Appendix G: The Trinity Question
If you don’t have questions about Trinity doctrine, skip this appendix. It’s not essential to the book’s main argument about the Sabbath. The core thesis stands regardless of your position on the Godhead.
However, if you’ve wondered how the early Church understood Christ’s relationship to the Father, or if you want to understand the connection between the councils that defined the Trinity and the councils that changed the Sabbath, read on. The Sabbath case stands completely without this appendix. What follows is the author’s honest examination of a question he is still working through, not a doctrinal position the book requires you to hold.
This appendix offers an optional deep-dive for those interested in the biblical case on the Trinity question. It examines Jesus’s own testimony about His relationship with the Father, the historical development of Trinitarian doctrine, and addresses common objections.
Clarification: This appendix examines the historical development of Trinitarian doctrine and its connection to the council system that also changed the Sabbath. The author affirms the Nicene Creed: the Son is “of one substance” (homoousios) with the Father, “begotten, not made.” The pre-Nicene Church Fathers (Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Origen) used language that later generations classified as subordinationist, and this appendix presents their testimony honestly. The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) clarified what was always implicit in the apostolic faith: the Son is fully God, sharing the Father’s nature by eternal generation.
This matters because the same council system that clarified the Trinity (Nicaea 325 AD) also banned the Sabbath (Laodicea 364 AD). One action was a clarification of apostolic faith. The other was an innovation against apostolic practice. Discernment is required, not blanket acceptance or blanket rejection of the councils. The Eastern Orthodox Church, which holds the Nicene Creed as its foundational document, also rejected the Western Church’s later unilateral addition of the filioque (“and the Son”) to the Creed, proving that accepting Nicaea does not require accepting every subsequent Roman innovation.
The question this appendix raises is not whether the Son is divine. He is. The question is whether the council system that defined this truth can also be trusted when it changed the Sabbath. The evidence presented here, drawn from Jesus’s own testimony about His relationship with the Father, suggests that while Nicaea captured something real about Christ’s divinity, the same system produced innovations (the Sabbath change, the filioque) that Scripture does not support. The reader must exercise discernment on both questions.
In a court of law, the testimony that carries the most weight belongs to the eyewitness, the one who was there, the one with direct knowledge.
When determining who God is, the sources include church councils convened centuries after Christ’s death, theological frameworks developed over time, and creeds formulated by vote.
And there is Jesus Himself, the one sent by God, who claimed to reveal the Father and said “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father” (John 14:9).
His testimony about God’s nature provides the foundation for understanding His relationship with the Father.
The Father revealed in Scripture is not the Monad of Neoplatonic philosophy, an abstract One beyond being and form. Scripture reveals a God with form. The elders saw His feet upon “a paved work of a sapphire stone” (Exodus 24:10). Daniel saw the Ancient of Days with hair “like the pure wool” and garments “white as snow” (Daniel 7:9). When Moses asked to see God’s glory, God revealed His back but shielded His face. “Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live” (Exodus 33:20, 23). The Father has form. His full glory exceeds what mortal eyes can bear, yet He is knowable through the Son who declares Him.
Let us examine what Jesus testified.
The Most Important Verse You’ve Never Been Taught
Jesus prayed to the Father in John 17, His final prayer before crucifixion. In verse 3, He defined eternal life: the core issue of human existence:
“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”
Jesus defines eternal life as knowing two beings:
- The Father: “thee the only true God”
- Jesus Christ: “whom thou hast sent”
Jesus said eternal life is knowing the Father as the only true God, and knowing Jesus Christ as the one the Father sent. The definition is specific and limited to these two beings.
The Word “Only” Excludes Others
The word “only” has a specific meaning. In any other context, “only” means “one and no other.” If I say “This is the only key that opens the door,” you understand that other keys won’t work. If I say “She is the only person who knows the code,” you understand that means no one else knows it.
“Only” is exclusive. It means one, not three.
Jesus didn’t say “Thee, the first person of the Trinity, are the only true God.” He didn’t say “Thee, along with me and the Holy Spirit, are the only true God.” He said “thee” (the Father alone) “the only true God.”
The word “only” applied to the Father has been understood in two ways. The pre-Nicene Fathers took it to indicate the Father's unique role as source and origin of the Godhead: the Son is divine, but the Father is the source from whom the Son's divinity flows. The Council of Nicaea clarified that the Son shares the Father's nature fully (homoousios) while being “begotten of the Father.” Both readings affirm Jesus as divine. The question is whether “only” indicates a difference in nature (which Nicaea rejected) or a difference in origin (which Nicaea preserved in the word “begotten”).
The Word “Sent” Establishes Hierarchy
Jesus identifies Himself as the one “whom thou hast sent.”
The sender and the sent cannot be equal in authority. When a president sends an ambassador, the ambassador does not hold presidential power. When a king sends a messenger, the messenger does not command the kingdom. When a father sends his son to represent him, the son acts under the father’s authority.
The concept of being “sent” establishes that someone else is doing the sending, and that someone has the authority to send. Jesus repeatedly emphasizes this relationship:
“My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.”
“I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.”
“For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.”
Jesus consistently presents Himself as the sent one, acting on behalf of the Father, doing the Father’s will, speaking the Father’s words, and exercising the Father’s authority delegated to Him.
Jesus uses the language of representation, agency, and submission to higher authority. Orthodox theology distinguishes between this economic relationship (the Son's mission in the incarnation) and the ontological relationship (the Son's eternal nature). The “sending” language describes the economy of salvation, in which the Son voluntarily submits to accomplish the Father's will. Whether this submission extends to the Son's eternal nature or is limited to His incarnate mission is the question at the heart of the Trinity debate.
The Shema: Israel’s Foundation
Jesus was asked which commandment was the greatest. His answer went to the foundation of Hebrew theology:
“And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord.”
Jesus quoted the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4), the foundational declaration of Hebrew monotheism that devout Jews recite twice daily. The Hebrew word translated “one” is echad (אֶחָד).
What Does “Echad” Mean?
Some Trinitarian theologians argue that echad means “compound unity” rather than numerical one, pointing to Genesis 2:24 where husband and wife become “one flesh.” They argue the Shema therefore allows for a multi-person Godhead.
The argument fails linguistically. Echad is the Hebrew cardinal number “one.” It appears over two hundred fifty times in the Old Testament as a simple numeral. In Genesis 2:24, the sense of plurality comes from the collective noun “flesh” being shared by two persons, not from the word “one” itself. When Isaiah 51:2 describes Abraham as “one” (echad), no one argues Abraham was a compound unity.1 Hebrew linguist analysis confirms that “no other semantic value is possible for echad than as a cardinal number counting ‘one’ (not a ‘compound unity’ nor meaning ‘alone’).” See Biblical Hebrew analysis of Deuteronomy 6:4, available at: https://biblicalhebrew.org/meaning-of-yhwh-ekhad-in-deuteronomy6-4.aspx. The count of over two hundred fifty Old Testament occurrences is based on Strong's Hebrew Concordance, entry H259 (echad).
