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 why some Christians question the Nicene formula, or if you want to understand how the same council system that changed the Sabbath also defined the Trinity, read on.
An optional deep-dive for those interested in the biblical case on the Trinity question. This appendix examines Jesus's own testimony about His relationship with the Father, the historical development of Trinitarian doctrine, and addresses common objections.
Clarification: This appendix does not reject the biblical Trinity, which consists of three persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) united in witness and purpose. It questions the Nicene formula of "three co-equal persons of one substance," which the councils imposed and which goes beyond what Scripture teaches. The pre-Nicene church fathers (Justin Martyr, Tertullian who coined "Trinity," and Origen) all held subordinationist views. This appendix follows their reading: the Father is supreme, the Son is His eternally begotten agent, the Spirit proceeds from the Father. Three persons, united, but with the Father as head.
Why does this matter? Co-equality contradicts Jesus's own testimony. He said "my Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). He called the Father "the only true God" (John 17:3). He said He could "do nothing of himself" (John 5:19). Paul wrote that at the end, even the Son will be "subject unto" the Father (1 Corinthians 15:28). These are not the words of co-equality. The councils erased the distinction Jesus himself made.
The same council system that formulated co-equality (Nicaea 325 AD) also banned the Sabbath (Laodicea 364 AD). Daniel 7:25 prophesied a power that would "think to change times and laws": the Sabbath (time of worship) and the Ten Commandments (2nd commandment deleted, 4th altered, 10th split). Both changes came from the same source. If you reject Rome's authority to change the Sabbath, why accept Rome's authority to define the Godhead? Accepting council authority on one doctrine while rejecting it on another is inconsistent. The remnant return to Scripture on both questions.
In a court of law, whose testimony carries the most weight? 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.
Let's 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
When Jesus says the Father is the "only" true God, what does "only" mean?
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."
If the Father is the only true God, then by definition, Jesus is not God in the same sense the Father is. He can be the Son of God, the Messiah, the Savior, the Lord, the one through whom the Father works, but He cannot be "the only true God" if the Father alone holds that title.
The Word "Sent" Establishes Hierarchy
Jesus identifies Himself as the one "whom thou hast sent."
Can the sender and the sent be equal in authority?
If a president sends an ambassador, are they equal in authority? If a king sends a messenger, does the messenger have the same power as the king? If a father sends his son to represent him, are the father and son co-equal?
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, exercising the Father's authority delegated to Him.
Jesus uses the language of representation, agency, and submission to higher authority: not co-equality.
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 (ืึถืึธื).
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 250 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.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.
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.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 (3rd century) records Rabbi Simlai refuting "heretics" by declaring that the three divine names (El, Elohim, YHWH) "connote one and the same person, as one might say, 'King, Emperor, Augustus.'" 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, 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.
Trinitarian theology teaches that Jesus is "fully God" and "co-equal" with the Father. Jesus testified that the Father is greater.
"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." This language of dependence and subordination appears throughout Scripture.
The Father is God. Jesus is the Son of God. The Father is Jesus's God, just as the Father is our God.
"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: not co-reigning, not co-equal, but under authority, submitted.
Even in eternity, after all enemies are defeated, after death itself is destroyed, the Son remains in submission to the Father "that God may be all in all."
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)
To whom was Jesus praying?
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, what is the Holy Spirit? 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, 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 56-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, why did the church require 56 years after Nicaea to address the Spirit's status? The delay suggests the doctrine developed through council deliberation, not from clear biblical teaching.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 (56 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
If Jesus testified that the Father alone is God, and Jesus is His sent Son, how did the Trinity become Christian orthodoxy?
The answer is history, not Scripture.1 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, what did the earliest church fathers believe about Christ's relationship to the Father?
The pattern is consistent: virtually every major theologian before the Arian controversy held subordinationist views.
Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 AD) 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.
Tertullian (c. 160-225 AD), the first theologian to use the Latin term "Trinity" (trinitas), 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
Tertullian coined the term "Trinity," yet his understanding was subordinationist: the Son is a "portion" derived from the Father who is "the entire substance."
Origen (c. 185-254 AD), the most influential theologian before Nicaea, 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 teaching for nearly three centuries before Nicaea imposed a different formula.
Church historian Gary Badcock summarizes the scholarly consensus: "Virtually all orthodox theologians prior to the Arian controversy were subordinationists."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 co-equality doctrine emerged at Nicaea. Before the council, the church fathers taught what Jesus Himself taught: the Father is greater than the Son.
