Tag: eternal son

Stated eternal penalties of denying these essential doctrines  

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

The Deity of Christ. John 8:24: “You will die in your sins.” Since Jesus is a distinct person, any denial of the Trinity would result in the same consequences (1 John 2:22-23).  

The belief that Jesus is the Son of God. John 3:16, 36: “… The one who rejects the Son will not see life, but God’s wrath remains on him.”

The physical resurrection. 1 Cor. 15:12-17. 17 “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is useless; you are still in your sins.”

The perpetual incarnation. 1 John 4:2-3; 2 John 1:7: the one who denies the perpetual incarnation of the Son, is “the deceiver and the antichrist.”  

And a denial of justification through faith alone. Gal. 1:8-9: “Let him be anathema.” A gospel apart from justification through faith alone is “a different gospel”—a gospel without Christ.

 

Matthew 28:19: The Great Commission & TRINITARIAN Baptismal Formula

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

Matthew 28:17-20

“And when they [“eleven disciples”] saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. 18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. 19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to follow all that I commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.’”

 

 

Affirmation of the Commission

 Previously the gospel proclamation was ethnocentric—to the Jews; whereas this Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20 is ektocentric (i.e., “beyond” the Jewish people). This direct commission was given to His disciples – to proclaim the gospel to panta ta ethnē (“all the nations”; cf. Rom. 1:8). Paul says in Colossians 1:5-6 5 … you previously heard … the gospel 6 which has come to you, just as in all the world….” (NASB). 

 

The only commandment in verse 19 is “make disciples!” – from the verb mathēteusate, which is an aorist imperative—the strongest way in Greek to issue a command. It stresses urgency.  The verb translated “Go” – is from poreuthentes. The verb is an aorist participle, a non-imperative commandment mood. In this grammatical construction however, the commandment would be: “Go make disciples! of all the nations; Not “as you go,” or “as you are going” – if this were the case, Matthew would have used a present participle, not an aorist participle.

In every case in Matthew, when the aorist participle (mostly involving poreuthentes, “Go”) is followed by an aorist imperative, the participle takes the force of a an imperative[1]. For example: Matthew 2:8: “Go search carefully for the child”; 2:13: “Arise take the child”; 9:13: “Go, however, learn; 11:4: “Go tell John”; 17:27: “Go to [the] lake cast a hook.” *The aorist participles are bolded, and the aorist imperative verbs are italicized.    

 

The only commandment in verse 20 is the aorist imperative, idou (“behold”). As a demonstrative particle, it emphasizes what follows: “I am [omnipresent] with you always, to the end of the age.” These words are comforting.  And in verses 19-20, Jesus describes the means of making a disciple by using two participles: “baptizing” and “teaching”—namely, participles of means.

 

Trinitarian Baptismal Formula

Πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος·

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.”

 

Consider the following points:

I. Eis (εἰς ) “into.” The first century lexical meaning of the preposition eis (“into”) could express a transference of/into ownership. Thus, the believer is baptized into the triune God – signifying that he or she passes, or comes into the possession of ownership of the triune God.

 

II. Syntactical- The reading “into the name of THE Father, AND of THE Son, AND of the Holy Spirit” – denote three distinct persons. According to Greek grammar (viz., Sharp’s rule #6) – when the conjunction kai (“and”) connects singular nouns (not proper names) of the same case and the article (“the”) precedes each noun (viz., “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit”), each personal noun denotes a distinct person. Same construction in, 2 Cor. 13:14; 1 John 1:3; Rev. 5:13 et al. This construction is also abbreviated as ASKAS (article – substantive – kai -article – substantive).     

 

III. This baptismal formula was used historically to affirm the Trinity. Note these pre-Nicaea (A.D. 325) examples:

Didachē (c. A.D. 50-70; chap. 7:1, 3 – same reading: βαπτίσατε εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος.”.

 Justin Martyr (c. A.D. 155; First Apology, 61).

 Tertullian (c. A.D. 213; Against Praxeas, 2, 26): “He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, not into a unipersonal God.”  

 Origen (c. A.D. 244; Commentary on Romans, Book 5, 2:11; 8:7).

 Gregory Thaumaturgus (c. A.D. 260-270; A Sectional Confession of Faith, V, XIII).

 Cyprian of Carthage (c. A.D. 253): “… Christ himself commands the nations to be baptized in the full and united Trinity” (Concerning the Baptism of Heretics, Letter 73:18).

 

IV. Textual Support. Anti-Trinitarian groups especially Oneness Pentecostals (who believe Jesus is the Father) and other unitarian groups (who like Oneness, believe that God is one person; such as, Muslims, JWs et al.) argue that the trinitarian formula is missing from the earliest Greek NT manuscripts (MSS) of Matthew 28:19. They assert that it was added later by the Roman Catholic Church in the 4th century.

In response to this assertion, we have almost 6,000 MSS extant of the Greek NT. The earliest ones (mostly from the 2nd – 5th century) were written on papyrus, while later ones were written on parchment or vellum (i.e., on animal skin).

To date, there are no Greek NT papyrus MS that contain any complete NT book due to many passages missing and/or damaged. The fact that no early papyrus MS contain the ending of Matthew 28 is not a valid reason to reject it. Would any Oneness Pentecostal reject 2 Timothy since that book is NOT contained in any early papyrus MS either?  

 

Additionally, there are no early papyrus MS that contains Acts 2:28 either; the earliest papyrus MS containing it is from the 7th century (P74). The earliest parchment MS copy of Acts 2:38, along with Matthew 28:19, is from the 4th century! (viz., Codex Sinaiticus, c. A.D. 350 and Codex Vaticanus, c. A.D. 325). Even more, every single Greek NT MS that contains Matthew 28:19 contains the Trinitarian reading, not a “in the name of Jesus” reading (also – there are no variant readings of the Trinitarian baptismal formula.

 

Lastly, every early NT version that contains Matthew 28:19, such as the MSS of the Old Latin, Latin Vulgate, Aramaic, Syriac (Peshitta), including Tatian’s Diatessaron (c. A.D. 150), Ethiopic, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic, Gothic et al. contains the Matthean Trinitarian reading, not a “in the name of Jesus” rendering.

   

 “Name of Jesus” vs Trinitarian Formula  

 

Oneness advocates insist that the “Apostolic doctrine” of water baptism is in “the name of Jesus” – mainly appealing to Acts 2:38 et al.

 Consider this:

1. In Acts, there are approximately eleven cases or recorded baptisms,- some groups and some individuals.       

Only one case (8:38) identifies the baptizer (Philip the Evangelist). Whereas two cases, the baptizers are implied, but not stated—Paul and/1or Silas in 16:32:33 and Paul in 19:5-6. And only four out of the eleven, even mention a so-called “Jesus’ name” formula – hardly a norm. Although only apostles and appointed church leaders like Philip were most likely the agents of baptism (1 Cor. 1:13-17), Luke makes no emphasis of this.

 

Acts 2:38- Peter commands – no baptizer mentioned 

Acts 8:12-16 – “the Samarians and “Simon” – no baptizer  mentioned.     

Acts 8:36-38 – Eunuch – Philip baptized Him – no formula.

Acts 9:17-19- Saul – no formula, no baptizer mentioned.

Acts 10:47-48 – Gentiles – no baptizer mentioned.

Acts 16:13-15 – Lydia and household – no formula, no baptizer mentioned.

Acts 16:27-34 – The Jailor and his household – no formula, no baptizer mentioned (Paul and/or Silas implied, but not stated).

Acts 18:5-8 – Many of the Corinthians – no formula, no baptizer mentioned.

Acts 19:1-5 Disciples of John the Baptist at Ephesus – no baptizer mentioned (Paul is implied, but not stated).