Jewish Witness: The Hostile Testimony
Maimonides, the great medieval Jewish scholar (c. 1135–1204), deliberately chose the Hebrew word yachid (singular, unique, indivisible) over echad in his Thirteen Articles of Faith when describing God’s unity.2 Maimonides’ deliberate choice of yachid over echad was specifically to guard against Trinitarian interpretations of the Shema. If echad genuinely implied “compound unity,” there would have been no need for Maimonides to clarify with a different word. His precision reveals what Jewish scholars understood the Shema to mean: numerical singularity, not compound unity. See “Deuteronomy 6:4–The Shema,” BiblicalUnitarian.com, https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/videos/deuteronomy-6-4.
This matters because Jewish scholars reject Christianity. They have no theological motivation to support a subordinationist Christology. Yet their testimony confirms what the Hebrew text says: the Shema declares God is numerically one, not three-in-one.
The Talmud (third century) records Rabbi Simlai refuting “heretics” by declaring that the three divine names (El, Elohim, and YHWH) “connote one and the same person, as one might say, ‘King, Emperor, Augustus.’” These were three titles for one being, not three persons in one being.
Paul Echoes the Shema
The apostle Paul, writing to Corinthian Christians surrounded by Greco-Roman polytheism, explicitly identifies who the “one God” of the Shema is:
“But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.”
Paul identifies the “one God” as “the Father” and separately identifies “one Lord Jesus Christ.” The distinction is explicit: one God (the Father) and one Lord (Jesus Christ). The Father is identified with the “one God” of the Shema. Jesus is identified as the Lord through whom the Father works.
This is precisely what Jesus testified in John 17:3: the Father is “the only true God,” and Jesus is the one the Father sent.
Jesus’s Other Testimonies About the Father
John 17:3 isn’t an isolated statement. Throughout His ministry, Jesus testified that the Father is God and that He (Jesus) is the Father’s Son, distinct from the Father, subordinate to the Father, and sent by the Father.
“My Father is Greater Than I”
“Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.”
“My Father is greater than I.” The Greek word (meizon) indicates superiority in rank and authority.
The Nicene tradition understands “greater” as referring to the Father's unique role as source and origin of the Godhead, not to a difference in divine nature. The Son is equal in nature (homoousios) but the Father is “greater” as the one from whom the Son is eternally begotten. The pre-Nicene Fathers read “greater” more broadly, as indicating the Father's superiority in authority and role. Both readings acknowledge the verse; they differ on its scope.
“My God and Your God”
After His resurrection, Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene and gave her a message for the disciples:
“Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.”
Jesus calls the Father “my God.” The pre-Nicene Fathers read this as indicating the Father’s supreme authority. The Nicene tradition understands it as the incarnate Son speaking in His human nature, rightly addressing the Father as God. In either reading, the Father holds a unique position that the Son acknowledges.
“The Son Shall Be Subject”
Paul, writing by inspiration, describes the ultimate culmination when Christ delivers the kingdom to the Father:
“Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.”
“Then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him.”
The Son will be subject to the Father. Orthodox theology distinguishes between the economic subordination of the incarnate Son in the plan of salvation and the ontological equality of the Son in the divine nature. The verse describes the final act of the economy of salvation: the Son hands the kingdom to the Father “that God may be all in all.” Whether this describes an eternal relationship or the completion of a temporary mission is debated. What the text says is clear: the Son submits to the Father.
The Prayer Test: Can God Pray to Himself?
Perhaps the clearest evidence that Jesus and the Father are distinct beings with the Father holding ultimate authority is Jesus’s prayer life.
Jesus prayed constantly. The Gospels show Him praying:
- At His baptism (Luke 3:21)
- Before choosing the twelve apostles (Luke 6:12)
- Before Peter’s confession (Luke 9:18)
- At the Transfiguration (Luke 9:28–29)
- Before teaching the Lord’s Prayer (Luke 11:1)
- For Peter specifically (Luke 22:32)
- In Gethsemane (Matthew 26:36–44)
- On the Cross (Luke 23:34, 23:46)
- Throughout John 17 (His high priestly prayer)
Jesus was praying to the Father.
Every prayer is addressed to “Father.” The consistent pattern throughout the Gospels shows Jesus praying to the Father as a distinct being with supreme authority.
Gethsemane: The Ultimate Submission
The night before crucifixion, Jesus prayed in Gethsemane with such intensity that His sweat became like drops of blood:
“And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.”
Jesus has a will. The Father has a will. Jesus’s will differs from the Father’s will (“let this cup pass from me”), but Jesus submits to the Father’s will (“nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt”).
Two distinct wills indicate two distinct beings. Jesus is the Son, perfectly submitted to the Father who is God.
Hebrews Describes Jesus’s Prayers
“Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered.”
Jesus offered prayers “unto him that was able to save him from death.” The language indicates dependence on another being who possessed power to save.
The phrase “Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience” shows the Son learned obedience through suffering, a pattern consistent with Jesus being the Son of God, divine in nature but distinct from and submissive to the Father who is God.
What the Spirit Is
If the Father is the “only true God” and Jesus is the Father’s sent Son, the question of the Holy Spirit’s identity remains. Jesus’s own teaching reveals the Spirit’s nature and role.
“But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”
The Spirit is sent by the Father. The sender has authority over the sent.
“But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me.”
The Spirit “proceedeth from the Father” and testifies of Jesus. The Spirit’s role is to bear witness to the Son, not to Himself.
“Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.”
Jesus describes the Spirit’s ministry in subordinate terms: “he shall not speak of himself… he shall glorify me.” The Spirit does not act independently. The Spirit receives from Jesus and declares it. The Spirit glorifies Jesus, not Himself.
This pattern (sent by the Father, proceeding from the Father, testifying of the Son, and not speaking of Himself) describes the Spirit as the third person of the Godhead, proceeding from the Father and testifying of the Son, united with Father and Son in witness but not co-equal in authority.
The Fifty-Six-Year Gap
The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) addressed the Father-Son relationship but barely mentioned the Holy Spirit. The original Nicene Creed concluded with “And in the Holy Spirit” without elaboration.
Fifty-six years passed before the Council of Constantinople (381 AD) articulated the Spirit as “the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified.”