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 background is significant. He was a lifelong worshiper of Sol Invictus, the Unconquered Sun, until at least 319-325 AD. His coinage bore Sol images throughout this period. On March 7, 321 AD, he issued an edict declaring Sunday a day of rest (not in honor of Christ's resurrection but naming it "dies Solis," the day of the Sun).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), not any Christian terminology. See Codex Justinianus 3.12.2. Constantine's coins bearing Sol Invictus images continued until 325/326 AD. His baptism came only on his deathbed in 337 AD, administered by Eusebius of Nicomedia, an Arian bishop. Constantine was not even baptized until his deathbed in 337 AD (twelve years after Nicaea), and then by an Arian bishop, not a Trinitarian.
This was the man who convened and presided over the council that formulated Christian orthodoxy on God's nature. His concern was political unity, not theological precision. 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."Karen Armstrong, A History of God (New York: Ballantine, 1993), 109-110. Armstrong documents that Constantine's primary concern at Nicaea was political unity of the empire, not theological truth. The council was as much a political settlement as a religious one.
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."2 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.3 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 later, 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."4 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.5 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.6 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. United in testimony. 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" goes beyond what 1 John 5:7 claims. The verse affirms unity of witness; the councils imposed co-equality of being. These are not the same.
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." 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 Trinity formula of "three co-equal persons" goes beyond Scripture by erasing this Father-Son hierarchy that Jesus repeatedly testified to. But rejecting Nicene co-equality is not the same as embracing Arius's created Christ. It is accepting what Jesus said: the Father alone is "the only true God" (John 17:3), and Jesus is His eternally begotten Son, divine, yes, but distinct from and subordinate to the Father in the biblical revelation of God's character and plan of redemption.
Naming the Position: Pre-Nicene Biblical Subordinationism
This view has a name: Pre-Nicene Biblical Subordinationism. It is not a fringe position or modern innovation. It was the mainstream understanding of the earliest Christians before fourth-century councils imposed a different formula.
The position holds that:
- The Father is "the only true God" (John 17:3)
- Jesus is eternally begotten of the Father, not created (unlike Arianism)
- Jesus possesses full divine nature by eternal generation from the Father
- Jesus is subordinate to the Father in authority and role, not in nature or being
- The Spirit proceeds from the Father as His agent and power
Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and Hippolytus, the most influential theologians of the first three centuries, all held subordinationist views. When they wrote about Christ's relationship to the Father, they used the language of hierarchy, derivation, and representation. The co-equality doctrine emerged at Nicaea (325 AD) and Constantinople (381 AD), formulated by councils under imperial pressure, not handed down from the apostles.
"Pre-Nicene" emphasizes the return to original apostolic understanding. "Biblical" emphasizes that Scripture, not creeds, is the authority. "Subordinationism" describes the Father-Son relationship that Jesus Himself testified to throughout the Gospels.
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: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, the mind that unified celestial and terrestrial mechanics into a single mathematical framework, read 1 Corinthians 8:6 and concluded: the Father is God, Jesus Christ is Lord, and these are distinct.
The Academy's Silence
Modern histories of science typically present Newton's theological writings as an embarrassing eccentricity, the strange beliefs of a genius who also happened to study religion. His Principia Mathematica is celebrated; his Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel is ignored. His physics equations appear in textbooks; his anti-Trinitarian manuscripts remain in archives.
This compartmentalization would have bewildered Newton himself. He did not separate physics from theology. He wrote more about biblical prophecy than about physics. He approached Scripture with the same precision he applied to planetary orbits. And he concluded that the co-equality doctrine was a corruption introduced by the fourth-century councils.
Historian Stephen Snobelen documents that Newton practiced "Nicodemism," publicly conforming to Anglican orthodoxy while privately holding views that would have destroyed his career if known. He was a heretic in secret, conducting his theological research with the same methodological caution he applied to his alchemical experiments: privately, systematically, and with awareness that truth sometimes requires discretion.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.
The compartmentalization runs both ways: scientists don't know Newton was a biblical subordinationist, and theologians don't know subordinationism was held by the father of modern physics. Newton was not alone among the founders of mathematical physics in seeing their work as theological inquiry, but his anti-Trinitarian conclusions remain the most striking example of how Scripture reading led a rigorous mind to subordinationist conclusions.
The Pattern in Creation
The Principle of Least Action states that physical systems follow the one optimal path among infinite possibilities. Light does not deliberate. Particles do not choose the broad way. Derived reality aligns with its governing principle.
This is the pattern the Son testified to:
"The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise."
The Son follows the Father's will perfectly: one path, not infinite alternatives. "I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me" (John 5:30). Far from weakness, this reflects the eternal relationship: the Father as source, the Son as perfect alignment with that source.
Man was designed for the same pattern:
"For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."
God ordained one path, one set of works, one alignment. But man chose otherwise:
"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way."
Every man chose his own way, pursuing infinite paths instead of one. "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death" (Proverbs 14:12). The broad way has many travelers; the narrow way has few (Matthew 7:13-14).
The Sabbath applies this principle to time. Of seven days, one is set apart, not by human choice but by the Creator's command. "The seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God" (Exodus 20:10). One path through the week, determined by the source.
