Tag: Isa. 9:6

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 10:30: “I and the Father are one.”

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

“I and the Father are one.”

Ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν (Egō kia ho Patēr hen esmen), lit., “I and the Father one thing We are”).     

Also see our YouTube presentation:  John 10 30: “I and the Father one thing We are” – not one person.

 

Both historically and currently, Christians have pointed to this passage to show that Jesus indeed claimed equality with God the Father. As with Jesus’ other undeniable claims to be truly God (Matt. 12:6; John 5:17-18; 8:58-59 et al; Rev. 1:7-8, 17; 2:8; 22:13; etc.).

If Jesus were only claiming to be “one” with the Father in the sense of mere unity, then Jesus’ claim would not have warranted blasphemy (Lev. 24:16). It was after Jesus made these familiar and exclusively divine claims that He stated, “I and the Father are one.” Again, not mere unity, rather, unity in ontological coequality. So, it is easy to understand the response of the Jews wanting to kill Him for blasphemy: “You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God [poieis seauton Theon]” (vv. 31, 33). If Jesus were only claiming to be “one” with the Father in the sense of mere unity, then Jesus’ claim would not have warranted blasphemy (Lev. 24:16).

John 10:30 also provides a clear refutation to the Oneness view (as discussed below), which erroneously asserts that Jesus is the Father (the same person). Ironically, Oneness advocates actually use John 10:30 as a so-called proof text to try and show God as unipersonal. Although throughout chapter 10, Jesus and the Father are clearly differentiated as two persons (vv. 15, 17, 18, 25, 29, 30, 35, 36 [twice], 37, 38 [twice]).

Note the following points regarding John 10:30, which clearly refute Oneness theology:     

  • Content. In chap. 10, Jesus distinguishes Himself from the Father twelve times (and throughout John’s literature).  
  • The Son’s affirmation of ontological Deity (YHWH, Deut. 32:39) in distinction from the Father. 
  •  Grammar. Two subjects, PN neuter adjective, and plural verb.

 

  1. Not one person within conservative recognized Christian scholarship agrees with a Oneness interpretation. Neither historically nor contemporaneously has any Christian writer interpreted John 10:30 in a modalistic (Oneness) way. Rather, all standard scholarly sources (patristics, commentaries, grammars, lexicons et al), interpret the passage in the plain intended way, within the defining context: The person of the Son claiming co-equality with the distinct person of the Father.
  1. Plain reading. Jesus simply says, “I and the Father ARE one.” Only by pretexting can one read something into this text beyond the simple plain reading. Note also throughout chapter 10, Jesus and the Father are clearly differentiated as two persons twelve times (vv. 15, 17, 18, 25, 29, 30, 35, 36 [twice], 37, 38 [twice]; also cf. John 1:b, 18; 6:38; 17:5; 1 John 1:1-2; Rev. 5:13-14 et al.                             
  1. Grammar. Egō kia ho Patēr hen esmen (lit., “I and the Father one thing We are”). First, Jesus (“I”) and the Father are the two subjects of the sentence (both in the nominative [subject] case). Second, the adjective hen (“one”) is neuter in gender, literally, “one thing.” This contextually indicates that the “one” is in unity of essence, not one in person. If Jesus wanted to identify Himself as the same person as the Father, He certainly could have used the masculine heis to indicate this (e.g., John 12:4; Rom. 3:10; 1 Tim. 2:5 et al.). While the subjects of the sentence are Jesus and the Father, the neuter adjective hen (“one thing”) is the predicate nominative of the sentence and it precedes the plural verb esmen (“are”), as discussed below.

Grammatically, a predicate nominative describes or tells us something more about the subject(s). Here, it’s describing the two subjects (Jesus and the Father) as being one in essential or ontological unity (viz., the category to which the subjects belong; cf. Wallace, GGBB, 40). The same neuter adjective is used in John 17:21, where Jesus prays to the Father that His disciples “may be one [hen]” even as Jesus and the Father are one, also signifying unity (not person). However, especially in light of the previous passages, in verse 30, the neuter adjective denotes ontological unity (coequality), which Jesus expressed—hence, “The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him” (v. 31).

