Trinitarian vs. Oneness Theology – Oneness Proof Texts Addressed (cont.)

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.

Colossians 2:9 – For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.

One of the issues that you will frequently encounter with many is they will simply ignore the purpose for which the epistles were written.  These are occasional writings – there was some issue, teaching, concern in the church that prompted the Apostle Paul to write to the church and those issues can be identified through a close examination of each epistle.  In the letter to the Galatians, for example, it is pretty clear that Paul had great concern for false teachers coming into the church who sought to add to the gospel of faith certain works introducing a legalism that undermined grace.

By ignoring the purposes surrounding which the epistle was written it is easy to then misunderstand the meaning of passages written in the letter.  They are taken out of the context in which they are written.  To fully appreciate Paul’s purposes in explaining to the Colossians that in Christ the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, one need take into consideration the intent behind the letter and what was prompting the letter in the first place.

Colossians was written by Paul to address early Gnosticism that was coming into the church.  Without delving too deeply into Gnosticism, it is sufficient to say that the Gnostics held to a strong dualistic theology that viewed that which is spiritual as good and that which is matter as evil.  This dualistic view of spirit and matter led to the idea that the God could essentially have nothing to do with matter for to do so would be to lead to this God’s being responsible for evil.  Thus, this highest form of God or the Monad who dwells in the Pleroma would have descended through various emanations or Aeons, which are deemed as being lesser gods until you find the demiurge or the lesser God that was responsible for the creation of evil matter.  According to the gnostic view, only the demiurge or a lesser god could have been responsible for the creation of matter in light of the evil nature of matter itself.  The one true God could not have been responsible for the creation of matter but creation only came about through these lesser manifestations of God.  These views historically have been traced through to various Jewish influences that appear to have then infiltrated the Christian church.

One of the early heresies of the church flowed out of Gnosticism and that was Docetism or the belief that Jesus did not have a real physical body – Jesus only seemed to have a physical body but couldn’t have if he was believed to be God.  This heresy actually crept into the United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI) during the 2000’s.  More on that in another post.

David Bernard and other Oneness advocates cite to Colossians 2:9 as a go-to proof-text.  As they tend to read the KJV, Oneness advocates will frequently refer to the term “godhead” as the KJV states, “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”  The term “godhead” simply refers to the all that makes up the nature and attributes of God.  It is an old English variant of the word godhood.  We can compare this word to some degree to the word childhood.  We would define childhood as the state of being a child and encompassing all that goes into being a child – the nature and attributes of a child.  Godhead or godhood, therefore, pertains to the divine nature, the essence or substance of God.  Utilizing Trinitarian definitions, we would say that “godhead” refers to the ontological Trinity or the essence or substance of God and not to any individual person in the being of God.  It is what makes God God – it is the divine nature.

In looking back at Colossians 2:9, what we find is a clear, unambiguous, and strong affirmation of the deity of Christ.  In Christ, bodily, dwelt all the fullness of deity.  All that makes God, God was in Christ bodily.  Christ was not a lesser god.  Christ was not a demiurge. Christ had both a physical body and in that body was veiled the fullness of all that is of God.  Again, just as in the confession of Thomas, the passage is not Paul stating that Jesus was the Father but in Christ was the fullness of deity – the fullness of the divine nature.  This is not a statement, per se, affirming Oneness theology but is a statement affirming the deity of Christ in the face of heretical teaching that had infiltrated the church in the form of Gnosticism.  This passage is a simple statement as to the deity of Christ in face of false teaching that would lead some to believe that Jesus was some demigod or only seemed to come in bodily form but was truly only a spirit.

Consider for a moment the implications of either of these false teachings.  To believe that Christ was merely some demigod introduces polytheism and is contrary to the strict monotheism of the Christian faith.  But if Christ was not truly come in the flesh, how is it he was tempted in every point as we are and yet without sin, how is it he fulfilled the law, how is it that he made atonement for sins?

This passage does not teach that Jesus and the Father are one and the same person in the being of God.  This is Oneness advocates, once again, presupposing the unipersonal nature of God and reading that into the text such that every time there is an affirmative statement concerning the deity of Christ in the text, Oneness advocates read that to mean that Jesus is the Father.

The context of the Colossians makes clear that the purpose of Paul’s writing was to affirm not only the deity of Jesus but his role in creation as well.  “For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities – all things were created through him and form him.  And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”  (Colossians 1:16-17).  The Oneness explanation of the role of Jesus in creation is that as the Father, he was the creator, and that the Father also created all things with the plan of Jesus the man in mind.  Yet here we have Paul speaking of the Son of God as the image of the invisible God and that by him all things were created and that he is before all things and by him all things hold together.