This gap reveals something significant: if the Trinity were plainly taught in Scripture, the church would not have required fifty-six years after Nicaea to address the Spirit’s status. The delay suggests the doctrine developed through council deliberation, not from clear biblical teaching.3 The Council of Constantinople (381 AD) was convened by Emperor Theodosius I primarily to address the Macedonian heresy, which denied the Spirit’s divinity. The fact that a separate council was needed (fifty-six years after Nicaea) to define the Spirit’s relationship to Father and Son indicates the doctrine was not self-evident from Scripture. See “First Council of Constantinople,” Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent. Available at: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04308a.htm.
The Historical Development of the Trinity Doctrine
Jesus called the Father “the only true God” (John 17:3) and identified Himself as the one the Father sent. The pre-Nicene Fathers used language reflecting this testimony. The Nicene formula of co-equality became Christian orthodoxy through the councils.4 The Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges: “In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together.” See “The Blessed Trinity,” Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent. Available at: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm.
The Early Church Fathers: Subordinationists All
Before Nicaea formulated the co-equality doctrine, the earliest Church Fathers held a different view of Christ’s relationship to the Father. The pattern is consistent: virtually every major theologian before the Arian controversy held subordinationist views. These were not obscure figures. They were the most influential theologians of early Christianity, closer to the apostles than to the councils that later changed their doctrine.
Justin Martyr (c. 100–165 AD) was born around the time the Apostle John died, making him only one generation removed from the apostles. A Greek philosopher who converted after witnessing Christians die for their faith, he established a school in Rome to teach Christianity free of charge. He was beheaded for his faith around 165 AD, making him a martyr whose testimony carried the ultimate credibility. The Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, and Anglican churches all venerate him as a saint, despite his subordinationist theology.
Justin wrote in his First Apology:
“We reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third.”
- First Apology, Chapter 13
Justin explicitly places the Son in “second place” and the Spirit in “third.” This is numerical ranking, not co-equality.
Justin used an analogy to explain the Father-Son relationship: the Son proceeds from the Father “as light from light.” The sun generates a ray; the ray carries light; the light illuminates the world. All are one substance, yet the ray derives from the sun, not the reverse. So the Father generates the Son; the Son reveals the Father; the Spirit illuminates truth. Same divine nature, distinct persons, and clear hierarchy of origin. This was mainstream pre-Nicene understanding.
The Greek of John 10:30 illuminates this distinction. When Jesus said “I and my Father are one,” the word for “one” is hen (ἕν), neuter gender, not heis (εἷς), masculine gender.5 Greek: ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν (egō kai ho patēr hen esmen). The neuter hen (“one thing”) indicates unity of purpose, will, or action, not personal identity. The masculine heis (“one person”) would be required if Jesus meant ontological identity. See Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 252–253. Had Jesus meant “I and the Father are one person,” the masculine heis would be required. The neuter hen indicates unity of purpose, will, and action, not ontological identity.
The proof is in John 17. Jesus prayed “that they all may be one [hen]; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one [hen] in us” (John 17:21). The same Greek word describes the unity between Father and Son, and the unity believers share with God. Since believers do not become ontologically fused with God, neither does hen prove the Son is ontologically identical to the Father. The oneness is relational and functional: shared will, shared purpose, and shared mission.
Even John Calvin, no opponent of the Trinity, acknowledged this distinction. In his Commentary on the Gospel according to John, he wrote: “The ancients made a wrong use of this passage to prove that Christ is (ὁμοούσιος) of the same essence with the Father. For Christ does not argue about the unity of substance, but about the agreement which he has with the Father.”6 John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel according to John, trans. William Pringle (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1847), on John 10:30. Calvin distinguished functional agreement from ontological identity, even while affirming Trinitarian doctrine elsewhere. Available at: https://ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom34.xvi.iv.html. The pre-Nicene fathers understood what Calvin admitted: Jesus’s claim to be “one” with the Father described relational unity, not metaphysical fusion.
Tertullian (c. 160–225 AD) was a Carthaginian lawyer who converted to Christianity. Called “the father of Latin Christianity” and “the founder of Western theology,” he was the first to use the Latin term “Trinity” (trinitas) and invented theological vocabulary still used today: substantia (substance), persona (person). The irony is instructive: the man who coined “Trinity” used subordinationist language that the later councils would refine into the co-substantial formula.
Tertullian described the Son as:
“A portion of the whole… The Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole.”
- Against Praxeas, Chapter 9
He coined “Trinity,” yet his understanding was subordinationist: the Son is a “portion” derived from the Father who is “the entire substance.” What “Trinity” meant before Nicaea was different than what it meant after.
Origen (c. 185–254 AD) was called “the greatest teacher in the Church after the Apostles” by his contemporaries. His father was martyred when he was seventeen; he became head of Alexandria’s catechetical school (the premier Christian teaching institution, where new converts were instructed in the faith) at eighteen. He spent twenty-eight years creating the Hexapla, a six-column polyglot Bible. He was tortured during persecution and died from his injuries. Yet three centuries after his death, Emperor Justinian had him condemned as a heretic, primarily for his teachings on the pre-existence of souls and universal salvation (apokatastasis), not solely for his subordinationist language. The case of Origen shows how complex the relationship between pre-Nicene and post-Nicene theology is: a Father venerated as “the greatest teacher” could be both profoundly right on some questions and profoundly wrong on others.
Origen taught:
“We declare that the Son is not mightier than the Father, but inferior to Him. And this we say… the Father is greater than the Son.”
- Commentary on John, Book XIII
Origen’s explicit subordinationism was mainstream Christian language for nearly three centuries before Nicaea formulated a more precise definition.
Church historian Gary Badcock summarizes the scholarly consensus: “Virtually all orthodox theologians prior to the Arian controversy were subordinationists.”7 Gary Badcock, Light of Truth and Fire of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 27–28. Badcock documents that pre-Nicene fathers consistently described the Son as subordinate to the Father in authority and origin, a position later marginalized after the councils formalized co-equality doctrine.
The Nicene formula of co-substantiality emerged at the council. Before Nicaea, the Church Fathers used language that emphasized the Father's unique role as source and origin. Nicaea formalized the Son's full divinity in response to Arianism, which denied it. The question this appendix raises is not whether the Son is divine (He is) but whether the pre-Nicene language or the Nicene formula more fully captures what Jesus Himself said about His relationship with the Father.
The Council of Nicaea (325 AD)
Nearly three centuries after Christ’s resurrection, Emperor Constantine convened church bishops at Nicaea to resolve disputes over Christ’s nature. The controversy: Was Christ created by the Father (as Arius taught) or eternally existent and “of one substance” with the Father (as Athanasius taught)?
