Back to Index: Oneness Pentecostals

 

 

 Examining the Oneness Claim that 
Jesus is the Father

 “I came forth from the Father and have come into the world; I am leaving the world again and going to the Father [pros ton patera]” (John 16:28; emphasis added).

 

 

INDEX: 

 

 

 

  Recalling the basic Oneness theological assertion: there is only one God—the Father (e.g., Mal. 2:10; 1 Cor. 8:6). Therefore, the consequent proposition is that Jesus had two natures; divine, which is the mode or office of the “Father” (since only the Father is God) and human, the mode or office of the “Son.” Jesus then, was both the “Father” and “Son” while He was on earth. Notwithstanding the Scriptural data, Oneness teachers remove the three distinct Persons of the Trinity and postulate a unipersonal deity:

 

There is one God with no essential divisions in His nature. He is not a plurality of persons, but He does have a plurality of manifestations, roles, titles, attributes. . . . Jesus Christ is the Son of God [not God the Son]. He is the incarnation of the fullness of God [the Father] in His deity, Jesus is the Father and the Holy Spirit. . . . Jesus is the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.1

 

Even though there is no passage that exists in the New Testament, which explicitly calls Jesus the “Father,” Oneness believers firmly insist that Jesus is the Father. And while these adherents certainly claim to have a biblical precedent for their views, having them defend their position on the basis of sound, biblical exegesis is a different matter. Discursive arguments, incorrect proof-texting, the misuse of the primary passages, and a complete disregard for historical accuracy are not uncommon in the Oneness approach. And, let’s face it, in the final analysis, the true test of any position is its ability to withstand the examination of sacred Scripture. So, does this view find any merit in the text or not? For certainly the Bible is clear and able to define this issue for us, is it not?  What I find is that all non-Christian groups have to maneuver the text in such an unnatural way in order to conform to their pre-decided theologies.

First, the standard Oneness proof texts used to teach that God is unipersonal, include Isaiah 9:6; Malachi 2:10; and 1 Corinthians 8:6. Second, the passages generally employed to support their modalistic assumption that Jesus is His own Father, are John 5:43; John 10:30; John 14:9; Colossians 2:9. Beyond that there is a technical argument asserted by Bernard and others, which has to do with the Greek conjunction kai (“and”) in the Pauline salutations (i.e., the conjunction kai should be translated not as the connective “and,” but rather as the ascensive “even”). There are others, of course; however, it is these particular passages, however, that they believe most supports their position. In the end, what is painfully clear, is that the Oneness interpretation of select biblical passages is highly resistant to the “plain reading” of the text.

Consider first, the maximum redundancy of the way Scripture speaks of the distinct relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Former UPCI preacher Gregory A. Boyd2 observes:

 

Consider the way that Scripture generally speaks regarding the Father and Jesus. Jesus is explicitly referred to as “the Son” over two hundred times in the New Testament, and never once is he called “Father.” By contrast, over two hundred times “the Father” is referred to by Jesus or someone else as being clearly distinct from Jesus. In fact, over fifty times this juxtapositioning of the Father and Jesus the Son is rendered explicit with in the very same verse. . . . whereas one hundred seventy nine times Jesus is presented as referring to “the Father,” “my Father,” or “your Father” in the Gospels as distinct from himself, at no time does he refer to “my Son” or anything of the sort as distinct from himself! Forty times in John’s Gospel, Jesus refers to himself as “sent by the Father,” but never does he refer to himself as the Father who sent the Son (emphasis added).3

 

To be sure, the Bible is not the theological starting point for Oneness theology: over two hundred times, Jesus is explicitly referred to as the “Son”—and never once is Jesus explicitly called “Father.” That the unambiguous teachings are sacrificed at the expense of doctrinal predilections is no problem for Oneness devotes.

 

 

Unitarianism: Only the Father is God

 

Before refuting the idea that Jesus is the Father, the Oneness foundation of unipersonalism will be the object of our attention. For it is this premise that gives rise to how they understand monotheism and the grid by which they define the Person of Christ. After all, it is due to a unitarian assumption (and a misunderstanding of monotheism). We must understand the Oneness pre-concluded starting point as it relates to the term “Father.” Only the Father is God, the divine nature of Jesus, they argue, and the “Son,” is the human nature of Jesus. Hence, Jesus, as the Son, was not deity. Remember, in Oneness theology, it was the Father that came down and wrapped Himself in flesh—that flesh being the “Son” mode or office. In defense of this premise, then, they appeal to passages that exclusively speak of the Father as “God.”

It is circular reasoning, however, to assume that since the Bible refers to the Father as God that this requires that the Father is God alone. Hebrews 1:8, though, shuts down the Oneness argument where the Father directly addresses the “Son” as God!: “But of the Son He says, ‘YOUR THRONE O GOD IS FOREVER AND EVER. . . .’” (pros de ton huion ho thronos sou ho theos eis ton aiōna tou aiōnos; Hebrews 1:8). In spite of that, the two verses that are normally used to define God as a unipersonal being are Malachi 2:10 and 1 Corinthians 8: 6.