Acts 22:14-17 – Saul (as Paul recounts) – no formula, nor baptizer mentioned (but, “calling on His name”).

 

2. Thus, no standard formula. Only in four places do we see a so-called “Jesus’ name” formula in Acts. Acts provides no standard formula- note the variations below:

 

Acts 2:38: epi [ἐπὶ] tō onomati Iēsou Christou – (variant: en [εν] – B D5th) 945 1739 1891; Irenaeus’ Lat trans. (4th); Didymus of Alexandria (late 4th). Also, in D E 614 945 1739, Iēsou Christou is expanded to tou Kuriou Iēsou Christou (“the Lord Jesus Christ”).

Acts 8:16; 19:5: eis to onoma tou Kuriou Iēsou, “into/in the name of [the] Lord Jesus.”

Acts 10:48: en tō onomati Iēsou Christou, “in the name of Jesus Christ.”

 Three different prepositions (epi, eis, en), and three different variations of the formula. Since Oneness Pentecostals pride themselves on and insist that they alone are practicing the “apostolic doctrine” of baptism (i.e., “In the name of Jesus”; contra Trinitarians), you could ask; “If there is no standard “Jesus name baptismal formula” in Acts, which one is the ‘apostolic’ formula?”

 

3. “In the name of Jesus”- not an “audible” baptismal formula. There is no clear grammatical evidence the so-called “Jesus’ name” formula was an “audible” formula used in the recorded water baptism accounts in the Acts narrative. Point 2 also shows this by the lack of a standardized formula. Even if it were, it does not prove the Oneness modalistic notion: Jesus is the same person as the Father.

 

4. Baptism = Identification/unification. Consider, these two points: First, the primary lexical sematic (meaning) of the verb baptizō (“to baptize”) carries the denotative meaning of unification or identification (see 1 Cor. 10:2: “they [Israelites] all were baptized into Moses”). Second, although the Jewish semantic of “name” in both the OT and NT (Hebrew, shem, Greek, onoma) – could indicate the name of a person, place, or thing, the principal meaning is authority or power (cf. 1 Sam. 17:45; Acts 4:7).

 

In light of these two important points, water baptism is an identification ceremony publicly signifying one’s unification or identification into that which the recipient is baptized. So, in Matthew 28:19, just like today; Christian water baptism denotes both unification with and passing into (eis) the possession/ ownership of the Triune God. Jesus gave this commission to His disciples.

 

Since the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20, the Christian church has been baptizing new believers “Into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” This TRINITARIAN FORMULA was the hope and future glory imprinted in the minds of the OT believers as well as the NT believers to the present day!

 

Appendix: Typical Oneness assertions

Assertion 1. The text reads “into the Name,” not “names” – as with a trinity of 3 gods. So the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are modes that represent the singular Name, ‘Jesus,’ into which the apostles baptized.

Response: If the singularity of a word applied to God proves unipersonality, then, a plurality of a word applied to God proves multi-personality. In both the OT and NT plural words are used to describe God: Plural verbs, plural adjectives, and plural pronouns (viz., first person com. plural pronominal suffixes).

Into the singular “Name” (onoma [ὄνομα] acc. singular), not “names” 

Jewish semantic (OT and NT): Heb. shem, Greek, onoma (“name”) –  frequently denoted authority or power. Acts 4:7: “By what power, or in what name ὀνόματι have you done this?”

LXX of Genesis 11:4: “Come, let’s build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens so that we may make a name [onoma, Heb., shem] for ourselves….”

1 Samuel 17:45:  “But David said to the Philistine, ‘You come to me with a sword, a spear, and a javelin, but I come to you in the name [LXX, onomati, Heb. shem] of the Lord God….” 

 

Assertion 2. The Trinitarian formula reading in Matthew 28:19 is missing from the earliest Greek NT MSS (papyri); it was added later by the Catholic Church in the fourth century.

Response: True, but no Greek NT papyrus MS contains any complete NT book (passages missing and/or damaged). Would any Oneness advocate reject 2 Timothy because it is not found in any extant Greek NT papyrus MS?  

 

Ironically, no Greek NT papyrus MS contains Acts 2:38 before the seventh century (P74). As seen: Earliest Greek MS of Acts 2:38 (along with Matt. 28:19) is from the fourth century—Codex ℵ (c. 350) and Codex B (Vaticanus, c. 325). *P45 contains only Acts chaps. 4-17.  

 In fact – Every single Greek NT MS where Matthew 28:19 appears, it contains the Trinitarian and not a “Jesus’ name,” reading – No variant of the Triune formulaic reading.   

NT versions. The MSS of Old Latin, Latin Vulgate, Aramaic, Syriac (Peshitta), including Tatian’s Diatessaron (c. A.D. 150), Ethiopic, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic, Gothic et al. that contain Matthew 28:19 contain the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The early church primarily used the Matthean Trinitarian formula starting with the early first century document, the Didachē.

 

Assertion 3. Eusebius (fourth century). 

Twenty-eight times in ten of his works, Eusebius cites or alludes to Matthew 28:19, partial or paraphrase (viz., “short readings” – only some with “in the name of Jesus”), or the passage in full. Oneness advocates only point to Eusebius’s short readings and argue that he never cites a Trinitarian baptismal formula, rather, he cites “in the name of Jesus” as the baptismal formula.

 

In response: First, Eusebius and many other church Fathers (and NT authors, cf. Phil. 2:10-11 – Isa. 45:23), abbreviate or paraphrase passages. Second, Eusebius does cite the Trinitarian reading five times (four times he includes “baptism”) and one time prior to Nicaea.

 

Eusebius’s usage was not at all constant

He used three basic forms – alluding or citing Mathew 28:19: Note: the phrase “In the name of Jesus” is never mentioned.

 

1. “Go (‘Going,’ ‘Go ye,’ ‘Go forth’) make disciples of all the nations”- six times, five variations – No connection with baptism.

2. “In My, in His Name” – seventeen times, with variations – No connection with baptism.

3. Eusebius cited the Trinitarian formula five times, no variations, all but one are connected with water baptism; and one prior to Nicaea.

 

Theophania (c. A.D. 313-318; Book 4, sec 8).

Letter on the Council of Nicaea to Caesarea (c. 325; sec. 3).

Against Marcellus (c. 335;  twice – Book 1, chap 1). 

Ecclesiastical Theology (c. 335; Book 3, chap 5; but also cites the short reading in chap. 3 – citing Marcellus).

Notes

[1] Syntactically, an “attendant circumstance” (cf. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics).

Matthew 28:17-20

 

John 14:9 and the Oneness Pretext

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

             

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

 

 

 

Before we look at John 14:9, note the obvious fact: Nowhere in the NT, did Jesus Christ ever state that He was the same person as the Father, nor did anyone in the NT ever call him Father, rather He is “the Son of the Father”– a distinct person (Dan. 7:9-14; Matt. 28:19; Luke 10:21-22; John 1:1b, 18; 5:17-18; 6:38; 10:17, 30; 17:5; 2 Cor. 13:14; Gal. 1:3; Phil. 2:6-11; Heb. 1:3, 6, 8-12; 1 John 1:3; 2 John 1:3; Rev. 5:13 et al.).

The Oneness people routinely quote this passage, usually in the same breath with John 10:30, as though it was part of the passage. Only by removing this passage from the document and immediate context can Oneness advocates posit a modalistic understanding. At the outset, as with John 10:30, Jesus never states in this passage, “I am the Father,” only that “He who has seen Me has seen the Father.” Oneness advocates confuse Jesus’ representation of the Father (John 1:18; 14:6; Heb. 1:3) with their unitarian assumption that that Jesus is the Father.

There are five exegetical features, which provide a cogent refutation to the Oneness handling of this passage.

