all things” (1:2).
    • That, through the Son, God, “made the world” (1:2).
    • That the Son “is … the exact representation of God’s nature” (1:3).
    • That the Son “upholds all things by the word of His power” (1:3), and
    • That the Son “sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high” (1:3).

Distinct From God

Note that “God” in verse 1 is identified as “the Majesty on high” in verse 3.

We discussed above how Gotquestions refers to “God the Son,” but these first verses of Hebrews make an explicit distinction between “God” and “His Son. If the Son is distinct from God, then the Son is not God, if we use the word “God” in the way that the New Testament uses it.

From verse 4 onwards, Hebrews explains that the Son is “much better than the angels.”  If the Son was God, as the Trinity doctrine requires, then there WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANY NEED to argue that the Son is better than the angels.  Then the writer of Hebrews could simply have said that the Son is God.  See Jesus is not God for a further discussion of these principles.

Subordinate to God

We must also appreciate that these verses identify the Son as subordinate to God, for example:

    • God is the original Owner, because He “appointed” His Son as the heir of all things (1:2).
    • God is the Creator, for He made the world “through” the Son (1:2).
    • God is the true glory, for the Son is the radiance of His glory (1:3).
    • God is the ultimate Ruler, for the Son sits on His “right hand.”

The fundamental concept in the Trinity doctrine is that the Son is co-equal with the Father.  The entire remainder of the Trinity concept has been developed to reconcile this conclusion with the Bible.  If it is then found that the Son is subordinate to God, then the entire Trinity doctrine collapses.  For a further discussion, see, God is the Head of Christ.

Today I have begotten You

In verse 5, Hebrews 1 quotes from Psalm 2, saying “you are my son, today I have begotten you.”  In Psalm 2, these words refer to the king of Israel.  Hebrews, therefore, interprets the king of Psalm 2 to be a type of the Son. Hebrews quotes the Old Testament very frequently, for it was specifically addressed to the Hebrew Christians.

Worship the Son.

Hebrews continues and says that GOD COMMANDED ALL ANGELS TO WORSHIP THE SON (1:6).  If Jesus is worshiped, DOES THAT NOT MEAN THAT HE IS GOD?  Hebrews 1:6 is similar to Philippians 2:9-10, where we read,

God highly exalted Him (that is, Jesus),
and bestowed on Him the name which is above EVERY NAME,
so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW …
and that every tongue will confess

God commanded His worship.

The question then is, if Jesus is not God, WHY IS HE WORSHIPED?  To respond to this question, notice the following:

FIRSTLY, both Hebrews 1:6 and Philippians 2 make an explicit distinction between God and Jesus.  Philippians 2, for example, says that “God exalted Him.”  Furthermore, “every tongue will confess THAT JESUS CHRIST IS LORD.”  In other words; they will not confess Jesus as God.

SECONDLY, in both, IT IS GOD WHO CAUSES ALL BEINGS TO WORSHIP JESUS.  If Jesus was God, then THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANY NEED for God to COMMAND His creatures to worship Him.


THIRDLY, the Greek word that is translated “worship” (that is the word proskuneó) has a much wider meaning than the English word “worship.”  “Worship” implies that the one worshiped is God, but humans also proskuneó one anotherProskuneó simply means to show honor.  It literally means “to kiss the ground when prostrating before a superior.”  For example, the three wise men came looking for the “King of the Jews” (Mt. 2:2).  When they found Him, “they fell to the ground and proskuneó Him” (v11); not because He is God, for they did not think of Him as God, but because He is “born King of the Jews.”

FOURTHLY, in Philippians 2, Jesus is worshiped “TO THE GLORY OF GOD THE FATHER.”  He is not worshiped independently from God, but “to the glory of God.”  To glorify the Son is to glorify the Father.  We worship the Father through the Son.

But why do we worship Jesus?

Why do we worship the Son with the Father?  The reason is that WE CANNOT REALLY SEPARATE THE SON FROM GOD.  I like Tertullian’s metaphor.  For him, the Father is like the sun in the sky, and His Son is like the rays streaming from the sun.  God created all things through His Only Begotten Son and He still “upholds all things by the word of His (that is, His Son’s) power” (Heb. 1:1-3; cf. John 1:1-3; Col 1:15-17).  “In Him (that is, in Jesus) all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form” (Col. 2:9).  We therefore worship the Son, not only because God commanded us to, but because of who He is.  For a further discussion, see Jesus is worshiped.