 

 

Malachi 2:10

 

Do we not have one father? Has not one God created us?

 

Oneness believers see this passage as teaching that there is only one God: the Father. Is this what the passage is actually saying, though? A few initial observations prove otherwise. First, Malachi 2:10 does not support the Oneness assertion, it only asks, “Do we not have one father? Has not one God created us?” It does not say that only the Father is God. Second, the New Testament revelation concerning the intra-personal relationship between the “Father” and the “Son” was more fully revealed in the New Testament, particularly in the incarnation of God the Son (cf. Eph. 3:4-5; Col. 1:26-27). Third, to the Jewish mindset, the plain meaning of “father” in this passage would have meant Creator.4 Hence, “father” was a term that denoted God as Creator, which is well exampled in the Old Testament:

 

Is not He your Father who has bought you? He has made you and established you (Deut. 32:6).

 

But now, O LORD, You are our Father, We are the clay, and You our potter; And all of us are the work of Your hand (Isa. 64:8).

 

Do we not all have one father? Has not one God created us? (Mal. 2:10).

 

Also not considered by Oneness teachers is that “father” was a relational term. The God of Israel was “like that of a father” in the sense that He redeemed, provided, comforted, protected, created etc.:

 

Just as a father has compassion on his children, So the LORD has compassion is on those who fear Him (Ps. 103:13).

 

This thought is perceptibly brought out in Isaiah 63:16:

 

For You are our Father, though Abraham does not know us And Israel does not recognize us. You, O LORD, are our Father, Our Redeemer from of old is Your name.

 

Again, Jewish mindset did not conceptualize the New Testament revelation of Father and Son. It is anachronistic to put forward such an assertion.

 

 

1 Corinthians 8:6

 

For even there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

From this verse, unitarianism is again asserted: only the Father is God. This verse is also a favorite for the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who say that only Jehovah, the Father, is God Almighty. However, as Christian apologist Robert M. Bowman Jr. observes:

 

1 Corinthians 8:6 distinguishes between “one God, the Father,” and “one Lord, Jesus Christ.” The JWs [and Oneness believers] conclude from this verse that since the Father is the “one God,” Jesus cannot be God. But by that reasoning, since Jesus is the “one Lord,” the Father cannot be Lord! Yet we know that the Father is Lord (Matt. 11:25).5

 

However, if “one God” means that only the Father (not the Son) is God, then, “one Lord” likewise would mean that only the Son is Lord, not the Father. An examination of the Pauline corpus reveals the literary tool that the apostle used in differentiating the Father from the Son without infringing on the full deity of either. For example, the term Paul used most frequently when speaking of the Father was theos (“God”) while the term he typically used of the Son was kurios (“Lord”). But of course, Paul did explicitly refer to Jesus as ho theos (“the God”; e.g., Rom. 9:5; Titus 2:13; 2 Thess. 1:12). 

Hence, when Paul would speak of the Father and Jesus in the same verse, he would naturally distinguish them by the titles theos and kurios. Accordingly, in Paul’s mind, they were two equal descriptions of deity. Consequently, Oneness teachers fail to realize that in a religious Jewish context the terms kurios and theos were equivalent descriptions of God. This is especially seen when one considers that the very term used to translate the Tetragrammaton (the divine Name, YHWH or Yahweh) in the Greek translation of the Old Testament Scriptures, the Septuagint (LXX), is this same Greek term kurios. Biblical scholar B. B. Warfield comments on the way Paul used the two terms:

 

Paul knows no difference between qeo\j and kuri/oj in point of rank; they are both to him designations of Deity and the discrimination by which the one is applied to the Father and the other to Christ is (so far) merely a convention by which two that are God are supplied with differentiating appellations by means of which they may be intelligibly spoken of severally.6

 

In the same stratum, Bible scholar Dr. Lawrence O. Richards comments on the use of the term “father” when applied to God in the Old Testament:

 

God is identified as Father only a few times in the OT. In those instances the relationship is between God and Israel as a people or between God and Christ as the seed of David’s line. In the OT, God is not viewed as being in a father-son relationship with individuals or as the father of mankind in general.7

 

Along with 1 Corinthians 8:6 to prove that only the Father is God, Ephesians 4:6 is also employed but the same refutation above suffices. It is this foundation, then, that gives formulation to Jesus as the one Person behind the disguises or masks of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Conversely, though, and it will be clearly demonstrated below, Jesus as God, was essentially distinct from His Father—even before time (e.g., John 1:1; 18; 17:5; Phil. 2:6). Such exegetical evidence leaves the Oneness position without any textual refuge.

 

 

Oneness Standard Proof-Texts

 

The most common proof texts that the modalists present, are Isaiah 9:6; John 5:43; 10:30; John 14:9; and Colossians 2:9. There is also a technical argument asserted by Bernard, which has to do with the Greek conjunction kai (“and”) in the salutations of Paul.