Constantine’s religious journey is debated by historians. The Eastern Orthodox Church venerates him as a saint and “Equal to the Apostles” (feast day May 21), honoring his role in ending Christian persecution and convening the first ecumenical council. Other scholars note that his coins bore Sol Invictus images until 325/326 AD and that his Sunday edict of March 7, 321 AD used the pagan phrase “venerable Day of the Sun” (dies Solis) rather than Christian terminology.8 Constantine’s Sunday edict (March 7, 321 AD) reads: “On the venerable Day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest.” The original Latin uses “venerabili die Solis” (the venerable day of the Sun). See Codex Justinianus 3.12.2. Deathbed baptism was a common fourth-century practice (reflecting the era’s view that post-baptismal sin was especially grave), not necessarily evidence of non-Christian belief. Historians debate whether Constantine’s faith was genuine (H.A. Drake, Constantine and the Bishops, 2000) or primarily political (Robin Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians, 1986). His baptism came on his deathbed in 337 AD, though deathbed baptism was a widespread fourth-century practice reflecting the era’s serious view of post-baptismal sin, not necessarily a sign of insincerity.
Whatever Constantine’s personal convictions, the council he convened introduced imperial authority into doctrinal definition. Those who disagreed were exiled and eventually persecuted. Historian Karen Armstrong observes that at Nicaea, “most of the bishops held a middle position” and Constantine himself “was not interested in the finer details of theology.”9 Karen Armstrong, A History of God (New York: Ballantine, 1993), 109–110. The Eastern Orthodox Church would counter that the Holy Spirit guided the council regardless of Constantine’s political motivations, just as God used Cyrus (a pagan king) to accomplish His purposes in Isaiah 45:1. The theological question and the political question are separable: the council may have produced a true result even through an imperfect process, just as God has always worked through imperfect human instruments.
The council sided with Athanasius, declaring in the Nicene Creed that Jesus is “Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father.”10 First Council of Nicaea, Symbolum Nicaenum [Nicene Creed], 325 AD. The creed’s original Greek and Latin text with English translation states: “We believe in one God the Father Almighty… And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only-begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father.” Preserved in writings of Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius (De decr. Nic. 37.2), and Socrates (H.E. 1.8.28–30). Available at: https://www.earlychurchtexts.com/public/creed_of_nicaea_325.htm and https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm.
What’s missing: the Holy Spirit as a third co-equal person. The original Nicene Creed (325 AD) mentions the Holy Spirit in passing, not as a distinct divine person.11 The Nicene Creed of 325 AD concludes with “And in the Holy Spirit” without elaboration on the Spirit’s nature, divinity, or relationship to the Father and Son. The briefness reflects that the Council primarily addressed Christological disputes (Arianism) rather than pneumatology. Fuller articulation of the Holy Spirit’s divinity came at the Council of Constantinople (381 AD). See “Creed of Nicaea 325 - Greek and Latin Text with English translation,” Early Church Texts. Available at: https://www.earlychurchtexts.com/public/creed_of_nicaea_325.htm.
The Council of Constantinople (381 AD)
Fifty-six years passed before another council expanded the creed to include the Holy Spirit as “the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified.”12 First Council of Constantinople, Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, 381 AD. Emperor Theodosius I convened this second ecumenical council to affirm Nicene orthodoxy and address the Macedonian heresy (denial of the Holy Spirit’s divinity). The expanded creed states: “And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets.” See “First Council of Constantinople,” Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent. Available at: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04308a.htm.
The Trinity as it’s taught today (three co-equal, co-eternal persons in one Godhead) was formulated by councils, not by Christ.13 The Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges that critics “contend that the doctrine of the Trinity, as professed by the Church, is not contained in the New Testament, but that it was first formulated in the second century and received final approbation in the fourth” at the councils. While the encyclopedia defends the doctrine’s biblical basis, it admits the terminology and formal definition developed through conciliar process. See “The Blessed Trinity,” Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent. Available at: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm.
Why Does This Matter?
The earliest Christians debated Christ’s nature, suggesting that Scripture’s presentation of Jesus and His relationship to the Father was understood differently by various groups.
Scripture presents Jesus as the unique Son of God, begotten of the Father, given all authority by the Father, acting as the Father’s agent, and ultimately subject to the Father. This pattern appears consistently throughout the New Testament.
Jesus testified: “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”
The Johannine Comma: 1 John 5:7
The King James Bible includes this text at 1 John 5:7:
“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”
This verse, called the “Johannine Comma” (comma meaning “clause” in Latin), has been debated among textual scholars. Critical scholars argue it was added later; defenders of the Textus Receptus note its presence in the Latin tradition and its theological consistency with Scripture’s testimony about the Father, Son, and Spirit.14 The textual debate over the Johannine Comma involves complex manuscript evidence. Critical scholars like Bruce Metzger note its absence from early Greek manuscripts. Defenders of the Textus Receptus point to its presence in Old Latin manuscripts, its citation by early Latin fathers like Cyprian (c. 250 AD), and the theological consistency of its testimony. This book defends the KJV and Textus Receptus (see Appendix I), so the verse is included as Scripture.
But note what the verse says: three bear record (witness) in heaven, and these three are one. They are united in testimony and united in purpose. This is consistent with subordinationism. The Father sends; the Son testifies; the Spirit proceeds. Three persons united in witness, not necessarily three co-equal beings of identical substance.
The Nicene formula “three persons of one substance, power, and eternity” formalized what the verse implies. The verse affirms unity of witness. The councils defined unity of substance. Whether the latter is a legitimate clarification of the former or an addition to it is the question this appendix raises. The Sabbath argument does not depend on resolving it.
Subordinationism Is Not Arianism
Rejecting the Trinity’s “co-equal persons” formula does not make one an Arian. The distinction is critical.
Arius, a presbyter in Alexandria around 320 AD, taught that the Son was created, that there was a time when the Son did not exist. The Council of Nicaea condemned this as heresy, and rightly so. If Christ is a created being, He cannot redeem humanity. Only God Himself can bear the infinite weight of human sin and conquer death. Arianism reduces Jesus to a super-angel with delegated authority, glorious, yes, but incapable of salvation. This is the position held today by Jehovah’s Witnesses and some Unitarian movements.
The biblical position is different. The Father-Son relationship is eternal. The Son is “begotten, not made” (as even the Nicene Creed affirms). “Begotten” means He derives His being from the Father, but He never began to exist. John 1:1 declares: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” There was no beginning to the Word’s existence; He was already there “in the beginning.” The Son is fully divine because He is eternally begotten of the Father, possessing the Father’s nature by eternal generation, not by creation.
Jesus is subordinate to the Father in authority and role, not in nature or being. He testified, “my Father is greater than I” (John 14:28), and Paul affirms that the Son will ultimately be “subject unto him that put all things under him” (1 Corinthians 15:28). This is the biblical economy of salvation: the divine Son, eternally begotten, equal in nature but willingly subordinate in role to accomplish the Father’s will. “The head of Christ is God” (1 Corinthians 11:3), not because Christ lacks divinity, but because He submits to the Father’s authority.