Therefore, we should understand Colossians 2:9 in its proper context and be consistent in our approach to understanding the passage.  In addressing the Gnostic ideas coming into the church, Paul strongly affirms both the deity of Jesus Christ as well as the role Jesus Christ played in the creation of all things.  He was not only the creator all things but he was before all things and by him all things hold together.  In him all the fullness of divine nature dwells – not some portion of God or some lesser god – but all the fullness of the essence of God was in Christ bodily.  Nothing more and nothing less.  Oneness advocates continue to read into this passage the notion that God is unipersonal, therefore, the Father was in Jesus.  Yet, they don’t apply the same consistent reading to the role of Jesus, as distinguished from the Father, in creation.

Trinitarian vs. Oneness Theology – Oneness Proof Texts Addressed (cont.)

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 20:28 – Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”

The statement of Thomas to Jesus is clear and unambiguous – he called Jesus his Lord and his God.  The response of Jesus is not to correct Thomas in any way but to affirm that the confession of Thomas is a demonstration of his faith.

The fact of the matter is this is a verse that strongly confirms the deity of Christ but nothing concerning him being the same as the Father in terms of identity unless you being with the presupposition that the God is unipersonal and read into the text that Thomas was declaring the Jesus to be the Father.  In his book, The Oneness of God, Bernard properly cites to this verse as evidence of Jesus being God but he does not go so far as to state that this is a statement of Jesus being the Father because it is not such a statement.  Nevertheless, oneness advocates look to this verse making the assumption that God is unipersonal and read into the text that notion that Jesus was God the Father.

Again, one would need to bring the presupposition that God is unipersonal to the text to interpret the text in isolation from the rest of scripture to understand the passage as a declaration that Jesus is declared to be the Father by Thomas.

Trinitarian vs. Oneness Theology – Oneness Proof Texts Addressed

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 will attempt to touch on a number of those passages in the next several posts.

Isaiah 9:6 – For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Malachi 2:10 – Have we not all one Father?  Has not one God created us?

It would seem to make sense to consider the texts of Isaiah and Malachi together as they are often utilized together and to make one assertion – that there is one God who is one Father of us all and that the Son of God is simply the Father in flesh.  You will find Isaiah 9:6 is a text that is repeatedly cited by Oneness advocates, which they argue demonstrates that the Son is distinguished from the Father in that the term Son refers to his humanity or flesh but that the Son, as to his divine nature, was God, the Everlasting Father.

David Bernard describes this verse as “one of the most powerful proofs that Jesus is God….”[i]  Well, no one denies the deity of Jesus Christ – the presupposition on the part of Oneness Pentecostals is that God is unipersonal contrary to the scriptural evidence.  It is the Oneness position that “the terms child and son refer to the Incarnation or manifestation of ‘The mighty God’ and ‘The everlasting Father.’”[ii]  Bernard notes that Isaiah “calls the Son the everlasting Father.  Jesus is the Son prophesied about and there is only one Father…so Jesus must be God the Father.”[iii]  Oneness advocates also cite this passage to reaffirm that “the Son of God would be begotten….”[iv]  “The Bible plainly states that there is only one Father….  It also clearly teaches that Jesus is the one Father….  The Spirit that dwelt in the Son of God was none other than the Father.”[v]

As happens frequently with Oneness Pentecostals, there is an over emphasis placed on particular verses at times (see the OP perspective on Acts 2:38) and a reading into passages, as a result of that over emphasis meaning that is not there (once again, see the OP perspective on Acts 2:38).  Bernard and the Oneness advocates see here ironclad proof that the Son is the Everlasting Father –God the Father and the Son are one and the same person.  OP’s themselves place great emphasis on the notion of names but here they seem to ignore the typical usage of describing one’s “name being called” as describing the characteristics or qualities of the person and not necessarily being identified as a literal name.  OT names were frequently given in describing certain qualities or occasions around the birth of a child.  Isaac means “laughter” because Sarah, in having a son in her old age said, “God has brought me laughter, and everyone who hears about this will laugh with me.”  (Genesis 21:6).  Jacob’s name meant or came to mean “supplanter” because of what he did to his brother Esau in assuming his birthright.

Clearly, Isaiah 9:6 is a messianic text concerning the child that would be born in Bethlehem but when Isaiah states that his “name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace” he is not describing literal names of the child but characteristics or qualities of the child.  To assert that this passage is teaching that God the Father the divine being is in the Son/flesh of Jesus is to read back into Isaiah an understanding that simply is not there.

To make this assumption, as Oneness advocates do, you must begin with the assumption that every time we see “Father” that it carries only one meaning despite the reality that we need to look to the context in which the terms is used to determine its meaning.  The term Father is used infrequently with respect to God in the OT and is not a common name used for God.  In some cases it is used as a descriptor to refer to his parental position with respect to his children, Israel.  Primarily it is used in reference to God’s role as creator.

It is also interesting to note that with Father is coupled with the term eternal.  So here we have the Son being identified with the OT eternal creator of the universe and overseer of Israel.  The fact of the matter is, this passage does not provide as much support for the Oneness position as they would assert and, frankly, it doesn’t provide much support for Trinitarian theology as well.