 

 

Isaiah 9:6

 

For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the Government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

 Because of the phrase “Eternal Father” Oneness advocates see this passage as teaching that Jesus is the Father. However, there are several flaws in interpreting Jesus here as the Father of the New Testament revelation.

 

1. Oneness teachers commit the fallacy of equivocation by asserting that the term “father” has only one meaning. As discussed above, the term “father” (bf) [āb]) has various meanings in the Old Testament—depending on the context. When the term “father” was applied to God (only eight times in the OT), it was at times to denote His parental character to His children, namely—Israel (e.g., Isa. 63:16). Primarily though, the clear usage of “father” was to denote God as Creator. In point of fact, the term “father” was not a standard recurring title of God in the Old Testament.

 

2. The word translated “name” ({"$, sēm]) as in “His name will be called” ({"$ + )fdfq, qārā) denoted here, not a formal title, but rather the essence or essential characteristics of who someone is.8 This was clearly the Semitic concept of {"$. Hence, as to the essence and character of the Messiah, He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, and Prince of Peace.

 

3. Along with the meaning of “Creator,” the term “father” correspondingly carried the idea of “possessor of,” “founder of,” as with His creation. For example, 2 Samuel 23:31 speaks of Abialbon, which name means “father (or possessor) of strength” (i.e., “strong one”). In Exodus 6:24, we read of a man named “Abiasaph,” whose name means, “father of gathering,” that is, he who gathers. Thus, the Messiah is āb of eternity. Richards further explains:

 

The key word for “father” in the Bible is āb. It occurs 1,191 times in Hebrew and 9 times in Aramaic form. It is a complex word. Although it usually indicates a literal father or grandfather, it may also be used as a title of respect for a governor or prophet or priest. . . . Āb is also used to indicate the founder of a guild. Thus Ge 4:21 identifies Jubal as “father of all who play the harp and flute”, i.e., he was the first musician. . . . It is probable that the title “Everlasting Father” ascribe to Messiah by Isaiah (Isa 9:6) is better understood as “father of eternity,” i.e., founder of the ages.9

 

4. Syntactically, the Hebrew term “father” precedes the word translated “eternal” (lit. “father eternal”), indicating the eternal nature of the Messiah. This thought is well revealed in the Aramaic Targums:10

 

For us a child is born, to us a son is given . . . and his name will be called the Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, existing forever [or “He who lives forever”]. The Messiah in whose days peace shall increase upon us (Targum Jonathan; emphasis added).

 

Moreover, throughout church history there has never been a Jewish commentator, Rabbi, or Christian writer that has interpreted Isaiah 9:6 as Oneness teachers do. Christian apologist E. Calvin Beisner responds to the Oneness exegesis of the passage:

 

I am a father, but I am not my father. Oneness must prove Jesus is called specifically the Father of the Son of God (i.e., his own Father). Isaiah 9:6 only calls Him “father of eternity.’11

 

Carelessly, Oneness believers stand alone on their interpretation of Isaiah 9:6

 

 

John 5:43

 

“I have come in My Father’s name, and you did not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him.”

        In Oneness theology, the name of the unipersonal deity is “Jesus.” So, Oneness teachers tell us when Jesus here claims that He comes “in His Father’s name,” He is actually declaring that the name of the Father (and the Son) is “Jesus.” To make sense of the passage, that is, to make it teach modalism, Bernard has this to say:

 

The Bible plainly states that there is one Father (Malachi 2:10; Ephesians 4:6). It also clearly teaches that Jesus is the one Father (Isaiah 9:6; John 10:30). . . . It is important to note that the name of the Father is Jesus, for this name fully reveals and expresses the Father. In John 5:43, Jesus said, “I am [sic] come in my Father’s name.” In other words, the Son inherited His Father’s name. . . . He fulfilled the Old Testament prophecy that stated the Messiah would declare the name of the LORD (Psalm 22:22; Hebrews 2:12). In what name did the Son come? What name did He obtain from His Father by inherence? What name did the Son manifest? The answer is apparent. The only name He used was the name of Jesus, His Father’s name.12

 

As seen in other places, context is no friend of Oneness theology. At the outset, when the entire chapter is plainly read one cannot escape the clear distinctions between the Father and the Son. For example, notice in John 5:30-32 the straightforwardness in which the Son differentiates Himself from the Father:

 

“I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true. There is another [allos estin] who testifies of Me, and I know that the testimony which He gives about Me is true” (emphasis added).

 

“There is another,” Jesus said, not one, but ANOTHER (allos).13 Do Oneness advocates really think that Jesus’ audience would have understood Jesus as saying, “Oh yes, there is “another” witness however what I really mean is the “other” witness that I keep talking about, well, that is really Me—as the Father.” In candidness, to completely abandon the plain reading, “There is another witness,” and trade it for modalism, is beyond a simple read-out interpretation, it is completely eisegetical, reading into the text a meaning that is external to the passage itself. Furthermore, there is even a larger strike against the Oneness rendering of the passage. We touched on it above. It is concerning the term “name” again.

