Shincheonji (Unitarian) claim – 

In John 17:3, Jesus explicitly distinguishes Himself from the Father by identifying the Father alone as the “only true God,” which means that Jesus—who is praying to this God—cannot Himself be that one true God.

Counter

Jesus refutes the Unitarian reading of John 17:3 because in John 17:5 He claims to share the same eternal glory with the Father that Isaiah 42:8, Isaiah 48:11, Psalm 83:18, and Exodus 34:14 say God will never give to another, which means Jesus must be of the same divine nature as the Father.

An idea cannot “share” the same glory as the Father, and this cannot be “creaturely honor” because:

• It is pre-existing
• Shared glory
• With the Father before the world existed
• God would never share this glory with another nature

Potential Pushback – 

“The glory Jesus had before creation was a promised glory in God’s plan, not an actual shared divine glory.”

• Jesus does not speak of a promised future glory but of the actual, already-possessed glory He shared with the Father “before the world existed” (John 17:5), which cannot be a mere plan or idea.
• This directly contradicts the Unitarian claim because Scripture says God’s unique, eternal glory cannot be given to anyone else (Isaiah 42:8; Isaiah 48:11), meaning Jesus must truly possess the same divine glory, not a conceptual one.

Expected Pushback – “God can share ‘glory’ as honor or authority with exalted servants without making them divine.”

• While Moses performed miracles “as God” to Pharaoh (Exodus 7:1), he never attributed power, authority, or glory to himself but always pointed back to the LORD as the true source (e.g., Exodus 8:19; Exodus 9:30).
• By contrast, Jesus consistently speaks and acts with self-originating authority—forgiving sins by His own word (Mark 2:5–10), raising the dead by His own command (John 5:21), exercising judgment by His own authority (John 5:22–23), and claiming the same glory He shared with the Father before creation (John 17:5)—which no mere servant ever does and Moses never dared to do.

Expected Pushback – “Jesus having glory ‘with’ the Father does not mean equality, only proximity or fellowship.”

• Simply saying Jesus had “proximity” or “fellowship” with the Father does not address the biblical problem that God explicitly refuses to share His unique divine glory with any creature (Isaiah 42:8; Isaiah 48:11).
• Yet Jesus claims not merely closeness but possession of the same eternal glory the Father has (John 17:5), which necessarily includes the same honor and praise He receives in Revelation 5:12–14—something forbidden to be given to any being except God Himself.

Expected Pushback – “Jesus’ pre-existence can be functional or conceptual, not literal, so the glory is not ontological.”

• John 17:5 cannot support a “functional” or “conceptual” pre-existence because Jesus describes literal, personal co-existence with the Father using concrete, time-bound language—“the glory I had with You before the world existed”—which cannot describe a metaphor or a future plan.
• A “figurative” or “conceptual” glory cannot be meaningfully said to be shared with God before creation, because nothing figurative or merely foreknown can possess or share God’s unshareable divine glory, which the Old Testament says God will not give to anyone else.

Expected Pushback – “Isaiah 42:8 refers to God not sharing His divine glory with idols, not honored servants like the Messiah.”

• Isaiah 42:8 does not limit the prohibition to “idols,” because God says He will not give His glory to “another” (Hebrew: אַחֵר — “any other”), meaning no being distinct from Yahweh may possess or share His unique divine majesty.
• Since Jesus claims to have shared that same glory with the Father before the world existed (John 17:5) and receives the same worship, honor, and praise as the Father in Revelation 5:12–14, He cannot be an “honored servant” but must belong to the very identity of Yahweh Himself, or Scripture would contradict Isaiah 42:8.

Expected Pushback – “Jesus receiving glory from the Father in John 17 is evidence of subordination, not deity.”

• Jesus receiving glory from the Father in John 17 cannot prove subordination because the glory He asks for is the same eternal glory He already possessed with the Father before the world existed (John 17:5), which means the request is about restoration, not inferiority.
• If Jesus’ reception of glory implied creaturely subordination, then Isaiah 42:8 and Isaiah 48:11 would be violated, because God explicitly refuses to give His divine glory to any other, yet Jesus shares that very glory, proving He belongs to the divine identity rather than to the category of created beings.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

“1 Corinthians 8:6 disproves the deity of Jesus because it explicitly identifies the Father alone as “one God” while assigning Jesus the lesser title “one Lord,” thereby separating their identities and implying that only the Father is truly God.”

Counter

• Paul is not excluding Jesus from deity in 1 Corinthians 8:6 but intentionally expanding the Shema (Deut 6:4) by dividing the titles “one God” and “one Lord” between the Father and Jesus, thereby placing Jesus inside the divine identity of Yahweh.
• Paul’s distinction between “one God” and “one Lord” in 1 Corinthians 8:6 mirrors his pattern in Ephesians 4:4–6, showing complementary roles rather than different natures, which affirms both persons as sharing the same divine identity.
• By attributing creation itself (“through whom are all things”) and the sustaining of all existence (“we exist through Him”) to Jesus in 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul assigns to Jesus exclusive divine prerogatives that only Yahweh possesses (cf. Isa 44:24).
• If “one God” meant only the Father is God, then “one Lord” would likewise mean only Jesus is Lord (Eph 4:5), which is impossible since the Old Testament repeatedly calls Yahweh “Lord,” proving that Paul is not using the titles to deny Christ’s deity but to unite Father and Son in one divine identity.
• Paul cannot mean Jesus is not God in 1 Corinthians 8:6 because he explicitly calls Jesus “God” in multiple places (Titus 2:13; Romans 9:5; 2 Thess 1:12; Hebrews 1:8), which means the verse must be read as complementary rather than exclusionary.
• The context of 1 Corinthians 8:4–6 is a contrast with false gods and false lords, not a contrast between the Father and Jesus, so “one God” and “one Lord” identify Father and Son together as the only true God against all idols.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

Unitarians argue that 1 Timothy 2:5 disproves the deity of Jesus because Paul explicitly calls Him “the man Christ Jesus,” implying He is only human and therefore not God.

Counter

• Calling Jesus “man” in 1 Timothy 2:5 does not deny His deity because Scripture also calls Him “God” (John 1:1; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8), proving the verse emphasizes His mediatorial role, not His nature.
• Paul calls Jesus “man” in 1 Timothy 2:5 because a true mediator between God and humans must truly share human nature, which does not negate but assumes His divine nature (1 Timothy 3:16; Philippians 2:6–7).
• The phrase “the man Christ Jesus” highlights His incarnation, not His origin, because Paul elsewhere teaches that Jesus existed before He became man (Philippians 2:6; 2 Corinthians 8:9).
• If calling Jesus “man” means He is not God, then calling the Father “Lord” (Matthew 11:25) would mean the Father is not God either, which shows that titles used in one verse cannot cancel other revealed attributes.
• Jesus being human in 1 Timothy 2:5 does not exclude His deity any more than the Father being called “spirit” in John 4:24 excludes His personhood—Scripture often describes one nature without denying another.
• Paul’s use of “man” in 1 Timothy 2:5 affirms Christ’s role as the Second Adam (Romans 5:12–19; 1 Corinthians 15:45), a title that requires genuine humanity but does not preclude divinity.
• The same Paul who calls Jesus “man” in 1 Timothy 2:5 also says He is “God over all” (Romans 9:5), proving that the verse is functional (mediator role) rather than ontological (denial of deity).
• 1 Timothy 2:5 calls Jesus “man” because He intercedes for believers in His resurrected humanity (Hebrews 7:24–25), yet He intercedes in the very presence of God’s throne, something no mere man could do.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

Unitarians argue that 1 Corinthians 15:27–28 disproves Jesus’ deity because it says the Son will ultimately be subjected to the Father, proving that He cannot be equal with God.

Counter

• Within the Trinity, we have the different persons depend on each other for functionality.
• John 1：18 – The Father can only be seen through Jesus
• Hebrews 1:3 – The Father’s radiance and nature are expressed exclusively in the Son.
• John 5:22 – The Father has given all judgement to the Son

In the above examples, does this mean that the Father is inferior to the Son since He relies on the Father? The Father is dependent on the Son to show the world who He is after all.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

Luke 2:52 proves Jesus is not God because it says He grew in wisdom, which a true omniscient deity cannot do, showing that Jesus possessed only human limitations and therefore cannot be God.

Counter

Only someone who does not understand the incarnation would think Luke 2:52 disproves Jesus’ deity. Of course Jesus grew in wisdom because that is the whole point of God becoming man. In taking on flesh, He chose to enter into our human experience so completely that He shared our weaknesses, pains, and struggles. Scripture says God Himself is “afflicted in all their affliction” (Isaiah 63:9) and that He “knows our frame” and “remembers that we are dust” (Psalm 103:13–14). The incarnation is the fullest expression of this divine compassion, because the eternal Son truly became one of us so He could feel what we feel, suffer as we suffer, and redeem us from within our own nature. When He took on a real human mind, He accepted everything that belongs to genuine humanity, including growth and development. If Jesus did not grow in wisdom, He would not be truly human and Luke would be denying the incarnation. Yet the same Jesus who grew in wisdom is the one who amazed the teachers in the temple at age twelve (Luke 2:46–47), who knew people’s thoughts (Mark 2:8), who knew the future (John 13:19 and 16:30), and who claimed eternal preexistence when He said “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58). Jesus grows in wisdom according to His humanity, and He reveals divine wisdom according to His deity, which is exactly what the incarnation teaches and it completely refutes the Unitarian misuse of Luke 2:52.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim –

John 4:6 proves Jesus is not God because it explicitly says He became weary, and since an all-powerful, omnipotent God cannot grow tired or experience physical weakness, this verse shows Jesus was merely a human being, not deity.

Counter

John 4:6 does not disprove Jesus’ deity because Scripture often uses human language about God without denying His divine nature, such as God “resting” on the seventh day in Genesis 2:2 or God being “afflicted” with His people in Isaiah 63:9. The Bible repeatedly affirms that the Son took on a real human nature in the incarnation, which means His humanity could experience physical weariness while His divine nature remained unchanged. Jesus’ tiredness is a mark of true humanity, yet the same chapter shows Him exercising divine knowledge of the Samaritan woman’s life and offering eternal life itself, which no mere man can do. The Gospels regularly present this pattern of genuine human weakness followed by divine authority in order to reveal that the Word who became flesh is both fully God and fully man, so His weariness is a sign of the incarnation, not a denial of His deity.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

John 19:28 proves Jesus is not God because He expresses thirst on the cross, and a divine being who is omnipotent and self-sufficient would never experience such basic human weakness.

Counter

This objection collapses once the doctrine of the incarnation and the purpose of John 19:28 are understood, because Jesus’ thirst does not deny His deity but affirms that the eternal Word truly took on human flesh in order to suffer for our salvation. John explicitly tells us that Jesus said “I thirst” to fulfill Scripture, referring to Psalm 22:15 and Psalm 69:21 where the suffering figure speaks with language reserved for the righteous sufferer upheld by God. The New Testament repeatedly teaches that the Son took on a real human nature with real bodily limitations (John 1:14, Philippians 2:7–8, Hebrews 2:14–17), which means hunger, fatigue, pain, and thirst are not evidence of lacking deity but proof that the divine Son entered into the full experience of humanity. God appearing in human weakness is not foreign to the Old Testament; Yahweh appears in human form in Genesis 18 and eats with Abraham, and the Angel of the Lord speaks as God yet interacts physically with creation. Jesus’ thirst on the cross reveals not a denial of His divine nature but the depth of His incarnation, since the same Gospel that records “I thirst” also calls Him the Creator through whom all things were made (John 1:3), the one who gives living water (John 4:14), and the one who declares Himself “I AM” (John 8:58). The one who thirsts in His humanity is the same one who satisfies spiritual thirst as God.

A second angle is that Scripture shows God repeatedly experiences and expresses human-like emotions, sensations, and responses in order to reveal His character, without this ever denying His deity. The Old Testament openly describes Yahweh as “weary of bearing” Israel’s sins (Isaiah 1:14) and “grieved to His heart” (Genesis 6:6), and portrays Him using physical language such as stretching out His arm, smelling sacrifices, or walking in the garden (Genesis 3:8), none of which undermines His divine nature but communicates in ways humans can understand. John 19:28 specifically says Jesus expressed thirst “to fulfill Scripture,” which means the statement is tied to His role as the righteous sufferer in Psalm 22 and Psalm 69, not to any limitation in His divine identity. The Old Testament repeatedly personifies God in ways that communicate suffering and passion, such as God saying “They have pierced me with their lies” in Hosea 11:12 or “You have burdened me with your sins” in Isaiah 43:24. This biblical pattern shows that expressing human-like conditions does not contradict divine status; rather, it is a standard way Scripture reveals God’s involvement with His people. Jesus’ thirst fits this established scriptural pattern of God revealing Himself through human-expressed language to accomplish His redemptive purpose.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

Hebrews 5:8 proves Jesus is not God because it says He “learned obedience,” and a truly divine, omniscient being cannot learn anything or grow in moral submission, which shows Jesus must be a created, subordinate being.

Counter

And notice the context. Hebrews 5 is not demoting Jesus. It is exalting Him as the perfect high priest who represents humanity precisely because He experienced real human life. This is the same book that begins by calling Jesus “the radiance of God’s glory” and “the exact imprint of His nature” (Hebrews 1:3) and that has the Father calling the Son “God” (Hebrews 1:8). If you want to pretend Hebrews 5:8 makes Jesus a creature, then you must explain how a creature can be the exact imprint of God’s very nature and how a creature can be addressed as God by the Father.

Now let us look at the philosophical side, since you asked. Classical theism has never taught that God “learns” because learning implies moving from ignorance to knowledge, which cannot apply to an all-knowing being. So the Son, according to His divine nature, does not learn. His human nature does. Philosophers distinguish between “essential properties” and “accidental properties.” Essential properties are those that belong to a being’s very nature, like omniscience for God. Accidental properties are those a being can take on without changing its essence. The Son taking on human limitations does not change His divine essence. It simply means that as man He participates in all the experiences proper to man, including growth and experiential learning.

Hebrews 5:8 is about Jesus learning obedience as the Last Adam who succeeds where the first Adam failed. His human nature learns obedience through suffering so that He can be the perfect, sinless representative of humanity. None of this touches His divine nature. None of this implies ignorance in God. It simply shows that the Son experienced the fullness of genuine humanity. And if Unitarians kept reading, they would discover that the entire book of Hebrews destroys their position by teaching Christ’s divine nature, eternal priesthood, cosmic creative power, and perfect equality with the Father. “Learning obedience” is about His humanity. His deity remains fully intact and eternally omniscient.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

Matthew 26:39 proves Jesus is not God because He clearly expresses a will that differs from the Father’s and then submits to a higher divine will, which would be impossible if He were truly equal with the Father or shared the same divine nature.

Counter

Matthew 26:39 does not deny the deity of Christ because it simply shows that Jesus possesses a genuine human will that is perfectly aligned with the Father’s divine will, which is exactly what the incarnation requires. If Jesus were not perfectly aligned with the Father, that would directly contradict Shincheonji’s own interpretation of John 10:30 where they insist the Father and the Son are “one” in purpose, which means His submission actually supports, rather than contradicts, their own theological claims. 