[i] David Bernard, The Oneness of God (Word Aflame) page 55.

[ii] Id. at 56.

[iii] Id. at 66.

[iv] Id. at 105.

[v] Id. at 126.

Trinitarian vs. Oneness Theology – Philippians 2

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.  And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.  Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.  Philippians 2:5-11

Paul’s purpose with this passage in Philippians 2 is not to necessarily focus us on some of the theological points around the doctrine of the Trinity but encourage the Philippians to take on the spirit of Christ in humility and service to others.  But in so doing, Paul conveys tremendous truth concerning Christ himself in this passage.

“…though he was in the form of God.”  Just as in John 1:1, the Greek term here carries with it the meaning that Christ existed in the form of God and with no origin or beginning.  The word denotes his continuous existence in the form of God – he did not enter into a state of being in which he was found to be in the form of God, he always was in the form of God.  The Phillips Modern English translation captures this when it translates this phrase as “who had always been God by nature.”  Once again, this would seem contrary to any Oneness understanding of the Son as a creature who came into existence in Bethlehem and was then found to be in the form of God.

To be found in the form of God is speaking of the nature of God, as many translations render the verse.  Thus, Christ in his pre-existent state was God by nature and in his incarnation, was a manifestation of that divine nature.  Christ was always by nature divine.

“…did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped but emptied himself….”

Christ continuously existed in the divine nature but Christ did not count equality with God something to be grasped or held onto but instead Christ emptied himself.  How did Christ empty himself?  He emptied himself by taking on human flesh, being born in the likeness of men and taking the form of a servant.  John 1:14 describes this emptying when it states that “the Word become flesh and dwelt among us….”

The emptying is used in a metaphorical sense in that Christ set aside certain privileges that he previously possessed and took on the humble nature of a servant.  In fact the King James Version provides a nice understanding when it states that Christ “made himself of no reputation, and took on him the form a servant….”  Thus, Christ emptied himself in the sense of setting aside those privileges that were his in light of his divine nature and instead veiled that glory by taking on the likeness of men by taking on flesh, dwelling among men and serving others.

Thus, the message of Paul to the Philippians is one truly of humility and service.  Paul is encouraging the Philippians to have the same humble manner of life and mind of service that was in Christ.  Christ, though he was eternally divine as to his nature and served by angels, did not seek to retain that equality with God but instead he laid those privileges aside, took on flesh concealing his divine glory, and served others to the point of taking up the cross and being obedient to death for the sake of others.  Out of love for others Christ himself set aside those divine prerogatives and took on human flesh.

David Bernard argues, from the Oneness perspective, that Jesus was God the Father manifested in the flesh and Jesus was equal with God in that in Jesus was God the Father but Jesus voluntarily set aside those divine prerogatives and took on the form of a servant and humbled himself, even to the death of the cross.  As Bernard notes, this verse “only refers to the limitations Jesus imposed upon Himself relative to His life as a human.”[i]  In other words, this passage is strictly pertaining to the life of Jesus on earth.

Bernard views this passage as teaching “that Jesus had the nature of God, that He was God Himself.  God has no equal (Isaiah 40:25; 46:5, 9).  The only way Jesus can be equal with God is for Him to be God.  So, Jesus was equal with (the same as) God in the sense that He was God.”[ii]

“From the Oneness point of view, Jesus is not God the Son, but He is all of God, including Father and Son.  Thus, in his divinity, He is truly equal to, or identical to God.  The word equal here means that the divine nature of Jesus was the very nature of God the Father.”[iii]  “This verse only refers to the limitations Jesus imposed upon Himself relative to His life as a human.”[iv]

While Bernard begins to explain the Trinitarian perspective that the Son and Father are of the same nature and that the Son became incarnate, Bernard seems to begin to overly focus on the kenosis or emptying of Christ and the extent to which that means that Jesus stripped himself of certain attributes of God or stripped himself of his dignity and rightful prerogatives as God while dwelling in flesh as a human.[v]

This interpretation poses a number of problems.

First, Bernard does not do a fair job in presenting the opposing (Trinitarian) position to his Oneness view.  Trinitarian theology distinguished between the ontological and economic trinity in that while the Father is fully God as to his nature and the Son is fully God as to his nature; the Father and Son are distinct persons within essence of God.  Jesus being divine and yet distinct from the Father is emphasized throughout the New Testament as well as in this very passage.  Paul states that God has exalted Jesus so that every tongue would confess Jesus Christ as Lord to the glory of God the Father.  (Philippians 2:9-11).   Bernard cannot simply dismiss the distinctions as they are presented (even in the same passage) by not accurately presenting the Trinitarian position and then making statements such as Jesus was equal to God “in the sense that he was God” from a unipersonal perspective.