  1. The plural verb esmen (“are”). Again, in sharp contrast to the false Oneness interpretation (viz., that Jesus is the Father), the Greek contains the plural verb esmen (“I and the Father are one”), and not a singular verb such as eimi (“am”) or estin (“is”) in which case, the passage would read: “I and the Father am/is one.” Robertson (Word Pictures, 5:186) comments on the specific application of the neuter hen in John 10:30: “One (hen). Neuter, not masculine (heis). Not one person (cf. heis in Gal. 3:28), but one essence or nature.”
  1. Jesus’ claim to deity is not merely found in verse 30. But rather, the passages leading up to verse 30 undeniably prove His claim. In verses 27-29, Jesus claims that He is the Shepherd that gives His sheep eternal life and no one can snatch them from His nor His Father’s hand. Note the same words of YHWH in the LXX of Deut. 32:39:
  •  Deut. 32:39 (LXX): “And there is no one who can deliver ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν Μου [ek tōn cheirōn Mou, ‘out of the hands of Me’].” 
  •  John 10:28: “they will never perish; and no one will snatch them ἐκ τῆς χειρός Μου [ek tēs cheiros Mou, ‘out of the hand of Me’].” 
  •  John 10:29: “no one is able to snatch them ἐκ τῆς χειρὸς τοῦ Πατρός [ek tēs cheiros tou Patros, ‘out of the hand of the Father’].”

 

The Jews were well acquainted with Deut. 32:39: “And there is no one who can save anyone from My hand” and Psalm 95:7: “For He is our God, and we are the people of His pasture and the sheep of His hand.” The Jews knew that only YHWH could make these claims of having sheep in His hand and giving them eternal life (cf. also Isa. 43:11). It was after Jesus made these familiar and exclusively divine claims that He stated, “I and the Father are one.” Again, not mere unity, rather, unity in ontological coequality. So, it is easy to understand the response of the Jews wanting to kill Him for blasphemy: “You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God [ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν θεόν]” (v. 33).[1]

If Jesus were only claiming to be “one” with the Father in the sense of mere unity, then Jesus’ claim would not have warranted blasphemy (Lev. 24:16).- 

“I and the Father one thing We are are” – not one person.

 NOTES 

[1] As in John 5:18, in John 10:33, the second person reflexive pronoun seauton (“Yourself”) indicates that the Jews understood that Jesus’ claims in John 10, which culminated in verse 30 (“I and the Father are one”) were by and for Himself—namely, He Himself made Himself “out to God.” used to highlight the participation of the subject in the verbal action, as direct object, indirect object, intensifier, etc. subject acts upon himself or herself; several grams functions as a direct object. 

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.     

Isaiah 9:6: “Everlasting Father”: The Error of Oneness Theology Refuted

Posted on by Edward Dalcour


“For a Child [yeled] will be born [yalad] to us, a Son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace” (Isa. 9:6, NASB).

 

Oneness advocates see phrase, “Eternal Father” as a proof text to the notion that the Messiah is the Father – However, Consider this:

1) Fallacy of equivocation by asserting that the term “father” (Heb. Ab) has only one meaning. The NT identification of God the Father. Contra the fact that the term “father” (ab) has various meanings in the OT, depending on the context. Further, asserting that the unitarian supposition (i.e., only the Father) many Oneness advocate appeal also to Mail. 2:10. However, neither this passage nor Mal. 2:10 teaches that only the Father is God, rather speaking of God as Creator (see point 4 below). 