Jesus’ expression of fear in Gethsemane does not indicate inequality but reveals His true humanity, because a real human nature feels real dread in the face of suffering. This is why Luke records that Jesus was sweating blood, since He fully knew the torment and wrath He was about to endure for the salvation of the world. Instead of disproving His deity, Matthew 26:39 demonstrates the unity of the divine will and the human will within the one person of Christ, a unity that SCJ’s theology cannot properly account for.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

Hebrews 2:9 proves Jesus cannot be God because it says He was “made lower than the angels,” and no true deity can ever be lower in status, rank, or nature than created angelic beings, which means Jesus must be a subordinate creature rather than the eternal God.

Counter

Hebrews 2:9 does not deny Jesus’ deity because the verse explicitly says He was made lower than the angels “for the suffering of death,” which is necessary for His mission in Hebrews 2:14–18, where He shares “flesh and blood” and becomes like His brothers “in every respect.” This temporary lowering refers to His human condition, not His divine nature, and it must be read together with Hebrews 1:2–3, 6, 8, and 10, where the same author already stated that Jesus created the world, sustains all things, receives worship from angels, and is called God by the Father. Hebrews 2:9 also cannot mean Jesus is a created being because Hebrews 1 has already established that the Son is superior to angels, receives their worship, and is identified as the Creator and as God Himself in Hebrews 1:3, 1:6, 1:8, and 1:10. The author’s design is to place Hebrews 1, which presents the Son exalted above angels in His divine nature, beside Hebrews 2, which shows the Son made lower than angels in His human nature for suffering and death, in order to teach that the same divine Son truly became human. This deliberate literary contrast shows both natures of Christ united in one person, not a downgrade from deity to creature.

We can also see the God of the Old Testament entering creation –

1. In Genesis 11:5, God “comes down” to see the tower, which shows Him describing His own action in human terms as He steps into human space.
2. In Exodus 3:7–8, God says He has “come down to rescue” Israel, revealing His choice to enter history without diminishing His deity.
3. In Genesis 32:24–30, God wrestles with Jacob as a man, demonstrating that He can adopt a human form without ceasing to be God.
4. In Genesis 18:1–2, the Lord appears to Abraham as a man, showing that God can manifest Himself in human likeness before the incarnation.
5. In Exodus 33:20–23, God shields Moses from His full glory, illustrating that God can limit the visibility of His presence for human survival.
6. In Exodus 32:14, God is described as “relenting,” which reflects divine accommodation to human understanding while He remains unchanging in His essence.
7. In Deuteronomy 1:31, God depicts Himself as carrying Israel like a father carries his son, revealing divine condescension expressed through human imagery.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

Numbers 23:19 teaches that God is “not a man” nor “a son of man,” which means God cannot become human, so the very idea that Jesus is God made flesh contradicts God’s own declaration that He is categorically not a man and therefore Jesus cannot be God.

Counter

This is where we need to read the context.

God is not a man, that He would lie,

Nor a son of man, that He would change His mind;

Has He said, and will He not do it?

Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

Numbers 23:19 is not saying God cannot ever take on human flesh, but that God is not like man in the sense that He lies, changes His mind, or fails to keep His word. The context is about God’s unchanging truthfulness and faithfulness, not about His inability to enter creation or assume a human nature. The verse contrasts God’s perfect reliability with human frailty and inconsistency, so it does not forbid the incarnation but denies that God behaves like sinful, unstable human beings.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

James 1:13 says God cannot be tempted, yet Matthew 4:1 says Jesus was tempted by the devil, so Jesus cannot be God because a being who is genuinely susceptible to temptation cannot be the same God who is immune to it.

Counter

“Tested” and “tempted” come from the same Greek word

The Greek verb peirazō can mean “to tempt” or “to test” depending entirely on the context in which it appears. This means the New Testament uses the same word family for both morally neutral testing and morally evil tempting, so James 1:13 and Matthew 4:1 are not automatically describing the same kind of experience.

The Old Testament says Israel “tempted” or “tested” God

Several passages say Israel “tested” or “tempted” God, such as Exodus 17:2, Psalm 78:18, and Psalm 95:9. These texts show that God can be the object of attempted temptation or testing without implying that He internally feels temptation toward evil.

The philosophical explanation for how Jesus can be tempted

Temptation has two aspects, an external presentation and an internal susceptibility, and only the second one implies moral weakness. Jesus experienced real external temptation in His human nature, but He had no internal inclination to sin because His divine nature and sinless human nature made Him incapable of desiring evil.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

Colossians 1:15 proves Jesus is not God because calling Him “the firstborn of all creation” clearly implies He is the first creature brought into existence by God, which would make Him part of creation rather than the eternal Creator.

Counter

First, we need to read the context and the next set of verses.

15 [x]He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation: 16 for [y]by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or rulers, or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He [z]is before all things, and in Him all things [aa]hold together. 18 He is also the head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. 19 For [ab]it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the [ac]fullness to dwell in Him, 20 and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, whether things on earth or things in [ad]heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.

When we read Colossians 1:15 in context, the next verses immediately explain what “firstborn of all creation” means, because verses 16 through 20 describe Jesus as the One through whom all things were created in heaven and on earth, both visible and invisible, and as the One who is before all things and in whom all things hold together. Paul gives Jesus multiple exalted titles such as “the firstborn from the dead” and “the beginning,” all of which signify His supremacy and unique status rather than origin or literal birth order. The term “firstborn” in Scripture often refers to rank and inheritance, not to chronological creation, which is why David is called “firstborn” in Psalm 89:27 even though he was the youngest son in his family. In the same way, calling Christ “firstborn of all creation” in Colossians 1:15 means He holds supremacy over creation, not that He is part of it, and Paul clarifies this immediately by saying that all things were created by Him, through Him, and for Him, which rules out any possibility that He is a creature.

To break this down further – 

“Image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15)

This means Christ is the visible, perfect expression of God’s nature and being, something no creature can claim. The word “image” (eikon) here indicates equality of essence, not imitation.

“Firstborn of all creation” (Colossians 1:15)

In ancient Israel, “firstborn” was a title of supremacy and inheritance, not always birth order.

Psalm 89:27 calls David “firstborn” even though he was the youngest of eight sons, showing the biblical pattern that firstborn can signify rank rather than literal origin.

Paul immediately interprets the title by showing that Christ is supreme over creation because He is its Creator, not because He is part of it.

“By Him all things were created” (Colossians 1:16)

This title places Christ on the Creator side of the Creator–creation divide. “All things” includes everything in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, including angelic ranks, which proves Christ cannot be one of them.

“All things were created through Him and for Him” (Colossians 1:16)

This means creation originates through Christ and reaches its purpose in Christ. No creature can be the final cause or purpose of creation, which makes this a deity-level title.

“He is before all things” (Colossians 1:17)

Paul assigns pre-existence and eternal priority to Christ. A created being cannot be “before all things,” because “all things” includes every created thing.

“In Him all things hold together” (Colossians 1:17)

This title identifies Christ as the sustainer of the universe. Continuous sustenance of all existence is a divine function, not an angelic or creaturely one.

“Head of the body, the church” (Colossians 1:18)

Christ is the supreme authority over the redeemed people of God. This reflects a divine prerogative, because the church ultimately belongs to God alone.

“The beginning” (Colossians 1:18)

This means Christ is the source and origin of the church and the new creation. In Revelation 3:14, the same title means “the ruler” or “the source,” not “the first created.”

“Firstborn from the dead” (Colossians 1:18)

Again, “firstborn” denotes priority in rank, not the first person ever resurrected. Jesus is the supreme one over the new creation and the resurrection life.

“He has first place in everything” (Colossians 1:18)

Paul states the purpose of all the previous titles. Christ is supreme in every domain and over every category of existence, something that would be impossible if He were a creature.

 “All the fullness dwells in Him” (Colossians 1:19)

“Fullness” (pleroma) refers to the totality of God’s being, presence, and power. Colossians 2:9 expands this by saying “all the fullness of deity dwells bodily in Him,” which rules out any creaturely interpretation.

“Through Him God reconciles all things to Himself” (Colossians 1:20)

This title shows Christ performs the divine act of reconciliation on a universal level. No created being can reconcile all things in heaven and on earth back to God.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

Revelation 3:14 proves Jesus is not God because calling Him “the beginning of God’s creation” clearly identifies Him as the first creature God made, which means He cannot be eternal or equal with the Father but is instead the starting point of creation itself.

Counter

Anyone who thinks Revelation 3:14 proves Jesus is a created being has either ignored the Greek or ripped the verse out of its own context. The word translated “beginning” is archē, which in every relevant theological usage refers to source, origin, or ruler, not the first thing created. 

Jesus is not called “the beginning of creation” in the sense of “the first creature,” but “the beginning” as in the one who begins creation, the origin and source of all created reality. This is exactly how John uses archē in John 1:1–3, where the Word is already existing in the beginning and is the one through whom all things came into being, which leaves no room for Him to be part of what was created. 

It gets worse for the Unitarian or SCJ reading, because the same book of Revelation repeatedly identifies Jesus with divine titles that belong exclusively to God, such as “the First and the Last” in Revelation 1:17 and 2:8, a title taken directly from Isaiah 44:6 where Yahweh uses it for Himself. Revelation also applies the Alpha and the Omega language to Jesus in Revelation 22:13, the exact same divine designation the Father uses in Revelation 1:8. The idea that the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, and the origin of all creation is somehow the first creature is not merely inconsistent, it is impossible. 

Revelation 3:14 calls Jesus the archē of creation because He is the one who initiates, causes, and rules creation, not because He is part of it. The Creator of all things cannot be a creature, and the same John who wrote Revelation already told you that “without Him nothing came into being that has come into being,” which means Jesus cannot be among the things that came into being. The only way to read Revelation 3:14 as proof that Jesus is a creature is to ignore John’s theology, ignore the Greek, and ignore everything the book of Revelation actually says about Christ’s divine identity.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

Proverbs 8:22 teaches that God “created” or “brought forth” Wisdom before anything else, and since the New Testament identifies Jesus as the Wisdom of God, this proves Jesus was created and therefore cannot be eternal or truly God.

Counter

Anyone who tries to use Proverbs 8:22 to prove Jesus was created is either ignoring the genre of the passage, the Hebrew grammar, the entire context of Proverbs, or the rest of Scripture that identifies Christ as eternal. Proverbs 8 is not describing a literal person being created. It is a poetic personification of God’s attribute of wisdom, which is something inherent to God’s nature. If Proverbs 8:22 means Wisdom was literally created, then you have just reduced God to a fool before creation, since He would have existed without wisdom. No serious reader of Scripture believes God ever existed without His own attributes. Wisdom is one of the perfections of God. To claim it was created is to claim God is not eternal in His own attributes, which is blasphemous nonsense.

The Hebrew verb in Proverbs 8:22, qanah, does not necessarily mean “create.” In many passages it means “to possess,” which is exactly how the Septuagint translated the word when addressing divine attributes. Genesis 14:19 uses qanah to mean “possessor of heaven and earth.” Psalm 139:13 uses it for God “forming” or “knitting together” David in the womb. The point is that the text is flexible and must be translated by context. And the context of Proverbs 8 is clear. The entire section describes wisdom as existing eternally with God, standing beside Him as He creates, rejoicing in His works, and present “before the depths,” “before the mountains,” and “before the hills.” None of this language describes a created being. It describes an attribute of God personified for the sake of instruction.

Now here is where the argument collapses. The New Testament never identifies Jesus as the literal figure of Proverbs 8. It says Jesus is the “Wisdom of God” in 1 Corinthians 1:24, which means He is the perfect revelation of God’s wisdom, not that He is the poetic personification in Proverbs. Paul calls Jesus “the power of God” in the same verse. Does that mean “power” in the Old Testament was a literal person? Of course not. These are metaphors describing Christ’s role in salvation.

Even worse for the Unitarian or SCJ interpretation, the same Scriptures that allegedly teach Jesus was created in Proverbs 8 also teach that He created everything. John 1:3 says all things came into being through Him, and without Him nothing came into being that has come into being. Colossians 1:16 says He created all things in heaven and on earth. Hebrews 1:2 says the Son made the world. If Jesus created everything, then He cannot be a created thing. Proverbs 8:22 is wisdom poetry, not Christology. Anyone who treats it as a literal biography of Jesus should stop pretending they care about context, Hebrew grammar, or what the New Testament actually teaches about Christ’s eternal nature.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

John 5:19 proves Jesus is not God because saying the Son “can do nothing of Himself” clearly shows He lacks independent divine power and relies entirely on the Father’s authority, which means He cannot be equal to God or possess the same divine nature.

Counter

Anyone who thinks John 5:19 proves Jesus is not God has clearly never read past the first half of the verse and has no idea how Trinitarian theology works. When Jesus says the Son “can do nothing of Himself,” He is not denying deity. He is asserting perfect unity, equality, and inseparability with the Father. The point is not inability. The point is that the Son cannot act independently because He shares the same divine nature, will, and operation as the Father. The Son cannot do anything “by Himself” in the same way the Father cannot do anything “by Himself,” because neither person of the Trinity ever acts in isolation. Everything God does is done by Father, Son, and Spirit together.

If you doubt that, just keep reading. Jesus immediately says, “Whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise.” That sentence alone destroys every Unitarian interpretation, because no creature in heaven or on earth can do “whatever the Father does.” The Father creates and sustains the universe, forgives sins, raises the dead, gives life, judges the world, and receives worship. Jesus claims to do every one of those things. Then He doubles down by saying the Father has entrusted all judgment to the Son so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. That is John 5:23, and it is one of the clearest claims to deity in the entire Bible. If you honor the Son less than the Father, Jesus says you dishonor the Father. Only a divine person can demand equal honor with God.

The Jews understood this perfectly, which is why verse 18 says they tried to kill Him for “making Himself equal with God.” John 5:19 is not Jesus backing away from that charge. It is Jesus proving it. The same chapter ends with Jesus saying Moses wrote about Him, that He gives eternal life, and that all who reject Him will face judgment under His authority. None of this is language of a powerless servant. This is the language of the eternal Son who shares the divine nature with the Father. The Son cannot act “from Himself” because the divine nature never acts independently, and everything the Father does, the Son does in perfect unity. John 5:19 is not a denial of deity. It is one of the most powerful affirmations of deity in the Gospel of John.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

Jesus praying to God proves He is not God because a divine being would not need to communicate with or depend on another being through prayer, which shows that Jesus is subordinate, ignorant of certain things, and therefore cannot be the same God to whom He is praying.

Counter

First, we need to define what prayer is, and then second, we need to show how the Father, Son, and even the Holy Spirit all “pray” to each other.

Biblically, prayer is communication directed toward God that expresses trust, dependence, worship, and communion, and the Scriptures consistently describe it as an act of relational fellowship rather than a sign of inferiority. Prayer includes praise, confession, thanksgiving, petition, and intercession, as seen in passages like Psalm 50:15, where God commands His people to call upon Him, and Philippians 4:6, where believers are told to make their requests known to God. Jesus teaches that prayer is intimate communion with the Father in Matthew 6:6 and models it in John 17, where He speaks of their shared glory and unity. Prayer is also Trinitarian, since believers pray to the Father through the Son in the Spirit according to Ephesians 2:18. Old Testament figures like David and Daniel speak with God in prayer as conversation, and in Psalm 18:6 David says, “In my distress I called upon the Lord and cried to my God for help.” Prayer therefore is not merely asking God for things but entering into fellowship with God, expressing obedience and devotion, and participating in the relational life that God Himself enjoys within the Trinity.