Simply, the term onoma (“name”) is found no less than one hundred and fifty-six times in the New Testament. Note that the normal first century application of the term “name” predominantly was used to signify “authority” or “on behalf of.” This New Testament meaning extends back to such Old Testament passages as the David and Goliath narrative:

 

You come to me with a sword, a spear and a javelin, but I come to you in the name of the LORD [Yahweh] of host, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have taunted (1 Sam. 17:45; emphasis added).

 

David had informed the Philistines that he came in the “name” of the Lord, that is, by the authority of the Lord. Hence, Oneness dogma: Jesus is the name of the Father, does not follow, for just as David was not claiming to be the Lord himself, only coming in the authority of the Lord, so also Jesus was not claming to be the Father, only coming in His authority. We can see this meaning even in modern parlance, as in the phrase, “Stop in the name of (or authority) of the law!” In the same way, then, Jesus here (John 5:43) comes in the authority or in behalf of the Father.

 

 

Philippians 2:10-11: “At the name of Jesus”

 

 Philippians 2:6-11 is a beautiful high Christological hymn known as the Carmen Christi (Hymn to Christ). This hymn is discussed in greater detail here. However, what is relevant to our discussion of the Oneness claim is the phrase “at the name of Jesus” in verse 10. It is used by Oneness adherents to assert that the name of the unipersonal deity is “Jesus” (cf. Bernard, The Oneness of God, 223).

First, it was not the mere name Iēsous (“Jesus”) that was “above every name,” for Iēsous was a common name in first century Palestine. Rather, it was the onoma, “name” that belonged to Jesus. Grammatically, Iēsous here in verse 10 is in the genitive case, namely, a genitive of possession. Therefore, the “highest name” in which every knee will bow and every tongue will confess was the name that Jesus possessed or the name that belonged to Him. For the name that belonged to Him, keeping with Paul’s context (i.e., Jesus the Son as the fulfillment of Isa. 45:23)14 is revealed in verse 11: kurios Iēsous Christos (lit. “Lord Jesus Christ”)—thus, Paul identifies Jesus as the Yahweh of Isaiah 45:23 (cf. vv. 21-25). For Yahweh, which is translated kurios in the LXX, is the name that the Son possessed. Hence, Paul places kurios in the emphatic position15 emphasizing the Son’s exaltation as Yahweh—the name that belonged to Him.16

 

John 10:30

 “I and the Father are one.”

Colossians 1:15 is a Jehovah’s Witnesses favorite and most utilized verse, because it calls Jesus “the firstborn of all creation,” as if this verse teaches that He was created.17 This text is probably the single most cited passage in all Oneness dialogues. Its significance to this movement is rather straightforward: Jesus said, “I and the Father are one,” therefore, Jesus and the Father are the same Person. Moreover, the use of this text is not new to the modern era, for there have been many through the centuries who have sought to maintain the Oneness premise by appealing to this verse. But again, is this what the text is asserting? Is this what Jesus meant? A careful look at the passage in its grammatical structure, actually proves the very opposite of the Oneness assertion. Sabellius himself utilized this passage.

First, Jesus does not say that He “is” the Father, only that He and the Father “are” one. The Greek reads: egō kai ho patēr hen esmen (lit. “I and the Father one we are”). Simply, the verb esmen (“are”) is plural in the Greek, hence, Jesus did not say, “I and the Father am [eimi] one,” but rather, “I and the Father are [esmen] one.” When modalism first emerged, Christian theologians brought out this grammatical point in their apologetic refutation. For example, Tertullian grammatically refutes the John 10:30 assertions made by the modalists of his day:

 

He says, “My Father, which gave them to me, is greater than all,” adding immediately, “I am and my Father are one.” Here, then, they take their stand, 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 that there is a plural predicate, “are,”—inapplicable to one person. . . .They argue that this passage teaches that Jesus unquestionably claims to be His own Father.18

 

In the same way, early church polemicist and defender of Christian Orthodoxy, Hippolytus, corrects the grammatical error of the first known modalist, Noetus of Smyrna:

 

If, again, he [Noetus] alleges His [Christ’s] own word when He said, “I and the Father are one,” let him attend to the fact, and understand that He did not say, “I and the Father am one, but are one.” For the word are, is not said of one person, but it refers to two persons, and one power (emphasis added).19

 

Lastly, there is another grammatical element, which is normally overlooked by Oneness believers. The word translated “one” (hen) is in the neuter gender. In Greek, the neuter hen indicates unity of essence not absolute identity.20 If Jesus wanted to communicate that He was Himself the Father, He certainly would have used the masculine heis (cf. Mark 12:29; 1 Tim. 2:5). Renowned Greek grammarian A. T. Robertson comments on the specific application of the neuter hen in John 10:30: “One (hen). Neuter, not masculine (heis). Not one person (cf. heis in Gal. 3:28), but one essence or nature.”21 Likewise, New Testament scholar Murray Harris observers that

 

This dual conception of “distinction of person-community of essence” also comes to expression in John 10:30, e)gw\ kai\ o( path\r e(/n e)smen, which refers to neither personal identity (which would require e(=ij e)smen) nor simply to agreement to of will and purpose (since John 10:28b, 29b implies at least an equality of power).22

