Back to Index: Oneness Pentecostals

 

 

The Preexistence of the Son 

 

INDEX: 

The Oneness Position

John 1:1-4

The Word was pros, "with" God

Personal Attributes of the Word

John 17:5

Colossians 1:15-17

Philippians 2:5-11

Hebrews 1:8-12

The Preexistent Son sent from the Father (exapostello)

Ho monogenēs huios, “The only begotten Son”

 

 

 

 

The preexistence and deity of the Person of Jesus Christ is the very bedrock of historic biblical Christianity. So foundational is the deity and eternality of Jesus Christ: “For if you should not believe that I AM,” Jesus exclaimed, “you will perish in your sins” (John 8:24; author’s translation).1 However, in Oneness theology, that is, modalism, the Son was not eternal, only the Father was. Oneness believers maintain that the Son was one of the modes or roles (not a Person) that the unipersonal deity, named “Jesus” manifested for the sake of redemption. As discussed previously, Oneness teachers believe that the Son had a beginning. To recall, prolific Oneness author and representative of the UPCI,2 David Bernard, explains the Oneness position concerning the non-eternal Son:

 

The Sonship—or the role of the Son—began with the child conceived in the womb of Mary. The Scriptures make this perfectly clear. . . . The Son was made under the law—not before the law (See also Hebrews 7:28). . . . Hebrews 1:5-6 also reveals that the begetting of the Son occurred at a specific point in time and that the Son had a beginning in time. . . . From all of these verses, it is easy to see that the Son is not eternal, but was begotten by God almost 2000 years ago.3

 

            However, as I will clearly and exegetically demonstrate, Scripture presents that the Person of the Son4 eternally existed with the Father. The primary texts utilized are John 1:1b; 17:5; Colossians 1:15-17; Philippians 2:6-11; Hebrews 1:8-10; and the biblical presentation of the Son being sent from the Father.

 

 

The Oneness Position

 

In Oneness theology (or modalism), God exists as a unipersonal deity.5 Thus, since all Oneness teachers assert that God is unipersonal, only Jesus as the Father, they conclude, existed before time. Categorically, Oneness believers reject the idea that the Son preexisted with the Father.6 They further argue that the Son cannot be eternal for the Bible says He was “begotten” on a certain day (e.g., John 3:16; Heb. 1:5; 5:55).7

 

            Also, passages that imply that the Son existed before Bethlehem are only references to, Oneness teachers explain, the future plan of the coming of the Son mode to earth. Hence, Oneness propagators reduce the Son to a mere “plan” or “concept” in the Father’s mind. As UPCI leader David Bernard explains, “The plan of the future Sonship existed with God [the Father] from the beginning—as an idea in the mind of God.”8 Note that definition well: the Son preexisted as a divine thought, but not as a divine Person. While this may sound plausible as an explanation in denying the preexistence of the Son, in reality, it is a hollow claim, with no biblical evidence to support it. For to adopt such a view is to rip the heart out of those passages that specifically speak of Christ as the divine agent of Creation, indeed the very Creator of all things! However, as I will show biblically, the Son is presented as the Agent of creation. When that is firmly established, Oneness theology is shattered.

 

 

The Biblical Data

 

            Scripture clearly presents that the Person of the Son is fully God (e.g., John 1:1; 8:24; 20:28; Titus 2:13), and hence eternal. Scripture also presents that the Person of the Son eternally existed with the Father. These conclusions are the result of careful and adequate exegesis.

 

 

John 1:1

 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [pros] God, and the Word was God.

 

From a theological and grammatical standpoint, John 1:1 adequately refutes the theology of every non-Christian group that denies the full deity of the Person of Jesus Christ. A full treatment of John 1:1 is not necessary here. But John 1:1b is particularly relevant concerning the Oneness denial of the preexistence of the Son: kai ho logos ēn pros ton theon (lit. “and the Word was with the God”). In spite of the clear differentiation between ho logos and ton theon denoted by the preposition pros (“with”), Bernard and other Oneness writers insist the following:

 

The Word or Logos can mean the plan or thought as it existed in the mind of God. The Word can also mean the plan or thought of God as expressed in the flesh, that is in the Son. What is the difference, therefore, between the two terms, Word and Son? The Word had preexistence and the Word was God (the Father), so we can use it without reference to humanity. However, the Son always refers to the Incarnation and we cannot use it in the absence of the human element (emphasis added).9