Only Begotten Son of God

When people hear that Jesus is the Son of God, they think of human sons, who are in all respects equal to their fathers.  But the Bible does not teach that the Son is equal to God.  He is called the SON of God to reveal to us that He has a very unique relationship with God AS FAR AS HIS ORIGIN IS CONCERNED.  He is His “only begotten Son,” who, before His birth as a human being, existed “in the form of God” (Phil. 2:5).  To describe Jesus as the “only begotten Son” attempts to explain something in human language which human minds cannot comprehend.  He was not begotten as humans are.  We should not give our own interpretation of this symbolic language. We should allow the Bible to interpret it for us.  For a further discussion, see Only Begotten Son of God.

Hebrews 1:8

Then, after describing the angels as “winds, and … a flame of fire,” we come to the verses that are the particular focus of the current article, namely verses 8 and 9.  I read:

8 But of the Son He says,

This is a fairly exact quote from Psalm 45:6-7.  The author of Hebrews interprets the king of Israel in Psalm 45 as a type of Jesus.  The writer described Jesus as “God” in verse 8 because Psalm 45 refers to the king of Israel as “God.”  We now need to explain why the king of Israel, and consequently, the Son of God, are described as God.

“God” and the Greek word theos

The word “God” in Hebrews 1:8 is translated from the Greek word theos.  Theos, similar to the Hebrew word elohim, can be translated as “god” either with a capital “G” or with a lower “g.” It depends on who it refers to.  This requires further clarification.

THERE IS NO WORD IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK TEXT THAT IS EXACTLY EQUAL TO OUR WORD “GOD.”  In modern English, we use the word “God,” with a capital “G,” to identify one specific Being; namely, the Uncaused Cause of all things.  The word “God,” with a capital “G,” functions in English as A PROPER NAME FOR THE SUPREME BEING.

The ancient languages did not have the modern differentiation between lower and upper case letters.  They only had words (such as theos and elohim) that are equivalent to our word “god” with a lower “g.” The word “god,” with a lower “g,” does not identify any specific being, but A CATEGORY OF BEINGS.  That group of beings includes the God of the Bible, but also includes other beings.  For example, Satan is also called theos, namely “the god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4).

Therefore, to translate theos as “God” with a capital “G” or as “god” with a lower “g” depends on the translator’s interpretation, and since translators generally are Trinitarians, they translate the instances where the title theos is applied to Jesus, as “God” with a capital “G.”  But if one does not assume the Trinity theory, the reference to Jesus as theos in Hebrews 1:8 may also be translated as “god,” with a lower “g.”

It is a form of collective circular reasoning: First, the Trinitarian translator adds a capital “G.” Then the readers exclaim, SEE, it says “God!  Therefore Jesus is God!”  For a further discussion, see – The Meanings of the Word THEOS.

God Jesus has a God.

In conclusion, the fact that Hebrews 1:8 identifies Jesus as God does not prove that He is God.  The next verse actually proves that He is not God, for it says to Jesus, “GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU” (Heb. 1:9).  In other words, Jesus has a God over Him.  This makes one think of John 20.  That chapter similarly refers to Jesus as “God,” but in the same chapter Jesus refers to God as His God (compare verses 17 and 28). See – Did Thomas call Jesus “my God” in John 20:28?


Hebrews 1:8 refers to Jesus as “God.”  Does this prove that Jesus is God?

The first verses of Hebrews 1, in a number of ways, make an explicit DISTINCTION BETWEEN JESUS AND GOD, and, contrary to the Trinity doctrine, represent Jesus as SUBORDINATE TO GOD.  According to verse 6, God commanded all angels to worship the Son.  This again shows that the Son is subordinate to the Father.  But we do not worship the Son only because God commanded us to.  We worship Him because of who He is, for God created all things through Him and still upholds all this through the word of His Son’s power.

Jesus is called theos (that is, god) in Hebrews 1:8 because:

(a) Hebrews 1:8 is a quote from Psalm 45.
(b) In that psalm, the king is called elohim (god).
(c) The writer of Hebrews interpreted the king of Psalm 45 as a type of Christ.