Along these lines, Bernard errs by taking the statement “equal with God” to identify Jesus as being God the Father.  The context makes clear that we are speaking of the nature of God and Jesus as sharing in or possessing the divine nature of God.  (see also John 1:1c).  To say that Jesus was equal (isa) with God is speaking of equality in terms of quality or substance.  Paul is not conveying that Jesus is equivalent with God the Father but shares in the same divine nature or substance as God the Father.  Thus, once again, Paul is affirming the deity of Christ while distinguishing him from God the Father.  Therefore, Bernard’s assertion that Jesus’ being equal with God is the same as his being identical to God the Father is a misreading of the passage entirely.

Bernard’s assertion that this passage is strictly limited to the time of Jesus’ life as a human is muddled and not accurate.  Oneness advocates must argue this because in their mind the Son only existed when he was born in Bethlehem – he is, after all, the “only begotten Son”.  Therefore, they argue that Jesus the Son was equal to God in terms of identity in that he was God the Father in flesh.  Because the Son only existed in human flesh during the incarnation, this passage can only apply strictly to Jesus’ physical lifetime on the earth.  We have already seen that this is problematic in that Jesus “was in the form of God” or as to his nature, God, from eternity past.  The Greek indicates his continuous existence in bearing the nature of God with no point of origin or beginning.

Paul also tells us that it was Jesus himself who “emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant….”  So if Jesus himself was the one who “emptied himself”, when was it that this emptying took place?  The Oneness advocate must argue that it was over his entire life that he simply laid aside his divine privileges. In reality, the point is that Christ emptied himself by considering what he was and then setting that aside and instead was focused on the needs of others and therefore took on something that he was not previously – he took on human form.  Jesus, essentially, added to himself humanity.  But the context makes clear that it was the Son who did this and not God the Father.

Bernard and other Oneness advocates must argue that Jesus the Father took on flesh and also became Jesus the Son.  This is a muddled reading that does not comport with the plain teaching of the passage.  But the Oneness view of the nature of God and the nature of the Son require these muddled readings in order to avoid what is otherwise the plain teaching that distinguishes the Father and the Son and yet affirms the divine nature of both.  Again, when read with a clear understanding of the doctrine and the distinctions of the one being of God being shared by three distinct persons – distinguishing the ontological and economic trinity – these passages are quite clear.

Finally, the conclusion of the passage reinforces the distinctions between the Father and the Son and their functions in the plan of redemption.  Paul here quotes from Isaiah 45:23:

By myself I have sworn;

From my mouth has gone out in righteousness

A word that shall not return:

“To me every knee shall bow,

Every tongue shall swear allegiance.”

In Philippians 2:9-11, Paul writes:

Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

The OT passage in Isaiah is clearly about Yahweh and yet Paul is saying that it is to Jesus that every knee will bow.  First of all, if we look to these verses we see that it is the Son who is being exalted and the Son who is to be worshipped as distinguished from the God the Father.  Bernard must argue that as a result of the humbling of Christ (the man), “God (the Spirit of Jesus) has highly exalted Jesus Christ (God manifested in flesh).  Jesus has a name that is above every name – a name that represents all that God is.  The Spirit of God gave this name to the Christ (Messiah), because Christ was God manifested in flesh.”[vi]  It is also this view of the name of Jesus – “the exalted position of this name” – that Oneness advocates use as an argument in the requirement that baptism be administered in the name of Jesus rather than in the Trinitarian formula.[vii]

Yet, we will see that this continues to be a Oneness adventure in missing the point.  The passage makes clear that it is the Father who exalts the Son and this brings about glory to the Father.  The exalted name given to the Son is the name of Lord or Yahweh.  Paul is making clear that bowing the knee to the Son is bowing the knee to the “Lord”, Yahweh.  To the Son is the OT name of God ascribed in this passage – the name of Yahweh is the exalted name that is given to the Son, to the glory of the Father.  This brings the passage full circle when we see that the Son eternally existed sharing in the divine nature but he laid aside those divine privileges and took on human flesh and humbled himself becoming obedient even to the death of the cross for us.  This results in the glorification of the Son in his being confessed to be Yahweh as well as the glory of the Father.

This is consistent with the salutations regularly used by Paul in his epistles where he speaks of God (Theos – Elohim) the Father and the Lord (kurios – Yahweh) Jesus Christ.  Both the Father and the Son are continuously asserted as being simultaneously distinct persons and yet divine.  This is not bi-theism as Trinitarian theology asserts at its most fundamental level that there is one divine being shared by three distinct persons or subsistences.

This passage is a beautiful message that when understood in its simple meaning confesses the deity of the Son from eternity, his humbling himself to meet the needs of mankind resulting in his great glorification to the glory of God the Father.  As we have seen elsewhere, the attempts by Oneness advocates to impose their view of the nature of God as unipersonal renders the reading of this verse as muddled, confused and in denial of the true nature of the Son of God and what he did for us.