 

            Thus, the “Word” in Oneness theology was merely a plan of the Father. This is, of course, the most abnormal application of the passage, which thoroughly distorts what John was actually saying. Historically, the early church used John 1:1 to show that the eternal Word was fully God and distinct from the Father. Clement of Alexandria (c. A.D. 195) declares:

 

the Word itself, that is the Son of God, who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreated. That the Son was always the Word is signified by saying, ‘In the beginning was the Word.10

 

            Hippolytus (c. A.D. 205) likewise comments on John 1:1 to refute the first known modalist, Noetus of Smyrna:

 

If, then, the Word was with God, and was also God, what follows? Would one say that he speaks of two Gods? I shall not indeed speak of two Gods, but of one; of two Persons however, and of a third economy (disposition), viz., the grace of the Holy Ghost. For the Father indeed is One, but there are two Persons, because there is also the Son; and then there is the third, the Holy Spirit.11

 

Expounding on John 1:1, preeminent biblical scholar Benjamin B. Warfield remarks:

 

In three crisp sentences he declares at the outset His eternal subsistence, His eternal intercommunion with God, His eternal identity with God: ‘In the beginning the Word was; and the Word was with God; and the Word was God’ (John i. 1). . . . He was not was nevertheless not a separate being from God: “And the Word was”—still the eternal “was”–“God.” In some sense distinguishable from God, He was in an equally true sense identical with God. There is but one eternal God; this eternal God, the Word is; in whatever sense we may distinguish Him from the God whom He is “with,” He is yet not another than this God, but Himself is this God. . . . John would have us realize that what the Word was in eternity was not merely God’s coeternal fellow, but the eternal God’s self (emphasis added).12

 

 

The Word was with (pros) God

 

            To highlight the intimate loving fellowship that the Word shared with the Father, the Apostle John specifically used the preposition pros in John 1:1b: “and the Word was with [pros] God.” The preposition pros (“with”) has various meanings depending on the context. When applied to persons, however, pros regularly denotes intimate fellowship and always their distinction.13 Commenting on the intimate nature of pros, A. T. Robertson correlates John 1:1b and in 2 Corinthians 5:8 (pros ton kurion [“with the Lord”]): “It is the face-to-face converse with the Lord that Paul has in mind. Thus, pros expresses the intimate and special relationship that Christians will experience “at home with [pros] the Lord.” So John thus conceives the fellowship between the Logos and God.”14 New Testament scholar Marvin Vincent points out,

 

The preposition pro\j, which, with the accusative case, denotes motion towards, or direction, is also often used in the New Testament in the sense of with; and that not merely as being near or beside, but as a living union and communion; implying the active notion of intercourse. . . . Thus John’s statement is that the divine Word not only abode with the Father from all eternity but was in the living, active relation of communion with Him.15

 

 

            Lenski similarly shows that pros in John 1:1b signified the inseparable communion that the distinct Person of the Word had with the Father:

The preposition pro/j, as distinct from, e)n, para/, and su/n, is of the greatest importance. . . . The idea is that of presence and communion with a strong note of reciprocity. The Logos, then, is not an attribute inhering in God, or a power emanating from him, but a person in the presence of God and turned in loving, inseparable communion toward God, and God turned equally toward him. He was another and yet not other than God. This preposition pro\j sheds light on Gen. 1:26, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.”16

 

 

            In Romans 5:1, Paul teaches that the believer, having been justified from faith (ek pisteōs), presently and permanently has peace with God (pros ton theon). Notwithstanding the mass of biblical scholarship,17 Oneness teachers postulate a unitarian assumption denying the appropriate and natural meaning of pros in John 1:1b.18 However, the Oneness hermeneutic is flawed. Bernard and other Oneness teachers do not consider that when applied to persons, pros generally denotes (a) the intimate fellowship between them and (b) a distinction between them—every time. Nor do Oneness writers provide any New Testament examples to show the converse. Truly, the intended meaning of John 1:1b is removed by the Oneness unitarian conviction in which the Word was not pros ton theon.

  

*For more commentary on John 1:1 made by early church Fathers and Christian theologians, see: The Jehovah's Witnesses and the Deity of Jesus Christ.

 

 

The Personal Attributes of the Word

 

The Oneness explanation that the Word was a meager impersonal concept in the Father’s mind19 is exegetically untenable when the text is allowed to speak for itself; for the Word possesses personal attributes:

 

1. “The Word was with [pros] God” (1:1b).