That Jesus is called theos does not prove that He is God, for theos can also be translated either as “god” with a small “g.”  But translators are Trinitarians, and therefore believe that Jesus is God.  To translate theos as “God,” with a capital “G,” rather than with a small “g,” when it refers to Jesus, IS PURELY INTERPRETATION.  It is an application of the Trinity doctrine.

BUT THE VERY NEXT VERSE PROVES THAT JESUS IS NOT GOD, for it says that Jesus has a God over Him.


What does the Bible teach about the Trinity? – A response to GotQuestions’ article.

I briefly explained the historical development of the Trinity doctrine to my daughter.  I started with the church fathers of the first three centuries, through the tumultuous events of the fourth century, with a brief overview of the history there-after.  She then apparently did some reading, and sent me a reference to the GotQuestions article – What does the Bible teach about the Trinity?  In the current article, I respond section by section to that article.

All bold, underlining, UPPERCASE, font sizes and italics in this article were added by myself.  Bible quotes are mostly from the NASB.

Gotquestions wrote:

The MOST DIFFICULT THING about the Christian concept of the Trinity is that there is no way to perfectly and completely understand it. The Trinity is a concept that is IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY HUMAN BEING TO FULLY UNDERSTAND, let alone explain. GOD IS INFINITELY GREATER THAN WE ARE; therefore, we should not expect to be able to fully understand Him.

Though we can understand some facts about the relationship of the different Persons of the Trinity to one another, ultimately, it is incomprehensible to the human mind. However, this does not mean the Trinity is not true or that it is not based on the teachings of the Bible.

God is infinite.

In response, I certainly agree that we are unable to understand God.  The LORD Himself declared:

As the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways
And My thoughts than your thoughts
” (Is. 55:8-9).

We will NEVER be fully able to understand Him, even in eternity, because HE EXISTS WITHOUT CAUSE.  He exists beyond time, space and matter.  All else exist because He exists.  All things came forth from Him and exists within Him.  We can accept that He is infinite, omniscient (all-knowing) and omnipresent, but our finite minds cannot comprehend these things.  We are like a lone wanderer building a small fire at night in the desert.  In the light of the fire, we can see our immediate surroundings, but we can see NOTHING of the expanse of the earth.  We similarly know only a tiny bit about God, BUT WE UNDERSTAND NOTHING of His infinite greatness.

Trinity Concept

However, we must distinguish between God and the Trinity concept. The Trinity concept is A HUMANLY DEVISED THEORY about the nature of God and the relationship between the Father, the Son, the and Holy Spirit.  Gotquestions claims that the Trinity concept is BASED ON THE BIBLE, but it is nevertheless a human interpretation of the Bible, and therefore fallible.  We, therefore, MUST TEST THE TRINITY CONCEPT AGAINST THE BIBLE.

But before we do that, it is the purpose of this article to evaluate the Trinity doctrine in a different way, namely to ask whether it makes logical sense.  This is the playground of philosophers.  Over the centuries, some of them have argued that the Trinity doctrine contradicts itself, and for that reason, cannot accurately reflect Bible revelation, for TRUTH DOES NOT CONTRADICT ITSELF.  Listen to Trinities podcasts 2 and 3 for arguments for and against the logical consistency of the Trinity doctrine.  Those podcasts discuss the Athanasian Creed, which is how the Trinity Concept was formulated more or less in the fifth century.  That creed was used throughout the middle ages and is considered important even to this day.

Three Persons, But One Being

Gotquestions defines the Trinity concept as follows:

The Father is God,
the Son is God, and
the Holy Spirit is God—
but there is only one God.

The Trinity concept contradicts itself when it says that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct and different Persons with different origins, different wills, and different roles, but one and the same Almighty Being in all respect:


We agree that they differ, for example:

The Son is BEGOTTEN from the Father,
the Holy Ghost PROCEEDS from both the Father; but
the Father is NOT BEGOTTEN and
does NOT PROCEED from any other.

Further examples of differences between them are:

The Son “is seated AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD” (Col. 3:1).  Stephan said, “I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD” (Acts 7:56).

Jesus said, “Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Yours be done” (Luke 22:42). THIS MEANS THAT THEY HAVE DIFFERENT WILLS.

One Being

In the Trinity doctrine they are one and the same Being, for the Athanasian Creed declares:

We are compelled … to acknowledge
every Person by himself to be God …
(but we are) forbidden by the catholic religion; to say,
There are three Gods.