The question is how to reconcile these statements of Jesus with the Nicene formula. The Eastern Orthodox tradition resolves it through the concept of the Father’s “monarchy”: the Father is the unique source and origin of the Godhead, the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father. All three share the same divine nature (homoousios), but the Father’s unique role as source is preserved. This framework honors both what Jesus said (“my Father is greater than I”) and what Nicaea clarified (the Son is fully God). Whether the relationship Jesus described is best captured by “co-equal persons” or by “one source with two who share His nature” is a question the reader can weigh. What is not in question is that Arius was wrong: the Son is not a creature. He is eternally begotten, fully divine, and worthy of worship.
The Pre-Nicene Witness
Scholars call the position of the early Fathers “pre-Nicene subordinationism.” It was not a fringe view. It was the mainstream understanding of the earliest Christians before the fourth-century councils formulated more precise language.
The pre-Nicene Fathers consistently held:
- The Father is the source and origin of the Godhead (what the Orthodox call the “monarchy” of the Father)
- Jesus is eternally begotten of the Father, not created (unlike Arianism)
- Jesus possesses full divine nature by eternal generation from the Father
- The Son is sent by and submissive to the Father in the economy of salvation
- The Spirit proceeds from the Father (John 15:26)
Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and Hippolytus all used language of hierarchy, derivation, and representation when describing the Son’s relationship to the Father. The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) formulated more precise language to combat Arianism, affirming that the Son is homoousios (of one substance) with the Father. The Eastern Orthodox Church holds that Nicaea did not invent a new doctrine but clarified what was always implicit in the apostolic faith. The pre-Nicene Fathers’ subordinationist language reflected imprecision, not heresy, and Nicaea corrected that imprecision without contradicting the Fathers’ core conviction: the Son is fully divine, begotten of the Father before all ages.
What remains undisputed across all traditions is the Father’s unique role as source and origin. Even the Nicene Creed affirms the Son is “begotten of the Father” and the Spirit “proceeds from the Father.” The hierarchy of origin is preserved in the Creed itself. What Nicaea added was the affirmation that this hierarchy of origin does not imply inferiority of nature.
Newton: The Scientific Subordinationist
The pre-Nicene position did not vanish after the councils. A towering intellect in scientific history held it: Isaac Newton.
Newton’s theological manuscripts were suppressed during his lifetime and remain largely ignored by historians of science. They reveal a man who rejected the Trinity doctrine and reached subordinationist conclusions through the same methodological rigor he applied to physics and biblical prophecy. His private papers include detailed studies of church history, early Christian doctrine, and the Council of Nicaea’s political corruption.
In his “Twelve Articles” on religion (Keynes MS 8, c. 1710s-1720s), Newton stated his position explicitly:15 Newton’s theological manuscripts are preserved at King’s College Cambridge (Keynes Collection) and the National Library of Israel (Yahuda Collection). He wrote extensively on anti-Trinitarian theology, church history, and the corruption of early Christian doctrine. See Newton Project Canada, Newton’s Twelve Articles. Available at: https://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00008.
“There is one God the Father eternal everliving, omnipresent, omniscient, almighty, the maker of heaven & earth, & one Mediator between God & Man the Man Christ Jesus.”
- Newton, Twelve Articles, Article 1
Newton’s final article cited the same Scripture that opens this appendix’s examination of Paul’s testimony:
“To us there is but one God ye father of whom are all things & we of him, & one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things & we by him.”
- Newton, Twelve Articles, Article 12 (citing 1 Corinthians 8:6)
The man who discovered the laws of gravity and invented calculus read 1 Corinthians 8:6 and concluded: the Father is God, Jesus Christ is Lord, and these are distinct. Newton practiced what historian Stephen Snobelen calls “Nicodemism,” publicly conforming to Anglican orthodoxy while privately holding views that would have destroyed his career if known.16 Stephen D. Snobelen, “Isaac Newton, Heretic: The Strategies of a Nicodemite,” British Journal for the History of Science 32 (1999): 381–419. Snobelen documents Newton’s careful concealment of his anti-Trinitarian views and his private theological methodology.
Subordinate Does Not Mean Lesser
A critical distinction: subordination in role is not inferiority in nature.
Paul writes: “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God” (1 Corinthians 11:3).
“The head of Christ is God.” This does not make Christ inferior in value or nature. A wife who submits to her husband’s headship is not lesser in worth, dignity, or value. She is equal in nature while functioning within a different role. The same principle applies to Christ’s relationship with the Father.
Jesus said: “All things that the Father hath are mine” (John 16:15). And again: “The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand” (John 3:35). The Son possesses everything the Father has (all authority, all power, all divine attributes), yet He receives them from the Father and exercises them in submission to the Father’s will.
Far from inferiority, this reflects the eternal Father-Son relationship: the Father as source, the Son as the perfect image and heir, functioning in perfect unity yet maintaining distinct roles. The Son’s subordination glorifies the Father; the Father’s exaltation of the Son glorifies Himself through the Son.
Jesus Is Not an Angel
Some who reject the Nicene formula collapse into the opposite error: reducing Jesus to an exalted angel or created super-being. Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example, identify Jesus as Michael the Archangel. This is Arianism, and it contradicts Scripture clearly. The Son is not a creature. He is eternally begotten, fully divine, and the Creator of all things including the angels.
The book of Hebrews devotes its entire first chapter to demonstrating Jesus’s superiority over angels:
“Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.”
The phrase “being made so much better” refers not to Jesus’s origin, but to His exaltation after the incarnation. The Word was always superior to angels. But during His incarnate ministry, He was temporarily “made a little lower than the angels” (Hebrews 2:9). His resurrection and ascension restored and publicly declared that supremacy: “Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name” (Philippians 2:9).
The contrast is total. Angels are servants; Jesus is the Son. Angels were created; Jesus was eternally begotten. Angels worship; Jesus receives worship. More than that: Jesus created the angels. The chronology is explicit in Scripture:
“All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”
“For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him.”
“Thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers”: these are angelic orders. They are explicitly included in “all things created by him.” The Father addresses the Son as Creator:
“Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands.”
The angels came through Jesus, not before Him. He was there “in the beginning” (John 1:1), already existing when creation began. Through Him, all things came into existence, including every angel. “Eternally begotten” means He never had a beginning; He was always with the Father.
“For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?”
The phrase “this day have I begotten thee” does not mean Jesus had a beginning. In Hebrew poetic language, “this day” often refers to the eternal present, God’s perspective outside of time. Alternatively, Paul quotes this same verse in Acts 13:33 in the context of the resurrection, where God publicly declared and vindicated Jesus as His Son. Either way, the begetting is eternal: there was never a time when the Son did not exist with the Father.