[i] David Bernard, The Oneness of God (Word Aflame) page 222.

[ii] Id. at 221.

[iii] Id. at 222.

[iv] Id. at 222.

[v] Id. at 221-3.

[vi] Id. at 223.

[vii] Id. at 52.

Trinitarian vs. Oneness Theology – The Prayers of Jesus

When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.  And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.  I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do.  And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.” John 17:1-5

From the Oneness perspective, the prayers of Jesus are simply the humanity of Jesus conversing with the divine – the human Son speaking to his heavenly Father – who also happens to be in him and the same person as him, which is problematic in and of itself.  Contrarily, the Trinitarian position sees the prayers of Jesus as genuine communication between the Son and the Father and the prayer of John 17 seems to indicate it as such.

Again, clearly we have distinctions made between the Father and the Son as far as personhood is concerned.  But some other points must be made from this passage.

First, scholars will note that the form of the verb “glorify” is in the aorist imperative form which is commonly used in the form of a command, rather than a simple request.  Thus, the Son is commanding the Father to glorify the Son in order that the Son might glorify the Father.  This would lead us to conclude the Son’s equality with the Father according to their nature.  If the Son were merely flesh, this would be problematic – what creature would presume to make commands of their Father.  But here the doctrine of the Trinity affirms equality of persons within Trinity – they are equal as to their nature while differing with respect to their function.

Second, How is it the Son (the humanity, according to Oneness theology) able to command his Father to glorify the Son?  Hebrews 1:3 states that, “He [the Son] is the radiance of the glory of God [the Father] and the exact imprint of his [the Father’s] nature, and he [the Son] upholds the universe by the word of his [the Son’s] power.”

We will look at Philippians 2 but for now we can say that the passage in Philippians demonstrates that the Son pre-existed the incarnation and that although he was equal with God did not consider that something to be grasped or retained but emptied himself and humbly took on the form of a servant.  The Son laid aside the glory that was his and it was hidden through the incarnation.  It was momentarily revealed at the transfiguration but Jesus now commands its full restoration with his fulfilling the work that he was sent to do.

In further explanation as to how the Son can make such a command of the Father is noted in verse 5, “And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.”  Jesus requests or commands the Father to restore to him the glory that he had with the Father before the creation of the world.  Implicit in this prayer is the fact that the Son existed with the Father prior to creation and that the Son is equal with the Father in that they shared in the glory of God but that through the incarnation (see Philippians 2) that glory was set aside in order for the Son to perform the work that he was called to do but with its completion, the Son seeks a restoration of his glory, the same glory that he had with the Father for all of eternity.

This passage seems to not only contradict the fundamental teaching of Oneness (that there was a time when the Son did not exist) but Bernard’s assertions that there are some Trinitarians who also deny the idea of the eternal Son.  This very prayer of Jesus is the Son’s asserting his existence in eternity prior to the creation and his sharing of the Father’s glory.

How do Bernard and the Oneness advocates respond to this statement made by Jesus?  There is a simple denial on their part, as there must be, of the idea of an eternal Son that existed prior to the incarnation.  In their minds, this all simply existed in the mind of God as a part of his predestined future plan.[i]  With respect to John 17:5, Bernard states in a parenthetical that “Jesus spoke as a man in John 17:5, for by definition God does not pray and does not need to pray.”[ii]  This is simply a non-response that is in denial of the very words of Jesus asserting his existence prior to creation with the Father.

Bernard also explained that “Jesus spoke of the glory He had as God in the beginning and the glory the Son had in the plan and mind of God.  I could not mean that Jesus pre-existed with glory as the Son.  Jesus was praying, so He must have been speaking as a man and not as God.  We know the humanity did not pre-exist the Incarnation, so Jesus was talking about the glory the Son had in the plan of God from the beginning.”[iii] (emphasis added).

Unfortunately, this contortion of Jesus’ words based on the understanding of prayer and the presuppositions brought to the reading of the text from the Oneness perspective leads to this being the only possible view of what is otherwise a very plain meaning of the text.  God cannot pray.[iv]  According to Bernard, this is simply the humanity speaking to the Father/divine about the glory that he (the Father) had as the Father in eternity past and the plan that the Father had in mind for the Son from before creation.

Nevertheless, here Bernard contradicts himself in his own reasoning.  Is Jesus speaking as a man or as divine when he says “glorify me with the glory that I had with you…”?  On the one hand, Bernard asserts that Jesus was speaking “of the glory He had as God in the beginning….”  So Jesus is speaking as God.  But I thought God cannot pray because he is God.  On the other hand, Jesus is speaking of the glory he had as “the plan in the mind of God.”  So Jesus was speaking as humanity.