 

In his competent commentary on the Gospel of John, biblical exegete David J. Ellis notes:

 

The neuter gender rules out any thought of meaning ‘one Person.’ This is not a comment on the nature of the Godhead. Rather, having spoken of the sheep’s security in both Himself and the Father, Jesus underlines what He has said by indicating that in action the Father and He can be regarded as a single entity, because their wills are one.23

 

The grammatical certainty of the passage terminates the Oneness presupposition mainly due to the plural verb esmen (“are”) and the neuter hen (“one”) being utilized rather than the masculine heis. Thus, John 10:30 actually contradicts Oneness theology. As Robertson concludes: “By the plural sumus [“are”] (separate persons) Sabellius is refuted, by unum [“one in essence”] Arius.”24 For if that was the message that Jesus wanted to convey why did He not plainly do so? After all, He was a masterful communicator. On the contrary, He taught the opposite of what Oneness preachers are forcing their followers to believe.

 

 

John 14:9

 

Jesus said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show is the Father’? 

 

This passage is routinely quoted by the Oneness people, usually in the same breath with John 10:30—as though they were part of the same verse. Removing this verse from the immediate context, Oneness teachers manage to squeeze-out a modalistic understanding. To start with, as in John 10:30, Jesus never said in this passage (or anywhere else in the NT) that He Himself was the Father, only that “He who has seen Me has seen the Father.” More than that, there are four exegetical features, which provide a lucid refutation to the Oneness handling of the passage.

 

     1. Context: In verse 6 Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” In verse 7, He then explains to the disciples that by knowing Him they “know” and “have seen” the Father (note the parallel: “know,” “seen”). Still not understanding, Philip said to Jesus, “show us the Father” (v. 8). Jesus then reiterated (as a corrective) that by seeing Him they can see, that is, “know” or recognize the invisible Father (v. 9). The context is apparent: by knowing and seeing Jesus (as the only way to the Father), they could really see (i.e., know/recognize) the invisible and incapable of being seen Father (cf. 1 Tim. 6:16). For Jesus makes Him known, that is, He explains Him (cf. John 1:18).25

            As God, the Son in His preexistence was always (hos ōn, lit. “who being”) the prefect and “exact representation” (charaktēr) of the very Person (hupostaseōs) of Him (autou; hence, “of Him” not “as Him”; Heb. 1:3). Therefore, when they saw Jesus, they “saw” (viz. as the only way to and in exact representation) the invisible unseen Father. Further, in verse 10, Jesus clearly differentiated Himself from the Father by declaring, “The words I say are not My own. Rather it is the Father living in Me (emphasis added).”

 

            2. The Father is spirit: When Jesus said, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father,” the only thing His disciples literally saw was Jesus’ physical body. Both Oneness believers and Trinitarians agree to that the Father is invisible and does not have a physical body. Hence, Jesus could not have meant that by seeing Him they were literally seeing the Father.

 

            3. First and third person personal pronouns: Throughout chapter 14, Jesus clearly differentiates Himself from the Father by using first person personal pronouns (“I,” “Me,” “Mine”) to refer to Himself and third person personal pronouns (“He,” “Him,” “His”) to refer to His Father (e.g., John 14:7, 10, 16). This case of marked distinction is also evident when Jesus differentiates Himself from God the Holy Spirit:

 

“I will ask the Father, and He will give you another [allon; see n. 13 below] Helper, that He may be with you forever” (John 14:16; also see 14:7, 10, 26; emphasis added).

 

4. Different prepositions: Throughout John chapter 14 (and chaps. 15-16), Jesus distinguishes Himself from His Father by using different prepositions. This use of different prepositions “shows a relationship between them,”26 and clearly denotes essential distinction, e.g., “no one comes to [pros] the Father but through [dia] Me” (John 14:6); “he who believes in [eis] Me . . . I am going to [pros] the Father” (v. 12; cf. also John 15:26; 16:28). Paul, too, regularly uses different prepositions to clearly differentiate the Father from the Son. In Ephesians 2:18, Paul teaches that by the agency of the Son, Christians have access to the Father by means of the Spirit:

 

For through Him [di’ autou; the Son] we both have our access in [en] one Spirit to the Father [pros ton patera] (Eph. 2:18).

 

Only by circumventing these points can modalism be established from John 14:9. Tragically, we see the external influence of both tradition and the authority of the Oneness church on its adherents, robbing passages like John 14:9 of their true contextual meaning.

 

 

Colossians 2:9

 

For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form.

 What I find is that most Oneness believers, including UPCI leaders and teachers, are not biblically coherent to the fact that the very foundation of the doctrine of the Trinity is unequivocal, unmodified monotheism: one true God. However, as mentioned, Oneness teachers presuppose that monotheism equals one divine Person. As shown, however, monotheism is the belief in one Being and does not necessitate unitarianism. 