“And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.”
God commands angels to worship the Son. Angels worship no one but God. If Jesus were merely an exalted angel, this command would be idolatry.
The Father addresses the Son with a title no angel ever receives:
“But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.”
The Father calls the Son “God.” Not a god, not an angel, not a super-creature. “O God.” The Son shares the Father’s divine nature by eternal begetting, which is precisely why He is superior to all angels and worthy of their worship. He is the eternally begotten Son, not the first-created angel. This is the biblical balance: subordinate to the Father in role, yet fully divine in nature and infinitely superior to all created beings.
Addressing Common Objections
Those who hold the Trinity doctrine will point to certain verses that seem to support Jesus’s full deity. Let’s examine the most commonly cited passages and see whether they contradict Jesus’s own testimony.
“In the Beginning Was the Word” (John 1:1)
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
Trinitarians cite this as proof of co-equality. But “the Word was with God” indicates distinction: you cannot be “with” yourself.
The Greek construction is significant:
- ”The Word was with the God” (ton theon, with the definite article, referring to the Father specifically)
- ”And the Word was god” (theos, anarthrous, without the definite article)
Greek scholars debate the significance of the anarthrous theos. Daniel Wallace (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics) identifies three possibilities: definite (“the Word was the God”), indefinite (“the Word was a god,” rejected by virtually all scholars), and qualitative (“the Word possessed divine nature”). Wallace argues for the qualitative reading, which emphasizes the Word’s divine nature without identifying Him with the Father.17 Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 266–269. Wallace argues the qualitative reading is preferable, noting that “the force of the passage is that the Word has the same nature as God.” This preserves both Jesus’s divinity and His distinction from the Father. The Greek monogenes (“only begotten”) means “unique” or “one-of-a-kind born,” indicating origin from the Father, not co-equality.
“My Lord and My God” (John 20:28)
“And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.”
This is Thomas’s astonished exclamation, not a theological declaration. “God” (Greek theos) can refer to one representing God’s authority; even human judges were called “gods” (Psalm 82:6, John 10:34–35). Even if Thomas was calling Jesus “God,” this doesn’t contradict the Father being THE God (ho theos). Jesus never claimed “the only true God” title; He gave that exclusively to the Father (John 17:3). Paul clarifies:
“But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.”
The one God is the Father. The one Lord is Jesus Christ, the Son, the Messiah, and the mediator.
“I AM” Statements (John 8:58)
“Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.”
Trinitarians argue that “I am” (ego eimi in Greek) is Jesus claiming the divine name from Exodus 3:14 when God said “I AM THAT I AM” to Moses.
But ego eimi is the Greek phrase meaning “I am.” It appears hundreds of times in the New Testament in non-divine contexts. The blind man healed by Jesus said ego eimi (John 9:9) when identifying himself. He wasn’t claiming to be God.
Jesus’s statement in John 8:58 emphasizes His pre-existence, that He existed before Abraham. This proves His divine origin (He came from the Father before being born as a man), not that He is co-equal with the Father.
Jesus frequently contrasts His origin with the Father’s supremacy:
- ”I proceeded forth and came from God” (John 8:42)
- ”I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me” (John 6:38)
- ”The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28)
He pre-existed, yes. He has divine origin, yes. But He is not equal to the Father in authority. Jesus’s own words say otherwise.
“Firstborn of All Creation” (Colossians 1:15)
“Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.”
Trinitarians argue “firstborn” means “preeminence” not “first created.” But an image represents something distinct from itself. “Firstborn” indicates priority: the firstborn son in Israel received the inheritance because he came first. The Father begat the Son “before all worlds,” making Him the firstborn, the unique Son, and the heir of all things (Hebrews 1:2). Jesus is the unique Son of God, the exact representation of the Father’s nature (Hebrews 1:3), but He is not the Father Himself. The Father-Son relationship is real, not metaphorical.
Every verse cited in the Trinity debate can be understood consistently within the framework Jesus Himself provided: the Father is the source of the Godhead, and Jesus is His unique, divine, begotten Son who perfectly represents the Father’s nature and exercises the Father’s authority. The Nicene Creed captured the Son’s full divinity (homoousios). The pre-Nicene Fathers preserved the Father’s unique role as source. Both truths are present in Scripture. The reader who holds them together, as the Eastern Orthodox tradition does, honors the full witness of the text.
The Connection to the Sabbath: Same Councils, Different Questions
The Trinity question matters in a book about the Sabbath for a specific reason. The same council system that clarified the doctrine of Christ's divinity also banned the Sabbath. Both happened within decades of each other. The question is not whether the councils were entirely wrong (Nicaea captured something true about Christ's nature) but whether the council system can be trusted without discernment when it also changed God's commandment.
Nicaea 325 AD: Defining God’s Nature
Emperor Constantine, whose religious convictions remain debated by historians, convened and presided over the Council of Nicaea. Constantine had earlier venerated Sol Invictus (the sun god) and was not baptized until his deathbed, though deathbed baptism was common fourth-century practice rather than evidence of non-Christian belief.18 Historians debate Constantine’s sincerity. Some (like Robin Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians, 1986) see political calculation; others (like H.A. Drake, Constantine and the Bishops, 2000) argue for genuine religious commitment. Deathbed baptism (clinici) was widely practiced in the fourth century because post-baptismal sin was viewed more seriously. Constantine’s delay reflects the era’s practice, not necessarily non-Christian identity. Under his authority and political pressure, bishops formulated the doctrine that Jesus is “of one substance with the Father”: the foundation of Trinitarian theology.
Whatever the theological merits of the debate, the council introduced imperial authority into doctrinal definition. Those who disagreed (like Arius and his followers) were declared heretics, exiled, and eventually persecuted. Constantine sought religious unity for political stability, and he achieved it by enforcing a creed through imperial decree.
Laodicea 364 AD: Changing God’s Day
Only thirty-nine years later, the Council of Laodicea (convened by the same church-state system) issued Canon 29, banning Sabbath rest under penalty of anathema (quoted in full in Chapter 3).19 Synod of Laodicea, Canon 29, AD 364. This regional synod in Phrygia Pacatiana forbade Sabbath observance under penalty of being declared “anathema” (cursed/excommunicated). The exact date is debated, with scholars placing it between 343-381 AD, approximately eighteen to fifty-six years after Nicaea. See “Synod of Laodicea,” New Advent. Available at: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3806.htm. The Sabbath (God’s memorial of Creation, sealed in the Fourth Commandment) was officially banned. Sunday was officially enforced. Those who kept Saturday faced being declared “anathema” (cursed).
The Pattern: Daniel 7:25
“And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws.”