Then, we can see this pattern in both the Old and New Testament.

The Old Testament repeatedly reveals communication among distinct divine persons, showing the Father, the Son, and the Spirit interacting long before the incarnation. In Psalm 110:1, David records “The Lord says to my Lord,” where Yahweh speaks to another divine person who shares His authority and rules at His right hand. In Isaiah 48:16, a divine speaker who has existed “from the beginning” declares, “The Lord God has sent me, and His Spirit,” showing three divine persons acting together. In Isaiah 63:9–10, the Angel of God’s Presence saves Israel while the Father loves them and the Holy Spirit is grieved, demonstrating distinct divine agents in mutual relationship. The Angel of the Lord, who is identified as God in Exodus 3:2–6, speaks directly with Yahweh in passages like Zechariah 3:1–4, where the Angel intercedes before the Lord on behalf of Joshua. These texts show not a solitary deity but divine persons communicating, sending, speaking, interceding, and acting toward one another, revealing the relational life of the Trinity within the Old Testament itself.

The New Testament repeatedly depicts direct communication among the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, revealing the relational life of the Trinity. At Jesus’ baptism in Matthew 3:16–17, the Father speaks from heaven, the Son is in the water, and the Spirit descends like a dove, showing all three persons acting and communicating simultaneously. Jesus frequently speaks to the Father in prayer, such as in John 17 where He asks to be glorified with the glory He shared with the Father before the world existed. The Father responds audibly to the Son in passages like John 12:28, saying “I have glorified it and will glorify it again.” Jesus speaks of sending the Holy Spirit in John 15:26 and says the Spirit will take what belongs to Him and declare it to believers according to John 16:14. The Spirit speaks to and directs the apostles, such as in Acts 13:2 where the Holy Spirit commands the church to set apart Barnabas and Saul. These interactions demonstrate personal communication, relational unity, and mutual divine authority among Father, Son, and Spirit, confirming the tri-personal nature of the one God revealed in the New Testament.

Just because Jesus prays to the Father, it does not mean that Jesus isn’t divine; instead, Jesus is just repeating a pattern that is already found throughout the Bible.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

Jesus repeatedly says He was “sent” by the Father in passages like John 5:30 and John 6:38, and because a sender has greater authority than the one who is sent, this proves Jesus is subordinate, dependent, and therefore not truly God but a commissioned servant under the Father’s command.

Counter

The idea of being “sent” in Scripture refers to a mission or role, not to the nature or essence of the one who is sent. God sends prophets, angels, apostles, John the Baptist, and even the Holy Spirit, yet in none of these cases does sending imply that the one sent is lesser in nature than the sender. It simply means they are acting within the role assigned to them in God’s redemptive plan. In the same way, the Father sends the Son because the Son is the one who accomplishes redemption in human flesh, not because the Son possesses a different or lesser nature. Jesus repeatedly explains that His mission is to carry out the Father’s will in the world, but He also says that He came down from heaven, that He existed before Abraham, and that He has authority to give life and judge the world. These claims show that His role as the sent one does not deny His divine nature but reveals His purpose within the Godhead. John 1:18 makes this clear, since it teaches that the only begotten God who is at the Father’s side makes the Father known. The Father sends the Son because the Son is the perfect revelation of the Father, and the Father and the Son act in complete unity of nature, will, and purpose.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

If Jesus is God, co-equal to the Father, how can he receive authority and the Kingdom as seen in Matthew 28:18 and Daniel 7:13-14?

Counter

Jesus receives authority because He has the office of Messiah and a role to fulfill in God’s redemptive plan, not because He lacked authority or divinity before the incarnation. Philippians 2:5–11 clearly teaches that the Son existed in the form of God and possessed divine status before taking on human flesh, and that His exaltation comes after His obedience as the incarnate Messiah, not as a promotion from creaturehood to deity. This pattern fits perfectly with the Old Testament, where God is repeatedly exalted after accomplishing a redemptive act. After the Red Sea deliverance, the people exalt God in Exodus 15, and God is magnified after defeating Pharaoh in Exodus 14:31. Isaiah 33:5 describes God being exalted as He fills Zion with justice, while Isaiah 2:17 and Psalm 97:9 show God being exalted among all the nations after acting in judgment and salvation. The biblical pattern is therefore clear. God acts and then God is publicly exalted. Jesus follows this same divine pattern in His role as Messiah. His exaltation in Matthew 28:18 and Daniel 7:13–14 is the public recognition of His completed work as the God-man, not the beginning of His authority.

Before the incarnation, Jesus already owned, ruled, and created the world according to the Old Testament, and His receiving of authority after the resurrection is the public acknowledgment of what He has always been in His divine nature. Psalm 2 presents the Son as the divine ruler who receives the nations as His inheritance, and Psalm 110 shows the pre-incarnate Messiah seated at Yahweh’s right hand with universal authority. The Angel of the Lord, who appears in passages like Exodus 3 and Judges 6, is both distinguished from Yahweh and identified as Yahweh, forgives sins, bears God’s name, and exercises divine rule, which the early Church rightly understood as the pre-incarnate Son. Proverbs 8 depicts the divine Wisdom who stood beside God before creation, and the New Testament identifies Christ as that Wisdom in 1 Corinthians 1:24. Daniel 7:13–14 reveals the divine Son of Man who comes with the clouds, receives eternal dominion, and is worshiped by all nations long before Bethlehem. Most decisively, the New Testament explicitly applies Old Testament creation texts about Yahweh directly to Jesus, such as John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, and Hebrews 1:10. The Creator is the owner of creation, so the Son’s eternal sovereignty is already established. His exaltation in the New Testament is therefore a Messianic coronation, not an elevation from creaturehood, and it expresses the perfect unity of authority between the Father and the Son.

The Old Testament consistently teaches that Yahweh alone created and sustains all things, and the New Testament explicitly applies these same creation texts to Jesus, demonstrating that He already possessed divine authority and ownership before the incarnation. Isaiah 44:24 states that Yahweh created the heavens and the earth “alone,” without any helper, and Genesis 1 presents God creating everything by His word. Yet the New Testament declares that “all things came into being through” Jesus in John 1:3, that “by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible” in Colossians 1:16, and that the Father Himself identifies the Son as the Creator when He quotes Psalm 102 in Hebrews 1:10, saying, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth.” The Creator is the rightful owner of creation, and since these passages identify the Son as the very one who performed the works attributed to Yahweh alone, they show that Jesus exercised divine sovereignty long before taking on flesh. His exaltation after the resurrection is therefore not the moment He becomes ruler, but the moment His eternal rulership is publicly manifested in His Messianic role.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

Jesus sitting at God’s right hand in passages like Psalm 110:1 and Acts 7:56 proves He is not God because sitting next to God implies He is a separate, subordinate being who receives authority from God rather than sharing God’s identity or nature.

Counter

A Trinitarian affirms that God is one God who exists eternally as three distinct persons who fully share the same divine essence, so any argument that assumes “three persons equals three gods” already misunderstands what Christianity teaches. When Scripture says Jesus sits at the right hand of God, it is using an ancient Near Eastern idiom that refers to royal authority, power, and status, not to physical distance or creaturely subordination. The phrase “right hand” signifies the position of equal honor and executive rule, just as the idiom “right hand man” still expresses delegated authority, shared power, and functional unity. In Psalm 110:1 the Messiah sits at God’s right hand because He shares in God’s rule, and in Acts 7:56 Stephen sees the Son of Man standing at God’s right hand because He participates in God’s authority in heaven. The right hand is the throne of power, not a second-class seat, and the New Testament confirms this, since Ephesians 1:20–22 says Christ at God’s right hand holds authority far above all rulers and powers. Sitting at the right hand does not deny Christ’s deity. It affirms His role as the divine Messiah who shares the Father’s throne and reigns with the same authority as God. We can see this with verses like Exodus 15:6, Psalm 89;13, Psalm 118:15-16, etc.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

When Jesus says “the Father is greater than I” in John 14:28, He is not only speaking of His earthly humility but revealing a permanent hierarchy in which the Father is inherently superior in rank and authority, showing that Jesus cannot be equal to God in nature or status.

Counter

In the context of John 14, Jesus makes it clear that the Father’s “greatness” refers to role and position within the economy of salvation, not to a difference in divine nature. Earlier in the same chapter, Jesus teaches that He and the Father together will indwell the disciples in John 14:23, something no creature can do. He promises that He Himself will answer prayers made in His name in John 14:13 to 14, a divine prerogative that shows He possesses the same authority as the Father. He also explains that whoever has seen Him has seen the Father because He shares the Father’s works and words in perfect unity. Since Jesus performs the same divine actions as the Father, indwells believers with the Father, and exercises the same divine authority in response to prayer, the statement that the Father is “greater” must refer to the Father’s position as the sender and to Jesus’ temporary humility during the incarnation. Jesus is not claiming that the Father is greater in nature, but that the Father holds the greater role within the mission while the Son carries out that mission as the incarnate mediator. 

This is also why Jesus explicitly prays in John 17:5 to be glorified with the very same glory He shared with the Father before the world existed, which would be impossible if the Father were greater in nature rather than in role, since God does not share His divine glory with a creature according to Isaiah 42:8.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

When Jesus says in Matthew 24:36 that only the Father knows the day and hour, it shows that Jesus lacks divine omniscience and therefore cannot be truly God, since a being who does not know everything cannot share the same nature as the all-knowing Father.

Counter

 The Greek verb “oida” does not always refer to absolute ignorance

In Matthew 24:36 Jesus says “no one knows [oiden]” the day or the hour. The verb oida in Greek often refers not to a lack of capacity to know, but to a lack of disclosure, a knowledge not revealed or not communicated for a purpose. For example, in John 21:17 Peter says to Jesus, “You know [oidas] everything,” and the same verb describes Jesus’ divine omniscience. The verb is flexible. It can mean “to know,” “to understand,” “to be aware,” or “to make known.”

Paul uses “oida” to mean “not revealing” rather than literal ignorance

In 1 Corinthians 2:2 Paul says “I decided to know [oida] nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.” Paul obviously did not lose all other knowledge. He means he chose not to disclose or focus on anything else. This directly parallels how oida can operate in Matthew 24:36. Jesus is not saying, “I am incapable of knowing,” but rather that this knowledge is not being revealed within the scope of His incarnational mission.

The Old Testament frequently uses “not knowing” as a figure of speech for “not disclosing”

A. Genesis 22:12

God says to Abraham, “Now I know that you fear God,” but God already knows all things (1 Samuel 16:7). This is experiential revelation, not new information.

B. Deuteronomy 8:2

God says He tested Israel so that He might “know” what was in their heart. Again, the omniscient God does not gain information. He reveals it through events.

C. Psalm 73:11

The wicked say, “How does God know?” which mocks the idea of God being unaware, clearly not literal.

Thus, “knowing” or “not knowing” is commonly used in Scripture as covenantal or revelatory language, not literal ignorance.

Unitarian logic collapses when confronted with Revelation 19:12

Revelation 19:12 says:

“He has a name written that no one knows except Himself.”

If Unitarians insist that “not knowing” implies creaturely ignorance, then they must conclude:

• Jesus has knowledge that no one else has, not even the Father.
• Jesus is omniscient in a way that excludes every other being.

This destroys their argument, because by their own standard:

• If Matthew 24:36 proves Jesus is not God, then Revelation 19:12 proves Jesus is greater than God.

Obviously both conclusions are absurd.

The only consistent interpretation is this:

• In Matthew 24:36 Jesus is not incapable of knowing.
• In Revelation 19:12 Jesus possesses knowledge that is withheld or not disclosed.

Both passages use “knowing” in the sense of revelation, not essence.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

If Jesus is called God’s “servant” in passages like Isaiah 42 and Acts 3:13, then He must be subordinate to God in nature and status, since a servant is by definition inferior to the one he serves, which means Jesus cannot be God Himself but only an exalted human or prophetic agent.

Counter

Isaiah 42 and Acts 3:13 describe Jesus as the Servant of the Lord because He fulfills the prophesied role of the Messiah who carries out God’s redemptive plan.
Being a servant describes His mission, not His essence.

If being a servant means someone is not God, then:

• The pre-incarnate Word cannot be God because He “was sent.”
• The Holy Spirit cannot be God because He is “sent” by both the Father and the Son.

This is a category error.
Role and nature are not the same.

I have not personally had Shincheonji use this claim; but, I figure I should also address it just in case.

In the phrase “kai theos ēn ho logos,” John places theos before the verb for emphasis, which creates what Greek grammarians call a predicate nominative in the preverbal position. According to Colwell’s Rule, when a predicate noun appears before the verb it is normally qualitative and typically lacks the article, meaning it describes the nature or essence of the subject rather than identifying a separate being. This construction shows that “the Word was God” means the Word possesses the very nature of God, not that the Word was “a god,” since the grammar does not permit that interpretation. Greek frequently omits the article before theos when referring to the one true God, as seen in passages like John 1:6, which speaks of “a man sent from God” without an article, John 1:12, which calls believers “children of God” with anarthrous theou, and John 1:18, which says “God no one has seen” without the article yet clearly refers to Yahweh. Because the New Testament regularly uses anarthrous theos to refer to the true God, the claim that “no article means a god” is linguistically incorrect and contrary to Greek usage.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 should not be read as calling Jesus “our great God and Savior,” because the Greek grammar is ambiguous and could refer to two different persons, meaning these verses may simply speak of God the Father as God and Jesus only as the Savior, not equating Jesus with God.

Counter

In both Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, the Greek construction fits the grammatical pattern known as the Granville Sharp Rule, which states that when two singular, personal, non-proper nouns are connected by the conjunction kai and governed by a single article, they refer to the same person. In Titus 2:13, the expression tou megalou theou kai sōtēros hēmōn Iēsou Christou uses one article (tou) to describe both God and Savior as titles of Jesus Christ. Likewise, in 2 Peter 1:1 the phrase tou theou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou applies both titles “God” and “Savior” to Christ through a single article. Because both theos and sōtēr are singular, personal, and not proper names, the rule applies perfectly, making it grammatically certain that Paul and Peter are identifying one person as “our God and Savior Jesus Christ.” If the authors intended to speak of two different persons, Greek provided several easy mechanisms to do so, such as repeating the article or using separate prepositional phrases, yet they do not use them. The grammar therefore requires the single-person interpretation.

The New Testament regularly uses the same single-article construction in many places to refer unquestionably to one person, confirming that the grammar in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 must be taken in the same way. Expressions such as “the God and Father” (ho theos kai patēr) in passages like 2 Corinthians 1:3 or Ephesians 1:3 clearly refer to one person, not two. Likewise, the repeated phrase “the Lord and Savior” (ho kurios kai sōtēr) in 2 Peter 1:11 and 3:18 describes Jesus alone, not two different individuals. This same grammatical structure consistently applies two titles to one person throughout the New Testament. Because Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 follow the exact same construction, it is linguistically unavoidable that Paul and Peter intended to identify Jesus as “our great God and Savior.” The grammar is uniform, predictable, and consistent across Greek usage, leaving no legitimate basis for separating “God” from “Savior” in these passages.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

Hebrews 1:8 is addressing God metaphorically, or “God” means “mighty one.”

