home about us doctrinal statement seminars products contact us
INDEX:
Personal Attributes of the Word
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.
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.
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
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.
“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:
1. As noted, the glory that the *Son* said that He possessed or shared (eichon) was before time. The Son said that He *HAD* glory *before* time—with (para) the Father. Exegetically, it cannot refer to the Father thinking of the Son or having the Son in view or in His mind, for Jesus uses the imperfect tense (eichon, *had*), which shows that the Son had or possessed it, not in the Father‘s mind. The Son is speaking of something that He had, that He shared with the Father; the Son is not speaking of something that the Father had (in view).
2. The Son had glory (which only God has, cf. Isa, 42:8) before time, with the Father. As shown, the term para followed by the dative (as in this verse: para seautō, para soi), especially in reference to persons, indicates “near,” “beside,” or “in the presence of.” This is agreed by recognized Greek Grammars and recognized Lexicons of the NT such as BDAG, 757.
In sum, John 17:5 the Son first commands/asks (doxason, aorist impart.) the Father to glorify Him together with Him (para seautō, thus, a shared glorification, a glory that only God can have, cf. Isa. 42:8), which shows that the glory that the Son had was in together in the presence of the Father.
The *Son* said that He possessed (note the imperfect of echō) the glory WITH (para, in the presence of) the Father (not in the Father’s mind, for the Son had it). And when did the Son have this glory? Before time. Also, only that the Son was God can He God make this request/command to the Father, not mere man. For God does not share His glory with no one (cf. Isa. 42:8).
So when you say that the Son did not exist before time, remember, your conclusion is not based on biblical exegesis, but rather on what you have been taught by Oneness pastors/teachers. Also, John 1:3; Col. 1:16-17; and Heb. 1:8-10 teach exegetically that the Son was the Agent of creation, the Creator, thus preexisting with the Father.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
1 Ean gar mē pisteusēte hoti egō eimi apothaneisthe en tais hamartiais humōn (see Introduction to Oneness Theology, n. 19).
2 As mentioned, the UPCI is the largest Oneness denomination.
3 David K. Bernard, The Oneness of God (Hazelwood: Word Aflame, 1983), 104-5.
4 It is not my intention here to debate the doctrine of Eternal Generation (or Eternal Sonship). However, I do not find that the doctrine of Eternal Generation is exegetically convincing. Thus, when I refer to passages where the preexistence of the Son is clearly being spoken (e.g., John 3:13), note that I am referring to the Person of the Son. In this way, Scripture can speak of the Son of Man, that is, the Person of the Son of Man as preexisting before actually becoming the Son of man at the incarnation.
5 Bernard, The Oneness of God, 248, 252.
6 Cf. ibid., 184.
7 Cf. Ibid., 103-4. An expanded treatment of the term monogenēs (“begotten”) will be provided below.
8 Bernard, The Oneness of God, 183.
9 Bernard, The Oneness of God, 102-3.
10 Clement of Alexandria, Fragments, 3, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers [hereafter ANF], vol. 2 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1899). Tertullian of Carthage (c. A.D. 213) also enjoyed John 1:1 to refute the Modalism of Praxeas; cf. Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 12, in ANF, vol. 3.
11 Hippolytus, Against Noetus, 14, in ANF, vol. 5.
12 Benjamin B. Warfield, Biblical Doctrines (Carlisle: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1929), 190-92.
13 Of all the prepositions that John could have utilized he chose pros (lit. “facing” or “toward”). The object of the preposition is the accusative theon. Hence, pros with the accusative clearly indicates that the Word was “At, with, in the presence of. Jn. 1:1, o( lo/goj h)=n pro\j to\n qeo/n, the Word was in the presence of God. . . .” (J. Harold Greenlee, A Concise Exegetical Grammar of New Testament Greek, 5th ed. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986], 39). Pros with the accusative indicates “by, at, near pro/j tina ei)=nai be (in company) with someone . . . J[ohn] 1:1f. . . .” (Walter Bauer’s, A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., ed. and rev. by Frederick W. Danker [hereafter BDAG] [Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000], 875). Concerning the specific usage of pros in John 1:1b, recognized authority on Greek grammar, A. T. Robertson, elucidates the significance of the preposition:
With God (pros ton theon). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Pros with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In 1 John 2:1 we have a like use of pros: “We have a Paraclete with the Father” (paraklēton echomen pros ton patera). See prosōpon pros prosōpon (face to face, 1 Cor, 13:12), a triple use of pros (Archibald T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament [Nashville: Broadman Press, 1932], 4:4).
