For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

PROOF: Jesus is identified as someone other than the one God

The Evidence

A mediator is by definition someone who mediates for two parties. And by definition he is neither of the two parties in question but mediates between those two parties. In this passage, we have a clear declaration that Jesus is not to be identified as the one God. And neither is he to be identified as the one group of "men" for whom he is mediating. There is one God and that one God here is distinguished from Jesus who is the mediator between this one God and the one group of men. He is also not the group of men for whom he mediates and neither can he be one of the group of men for whom he mediates. And he isn't. He is between these two identities. In other words, this passage tells us the identity of this one God is an identity other than Jesus Christ since Jesus is the mediator between that one God and the one group of men. Moreover, we are told that the mediator between God and men, is the "man" Jesus.

The Trinitarian Response

The Trinitarian will response takes the following form:

If you claim that Jesus is cannot be God because he is the mediator between God and man, then you must also consistently argue that he cannot be a man either! The very reason that Jesus is the mediator between God and man is because Jesus is both divine and human.

This contrivance is nothing but a crafty ruse to distract you from what Paul actually said and attempt to nullify the fact that a mediator is by definition neither of the two parties for whom he mediates. Notice how they suggestively changed what Paul was talking about and what was being argued. Paul wast not talking about Jesus mediating between the one God and "a" (one) man." Yes, if Jesus is not the one God he necessarily couldn't be "a" man either. Unfortunatly, that is not what we are talking about. The verse is about the one God and plural "men." And neither was Paul was not talking about Jesus mediating between natures called "God" and "man." He was talking about mediating between two identities, "the one God" and "men." And nobody is arguing whether or not Jesus is divine or human. This is not what is being argued.

Exposing the Trinitarian Trickery

Notice how their reponses goes, "If you say... " or "If you claim... " or "If you argue..." Unfortunately, this is NOT what is being argued. If indeed we were arguing that Jesus cannot be divine because God is divine then we would indeed need to consistently argue that Jesus cannot be human either. But this is not what is being argued.

Futhermore, one of the parties is a singular identity "the one God." The other party is a plural identity - "men." There is no reason Jesus can't be a man because there are many men in existence. He just can't be that one group of men for whom he is mediating. And neither can he be one of the men in that one group of men for whom he is mediating. And he isn't. But there is only one God in view not many. Therefore, he can't be that one God. On one side of the equation are one group of men. The mediator cannot be that one group of men or one of the men out of that group. On the other side of the equation there is the one God. The mediator cannot be that one God. But there is absolutely nothing to preclude Jesus from being a man.

Even further, Paul tells us that the mediator is "the MAN Jesus." The Trinitarian suggestively tries to change what Paul said. Paul did not say "the God-man Jesus." He said "the man Jesus" is the mediator.

The Trinitarian response is a completely fallacious deception. It is clever game of work trickery crafted to dupe people and you now need to see precisely how this .

Notice what Paul is discussing. He is discussing mediation between two parties by a third party. He is discussing three identities: (1) the one God, (2) men as a group, and (3) the man Jesus.

Now carefully notice how they respond to this passage, "If you say that Jesus is not God then you must consistently claim he is not human either!" But this is NOT WHAT IS BEING SAID OR ARGUED IN THE FIRST PLACE. Unfortunately for the Trinitarian, nobody is even discussing whether or not Jesus is either divine or human. The argument is that Jesus is not that one God mentioned in this verse and he is not the one group of men in this verse either. The argument is not whether Jesus is divine or human but whether Jesus is either of the two identities in question. He isn't. He is neither the one God nor is he the group of men for whom he mediates. He is the mediator between the one God and that group of men.

The Trinitarian apologetic seeks to deceptively shift what is under discussion in this verse. Yes, if Paul had said, "there is one divine nature, and there is one mediator between the divine nature and humanity, the human being Jesus," then one could not argue that Jesus can't be the one divine nature without also arguing that Jesus can't be human. But that is not even what is under discussion. Hence, the Trinitarian apologetic is nothing but a clever ploy. The Trinitarian wishes to shift what Paul is discussing to a nature issue instead of an identity issue and discuss "God" as if "the one God" were a divine nature in contrast with the nature of humanity. However, this is not what Paul is discussing. Jesus is not mediating between two natures but two identities.

Notice the Trinitarian response goes, "If you say..." or "If you argue..." and suggestively implies that whether Jesus is God by nature of man by nature is what is being argued. THIS IS NOT WHAT IS BEING ARGUED. Notice the suggestive game the Trinitarian is playing.... "If you say..." He is changing the argument. This is not what is being said or argued. The Trinitarian should be saying, "If you say Jesus is not that one God in this verse then you must consistently argue he is not the one group of "men" in this verse either." And yes that IS precisely what is being argued and so nobody is being inconsistent here but Trinitarians.