Scripture reveals that God is an indivisible unquantifiable spirit, which cannot be separated into thirds. Thus, because God is an omnipresent Being, He exists everywhere: “But who is able to build a house for Him, for the heavens and the highest heavens cannot contain Him? . . .” (2 Chron. 2:6; cf. 6:18; Jer. 23:23-24; Heb. 4:13). Therefore, in Colossians 2:9 we would expect that “all the fullness of Deity” dwells in Christ, as it also dwells in the Father and the Holy Spirit—God cannot be divided into parts.

We should consider additionally that the book of Colossians was written as a pointed refutation against the dualistic ideology (i.e., spirit vs. matter) of Gnosticism.27 The Gnostics repudiated such an idea that the supreme God (who is pure spirit) would ever dwell in evil “matter” (e.g., Jesus’ physical body). For that reason, Paul firmly presented his argument by saying in essence: Jesus created all things, in fact, all the fullness (plērōma)28 of the supreme God (theotētos)29 presently, continuously and permanently dwells (katoikei)30 in His human flesh (sōmatikōs).”31

Thus, Paul’s sole intention and purpose in his letter to the Colossians was to refute Gnostic speculations by asserting that (a) Jesus Christ (the Son; cf. 1:14-15) was absolutely God in flesh (theotētos sōmatikōs; cf. 2:9) and (b) man could be fully reconciled in His [the Son’s] “fleshly body [sōmati tēs sarkos] through [His physical] death [dia tou thanatou]” (1:22; again emphasizing His real flesh).

Therefore, against the Gnostics, Paul specifically emphasized that in the Person of Jesus Christ dwells all the fullness of God in human flesh. Paul was not teaching here that Jesus was the Father, which would have been completely out-of-flow with his anti-Gnostic polemic (and his entire theology). Nor was Paul providing an expressive dissertation on the doctrine of the Trinity, this was not his aim. Paul’s main purpose was to present Jesus Christ as the God-man, Creator of all things, whose physical death provides redemption. The Jesus that Paul preached sliced directly through the Gnostic system. So, all the fullness of God dwells in the Son, for He is fully God, but this “fullness” does not only dwell in the Son (cf. John 1:1c).32 The Being of God is indivisibly and inseparably one. Therefore, any of the three distinct Persons can say subjectively and objectively that they, as fully God, possess ALL the fullness of God.

By way of review, the issue of the Gnostic controversy did not surround the Father, but rather it centered on the idea that the Son was fully God in human flesh. Accordingly, Paul specifically emphasized that in the Person of the Son, Jesus the Christ, “all the fullness of Deity” dwells permanently and continuously in human flesh.

 

 

kai and the Salutations of Paul

Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and [kai] 

the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

The specific benchmark of the Pauline corpus was his salutations. He included them faithfully in the opening of every one of his letters. He worshipped God the Father and Jesus Christ from (apo)33 whom grace and peace flowed. As we have already seen, Paul comprehended the terms theos (“God”) and kurios (“Lord”) as equal designations of deity. Furthermore, a plain reading of the salutations, without a prior theological bias, clearly distinguishes God the Father from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Nevertheless, Oneness teachers force modalism into the salutations by asserting that the logical conjunction kai should be translated, not as a simple connective “and,” but as the ascensive “even.” Furthermore, the salutations, they conclude, are not teaching a distinction of Persons; on the contrary, they are teaching that Jesus is the Father. For example, as Oneness teachers surmise, a more correct rendering of Galatians 1:3 would be as follows: “Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, even from our Lord Jesus Christ.” To support this Oneness grammatical assumption, Bernard attempts to explain Greek grammar to unlearned Oneness devotees in his most recognized book:

 

A study of Greek is very interesting in connection with theses greeting passages. The word translated ‘and” is the from the Greek word kai. It can be translated as “and” or as “even” (in the sense of “that is” or “which is the same as”). For example, the KJV translates kai as “and” in II Corinthians 1:2 but as “even” in verse 3 [Bernard then proceeds to give a few more examples]. . . . So the greetings could read just as easily “from God our Father, even the Lord Jesus Christ. . . .”34

 

Someone once said ‘a little Greek is dangerous thing,’ Bernard shows this maxim to be true. Fundamentally, however, there are two fatal flaws to the kai equals “even” argument as applied to the Pauline salutations: grammatically and theologically.

 

Grammatically: The Oneness grammatical assumption is that kai should be translated as “even” in all of the salutations of Paul. However, assertions are nothing more than assertions; they do not prove anything. What Bernard and other modalists do not exegetically consider is that the predominate usage of the logical conjunction kai in the New Testament is the connective “and”—not the ascensive (“even”).35

Unquestionably, then, the burden of proof falls headlong on the one who would assert that kai should be translated as “even” (viz. being the ascensive conj. as in Eph. 5:3: “even [kai] be named among you . . .”; emphasis added). Oneness teachers, though, offer no grammatical or contextual justification to support their view—they merely assert it to be true. Specifically, unless the context deems otherwise, in light of the plain normal predominate New Testament usage, the logical conjunction kai should be translated as the simple connective “and,” not the ascensive “even.”