 

2. “In Him was life and He was the Light of all men” (v. 4).

 

3. John “came as a witness to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through Him” (v. 7). Hence, John did not testify about the Father’s impersonal future concept or a plan, but rather the Person of the Word, the Light of all men.

 

4. The Word created “all things” and “the world was made through Him” (di’ autou, vv. 3, 10).20

 

5. “He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave them right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name” (vv. 11-12).

 

6. “And the Word [not the Father] became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten [monogenēs; cf. nn. 59, 61 below] of the Father, full of grace and truth” (v. 14; emphasis added).

 

 

No one can seriously read the prologue of John and get the idea that the Word who was the Light of all men, the monogenēs of the Father, the Creator of all things, and to whom personal pronouns are applied, was only a plan, thought, or a mere concept in the Father’s mind.

 

 

 

 

John 17:5

 

“Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself [para seautō], with the glory which I had [eichon] with You [para soi] before the world was” (emphasis added).

 

 

In Jesus’ high Priestly prayer to the Father, He says that He had or shared (eichon) glory with (para) the Father before the world was (pro tou ton kosmon einai). Grammatically, when the preposition para (“with”) is followed by the dative case (as in this verse: para seautō, para soi), especially in reference to persons, it indicates “near,” “beside,” or “in the presence of.”

 

Noted Greek scholar Daniel B. Wallace provides the precise meaning of the preposition para followed by the dative:

 

In general, the dative uses suggest proximity or nearness.

a. Spatial: near, beside.

 

b. Sphere: in the sight of, before (someone).

 

c. Association: with (someone/something).21

 

   

In the exhaustive BDAG Greek lexicon, the preposition para with the dative is well defined:

 

[para] w.[ith] the dat., the case that exhibits close association . . . marker of nearness in space, at/by (at the side of), beside, near, with, acc. to the standpoint fr. which the relationship is viewed.22
 

Note: In this beautiful passage (Jesus’ high priestly prayer) the “Son” (for Jesus says, “Now, Father”) says that He possessed or shared glory with the Father, before time.

 

To avoid the plainness of the passage (namely, the preexistence of the Son and His personal distinction from His Father), Oneness teachers argue that the glory that Jesus (the Son) had with the Father, only signified the future glory or “plan” in the Father’s mind, thus anticipating the Son’s coming at Bethlehem. But the Son, they say, was not really there with the Father “before the world was.” However, consider the following:

 

 

Even so, Oneness teachers argue that the glory that Jesus (the Son) had with the Father, only signified the future glory or plan in the Father’s mind.23 In other words, as Bernard explains, the Father “can regard things that do not exist as though they do exist . . . that is why the man Jesus could pray, ‘O Father, glorify thou me with thine self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.’”24 In this way of thinking, Oneness teachers often assert that believers were also foreknown before the world was—before they existed. They usually point to Ephesians 1:4: “just as He chose us before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him.”

 

This kind of forced interpretation, though, demonstrates an obvious unfamiliarity with the normal meaning of words, the plain reading of the passage, and the grammar of the text. Jesus was clear: “Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.” Jesus had or shared (eichon) glory with (para) the Father before time. This is something Christians simply cannot claim. Christians cannot say they had, shared, or possessed something with the Father before the world was. Ephesians 1:4 speak of God’s election, not possession. To take this verse any other way is blatant eisegesis. Robertson brings to light the exegetical particulars of verse 5:

 

With Thine own self (para seautōi). “By the side of Thyself.” Jesus prays for full restoration to the pre-incarnate glory and fellowship (cf. 1:1) enjoyed before the Incarnation (John 1:14). This is not just ideal pre-existence, but actual and conscious existence at the Father’s side (para soi, with thee) “which I had” (hēi eichon, imperfect active of echō, I used to have, with attraction of case of hēn to hēi, because of doxēi), “before the world was” (pro tou ton kosmon einai), “before the being as to the world” (cf. verse 24).25

 

Likewise, biblical theologian Dr. Robert L. Reymond comments on the Son’s eternal preexistence as taught in John 17:5:

 

The Gospel of John witnesses that Jesus claimed eternal preexistence: “Glorify me, Father,” Jesus prayed, “with yourself, with the glory which I had with you before the world was” (John 17:1, 5), indeed, with “my glory which you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world” (John 17:24). This claim in Jesus’ part to an eternal preexistence with the Father is not an aberration, for he speaks elsewhere, though in somewhat different terms, of that same preexistence.26

 

            Reymond then provides lucid examples of other passages in John, which clearly speak of Jesus’ preexistence: John 3:13; 6:38, 46, 62; 8:23, 38, 42; 16:28. Even more, how dishonoring to Jesus to turn His high Priestly prayer to the Father to a mere un-intimate mirage: Jesus as the non-divine Son praying to His own divine nature (the Father), only pretending to be numerically distinct. And yet, Oneness teachers assert this very notion.