Examining
John 1:1b, Francis J. Moloney notes:
The
Word preexists the human story, and the Word does not preexist for its own
sake but in relationship with God (pros ton theon). The proposition
pros means more than static “with.” It has a sense of motion
toward the person or thing that follows. The translation therefore reads,
“the Word was turned toward God.” There is dynamism in the
relationship that must somehow be conveyed (Francis J. Moloney, “The
Gospel of John,” in Sacra Pagina Series, ed. Daniel J. Harrington
(Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1998], 4:35).
Protestant apologist James R. White remarks as to the
personal intimacy expressed by the preposition pros:
Just
as Greek verbs are often more expressive than their English counterparts,
so too are Greek prepositions. Here John uses the preposition pro\j (pros). The term has a wide rage of meanings,
depending on the context in which it is found. In this particular
instance, the term speaks to a personal relationship, in fact, to intimacy.
It’s the same term the apostle Paul uses when he speaks of how we
presently have a knowledge comparable to seeing in a dim mirror, but
someday, in eternity, we will have a clearer knowledge, an intimate
knowledge, for we shall see “face to (pros) face” (Corinthians
13:12). When you are face-to-face with someone, you have nowhere to hide.
You have a relationship with that person, whether you like it or not
(James R. White, The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering
the Heart of Christian Belief [Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1998], 52).
14 Archibald T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), 625.
15 Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (McLean: MacDonald, 1973), 2:34.
16 R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of John’s Gospel (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1943), 32-33.
17 Cf. n. 13 above.
18 Dismissing the lexical denotation and contextual matter of pros, Bernard thoughtlessly asks:
How
do we explain the use of the word with in John 1:1-2 and 1 John
1:2? . . . As explained in Chapter IV, the Word is the thought, plan, or
expression in the mind of God. That is how the Word can be with God and at
the same time be God Himself. We should also note that the Greek word pros,
translated here as “with,” is translated as “pertaining to” in
Hebrews 2:17 and 5:1. . . . Furthermore, if God in John 1:1 means
God the Father, then the Word is not a separate person for the verse would
then read, “The Word was with the Father and the Word was the Father”
To make this imply a plurality of persons in God would necessitate a
change in the definition of God in the middle of the verse
(Bernard, The Oneness of God, 188-89).
However, this assertion does not provide doctrinal assistance for Oneness believers. First, the specific phrase pros ton theon, as in Hebrews and John 1:1b, occurs twenty times in the NT. In each occurrence, pros differentiates between person(s) and God. Hence, there is no place in the NT where a person(s) is pros ton theon and not numerically distinct from ton theon. So, in John 1:1b, John envisages a marked distinction between two Persons—ton theon and ho logos. Moreover, there is no place in the NT where a “thought” or “plan” is said to be pros ton theon. Biblical expositor A. Plummer comments on the distinguishing characteristics of pros ton theon relating to John 1:1b:
pro\j
to\n qeo/n . . . it expresses the
distinct Personality of the Lo/goj,
which e)n would have obscured. We might
render ‘face-to-face with God’ or ‘at home with God’. . . . (A.
Plummer, Cambridge Greek Testament
for Schools, ed. J. J. S. Perowne [1882; reprint, London: Cambridge
University, 1900], 64).