The Trinity doctrine does not teach that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three parts of God.  It teaches that “EVERY PERSON BY HIMSELF TO BE GOD.”  In other words, whatever we can say about the Father, is also true about the Son, and vice versa.  To quote the Athanasian Creed:

Such as the Father is;
such is the Son; and
such is the Holy Ghost.

The Father is Almighty;
the Son Almighty; and
the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet
they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty.

More than one Almighty Being is logically impossible.  They are, therefore, only “one Almighty.”  Thus, we can represent the Trinity concept with the equation:

God  =  Father  =  Son  =  Holy Spirit.

One would, therefore, be able to say that the Son is also the Son’s Son.  To say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three different Persons, with different origins, but one and the same Being is analogous to saying that Peter, John, and James are three persons, but one being.  The Athanasian Creed states that we are “forbidden … to say, There are three Gods,” but just saying that does not make it right.  It does not undo the logical contradiction of the doctrine.


Some church fathers solved this contradiction by accepting that They are One Being, but by rejecting that They are three distinct persons.  They regarded Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three names for the same Being, and as different “modes” or “manifestations” of God.  This is known as modalism or Sabellianism, but was rejected by the church majority.

Christ’s Dual Nature

A further contradictory element of the Trinity theory is that Jesus is both FULLY GOD AND FULLY MAN.  This is the teaching that He has both a human and a divine nature.  That makes Him a binary being, comparable to the view that God is a trinity.

This was the primary focus of the Chalcedonian Creed of 451.  This creed responded to the question:


And why does the New Testament so consistently present Him as
subordinate to God, the Father?  Why did He say, “The Father is greater than I?

The Chalcedonian Creed explains the subordination statements in the New Testament by saying that Jesus was speaking from His human nature.  Opponents of this theory point out that that then means that Jesus was not telling the truth when He said that He does not know, for in His divine nature He actually knew.  And if that was not a true statement, HOW CAN WE RELY ON ANYTHING ELSE THAT HE SAID? 

Furthermore, if Jesus had both a divine and a human nature, THEN HE NEVER REALLY DIED and nobody died, for only His human nature died, which was part of Him.  But His death is a fundamental part of the gospel.  This theory causes more problems than it solves.

Religious Persecution

The Athanasian Creed starts and ends with the following words:

This is the catholic faith;
which except a man believe truly and firmly,

Which faith unless every one do keep whole and undefiled,

This is a ridiculous claim.  In the first place, people are not saved by believing a doctrine.  They are saved by God’s grace through faith in Him.  They are saved when they love and support God’s suffering people (Mt. 25:34-40).

Secondly, Athanasius MADE A VERY TECHNICAL AND CONTRADICTORY STATEMENT OF BELIEVE A TEST OF TRUE FAITH.  And these were not idle words.  The Roman Empire was not known for religious tolerance, and after the emperor became the de facto head of the church, early in the fourth century, the church slowly adopted the character of the Roman Empire.  For example, immediately after the Nicene Creed of AD 325, a number of dissenting bishops lost their jobs and were exiled.  Constantine also destroyed all of Arius’ books and threatened to kill all people who hide his books.  Over the many years since that time, many Christians were persecuted for not accepting the prevailing theory of the nature of God.

Michael Servetus

Christianity.com has an article on Michael Servetus, who was burned for heresy in the town where Calvin was the pastor.  Michael was quite an astute scientist.  He studied mathematics, geography, astrology, and medicine. Gaining fame as a physician, he came close to discovering the pulmonary circulation of the blood.  In 1531 Servetus published a work called the Errors of the Trinity. Both Protestants and Catholics found the work blasphemous, and the emperor banned the book.

Michael continued to criticize Calvin and stated that, to believe in the Trinity, is to believe in the spirit of the dragon.  Calvin wrote to a friend that if Servetus ever fell into his hands, he would not allow him to get away alive.  Roman Catholic authorities arrested Michael for heresy. He escaped, however, and fled toward Naples by way of Geneva where Calvin was a pastor. He entered a church where Calvin was preaching, was recognized, and arrested on charges of blasphemy and heresy.  Calvin insisted with the rest that Servetus must die, but urged that in mercy, Servetus be executed by the sword, not by burning.  Servetus was nevertheless burned to death on October 27, 1553.