The fact is that Bernard offers no cogent exegesis of the passage where Jesus states, “And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.”  There is simply no basis for asserting that the glory the Son had with the Father before the world existed was simply in the mind/thought/foreknowledge of God.  His words cannot be clearer – glorify me with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.  Reading this passage in light of John 1 and Philippians 2, it can only be understood that the Son existed in eternity and emptied himself of certain divine prerogatives when taking on flesh – that in the incarnation his glory was shrouded but with the completion of his work, his glory was to be fully restored and visible to all.

What about Prayer between the Father and Son in general?

Bernard’s explanation as to the prayers of Jesus is simply that “the human nature of Jesus prayed to the eternal Spirit of God.  The divine nature did not need help; only the human nature did.”[v]  “By definition, God in His omnipotence has no need to pray, and in His oneness has no other to whom He can pray.”[vi]

First, let us note that Bernard provides no definition for what he means by prayer when he asserts that God cannot pray based on his omnipotence.  What is prayer but at its most fundamental essence simply communication between two persons?  Ordinarily we speak of man communicating with God in prayer.  The scripture provides various forms and types of prayer from intercession to supplication.  Why the preclusion of prayer or communication between the Father and the Son because of their divine personhood and omniscience?  If the doctrine of the Trinity is correct, the Father and the Son would communicate with each other.

Second, I think we would agree that the Jesus as both fully man and fully God would pray in light of his two natures – fully man and fully divine.  In his humanity, Jesus needed to pray and he prayed, not to Himself but to God the Father.  Nevertheless, the doctrine of the Trinity does not preclude Jesus as the Son of God, a person in the Trinity, praying to God the Father based on their omniscience. In fact, the doctrine of the Trinity presents the prayers of Jesus in a much more understanding fashion.

Do Natures Pray and Love?

Bernard would need to explain why, if Jesus is simply the Father in flesh, would there really be any need to pray?  Does having a dual nature simply require prayer?  If God is one person and that one person of God (God the Father) is in Jesus, who is Jesus praying to?  If God is unipersonal, it necessarily follows that Jesus is talking to himself.  Jesus’ prayers to the Father would be virtually nothing more than a monologue between Jesus and himself.  Why?  For the benefit of those that were listening?  It necessarily follows that the argument of Oneness is that natures are able to communicate and love because Jesus is essentially one person with two natures.  If Jesus was fully the unipersonal God and man, how can it not but follow that Jesus was in love with and communicated with himself – his divine and his human natures.  But this is not the case at all.  Natures do not communicate.  Natures do not love.  Persons love and communicate.  Thus, Jesus, the Son of God, as a distinct person from the Father communicated with and loved the Father.  The Father loved and communicated with the Son.  Again, the doctrine of the Trinity simply presents a clearer picture of the relationship between the Father and the Son than does Oneness.

Bernard’s claim that the Son of God praying to God the Father would lead to either subordinationism or Arianism[vii] actually could be turned around on Oneness advocates.  It would seem to me that the Oneness position is the one that interprets the nature of God in such a way as to potentially leading to a watered-down version of Arianism where the person of Jesus is merely human.

“If the prayers of Jesus prove there are two persons in the Godhead, then one of those persons is subordinate to the other and therefore not fully or truly God.”[viii]  Because natures do not pray to one another, if Jesus is praying to the Father in his humanity, is there not such an emphasis on the humanity of the Son such that he is a separate person from the Father.  Given the unipersonal nature of God the Father in the Oneness view, it would seem to follow that Jesus, as the Son is really more human than divine.  This is the path that leads to Arianism – one of the early century heresies that viewed God as unipersonal and Jesus as simply a man – a creation on the part of God.  In fact, it was Arianism that gave rise to the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. and the formal statement of the doctrine of the Trinity and against the unipersonal nature of God that would deny the deity of the Son.

[i] David Bernard, The Oneness of God (Word Aflame) pg 117.

[ii] Id. at 117.

[iii] Id at 183-4.

[iv] Id. at 177.

[v] Id. at 177.

[vi] Id. at 177.

[vii] Id. at 178.

[viii] Id. at 177.

Trinitarian vs. Oneness Theology – John 1 continued – Did the Word (as a plan) belong to God?

Did the Word belong to God?

In continuing to look at John 1:1, I wanted to address in a short, standalone post an argument asserted by David Bernard and Oneness advocates concerning the Word.

The second phrase of John 1:1 states:

and the Word was with God,

kai ho Logos en pros ton Theon

Bernard argues that pros is translated in other places as “pertaining to” and therefore the phrase in John 1:1b could just as easily be translated as “’The Word pertained to God and the Word was God,’ or, ‘The Word belonged to God and was God.’”[i]  Bernard cites to Hebrews 2:17 and 5:1.  Just looking at Hebrews 5:1, the KJV translates the verse as, “For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins.”  The NASB also translates the phrase as “pertaining to God.”  The vast majority of other translations render the verse as the high priest representing men “in relation to God” or “in matters related to God.”  Even the context and idea of “pertaining to God” demonstrates that this is a relational concept and not that of ownership or possession as Bernard attempts to read into the English translation of the passage.  The high priest is appointed to represent men before God – the high priest is acting as a mediator before God for men.  The concept of relationship is clearly preserved in the translations and the context.