Daniel 7:25 prophesied a power that would "think to change times and laws." This describes the attempt to introduce alternative paths where God established one: any day, no day, or a different day replacing the one ordained rest.
Nature testifies. Paul wrote that "the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made" (Romans 1:20). The Son's relationship with the Father (subordinate alignment, one will, one path) is the same pattern written into physics itself. Creation follows least action. The Son follows the Father. Man was designed for the same alignment and fell when he chose his own way.
The restoration comes through the same principle: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" (John 14:6). There is one way, not infinite alternatives. The Son who perfectly aligned with the Father becomes the path by which fallen man returns to that alignment.
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." Does this make Christ inferior in value or nature? No. 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 Trinity 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 contradicts Scripture as severely as the Trinity does.
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, 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 himself argues for the qualitative reading, which emphasizes the Word's divine nature without identifying Him with the Father. This aligns with what John 1:1b already established: the Word was with God, indicating distinction. The qualitative reading preserves both Jesus's full divinity and His distinction from the Father, neither reducing Him to a creature (Arianism) nor collapsing the Father-Son distinction (modalism).22 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."
John 1:18 clarifies: "No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
The "only begotten Son" declares the Father. He reveals God. He represents God. He is divine. But He is distinct from the Father who is God, begotten of Him.
Even the phrase "only begotten" (Greek monogenes) means "unique" or "one-of-a-kind born," indicating origin from the Father, not co-equality with the Father.
"My Lord and My God" (John 20:28)
"And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God."
When Thomas saw the risen Jesus, he exclaimed "My Lord and my God!" Trinitarians cite this as Thomas confessing Jesus's full deity.
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). Jesus never claimed "the only true God" title. He gave that exclusively to the Father (John 17:3).
Even if Thomas was calling Jesus "God," it doesn't contradict the Father being THE God (ho theos). The New Testament consistently distinguishes between "the God" (the Father) and "god" (divine beings who represent the Father's authority).
Paul clarifies the hierarchy immediately after Jesus's resurrection:
"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."
One God = the Father. One Lord = Jesus Christ (the Son, the Messiah, 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)
Pre-existence? Yes. Divine origin? Yes. Equal to the Father in authority? No. 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."
Jesus is "the image of the invisible God." An image represents something distinct from itself. "Firstborn" indicates priority in time: 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, the heir of all things (Hebrews 1:2).
Verse 18 repeats it: "And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence."
Jesus has preeminence: supremacy among created beings, authority delegated by the Father, the position of heir. But Hebrews 1:4 says He "became so much better than the angels." If Jesus "became" better, He experienced change and development, something the unchanging God (Malachi 3:6) does not experience.
As detailed above in "Jesus Is Not an Angel," Hebrews 1 establishes Jesus's superiority over angels through His role as Creator and His eternal relationship with the Father. He is the unique Son of God, the heir, 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. The Father is God. The Son is the begotten of God, divine, yes, but distinct from and subordinate to the Father.
Every verse Trinitarians cite can be understood consistently when you accept Jesus's own testimony: the Father alone is the "only true God," and Jesus is the unique, divine, begotten Son who perfectly represents the Father and exercises the Father's delegated authority. No contradiction, no mystery requiring three-in-one formulas. Just a Father who is God, and a Son who is the perfect image and representative of that God.
The Connection to the Sabbath: Same Councils, Same Apostasy
Why does the Trinity doctrine matter in a book about the Sabbath and the mark of the beast?
The same power that changed who we worship also changed when we worship, and both changes happened through the same corrupt council system within decades of each other.
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 4th-century practice rather than evidence of non-Christian belief.8 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 4th 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 39 years later, the Council of Laodicea (convened by the same church-state system) issued Canon 29:7 Synod of Laodicea, Canon 29, AD 364. "Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ." 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 18-56 years after Nicaea. See "Synod of Laodicea," New Advent. Available at: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3806.htm.
"Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ."
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 = the Sabbath (the appointed time of worship: Saturday changed to Sunday), the only commandment God told us to "Remember"
- Laws = the Ten Commandments (2nd commandment deleted, 4th commandment altered, 10th commandment split)
Both emerged from the same councils, the same church-state system, the same emperor-enforced creeds, the same persecution of dissenters, the same corruption.
Nicaea addressed God's nature (a separate question, see above). Laodicea changed the "time" of God's worship, attacking the only commandment God said to "Remember."
Both within 39 years. Both under the authority of the same apostate church system merging with civil power. Both contrary to Scripture. Both enforced by threat of exile, anathema, and eventually death.
If the Roman Catholic Church Changed One, Why Trust the Other?
The question every Christian must confront:
If the same councils that banned the Sabbath also formulated the Trinity, why do Protestants who reject papal authority on every other doctrine still hold to the Roman Catholic Church's Trinity while rejecting the Roman Catholic Church's Sunday?
Either both are biblical, or both are suspect.
The evidence shows:
- Jesus never taught Trinity. He taught the Father is the "only true God" (John 17:3).
- Jesus never changed the Sabbath. He kept the seventh day (Luke 4:16) and said the Sabbath was made for man (Mark 2:27), not abolished.
The Roman Catholic Church changed both through councils, adding the Trinity and substituting Sunday. Protestants rejected papal authority in theory, but in practice kept the Roman Catholic Church's Trinity and the Roman Catholic Church's Sunday.
The Remnant Reject Both Counterfeits
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 testimony that the Father alone is God).
The remnant don't pick and choose which Catholic doctrines to keep. They return to Scripture:
- The Father is God. Jesus is His begotten Son.
- The Sabbath is Saturday. Sunday is the Roman Catholic Church's substitute.
Both trace to the same apostasy, the same councils, the same corruption.
The remnant recognize the pattern and return to what Jesus taught.
Why This Testimony Matters for the Remnant
Revelation 12:17 identifies the remnant with two characteristics:
"And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ."
The remnant (1) keep the commandments of God, and (2) have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
We've established that "keep the commandments" includes the Sabbath, the seal of God that the Roman Catholic Church changed to Sunday.
But what is "the testimony of Jesus Christ"?
Revelation 19:10 explains:
"And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."
"The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."
The remnant hold fast to the testimony Jesus gave, His witness about who the Father is, who He Himself is, and what truth is.
Jesus testified that the Father is the only true God. Babylon teaches Trinity, three co-equal persons. The remnant believe Jesus's testimony.
Jesus testified that He is the Son sent by the Father. Babylon teaches He is "God the Son," co-equal and co-eternal. The remnant believe Jesus's testimony.
The testimony of Jesus Christ separates the remnant from Babylon.
This isn't about claiming Trinitarians aren't saved or sincere. Many genuine believers hold the Trinity doctrine, taught it from childhood, never questioned it because everyone around them believed it.
But the remnant identified in Revelation don't hold majority opinions. They hold Jesus's testimony, even when that testimony contradicts councils, creeds, and centuries of tradition.
When you read John 17:3, whose interpretation do you trust: Jesus's plain words, or theologians explaining that "only" doesn't mean only, and "sent" doesn't mean subordination, and somehow three equals one in a mystery beyond comprehension?
The remnant believe what Jesus said: The Father is the only true God. Jesus Christ is the one the Father sent.
The testimony is plain. The implications are profound.
And it's one of the identifying marks of the remnant.
Questions to Answer
Jesus said the Father is the "only true God" and that He Himself was "sent." Can the one sent be equal to the one sending? Can "only" include three?
If I send you to deliver a message, are we equal in authority? If the Father is the "only" true God, how many true Gods exist? One or three?
When you pray "Our Father" as Jesus taught, are you praying to one Person or three? When Jesus prayed to the Father in Gethsemane, was He praying to Himself?
The three-in-one formula creates a logical tension here. Jesus prayed to the Father. He never prayed to Himself. He never prayed to "the Trinity." The Father is God. Jesus is His Son. Prayer assumes a relationship between two distinct beings.
If Jesus testified that the Father alone is God, and churches teach three co-equal persons are God, it is a moment to ask whose testimony one is believing: Jesus's or the councils of men.
Nicaea 325 AD contradicts John 17:3. Athanasius contradicts Jesus's own words. Whose authority matters: church tradition or Christ's testimony?
What does it cost you to call the Father "the only true God" as Jesus did? Why is that statement controversial if it's Scripture?
The phrase "The Father is the only true God" appears in John 17:3 as Jesus's own words. If that statement feels like heresy, the question becomes: Does it contradict your denomination, or does it contradict Scripture?
If Jesus is not God, how can John 1:1 say "the Word was God" and John 1:14 identify that Word as Jesus who "was made flesh"?
The Greek distinguishes between "the God" (ho theos, the Father) and "god/divine" (theos without the article, describing nature, not identity). "The Word was God" describes Christ's divine nature; "the Word was with the God" distinguishes Him from the Father. The Son possesses divinity through the Father who "gave to the Son to have life in himself" (John 5:26). Derived divinity is not independent deity. The Father remains the source; the Son remains the Son.
If Jesus is not God, why didn't He correct Thomas when Thomas called Him "My Lord and my God" in John 20:28, and why did He accept worship repeatedly?
Thomas's confession came after the resurrection, recognizing Jesus as the divine Son through whom the Father acts. Jesus accepted worship as the Father's appointed representative: "He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him" (John 5:23). The Son has the Father's name, authority, and glory given to Him (John 17:11, 22). Yet even with this exalted status, Jesus still called the Father "my God" after the resurrection (John 20:17). If Jesus has a God, how can He be that God?