The Christianity.com article attempts to exonerate Calvin for his involvement, but his part in killing Servetus should really bother Calvinists, for Calvin did that after writing one of the most influential systems of theology the Christian faith had ever seen.  What does that say of the spirit of his work?

Things that have not been revealed

The Trinity doctrine attempts to explain THINGS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN REVEALED and is, therefore, a sin.  For example, the cornerstone of the Nicene Creed is the statement that the Father and Son are of the same substance (Homoousios).  Where is that revealed in the Bible?  And where is it revealed that the Son has both a human and divine nature?

Add the persecuting spirit, which entered the church in the fourth century, after it became the official state church, to doctrines based on things that have not been revealed, and we have a deadly combination.


This series responds to the GotQuestions article – What does the Bible teach about the Trinity? 

The Trinity concept may be summarised as that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God—but there is only one God.

Gotquestions argues that is not possible to understand the Christian concept of the Trinity for it is impossible to understand God.  However, that argument confuses God with the concept of the Trinity.  The Trinity concept is A HUMANLY DEVISED THEORY about the nature of God, and must be tested against the Bible.

This article agrees that we are unable to understand God, but claims that the Trinity doctrine contradicts itself because it claims that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are THREE DISTINCT AND DIFFERENT PERSONS with different origins, different wills, and different roles, but that each of them is the entirety of THE SAME ONE TRUE GOD; not three parts of the God-Being.  If the Trinity concept contradicts itself, then it cannot accurately reflect what the Bible teaches, for TRUTH DOES NOT CONTRADICT ITSELF. 

Some church fathers solved this contradiction by accepting that they are One Being, but by rejecting that they are three distinct persons.  These church fathers believed that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three names for the same Being.  This is known as modalism or Sabellianism, but was rejected by the church majority.

Some New Testament passages explicitly present Jesus as inferior to the Father in knowledge and authority; not only when He was on this earth, but still today and in all eternity (e.g. 1 Cor. 15:28).  The Trinity theory responds to these passages by teaching that Jesus is both FULLY GOD AND FULLY MAN, and only inferior to the Father in His human nature.  Opponents of this theory point out that that then means that JESUS DID NOT TELL THE TRUTH when He said that He does not know, for in His divine nature He actually knew.  It would also mean that JESUS NEVER REALLY DIED, while His death is a critical salvation concept.

The Trinity doctrine is a very technical and ambiguous theory, but still, over the centuries, the church made it a test of the true faith and it persecuted Christians, such as Michael Servetus during the reformation, for not adhering to it

The Trinity doctrine tries to explain things that are not revealed in the Bible.  Combining that with persecution is the spirit of the beast.

Gotquestions argues that we cannot understand this because we cannot understand God, but the next articles in this series will show that the Trinity concept is inonsistent with the Bible.  The next article in this series discusses Hebrews 1:8, which Gotquestions uses as evidence that Jesus is God.

In the Trinity doctrine, God is more than one Person. Does elohim support this view?


ElohimElohim (אֱלֹהִים) is the Old Testament Hebrew word that is most frequently translated “God.”  Elohim is plural in form, for it has the plural suffix im.  Plural nouns normally signify multiple instances of that noun, which is also true of elohim.  The Bible applies elohim more than 400 times to pagan gods.  In such instances it is translated as “gods” and is associated with plural verbs and plural adjectives.  For example, “My people have forgotten Me, They burn incense to worthless gods.”

Some Trinitarians argue that the Old Testament writers used elohim because they thought of God as a multi-personal Being.  The purpose of this article is to show that this is not true.

Plural of Majesty

Firstly, the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament says about elohim:

The plural ending is usually described as a plural of majesty and not intended as a true plural when used of God. This is seen in the fact that the noun ’elohim is consistently used with singular verb forms and with adjectives and pronouns in the singular.

An example of this is Genesis 1:26: “God (elohim) said, “Let Us make man in Our image.  Here plural pronouns are used but the verb “said” is in singular, which implies that “God” is a single Person.  This further implies that the “Us” and “Our” include persons other than “God.”  In the New Testament, God made the world through His Son (Heb. 1:1-2).  “God” therefore refers to the Father, and the “Us” in Genesis 1:26 may include the Son.

An example where elohim is used for a human being as a plural of majesty is Exodus 7:1, where “the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made you a god [elohim] to Pharaoh.”  Here, God told Moses that He was going to make Moses appear great in the eyes of Pharaoh, as we see in Exodus 11:3:

The man Moses was very great in the land of Egypt, in the sight of Pharaoh’s servants, and in the sight of the people.

