Dyer Unfiltered

How misused: Misinterpreted to argue against the co-equality and divinity of Jesus. The opponent likely emphasizes 'the Word was with God' to separate Jesus, 'the Word,' from 'God,' rather than understanding 'the Word was God' as affirming divine identity. This often involves a Unitarian or Arian reading that treats 'God' in the second clause as referring to a *different* divine nature or a lesser divine being.

Scripture's answer: The Greek 'kai ho logos ēn pros ton theon kai theos ēn ho logos' explicitly states both the Word's distinct personhood ('pros ton theon' - with God) and His full deity ('theos ēn ho logos' - the Word was God). The absence of the definite article before 'theos' in the final clause does not diminish deity but rather emphasizes the quality of 'Godness' the Word possesses, indicating consubstantiality with the Father without identifying Him *as* the Father. This verse is a foundational Trinitarian text affirming Jesus' divine nature.

How misused: Likely interpreted to assert Jesus as a 'created being,' emphasizing 'firstborn of all creation' as a literal beginning of His existence, rather than His preeminence or unique relationship within creation and to the Father. This view directly undermines Christ's eternal existence and shared divinity with the Father.

Scripture's answer: The Greek 'prōtotokos pasēs ktiseōs' (firstborn of all creation) signifies Jesus' preeminence, sovereignty, and heirship over all creation, not that He was the *first creature made*. The subsequent verses (Colossians 1:16-17) clarify that 'by Him all things were created... and in Him all things hold together,' unmistakably positioning Christ as the uncreated Creator through whom and for whom everything exists. The term 'firstborn' in this context denotes supreme position and authority, consistent with ancient Near Eastern inheritance laws and Christ's divine status.

How misused: Probably used to suggest that Jesus 'emptying Himself' or 'not considering equality with God something to be grasped' implies He was *not* inherently equal with God, or that His divinity was somehow secondary or acquired. This misinterprets the kenosis as a denial of inherent divine nature rather than a voluntary renunciation of certain divine prerogatives for the sake of redemption.

Scripture's answer: The phrase 'though He was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped' (μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων, οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ) affirms Christ's pre-existent divine nature. 'Morphē Theou' (form of God) indicates His essential divine being, not merely an appearance. 'Is a Theō' (equal with God) explicitly states His co-equality. The 'emptying' (kenosis) signifies a voluntary act of self-limitation and humility, taking on the 'form of a servant,' not a relinquishment of His divine nature or a denial of His inherent equality with the Father.

How misused: Used to emphasize 'one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,' to deny Christ's divine nature by focusing solely on His humanity and distinctness from God, without acknowledging His simultaneous divine nature and unity with the Father.

Scripture's answer: This verse indeed affirms the singularity of God and Christ's mediating role as 'man.' However, it presupposes the full scope of Christ's person—both human and divine. It highlights His humanity as essential for mediation (as He bridges the gap between God and humanity), but it does not negate His divinity. The effectiveness of His mediatorial work hinges precisely on His being both fully God (to truly represent God) and fully man (to truly represent humanity) simultaneously.

How misused: Frequently cited by anti-Trinitarians to assert absolute monotheism as a singular person, 'the LORD is one,' thereby refuting the concept of a multi-personal God (Trinity). This ignores the possibility of complex unity within the Godhead implied elsewhere in scripture.

Scripture's answer: The 'Shema' ('Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!' - YHWH Eloheinu YHWH Echad) proclaims the unique oneness of God. The Hebrew word 'Echad' (one) can denote a compound unity (e.g., 'one cluster' of grapes, 'one flesh' in marriage), not necessarily an absolute numerical singularity excluding internal distinctions. While affirming monotheism, it doesn't preclude the New Testament revelation of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who are distinct persons but one in essence, will, and nature. The oneness is qualitative and essential, not merely numerical.

How misused: Likely cited ('the Father is greater than I') to imply Jesus is inferior to the Father in essence or divinity, thereby denying their co-equality.

Scripture's answer: Jesus' statement 'the Father is greater than I' (ὁ πατὴρ μείζων μου ἐστίν) is understood in the context of His incarnate state and His functional subordination to the Father in His redemptive mission. As the Son sent by the Father, exercising the Father's will on earth, He assumes a subordinate role. However, this does not indicate inferiority in divine essence or nature. Patristic theologians often distinguished between the immanent Trinity (equality of essence) and the economic Trinity (functional distinctions in roles during creation and redemption). Jesus' pre-existent and post-resurrection state affirms His full co-equality with the Father (John 10:30, Philippians 2:6).

How misused: Cited as 'I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god' to argue that only the Father is God, thereby excluding Jesus from deity.

Scripture's answer: While Isaiah 44:6 unequivocally states God's sole deity, the New Testament applies similar 'first and last' language to Jesus (Revelation 1:17, 2:8, 22:13), demonstrating the early Christian understanding of Jesus sharing the same divine attributes and identity as the God of Israel. This application by New Testament authors points to Jesus being YHWH, not a separate or lesser deity. The monotheistic claim of the Old Testament is not violated but rather redefined and expanded in light of Trinitarian revelation, where Father, Son, and Spirit are the one God.

How misused: Interpreted as Jesus being a 'son' in the sense of a created being or an adopted figure, rather than signifying His unique, eternal begetting and consubstantial relationship with the Father as fully divine.

Scripture's answer: The term 'Son of God' (Yiós tou Theoú) in the New Testament denotes more than a mere human or adopted status for Jesus. It signifies His unique divine origin, intimate relationship, and shared nature with God the Father. Passages like John 5:18 ('making Himself equal with God') confirm that Jewish audiences understood Jesus' claim to be the Son of God as a claim to deity. His sonship refers to His internal relationship within the Godhead, not a created status or a temporal beginning.