What
is more, because Bernard does not understand Greek, Bernard here
demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the Greek language, resulting
in complete confusion as to the two occurrences of theos (“God”)
in John 1:1. Also, by way of his observations, he implies that the
equative verb ēn (“was”) carries the same force as the
mathematical equal symbol. Thus, Bernard commits the fallacy of
equivocation, that is, asserting that theos in 1:1c equals ton
theon in 1:1b—the Father. In response, theos in John 1:1c is
an anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominative. The predicate nominative
describes the class or category to which the subject (logos [“Word”])
belongs. Thus, theos is the category to which the logos
belongs in terms of nature—not identity. The predicate nominative
tells of what the logos is, not who He is. John could
have easily established Modalism in John 1:1c by definitizing theos
(viz. ho theos ēn ho logos [“the God was the
Word”]), turning John 1:1c into a convertible proposition (i.e., the
subject [logos] being interchangeable with the predicate [theos])
in contrast to a subset proposition. Rebutting the Oneness position, NT
scholar Murray J. Harris indicates that
what
is grammatically admissible [viz. the rendering: o( qeo\j h=(n o( lo/goj, ho
theos ēn ho logos]
is contextually inadmissible. If qeo\j were taken as subject and as equivalent to o(
qeo\j
. . . the
clause would contradict what precedes (“the Word was with God,”
distinguishing two persons) and would reduce the lo/goj to merely a divine attribute (cf. 1 John 4:8: o(
qeo\j a)ga/ph e)stin)
(Murray J.
Harris, Jesus as God: The New Testament Usage of Theos in Reference to Jesus
[Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992], 61).
In point of fact, Oneness teachers do not provide any scholarly sources to support the contention that John 1:1 teaches Modalism. Thus, a pre-decided unitarian theology precludes Oneness teachers from exegetically interacting with the text.
19 Cf. nn. 8, 9 above.
20 That the Word is the Agent of creation and not merely an instrument is indicated by John’s use of dia followed by the genitive autou. This will be discussed in greater detail below.
21 Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, with Scripture, Subject, and Greek Word Indexes (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 378.
22 BDAG, 757.
23 As shown above, passages in the NT that speak of the Son’s preexistence are interpreted by Oneness folks as speaking of the Father’s concept or future plan of the Son.
24 Bernard, The Oneness of God, 116-17.
25 Robertson, Word Pictures, 5:275-76.
26 Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 230.
27 Bernard, The Oneness of God, 116-17.
28
White, The
Forgotten Trinity, 213, n. 17.
29 Cf. BDAG, 225; Wallace, Beyond the Basics, 368; Greenlee, Exegetical Grammar, 31; Robertson, Word Pictures, 4:478-79.
30 Oneness teachers argue that Son could not have been the Agent of creation because passages like Isaiah 44:24 (“I, the LORD maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself and spreading out the earth all alone”) teach that God (viz. the Father) alone created all things. Also asserted is 1 Corinthians 8: 6: “yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things. . . .” But as pointed out elsewhere, Oneness teachers assume unitarianism, that is, God as one Person—the Father. Hence, they start with that assumption and argue therefrom. The doctrine of the Trinity, however, teaches that God is one undivided and unquantifiable Being who has revealed Himself as three distinct coequal, coeternal, and coexistent Persons. Hence, the three Persons share the nature (ousia) of the one Being. Thus, as fully God it can be said that the Father is the Creator (cf. Acts 17:24), the Son is the Creator (cf. John 1:3; Col. 16-17; Heb. 1:10), and the Holy Spirit is the Creator (cf. Job 33:4). For God is one indivisible, inseparable, and unquantifiable Being. So, passages like Isaiah 44:24, which say that God created by Himself and alone are perfectly consistent with Trinitarian theology. Again, the three Persons are not three separate Beings; they are distinct self-conscious Persons or Selves sharing the nature of the one Being. Unless this is made clear, the biblical doctrine of the Trinity will be confounded and misapprehended.
31 Known also as the Kenosis Hymn (from the Gk. word kenoō, meaning, “to make empty”; cf. Ralph P. Martin, Carmen Christi: Philippians 2.5-11 in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of Early Christian Worship, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983).