IT WAS GENERAL PRACTICE AMONGST THE HEBREW PEOPLE TO PLURALIZE NOUNS WHEN THEY DESIRED TO EXPRESS GREATNESS OR MAJESTY.  It is then not a numerical plural.  For example, adonim is the plural form of adon, which means “lord” or “master.” In spite of its plural form, it frequently refers to a single person in an exalted position, for example to Abraham (Genesis 24:9, 10, 51).  Another example is Adonay, which is also a plural form of adon, and which always refers to God.  Still other examples are Baalim and Behemoth.  The Old Testament also sometimes refer to God as “the Holy Ones,” but used with singular verbs.


The distinguishing maxim in Judaism was and still is:

Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deut. 6:4)

This slogan stood in opposition to the polytheism of the day.  The Hebrew mind had a firm understanding that there is only one God.  The pervasive monotheism of the Old Testament denies any idea that the authors of the Old Testament used elohim because they thought of God as existing in multiple Persons.


The New Testament was written in Greek.  In Greek, the word for “god” is theos. The plural form of theos is theoi, which is used to refer to multiple “gods,” for example, “When the crowds saw what Paul had done, they raised their voice, saying ‘The gods (theoi) have become like men and have come down to us.’” (Acts 14:11).

Although theos has a plural form, the New Testament always uses the the singular form for God.

This is also true when the New Testament quotes passages from the Hebrew Bible.  The New Testament writers always translated the Hebrew word elohim with the singular noun theos, for example in Mark 12:29.  If elohim really indicated that the one true god consists in multiple Persons, then the New Testament writers would have also used the plural form of theos.

SeptuagintThe Septuagint is the ancient translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek.  When used for the God of Israel, the Septuagint also always translates elohim with the singular theos.

Dictionary Definitions

On the basis of this ample evidence, dictionaries define elohim as a plural of majesty.

“Elohim is a plural form which is often used in Hebrew to denote plentitude of might.” — (Hertz, The Pentateuch & Haftorahs)

“The form of the word, elohim, is plural. The Hebrews pluralized nouns to express greatness or majesty.” — (Flanders, Cresson; Introduction to the Bible)

“The Hebrew noun elohim is plural, but the VERB is singular, a normal usage in the OT when reference is to the one true God. this use of the plural expresses intensification rather than number and has been called the plural of majesty.” — (New International Version Study Bible, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985, p. 6)

“The plural form of elohim has given rise to much discussion. The fanciful idea that it referred to the Trinity of Persons in the godhead hardly finds now a supporter among scholars.” — (Smith’s Bible Dictionary)


Despite this strong evidence, some still attempt to show that elohim “allows for” a plurality of divine Persons within God.  To support this claim, they point to a few exceptions where the Old Testament uses plural verbs, pronouns, adjectives, participles etc. with elohim.  But a handful of exceptions can never negate the evidence from more than 2500 instances where the Old Testament uses elohim for God with singular verbs.  It is much more probable that the few plural verbs, etc. are part of the Jewish practice of using plurals to express greatness.

What is His son’s name?

AnsweringIslam uses Proverbs 30 to support its claim that God is a Trinity:

The words of Agur son of Jakeh. … I have not learned wisdom, nor have I knowledge of the Holy One (qadoshim – the NRSV renders this as “holy ones). Who has ascended to heaven and come down? Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son’s name?” (Proverbs 30:1-4)

Since Agur speaks of “the holy ones,” of God’s incomprehensible acts and of “his son’s name,” AnsweringIslam concludes:

That “the holy ones” refer to the Father and the Son;
That “his son” refers to the pre-incarnate Jesus;
That they are equal;
That both incomprehensible;
That this text established the deity of the Son of God; and
That God has a multi-personal nature.

However, the Old Testament does not contain the concept that God has a Son, as we know Him from the New Testament. To find evidence of the existence of the Son in a few isolated and ambiguous verses is wishful thinking.  AnsweringIslam’s conclusion is therefore astounding.  To base all these conclusions on such an ambiguous passage is to hang a mountain on a camel’s hair.  “His son” is possibly just a metaphor to emphasise that, for Agur, as well as for us, God is utterly incomprehensible.

For a further discussion, see End Times Prophecy.