 

 

 

Colossians 1:15-17

 

 

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him [en autō] all things [panta] were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things [panta] have been created through Him [di’ autou] and for Him [eis auton]. He is before all things, [autos estin pro pantōn] and in Him [en autō] all things [panta] hold together (emphasis added).

 

            Words could not be more clearly spoken then what we have right here in this letter to the Colossians. Paul leaves nothing to ambiguity in confronting the false teaching of his day: the Son is presented as the actual Creator of all things. Yet, in spite of the straightforward language of the apostle, Bernard tries to circumvent the language of the text:

 

Perhaps these scriptural passages have a deeper meaning that can be expressed as follows: Although the Son did not exist at the time of creation except as the word in the mind of God, God used His foreknowledge of the Son when He created the world. . . . The plan of the Son was in God’s mind at creation and was necessary for the creation to be successful. Therefore, He created the world by the Son.27

 

Thus, Oneness teachers posit an awkward proposition: passages that speak of the Son as the Creator mean that when God the Father (i.e., Jesus’ divine nature) created all things, He had the “plan of the Son” in mind or in view. However, to say “God used His foreknowledge of the Son when He created the world” assumes unitarianism and disallows normal exegesis.

In verses 13-15, Paul clearly differentiates Jesus from the Father. Thus, from the start, verses 13-15 contextually preclude the Oneness notion that Jesus is both the Father and the Son:

 

For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. He [the Son] is the image of the invisible God [the Father] (emphasis added).

 

   

           To recall, the main purpose of the book of Colossians was to refute the Gnostic ideology (i.e., proto-Gnosticism): spirit vs. matter. Hence, they did not believe that Jesus could ever create something as evil as “matter.” Accordingly, the docetic brand of Gnosticism (flowering in the first cent.) denied that Jesus had a “physical” body and was Creator of “all things,” as I have pointed out elsewhere. Hence, both Paul and John refuted this form of Gnosticism (e.g., Col. 1:14ff.; 2:9; 1 John 4:1ff.; 2 John 7). Correspondingly, in verses 15-17, Paul provides a clear anti-Gnostic polemic by demonstrating that Jesus the Son of God did in fact create all things.

He first states that the Son is the very “image [eikōn] of the invisible God,” something that the Gnostics categorically denied. Then in verses 16-17, Paul teaches in the strongest way possible that Jesus the Son (cf. v. 14) is the actual Agent of creation. Note the clear and potent (and even redundant) way he presents this:

 

By Him [en autō] all things [panta] were created . . . all things [panta] have been created through Him [di’ autou] and for Him [eis auton]. He is before all things [autos estin pro pantōn], and in Him [en autō] all things [panta] hold together.

 

Consider the following grammatical aspects:

 

1. Paul employs the neuter panta (“all things”), which indicates, in Paul’s mind, that the Son was the actual Creator of all things. “It is significant,” says White, “that Paul does not use the more popular terms paj (pas) or pan (pan), both of which had meanings in Greek philosophy that allowed the creation to be a part of God or God a part of creation (as in pantheism). Instead he uses a term that makes the creation a concrete, separate entity with the real existence.”28

 

2. Paul utilizes three different prepositions to amplify his declaration that the Son was the Agent of creation: All things were created “by/in Him” (en + dative; vv. 16-17); “through Him” (dia + genitive; v. 16); and “for Him” (eis + accusative; v. 16). Again, Paul is speaking here of the Son, not the Father (cf. v. 14).

 

3. Finally, what immediately shuts down the “Son in view” notion is that Paul specifically says that “all things” were created “through [dia] Him [autou]” (viz. the Son). In particular, the preposition dia followed by the genitive autou indicates that the Son was not merely an instrument of creation, but rather the Creator Himself. In Greek, dia followed by the genitive case ending clearly indicates “agency” or “means.”29 There is no stronger way in which Paul could have communicated that the Son was the real and actual Agent of creation30 (also dia + genitive at John 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; and Heb. 1:2).

    If Paul wanted to convey the idea that the Son was merely “in view” of the Father or an absent instrument of creation, as Oneness teachers assert, he would not have used dia followed by the genitive. Rather he would have used, exclusively, dia followed by the accusative case ending, but he does not. Yes, Paul does use the accusative, but after the preposition eis (meaning, “for,” or “because of”): “all things are for Him [eis auton]” (v. 16).

 

Hence, the Oneness theological assumption that the Son was not the Agent of creation, but merely in view of creation, cannot stand grammatically or contextually—it changes the intended meaning of the text and ignores the chief theme of the letter. The Oneness interpretation would actually support, in essence, the very error that Paul was refuting.

 

 

Philippians 2:5-11

 

 

Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God [morphē theou huparchōn], did not regard equality with God [to einai isa theō] a thing to be grasped, but [He] emptied Himself [heauton ekenōsen], taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

 

 

Philippians 2:5-11, known as the Carmen Christi (“Hymn to Christ”),31 was utilized by the early Christian church to teach and magnify the preexistence, incarnation, and the full deity of Jesus Christ.32 The context is clear. In chapter 2, Paul stresses to the Philippians that they ought to act in a harmonious and humble way. Paul then instructs them to have an attitude in themselves “which was also in Christ Jesus”—i.e., humility (v. 5).

Then in verse 6, Paul points back to the ultimate act of humility: Christ, who was always subsisting as God, “[He] emptied Himself [heauton ekenōsen], taking the form of a bond-servant . . . becoming obedient to the point of death.” Paul’s presentation of high Christological language coupled with the stark contrast of humiliation is undeniable. Yet, such truth is robbed of its richness when we consider the interpretation offered by Oneness adherents.

 

Pertaining to the opening portion of the hymn (v. 6), Oneness believers, as well as Trinitarians, do agree that Jesus “existed in the form [“nature” NIV] of God.”33 Therefore, according to their unitarian presupposition (i.e., only the Father is God), many Oneness teachers assert that the hymn is dealing with Jesus, not as the Son, but as the Father.34 Thus, it was Jesus, as the Father, who they believe, “existed in the form of God,” and then “emptied Himself . . . taking the form of a bond-servant” when He temporarily manifested as the Son mode. Hence, the straightforwardness of the passages is avoided to support their unitarian assumption: only the Person of the Father is God. In this way, Bernard and others try to make sense of the passages (from a Oneness perspective).

 

To begin with, in order to convince Oneness believers that Paul here is speaking of Jesus as the Father, Bernard distorts the meaning of the word translated “equal” (isa; v. 6):

 

From the Oneness point of view, Jesus is not God the Son, but He is all of God, including Father and Son [i.e., the human nature]. 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 (emphasis added).35

 

However, there are several grammatical and contextual reasons, which (a) refute the Oneness exegesis of the hymn and (b) affirm the preexistence of the Person of the Son:

 

1. Throughout the epistle, Paul distinguishes between God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ as two distinct Subjects (esp. Paul’s salutation in 1:2).36 In effect, the distinction between the Father and Jesus is seen plainly in the hymn.

 

2. Oneness teachers err to think that that the phrase “equal with God” (isa theō; v. 6) means “identical to God.” Neither in Greek nor in English does the word isa (“equal”) mean “identical.”37 The passage is indisputably teaching that Jesus “existed in the form of God” (morphē theou huparchōn). What the passage is not saying, however, is that Jesus “existed in the form of the Father.”

 

3. It was Jesus the Son who voluntarily “made Himself nothing [heauton ekenōsen], taking [labōn]38 the nature of a servant” (vv. 7-8). The reflexive pronoun heauton, (lit. “Himself He emptied”) indicates a “self-emptying.”39 Hence, it was not the Father, as Oneness teachers suppose, but the Son who voluntarily emptied Himself and became obedient to death—“even death on a cross” (v. 8).

 

4. Verse 9 reads, “Therefore God [the Father] exalted Him [the Son; cf. v. 5] to the highest place.” Hence, God the Father did not exalt Himself, but rather the Father exalted Jesus, God the Son. It was God the Son who emptied Himself by taking the nature of a servant (cf. John 1:14) being obedient to death on a cross. That Jesus exalted Himself (i.e., His divine nature exalting His own human nature) is forced into the text by Oneness teachers.