But Bernard makes the leap from relationship to ownership based on his reinterpreting “pertaining to” with no basis for doing so whatsoever other than to make the verse fit within his Oneness theology.   To reinterpret John 1:1b as “The Word belonged to God and was God” is a twisting of the scripture away from its intended meaning and an abuse of the text to make the verse fit within Oneness theology.

Not only is his translation, “The Word belonged to God,” not only a leap but it is flat out wrong and contrary to the Greek language utilized in the phrase.  Bernard focuses on pros but completely ignores why pros has the meaning of with in relational terms – the accusative ton theon.  As already discussed, ton theon is in the accusative case, which typically reflects the direct object of the sentence and limits the action of a verb as to its extent or direction.  Thus, when the Word pros ton theon we understand that the Word was in relationship or intimate with ton theon – with God.

If John had wanted to state that the Word “belonged” to God, John would have placed ‘God’ in the genitive case showing ownership or possession.  In the Greek, this would have been rendered tou theou such as in Revelation 19:1 where it states he soteria kai he doxa kai he dynamis tou Theou hemon – salvation and the glory and the power [belong to] the God of us!  Possession or ownership is reflected in the use of the genitive case – tou theou.  In fact, in English we need to add the “belong to” as possession in the Greek is implicitly understood by the use of the genitive case.

In this particular case, Bernard is simply wrong in his translation in his attempts to deny the personhood of the Son or the Word in favor of the Oneness teaching that the Word is simply the plan or thought that belonged to God or was in the mind of God.  The Word was not a plan or thought that belonged to God but was in relationship with God.

In the next post, we will take a look at the Oneness understanding of the “begotten” Son.

[i] David Bernard, The Oneness of God, at page 61.

Trinitarian vs. Oneness Theology – Pre-Existence of the Son

Pre-Existence of the Son

A challenge for the Oneness advocate is the appearance of scriptural evidence of the pre-existence of the Son – the idea that the Son existed as a person with the Father prior to the incarnation. There are several particularly stunning passages that present this fundamental truth. If it is true that the Son existed prior to the incarnation, essentially the entire Oneness position must collapse upon itself for the Oneness position is that the Son refers only the human flesh which the Father robed himself in for it was the Father who was manifested in the flesh/Jesus.

On a personal note, it was beginning to see and understand these passages within the broader context of understanding the fundamentals around the doctrine of the Trinity that caused me to step back and question the Oneness teaching that I had received for years in the UPCI. If you are open to understanding your own faith as well as the faith of others and weigh the various doctrines with what is found in the scripture – certain points of faith become very clear. It was seeing the pre-existence of the Son in the scripture coupled with a basic understanding of the fundamentals of Trinitarian theology that opened my eyes to the fundamental problems inherent in the Oneness position.

In reviewing Hebrews 1:5-6, David Bernard makes the following assertions (see page 105 in his book The Oneness of God):

The following points can be deducted from these verses: the Son was begotten on a specific day in time; there was a time when the Son did not exist; God prophesied about the Son’s future existence (“will be”); and God brought the Son into the world sometime after the creation of the angels.

Bernard and other Oneness advocates argue that, based on passages such as John 1:5, 3:16 and 5:5, that the Son was “begotten” on a particular day and, therefore, the term “Son” refers to the flesh of Jesus and the Son cannot be eternal.

Unfortunately, this view quickly falls to pieces. The Oneness advocate attempts to hang his hat on the argument that the Son was “begotten” on a day and then when confronted with the host of other passages that point to the pre-existence of the Son they will reinterpret those passages presupposing the Son refers only to the humanity of Christ. Instead, one should let all of scripture simply speak (concerning the pre-existence of the Son) and when faced with a passage that seems to contradict, attempt to interpret that passage in light of the rest of the teaching of scripture. One should look to the context, to the original languages and so on. Unfortunately, this is the hermeneutic of the UPCI – find a passage upon which to hang your doctrine (i.e. Acts 2:38) and then interpret the rest of scripture in light of your understanding of that one passage rather than allowing all of scripture speak.

Let’s begin by looking at passages that point to the pre-existence of the Son.

John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word,
And the Word was with God,
And the Word was God.

It is impossible to do justice to this one verse in a simple post and I would encourage people to do some extensive reading on this passage.

The Greek word translated as Word is logos and is a very common word with a number of usages throughout the NT. It was a term used in Greek philosophy to help explain the functioning of the world but for the Greeks it was an impersonal force ordering the world but not personal.  (See The Forgotten Trinity by James White, page 49).

We can find reference to the Word in the OT as well in the concept of the “Word of the Lord” being frequently invoked, such as in Psalm 33:6, “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of His mouth all their host.”

