In addition to the many texts that we have discussed previously, there are other standard texts to which Oneness advocates will appeal in support of their position that God is unipersonal and that the Son merely refers to the humanity of Jesus –he was God the Father manifested in the flesh. I am attempting to touch on a number of those passages here.
John 10:30 – “I and the Father are one.”
John 14:8-10 – Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father?’ Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me?”
The Oneness advocate appeals to these passages regularly to assert their view that Jesus is simply God the Father manifest in the flesh. David Bernard asserts, “This statement goes far beyond a relationship of agreement; it can be viewed as nothing less than the claim of Christ to be the Father manifested in flesh. Like many people today, Philip had not comprehended that the Father is an invisible Spirit and that the only way a person could ever see Him would be through the person of Jesus Christ.”[i]
The fact of the matter is that Bernard wants us to read these passages as Jesus stating that he is the Father but that is never asserted by Christ. Jesus never states, “I am the Father.” Instead, Jesus states that he abides in the Father and the Father abides in him. Certainly, it is an assertion of his deity but Jesus is not saying that he is the Father. Bernard states, “However, other passages describe the onesness of Jesus with the Father in a way that transcends mere unity of purpose, and in a way that indicates that Jesus is the Father.”[ii] Bernard is probably accurate in that the meaning conveyed by Jesus and the Father abiding in one another “transcends mere unity of purpose” but he errs in stating that Jesus is the Father. As James White states, “the unity that exists between Father and Son is far more than a mere unity of purpose or intention. The Son reveals the Father, or to use the words of John himself, ‘He has explained Him’ (John 1:18).”[iii] To read into this passage that Jesus is stating that he is the Father completely ignores the distinctions made throughout the NT, much less the distinctions made in the very context of the verse, between the Father and the Son as persons.
Later in John 14:20, Jesus states, “In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.” Jesus continues in John 15 to discuss the subject of abiding in Christ in describing himself as the vine and his Father as the vinedresser and that his disciples are the branches. This abiding together of the Father and the Son and us with the Christ is far deeper than a unity of purpose but what it is not is a statement on the part of Jesus that he is the Father. To the contrary, the passage continues to make distinctions between the Father and Son even into chapter 15 where the Father is the vinedresser and the Son the vine. There is a life, love, and fruit bearing that results from the unity that comes from abiding in one another.
Similarly, Oneness advocates cite to John 10:30 to support their argument that the Father and the Son are the same person. Again, Bernard and others run into the same problem. Jesus is not saying that he is the Father but that he and the Father are one. The passage is literally translated as, “I and the Father, we are one.” The verb “are” is plural in the Greek meaning that the plurality of persons – Jesus and the Father – is preserved in the verbal form. Jesus is not claiming to be his own Father but he is again identifying with the Father within the context of the redemption of his people.
Tertullian (certainly not a friend of the modalists of his day) in Against Praxeas (circa A.D. 210) identified the grammatical issue with the plural verb as denoting a plurality of persons being one when he states, “Here, then, they take their stand [the modalists/oneness advocates], too infatuated, nay, too blind, to see in the first place that there is in this passage an intimation of Two Beings – “I and my Father;” then there is a plural predicate, “are,” inapplicable to one person only….”[iv]
If we continue looking at the context, Jesus states, “I give them [my sheep] eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.” (John 10:28-20). They are one in the work of giving eternal life and they are one in the preservation of the sheep. They are one in the redemption of God’s people but this does not translate to Jesus and the Father being the same person, as Oneness advocates assert. Again, Oneness advocates must ignore the context in which the sayings of Jesus are spoken and then read into those passages meanings that are foreign to the text.
[i] David Bernard, The Oneness of God (Word Aflame) page 68.
[ii] Id. at 197.
[iii] Dr. James White, The Forgotten Trinity (Bethany House) page 158.
[iv] Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter 22.
former UPCI 