  1. Context: In verse 6 Jesus says, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” In verse 7, He explains to His disciples that if they “had known” Him they would “have known” the Father also. Jesus then says to His disciples, “From now on you know Him, and have seen Him.” Thus, by knowing Him they “have known” and “have seen” the Father (note the parallel: “have known” – “have seen”).

    Still not understanding (i.e., by knowing Jesus they know and see the Father), Philip says to Jesus, “Show us the Father” (v. 8). Jesus then reiterates (as a corrective) that by seeing Him they can see, that is, they can “know” or recognize the invisible Father (v. 9). The context is obvious: by knowing and seeing Jesus (as the only way to the Father; cf. v. 6), they could really see (i.e., know/recognize, cf. John 9:39) the invisible Father (cf. John 1:18; Col. 1:15; 1 Tim. 6:16). The OT and NT present that the Son is and has been eternally subsisting as the perfect and “exact representation” (charaktēr) of the very nature (hupostaseōs) of Him (autou, “of Him,” not “as Him”; Heb. 1:3).

    Therefore, when they see Jesus, they “see” the only way to, and an exact representation of, the invisible unseen Father, for Jesus makes Him known, He explains or exegetes Him (John 1:18). Thus, “He [Jesus] has made known or brought news of [the invisible God]” (BDAG, 349). One cannot have the Father except through the Son, Jesus Christ: “Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also” (1 John 2:23; see also John 17:3). Note also that in 14:10, Jesus clearly differentiates Himself from the Father when He declares: “The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works.” To repeat, not one time in the NT does Jesus (or any other person) state that He Himself is the Father.

 

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

 

  1. First and third person personal pronouns and verb references: Throughout John 14 and 16, Jesus clearly differentiates Himself from the Father. He does so by using first person personal pronouns (“I,” “Me,” “Mine”) and verb references to refer to Himself and third person personal pronouns (“He,” “Him,” “His”) and verb references to refer to His Father.

    Notice John 14:16: “I will ask [kagō erōtēsō, first person] the Father, and He will give [dōsei, third person] you another Helper, that He may be with you forever” (also cf. 14:7, 10, 16; etc.). In the same way, Jesus also differentiates Himself from God the Holy Spirit.

 

  1. Different prepositions: Throughout John chapters 14-16, Jesus distinguishes Himself from His Father by using different prepositions. Beisner[1] points out that the use of different prepositions “shows a relationship between them [i.e., the Father and Son]” and clearly denotes essential distinction. Jesus says in John 14:6 and verse 12: “No one comes to [pros] the Father but through [dia] Me . . . he who believes in [eis] Me . . . I am going to [pros] the Father” (cf. also John 15:26; 16:28).

    Further, Paul frequently uses different prepositions to differentiate the Father from Jesus. In Ephesians 2:18, Paul teaches that by the agency of the Son, Christians have access to the Father by means of the Spirit: “For through Him [di’ autou, i.e., the Son] we both have our access in [en] one Spirit to the Father [pros ton patera].” Only by circumventing these significant details can one establish Modalism from John 14:9.

 

  1. The first person plurals in John 14:23: “We will come,” “We will make.” In verse 23 of the same chapter, Jesus declares, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and [lit.] ‘to him We will come’ [pros auton eleusometha] and ‘at home/abode with him, We will make’ [monēn par’ autō poiēsometha].” Against the Oneness notion, Jesus specifically used two first person plural indicative verbs (eleusometha, “We will come” and poiēsometha, “We will make”). Oneness advocates typically cherry-pick passages (esp. with v. 9) and then pretext into them a modalistic unitarian understanding.

 

Conclusion

Again, in the NT, Jesus is identified as the Son, never as the Father; no one ever addressed Him as the Father or the Holy Spirit. Nor did Jesus ever refer to Himself as the Father or the Holy Spirit. If fact, Jesus primarily referred to Himself as the “Son of Man” (80 times). Son of Man was His most used title of Himself. (cf. Dan. 7:13).

As the context clearly shows, Jesus in John 14:9 Jesus expresses to His disciples that as the only way to (v. 6) and thus, representation of the Father, they could “see,” that is, know the Father. Jesus is presented as God-man, the very image and perfect representation of His Father (cf. John 1:18; Heb. 1:3). In His preexistence (cf. John 1:1-3; Col. 1:16-17), He had loving intercourse and glory with the Father (cf. John 1:1; 17:5). The Son is clearly presented as the divine Priest (cf. Heb. 7:1ff.) who revealed His Father to mankind (cf. John 1:18). The Son is the one and only Mediator between the Father and humans (cf. 1 Tim. 2:5).

The Oneness pretexting of John 14:9 is based on a unipersonal assumption of God, which nullifies Jesus’ own authentication: “If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true. There is another [allos: other than the one speaking] who testifies of Me, and I know that the testimony which He gives about Me is true” (John 5:31-32; cf. 8:17-18).

Who is the liar except the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also (1 John 2:22-23).

 

Notes 

[1] Calvin Beisner, Jesus Only Churches, 34.     

Daniel 7:9-14: The Son of Man

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

“I kept looking, until thrones were set up, And the Ancient of Days took His seat. . . . I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven, One like a Son of Man was coming, and He came up to the Ancient of Days, and was presented before Him. And to Him was given dominion, glory and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations and men of every language might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which will not pass away; and His kingdom is one, which will not be destroyed (vv. 9, 13-14).

 

Daniel 7:9-14 offers additional evidence to the preexistence of Christ. It additionally indicates that the Messiah would receive true worship in the same sense as the Father. In Daniel’s vision, he describes two distinct objects of divine worship—the Ancient of Days and the “Son of Man” particularly in verses 9, 13-14. These passages are quite problematic for unitarian groups such as Oneness Pentecostals who deny any real distinction of persons between the Christ and the Father. The grammar of the passages denoting this distinction cannot be missed: two objects of praise, religious worship, and real interaction between the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man.

Verse 9: “I kept looking, until thrones were set up, And the Ancient of Days took His seat.” Note that Daniel sees “thrones” that were set up, rather than one single throne. Apparently, both the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man each have thrones as also indicated in the New Testament. This is not an isolated occurrence. In Revelation 3:21 both God the Father and the Lamb have thrones: “He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne” (cf. Heb. 1:8) We also see that God the Father and Lamb share the same throne (cf. Rev. 5:13; 22:1, 3), but yet they are always presented as distinct persons.

 

Verse 13: “behold, with the clouds of heaven, One like a Son of Man was coming and He came up to the Ancient of Days.” Daniel sees the Son of Man coming up to the Ancient of Days. First, note how the Son of Man is coming: “with the clouds of heaven.” In the Old Testament, only YHWH is said to be coming in/with the clouds of heaven (cf., Exod. 19:9; Lev. 16:2; Isa. 19:1; Jer. 4:13). In the New Testament, only the Son, Jesus Christ, is said to be coming the clouds of heaven. In Mark 14:62 (cf. Matt. 26:64), when the high priest asked Jesus if He were the Messiah, the Son of God, He answered as affirmed:

“I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven” (also see Matt 24:30-31; John 3:13; Rev. 1:7). 

 

“Ancient of Days.” Unquestionably, the identity of the Ancient of Days (Aram. Atik Yomin; LXX, palaios hēmerōn) is God Himself. The CEV translates the title of “Ancient of Days” as “the Eternal God” and the TEV translates it as “One who had been living for ever.”

 

“Son of Man.” In the Old Testament, the title “son of man” (Heb., ben adam) is a common phrase used at times to underline the difference between God and human beings; used primarily though as a synonym for “man” or mankind in general (cf. Num. 23:19; Ps. 8:4; Isa. 51:12 ). It is used almost exclusively of Ezekiel. The Prophet Ezekiel is addressed as “son of man” by God at least ninety times in the Old Testament (e.g. Ezek. 2:1). Thus, predominately, the usage is used of the Prophet Ezekiel. However, in the New Testament, “Son of Man” was exclusively applied to Christ. Thus, it is well established that the phrase, “Son of Man,” as applied to Christ, was derived from Daniel 7:13f.