 

5. In verses 10-11, Paul concludes his glorious Christological hymn with a “purpose of exaltation” clause:

 

“so that [hina] at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW . . . and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord [kurios Iēsous Christos],40 to the glory of God the Father.”

 

Notice first that Paul clearly differentiates between the Father who was glorified and the Lord Jesus Christ whom the Father exalted. Without question, Paul here is drawing from Isaiah 45:23-24, which is a reference to Yahweh alone. Paul, however, applies it here to Jesus Christ the Son41 who glorifies the Father. Hence, according to Paul’s own theology, Jesus Christ, God the Son, is the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy. Hence, every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that the Son, Christ Jesus, is Yahweh (cf. Rom. 14:11).42

 

 

Hebrews 1:8-10 

 

But of the Son He says [pros de ton huion] “YOUR THRONE, O GOD [ho thronos sou ho theos], IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM. “YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS; THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD [ho theos, ho theos sou], HAS ANOINTED YOU WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS.” And, “YOU, LORD [kurie], IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS. . . .” (emphasis added; see n. 44 below).

 

 

            Hebrews 1:8-10 militates against the Oneness position regarding the preexistence of the Person of the Son. As with John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17, and 1 Corinthians 8:6, the prologue of Hebrews systematically presents the Person of the Son as Yahweh Elohim, the Creator of all things.

 

Glaringly missing from the Oneness treatments of this passage is a careful consideration to the context, or prologue of the book of Hebrews. For here the author is contrasting created angels with the eternality of the Son as Yahweh. So, the Oneness notion that the term “Son” (or “Jesus”) when contextually juxtaposed with “God” (or “Father/Holy Spirit”) denotes exclusively the humanity of Jesus43 is sharply refuted by the prologue. Particularly, this notion (i.e., “Son” equals humanity) is countered in verse 8 by the fact that the Son is directly addressed (by the Father) as ho theos (“the God”).44

            Further, in verse 10, the author of Hebrews quotes from Psalm 102: 25-27 (LXX), which is an explicit reference to Yahweh alone as the Creator (cf. vv. 12, 18-19, 22, 24; etc.). Here, however, the author expressly applies the Psalm to the Son as the Creator who, in Oneness theology, was not the Creator.45 Moreover, kurios (“Lord”) is in the vocative case (kurie).46 Thus, the Father directly addresses the Son as “Lord,” that is, the Yahweh of Psalm 105:25-27. Hence, the Father identifies the Son as the Yahweh who causatively laid down the foundation of the earth and created the heavens. This even more refutes the Oneness unitarian assertion.

 

            Therefore, verses 8-10, as well as the entire prologue of Hebrews, straightforwardly refutes the unitarianism of Oneness theology. In summary, consider the following points:

 

1. In verse 2, the author sees the Son as the Agent or means of creation (di’ hou [“through whom”]; gram. dia + genitive).

 

2. In verse 3, the Son is said to be the “exact representation” (charaktēr) of the very Person (hupostaseōs) of the Father (autou, “of Him,” hence, not “as Him”).

 

3. In verse 8, the Father directly addresses the Son as ho theos.

 

4. In verse 10, the Father directly addresses the Son as the Lord (i.e., kurios in the vocative—kurie), namely, as the Yahweh of Psalm 105:25-27 who created the heavens and the earth.

 

            Unambiguously, the author of Hebrews (directly quoting God the Father) presents the Son as the eternal theos who was the Yahweh of the Old Testament, Creator of the heavens and earth.

 

  

The Preexistent Son sent from the Father

 

“the very works I do—testify about Me, that the Father has sent Me. And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form. You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent” (John 5:36-38).

 

            Scripture presents in plain and normal language that the preexistent Person of the Son was sent from the Father (e.g., John 3:13; 16-17; 6:33, 38, 44, 46, 50-51; 62; 8:23, 38, 42, 57-58; 16:28; Gal. 4:4). Nowhere in the New Testament, however, is it said that Jesus sent the Son. If Jesus were the Father, as Oneness believers contend, one would expect to find a clear example of this—at least one passage.