As we will see, John goes beyond these concepts in his use of Logos or Word in ascribing the Word with life and action and personality. We begin by seeing that “In the beginning was the Word.” Greek scholars all note that the Greek word “was” (en) is a form of the Greek word eimi or to be but the tense of the en expresses a continuous action in the past. (See White at page 50).  If we were to look at verse 3 we find another use of the same Greek word when John states, “All things were made through him…” or came into being. Here the wording (egeneto) reflects that the when creation occurred, things had a point of origin. There was a time when they were not and now they were. But at the beginning, the Word was already in existence – the Word was continuously in existence in the past and had no origin. Some translations render the first phrase of John 1:1 as stating that in the beginning, the Word already existed. The Word simply exists.

The second phrase states that “the Word was with God” and reveals something further to us concerning the Word. Again, in the Greek we have the Word pros ton theon. Prepositions in the Greek assume different meanings or nuances depending upon the case of the noun with which it is joined. In the present phrase we have pros with the accusative ton theon. In such a case, the preposition carries with it the meaning of toward or with and ton theon as the object. Thus, the meaning conveyed here is that the Word was facing toward or with as in relationship with God. Uniformly, Greek scholars agree as to this understanding of the phrase pros ton theon. The meaning being conveyed is that the Word is on an equal plane with God, is in intimate relationship with and in the presence of God. (See Greenlee 1986: 39, Bauer, 2000: 875). R.C.H. Lenski notes that the idea presented by John is one in which there is communion and presence and reciprocity between two persons.

The first two phrases of John 1:1 point us in the direction that the Word eternally existed, and the Word has eternally been in the presence of and in intimate communion and relationship with God.

The third phrase states, “And the Word was God” or theos en ho logos. Here John very carefully describes the nature of the Word while differentiating the Word the identity of the Word, much like Paul in his salutations speaking of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, discussed previously. In the present phrase we have theos, which is an anarthrous predicate nominative with the articular Word (ho logos). Again, the presence or absence of the definite article reflects a more to the meaning of a given phrase than you would find in English. When we have the anarthrous theos along with ho logos, ho logos is not be identified as being equivalent to theos but theos is in fact describing the category or nature of the subject identified. Thus, ho logos possess the nature of theos in terms of qualitative state but not necessarily in terms of identify.

If John had written kai ho logos en ho theos, the meaning would be dramatically different. With the presence of both definite articles, the idea being conveyed would have been equality in terms the words being interchangeable. The meaning would have been the Word = God but that is not what is conveyed by John’s statement. John is careful to be describing the nature of the Word in terms of its divinity but not with stating that the Word is simply another mode or manifestation of God.

As James White states (on page 54 of his book The Forgotten Trinity):

If John had put the article before theos, he would have been teaching modalism, a belief…that denies the existence of three divine persons, saying there is only one person who sometimes acts like the Father, sometimes like the Son, sometimes like the Spirit.

Again, we see a careful distinction between made between the God and the Word while at the same time affirming the divinity of the Word. This parallels the distinctions made between the Father and the Son and yet the affirming of the divinity of both persons.

Therefore, in the first verse of John we have an understanding that the Word was in continuous existence prior to the beginning of creation, the Word was in continuous relationship with God and the Word was divine as to its nature. The Word is eternal, the Word is personal (he is not merely a force or an idea but was in a position of relationship with the Father), and the Word is deity as to his nature.

Oneness advocates argue that the Word is merely the thought or plan in the mind of God rather than a separate person in the being of God.  (See Bernard at page 60).  The first verse of John would seem to indicate that this could not possibly be the case. The Word existed continuously from the beginning – are we to believe that this existence was merely in the mind of God rather than an actual existence. The Word was in relationship – was face to face with the divine – are we to simply dismiss this as again being in the mind of God. Finally, as to the Word’s nature, divine. Again, are we dismiss these three statements as referring to a person in favor of stating that the Word is simply a plan or thought in the mind of God? Let’s look further at the John 1.

Verse 2-4 – He [the Word] was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him [the Word] and without him [the Word] was not anything made that was made. In him [the Word] was life, and the life was the light of men.

Verse 10 – He [the Word] was in the world, and the world was made through him [the Word], yet the world did not know him [the Word].

Verse 14 – And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

The Word existed in the beginning with God (again, pros ton theon). He was in the world and all things were made through him [the Word] and without the Word nothing was made that was made. The Word is the agent of creation. Further, it is the Word that became flesh as to his quality and we beheld his glory. Are these the actions of a thought or are these the actions of a ‘person’? Does a thought or a plan act as light for men, create the worlds and does a plan come to a people? The answer must be obvious that a plan does nothing. A thought does nothing. A person is required for relationship. A person is required to create and to be present.

John is careful in that he did not say that the Father became flesh, he states that the Word became flesh.

We will continue to look at this passage in John in the next couple of posts.