Jesus used this epithet of Himself more than any other title (in the gospels, it was used of Christ about eighty-eight times). Further, in the Gospels or gospels, the title is connected with both His humanity and His deity. In Mark 14:61-62, when the high priest had asked Jesus is He were the Messiah, the Son of the God, Jesus said: “I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” Note these New Testament references related to the divine nature of the “Son of Man.” That is, things that are attributed to the Son of man that only can be attributed to God:   

“And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom.” In Matthew 28:18-19, the Son of Man declares: “All authority has been given to Me, in heaven and earth.” He had stated this after “they worshiped Him” (v. 17). Thus, it seems that Daniel prophetically envisaged Matthew 28:18, the Son of Man not only receiving all authority, honor, and sovereignty, but, as we will see below, as in Matthew 28:17, Daniel sees the Son of Man being worshiped “by all people, nations, and languages.” The parallel here to Matthew 28:17-19 are striking.  

In Daniel 7:9-14, Daniel presents two objects of divine worship, the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man who “was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom.” First, we read in in verse 9 that Daniel saw “thrones,” not a single throne: “I kept looking, until thrones were set up, And the Ancient of Days took His seat.” Second, in verse 13, Daniel sees the Son of Man coming “with [LXX, epi] the clouds of heaven . . . to the Ancient of Days.”[1]

In especially the LXX, [2], note verse 14: “And to Him was given dominion, glory and a kingdom and all the nations of the earth according to their kind, and all glory to Him worshiping [λατρεύουσα, present act. participle of λατρεύω, from the imperfect Arm. verb pelach], and the dominion of Him is an everlasting dominion, which οὐ μὴ ἀρθῇ [‘never never, not even a possibility, shall pass away’], and the kingdom of Him, which οὐ μὴ φθαρῇ [never never, not even a possibility, shall be destroyed].”

The deity of the person of the Son of Man is most expressed. After the Ancient of Days gives to the Son of Man “dominion, Glory and a kingdom,” then, He decrees that “all the nations of the earth according to their kind, and all glory to Him worshiping [or “serve /serving” in some trans;  “worship Him,” Holman, NLT, NIV et al.]

 

As noted above, the LXX translates the Aramaic pelach as latreuō (cf. Isa. 56:2; Jer. 50:40; Ps. 8:4; 80:17; 146:3; Job 25:6). In a religious context the term denotes service or worship reserved for God alone (Exod. 20:5 [LXX]; Matt. 4:10; Acts 26:7; Rom. 1:9; 12:1; Gal. 4:8; Phil. 3:3; Heb. 9:14; Rev. 22:3; etc.).[3] Although in some editions of the LXX, have the term douleuō (“to serve”), but as with latreuō, in a religious context (which Dan. 7:9-14 undeniably are), douleuō denotes religious worship, signifying service or worship reserved for God alone.[4] ” (Gal. 4:8). [5]

Since Daniel’s vision was clearly within a religious context (i.e., in the heavens), the worship (latreuō/douleuō) that the Son of Man receives from the “peoples, nations and men of every language” is religious worship reserved for YHWH alone (cf. v. 27). That the Messiah, the Son of Man, rightfully received religious worship here is wholly consistent to the New Testament revelation  there are many places where the Son was worshiped in a religious context (e.g., Matt. 14:33; John 9:35-38; Heb. 1:6; Rev. 5:13-14). It is the Son of Man that is coming in the clouds whose “dominion is an everlasting dominion which will not pass away; and His kingdom is one which will not be destroyed” (cf. Eph. 1:20-21; Heb. 1:8-12).

Furthermore, to avoid the implications of the Messiah receiving true religious worship, some have argued that the title “Son of Man” refers exclusively to humanity collectively In response, however, it is true that many places in the Old Testament does convey  that meaning—but only where the context warrants. However, in Daniel 7:9-14 this designation cannot be true contextually. The Son of Man in Daniel receives “dominion, Glory and a kingdom,” and “all the peoples, nations and men of every language might serve Him.” This description cannot be said of men collectively.

More than that, while modern Jewish commentators deny the Messianic import of this passage, this was not the case with the earliest Jewish exegetes (cf. the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, 96b-97a, 98a; etc.).   Further, as noted, the testimony of early church Fathers connected the Son of Man in Daniel 7 with Jesus Christ— and not with men collectively.  

 

Conclusion  

In Daniel 7:9-14, Daniel presents two objects of divine worship, the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man who “was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom.” In Revelation 5:13 and 22:1, 3 the Father and the Lamb are presented as distinct persons. According to the rules of Greek grammar (viz. Sharp’s rule #6), tou theou (“the God”) and tou arniou (“the Lamb”) are two different/distinct persons. Each noun is preceded by the article (tou, “the”) and both nouns are connected by the copulative conjunction (kai, “and”; as in Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; 1 John 1:3; etc.; see Edward L. Dalcour, A Definitive Look at Oneness Theology: In the Light of Biblical Trinitarianism, 4th Edition, Revised, Updated, and Expanded [NWU, Potchefstroom, SA, 2011], 88, note 5).         

 

 

Jesus has asked: “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”

 Jesus spelled out His Messianic task as the Son of Man precisely in terms of three situations: Severing (Mark 10:45); Suffering (Luke 22:48) and Glory (Matt. 28:19-20; Mark 8:38; 14:61-64; John 8:28).

 

  • The person of Christ is identified as the Son of Man (Mark 14:61-62; John 8:28; 9:36 et al.).

 

  • He is the divine Messiah, the Son of God (Mark 14:61-64).

 

  • The Son of Man preexisted and came from heaven and became man (Mark 10:45; John 3:13).

 

  • The Son of Man was worship (Dan. 7:13-14; John 9:38).

 

  • The Son of Man is the king of a kingdom and the angels belong to Him” and they “all” worship Him (Matt. 13:41; Heb. 1:6).

 

  • The Son of Man vicariously gave His life as a ransom for the many (Mark 10:45).

 

  • The Son of Man was killed and raised from the dead (Matt. 17:9, 26:2; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22).

 

  • And When the Son of Man comes, He will execute judgment “because He is the Son of Man” (John 5:27).

 

  • At the end, the Son of man will gather “His elect” (Mark 13:27).

 

And Who ever believe in Him shall have Life eternal

  Not a generic Son of Man, – – But God the Son the object of Divine worship in Dan. 7:14 – the Lord, the eternal Word, Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity.

 

1 JOHN 5:20: “This [the Son of God] ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς Θεὸς καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος. 21 Little children, guard yourselves from idols

 

Notes 

[1] In the OT, only YHWH is said to be coming in/with the clouds of heaven (cf., Exod. 19:9; Lev. 16:2; Isa. 19:1; Jer. 4:13). In the NT, only the Son, Jesus Christ is said to be coming the clouds of heaven (Matt. 26:64; Mark 14:62).

[2] Cf. the LXX editions of H. B. Swete and Alfred Rahlfs.  

[3] Latreuō would have the same linguistic force as that of the frequently used term for “worship,” proskuneō in a religious context (e.g., Exod. 20:5 [LXX]; John 4:24; Rev. 7:11).    

[4] For example, in Galatians 4:8, Paul says, “When you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods.” The phrase “were slaves” (or “you served”) is from the verb douleuō. Paul was clear, “to serve” (douleuō) in a religious service, anyone other than God in a religious context is idolatry.  

[5] In the NT, there are many places where the Son was worshiped in a religious context (e.g., Matt. 14:33; John 9:35-38; Heb. 1:6; Rev. 5:13-14).   