Counter

Hebrews 1:8 explicitly quotes Psalm 45:6 verbatim from the Septuagint to apply to the Son the title “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,” demonstrating that the author intentionally invokes a royal psalm originally addressed to Israel’s king as God’s anointed representative. Psalm 45 is indeed the source, as Hebrews 1:8 follows the identical Greek wording ho thronos sou, ho theos, showing the author is not paraphrasing, but directly drawing from a text that ascribes divine honor and an eternal throne to the king. While Psalm 45 uses exalted language for the Davidic monarch, Hebrews transforms the psalm’s typology by placing it within a framework where the Son is contrasted not with human rulers but with angels. In Hebrews 1, the Son is superior to angels, worshiped by angels (1:6), addressed as God by the Father (1:8), and identified as the unchanging Creator of heaven and earth (1:10–12), all of which move far beyond any metaphor for a human king. The author does not use “God” in a weakened or metaphorical sense, because he immediately follows with the Father saying to the Son, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth,” a statement taken from Psalm 102 that in the Old Testament refers exclusively to Yahweh. Thus, Psalm 45 becomes part of a larger argument where the Son receives divine titles, divine worship, divine works, and divine attributes. The context of Hebrews 1 leaves no room for interpreting “God” as “mighty one” or merely metaphorical, because the chapter explicitly presents the Son as Yahweh Himself in distinction from creation and superior to every heavenly being.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

When Jesus says “I am” in John 8:58, He is simply identifying Himself as the Messiah (“I am he”) as in passages like John 4:26, and therefore He is not claiming divine identity but asserting His messianic role.

Counter

The context of John 8 makes it impossible for “I am” in John 8:58 to mean only “I am he,” because Jesus contrasts His existence with Abraham’s by using the present tense “I am” rather than “I have been,” showing timeless existence rather than a messianic title. Throughout the chapter, Jesus speaks of coming from above (8:23), being sent by the Father (8:16), and claiming that Abraham rejoiced to see His day (8:56), all of which point to preexistence, not a simple identity statement. If Jesus merely meant “I am he,” then the Jewish crowd would have had no reason to pick up stones to kill Him in 8:59. Their reaction shows they understood His claim as blasphemous, not messianic. Moreover, John consistently reserves “ego eimi” without a predicate for divine self-identification, as seen in John 8:24 and 8:28. In John 8:58, Jesus claims a mode of existence that precedes Abraham and is ongoing in the present, which is the language of eternal being, not prophetic role. This is why the crowd attempts to stone Him. They correctly perceive that Jesus has just taken for Himself the divine name.

Jesus’ “I am” statement in John 8:58 echoes the divine self-revelation in Exodus 3:14, where the Angel of the LORD appears in the burning bush and says, “I AM WHO I AM,” identifying Himself with the covenant name of Yahweh given to Moses. The Angel of the LORD in Exodus 3:2–6 is both distinguished from Yahweh and identified as Yahweh, speaking as God and receiving worship. By contrast, Moses in Exodus 7:1 is called “as God” metaphorically to Pharaoh, but he never uses the divine name “I AM,” never claims eternal preexistence, and never receives worship. Jesus’ use of “I am” aligns with the Angel of the LORD’s divine self-identification, not with Moses’ representative role. Therefore, Jesus’ claim in John 8:58 is not messianic self-identification but a declaration that He shares the eternal identity of the LORD who spoke from the burning bush.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

“Existing in the form of God” in Philippians 2:6 does not mean Jesus is God, because “form” can simply refer to outward appearance or representative status, just as humans bear the image of God in Genesis 1:26–27 without being divine.

Counter

The SCJ interpretation collapses once the context of Philippians 2 is examined, because Paul contrasts two forms that Jesus possesses: the “form of God” and the “form of a servant” in Philippians 2:6–7. If “form of God” simply meant having God’s image the way humans do, then Paul’s argument becomes meaningless, since Jesus would already be in the “form of a man” before taking on “the form of a servant.” That interpretation destroys the contrast and makes Paul say that Jesus existed in the likeness of a man before He was born as a man. Instead, “form of God” refers to possessing the essential attributes, glory, and status of God, because Paul says Jesus did not grasp at equality with God, something no mere human could possess or give up. Jesus empties Himself by taking the “form of a servant” and being made “in human likeness,” showing that His preexistent state was not human or angelic but divine. The entire passage depends on the contrast between His divine preexistence and His genuine incarnation, making the SCJ reading logically incoherent and grammatically impossible.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

When Colossians 2:9 says that “all the fullness of deity dwells in Christ,” it simply means that the Father’s Spirit operates through Him, so Christ reflects God’s presence and authority without being God Himself, much like prophets or chosen servants in whom God’s Spirit also dwelt.

Counter

The SCJ interpretation collapses within the context of Colossians, because Paul does not say that the Father’s Spirit works through Jesus the way it did through prophets, but that in Christ “all the fullness of deity dwells bodily,” a statement far stronger than describing someone as a vessel of God’s Spirit. In Colossians 1:16 Paul already stated that Christ created all things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, which cannot be said of any Spirit-filled prophet or servant. In Colossians 1:17 he adds that Christ holds all things together, which places Him on the Creator side of the Creator–creation divide. In Colossians 1:19 Paul says the fullness dwells in Christ because it pleased the Father that it should, not because Christ is merely a conduit. The language of “fullness” (pleroma) in Paul always refers to the totality of divine essence or attributes, not merely the presence of the Spirit, and the term “deity” (theotēs) in 2:9 refers to God’s very nature, not divine power or activity. Therefore, Paul is not describing the Father empowering a creature. He is declaring that everything that makes God God lives in Christ in bodily form, which cannot be reduced to an indwelling of God’s Spirit without destroying the entire flow of Paul’s argument about Christ’s supremacy.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

Matthew 1:23 calling Jesus “Immanuel” means that God is with His people through Jesus as His representative, not that Jesus Himself is God, just as God was “with” Israel through prophets, kings, and deliverers in the Old Testament.

Counter

The claim that “Immanuel” only means God is with His people through Jesus collapses once Matthew 1:23 is read in its biblical context, because Matthew is not merely using a symbolic name but identifying Jesus as the literal fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14, where the child is not only a sign but a divine presence among His people. Throughout Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus does what only God can do: He forgives sins with His own authority in Matthew 9:6, receives worship in Matthew 14:33 and 28:17, commands angels in Matthew 13:41, and promises to be with His disciples always in Matthew 28:20, echoing God’s promise in the Old Testament to dwell with His people. Unlike prophets or kings who mediated God’s presence, Jesus is Himself the embodiment of God’s presence, as Matthew bookends his Gospel with “God with us” in 1:23 and “I am with you always” in 28:20. The idea that Immanuel means merely a representative role ignores the way Matthew presents Jesus as God’s direct presence in human flesh, not simply an agent through whom God works.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

In John 5:18 the Jews merely misunderstood Jesus’ words and overreacted, thinking He was claiming equality with God, when in reality Jesus only meant that He was God’s servant acting under divine commission, not that He literally shared God’s status or nature.

Counter

The claim that the Jews misunderstood Jesus collapses the moment we read His response, because instead of correcting them Jesus intensifies His claims in ways that only reinforce their conclusion. In John 5:17 He declares, “My Father is working until now, and I am working,” placing His work on the same level as the Father’s continual divine activity that sustains the universe. Immediately after the Jews interpret this as a claim to equality with God, Jesus confirms their understanding by saying that the Son does whatever the Father does in John 5:19, a statement no prophet, angel, or servant could truthfully make. He then asserts that He gives life just as the Father gives life and that He will judge all humanity in John 5:21–22, actions explicitly reserved for God alone in the Old Testament. This follows His earlier claim in Matthew 12:8 to be “Lord of the Sabbath,” a title that asserts authority over a divine institution established by Yahweh Himself in Genesis 2:2–3 and grounded in the fourth commandment. If being “Lord of the Sabbath” does not imply divine authority, then the Sabbath has no divine origin. Jesus never corrects the charge of equality because He means exactly what He says. The Jews understood Him correctly, and Jesus’ continued claims to divine works, divine authority, and divine prerogatives prove that He was not being misunderstood but was openly declaring His equality with the Father.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

When Jesus says in John 5:30, “I can do nothing on my own,” He is admitting that He lacks divine power and operates only through the Father’s authority, proving that He is subordinate in nature and not truly God.

Counter

The claim falls apart once the entire context of John 5 is considered, because Jesus’ statement about doing nothing “on His own” is not an admission of weakness but a declaration of perfect unity with the Father. Just a few verses earlier in John 5:19 Jesus says that whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise, which is a claim to full divine capacity, since no creature can do everything God does. The point of John 5:30 is not that Jesus lacks power, but that the Son never acts independently or separately from the Father, because their will and work are one. This is reinforced in John 5:21–22 where Jesus claims the Father’s exclusive prerogatives: the power to give life and authority to judge all humanity. In 5:23 He states that all must honor the Son just as they honor the Father, a demand that would be blasphemous if He were not divine. The flow of the chapter shows that “I can do nothing on my own” expresses the inseparability of the Son’s divine nature and mission with the Father, not a confession of inferiority or creaturehood.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

When Jesus says in John 6:38 that He came down from heaven “not to do my own will, but the will of Him who sent me,” He is admitting that His will is inferior or different from the Father’s, proving He cannot be God but only a subordinate agent carrying out God’s desires.

Counter

This objection collapses once the context of John 6 is examined, because Jesus is not contrasting a fallen or deficient will with the Father’s, but showing His perfect unity with the Father in accomplishing salvation. In John 6:38–40 Jesus explains that the Father’s will is that the Son should give eternal life and raise believers on the last day, which He claims as His own divine prerogative. Only God gives eternal life and resurrects the dead, yet Jesus repeatedly says, “I will raise him up on the last day,” showing that doing the Father’s will is an expression of shared authority, not inferiority. Earlier in the chapter, Jesus identifies Himself as the true bread that came down from heaven in John 6:33 and 6:35, a title that implies divine origin rather than creaturely subordination. Later in John 6:46 He says that no one has seen the Father except the one who is from God, who alone has seen the Father, again distinguishing Himself from all creatures. When Jesus speaks of doing the Father’s will, He is describing the economic relationship within the Trinity in which the Son carries out the role of Redeemer, not an ontological hierarchy of nature. His will aligns perfectly with the Father’s because He shares the same divine nature, and His mission is the public expression of that unity, not evidence that He is less than God.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

When Jesus says in John 7:16 that His teaching is “not mine,” it shows He does not possess divine authority or originate divine truth, proving that He is only a messenger who relays God’s teachings rather than God Himself.

Counter

The context of John 7 makes it clear that Jesus is not denying divine authority but emphasizing that His message has the same source as the Father because He shares the Father’s nature and mission. In John 7:16–17 Jesus says that His teaching is “not mine, but His who sent me,” meaning that His teaching is not independent from the Father, not that He lacks authority. This perfectly matches John 5, where Jesus insists He can do nothing “on His own” because He does everything the Father does, demonstrating inseparable unity, not inferiority. Just a few verses earlier in John 7:14–15, the Jews are astonished because Jesus teaches with an authority that cannot be explained by human learning, which would be impossible for a mere prophet or delegated messenger. Later in the chapter, Jesus claims divine origin by saying, “I know Him because I am from Him, and He sent me” (John 7:29), which goes far beyond any prophetic formula and asserts unique divine sonship. Throughout John’s Gospel, Jesus’ words are identical with the Father’s because He speaks as the eternal Word (John 1:1), not as a passive conduit. Therefore, “my teaching is not mine” does not mean Jesus lacks divine authority but that the teaching He speaks is the Father’s own teaching, expressed through the Son who shares the same divine essence and cannot act independently from Him.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

When Jesus says in John 8:28 that He “does nothing on His own,” this proves He lacks divine power and depends entirely on the Father’s direction, showing He is subordinate by nature and therefore cannot be God.

Counter

Reading John 8 in context shows that Jesus’ statement about doing “nothing on His own” is not a confession of inferiority but an affirmation of His perfect unity with the Father. Just before this, in John 8:23, Jesus declares He is “from above” and not of this world, distinguishing Himself from every created being. In John 8:24 He warns that unless people believe in Him as “I am,” they will die in their sins, a claim no mere creature could make. In John 8:26–27 He says He speaks only what He has heard from the Father because He is the Father’s perfect and eternal expression, consistent with John’s teaching that He is the Word who was with God and was God in John 1:1. When Jesus says He does nothing on His own, He is emphasizing that He does nothing independently or separately from the Father, not that He lacks the ability to act. This interpretation is proven by John 8:28–29, where He adds that the Father is always with Him and He always does what pleases the Father, showing inseparable divine unity, not creaturely limitation. Further, in the same chapter Jesus claims preexistence before Abraham in John 8:58 by taking the divine name “I am,” after which the Jews attempt to stone Him for blasphemy. The immediate context therefore shows that “does nothing on His own” means the Son cannot act apart from the Father because they share the same divine nature, will, and work, not because He is powerless or subordinate in essence.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

When Jesus says in John 12:49 that the Father “commanded Me what to say,” it proves Jesus does not possess independent divine authority and speaks only under orders, showing that He is a subordinate messenger rather than God Himself.

Counter

The objection breaks down once John 12 is read in context, because Jesus is not denying divine authority but affirming that His words are identical with the Father’s because they share the same divine nature. In John 12:49–50 Jesus says He speaks what the Father has commanded because His command leads to eternal life, something only God can give. Earlier in the chapter, John quotes Isaiah 6 and applies it directly to Jesus in John 12:41, showing that the glory Isaiah saw in the temple was the glory of Christ, not the glory of a subordinate messenger. Jesus repeatedly says throughout the Gospel of John that His words are life, His voice raises the dead, and His teaching carries divine authority because He is the Word who was with God and was God (John 1:1). The statement that He speaks what the Father commands does not place Him in the category of prophets who relay messages they do not originate; instead, it reflects the perfect unity of the Father and the Son, who share one will and one purpose. This same unity is why Jesus can say, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” in John 14:9 and why His words are described as spirit and life in John 6:63. The Son speaks the Father’s command because the Son is the perfect revelation of the Father, not because He lacks divine authority or independent divine knowledge.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

When Jesus says in John 14:10 that “the Father who dwells in Me does His works,” it implies Jesus is merely a vessel through whom the Father operates, meaning Jesus Himself does not possess divine power or deity but functions as an instrument of God.

Counter

This interpretation collapses once John 14 is read carefully, because Jesus is not describing Himself as a passive vessel like a prophet, but as one who shares the Father’s very works, words, and presence. In John 14:9 Jesus says that anyone who has seen Him has seen the Father, something that could never be said of any prophet or created agent. In John 14:10 He explains that the Father dwelling in Him does His works, but immediately adds that “I am in the Father and the Father is in Me,” which is language of mutual indwelling that reveals shared divine nature, not mere cooperation. Just two verses earlier He promises that whatever the disciples ask in His name He Himself will do (John 14:13), demonstrating independent divine authority, since no prophet or creature performs works in response to prayer. Later in the same chapter, Jesus and the Father together will come and make their home with the believer (John 14:23), which shows that Jesus indwells believers with the same divine presence as the Father, something impossible for a creature. The broader context of John’s Gospel reinforces this, since Jesus is repeatedly said to perform works that only God performs, such as giving life in John 5:21, judging the world in John 5:22, and raising Himself from the dead in John 10:17–18. Therefore, “the Father who dwells in Me does His works” is not a denial of Jesus’ deity but a declaration that the Father and the Son act inseparably because they share the same divine essence and perfectly united will.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

When Jesus says, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone,” He is denying that He is God and correcting the man for attributing divine-level goodness to Him, proving Jesus is only a human teacher.