32 E.g., Hippolytus notes,
For
as the only begotten Word of God, being God of God, emptied Himself,
according to the Scriptures, humbling Himself of His own will to that
which He was not before, and took unto Himself this vile flesh, and
appeared in the “form of a servant,” and “became obedient to God the
Father, even unto death,” so hereafter He is said to be “highly
exalted;” and as if well-nigh He had it not by reason of His humanity,
and as if it were in the way of grace, He “receives the name which is
above every name,” according to the word of the blessed Paul. But the
matter, in truth, was not a “giving,” as for the first time, of what
He had not by nature; far otherwise. But rather we must understand a
return and restoration to that which existed in Him at the beginning,
essentially and inseparably. And it is for this reason that, when He had
assumed, by divine arrangement, the lowly estate of humanity, He said,
“Father, glorify me with the glory which I had,” etc. For He who was
co-existent with His Father before all time, and before the foundation of
the world, always had the glory proper to Godhead (Hippolytus, [Part
I.-Exegetical] “Fragments from Commentaries on Various Books of
Scripture,” in ANF, vol.
5).
33
The consciousness of Paul was so fixed on the deity of Jesus Christ that
he implicitly and explicitly asserted it in virtually every one of his
epistles (e.g., Rom. 1:3-4; 9:5
[seeing theos applied to Christos];
1 Cor. 16:22; 2 Cor. 8:9; Gal. 4:4; Eph. 5:5; Phil. 2:6-11; Col. 2:9; 2
Thess. 1:12; 1 Tim. 3:16; Titus 2:13). In Philippians 2:6-11, Paul’s
high Christology is greatly demonstrated. In verse 6, Paul plainly asserts
that Jesus was always subsisting
as God: “who . . . existed [huparchōn]
in the form of God [morphē theou]” (emphasis added). The word
translated “existed” is huparchōn
(the present active participle of huparchō). The term indicates
a continuous existence or continually subsisting (cf. BDAG, 1029;
Joseph H. Thayer, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
[1896; reprint, with Strong’s numbering added by Hendrickson
Publishers, Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996],
638). Hence, Jesus, the Son (cf. 1:2, 2:9, 11), did not become
the very form or nature of God at a certain point in time, rather He always
existed as God, just as Paul clearly articulated. The word translated
“form” (“nature” NIV) is from the Greek word morphē.
The meaning of morphē denotes the specific qualities or
essential attributes of something. Concerning the term morphē
as used in Philippians 2:6, Warfield clearly expresses its semantical
force:
Paul
does not simply say, “He was God.” He says, “He was in the form of
God,” employing a turn of speech which throws emphasis upon Our Lord’s
possession of the specific quality of God. “Form” is a term which
expresses the sum of those characterizing qualities which make a thing the
precise thing that it is. . . . And “the form of God” is the sum of
the characteristics which make the being we call “God,” specifically
God, rather than some other being—an angel, say, or a man. When Our Lord
is said to be in “the form of God,” therefore, He is declared, in the
most express manner possible, to be all that God is, to possess the whole
fullness of attributes which make God God (Warfield, Biblical
Doctrines, 177).
That one denies that
the Son was truly the morphē of God is to deny that the Son
was truly the morphē of man: “taking
[labōn] the form [morphē] of
a bond-servant [doulou]”
(emphasis added).
34 To bring to mind, in Oneness doctrine “Jesus” is the name of the unitarian deity, which temporally manifested as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Consequently, in passages where Jesus is presented as deity, as in this one, it is concluded that Jesus was merely manifesting in the Father mode (e.g., John 8:58). Hence, Oneness teachers instruct their untaught devotees that they must decide if, in Scripture, Jesus was speaking as “Father,” “Holy Spirit,” or “Son”—a most cumbersome task. Of course, this does not follow theologically. For there are many passages that speak of the Father and Jesus in the same verse, which clearly distinguishes them (e.g., the Pauline salutations [see n. 36 below]; Phil. 2:11; 1 Thess. 1:1). As a result, to maintain Modalism Oneness teachers must explain, “The way to understand these verses is to view them as distinguishing the divinity of Jesus (the Father) from the humanity of Jesus (the Son)” (Bernard, The Oneness of God, 186). However, this Oneness assumption is entirely incoherent. It is clearly refuted by the places where all three Persons of the Trinity are juxtaposed in the same verse (e.g., Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 2:18; 2 Thess. 2:13; 1 Pet. 1:2).