Furthermore, according to Greek grammar (e.g., Granville Sharp’s rule #5),36 when there are multiple personal nouns in a clause that are connected by kai and the first noun lacks the article (ho [“the”]), each noun must denote a distinct person.37 This is seen in ALL of the Pauline salutations.38

In fact, in the salutations of ten of his letters, all the personal nouns lack the article, clearly distinguishing the Father and Jesus Christ (see also 2 John 3). Observing the specific grammatical features that distinguish the Father from the Son in the salutations, Murray Harris notes:

 

The formula qeoj kai\ kurioj in reference to one person is not found in the NT or LXX and is rare elsewhere . . . whenever qeoj and kurioj Ihsouj Xristoj are conjoined or occur in close proximity (viz., within the same sentence), two person are always being referred to (31 instances).39

 

In spite of that, Oneness teachers must force their pre-decided theology into the salutations to avoid the obvious: Jesus and His Father are two distinct Persons.

 

Theologically: Due to their a priori unitarian assumption, Oneness teachers force the most unnatural rendering into the text. On the contrary, Christians do not have to read into passages to support the doctrine Trinity. The end result of the Oneness hermeneutic is the wholesale abandonment of the clear reading of the text. The natural reading is jettisoned, and the most unnatural reading is forced. Otherwise, the passages, as they read, yield unmistakably the truth that Jesus and the Father are two distinct Persons.

In conclusion, the unipersonal deity of modalism is nonexistent in the salutations. Scripture presents, unambiguously, the Father and the Son as two distinct, self-aware Persons. Paul’s audience to which he was writing would have never understood the salutations as teaching that Jesus was both the Father and the Son. The normal bare reading of the entire Pauline corpus clearly denotes a tri-personal God:

 

He [God the Father] saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior (Titus 3:5-6; emphasis added; cf. also Rom. 14:17-18; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 2:18; 1 Thess. 1:3-5).

 

 

Additional Considerations

 

The Old Testament Law was clear: “On the evidence of TWO witnesses or three witnesses, he who is to die shall be put to death; he shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness” (Deut. 17:6; emphasis added). To validate His testimony Jesus Christ referred to the Old Testament Law, which was authoritative to the Jews:

 

“But even if I do judge, My judgment is true; for I am not alone in it, but I and the Father who sent Me. Even in your law it has been written that the testimony of two men is true. I am He who testifies about Myself, and the Father who sent Me testifies about Me” (John 8:16-18; emphasis added).

 

Jesus said TWO, which the Jews would have understood to mean—simply two. He did not say His divine nature testifies for His human nature; that would not work well with the Jews.

            There are also further considerations that militate against the Oneness conclusion that Jesus is the Father:

 

1. The Oneness unitarian position denies the Son’s preexistence: Example: it (a) denies the Son as the Creator,40 (b) denies the Son’s preexistence, (c) denies the biblical teaching of the incarnation by asserting that the Father, not the Son, came down and wrapped Himself (not became) flesh,41 (d) denies Jesus’ role as Mediator between God (the Father) and man (cf. 1 Tim. 2:5). By definition, a mediator is someone other than the recipient being mediated, (e) denies Jesus as Intercessor (cf. Rom. 8:34). Jesus cannot intercede before the Father on behalf of the believer if He Himself is the Father. How can Jesus be “Intercessor” if He is the Father? For whom does He intercede? And (f), Oneness theology denies Jesus as the substitutionary atoning sacrifice that provided satisfaction before the Father [i.e., hilasmos (“propitiation”); cf. 1 John 2:1]. If Jesus is both the Father and the Son, to whom did His sacrifice on the cross provide satisfaction? 42

 

2.  Jesus’ usage of first person plural personal pronouns: As discussed above, Oneness believers are unmoved by Jesus’ use of first person pronouns to refer to Himself and third person pronouns to refer to the Father (and the Holy Spirit; e.g., John 14: 7, 10, 16-17; 26; 15:10; 16:13-14; 17:5). But what is extraordinarily difficult for Oneness believers to reconcile is when Jesus distinguishes Himself from His Father by using first person plural personal pronouns (“Our,” We”; also cf. Gen. 1:26-27; 3:22; 11:7-9; and Isa. 6:8). The use of the plural pronouns “Our” and “We,” which Jesus specifically applies to both Himself and the Father, obliterates the unipersonal Jesus view:

 

Jesus answered and said to them, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and make Our home with him” (John 14:23; emphasis added).

 

Let us stop for a moment and ask the following question, if modalism is true then, why did Jesus give the impression that He was distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit?

 

3.  Subject-Object Distinctions: Simply, if Jesus and the Father were not distinct cognizant Persons, we would not expect to find a clear subject-object relationship between them:

 

After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water . . . behold, a voice out of the heavens said, “This is My [subject] beloved Son, [object] in whom I [subject] am well-pleased” (Matt. 3:16-17; emphasis added; see also, Matt. 17:5).

 

“I [subject] glorified You [object] on earth, having accomplished the work which You [object] have given Me [subject] to do” (John 17:4; see also Luke 23:34, 46).