                                                                              

 

John 17:5: The Preexistent Christ

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

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

One of the most attacked doctrines launched by “unitarian” groups (i.e., seeing God as one Person) such as Muslims, JWs (Jehovah’s Witnesses), and Oneness Pentecostals, is, of course, the full deity of Jesus Christ.[1] If Jesus Christ is really God in the flesh, then, the very core theology of these groups is utterly demolished.

There is quite a lot of scriptural evidence that clearly shows Jesus Christ as being fully God. One such strong and undeniable proof, however, is His preexistence. Demonstrating that the Person of the Son preexisted firmly establishes the eternality of Jesus Christ—especially at passages that present Him as the Creator.[2] There are many passages in both the OT and NT that affirm the Son’s preexistence (e.g., Dan. 7:9-14; Micah 5:2; John 1:1; 3:13; 8:57-58; 16:28; 17:5; Gal. 4:4; Phil. 2:6-11; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2, 10-12; etc.).  

John 17:5 is a passage that clearly and exegetically affirms (a) the eternality, and hence, deity of the Son and (b) His personal distinction from God the Father, which affirms the Trinity and swiftly refutes the Christological assertions of these unitarian groups (esp. Oneness theology):   

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

In Jesus’ High Priestly prayer to the Father, He requests or commands (as we will see)[3] the Father to glorify Himself together with the Father, with the glory that He had (or shared [eichon]) with (para) the Father before the world was. Hence, according to the Son’s own words, He pre-existed withthe Father—“before the world was.” Again, this passage strongly refutes not only the claims of unitarian groups who deny the deity of Jesus Christ, but specifically the modalistic claims of Oneness Pentecostals who deny both the Son’s deity, preexistence, and unipersonality.[4] As we will see, the exegetical significance is undeniable.

“Glorify Me together with Yourself.” First, the glory mentioned here is a shared glory—Father and Son. It is the divine glory that Yahweh does “not share” with anyone else (cf. Isa. 48:11). Notice that the glorification applies to both the Father and the Son, the glory they shared before the creation. It is not glory apart from the Father that Jesus seeks, but rather glory alongside (para) the Father. The glory of which Jesus speaks is a “Me with You” glory. No creature can make this claim. In terms of the divine unshared glory that the Son possesses, Hebrews 1:3 corresponds in a remarkable way to John 17:5: “He [the Son] is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His [the Father] nature.”

In Isaiah 6:1, Isaiah saw (eidon) the glory of Yahweh (lit., “the glory of Him”; cf. also v. 2). Amazingly, this glory that Isaiah “saw” was the glory of Jesus, according to the Apostle John: “These things Isaiah said because he saw the glory of Him [referring to Jesus, cf. v. 37] and he spoke of Him”(John 12:41). The same terms found in Isaiah 6 verses 1 and 2 in the Greek translation of the OT (i.e., LXX; horaō, “I saw” and ho doxa, “the glory”) are found in John 12:41 to reveal that the glory of Yahweh that Isaiah saw was the glory of Jesus Christ. As Calvin says: “For assuredly the God who appeared to Isaiah was the one true God, and yet John declares that he was Christ (Isa. vi; John xii. 41)” (Institutes, 1.13.23).  

And second, aside from this passage, which clearly displays the distinction and intimate relationship between the Father and Jesus, there is the issue of the aorist imperative form of doxazō (i.e., doxason, “glorify [Me]”). Although the imperative mood can denote a simple request, the most common usage of the imperative is for commands. Recognized Greek grammarian Daniel Wallace comments on the imperative verb: “with the aorist [as in John 17:5], the force generally is to command the action as a whole. . . .”[5]

Since Jesus is presented in Scripture as ontologically (i.e., by nature) co-equal with the Father, His “commanding” the Father to glorify Him would not infringe on the doctrine of the Trinity—one divine Person commanding another divine Person of the same ontological class or category.

As stated, it is possible that the imperative here can be one of request, it is in the assumption of unipersonalism (i.e., believing that God is one Person), thus denying that the Son is a divine Person co-equal with Father, that we find a natural and automatic rejection of the imperative of command.

To recall, the main reason why, for example, Muslims, JWs, and Oneness believers reject the deity of the Son, Jesus Christ, is due to their false notion that God exists as one Person (unipersonal). Hence, they would ask, “How can another person (Jesus) be God, if God is one Person—the Father?” So, due to this misunderstanding of what Trinitarianism actually teaches, they accuse Christians of believing in three separate Gods.   

 PARA (“WITH”) + DATIVE 

John 17:5 is one of the strongest passages against these unitarian groups who deny the deity of Jesus Christ, because Jesus by His own admission claims that He shares divine glory with the Father—before time. Thus, Jesus here unambiguously affirms is co-equality with the Father and His pre-existence.  It is one of the strongest passages against Oneness theology, which claims that (a) God is unipersonal and (b) Jesus (the name of the unipersonal God) is the Father (cf. note 1 above)— rejecting any distinction between Jesus and the Father. Oneness theology asserts that Jesus as the Father took flesh and Jesus’ flesh (humanity) is called “Son.”

Therefore, in Oneness thinking, the “Son” (Jesus’ non-divine human nature) began in Bethlehem. Oneness advocates argue that this glory that the Son said He had “with” the Father was a mere plan or idea (not the Son in preexistence) of the Father before time. Conversely, it is the Son praying to the Father. It is the Son saying that He had glory with the Father. It is the Son saying that the glory He had with the Father was before time, which affirms both the Son’s deity and His preexistence.          

In further refutation to Oneness theology, let us examine the passage further. Notice the emphasis on the Son’s juxtaposition with the Father: “Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, [para seautō] with the glory which I had with You [para soi] before the world was.” How can the Son say that He had glory “with” the Father before time if the Son was not a distinct Person from the Father and did not pre-exist as Oneness theology claims? Again, Oneness theology maintains that Jesus is both Father and Son—with no distinction of Persons.

What erases the Oneness notion is that, grammatically, when the preposition para (“with”) is followed by the dative case (as in this verse: para seautō, lit., “together with Yourself”; para soi, lit., “together with You”), especially in reference to persons, it indicates “near,” “beside,” or “in the presence of.”[6] A. T. Robertson brings to light the exegetical details of verse 5: “This is not just ideal pre-existence, but actual and conscious existence at the Father’s side . . . ‘before the world was.’”[7] Systematic theologian Robert Reymond remarks on the Son’s eternal pre-existence 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.

Then 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.” 

So how do Oneness advocates answer this? Well, the Oneness position asserts that the preposition para (“with”) means “with the mind/thought,” etc. So they apply that meaning to John 17:5. So, the glory that the Son spoke about was a future glory of the “Son,” which was merely “in the mind” of the Father (Jesus’ divine nature). Thus, as they argue, the Son was with God in terms of being in the “mind” of the Father, or a future “plan” of the Father, but not as a distinct person as the text plainly indicates. Oneness advocates conclude, then, that Jesus was actually praying: “Father, glorify Me together with Yourself with the glory, which I had in Your mind as a future plan, before the world was.” Or, as one Oneness says, “God loved His plan before the beginning.” However, a few things should be considered: 

1) Although, para with the dative can carry a meaning of “in the mind” (Num. 31:49 LXX), there is no standard Lexicon that applies that meaning to John 17:5. In light of that, many Oneness teachers go so far as to abuse (that is, misquote) Greek lexicons in order to make the Oneness-unitarian position work. Again, no standard provides a metaphorical meaning as “in/with the mind” for para with the dative at John 17:5. In fact, Thayer says of para at John 17:5:”dwelling with God, John 8:38; i. q. [equivalent to] in heaven, John 17:5.”