35 Bernard, The Oneness of God, 222.
36 The standard Pauline salutation reads: charis
humin kai eirēnē apo theou patros hēmōn kai kuriou Iēsou
Christou (lit.
“Grace to you and peace from God Father of us and Lord Jesus Christ”).
As discussed, (cf. see “Kai
and the Salutations of Paul”) according to Greek grammar (e.g.,
Granville Sharp’s rule #5), 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. This grammatical construction is seen in all
of Paul’s salutations.
37 The adjective isa is the neuter plural of isos, meaning, “equal, in quality, or in quantity. . . . to claim for one’s self the nature, rank, authority, which belong to God, Jn. v. 18. . . .” (Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon, 307). The term is also denoted as “pert.[aining] to being equivalent in number, size, quality, equal. . . .” (BDAG, 480-81). In point of fact, there is no standard lexicon that offers “identical” (or as the like) as a possible meaning for isos. “There are a number of ways in Greek for saying one thing is ‘identical to’ or ‘the same as’ something else,” says former Oneness teacher Gregory Boyd, “but Paul does not employ them here” [Phil, 2:6] (Gregory A. Boyd, Oneness Pentecostals & The Trinity [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992], 106).
38 The participle labōn, is a participle of means (cf. Wallace, Beyond the Basics, 630). The participle describes the means or manner of the emptying. Hence, the Son emptied Himself by means of His incarnation (cf. John 1:14). Note that the emptying did not involve His deity, for Paul safeguards against such an assertion in verse 6: hos en morphē theou huparchōn (“who [Christ] always and continually subsisting in the very nature and substance God”; author’s translation).
39 Cf. Wallace, Beyond the Basics, 350-51; Reymond, Systematic Theology, 263.
40 As observed, the Greek reads, kurios Iēsous Christos (lit. “Lord Jesus Christ”). Paul throws kurios (“Lord”) at the beginning of the clause (i.e., in the emphatic position) to draw high emphasis that Jesus IS Lord (viz. Yahweh; cf. n. 42 below).
42 Both Isaiah 45:23 (LXX) and Romans 14:11 use future indicatives: “every knee will bow [kampsē] . . . every tongue will confess [exomologēsētai]. . . .” indicating the future certainty of the event. However, Paul modifies the original moods and tenses of the verbs in Isaiah and Romans to make Philippians 2:10-11 a purpose and result clause (i.e., hina; in which the subjunctives are required). Hence, the purpose of God the Father exalting the Son was for the result of every knee bowing and every tongue confessing that Jesus Christ IS Yahweh—hence fulfilling Isaiah’s prophetic word (cf. “Philippians 2:10-11: At the name of Jesus”). Clearly, as indicated, (see The Oneness Claim that Jesus is the Father) 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 (i.e., genitive of possession)—Yahweh. That Oneness teachers assert that the “Lord” in verse 11 is the human Son (who is not God) and the “Father” is God (cf. n. 36 above) does not follow theologically or contextually. For how is it that a man (viz. the Son according to Oneness belief) can be Yahweh (i.e., the name that He possessed) and the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophetic word pertaining to Yahweh alone?
43 Cf. n. 9 above.
44
Pros de ton huion ho thronos sou ho
theos, (lit. “but regarding
the Son [He says], the throne of you the God”). To deny
the deity of the Son, many unitarian groups (esp. Oneness and Jehovah’s
Witnesses) contest that the articular nominative theos
(“God”) here carries the vocative force (as represented in most
translations). The two basic arguments mounted against the nominative for
the vocative are as follows:
1. To see theos as a strict subject nominative: “God is your throne” (as rendered in the Watchtower’s New World Translation).