The little horn power (papal Rome) would “change times and laws.”
- Times refers to the Sabbath, the appointed time of worship that was changed from Saturday to Sunday, and the only commandment God told us to “Remember”
- Laws refers to the Ten Commandments, in which the second commandment was deleted, the fourth was altered, and the tenth was split
Both the Sabbath change and the commandment alterations emerged from the same church-state system in which emperors convened councils and enforced their rulings. This is the context that demands discernment.
Nicaea (325 AD) addressed the Son’s relationship to the Father. Laodicea (364 AD) changed the day of worship. The first was a clarification of what the apostolic faith already held. The second was an innovation against what the apostolic church had always practiced. Both came from the same system. The faithful Christian distinguishes between them.
Both occurred within thirty-nine years. Both fell under the authority of the same church-state system. Both were enforced by threat of exile, anathema, and eventually death. The question for the faithful Christian is which of these council actions was a clarification of apostolic truth (as Nicaea was for the Son's divinity) and which was an innovation against apostolic practice (as Laodicea was for the Sabbath).
Discernment, Not Blanket Rejection
The question is not whether to accept or reject the councils wholesale. The question is which of their actions were clarifications of apostolic faith and which were innovations against apostolic practice. The evidence helps distinguish:
- The Son’s full divinity was taught by the pre-Nicene Fathers (Justin, Tertullian, and Origen all affirmed the Son’s divine nature while using subordinationist language). Nicaea clarified what they held.
- The Sabbath was kept by the apostles, the early Church, and communities across the world for centuries before Laodicea banned it. Laodicea innovated against what the Church had always practiced.
- The Creed originally said the Spirit “proceedeth from the Father.” The Western Church added “and the Son” unilaterally. The East rejected the addition and preserved the original.
Jesus kept the seventh day (Luke 4:16) and said the Sabbath was made for man (Mark 2:27). No verse in Scripture revokes the fourth commandment. The Sabbath change is an innovation. The Son’s divinity, affirmed by the Fathers and confirmed at Nicaea, is a clarification. The filioque, rejected by the East and unsupported by John 15:26, is an innovation. The faithful Christian distinguishes between these.
Clarification and Innovation: A Distinction
Not everything the councils produced was error. The Council of Nicaea captured something real about Christ’s divinity that the pre-Nicene Fathers had always affirmed in less precise language. The Son is “of one substance” with the Father, eternally begotten, fully God. The Eastern Orthodox Church, which holds Nicaea as its foundational document, also preserved Saturday as a liturgical day with its own festal character, condemned the Western Church’s Saturday fasting (Quinisext Council, Canon 55, 692 AD), and rejected the Western Church’s unilateral addition of the filioque to the Creed. Accepting Nicaea does not require accepting every subsequent Roman innovation.
The distinction is between clarification and innovation. Nicaea clarified what the apostolic faith already held about the Son’s divinity. The Council of Laodicea innovated against what the apostolic church had always practiced regarding the Sabbath. The filioque was another innovation: the Western Church added “and the Son” to the Creed without calling a council, without the consent of the Eastern churches, and in contradiction to the text of John 15:26, which says the Spirit “proceedeth from the Father” with no mention of the Son in the procession clause. The Photian Synod of 879 AD rejected this addition, and Pope John VIII himself accepted that council with three separate letters before the papacy later reversed its position.
The pattern: the Roman Catholic Church claims unilateral authority to change what was given. It changed the day of worship. It changed the Creed. In both cases, the Eastern churches preserved the original. The Sabbath evidence and the filioque evidence point in the same direction: the Catholic Church innovates, and the faithful preserve what was handed down.
The Remnant and the Councils
Revelation 12:17 identifies the remnant as those who “keep the commandments of God” (including the Fourth Commandment, the Saturday Sabbath) “and have the testimony of Jesus Christ” (the spirit of prophecy, Revelation 19:10).
The remnant exercises discernment. They accept what the councils clarified (the Son’s full divinity, confirmed by Scripture and the Fathers). They reject what the councils innovated (the Sabbath change, the filioque, the claim of papal supremacy over all other bishops). The test is not blanket acceptance or blanket rejection. The test is Scripture, confirmed by the witness of the early Church and the practice of the apostles.
A Note on the Remnant and the Godhead
This appendix opened with a disclaimer: the Trinity question is not essential to the book’s main argument about the Sabbath. That disclaimer applies here as well.
Revelation 12:17 identifies the remnant with two characteristics: they “keep the commandments of God” and “have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” Revelation 19:10 defines that testimony: “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”
The parallel passage in Revelation 22:9 clarifies further. There, those who “have the testimony of Jesus” are called “thy brethren the prophets.” Scripture interprets Scripture: the “testimony of Jesus” refers to the prophetic gift among God’s people, not to a specific doctrinal position on the Godhead.
The Sabbath is clear. The Fourth Commandment names the seventh day. The Roman Catholic Church admits changing it. Protestant churches follow the Catholic Church’s substitute while claiming to follow Scripture alone. This inconsistency is plain and documented.
The Godhead question is different. Sincere Christians have debated it for centuries. The pre-Nicene Fathers used subordinationist language. The councils clarified the Son's full divinity. Both Sabbath-keepers and Sunday-keepers exist on both sides of the Trinity question. This appendix presents Jesus’s own testimony about His relationship with the Father, but it does not claim the Godhead question carries the same clarity as the Sabbath question.
What this appendix does argue: The same council system that clarified the Trinity also changed the Sabbath. Nicaea (325 AD) affirmed Christ’s full divinity. Laodicea (364 AD) banned Sabbath rest. Constantinople (381 AD) completed the Trinitarian formula. The Western Church later added the filioque to the Creed without a council. The council system produced both genuine clarifications and unauthorized innovations. The faithful Christian distinguishes between them by testing all things against Scripture and the practice of the apostles.
This is not a salvation issue. The Christological question is secondary to the Sabbath question in this book. The Sabbath evidence is clear and documented: the Roman Catholic Church admits the change, no verse supports it, and the commandment stands. The Christological evidence is complex: the pre-Nicene Fathers used subordinationist language, Nicaea clarified the Son’s full divinity, and the Eastern Orthodox Church has held the Nicene faith for seventeen centuries while preserving Saturday worship and rejecting the Catholic Church’s innovations. Both questions trace to the same council system, and both deserve honest examination.
The author’s own journey on this question is ongoing. What is not ongoing is the Sabbath evidence. The fourth commandment was written by God’s own finger, kept by Jesus, changed by the Roman Catholic Church, and admitted by the Catholic Church’s own documents. That case stands regardless of where any reader lands on the Trinity question.