The passage indicates there is one God. The passages indicates there is one mediator, the man Jesus Christ. The passage also says Jesus is the one mediator between the one God and plural "men." Paul identifies three parties. By definition, the word "mediator" means one party between two other parties who is neither of those two parties. The Greek word implies he is the "middle-man." Jesus is the person who is mediator between person who is the one God and the many persons who are men. He is neither the one God nor the one group of many men for whom he mediates. The question is whether Jesus is either of the two parties in question, the one God, or the many men. He is not the one God and Jesus is not the one group of men either. He is neither of them but is a mediator between these two entities.

It is indeed completely consistent to argue that the mediator is neither party in question in this verse but mediates between the two parties and since Jesus is the mediator here he is neither the one God nor is he the one group of men identified in this verse. Yes he is a man but he is not the group of men for whom he is mediating and he also isn't one of the men out of that one group of men. It is actually the Trinitarian who is being inconsistent and illogically irrational. Because Paul says that Jesus is the mediator between the "one God" and "men," to be consistent the Trinitarian logic should say, "if you say the mediator can't be the one God then you would also have to say the mediator cannot be those 'men'" Paul identifies in this verse. Yes, this is absolutely true. Jesus is not many "men," nor is he the "one God." However, he is one man out of the group of men and has been appointed by God to mediate between God and this one group of men.

Another way to see their trickery here is this way. Suppose Paul said a certain man mediated between the Jews and the Gentiles. Now let's suppose you argue that a mediator by definition is neither of the two parties for whom he mediates. And that would be completely true. As mediator this man is neither the group of Jews nor the group of Gentiles for whom he is mediating. However, nobody would be arguing that this man can't be a Jew nor would anybody be arguing that this man can't be a Gentile by definition nor would anyone be arguing he can't be a man. He indeed could be either a Jew or Gentile or man because there are many Jews and many Gentiles and a mediator could be one of them. There are many men in existence. Jesus is a man. Jesus is not one of the men for whom he mediates but that does not preclude him from being a man just as it would not preclude him from being a Jew or Gentile in the example above. But there are not many Gods. There is only one God. There is only one God and in this verse Jesus is not this one God but mediates between this one God and men. If indeed the verse had said that Jesus mediates between THE one man and God we would indeed have to argue that Jesus is not this man because there is only one of them. But this is not the case. But it is indeed the case that "THE one God" is in view. Hence, he cannot be that one God just as he is not the one group of men.

The Trinitarian response is nothing but trickery and it is designed to try and nullify the fact that a mediator is by definition neither of the two parties for whom he mediates.

Therefore, for the Trinitarian to say "then you must also say Jesus cannot be a man either," is a complete farce because it changes what is being argued in the first place with the intention of nullifying the fact that a mediator is neither party in question. Jesus is not mediating for one man and neither is he mediating for human nature. Jesus is not mediating between the one God and one man. He is mediating between the one God and the one group of many men. By definition, He can't be either party by identity because a mediator is not either of the two parties for whom he mediates. And he isn't either party. He isn't even one of the men in the group of men for whom he is mediating. Since there is only one God he cannot be that one God. And he isn't the group of men mentioned by Paul either. But this does not preclude Jesus from being a man. In other words, the reason Jesus cannot be the one God in this verse is because there is only one God and he is not Him. Rather he is the one mediator between that one God and the one group of men. But because there is more than one man in existence there is no reason he can't be a man. He just can't be one of the men or the one group of men for whom he is mediating. And he isn't. So we can clearly see here that Jesus is neither the many men or the one God. And we can also see the trickery of the Trinitarian response exposed for what it is.

Call for Discernment

The passage clearly shows Jesus to be a distinct identity from both the group of men and the one God mentioned in this verse. He is neither of those parties since he mediates between those parties. He is indeed a rightful mediator between the one God and man men because in his risen glory he is a divinized human. However, that is quite beside the point. The Trinitarian response is a complete fallacy because it contrasts divinity and humanity of nature rather than the two identities which is what Paul is discussing. Jesus is not mediating between divine nature and human nature but between people. Hence, the Trinitarian response that says if you argue that Jesus is not God then one must also say Jesus is not man, is totally false because THAT IS NOT WHAT IS BEING ARGUED. Jesus cannot be the one God because he mediating for that one God and there is only one God in existence. But he can be one of the many men and mediate for both those parties, the one God and the many men.

Hence this passage is positive proof that Jesus is not the one God.