2. To see theos as a predicate: “Your throne is God.”
In response to the first argument, (a) nowhere in Scripture is God called someone’s human throne, (b) if theos were the subject, then naturally ho theos would appear before ho thronos (“the throne”; cf. Reymond, Systematic Theology, 274), but it does not, and (c) the context of Hebrews chapter 1 is drawing a sharp ontological contrast between created angels and the divine uncreated Son: “For to which of the angels did He [God the Father] say . . . But of the Son He says . . .” (1:5, 8). This contrast would be lost if the subject-nominative view was correct. In response to the second argument, if theos were a predicate we would certainly expect theos to be anarthrous (i.e. lacking the article ho [“the”]) and “appearing either before ‘your throne’ or after ‘for ever and ever’” (cf. ibid.), but it does not. Clearly, both arguments put forward by unitarian groups fall short of grammatical and contextual probability. Therefore, to see theos as a vocative of direct address: “Your throne, O God,” as all meaningful translations and grammarians render, is based on the following data:
1. “The traditional rendering, ‘your throne, O God,’ where {yhl) [Elohim] is a vocative, is found in all the ancient versions, many English translations (KJV, RV, ASV, Berkeley, NASB, JB, NAB, NIV, NRSV), and many modern commentators” (Harris, Jesus as God, 196). Moreover, the ancient Targums render the passage as an address to God Himself: “Thy throne of glory, O Lord endure for ever and ever.” Verse 3, the targumist applies to Christ: “Your beauty, O King Messiah, surpasses that of ordinary men.”
2. The LXX translation of Psalm 45, from which the author is quoting, the king is addressed by the vocative dunate (“O Mighty One”; vv. 4, 6; cf. Reymond, Systematic Theology, 274). Similarly, Harris notes:
in the LXX version it is even more probable that o( qeo/j is a vocative for the king is addressed a “mighty warrior” (dunate/) not only verse 4 but also in verse 6. . . . This dual address heightens the antecedent probability, given the word order, that in the next verse o( qeo/j should be rendered “O God.” One may therefore affirm with a high degree of confidence that in the LXX text from which the author of Hebrews was quoting o( qeo/j represents a vocatival {yhl) [Elohim]” (Harris, Jesus as God, 215).
3. In Psalms (LXX) there are at lest sixty-three instances where the nominative theos carries the vocative force.
4. The articular nominative theos with the vocative force, as in this text, is a “well-established idiom in classical Greek, the Septuagint, and the New Testament” (Reymond, Systematic Theology, 272; e.g., the articular nominative theos in the parallel passages John 20:28 and Rev. 4:11 are clearly in direct address). Commenting on the articular nominative for the vocative, Wallace points out that there are “nearly sixty examples of it in the NT” and that there are “almost 600 instances of the anarthrous nom. for the voc. in the NT” (Wallace, Beyond the Basics, 56-57, nn. 69, 72). So common was the nominative for the vocative that of all the times in the NT where theos is directly addressed, only in one verse does theos actually appear in the vocative case: thee mou thee mou (“My God, my God . . .”; Matt. 27:46).
5. The context of Hebrews 1 is addressing the Son as God in an ontological sense (cf. Heb. 1:3) as distinguished from created angles. That the author would suddenly break the context to have the Father say in 1:8, “Your throne is God,” or “God is your throne” is contextually inconceivable.
Therefore, both grammatically and contextually the articular nominative theos should be seen as carrying vocative force of direct address: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.” For this is the universal consensus among objective scholarship.
45 Cf. nn. 29, 32 above.
46 Grammatically, the vocative case is the case of direct address. Kai su kat’ archas, kurie tēn gēn ethemeliōsas, kai erga tōn cheirōn sou eisin hoi ouranoi (lit. “And: You Lord, at the beginnings, laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of Your hands”).
47 In full denial of the Incarnation of the Son, Bernard says, “God the Father so loved the world that He robed Himself in flesh and gave Himself as the Son of God to reconcile the world to Himself” (Bernard, The Oneness of God, 122).