2) Aside from John 17:5, every place in John’s literature where John uses para with the dative (10 times–John 1:39; 4:40; 8:38; 14:17, 23, 25, 17:5 [twice]; 19:25; and Rev. 2:13), it carries a meaning of “with” in a most literal sense–thus, nowhere in John’s literature does para denote “in one’s mind.”

Para is used with the dative at John 1:39; 8:38; 14:23: “Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him”; and 19:25: “Therefore, the soldiers did these things. But standing by the cross[para tō staurō] of Jesus were His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.” 

Thus, para with the dative at John 17:5 likewise indicates clearly that the Son shared/had glory para, that is, “with” (“side by side,” “in association with,” “in relationship with”) the Father before the world was. In the context of biblical monotheism, this can be consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity: God the Son praying to God the Father asking the Father to glorify Him with the un-shared Divine glory (cf. Isa. 42:8) that He possessed with the Father, before time (cf. John 1:1). The Gospel of John presents strongly and repeatedly that Jesus, the Son of God, claimed eternal pre-existence.

In conclusion, John 17:5 presents a potent affirmation of the pre-existence of the Son (and thus His deity and distinction from the Father) as outlined in the following points:

  •  The Son, not the Father, is praying (“Now, Father”, glorify Me”) 
  •  The Son commands the Father to glorify Him, signifying His coequality with the Father
  •  This divine glory is shared between the Father and the Son
  •  The Son declares that He possesses this divine glory alongside of/with (para) the Father, before time, and
  •  Para with the dative is used ten times in John’s literature. In every case, para denotes a literal “alongside of/with,” “in the presence of.” And never once does para with the dative denote a “in the mind” kind of modalistic interpretation (unless one is going to assert John 17:5 is the exception, as Oneness advocates as well as other unitarian groups do).                

NOTES

 [1]  Oneness Pentecostals teach that Jesus pre-existed, but only as the Father, thus denying the Son’s pre-existence, deity, and unipersonality. In Oneness theology, “Son” represents merely the humanity of Jesus (not the deity), and “Father” (and “Holy Spirit”) represents the deity of Jesus.

 [2]  E.g., John 1:3; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2, 10-12).

 [3]  Below, we will discuss the significance of the aorist imperative tense (i.e., the mood of command)—doxason (“glorify [Me]”).  

 [4]  . See note 1 above.    

 [5]  Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, with Scripture, Subject, and Greek Word Indexes (GGBB), 485.   

 [6]  GGBB, 378; see also Walter Bauer, Fredrick Danker, William Arndt, and F. Gingrich’s, A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament (BDAG). 

 [7]  Word Pictures, 5:275-76.

 [8]  Robert Reymond, Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 230.

Oneness Theology: Overview

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

See Oneness Tract –
See Isaiah 9:6: Oneness Refuted
See Was the Trinity Conceived in the 4th Century?

 

Oneness Theology (Modalism)[1]

 Oneness churches are characterized by and go by many names such as Jesus Only, Apostolic church, Oneness Pentecostal[2] etc. Today, the largest Oneness denomination is the United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI). All Oneness advocates reject the Trinity. Rather they believe God is unitarian or unipersonal (one person). The name of the one God is “Jesus,” who is both the Father/Holy Spirit and Son. Oneness advocates claim that Jesus has two natures (or modes, manifestations, roles, etc.), divine as the Father/Holy Spirit and human as the “non-divine,” “non-eternal” Son, whose life started in Bethlehem. In this sense, the “Son” was created in the womb of Mary and is not eternal. In the Oneness doctrinal system then, the terms “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit” are not three persons, but rather the three roles or modes in which Jesus manifested.

Although not all Oneness advocates agree on every point of Christology, all forms are a clear and major departure from biblical orthodoxy. Oneness doctrine rejects the personhood, deity, and incarnation of the Son. Many Oneness denominations also reject that justification is through faith alone, not by works, by teaching that the work of water baptism is necessary for salvation (e.g., UPCI). 

The chief Oneness Christological divergences from that of the biblical teachings are as follows:

 

  • Oneness Christology denies the unipersonality of the Son, Jesus Christ.

 

  • Oneness Christology denies that the person of the “Son” is God. As stated, Oneness theology teaches that Jesus’ divine nature represents the Father and Holy Spirit, but not the Son, that is, the “Son” is not God; the Son is merely the human nature/mode of the unitarian deity, Jesus.[3]

 

  • Oneness Christology denies the preexistence and incarnation of the person of the Son and His role as the agent of creation, hence, the Creator of all things.[4]By denying the preexistence of the person of the Son of God, Oneness doctrine rejects the incarnation of the divine Son holding to the erroneous notion that it was Jesus as the Father, not the Son, who came down and wrapped Himself in flesh (while not actually becoming flesh), and that flesh body was called “Son.”[5]

 

  • Oneness Christology claims that Jesus is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (same person), hence denying the concept of the Trinity[6] Oneness theology is “unitarian” seeing God as a unipersonal deity.  

 

Since Oneness theology maintains that only Jesus as the Father is God (for “Son” only represents the humanity of Jesus), it clearly denies the Trinity and deity and preexistence of the Son. As said, God is defined from a unitarian perspective: Only the Father is God (i.e., Jesus’ divine nature). Clearly, Oneness theology is heterodox embracing a false Jesus, different from the Jesus of biblical revelation: “Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father” (1 John 2:23). Oneness doctrine indeed denies both the Father and the Son.

 Response: The three weakest points of Oneness theology are as follows:

 1) The places where Jesus interacts with the Father especially where He prays to the Father and where the Father loves Jesus (Matt. 3:16-17; Luke 10:21-22; John 10:17; 17:1ff.).

2) The places in the OT and NT that teach the preexistence of the person of the Son (the angel of the LORD appearances; Gen. 19:24; Isa. 9:6; Dan. 7:9-14; Mal. 5:2 et al.; John 1:1; 3:13; 6:38; 16:28; 17:5; Phil. 2:6-11; Heb. 1:10-12; Rev. 1:8, 17; 2:8; 22:13).

This would include the places that present the person of the Son as the Creator of all things (John 1:3, 10; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2, 10-12).

3) The places that present the person of the Son as God, and distinct from God the Father (Mark 14:61-64; John 1:1, 18; 5:17-18; 8:24, 58 et al.; 10:28-30; 17:5; Phil. 2:6-11; Titus 2:13[7]; Heb. 1:6, 8-12; 1 John 5:20; 2 John 1:3; Rev. 5:13-14 et al.). Moreover, in NT, there are numerous passages where all three persons are shown as distinct from each other, either in the same passage or same context (esp. Matt. 28:19; Luke 10:21-22; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 2:18; Titus 3:5-7; 1 Pet. 1:2; Jude 1:21-22). The NT explicitly teaches that Jesus is the “Son” of God, and not once is He called or identified as the “Father”[8] (cf. 2 John 1:3).

Further, consider this, Trinitarians, not Oneness believers, conducted all of the major revivals worldwide. Virtually all of the great biblical scholars, theologians, and Greek grammarians, historically have been and presently are Trinitarian, not Oneness—for obvious reasons. The church has branded Oneness theology as heretical since the days of Noetus at the end of the second century. Moreover, when it found its way in the twentieth century, departing from the Trinitarian Pentecostals, it was again rejected by the church.

There are many more biblical objections that could be mentioned. But these do suffice in showing that the Bible affirms that God is triune, and militates against Oneness unitarianism. Modalism rips the heart out of Christianity—it denies Christ by misrepresenting Him. To be sure, Modalism embraces another Jesus, another Gospel, and another Spirit. There is only one true God. The Apostle John was very concerned as to the false beliefs and teachings of Jesus Christ, as he gives this warning:

“Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also” (1 John 2:23).

 

By promoting the Son as a temporary mode or a role of the unitarian deity whose life started in Bethlehem, denies the Son, as well as the Father.