 

            This wonderful teaching of the Father actually sending His Son is completely rejected by the teachings of Oneness theology. In Oneness doctrine, the Father Himself came down out of heaven and put on a human outfit calling it “Son.”47 This teaching, unquestionably, contradicts the plain words of Jesus Christ: “No one has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven [ek tou ouranou]: the Son of Man” (John 3:13). Thus, the Person of the Son of Man was in heaven prior to being sent. That the “Son of Man” was in heaven prior to Bethlehem creates a theological problem for Oneness doctrine. For the Son of Man in Oneness theology was not the Father, but the human Son who emerged not until Bethlehem.48

 

 

Scripture clearly presents the Son as coming from heaven. Hence, the Son prior to Bethlehem was with the Father who sent Him. For if someone was sent, then there must have been a sender distinct from the one sent. That the Father sent the Son of Man ek tou ouranou (lit. “from out of heaven”; John 3:13) is no small matter; for it exegetically and theologically eliminates the Oneness idea that the unitarian deity was in absolute aloneness prior to creation. Consequently, Oneness teachers must bully the text in order to avoid the plain and normal way Scripture presents the Son as being sent by someone other than Himself.

 

Oneness exegesis, however, maintains that all those passages that speak of the Son as being sent are in reality speaking of the Father sending His “plan” to earth. That is, the Father putting on flesh (without becoming flesh) at Bethlehem. Bernard further explains this decidedly modalistic notion:

 

He [the Father] gave of Himself; He did not send someone else (John 3:16). The Son was sent from God as a man, not as God: “God sent forth His Son, made of a woman” (Galatians 4:4). The word sent does not imply pre-existence of the Son or pre-existence of the man. John 1:6 states that John the Baptist was a man sent from God, and we know he did not pre-exist his conception. Instead, the word sent indicates that God appointed the Son for a special purpose. God formed a plan, put flesh on that plan, and then put that plan in operation. . . . God [the Father] manifested Himself in flesh in order to achieve a special goal (emphasis added).49

 

Here Bernard again attempts to give his readers the impression that he has a grasp on Greek word meanings. His assertion is that the word “sent” in Galatians 4:4 is the same as in John 1:6, where John the Baptist is said to have been “sent.” Then he concludes, “The word sent does not imply pre-existence of the Son.” This assertion is demonstrably inaccurate. That Bernard assumes that the word “sent” is translated from the exact same Greek word and hence carries the same meaning is due to his unfamiliarity in the area of biblical languages.

 

Simply, in John 1:6 the word translated “sent” (“There came a man sent from God”) is from the Greek word apestalmenos (the perfect passive participle of apostellō). The word carries the normal meaning of “to send” with no indication of preexistence.50 However, the word translated “sent forth” in Galatians 4:4 (“God sent forth His Son”) is derived from a different Greek word than that of John 1:6. The term is exapesteilen (the aorist active indicative of exapostellō). This verb, unlike apostellō, has the meaning of being sent from a place, “to send away from one’s self (a)po/) out of the place”51 or “for fulfillment of a mission in another place.”52 This verb does contain the idea of preexistence (i.e., sent from another place). Note the prefix preposition ek,53 which clearly underscores the preexistence of the Person of the Son. Hence, God the Father sent Jesus Christ, God the Son, from heaven to earth.

 

“For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him” (John 3:17).

 

“For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. . . . I am the bread that came down out of heaven” (John 6:38, 41).

 

This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down out of heaven. . . . What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? . . . (John 6:50-51, 62; cf. vv. 57-58).

 

 

 

“The only begotten Son” (ho monogenēs huios)

 

            In John 3:16, Jesus Christ is called the monogenēs huios.54 He is called the monogenēs as to signify the unique relationship that He has with His Father. However, the English word “begotten” is not an exact translation of the Greek term monogenēs. Before examining the term in its original significance, the Oneness explanation of the term must be first addressed. As consistently seen, Oneness theological conclusions are largely based on English word meanings—not the original. For this reason, Oneness teachers detach monogenēs from its lexical denotation. For instance, Bernard unthinkingly explains that the term translated “begotten” means:

 

“to procreate, to father, to sire.” Thus, begotten indicates a definite point in time—the point at which conception takes place. There must be a time when the begetter [the Father] exists and the begotten [the Son] is not yet in existence, and there must be a point in time when the act of begetting occurs. . . . . So, the very words begotten and Son each contradict the word eternal as applied to the Son of God.55

 

In a dogmatic fashion, Oneness teacher Gordon Magee states:

 

Indeed the Bible flatly and plainly contradicts the eternal ‘Son idea’ in John 3:16 and everywhere it mentions the ‘begotten Son.’ The Words eternal and begotten are contradictory and mean completely opposite things.”56