 

            The Father and the Son stand in an “I”–“You” relationship of each other; the Son refers to the Father as “You” and Himself as “I.” The Father likewise refers to Jesus as “You” and Himself as “I.” The Son personally relates to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and the reverse is altogether true of the Father and the Holy Spirit relating to each other.

 

4. The early church universally rejected modalism: Since its inception, modalism (and dynamic monarchianism) has been universally rejected by the early church.43

 

            5. The majority of biblical scholarship throughout church history (and subsequently) has rejected modalism: One should take into account that the world’s greatest biblical scholars, theologians, and grammarians are (and have been) greatly opposed to Oneness theology. As with the Watchtower, there are no recognized Greek grammarians or biblical scholars involved with or endorse the UPCI or any other Oneness organization.

 

Final Thought

 

            Jesus (nor His apostles) ever claimed He was the Father. The writers of the New Testament (and Jesus Himself) identified Him as the “Son” never as the Father. As seen above, Boyd observed, “Over fifty times Jesus and the Father are rendered distinct in the same verse.” Also significant, is the way in which Scripture presents Jesus and the Father interacting with each other as two distinct Persons (e.g., Jesus prayed to the Father; the “I”–“You” subject-object relationship that existed between the Father and the Son; first to third person personal pronoun references). In addition to the personal interaction among the Persons are the particular grammatical features, which clearly denote genuine distinction between the Father and the Son.44

 

            That Jesus is both the Father and the Son turns their intimate relationship into a mere simulation. Consider the way in which the Persons intimately and lovingly relate to one another: “The Father loves the Son and has given Him all things into His hand” (John 3:35; cf. 5:20; 10:17). The Son really does love the Father: “so that the world may know that I love the Father, I do exactly as the Father commanded Me. . . .” (John 14:31). In the same way, the Holy Spirit really does love the believer (cf. Rom. 15:30). Oneness advocates, though, believe that it was merely the “Father” mode loving the “Son” mode. That is, Jesus’ human nature loving His own divine nature. By way of definition and logic, however, two abstract natures cannot have fellowship and love for each other—natures cannot intellectually express emotion. Natures can neither give love nor receive love for they are not self-aware nor cognizant. Only conscious persons are capable of giving love and receiving love. The Son was the object of the Father’s love. In Scripture, all three Persons give as well as receive love (e.g., John 11:5; 14:23; Rom, 15:30; 2 Cor. 13:14; 2 Thess. 2:16; Jude 1:1).45

 

            Jesus is the God-man, the very image and perfect representation of His Father (cf. John 1:18; Heb. 1:3). In His preexistence (cf. John 1:1-3; Col. 1:16-17), He had loving intercourse and glory with the Father before time (cf. John 1:1; 17:5). He, as the Son, is the divine Priest (cf. Heb. 7:1ff.) who revealed His Father to mankind (cf. John 1:18). The Son is the only Mediator between the Father and man (cf. 1 Tim. 2:5). Thus, it was Jesus Christ, the monogenēs theos (“one and only God”; cf. John 1:18), who said, “no one comes to [pros] the Father but through [dia] Me (John 14:6; emphasis added). The unipersonal theology nullifies Jesus’ own authentication. The testimony of TWO, Jesus affirms, validates His testimony:

 

If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true. There is ANOTHER [allos: other than the one speaking]46 who testifies of Me, and I know that the testimony which He gives about Me is true” (John 5:31-32 emphasis added; cf. 8:17-18).

 

            Jesus and the biblical authors utilized plain uncomplicated language that demonstrated real distinction exiting simultaneously between the Persons of the triune Godhead. The essential distinction between the Father and the Son47 were not merely ‘distinctions of illusory,’ modes, or functions, but actual:

 

“For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son, also gives life to whom He wishes. . . . For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.” (John 5:21; 6:38; emphasis added).

 


Notes

1 David K. Bernard, The Oneness of God (Hazelwood: Word Aflame, 1983), 294-95.

2 Although Gregory Boyd has skillfully provided a pointed refutation against Oneness Pentecostalism and has disarmed the liberal scholarship of the “Jesus Seminar” (e.g., Jesus Under Siege [Wheaton: Victor Books, 1995]), I am in full disagreement with his views on “open theism” (cf. Gregory A, Boyd, God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000]). See Bruce A. Ware, God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2000), wherein Ware provides a blow-by-blow refutation against the hyper-Arminian system of “open theism.”

3 Gregory A. Boyd, Oneness Pentecostals & The Trinity (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 68-69.

4 Consequently, the KJV (the UPCI’s standard translation) agrees that the term “father” was not a formal title for Jehovah. In recognition of this fact, the KJV did not capitalize “father” in Malachi 2:10 (as with most translations). Hence, the KJV saw “father” signifying God as “Creator” and not the NT revelation of the capitalized formal title “Father.”

 

5 Robert M. Bowman, Jr., Why You Should Believe in the Trinity: An Answer to Jehovah’s Witnesses (Gr