  1. Oneness theology rejects the doctrine of the Trinity, for they are unitarian (i.e., believes that God exists as one person—unipersonal).
  2. Oneness theology rejects the eternality of the person of the Son.
  3. Oneness theology rejects that the Son was the actual Creator.
  4. Oneness theology rejects the personhood of the Holy Spirit.
  5. Oneness theology distorts and thus rejects the biblical concept of the Son being Mediator (Intercessor) between the Father and men (cf. 1 Tim. 2:5). For if Jesus is the Father, then, between whom would He Mediate since by definition a mediator/intercessor represents two distinct parties, other than Himself. Biblically, only Jesus, God the Son, can rightfully represent the Father (because He is God a distinct person from the Father), and represent man because He is fully man. Again, in its proper sense, a “mediator” is one who is other than or distinct from the parties, which are being mediated. However, since in Oneness theology Jesus is both Father and Son, Jesus cannot be properly “Mediator” between two parties–God the Father and man.
  6. Many Oneness churches especially the UPCI rejects justification through faith alone by teaching that one must be water baptized (“in the name of Jesus” only) to be saved—with the evidence, as the UPCI teaches, of speaking in other tongues.
  7. Virtually all Oneness churches reject that water baptism should be done in the *triune* formal as instructed by Jesus in Matthew 28:19, rather, as they insist, it should be dome in the name of Jesus only.

 “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all” (2 Cor. 13:14).

NOTES

[1] Historically, Oneness philosophy first emerged around the early second and early third century being popularized by Noetus of Smyrna and Praxeas (Asia minor). It was also called Modalism since all forms of the Oneness idea saw God has merely appearing in three modes (or roles) as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but not in three persons. Subsequently, Sabellianism became a popular brand Modalism. Sabellianism was coined after its chief proponent, Sebelius, the Libyan priest who came to Rome at the beginning of the third century A.D. However, he taught successive Modalism, which saw the modes as successive, that is, “Jesus” (the name of the unipersonal God) first was the Father in creation, then, the Son in redemption, then the Holy Spirit in regeneration. In distinction to simultaneous Modalism, which teaches that all three modes exist at the same time. But the fact is, fundamentally, all forms historically and today are as unitarian (seeing God as one person), as with Islam’s view of Allah and JWs’ view of Jehovah.

[2] Generally, there are two kinds of “Pentecostal” churches – Oneness (such as the UPCI) and Christian Pentecostal, which are Trinitarian (such as the AOG, Foursquare et al.).          

[3] As defined by the UPCI authority and Oneness author, David Bernard in his most recognized book, The Oneness of God (1983), 99, 103, 252.

[4] Cf. ibid., 103-4; Gordon Magee, Is Jesus in the Godhead or Is The Godhead in Jesus? (1988), 25.

[5] Cf. The Oneness of God, 106, 122.

[6] Cf. The Oneness of God, 57; T. Weisser, Three Persons from the Bible? or Babylon (1983), 2.

[7] Jesus as “the God” is grammatically affirmed at Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1.  

[8] Oneness advocates typically appeal to John 10:30 (“I and the Father are one”). However, as seen above in detail, this passage in its context systematically refutes the Oneness unitarian interpretation and positively affirms the distinction between the Jesus and the Father: “For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it back (John 10:17). For more information on John 10:30; 14:9 and other passages used by  Oneness advocates to promote a unitarian Oneness God, see, A Definitive Look at Oneness Theology: In the Light of Biblical Trinitarianism, 4th ed. by Edward L. Dalcour >www.christiandefense.org<             

See Was the Trinity Conceived in the 4th Century?

The implications of the present active participle ōn (articular and anarthrous).

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

The biblical evidence of the pre-existence of the Son irrefutably proves the Oneness position false. Just as the present active participle huparchōn, in Philippians 2:6 communicates the perpetual existence of the divine Son, more than a few passages contain the present active participle ōn (from eimi), which also  denotes the Son’s eternal existence (cf. Harris, 1992: 157-58). In explicit reference to the Son’s eternality, the present active participle is used both articularly (ho ōn) and anarthrously (ōn). Two such examples of the articular form of the participle are John 1:18 and Romans 9:5.

John 1:18: “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is [ho ōn, i.e., “the One who is/being always”] in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him” (emphasis added).

Romans 9:5: “Whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is [ho ōn, i.e., “the One who is/being always”] over all, God blessed forever. Amen” (emphasis added).

Note the defining context of both passages: the Son’s absolute deity. They even call the Son theos, which intensifies further the affirmation of the Son’s deity and His pre-existence. Referring to John 1:18, Reymond (1998: 303) remarks in the significance of the articular participle: “The present participle ho ōn … indicates a continuing state of being: ‘who is continually in the bosom of the Father.’” In the LXX of Exodus 3:14, we find the same articular present participle to denote Yahweh’s eternal existence: Egō eimi ho ōn, literally, “I am the eternal/always existing One.” Also note the egō eimi phrase preceding the participle here (cf. John 8:24, 58).

We also find the use of the anarthrous present active participle ōn, in contexts where the deity of the Son is clearly in view. In Hebrews 1:3, the present active anarthrous participle (i.e., hos ōn) also denotes the Son’s preexistence and total and full deity” (cf. Tenny, 1981: 34). It “refers to the absolute and timeless existence” (Rodgers and Rodgers, 1998: 516). The participle ōn in Hebrews 1:3 is set in contrast with genomenos, in verse 4. This is similar to the use of ēn, in John 1:1, which is set in contrast with egeneto, in 1:14, and of huparchōn, in Philippians 2:6 (cf. 2 Cor. 8:9), which is set in contrast with genomenos, in verse 7. In each case, there is an outstanding contrast between the eternal pre-incarnate Son and all things created. 

 

The Substance and Essence of Jesus Christ

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

The ultimate test that unequivocally decides what is and what is not genuine or orthodox Christianity is simply the biblical doctrine of the Person, nature and finished work of Jesus Christ. He made this clear in a question to His disciple Peter: “What do you think about the Christ” (Matt. 22:42). Similar to Jesus’ statement in John 8:24 (cf. chap. 2, sec. 2.4.5) eternal life is absolutely dependent on believing in the Jesus of biblical revelation (cf. John 17:3). The fact is, virtually all major non-Christian cults assert, “Jesus Christ is Lord” (e.g., Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, etc.). This is, to be sure, a meaningless assertion. For the Jesus of these groups oppose the biblical presentation. The Apostle John indicates in 1 John 2:22-23:

Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also (emphasis added).

Thus, proclaiming a belief in God the Father while denying the biblical presentation of the Son (i.e., denying His nature as God-man, His finished work, and His unipersonality [i.e., that He is a distinct Person]) denies God Himself. One cannot remove the Son from the Godhead and yet claim that he or she has salvation – for he or she, as John indicates, does not have God. “He that does not honor the Son,” says Jesus, “does not honor the Father who sent Him” (John 5:23).

In spite of the clear biblical (exegetical) affirmation of the full deity of the Person of the Son, Jesus Christ, non-Christian groups crassly reject this essential truth of God. The deity of the Son is especially seen in places such as: Daniel 7:9-14; John 1:1, 18; 20:28; Romans 9:5; 10:13; 1 Corinthians 2:8; Philippians 2:5-11; Colossians 2:9; 1 Timothy 3:16; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; Hebrews 1:3-10; Revelation 5:13-14; and 22:13.

There are several places in the New Testament where the Son is actually called ho theos, “the God,” these would be, as included above, John 20:28; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; Hebrews 1:8; and 1 John 5:20. What is theologically noteworthy is that Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 (and perhaps 2 Thess. 1:12) are both Granville Sharp grammatical constructions – namely, Sharp’s rule #1. This rule is named after its founder (not inventor) Granville Sharp (A.D. 1735-1813). Sharp was passionate in his unyielding belief in the full deity of Jesus Christ. Sharp’s research of the Greek New Testament led him to discover six grammatical rules in which the Greek article ho, “the” and the conjunction kai, “and” were utilized.

