Wade Cox’s “Unitarian Bible” and “Council of the Elohim” Claims

Wade Cox's "Unitarian Bible" and "Council of the Elohim" Claims

By a Concerned Believer

Wade Cox (Christian Churches of God) and his Armstrongist fellow travelers. particularly Bob Thiel, love to announce that "most reputable theologians" have quietly admitted the Bible is Unitarian and subordinationist, that Calvin, Harnack, and Brunner all said so, and that Trinitarians have spent centuries doctoring translations to hide a vast "Council of the Elohim" of which Christ is merely one member. The claim is both overconfident and false. It selectively quotes, ignores context, and treats specialized scholarly observations about the divine council as if they vindicate Cox's particular Unitarian/subordinationist system. Most serious biblical scholars-critical or confessional-do not agree with Cox, Bob Thiel, or the rest of the Armstrongist crowd on this.

Calvin, Harnack, and Brunner Did Not "Admit" What Cox Claims

John Calvin was a thoroughgoing Trinitarian. He wrote extensively on the three persons in one essence, condemned Arius for stripping the Son of eternal divinity, and insisted that Father, Son, and Spirit are each fully God. He used traditional language of relations while defending the Son's aseity with respect to the divine essence. Claims that Calvin "admitted" the Bible is Unitarian require ignoring large sections of the Institutes and his confessional statements. Subordination language appears in the economic Trinity (the Son's functional submission in the incarnation and redemptive work), but that is not Unitarianism.

Adolf von Harnack was a liberal Protestant church historian. He argued that classical Trinitarian and Christological dogma was a later Hellenization of a simpler ethical gospel centered on the fatherhood of God and the kingdom. That is a reconstruction of an "original" Jesus, not a demonstration that the New Testament texts themselves teach Unitarianism. Harnack did not claim the biblical writers were Unitarians in Cox's sense; he claimed later church dogma departed from what he thought the historical Jesus taught. Critical scholarship continues to debate the development of Christology, but early high Christology (John 1, Philippians 2, Colossians 1, Hebrews 1) is widely recognized as present in the first century, not a fourth-century invention.

Emil Brunner was a neo-orthodox theologian who affirmed the deity of Christ and treated the Trinity as important Christian teaching, even while critiquing certain classical formulations and emphasizing personal encounter. He was not a Unitarian. Cox's appeal to these three men is selective citation or misrepresentation.

The Divine Council Exists-and It Does Not Support Cox's System

Scholars have long noted a "divine council" or heavenly assembly in the Old Testament (Psalm 82, Psalm 89, Job 1-2, Deuteronomy 32, etc.). Leopold Sabourin and many others discuss it. Modern work by figures such as Michael Heiser has popularized the concept for a broader audience: elohim can function as a category term for spiritual beings who inhabit the unseen realm, with Yahweh as the unique, incomparable, uncreated Creator who alone is worthy of worship. The "sons of God" or members of the council are subordinate beings under Yahweh's authority.

This does not mean the Bible is Unitarian, nor that Christ is simply one more elohim on the same plane as the rest of the host. The council consists of created beings. Yahweh remains uniquely other. Evangelical scholars who accept the divine council (including Heiser) still affirm high Christology-the Son as uncreated, the unique monogenes, the one through whom all things were made, and the one to whom the angels are commanded to worship (Hebrews 1). Critical scholars who see more developmental or polytheistic background material still do not endorse Cox's reconstruction of a singular Eloah who "extends" into an elohim host of which Christ is a subordinate member. Armstrongist Ditheism (two co-eternal beings) and Cox's Unitarian alternative are both minority systems outside mainstream scholarship.

Textual and Translation Claims

Deuteronomy 32:8 is a well-known textual variant. The Masoretic Text reads "sons of Israel"; the Dead Sea Scrolls and Septuagint support "sons of God" / "sons of El" (or "angels of God" in the Greek). Most textual critics regard the "sons of God" reading as earlier. The change in the Masoretic tradition is widely viewed as a monotheizing or clarifying edit, not a conspiracy to hide Cox's theology. The verse depicts the Most High allocating nations under subordinate divine beings, with Israel as Yahweh's own portion. It does not demote Yahweh or support Unitarianism. Similar observations apply to other passages Cox cites; the existence of a heavenly assembly is not news, and it does not do the doctrinal work Cox wants.

Psalm 8:5 uses elohim. The Septuagint translated it as "angels," and Hebrews 2 quotes that rendering. This is ancient and contextually defensible (the verse is about humanity's status relative to the heavenly host). It is not a Trinitarian plot to hide an "extended order of beings." English translations that follow the Septuagint/Hebrews or render "heavenly beings" are reflecting the textual and interpretive tradition, not covering up Unitarianism. Bullinger's notes in the Companion Bible are interesting but not decisive against the broader scholarly and translational consensus.

Claims of widespread Sopherim "forgeries" in Job and elsewhere to conceal a Unitarian council are exaggerated. Textual criticism acknowledges variants and scribal activity; it does not support a coordinated effort to disguise the theology Cox prefers.

The Real Issue

Cox's system treats the One True God as singular Eloah, with elohim referring to an extended host (including a subordinate Christ) that humans can join. This is a particular Armstrongist reconstruction. It is not the consensus of "reputable theologians." Mainstream biblical scholarship-whether conservative (affirming early high Christology and the uniqueness of the Son) or critical (tracing development and ancient Near Eastern parallels)-rejects the idea that Trinitarians have systematically altered the Bible to hide a Unitarian council, and it does not endorse Cox's or Thiel's particular solutions to the nature of God.

The New Testament repeatedly presents Jesus as the unique Son, the one through whom all things were made, the one who shares the divine name and receives worship, and the one who is greater than the angels (Hebrews 1). Attempts to fold him into a larger council of created elohim require special pleading that most scholars do not accept. Cox's confident appeals to Calvin, Harnack, Brunner, Sabourin, and alleged translation conspiracies do not hold up under scrutiny. They are Armstrongist special pleading dressed up as scholarly consensus.

Conclusion

Wade Cox's bold assertions amount to little more than an Armstrongist shell game. He points to real scholarly discussions of the divine council, real textual variants, and the occasional liberal historian's reconstruction of early Christianity, then pretends these add up to a consensus that the Bible is Unitarian, that Trinitarians have been systematically rewriting the text for centuries, and that his own version of a singular Eloah plus a subordinate host of elohim is what the texts actually teach. It isn't.

Most reputable theologians and biblical scholars do not agree with Cox, Thiel, or the rest of the Armstrongist crowd. Calvin was not a Unitarian. Harnack was not saying what Cox wants him to have said. Brunner was not a Unitarian. The divine council, where it is acknowledged, consists of created beings under the absolute sovereignty of Yahweh; it does not demote the unique, uncreated Son of the New Testament to the status of one more member of the host. Translations that render elohim as "angels" in certain contexts are ancient and contextually grounded, not the product of a centuries-long Trinitarian conspiracy. And the textual changes Cox highlights (such as Deuteronomy 32:8) are well-known to scholars and do not support his system.

Armstrongism has a long habit of announcing that "the scholars" or "reputable theologians" have finally come around to its views, only for those same scholars to remain blissfully unaware of the supposed conversion. Cox's treatment of the "Council of the Elohim" is simply the latest installment. The texts are open for examination. The scholarly literature is public. And neither supports the confident Unitarian-subordinationist reconstruction Cox is selling.