 

            Virtually every time I debate with Oneness promoters on the topic of the preexistence of the Son, they immediately go to the English word “begotten” (e.g., John 3:16; Heb. 1:5) for doctrinal refuge. In simple terms, the compound word monogenēs is derived from monos meaning “alone,” or “one,”57 and genos meaning “class” or “kind.”58  Hence, ho monogenēs huios simply means the “one and only Son” (cf. NIV), “unique Son,” or “one of a kind Son.” The lexical support is overwhelming.59 The reason as to why Oneness teachers misinterpret the term is quite simple: they carelessly suppose that the second part of the word comes from gennaō, which does mean “begot,” “to give birth,” etc. On the contrary, however, the second part of the word is not gennaō, but genos. Notice the two nu’s (nn) in gennaō, compared to the one nu (n) in genos, thus, the word monogenēs. This shows that genos is derived from a different word than that of gennaō. The term genos is derived from gignesthai/ginomai, and gennaō from gennasthai. “Etymologically,” Harris observes, “monogenh\j is not associated with begetting (genna=sqai) but with existence (gi/gnesqai). . . . This leads us to conclude that monogenh\j denotes ‘the only member of a kin or kind.’”60

 

            Bringing out the proper understanding of the term is Hebrews 11:17, where Isaac is called Abraham’s “only begotten [monogenē] son” (KJV, NASB). Yet, Isaac was not his first or only son (cf. Gen. 16:15-17). Thus, Isaac was the unique son or one of a kind from whom God’s “covenant would be established” (Gen. 17:19-21). For God’s covenant was with Abraham’s monogenēs son Isaac, not with his first son Ishmael.

 

            Therefore, monogenēs is a relational term (as utilized by the early church), which does not carry the idea of begot,” “to give birth,” etc., nor does it, as Bernard claims, indicate “a definite point in time.”61

 

 

Conclusion

 

            To remove the Person of the Son from the eternal Godhead is to remove God from Scripture. Scripture only presents God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit as three coequal, coeternal, and coexistent Persons. Unequivocally demonstrated, Scripture presents the preexistence of the Person of the Son. The Son is said to be the Agent of creation. By denying this, Oneness teachers sacrifice the many clear passages at the expense of their unitarian pre-committed doctrine of modalism—namely, the Son merely “in view” theory. Demonstrating that Jesus was the actual Creator is crucial in removing one of the main pillars in Oneness theology. In a word, it leaves the Oneness position without an apologia, without a defense. Exegetically, Scripture opposes the Oneness conclusion that the Son was a mere thought or plan in the Father’s mind; or, the untenable notion that the Son did not exist before Bethlehem. The Apostle Paul saw things differently than the modalists. Paul clearly and cogently affirmed and defended that Jesus Christ the Son was the Agent of creation (esp. Col. 1:16-17).

            In the early fourth century, the heretic Arius from Alexandria proclaimed of Christ: Ēn pote hote ouk ēn (“There was [a time] when He was not”). As a result, the Christian church stood up against this teaching (at the Council of Nicea, A.D. 325) with biblical confidence and refuted it by means of Scripture.62 Hence, the Nicene Creed was formulated, and has been subsequently used as a banner of orthodoxy by the Christian church. The Creed clearly delineated (a) the full deity of Christ (homoousios),63 (b) that the Son existed numerically distinct from the Father, and (c) the uncreated (agennētos)64 status of Jesus Christ.65

Oneness theology dishonors God by asserting that the Father came down and wrapped Himself in flesh (not becoming flesh) and that flesh was called “Son”—Jesus’ human nature. Moreover, they dishonor God by asserting that the Son of God was a mere creation at Bethlehem. Against such teaching, Scripture presents that the Person of the Son is the eternal God (e.g., John 1:1; Phil. 2:6; Heb. 1:1ff.) who shared intimate and loving fellowship with God before time (cf. John 1:1b).

 

Jesus said that He had glory para (“side-by-side,” “in the presence of”) the Father “before the world was” (John 17:5). “He who does not honor the Son,” Jesus declares, “does not honor the Father who sent Him” (John 5:23). True religion, indeed, true Christianity is based on the worship of the true God. The Oneness assertion that the Son was a product of creation not only dishonors both the Father and the Son, but even more, it is to posit a god in its place that is other than the God of Scripture.