2) Shem. The word translated “NAME” (shem, LXX – onoma) as in “His name will be called” (shem + qara) was Not a formal title for God, but rather it denoted the essence or essential characteristics, or authority of who someone is (cf. E. J. Young)[1]. This was clearly the Semitic concept of “name.” Hence, as to the essence and character of the Messiah, He is Wonderful,[2] Counselor, Mighty God, Father Eternal (Heb.) and Prince of Peace.

3) When the term “father” is applied to God (or Yahweh) in the OT, it typically denoted His parental, providential character to His children—namely, Israel. For example:  

  • Exod. 4:22-23: “Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord, “Israel is My son, My firstborn. 23 So I said to you, ‘Let My son go that he may serve Me’; but you have refused to let him go. Behold, I will kill your son, your firstborn.'” 
  • Ps. 103:13: “Just as a father has compassion on his children, so the LORD has compassion on those who fear Him.” 
  • Isa. 63:16: “You are our Father, though Abraham does not know us And Israel does not recognize us. You, O Lord, are our Father, Our Redeemer from of old is Your name” (cf.  Jer. 31:9).

Note – – the term “father” was never a standard recurring Epithet for God in the OT—only used of God fifteen times.   

 4) Linguistically, – Ab carries the meaning of “possessor, “founder,” or “source.”  For example, 2 Sam. 23:31 speaks of Abialbon– “father (or possessor) of strength,” strong one. In Exodus 6:24, “Abiasaph”– “father [possessor] of gathering,” As with Malachi 2:10, – corresponding with that meaning, the term “father” carries the idea of “possessor,” “founder,” “source”- as with His role as Creator (cf. Duet. 32:6; Isa. 64:8; Mal. 2:10). So, the Messiah “possesses,” that is, the source of eternity—He is the Creator of all things .     

 

5) Syntactically, the Hebrew term ab (“father”) precedes the word translated “eternal.” Thus, abiad (אֲבִיעַ֖ד), from the Hebrew ab (“father”) and ad (“forever, ever perpetuity”). Thus, literally, “father eternal” (not “eternal father”)—indicating the eternal nature of the Messiah.

Targums of Isa 9:6[3]: “For us a child is born, to us a son is given . . . and his name will be called the Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, existing forever [or “HE who lives forever”]. The Messiah in whose days peace shall increase upon us” (Targum Johnathan).  

 

Conclusion 

So according to lexical-semantic of abiad (ab, “father” and ad, “eternal, forever”), the Messiah is the “father,” that is, the possessor, source of eternity—the Creator of all things, as the NT indicates (John 1:3; Col. 1:16-17; 1 Cor. 8:6; Heb. 1:2, 10-12; 2:10). He is the YHWH of Ps. 102:25-27; cf. Heb. 1:10-12), the unchangeable Creator (He lives forever). But not the person of the Father or Holy Spirit. He is the Son of God (Dan. 7:9-14; Mark 14:61-14; John 5:17-18; 17:5; 2 John 1:3; Rev. 5:13-14)   

There has never been a Jewish commentator, Rabbi, church Father, nor Christian scholar that has interpreted Isa. 9:6 as Oneness teachers do. Oneness teachers must prove that Jesus is specifically called the Father of the Son of God (i.e., His own Father). 

The Oneness view opposes historical and contemporary scholarship at every turn. The Jesus Christ of biblical revelation is God the Son, unipersonal and preexistent, who is the Son of the Father, the only Jesus that can save.

 


“Grace, mercy and peace will be with us, from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love” (2 John 1:3).

Notes

[1] E. J. Young, Commentary on the Book of Isaiah, 1972.

[2] The Hebrew term translated “Wonderful” (pele) is from the same root word (both from pala) as in Judges 13:18: “seeing it is wonderful.”

[3] The Targum was an ancient Aramaic translation providing explanations and paraphrases of the Hebrew Old Testament. In the post-exilic period, Aramaic began to be broadly spoken in the Jewish community in conjunction with Hebrew. There is solid evidence indicating that the targumic usage of the Memra (“Word”) was the background for John’s Logos theology.