Although there were six grammatical rules that Sharp discovered, rule #1 is the most recognized and cited. Generally (not verbatim), rule #1 states that when the connective kai, “and” connects two nouns of the same case (singular nouns that are not proper [e.g., personal names]), and the article ho, “the” precedes the first noun, but not the second, each descriptive noun refers to the first named person.[1] Hence, Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 contain this construction emphasizing the full deity of the Son. Titus 2:13 reads: “Looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus.” Notice the phrase tou megalou theou kai sōtēros hēmōn Iēsou Christou, literally, “the great God and Savior of us Jesus Christ.” Here, the conjunction kai, “and” connects both singular descriptive nouns, theou, “God” and sōtēros, “Savior” and the article tou, “the” proceeds the first noun, theou, “God,” but not the second noun, sōtēros, “Savior.” Therefore, according to Sharp’s grammatical rule, Jesus Christ is tou megalou theou kai sōtēros, “the great God and Savior.”

The same great truth is found in 2 Peter 1:1. Minus the extraneous words preceding the Sharp construction and the adjective megas, “great” in Titus 2:13, the reading in 2 Peter 1:1 is virtually identical: tou theou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou, literally, “the God of us and Savior, Jesus Christ.” According to recognized Greek grammarians (e.g., Robertson, Greenly, Wallace), lexicographers, (e.g., Cremer), and commentators (e.g., Hendriksen) this rule is invariably valid markedly showing the full deity of the Son.

In contrast, Oneness teachers insist that the “Son” denotes only Jesus’ humanity and not the deity of Jesus blatantly rejecting the Son’s deity (seeing the “Father” and “Son” as modes or roles of the unipersonal deity named “Jesus.” While other non-Christian cults see Jesus as not God, but rather as a mere man. However, aside from the biblical passages where Jesus claims that He is God (e.g., John 5:17-18; 8:24, 58; 10:30; 13:19; 18:5-6, 8) and the passages where He is presented as God by His apostles (as seen below), the Son possesses the very attributes of God:

  • He has power to forgive sins (cf. Matt. 9:6)
  • He is greater than the temple (cf. Matt. 12:6)
  • He is Lord of the Sabbath (cf. Matt. 12:8)
  • He is the King of a kingdom and the angels are His gathering His elect (cf. Matt. 13:41; Mark 13:27)
  • He is the Messiah, the Son of the living God (cf. Matt. 16:13-17)
  • He was to be killed and raised from the dead (cf. Matt. 17:9, 22-23; 19;26:2; Mark 8:31; 9:31; Luke 9:22; 18:31-33; John 2:19ff.)
  • He is omnipresent (cf. Matt. 28:20; John 14:23)
  • He is omniscient (cf. John 2:24-25; 6:64; 16:30; 21:17)
  • His is omnipotent (cf. Matt. 8:27; 9:6; 28:18; Heb. 7:25)
  • He gave His life as a ransom for many (cf. Mark. 10:45)
  • He gives eternal life (cf. Luke 10:21-22; John 5:21; 10:27-28)
  • He is the monogenēs theos, “unique/one and only God” that came from heaven (cf. John 1:18; 3:13)
  • He pre-existed with and shared glory with the Father (cf. Micah 5:2; John 1:1; 17:5; as will be shown in chap. 4)
  • He is Immutable (cf. Heb. 13:8)
  • He was worshiped (cf. John 9:35-38; Heb. 1:6)

Virtually every New Testament book teaches the full deity of the Son, Jesus Christ, explicitly or implicitly. This is exegetically seen in passages such as Matthew 1:23; Luke 10:21-22; John 1:1, 18; 5:17-23; Jesus’ seven absolute egō eimi, “I am” statements (viz. John 8:24, 28, 58; 13:19; 18:5-6, 8); John 20:28; Romans 9:5; 1 Corinthians 2:8; 16:22; 2 Corinthians 8:9; Philippians 2:6-11; Colossians 2:9; 1 Timothy 3:16; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:3, 8-10; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 5:20; Jude 4; Revelation 1:8; and 5:13-14. The biblical evidence is massive.

The Son is Creator

Further, the New Testament specifically presents the Son as the Creator of all things, thus pre-existing (cf. John 1:3; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2, 10). This is the strongest point of refutation against Oneness theology as well as all non-Christian cults who deny the deity and eternality of the Son, Jesus Christ.

The Son is Worshiped

There is another important piece of evidence affirming the deity of the Son. Scripture presents the Son as receiving the same kind of religious “worship” (proskuneō) as that of God the Father. This important reality can be especially seen, for example, in Daniel 7:9-14, where two distinct divine Persons are being presented (note, v. 9 says “thrones,” thus, not a single throne), the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man. In verse 14, the Son of Man was “given dominion, glory and a kingdom,” by God the Father in which “all the peoples, nations and men of every language might serve [douleuō, i.e., worship, cf. Exod. 20:5; LXX] Him, His dominion is an everlasting dominion which will not pass away” (emphasis added).

In the New Testament, Jesus received religious proskuneō, “worship” – for example, by the men in the boat (cf. Matt. 14:33) and the blind man (cf. John 9:35-38). In Hebrews 1:6, the Father commands “all the angels of God” to proskuneō, “worship” the Son. This kind of worship was clearly religious in nature – for the setting is in the heavens before God the Father. In Revelation 5:13-14, the Father and the Lamb receive the same kind of blessing, honor, and glory and the same kind of worship: “To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever. And the four living creatures kept saying, ‘Amen’ and the elders fell down and worshiped [proskuneō].” Note that these acts of proskuneō, “worship” to the Son were not merely in the context of honor and/or falling prostrate before another in mere “obeisance” (as the Jehovah’s Witnesses bible [NWT] says in Heb. 1:6 and other passages where Jesus received worship). Rather the Son was worshiped in a religious context – namely, worship that was reserved for God alone (cf. Exod. 20:5) – creaturely worship is highly forbidden by the Lord. This revealing truth shows that the Son shares the very essence of God the Father. He is God in the same sense as that of the Father (cf. John 1:1b): “Who always being the brightness of His glory, the exact representation [image] of the nature of Him” (tēs hupostaseōs autou, i.e., nature of the Father; Heb. 1:3; translation mine).

Scripture presents a clear Christology

The Son of God, Jesus Christ is the second Person of the Holy Trinity. The Son is fully God co-existing with the Father (cf. John 1:1; 17:5). He became man (cf. John 1:14). He was sent by the Father (cf. John 6:37ff.) to redeem the elect of God by His sacrificial death on the cross (cf. Mark 10:45; Rom. 5:9-11; 8:32). The Son is the only Mediator between the Father and man (cf. 1 Tim. 2:5). Thus, the Christ of biblical revelation is the divine Son, a personal self-aware Subject distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit.

This is the Christ that saves. This is the Christ that Paul and the other New Testament authors preached. The very foundation of justification is through this God-man’s infallible and efficacious cross-work, the very instrument being faith alone, not the sacrament of water baptism (i.e., a work) accompanied by a five word formula (viz. “In the name of Jesus” as Oneness Pentecostals assert) of which the church has never prescribed.

Jesus affirmed that unless one has accurate knowledge, assent and trust in the Son of biblical revelation he would perish in his sins (cf. John 8:24). The rejection of the unipersonality and deity of Son and the rejection of the personal distinctions between Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit rejects the very nature of the triune God Himself (cf. John 17:3; 1 John 2:22-23).

Hebrews 1:2, 8, 10: In these last days [God the Father] has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. . . . But of the Son He [the Father] says, “YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER. . . . And, YOU [the Son], LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS.”