Why This Matters: Knowing the Father Through the Son
This is not abstract theology. The Father-Son hierarchy Jesus revealed shapes how you pray, how you know God, and how you walk with Him daily.
Prayer Has a Direction
Jesus taught His disciples to pray “Our Father” (Matthew 6:9), not “Our Trinity” or “Our Godhead.” He directed prayer to the Father specifically. When He promised answered prayer, He said: “Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you” (John 16:23). Prayer is directed to the Father, through the Son, and by the Spirit.
This pattern appears throughout the New Testament. Paul writes: “For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father” (Ephesians 2:18). The direction is clear: through Christ, by the Spirit, and unto the Father. The Father receives your prayers. The Son mediates them. The Spirit enables them.
Co-equality obscures this pattern. If Father, Son, and Spirit are indistinguishable in authority, the direction of prayer becomes unclear. The doctrine becomes a mystery you recite rather than a relationship you live. But the subordinationist pattern clarifies everything: the Father is the supreme God who hears and answers; the Son is your High Priest through whom you approach; the Spirit indwells and empowers your prayers. Each person has a distinct role. Prayer has a direction.
The Father Becomes Knowable
Irenaeus, writing around 185 AD, explained how we know God: “No one can know the Father apart from God’s Word, that is, unless the Son reveals him. The Father is beyond our sight and comprehension; but he is known by his Word, who tells us of him.”20 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 6 (c. 185 AD). Irenaeus taught that the Son reveals the Father, making the unknowable God knowable through His Word.
This is the heart of the matter. The Father is transcendent, beyond human sight. But through the Son, He becomes accessible. Jesus said: “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father” (John 14:9). You do not need to ascend to heaven or penetrate metaphysical mysteries. You look at Jesus, and you see what the Father is like. The Son reveals the Father’s character, will, and heart.
Tertullian, writing around 200 AD, made the same point: “The name of God the Father had been published to none… To us it has been revealed in the Son, for the Son is now the Father’s new name.”21 Tertullian, On Prayer, Chapter 3 (c. 200 AD). Tertullian emphasized that the intimate name “Father” was revealed through Christ, granting believers access to God as adopted children. Before Christ, the nations did not know God as Father. Through Christ, believers are adopted as children and can cry “Abba, Father” (Romans 8:15). This is relational, not philosophical. You have a Father you can address directly.
Jesus Becomes Precious as Mediator
When Scripture calls Jesus “the mediator between God and men” (1 Timothy 2:5), this is not a title. It describes His function. A mediator stands between two parties and facilitates relationship. If Jesus and the Father are co-equal and indistinguishable in authority, mediation becomes redundant. God would not need to mediate between God and humanity.
But the subordinationist pattern makes sense of mediation. The Father is the supreme God whose holiness bars sinful approach. The Son, eternally begotten of the Father and possessing the Father’s nature, became man to represent humanity and to provide access to the Father. “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace” (Hebrews 4:15–16).
Jesus is not one-third of an indistinguishable Godhead. He is your High Priest, the one who experienced human weakness and now intercedes for you at the Father’s right hand. This makes Him precious. When you approach God, you approach through one who understands you.
The Early Church Pattern
Justin Martyr, writing around 150 AD (only one generation after the apostles), described how Christians worshiped: “There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup… and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.”22 Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chapter 65 (c. 150 AD). Justin describes second-century Christian worship practice: prayers and thanksgiving directed to the Father through the Son and Spirit.
The pattern is consistent. The earliest Christians offered prayers and thanksgiving to the Father, through the Son. This was how they prayed. The councils later formalized co-equality, but the pre-Nicene church lived the subordinationist pattern in their daily worship.
What This Means for You
When you pray, you address a Father who hears you. You come through a Son who understands you. You pray by a Spirit who helps you when you do not know what to pray (Romans 8:26). Each person of the Godhead has a distinct role in your relationship with God.
What Scripture reveals is a Father who loves you, a Son who died for you and intercedes for you, and a Spirit who indwells and empowers you. The hierarchy Jesus revealed does not diminish anyone. It clarifies who each person is and how each person relates to you.
Whether you hold the Nicene formula or prefer the pre-Nicene language of hierarchy, the practical pattern remains the same: you pray to the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit. The Father hears. The Son mediates. The Spirit empowers. When you hold to this pattern, prayer becomes clear, the Father becomes personal, and the Son becomes precious as the one who bridges the gap between God and man. You know whom you are addressing and through whom you come.
The Weight of Jesus’s Own Words
Jesus called the Father “the only true God” (John 17:3). He said the Father “sent” Him. In the language of Scripture, the one sent serves the one sending. The word “only” excludes others from the category. These are not ambiguous statements.
Prayer confirms the distinction. Jesus prayed to the Father in Gethsemane, at the tomb of Lazarus, and on the Cross. He taught His disciples to pray “Our Father.” Prayer assumes a relationship between two beings. Jesus never prayed to Himself. He never addressed “the Trinity.” He addressed His Father.
The councils formalized the Son's co-substantiality with the Father. Jesus consistently described a relationship in which He was sent by, submitted to, and derived authority from the Father. The Eastern Orthodox resolution holds both: the Son is homoousios (of one substance) with the Father, and the Father remains the unique source (monarchia) of the Godhead. Jesus prayed to the Father as “the only true God” (John 17:3) and identified Himself as the one the Father sent. Nicaea captured the Son's full divinity. Jesus's own words preserved the Father's unique role. Both are part of the full picture.
John 1:1 says “the Word was God.” The Greek distinguishes between “the God” (ho theos, the Father) and “god/divine” (theos without the article, describing nature rather than identity). “The Word was with the God” distinguishes Christ from the Father. “The Word was God” describes Christ’s divine nature. The Son possesses divinity through the Father who “gave to the Son to have life in himself” (John 5:26). What the Father gave, the Son received. The Father remains the source; the Son remains the Son.
Thomas called Jesus “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). Jesus accepted the confession. He is the divine Son through whom the Father acts, the one who has the Father’s name, authority, and glory given to Him (John 17:11, 22). Yet in that same chapter, Jesus told Mary: “I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God” (John 20:17). After the resurrection, Jesus still called the Father “my God.” The one who has a God is not that God.
The evidence points in one direction on the Sabbath: the fourth commandment stands, and no council had the authority to change it. On the Trinity, the evidence is more complex. The Father sent the Son. The Son submitted to the Father. The pre-Nicene Fathers used language of hierarchy and derivation. The Council of Nicaea affirmed the Son's full divinity, a truth the Fathers had always held in less precise terms. The reader holds the testimony of Jesus, the witness of the Fathers, and the declarations of the councils, and can weigh them with the discernment the Holy Spirit provides. What cannot be disputed is that the Sabbath was changed without authorization, and the commandment still reads as God wrote it.