48 E.g., Bernard, The Oneness of God, 104-5; Gordon Magee, Is Jesus in the Godhead or Is The Godhead in Jesus (Hazelwood: Word Aflame Press, 1988), 32.
49 Bernard, The Oneness of God, 184.
50 BDAG provides the basic meaning of apostellō: “To dispatch someone for the achievement of some objective, send away/out. . . . esp. of the sending out of the disciples by Jesus” (120-21). Cf. Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, rev. ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 219.
51 Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon, 221.
52 BDAG, 346.
53 The k becomes xs before a vowel: ek-apostellō = exapostellō. “In general, e)k has the force of from, out of, away from” (BDAG, 295; cf. Wallace, Beyond the Basics, 371).
54 In John 1:18, Jesus is presented as the monogenēs theos, “only begotten God.” However, there are a few variant renderings contained in the extant Greek manuscripts of John. The three main renderings are monogenēs theos (“only begotten God”); ho monogenēs theos (“the only begotten God”); and most later manuscripts read ho monogenēs huios (“the only begotten Son”). The textual support is as follows:
monogenēs theos: P66 )*
B C* L pc syhmg.
ho
monogenēs theos: P75
)1
33 pc.
ho monogenēs huios: A C3 Q Y f1 13 M lat syc.h.
Monogenēs theos is contained in Critical Text (viz. Nestle-Aland 27th ed/UBS 4th ed). It is the rendering theos (“God”) and not huios (“Son”) that is concurred by most Greek NT scholars (e.g., B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek [New York: Harper & Brothers, 1881]; Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition, [New York: United Bible Societies, 1994], 169-70; Harris, Jesus as God, 82; etc.). Endorsing the reading monogenēs theos, Robertson states that “the best old Greek manuscripts (Aleph B C L) read monogenēs theos (God only begotten) which is undoubtedly the true text” (Robertson, Word Pictures, 5:17). Moreover, theos (articular and anarthrous) and not huios is supported by important early church Fathers (e.g., Clement of Alex., Clementfrom Theodotus, Origen, Didymus, Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Epiphanius, Serapion, Cyril). Because ho monogenēs huios is found in the majority of manuscripts, the KJV follows respectively. Oneness teachers (“KJV only” or not) gladly hold to the late variant rendering in order to buttress their a priori theological commitment—namely that the Son is not God. “We do not believe,” says Bernard, “these variant readings [i.e., theos] are correct” (Bernard, The Oneness of God, 100). Indeed, he does not, for if they are allowed to stand, then the Son is truly presented as God. Interestingly, the Watchtower’s NWT concurs with the early reading monogenēs theos. To make this reading, however, compatible with their Christological view, they de-capitalize “God” in order to make Jesus an indefinite “god” (cf. John 1:1c NWT).
55
Bernard, The Oneness of God,
103-4.
56
Magee, Is Jesus in the Godhead, 25.
57 “BDAG defines monos as “being the only entity in a class only, alone. . . .” (658).
58 Ibid, 194-95.
59 Nearly every Greek grammarian and biblical scholar agree: the term monogenēs carries the denotative meaning of “only kind,” “unique one,” “one and only,” etc. In his unique way, Warfield explains:
The
adjective ‘only begotten’ conveys the idea, not
of derivation and subordination, but of uniqueness
and con substantiality: Jesus is all that God is, and He alone is this
(Benjamin B. Warfield, The Person and Work of Christ [Philadelphia:
The Presbyterian and Reformed, 1950], 56; emphasis added).
BDAG interprets monogenēs as “pert. to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship, one and only, only. . . .” (658). Thayer also comments on the meaning of monogenēs as “single of its kind,” “only” (Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon), 417-18. Cf. also Liddell and Scott, A Greek–English Lexicon, 1144; James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1930), 416-17; Harris, Jesus as God, 84-87; all of who see the proper meaning of monogenēs.