Counter

The objection fails once Mark 10 is read in context, because Jesus is not denying His goodness or deity, but challenging the rich young ruler’s superficial flattery and forcing him to consider the implications of calling Jesus “good.” The man approaches Jesus merely as a “good teacher” rather than as Lord, and Jesus responds by exposing the man’s shallow understanding of goodness while implicitly pointing him toward the divine identity of the One speaking to him. If Jesus were denying His own goodness, He would be denying His sinlessness and contradicting John 8:46, Hebrews 4:15, and 1 Peter 2:22, which affirm that He is without sin. Instead, Jesus is pressing the man with a deeper truth: if only God is good, and you are calling Me good, then you must reckon with who I really am. Jesus then demonstrates divine authority by listing commandments, penetrating the man’s heart, demanding ultimate allegiance, promising treasure in heaven, and claiming the ability to reward eternal life, all of which point to divine prerogatives beyond any human teacher. The broader context of Mark confirms this, because Jesus forgives sins in Mark 2:5–7, walks on the sea in Mark 6:48–51, and receives worship in Mark 5:6. Therefore, Mark 10:18 is not a denial of Jesus’ deity but a rhetorical challenge that exposes the man’s inadequate view of Jesus and invites him to recognize that the One he calls “good” is in fact God incarnate.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

When Jesus says, “Not My will but Yours be done,” it shows His will is different from the Father’s will, proving He cannot be God but is a subordinate being whose nature and desires are inferior to the Father.

Counter

This objection collapses when Luke 22 is read carefully, because Jesus is not revealing a fallen or inferior will but a genuine human will submitted perfectly to the divine will as part of the incarnation. The entire point of the passage is that the eternal Son has taken on a real human nature with real human desires, including a natural human aversion to suffering and death, yet He brings that human will into perfect obedience to the Father, demonstrating sinless submission rather than ontological inferiority. The New Testament repeatedly affirms that Jesus possesses a divine will in unity with the Father, as Jesus says in John 10:30 that He and the Father are one, in John 5:19 that He only does what the Father does, and in John 4:34 that His food is to do the Father’s will, all of which show perfect will alignment, not conflict. The prayer in Gethsemane displays the mystery of the incarnation described in Philippians 2:6–8, where Jesus, who is in the form of God, humbles Himself and becomes obedient as a man. Far from disproving deity, Luke 22:42 affirms the orthodox truth that the one divine Son operates through two natures with two wills, a human will and a divine will, and that His perfect obedience secures our salvation (Hebrews 5:8–9). The unity of will is seen even within the prayer itself, because Jesus freely submits, proving that His will is morally and essentially one with the Father’s and fully consistent with the confession that He is God in the flesh.

Also, this contradicts Shincheonji’s theology if Jesus isn’t perfectly aligned with the Father.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim –

If God “highly exalted” Jesus in Philippians 2:9, then Jesus must have been inferior or non-divine before this exaltation, because God does not exalt God but exalts creatures who faithfully obey Him.

Counter

The claim misunderstands the biblical pattern of exaltation, because throughout Scripture God is exalted after He accomplishes a major act of salvation, and this pattern appears in both Testaments, showing that exaltation is not about elevating a creature but about the public recognition of divine victory. In Isaiah 33:5 the Lord is exalted because He dwells on high and brings justice and righteousness, and in Psalm 46:10 God says He will be exalted among the nations and in the earth after delivering His people. Isaiah 2:17 states that on the day of the Lord “the Lord alone will be exalted,” showing exaltation is a revelation of divine glory after judgment and salvation. The New Testament follows the same pattern. In Acts 2:33 God exalts Jesus at His right hand after His resurrection and the outpouring of the Spirit, not because Jesus lacked deity, but because His saving work is now publicly vindicated. In Revelation 5:9–14 the Lamb is exalted and worshiped by all creation after accomplishing redemption, exactly matching the Old Testament pattern. Therefore, Philippians 2:9 does not mean Jesus was non-divine and then promoted. It means the eternal Son, who humbled Himself by becoming human and dying for sin, is now publicly exalted as the victorious Redeemer in perfect continuity with how God exalts His own saving acts throughout Scripture.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

Acts 5:31 says that God exalted Jesus as “Prince and Savior,” which proves Jesus is not God but a subordinate being promoted by God, just like God exalted chosen human leaders in the Old Testament.

Counter

Acts 5:31 does not deny Jesus’ deity but reflects the consistent biblical pattern in which God publicly exalts the One who accomplishes salvation, a pattern that applies to God Himself throughout Scripture. The Gospels and Acts already present Jesus doing what only God can do: forgiving sins in Mark 2:5–7, receiving worship in Matthew 14:33, raising the dead in John 5:21, and granting repentance and forgiveness in Acts 5:31, something no mere creature ever does. The exaltation language is the same Old Testament pattern seen when God is exalted after delivering His people as in Isaiah 33:5, Psalm 46:10, and Isaiah 2:17, showing that exaltation is not about promoting a creature but revealing divine glory after a saving act. Acts 2:33 already explained that Jesus was exalted because of His resurrection and ascension, not because He lacked divine status, and Acts 5:31 describes Him granting repentance and forgiveness, divine prerogatives never assigned to prophets or kings. Furthermore, the same chapter identifies the Holy Spirit as “the Spirit of God” in Acts 5:32, yet He too is sent, showing that being sent or exalted describes role and mission, not essence. The apostles’ proclamation is therefore clear: the exalted Christ is not a promoted creature but the divine Redeemer whose saving work has now been publicly vindicated and enthroned.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

Jesus is called the Son of God by resurrection, not inherently

Counter

This interpretation collapses once Romans 1 is read carefully, because Paul is not saying Jesus became the Son at the resurrection but that the resurrection publicly marked or manifested Him as the Son who already existed. Romans 1:3–4 deliberately contrasts two modes of Sonship, not two different identities. According to the flesh He is the Son descended from David, and according to the Spirit of holiness He is the Son appointed in power at the resurrection. The resurrection is not the origin of His Sonship but the transition of His role from humiliation to exaltation, which aligns perfectly with Philippians 2:6–11 where the eternal Son who was in the form of God takes on human nature, dies, and is then publicly exalted. Paul everywhere assumes that Jesus is already the eternal Son before the incarnation, such as in Romans 8:3 where God sends “His own Son” in the likeness of sinful flesh, which makes no sense if He only became Son after the resurrection. Hebrews 1:2–3 likewise presents the Son as the Creator of all things long before His earthly life. The resurrection did not make Him Son; it demonstrated in power what He always was, the eternal Son of God whose divine identity is now vindicated before the world.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

Hebrews 5:4–5 says Jesus was appointed by God to be high priest, which proves that He is not inherently divine but a chosen servant elevated to a priestly role just like Aaron, showing that He cannot be God.

Counter

This interpretation collapses once Hebrews is read in context, because the author is not saying Jesus became something He was not, but that the eternal Son assumed a new role within His humanity when He entered history as the incarnate Messiah. Hebrews 5:4–5 quotes Psalm 2:7, “You are My Son,” which the author has already applied in Hebrews 1:1–12 to show that the Son is the radiance of God’s glory, the exact imprint of His being, the Creator of all things, and the One who receives worship from angels. The One being appointed is therefore already divine, not a creature being promoted. Hebrews 2 explains that He became human “for a little while” in order to suffer, die, and become a merciful high priest who represents His people, which is a role that requires true humanity, not a change in divine nature. The priesthood of Christ does not undermine His deity; it reveals the purpose of the incarnation, since only the God who became man could offer Himself as the perfect sacrifice (Hebrews 9:14) and intercede forever because He lives eternally (Hebrews 7:24–25). The appointment in Hebrews 5:5 is not the origin of His Sonship or deity but the official installation of the incarnate Son into His mediatorial office, fitting perfectly with the book’s teaching that the divine Son entered history to become the eternal high priest on behalf of His people.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

John 5:26 says the Father “gave” the Son to have life in Himself, which proves Jesus does not inherently possess divine self-existence but receives life from God like any created being, so He cannot be God.

Counter

This interpretation collapses once John 5 is read in context, because the entire chapter teaches that the Son possesses the same divine attributes as the Father, including the power to give life and execute judgment, which belong only to God. In John 5:21 Jesus says the Son gives life “to whom He will,” a statement no creature could make. John 5:23 says all must honor the Son exactly as they honor the Father, which would be blasphemy if Jesus were a created being. When verse 26 says the Father “gave” the Son to have life in Himself, it does not mean the Son lacks inherent life but refers to the eternal relationship within the Godhead in which the Father eternally communicates the divine essence to the Son. This is why Jesus repeatedly claims absolute self-existence throughout John’s Gospel, including “I am the resurrection and the life” in John 11:25 and the “I am” statements in John 8:58, which echo the divine name in Exodus 3:14. The Father’s “giving” is relational, not chronological, and refers to the eternal begetting of the Son, not a moment in time when Jesus received life. That is why the same verse uses the identical phrase about the Father Himself, “as the Father has life in Himself.” The parallel shows equality, not inferiority. John’s Gospel consistently presents the Son as eternally sharing the Father’s divine life while remaining distinct in person, and John 5:26 fits perfectly within this framework rather than supporting a Unitarian interpretation.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

John 17:2 says the Father “gave” Jesus authority over all flesh, which proves Jesus does not inherently possess divine authority but receives delegated power from God as a subordinate being, showing He cannot be God.

Counter

This objection collapses once John 17 and the wider Gospel of John are read in context, because Jesus repeatedly claims the very authority and prerogatives that belong only to God, not to a subordinate creature. The Father “giving” authority to the Son reflects the incarnational mission, not a lack of deity, because earlier in John the Son already possesses divine authority: He gives life to whomever He wills in John 5:21, raises the dead in John 5:28–29, executes judgment over all humanity in John 5:22, and demands that all honor Him exactly as they honor the Father in John 5:23. These are not actions delegated to prophets or angels but to God alone. In John 10:17–18 Jesus says He has authority to lay down His life and take it up again, insisting that this authority is inherently His, not borrowed. When Jesus says in John 17:2 that the Father “gave” Him authority, He is speaking within the context of His incarnate role as the sent Messiah, just as Hebrews 2:9 describes Him being “made lower than the angels” in order to accomplish salvation. The same chapter proves His divine identity, because in John 17:5 Jesus asks to be glorified with the same glory He shared with the Father before the world existed, which is impossible for a creature since God does not share His glory with another according to Isaiah 42:8. The Father’s giving of authority is therefore part of the eternal relationship and mission of the Son, not a denial of His deity, and perfectly fits John’s presentation of Jesus as the eternal Word who shares the Father’s divine nature and power.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

Matthew 11:27 says all things were “delivered” to Jesus, which proves He did not inherently possess divine authority but received it from the Father as a subordinate being.

Counter

The claim collapses once Matthew 11 is read in context, because Jesus is not describing a transfer of power to a subordinate but the unique, exclusive relationship between the Father and the Son that no creature shares. In Matthew 11:27 Jesus says that no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him. This is not language that can describe a prophet, angel, or exalted creature. Jesus claims a mutual and exhaustive knowledge with the Father that is equal and reciprocal, something impossible for a created being, since Psalm 147:5 teaches that God’s understanding is infinite and Isaiah 40:13–14 says that no creature can fully know the mind of God. The fact that the Son alone knows the Father in the same way that the Father alone knows the Son shows ontological equality, not delegated authority. The phrase “delivered to me” therefore refers to the unique divine prerogative given exclusively to the Son as the only one capable of revealing the Father. The immediate context confirms this divine identity: just a few verses later in Matthew 11:28–30 Jesus invites all who are weary to come to Him for rest, something only God can give according to Jeremiah 31:25 and Exodus 33:14. Jesus is not speaking as a creature receiving authority but as the divine Son who shares the Father’s infinite knowledge and reveals Him perfectly. Matthew uses “delivered” to show the unique Father–Son relationship inside the Godhead, not a creature being promoted.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

Since 1 Peter 1:21 says God raised Jesus and glorified Him, Jesus must be a subordinate being who depends on God for resurrection and honor, which means He cannot be God.

Counter

The objection collapses when 1 Peter 1 is read in context, because Peter is not denying Christ’s deity but emphasizing His role in salvation by showing how the Father publicly vindicated the Son after His suffering. In 1 Peter 1:10–12 Peter explains that the prophets spoke by the Spirit of Christ, showing that Christ existed before His incarnation and operated as the divine source of prophetic revelation. In 1 Peter 1:19–20 Peter says Christ was foreknown before the foundation of the world, something true only of the eternal divine Son, not of any creature. The Father raising and glorifying the Son reflects the consistent biblical pattern in which God publicly exalts His own saving work, just as Isaiah 33:5, Psalm 46:10, and Isaiah 2:17 show God being exalted after delivering His people. Peter himself affirms Jesus’ deity elsewhere by directly calling Him “our God and Savior Jesus Christ” in 2 Peter 1:1. The resurrection does not make Jesus divine nor imply inferiority; it vindicates the incarnate Son who voluntarily took a lowly form for our salvation, and the glorification restores Him to the glory He had with the Father before the world existed (John 17:5). The Father raising and glorifying Jesus is part of the cooperative work of the Trinity in salvation, not evidence that Jesus is a created or subordinate being.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

Acts 10:38 says “God anointed Jesus,” which proves Jesus is not God but a human servant empowered by God just like the prophets and kings of the Old Testament.

Counter

This objection collapses once Acts 10 is read in context, because Peter’s sermon presents Jesus in categories far beyond any anointed prophet or king. In Acts 10:36 Peter declares that Jesus is “Lord of all,” a title applied to Yahweh in the Old Testament, and in Acts 10:42 he says Jesus is the one appointed to judge the living and the dead, something only God does according to passages such as Genesis 18:25 and Isaiah 33:22. The anointing of Jesus in Acts 10:38 refers to His role as Messiah in His humanity, not His nature as God, because the Old Testament prophesied that the divine Messiah would be anointed by the Spirit in Isaiah 11:1–2 and Isaiah 61:1. The fact that Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit does not make Him a mere servant, because the Spirit is also sent by the Son in John 15:26, showing mutual divine authority, not creaturely dependence. Earlier in Acts, Peter already identifies Jesus as the one who forgives sins in Acts 10:43, a divine prerogative, and Jesus is worshiped as Lord throughout the book (Acts 7:59, Acts 9:14, Acts 22:16). The anointing simply marks Jesus’ public Messianic mission in His humanity; it does not deny His deity. Instead, it perfectly fits the pattern of the Incarnate Son who takes on a servant role while exercising divine authority that no prophet or king ever possessed.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

Hebrews 1:9 says God anointed Jesus above His “companions,” which means Jesus is simply the highest among created beings and not God, since God would not anoint Himself or have companions to be elevated above.

Counter

This objection collapses as soon as Hebrews 1 is read from the beginning, because the author has already established that the Son is ontologically superior to all created beings, including angels, long before mentioning His anointing. In Hebrews 1:3 the Son is described as the radiance of God’s glory and the exact imprint of His being, something impossible for a creature. In Hebrews 1:6 God commands all the angels to worship the Son, showing that the “companions” in verse 9 cannot be ontological peers but created beings over whom the divine Son is enthroned. Then in Hebrews 1:8 the Father directly calls the Son “God” and says His throne is forever, quoting Psalm 45 in a way that transforms a royal psalm into a divine attribution. Immediately after the anointing statement, Hebrews 1:10 identifies the Son as the Creator who laid the foundations of the earth and the heavens, using a Psalm that in the Old Testament refers to Yahweh alone. The “companions” are therefore not other gods or equal beings but the redeemed and the angels whom He surpasses by nature. The anointing in verse 9 refers to the Son’s Messianic kingship in His humanity, not to His divine nature, and the entire chapter is structured to show that the Son is worshiped, eternal, unchanging, and Creator. Hebrews 1:9 is therefore not a denial of Jesus’ deity but part of the argument that the divine Son, who is God from all eternity, has been publicly installed as the Messianic King above all creation.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

Psalm 2:7 says “Today I have begotten you,” and the New Testament applies this to Jesus, which seems to show that Jesus became the Son at a point in time, meaning He is not eternally God but a being who was “begotten” or produced by God.

Counter

This objection collapses once we see how the New Testament uses Psalm 2:7, because every NT writer applies the verse not to Jesus’ origin but to the public revelation or installation of His Messianic office. Hebrews 1:5 quotes the verse in the context of proving that the Son already existed and is superior to angels, which means the begetting of Psalm 2:7 cannot refer to the beginning of His existence. Hebrews 1:3–4 has already said the Son created the world and is the exact imprint of God’s being before Psalm 2:7 is even introduced. In Acts 13:33 Paul applies Psalm 2:7 to the resurrection, not to Jesus’ coming into existence. The “today” in the Psalm refers to the day God publicly enthrones His chosen King, just as ancient kings were ceremonially declared “sons” on the day of coronation, which is why Psalm 2:6 immediately speaks of God installing His King on Zion. The phrase “begotten” here is royal and covenantal, not biological or ontological. Hebrews 5:5 connects Psalm 2:7 with Christ’s appointment as high priest, showing again that the begetting refers to public appointment, not creation. The Son is eternally God by nature, and Psalm 2:7 marks His enthronement and vindication, not His origin. Therefore, the NT writers read Psalm 2:7 as a coronation verse for the eternal Son, not evidence that Jesus began to exist.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

Since 1 Corinthians 11:3 says “the head of Christ is God,” Paul teaches that Christ is subordinate to God by nature just as a wife is subordinate to her husband, which proves Jesus cannot be God but is under God’s authority as a lesser being.

Counter

This objection collapses once Paul’s use of “head” is read in context, because in 1 Corinthians 11 Paul is describing relational order, not ontological hierarchy, and he uses the same word “head” to describe relationships between equals. Paul says “the head of every man is Christ,” yet Christ is not ontologically superior to men in a way that denies our shared human nature; the point is functional authority, not inequality of essence. In the same verse he says “the head of a woman is the man,” which Paul elsewhere insists does not imply inferiority or lesser worth, since men and women are equal in creation and redemption according to Genesis 1:27 and Galatians 3:28. Therefore, “God is the head of Christ” refers to the Father’s role in sending the Son in the economy of salvation, exactly as Jesus says in John 5:30 and John 6:38, not to an ontological superiority that denies Christ’s deity. Paul elsewhere calls Christ “the power of God and the wisdom of God” in 1 Corinthians 1:24 and says all things were created through Him and for Him in Colossians 1:16, which would be impossible for a subordinate creature. The Father’s headship reflects the relational order within the Trinity, not inequality of nature, the same way that husband and wife maintain order without denying equality of being.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

John 14:31 says Jesus obeys the Father’s commands, which proves He is subordinate by nature and therefore cannot be God, because God does not obey anyone.

Counter

This objection collapses when John 14 is read in context, because Jesus’ obedience to the Father is not the obedience of a creature to a superior but the willing obedience of the divine Son within the economic work of redemption. Just a few verses earlier, Jesus says that anyone who has seen Him has seen the Father in John 14:9, which makes no sense if He is a subordinate creature. In John 14:10 He says the Father is in Him and He is in the Father, affirming mutual indwelling, something that cannot be true of two beings who differ in nature. In John 14:13 Jesus declares that whatever the disciples ask in His name, He will do it, which is a divine prerogative that no prophet or angel ever claims. The obedience of John 14:31 is rooted in love within the Godhead, not inferiority of essence, because Jesus says He obeys “so that the world may know that I love the Father,” highlighting relational unity rather than ontological subordination. The broader context of John confirms this: the Son shares all that the Father has (John 16:15), does whatever the Father does (John 5:19), and receives the same honor due to the Father (John 5:23). Therefore, Jesus’ obedience reveals the perfect harmony and unity of will between Father and Son, not a denial of His deity.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

In John 13:16 Jesus says a servant is not greater than his master and calls Himself one who is sent, which proves He is subordinate to God like any servant or prophet and therefore cannot be God.

Counter

This objection collapses when John 13 is read in context, because Jesus is not identifying Himself as a servant by nature but as the divine Son who voluntarily takes the role of a servant to model humility for His followers. Immediately before verse 16, Jesus washes the disciples’ feet in John 13:4–15, an act He explicitly performs even though He knows He has come from God and is returning to God (13:3), which shows His servanthood is chosen, not forced. Calling Himself “sent” does not place Him in the category of prophets, because throughout John’s Gospel the “sent” Son shares the Father’s glory (John 17:5), executes judgment (John 5:22), gives life to whomever He wills (John 5:21), and must be honored exactly as the Father is honored (John 5:23). These are divine prerogatives that no mere emissary possesses. Jesus’ statement in John 13:16 is part of a teaching on humility, not ontology, and He applies it to the disciples rather than using it to describe His status relative to the Father. The broader context confirms His deity, because in John 13:19 Jesus identifies Himself with the divine name “I am,” echoing Isaiah 43:10. Therefore, Jesus’ voluntary role as a servant in John 13 does not deny His deity but demonstrates the humble condescension of the divine Son who takes the form of a servant for the sake of His people.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

Since Acts 3:26 says God “sent” Jesus to bless people, Jesus is clearly subordinate to God like any prophet or messenger, which means He cannot be God but is simply God’s appointed servant.

Counter

This objection collapses when Acts 3 is read in context, because Peter describes Jesus in terms far beyond any prophet or created messenger. In Acts 3:15 Peter calls Jesus the Author of life, a title that can only belong to God, because no creature gives life or sustains creation. Peter also says in Acts 3:22–23 that Jesus is the prophet like Moses promised in Deuteronomy 18, but immediately adds that everyone who refuses to listen to Him will be utterly destroyed, giving Him absolute authority over salvation and judgment, something no prophet ever possessed. The concept of being “sent” does not imply inferiority of nature, because in John’s Gospel the Father sends the Son, yet the Son sends the Spirit, and the Spirit sends the disciples, showing that “sending” describes mission, not ontology. Even in Acts itself Jesus receives worship (Acts 7:59), forgives sins (Acts 10:43), pours out the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:33), and rules as the risen Lord (Acts 2:36), all of which demonstrate divine identity. Therefore, Acts 3:26 presents the incarnate divine Son fulfilling His saving mission, not a subordinate creature acting under orders. The sending reflects the cooperative mission of the Trinity, not a denial of Christ’s deity.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

Since Jesus says in John 15:10 that He keeps the Father’s commandments, He must be subordinate by nature and therefore cannot be God, because God does not obey commandments.

Counter

This objection collapses when John 15 is read in context, because Jesus is not describing the obedience of a creature to a superior but the loving unity and shared will of the Father and the Son acting together in salvation. In John 15:9 Jesus says that He loves the disciples with the same love the Father has for Him, indicating equality of relationship rather than subordination of nature. The “commandments” in 15:10 are not external rules imposed on a lesser being but the Father’s will for the redemptive mission, which Jesus fulfills freely and perfectly as the divine Son, consistent with His earlier statement in John 10:18 that no one takes His life from Him but He lays it down of His own authority. In John 5:19 Jesus says He does whatever the Father does, which is a claim to full equality in divine action, not the obedience of a subordinate creature. Jesus also commands His disciples in John 15:12 with His own authority, which would make no sense if He were merely imitating the Father as a lesser being. The broader context of John shows the Father and Son share everything (John 16:15), mutually indwell each other (John 14:10), and must be honored equally (John 5:23). Therefore, Jesus keeping the Father’s commandments reflects the perfect unity of will within the Trinity and the incarnate Son’s voluntary obedience for the sake of redemption, not a denial of His deity.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

Hebrews 2:10 says God “made the author of their salvation perfect through suffering,” which implies Jesus was imperfect and had to be improved, proving He cannot be God but a created being undergoing moral or spiritual development.

Counter

This objection collapses once Hebrews is read in context, because “perfecting” in Hebrews 2:10 does not refer to improving Jesus morally or ontologically, but to qualifying Him for His role as the High Priest who represents humanity. Hebrews consistently affirms Jesus’ sinlessness and deity: He is the radiance of God’s glory and exact imprint of His being in Hebrews 1:3, He is worshiped by angels in Hebrews 1:6, and He is the unchanging Creator in Hebrews 1:10–12. In Hebrews 2:10 and Hebrews 5:8–9, “perfected” means that through suffering Jesus became fully fitted, qualified, and completed in His role to act as the mediator who sympathizes with our weaknesses. It refers to vocational completion, not moral improvement. A divine Son who becomes man must experience the human condition, including suffering and death, in order to serve as a merciful and faithful high priest (Hebrews 2:17). This fits the incarnational purpose of Hebrews 2, which teaches that Jesus had to be made like His brothers in every respect so He could truly represent them, not because His divine nature lacked anything. The Father “perfected” Jesus in the sense that the Son completed the necessary path of redemptive obedience, fulfilling all righteousness and becoming the source of eternal salvation, something only God in the flesh could do.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

If Jesus is a high priest who mediates between God and man according to Hebrews 4–10, then He cannot be God, because a mediator must be distinct from and subordinate to God rather than God Himself.

Counter

This objection collapses when Hebrews 4–10 is read as a whole, because the author does not present Jesus as a creature standing between God and humanity but as the incarnate God who mediates by uniting divine and human natures in His one person. Hebrews 1 has already established that the Son is the Creator, the radiance of God’s glory, the exact imprint of His being, worshiped by angels, and addressed by the Father as “God” (Hebrews 1:3, 1:6, 1:8, 1:10), which means His priesthood cannot imply inferiority. The entire point of Hebrews is that no created priest is sufficient, because only God can save, yet only a true man can represent humanity; therefore, the eternal divine Son becomes human so that He can be the perfect mediator (Hebrews 2:14–17, 4:15). His priesthood depends on His divine nature, since He offers a sacrifice of infinite value by offering Himself through the eternal Spirit (Hebrews 9:14) and lives forever to intercede (Hebrews 7:24–25), something no creature can do. He is both priest and sacrifice, both offerer and offering, because He is God who took on flesh. The need for mediation comes not from Christ’s inferiority to the Father but from His incarnate mission to bridge the gap between sinful humanity and the holy God by being the God-man. Hebrews therefore presents Jesus’ priesthood as the supreme demonstration of His deity joined with His true humanity, not as evidence that He is a created subordinate.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim –

Revelation 1:1 says the revelation was “given” to Jesus by God, which proves Jesus is not God but a subordinate being who depends on God for revelation just like prophets and angels.

Counter

This objection collapses once Revelation 1 is read carefully, because the book immediately identifies Jesus in ways that go far beyond any prophet or created messenger. The revelation is “given” to Jesus not because He lacks knowledge as a creature, but because Revelation is a covenantal and eschatological commission in which the Father publicly appoints the Son as the Mediator of end-time judgment and salvation. In Revelation 1:8 the Lord God says He is the Alpha and the Omega, yet in Revelation 22:13 Jesus Himself claims to be the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, which places Him on the divine side of the Creator-creature divide. In Revelation 1:17–18 Jesus identifies Himself as “the First and the Last,” a title reserved only for Yahweh in Isaiah 44:6 and Isaiah 48:12. Jesus receives worship from heavenly beings in Revelation 5:8–14, including with the same honor given to the One on the throne, which would be blasphemy if He were a mere recipient of revelation. The pattern of “giving” revelation is functional, not ontological; for example, in John 3:35 the Father gives “all things” into the Son’s hands, and in John 5:22 He gives all judgment to the Son, yet these gifts demonstrate divine equality, because only God can execute universal judgment. Revelation 1:1 reflects the economic order in the Trinity, where the Father initiates, the Son mediates, and the Spirit communicates, not a hierarchy of nature. The Jesus of Revelation is the eternal, sovereign, worshiped God, and receiving revelation does not diminish His deity but reveals His role as the appointed Mediator who unveils God’s final purposes.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

Deuteronomy 18:18 promises “a prophet like Moses,” and Acts 3:22 applies this to Jesus, which proves the Messiah is a human prophet like Moses, not God Himself.

Counter

This objection collapses once Deuteronomy 18 and Acts 3 are read in context, because the “prophet like Moses” is not merely another human leader but the climactic eschatological figure who mediates God’s final revelation and exercises divine authority. Moses was not just a prophet; he was the unique mediator who spoke with God face to face (Exodus 33:11), performed signs and wonders unmatched by any other prophet (Deuteronomy 34:10–12), and delivered God’s covenant to Israel, so a prophet “like Moses” must exceed ordinary prophet status. When Peter applies this passage to Jesus in Acts 3:22, he immediately describes Jesus as the Author of life in Acts 3:15 and the one whom all the prophets pointed to in Acts 3:24–25, placing Jesus far above a mere human messenger. Moreover, the warning that whoever refuses to listen to this prophet “will be utterly destroyed” in Acts 3:23 shows Jesus exercises final judgment, which belongs to God alone in passages like Isaiah 33:22 and Genesis 18:25. The New Testament consistently presents Jesus as more than a prophet, because He reveals the Father perfectly in John 1:18, forgives sins in Mark 2:5–7, receives worship in Matthew 14:33 and John 20:28, and will judge the world in John 5:22. A “prophet like Moses” means a mediator of a new covenant and a revealer of God’s presence, which fits the incarnation perfectly, because only the God-man can fulfill Moses’ unique role in an even greater way. The prophecy therefore points not to a mere human prophet but to the divine Son who surpasses Moses in glory and authority.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

Since Isaiah 42 and Matthew 12:18 call Jesus God’s “servant,” this proves He is subordinate by nature and therefore cannot be God, because God does not serve anyone but commands servants.

Counter

This objection collapses once Isaiah 42 and Matthew 12 are read in context, because the “Servant of the Lord” in Isaiah is not a mere creature but the unique, Spirit-filled Redeemer who accomplishes divine salvation and bears titles and functions far greater than any ordinary servant. Isaiah 42:1 says God places His Spirit upon the Servant, which is the same Spirit who dwells upon Yahweh’s Messiah in Isaiah 11:1–2, and commissions Him to bring justice to the nations, an eschatological task belonging to God alone in passages like Isaiah 33:22. Later Servant Songs identify the Servant as the one who is pierced for transgressions (Isaiah 53:5), bears sin (Isaiah 53:10–12), and justifies many (Isaiah 53:11), all of which are divine prerogatives. Matthew 12:18–21 quotes Isaiah 42 and presents Jesus not as a subordinate creature but as the fulfillment of God’s promised divine deliverer, the one in whom the Gentiles will place their hope, echoing Isaiah 11:10’s Messianic figure who stands as a signal for all nations. In the New Testament, Jesus is called a servant in His role as the incarnate Messiah who humbles Himself (Philippians 2:7) but is simultaneously worshiped, judges the world, forgives sins, receives equal honor with the Father, and is addressed as God (John 5:23; John 20:28; Hebrews 1:8). The servant role describes His voluntary humiliation in the incarnation, not His divine nature, and the very Servant of Isaiah is also the Redeemer worshiped by all nations. Therefore, being God’s Servant does not deny Jesus’ deity but reveals the mystery of the divine Son who took the servant’s role to accomplish God’s salvation for the world.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

Since Scripture calls angels, Adam, Israel, Davidic kings, and even believers “sons of God,” Jesus being called “Son of God” does not imply deity but simply means He is God’s appointed representative.

Counter

This objection collapses once the New Testament’s use of “Son of God” is examined, because Jesus’ Sonship is categorically different from every other being ever called a “son of God.” Angels are called sons by creation, Israel by covenant, Adam by origin, and believers by adoption, but Jesus is the only begotten Son (John 1:14, John 3:16), meaning He shares the same nature as the Father, not a derivative or adopted status. Jesus is the Son in a unique, eternal sense, as He is “with the Father” from the beginning (John 1:1–2), loved by the Father “before the foundation of the world” (John 17:24), and the radiance of God’s glory and exact imprint of His being (Hebrews 1:3). The Father commands all angels to worship Him in Hebrews 1:6, something impossible if He were a son by adoption or creation. Jesus calls God “My Father” in a way no one else can (John 20:17), and claims mutual, exhaustive knowledge with the Father in Matthew 11:27, something no creature possesses. His Sonship grants Him divine prerogatives such as giving life to whomever He wills (John 5:21), judging all mankind (John 5:22), and receiving equal honor with the Father (John 5:23). Even the Jewish leaders understood His claim: when Jesus called God “My Father,” they sought to kill Him because He was “making Himself equal with God” (John 5:18). The New Testament never equates Jesus’ Sonship with the sonship of angels, Adam, Israel, or believers. His Sonship is eternal, unique, divine, and ontological, unmistakably identifying Him as God’s equal rather than a representative creature.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

Since “Messiah” means “anointed one,” and all anointed figures in the Old Testament such as kings, priests, and prophets were human, the title “Messiah” proves Jesus is a human agent chosen by God, not God Himself.

Counter

This objection collapses once the Old Testament expectation of the Messiah is examined, because while earlier anointed figures were human, the coming Messiah is repeatedly described as divine in identity, authority, and nature. Isaiah 9:6 explicitly calls the promised Davidic child “Mighty God” and “Everlasting Father,” titles never given to a mere human ruler. Micah 5:2 says the Messiah’s origins are “from ancient days,” pointing to preexistence, not ordinary humanity. Daniel 7:13–14 presents the Son of Man receiving universal worship and an everlasting kingdom, even though worship belongs only to God in passages such as Exodus 34:14 and Isaiah 42:8. Psalm 110:1 shows the Messiah seated at God’s right hand, sharing God’s rule over all nations, a position no human king ever occupied. Psalm 2 presents the Messiah as the uniquely begotten Son whom the world must serve “with trembling,” and whose wrath destroys the wicked, demonstrating divine authority. When the New Testament identifies Jesus as Messiah, it does not reduce Him to a human figure; it fulfills the divine expectations of the Old Testament by presenting Him as the eternal Word made flesh (John 1:1–14), the Alpha and the Omega (Revelation 22:13), and the one whom all nations will worship (Revelation 5:9–14). The title “Messiah” does not confine Jesus to humanity but identifies Him as the promised divine King-Priest who accomplishes salvation and rules forever as God.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

Acts 2:36 says “God has made Him both Lord and Christ,” which proves Jesus was not Lord before His resurrection and was only promoted by God, showing He cannot be God but a subordinate being exalted to a new status.

Counter

This objection collapses when Acts 2 is read carefully, because Peter is not saying Jesus became Lord by nature but that God publicly vindicated and enthroned Him as Lord in His resurrected and exalted human role. The entire sermon already assumes Jesus’ divine status: Peter says Jesus fulfilled Joel’s prophecy about Yahweh pouring out His Spirit in Acts 2:17–21 and applies it directly to Christ pouring out the Spirit in Acts 2:33, proving He performs Yahweh’s own actions. In Acts 2:21 Peter quotes “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved,” a reference to Yahweh in Joel 2:32, then applies this saving invocation to Jesus in Acts 2:38, identifying Jesus with the divine Lord. The phrase “God made Him Lord” means God publicly declared and installed Jesus as the Messianic King after His resurrection, the same way Psalm 110:1 portrays Yahweh enthroning the Messiah at His right hand. Jesus was always Lord by nature (John 1:1, John 8:58), but after His humiliation and death, God publicly exalted Him in His incarnate role, completing the redemption Jesus accomplished and revealing His divine identity to the world. Acts 2:36 does not teach that Jesus became divine; it teaches that the divine Son, who took on flesh and died, has now been enthroned as the risen Lord in fulfillment of Scripture.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

Since Luke 9:35 calls Jesus “God’s chosen one,” this means Jesus is a selected human servant rather than God Himself, because God chooses prophets and kings but is never “chosen.”

Counter

This objection collapses once Luke 9 is read in context, because the title “chosen one” in the Transfiguration narrative does not reduce Jesus to a mere human servant but identifies Him as the unique, divine Son whom the Father reveals as the fulfillment of all prophecy. In Luke 9:28–36 Jesus appears in radiant glory while Moses and Elijah stand beside Him, and a voice from the cloud declares, “This is my Son, my Chosen One; listen to Him.” The scene immediately shows superiority, because Moses represents the Law and Elijah represents the Prophets, yet they fade and only Jesus remains, indicating that He is the divine fulfillment of both (Luke 9:36). The Father calls Jesus “my Son,” not merely “my prophet,” and commands all to “listen to Him,” something never said of a created servant. The divine cloud is the same glory-cloud that appeared over the tabernacle in Exodus 40:34–38 and over Mount Sinai in Exodus 24:16–18, meaning the Father is publicly identifying Jesus within the sphere of divine glory. The same Jesus who is called “chosen” in Luke 9 is worshiped by His disciples in Matthew 14:33, forgives sins in Mark 2:5–7, commands the winds and waves in Luke 8:24–25, and receives universal authority in Matthew 28:18. Being “chosen” describes the incarnate Son’s mission, not His nature. The divine Son is chosen to fulfill God’s redemptive plan, but He is eternally God, the one who shares the Father’s glory (John 17:5) and is the radiance of God’s glory (Hebrews 1:3).

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

Since Hebrews 3:2 says Jesus was “faithful to Him who appointed Him,” this proves Jesus is a subordinate being appointed by God like Moses was, which means He cannot be God but only God’s faithful servant.

Counter

This objection collapses as soon as Hebrews 3 is read in context, because the author’s entire point is not to reduce Jesus to Moses’ level but to show that Jesus is infinitely greater than Moses precisely because He is divine. Hebrews 3:2 compares Jesus and Moses only in terms of faithfulness, not nature, and immediately moves to distinction: Moses was faithful “as a servant in God’s house,” but Jesus is faithful “as a Son over God’s house” (Hebrews 3:5–6). A servant and a son do not share the same nature or authority. Earlier, Hebrews 1 already established that Jesus is the radiance of God’s glory, the exact imprint of His being, the Creator of the universe, the One worshiped by angels, and the One called “God” by the Father. This means the “appointment” in Hebrews 3:2 is vocational, not ontological. Jesus is “appointed” to His incarnate mission and priestly role, just as Hebrews 5:5–6 explains, not promoted from creature to divine status. Hebrews consistently teaches that only the divine Son could become the perfect mediator and high priest (Hebrews 2:17, Hebrews 7:26–28). Therefore, Jesus being “appointed” does not imply inferiority in nature but highlights His obedience within the Trinity during His earthly mission, while His superiority over Moses demonstrates His eternal deity.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

Isaiah 53 portrays the Messiah as God’s suffering servant who is wounded, rejected, pierced, and killed, which proves He is not God but a human servant submitted to God’s will.

Counter

This objection collapses once Isaiah 53 is read in the context of Isaiah’s entire Servant theology, because the Servant is not depicted as a mere human but as the unique Redeemer who accomplishes Yahweh’s own salvation and bears divine titles and functions. Isaiah 53:10 says it is Yahweh’s will to crush the Servant, yet Isaiah 53:11–12 says the Servant justifies many, bears their iniquities, intercedes for transgressors, and divides the spoil with the strong, all of which are divine prerogatives (Isaiah 45:24–25; Exodus 34:6–7). Earlier Servant Songs identify this Servant as the one who brings justice to the nations (Isaiah 42:1–4), restores Israel (Isaiah 49:5–6), and becomes a light to the Gentiles so that God’s salvation reaches the ends of the earth (Isaiah 49:6), which are tasks assigned to Yahweh alone in Isaiah 40–55. The same Servant is called “My salvation” in Isaiah 49:6 and is the Redeemer who accomplishes the new and everlasting covenant of Isaiah 55:3. The suffering in Isaiah 53 does not deny deity but reveals the incarnation, because the divine Messiah must take on flesh to bear sins on behalf of humanity. The New Testament confirms this interpretation: Jesus says Isaiah saw His glory in John 12:41, applying Isaiah’s vision of Yahweh directly to Himself, and the apostles universally apply Isaiah 53 to Christ as the divine Redeemer who gives His life as a ransom for many. Isaiah 53 presents the divine Servant who becomes human to suffer and save, not a creature separate from God.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

Romans 8:29 calls Jesus “the firstborn among many brothers,” which implies He is simply the first of God’s created or adopted children, not God Himself, since “firstborn” and “brothers” suggest He belongs to the same created category as other believers.

Counter

This objection collapses once Romans 8 and the biblical meaning of “firstborn” are examined, because “firstborn” consistently refers to rank and supremacy, not biological origin or creaturehood. In the Old Testament, “firstborn” is a royal title that signifies authority and inheritance: God calls David “My firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth” in Psalm 89:27 even though David was the youngest son, proving the term is positional, not chronological. In Romans 8:29, Paul is not placing Jesus in the category of creatures but establishing Him as the exalted, preeminent Son whose image believers are predestined to share. The entire chapter assumes Jesus’ divine nature: He intercedes with divine knowledge (Romans 8:34), His Spirit indwells believers (Romans 8:9–11), and He is the one from whom nothing in creation can separate us (Romans 8:39), placing Him above the created realm. Paul never suggests Jesus is one brother among equals; rather, Jesus is the unique Son (Romans 8:3, John 3:16) whose Sonship is eternal and ontological, while believers become sons by adoption (Romans 8:15, Galatians 4:5). Jesus is “firstborn” because He is supreme over a redeemed family, not because He is part of the created order. Therefore, Romans 8:29 upholds Jesus’ divine preeminence and the believer’s adoption, not a Unitarian reading of Christ as a created sibling among many.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

Since Hebrews 3:1 calls Jesus “the Apostle of our confession,” meaning “one who is sent,” this shows Jesus is merely a messenger from God and therefore cannot be God Himself.

Counter

This objection collapses once Hebrews 3:1 is read in context, because the title “Apostle” refers to Jesus’ mission as the one sent by the Father, not to His nature, and Hebrews immediately clarifies that Jesus’ identity is far greater than that of any ordinary messenger. In Hebrews 3:1–6, Jesus is compared to Moses not to show similarity but superiority: Moses was faithful as a servant in God’s house, but Jesus is faithful as a Son over God’s house, indicating authority and ownership rather than creaturely servanthood. The book of Hebrews has already established Jesus’ deity in chapter 1, where the Father calls the Son “God” (Hebrews 1:8), commands angels to worship Him (Hebrews 1:6), and identifies Him as the unchanging Creator who laid the foundations of the earth (Hebrews 1:10–12). Being “sent” does not imply inferiority of nature, because the Spirit is also sent (John 14:26; John 15:26), yet Unitarians do not argue that the Spirit is a mere creature. In the Fourth Gospel Jesus repeatedly insists that He is sent by the Father while simultaneously asserting His divine prerogatives such as giving life (John 5:21), raising Himself from the dead (John 10:17–18), receiving equal honor with the Father (John 5:23), and sharing the Father’s glory before the world existed (John 17:5). Hebrews 3:1 therefore uses “Apostle” to describe the incarnate role of the divine Son who comes to reveal God perfectly, not to diminish His nature. The entire argument of Hebrews depends on Jesus being both fully divine and fully human, and calling Him “Apostle” simply highlights the mission of the Son, not a denial of His deity.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

“Immanuel” in Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23 does not mean the child is God but that God is helping His people through this child, because Hebrew names often signify God’s activity rather than literal identity.

Counter

This objection collapses when Isaiah and Matthew are read in context, because the Immanuel prophecy is part of a larger Messianic framework in which the child is not merely a sign of God’s help but the very presence of God among His people. In Isaiah 7:14 the child is introduced as the sign that “God is with us,” but Isaiah immediately expands this theme in Isaiah 9:6, where the same Messianic child is explicitly called Mighty God and Everlasting Father, titles that cannot describe a mere instrument of God’s help. Isaiah 8:8–10 also uses “Immanuel” as a statement of divine presence, not divine assistance, and the surrounding chapters emphasize that Yahweh Himself will come and save His people (Isaiah 35:4; Isaiah 40:3). Matthew understands this perfectly: in Matthew 1:23 Jesus is literally the fulfillment of “God with us,” then throughout the Gospel He forgives sins (Matthew 9:6), receives worship (Matthew 14:33; 28:17), commands angels (Matthew 13:41), declares that all authority in heaven and earth is His (Matthew 28:18), and closes the Gospel by saying “I am with you always” (Matthew 28:20), echoing the Immanuel theme directly. Matthew does not use “Immanuel” as a metaphor for divine help through a human agent; he uses it to proclaim that God Himself has come in the person of Jesus. The name does not describe what God does from afar but who Jesus is: the incarnate presence of Yahweh dwelling with His people.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

Isaiah 9:6 calls the Messiah “Mighty God,” but this could simply be royal hyperbole for a powerful, God-empowered warrior king, not a literal claim that the Messiah is God.

Counter

This objection collapses once the Old Testament usage of the title “Mighty God” is examined, because the term in Hebrew, El Gibbor, is not a poetic title for a human warrior but a divine name used exclusively for Yahweh. In the very next chapter, Isaiah 10:21 says Israel will return “to the Mighty God,” using the exact same phrase to refer unmistakably to Yahweh Himself, proving Isaiah’s audience understood El Gibbor as a title of deity, not royal exaggeration. Isaiah 9:6 also appears within a Messianic context that ascribes divine attributes to the promised Son: He is called Everlasting Father, meaning the eternal originator and protector of His people, which cannot describe a mortal king. The child is said to rule with endless dominion on the throne of David and establish an eternal kingdom characterized by justice and righteousness (Isaiah 9:7), something only God can accomplish since no human king establishes an everlasting government. The broader context of Isaiah confirms that Yahweh alone is the Savior (Isaiah 43:11), the eternal King (Isaiah 44:6), and the one who brings light to Galilee (Isaiah 9:1–2), yet Isaiah attributes these functions to the coming Son. The New Testament affirms this interpretation by applying Isaiah 9:1–2 to Jesus in Matthew 4:14–16 and presenting Him as the eternal Lord who rules forever. Therefore, “Mighty God” in Isaiah 9:6 cannot mean a God-empowered warrior; it is an explicit divine title identifying the Messiah as Yahweh Himself in human flesh.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

SCJ’s interpretation suggests this title is merely descriptive of God’s power being channeled through the Messiah, like a representative or a “Spiritual Marriage” of two distinct entities.

Counter

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

Since the manuscripts of John 1:18 differ between “only begotten Son” and “only begotten God,” the verse cannot be used to prove Jesus’ deity because the reading is textually uncertain and possibly corrupted.

Counter

This objection collapses once the manuscript evidence and Johannine context are examined, because the earliest and strongest manuscripts read “only begotten God” (monogenēs theos), and even the alternate reading “only begotten Son” still affirms Christ’s unique divine Sonship. The earliest and most reliable Alexandrian witnesses, including P66 (circa AD 200) and P75 (circa AD 175–225), both read “only begotten God,” while the later Byzantine manuscripts usually read “only begotten Son.” Textual critics across theological viewpoints agree that the harder, more ancient reading is “only begotten God,” because scribes were far more likely to change “God” to “Son” for clarity than to change “Son” to “God,” making “God” the historically original reading. But even if “Son” is adopted, the verse still says He is the one who “is in the bosom of the Father,” indicating eternal intimacy, not creaturehood. More importantly, the argument for Christ’s deity in John does not depend on a single word. John 1:1 says the Word “was God,” John 1:3 says He created all things, John 1:14 says the Word became flesh while retaining divine glory, and John 20:28 ends the Gospel with Thomas calling Jesus “my Lord and my God.” Whether John 1:18 says “only begotten God” or “only begotten Son,” the verse affirms that Jesus uniquely reveals God because He shares God’s very nature. The manuscript variation does not weaken the case for Christ’s deity in John; it reinforces it, since the earliest witnesses explicitly call Jesus “God” and the surrounding context demands a fully divine Son who exegetes the Father.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

When Jesus says “I and the Father are one” in John 10:30, He only means they share the same mission and purpose, not the same divine nature, because even believers are said to be “one” with God in other passages like John 17.

Counter

This objection collapses as soon as John 10 is read in context, because Jesus’ statement that He and the Father are “one” immediately provokes the Jews to pick up stones to kill Him for blasphemy (John 10:31–33), showing they understood Him to be claiming equality of nature, not merely unity of purpose. The reason is found in the preceding verses: in John 10:28–29 Jesus says He gives eternal life, and no one can snatch believers out of His hand or the Father’s hand. No prophet or angel ever claimed to personally grant eternal life or possess the Father’s omnipotent grip over believers. Jesus places His hand and the Father’s hand on the same level of sovereign power, then grounds this in the statement “I and the Father are one.” The unity is unity of essence, because the same divine ability and authority belong equally to both. John’s Gospel reinforces this: in John 5:19–23 Jesus says He does whatever the Father does, gives life as the Father gives life, and must be honored exactly as the Father is honored, something impossible if He were only united in purpose. Believers may be “one” in a moral or relational sense, but believers are never said to do whatever the Father does, nor to share His power, nor to receive equal honor with Him. The unity Jesus claims in John 10:30 is therefore ontological, not merely functional, as the hostile reaction of the Jews and Jesus’ own claims of divine prerogatives make unmistakably clear.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

When Jesus quotes Psalm 82:6 in John 10:34 (“I said, you are gods”), He is arguing that if Scripture can call human judges “gods,” then His own claim to be God’s Son does not imply literal deity, but only a representative, functional role like theirs.

Counter

This interpretation collapses the moment Psalm 82 is read in context, because the “gods” of Psalm 82 are not divine beings or righteous leaders but corrupt, unjust rulers whom God condemns and sentences to death “like men” in Psalm 82:7. They are “gods” only in a sarcastic or judicial sense, because they were supposed to represent God’s justice but failed miserably. Jesus is not comparing Himself to these failed idols; He is exposing the hypocrisy of His accusers. If His opponents tolerate the term “gods” being used for wicked human judges, then it is absurd to accuse blasphemy when the one who is actually doing the works of God claims to be the Son of God. Jesus immediately distinguishes Himself from those false “gods” by saying He is the one “whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world” (John 10:36) and by pointing back to the divine works that prove His unity of nature with the Father (John 10:37–38). If Unitarians insist that Psalm 82 defines Jesus’ status, then they are forced to say Jesus belongs in the same category as corrupt, dying rulers whose legitimacy God rejects, which is a blasphemous conclusion that utterly contradicts the entire chapter of John. Jesus is not lowering His status to theirs. He is elevating His claim above theirs by showing that Scripture uses the term “gods” for corrupt men, whereas He performs divine works, gives eternal life, and shares the Father’s hand (John 10:28–29). The Unitarian reading destroys itself by reducing Christ to the level of condemned false gods, while Jesus’ own argument uses Psalm 82 to rebuke the Jews for their inconsistency and to strengthen His claim to divine Sonship, not weaken it.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

Colossians 1:19 says that “all the fullness” dwelt in Jesus because God worked through Jesus, so “fullness” simply means that the Spirit of the Father is working through Jesus, not that Jesus possesses the actual fullness of God’s divine nature.

Counter

This objection collapses once the context of Colossians is examined, because Paul is not describing the Spirit temporarily resting upon Jesus but the entire divine essence permanently dwelling in Him. In Colossians 1:15–18 Paul already establishes that Jesus is the Creator of all things, visible and invisible, the one before all creation, the one in whom all things hold together, and the head of the church, which is language never used for someone who merely carries the Spirit like a prophet. The key phrase in Colossians 1:19 is “all the fullness,” and Paul defines this phrase directly in Colossians 2:9, saying “in Him all the fullness of deity dwells bodily,” which cannot mean a temporary resting of the Spirit but the actual indwelling of divine nature. Isaiah 42:8 says God does not share His glory with another, yet Paul explicitly teaches that the fullness of God’s own being resides in Christ, making it impossible to reinterpret “fullness” as a functional anointing. The Spirit resting on prophets never made them creators of the universe, the sustainer of all things, or the one in whom the fullness of deity dwells. Paul roots Christ’s reconciling work in His divine identity in Colossians 1:20–22, showing that His supremacy over all creation flows from who He is by nature, not from a temporary empowerment. Therefore, “fullness” in Colossians 1:19 cannot refer to God’s Spirit merely working through Jesus. Paul’s own explanation in Colossians 2:9 makes it clear that the full divine nature resides in Christ permanently.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

Hebrews 1:3 calls Jesus the “exact imprint” of God’s nature, which means He perfectly represents God like a stamp or image, but is not actually the same being as God, only a flawless reflection.

Counter

This objection collapses once the language and context of Hebrews 1 are examined, because the term “exact imprint” (charaktēr tēs hypostaseōs) does not describe a mere representation but the sharing of the same divine essence. The word charaktēr was used in Greek to refer to the exact impression made by a die stamp on metal, meaning the imprint is of the same nature and substance as the original, not a separate or lesser being. The author reinforces this by pairing it with the phrase “the radiance of His glory,” which indicates that the Son is the outshining of God’s own divine light, not a created image reflecting it from outside. The wider context of Hebrews 1 annihilates the idea of simple representation: the Son created all things (Hebrews 1:2), sustains the universe by the word of His power (Hebrews 1:3), is worshiped by angels (Hebrews 1:6), is called God by the Father (Hebrews 1:8), and is identified as Yahweh the Creator in Hebrews 1:10–12. No mere representative, no matter how perfect, is worshiped, sustains all creation, or shares the identity of Yahweh. Thus, “exact imprint” means the Son shares the very being (hypostasis) of God, not that He resembles God from a distance. The passage teaches full deity, not functional representation.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

Jesus forgiving sins does not prove He is God because prophets like Nathan and priests in the Old Testament also announced God’s forgiveness, so Jesus was simply declaring what God had already forgiven.

Counter

This objection collapses the moment the Gospel passages are examined, because Jesus does not merely announce that God has forgiven someone, but personally authorizes and enacts forgiveness in His own name, an act reserved for God alone in Jewish theology. In Mark 2:5 Jesus says “your sins are forgiven” without offering sacrifice, without invoking God, and without any mediatorial ritual, which causes the scribes to ask the correct theological question: “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” Jesus does not correct them or say “I am only announcing what God has done.” Instead, He confirms their premise by performing a miracle to prove His divine authority: “The Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” (Mark 2:10). Prophets like Nathan did not forgive sins; they declared that God had forgiven (2 Samuel 12:13) and always made that distinction clear. Priests mediated forgiveness through sacrificial ritual (Leviticus 4), not by personal authority. Jesus, however, forgives directly, immediately, and independently because He is the one offended by sin and the one who holds divine authority over judgment. Matthew reinforces this when Jesus says that He will judge every human being on the last day (Matthew 7:22–23), something that only God does in the Old Testament (Joel 3, Isaiah 33). Jesus forgiving sins is not prophetic mediation. It is divine prerogative exercised by the incarnate Son.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim –

The Greek word proskuneo can mean honor or bowing to a king, not literal divine worship, so Jesus receiving proskuneo does not prove He is God but only that people honored Him as a Messiah or royal figure.

Counter

This objection collapses once the New Testament contexts of proskuneo are examined, because the word’s meaning is determined by the setting, and Jesus repeatedly receives proskuneo in explicitly divine contexts where such worship is forbidden toward creatures. In Revelation 19:10 and 22:8–9, when John tries to give proskuneo to an angel, the angel rebukes him with “Worship God,” proving that offering proskuneo to anyone but God is idolatry. Yet Jesus receives proskuneo from the disciples in the boat after calming the storm (Matthew 14:33) where they say “Truly you are the Son of God,” from the blind man whom He healed in John 9:38, and from all the disciples after the resurrection in Matthew 28:17, with Jesus accepting it without correction. Most significantly, Hebrews 1:6 explicitly commands all the angels of God to proskuneo the Son, something impossible for a mere king since God says in Isaiah 42:8 that He shares His glory with no one and forbids giving His worship to another. Even in earthly royal contexts, people bowed (proskuneo) before kings, but never in a setting where the person is identified as Creator, Judge, and sovereign over all things, which Jesus is throughout the New Testament. When the New Testament shows Jesus receiving proskuneo in settings that echo Yahweh’s throne scenes, after miracles that reveal divine authority, and in the context of resurrection glory, the worship is unmistakably divine. Therefore, Jesus does not receive mere royal “obeisance.” He receives the worship that belongs to God alone.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

Jesus performing miracles, including calming storms, does not prove He is God because prophets like Moses, Elijah, and Elisha also performed miracles through God’s power without being divine.

Counter

This objection collapses once the nature and context of Jesus’ miracles are examined, because His works are not simply powerful acts but divine prerogatives repeatedly linked to Yahweh’s identity in the Old Testament. When Jesus calms the storm with a word in Mark 4:39, the disciples respond, “Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey Him?” which echoes Psalm 107:23–30 where Yahweh alone stills the storm and quiets the waves. Unlike prophets who prayed for God to act, Jesus exercises direct command over creation without invoking God, showing authority rather than mediation. Jesus does not ask God to heal; He heals by His own word, and He raises the dead (Mark 5:41; John 11:43), something God identifies as uniquely His own work in Deuteronomy 32:39 and 1 Samuel 2:6. Jesus multiplies bread in the wilderness in John 6, an act tied directly to Yahweh providing manna in Exodus 16, and He claims to do it because He is the bread of life and the one who gives life to the world. Even when prophets perform wonders, they explicitly attribute the power to God, while Jesus attributes divine authority to Himself, such as forgiving sins (Mark 2:5–10), giving life (John 5:21), and raising Himself from the dead (John 10:17–18). The Gospel writers present Jesus’ miracles not simply as displays of power, but as signs revealing His divine identity as the one who performs the works of the Father. Therefore, Jesus’ miracles do not resemble prophetic acts dependent on divine intervention, but actions of Yahweh in the flesh exercising God’s own authority.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

When the New Testament applies Yahweh passages to Jesus, it is only typological or representational, meaning Jesus fulfills the “role” of Yahweh’s agent without actually being Yahweh Himself.

Counter

This objection collapses once the nature of the Yahweh passages applied to Jesus is examined, because the New Testament does not use them typologically but directly and unambiguously identifies Jesus with the God of Israel in contexts where representation is impossible. When Isaiah 40:3 says “prepare the way of Yahweh,” all four Gospels apply it directly to Jesus’ coming, not to His role as an agent, and the “way of Yahweh” is the way of the covenant God Himself, not a typology of a messenger. Hebrews 1:10 quotes Psalm 102:25–27, a hymn addressed to Yahweh as the eternal Creator, and applies it directly to the Son without qualification, calling Him the one who laid the foundation of the earth and does not change, which cannot be typological since creation is a divine action unique to Yahweh. Philippians 2:10–11 applies Isaiah 45:23, where Yahweh swears by Himself that every knee shall bow to Him, and applies this oath directly to Jesus so that every knee bows to Him in the same divine worship reserved for God alone. Revelation repeatedly calls Jesus “the Alpha and the Omega,” a title that belongs exclusively to Yahweh in Isaiah 44:6. Typology cannot account for the transfer of divine names, divine worship, divine oaths, and divine identity statements because Yahweh explicitly says He will not share His name, glory, or worship with another in Isaiah 42:8. The New Testament does not say Jesus represents Yahweh in these texts; it identifies Him as Yahweh in the flesh.

Shincheonji (Unitarian) Claim – 

The New Testament sometimes applies Old Testament Yahweh passages to figures other than Jesus, such as the church or prophets, so Jesus receiving a Yahweh text does not mean He is Yahweh but only that He fulfills God’s purposes like others do.

Counter

This objection collapses once the nature of the specific Yahweh texts applied to Jesus is examined, because the New Testament does not use generic Yahweh imagery but applies exclusive, identity-defining Yahweh passages to Jesus in ways that cannot be applied to any creature, prophet, or collective group. When the Gospels apply Isaiah 40:3 to Jesus’ coming, they are not using metaphor but stating that the arrival of Jesus is the arrival of Yahweh Himself, since Isaiah says explicitly “prepare the way of Yahweh.” Hebrews 1:10 applies Psalm 102:25–27 to Jesus, a passage that speaks of Yahweh as the unchanging, eternal Creator who laid the foundation of the earth, and the author applies it to the Son without qualification. Philippians 2:10–11 quotes Isaiah 45:23, where Yahweh swears by Himself that every knee will bow to Him alone, and applies that act of universal worship directly to Jesus, something no prophet or angel ever receives. Revelation identifies Jesus as “the Alpha and the Omega” and “the First and the Last,” titles Yahweh uses of Himself in Isaiah 41:4 and 44:6 to declare His uniqueness as God. The only Old Testament Yahweh texts applied to others in a secondary sense are those involving God’s actions through His agents, not His identity as Creator, eternal Judge, recipient of universal worship, and covenant Lord. The New Testament applies precisely those identity-defining Yahweh texts to Jesus, proving it is not typology or delegation but full divine identification.