60 Harris, Jesus as God, 86-87.
61 Furthermore, Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5 is often used to show that the Son had a beginning: “Today I have begotten [gegennēka] You.” However, the term sēmeron (“today”) is clearly a relational term: He was openly declared to be the Son referring to His Messianic kingship, not deity. His Sonship was openly declared at several different times throughout His life (e.g., at His baptism [Matt. 3:16-17]; the Transfiguration [Matt. 17:5]; at His resurrection [Acts 13:33]). This declaration is also seen in Romans 1:2-4, where the Son (in reference to His deity here in v. 3) was “declared the Son of God [in reference to Messianic kingship] with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness. . .” The two attributive participles, tou genomenou (“who was born”) and tou horisthentos (“who was declared”) modify huiou (“Son”) at the beginning of verse 3. Hence, verse 3 indicates that He was already the Son of God when He was declared to be the Son of God in verse 4. Further, as with Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5, Paul, in Acts 13: 32-34, cites the same OT passage (Ps. 2:7), but referring to Jesus’ resurrection. Consequently, if “today” in Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5 means that the Son did not exist before Bethlehem, as Oneness teachers suppose, then “today” (sēmeron) in Acts 13:33 would likewise mean that He did not exist before His resurrection either.
62 As mentioned, the heretic Arius of Alexandria promulgated (A.D. 318) that the Son must be a creature and hence not eternal, in which his blasphemous couplet was coined: Ēn pote hote ouk ēn (“There was [a time] when He was not”). Disunity of the Roman Empire grew steadily as Arius gained doctrinal devotees. This prompted Constantine (for political reasons to be sure) to call for an ecclesiastical Council to be held at Nicea (A.D. 325). In short, the issue at Nicea was concerning the question: What was the ontological relationship between Jesus Christ and His Father? Was Jesus of the same substance (homoousios), like substance (homoiusios), or as Arius taught, was Jesus of a different substance (heteroousios) than that of the Father? It was reported that 318 bishops attended. And the ending conclusion at the Council was that Jesus Christ was of the same substance (homoousios) as that of the Father. As we read of the events at Nicea, one vital point should be drummed in mind: the arguments that led to the affirmation of the homoousion were solidly based and derived from Holy Scripture alone (e.g., Heb. 1:3, see n. 7 below).
5
Athanasius, De Synodis, 6, ed. Philip Schaff, in Nicene and Post
Nicene Fathers [hereafter NPNF], vol. 4, 2nd ser.
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953); cf. Contra Gentes.
63 The term homoousios is translated as “same substance” or “same nature.” The term was utilized at Nicea to show (against the Arians) that the Son was of the same substance as that of the Father (cf. Heb. 1:3).
64
The term agennētos (i.e.,
“unoriginated” or “uncreated”) was
a technical term used by the early Fathers to denote God’s
self-existence or unoriginateness (e.g.,
Justin Martyr, First Apology, 14.1, ed. Cyril C. Richardson, in Early Christian
Fathers [New York: Macmillan, 1970], 249). As early as c.
A.D. 107 the term was used in reference to the Son:
There
is one Physician—of flesh yet spiritual, born yet unbegotten [agennētos];
God incarnate, genuine life in the
midst of death, sprung from Mary as well as God, first subject to
suffering then beyond it—Jesus Christ our Lord (Ignatius, Letter
to the Ephesians, 7. 2, ibid., 90; emphasis added).
65 Nicene Creed (A.D. 325):
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of
heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;
And in one
Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father
before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very
God of very God, begotten, not made,
being of one substance [homoousios] with
the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our
salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of
the Virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under
Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried; and the third day he rose
again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth
on the right hand of the Father; and he shall come again, with glory, to
judge both the quick and the dead whose kingdom shall have no end.
*And
I believe in the Holy Ghost the Lord, and Giver of Life, who proceedeth
from the Father [and the Son]; who
with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who
spake by the Prophets. And I believe one holy Catholic and Apostolic
Church; I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look
for the resurrection
of the dead, and the life of the world to come. AMEN. (emphasis added;
*the Council of Constantinople added the last paragraph in A.D. 381).
copyright: