|
I. Introduction
The doctrine of the Trinity
requires a balanced view of Scripture. That is, since the
doctrine itself is derived from more than one stream of evidence,
it requires that all the evidence be weighed and given authority.
If any of the foundational pillars of the doctrine (monotheism,
the deity of Christ, the person of the Holy Spirit, etc.) be
ignored or even rejected, the resulting doctrinal system will
differ markedly from the orthodox position, and will lose its
claim to be called "biblical." For centuries various
small groups have rejected the doctrine of the Trinity. In modern
times these groups have frequently attracted quite a following;
Jehovah's Witnesses as the modern heirs of Arius have over 3
million people actively engaged in their work; the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) are heirs of
ancient polytheism and mystery religions, and nearly 10 million
adhere to their teachings. A smaller number of people, however,
cling to the third-century position of modalism - the teachings
of men such as Sabellius or Praxeas or Noetus. Though fewer in
number, it is this position, popularly called the
"Oneness" teaching, that prompts this paper's
clarification of the Biblical position regarding the doctrine of
the Trinity and the Person of Jesus Christ. Oneness writers
strongly deny the doctrine of the Trinity. In the words of David
K. Bernard,
"The Bible does not teach the
doctrine of the trinity, and trinitarianism actually contradicts
the Bible. It does not add any positive benefit to the Christian
message....the doctrine of the trinity does detract from the
important biblical themes of the oneness of God and the absolute
deity of Jesus Christ."[1]
The attack on the Trinity launched
by Oneness writers can be divided into two camps. There are some
writers who know what the doctrine is and disagree with it;
unfortunately, many others don't know what it is and attack it
anyway, normally misrepresenting the doctrine in quite obvious
ways. For example, one writer, while ridiculing the use of the
term "mystery" in reference to the Trinity said,
"When asked to explain how God could be one and three
persons at the same time the answer is, "It's a
mystery." "[2] Of course, the doctrine of the Trinity
does not say God is one person and three persons or one being and
three beings, but that within the one being of God there exists
eternally three persons. It is easy to see why many find the
doctrine unintelligible, especially when they trust writers who
are not careful in their research. This Oneness teaching is quite
attractive to the person who wishes, for whatever personal
reason, to "purge" the faith of what they might
consider to be "man's philosophies." There are a number
of Oneness groups in the United States, located primarily in the
South and Midwest. The United Pentecostal Church is the largest
of the Oneness groups in the U.S.; others include the Apostolic
Overcoming Holy Church of God, the Pentecostal Assemblies of the
World, and the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic
Faith. Each of these groups has thousands of followers, many of
whom are quite evangelistic in spreading their faith. Given that
many of the issues that Oneness addresses are not familiar ground
for most Christians, it is good to examine these issues in the
light of Biblical revelation and theology so that the orthodox
Christian will be able to "give a reason" for the hope
that is within us. This survey will be broken into four sections.
First, the important aspects of the doctrine of the Trinity
relevant to the Oneness position will be examined. These would
include the Christian definition of monotheism, the existence of
three persons, the pre-existence of the Son and the internal
operations of the Trinity. Secondly, vital issues relevant to
Christology will be addressed, such as the Chalcedonian
definition, the unipersonality of Christ, and the relationship of
the Father and the Son. Thirdly, the Oneness position will be
defined and presented, and finally that position will be
critiqued.
II. Trinitarian Concepts
The very word "Trinity"
is made up of two terms - "tri" and "unity."
The doctrine travels the middle road between the two, and neither
can be allowed to predominate the other. Trinitarians have but
one God - the charge of polytheism or tritheism leveled at the
orthodox position ignores the very real emphasis, drawn from the
Biblical witness to one God, on monotheism. This can be seen, for
example, in the definition of the Trinity given by Berkhof:
A) There is in the Divine Being
but one indivisible essence (ousia, essentia). B) In this one
Divine Being there are three Persons or individual subsistences,
Father, Son and Holy Spirit. C) The whole undivided essence of
God belongs equally to each of the three persons. D) The
subsistence and operation of the three persons in the divine
Being is marked by a certain definite order. E) There are certain
personal attributes by which the three persons are distinguished.
F) The Church confesses the Trinity to be a mystery beyond the
comprehension of man.[3]
Twice the emphasis is made that
the essence or being of God is indivisible. There is but one
being that is God. The doctrine of the Trinity safeguards this
further by asserting that "the whole undivided essence of
God belongs equally to each of the three persons." This
follows logically on the heels of asserting the indivisibility of
the being of God, for if three Persons share that one being, they
must share all of that being. The Father is not just 1/3 of God -
he is fully Deity, just as the Son and the Spirit. The Biblical
evidence for monotheism is legion, and it is not within the scope
of this paper to review all those passages. The Shema might be
sufficient to demonstrate the point, for this recital begins at
Deuteronomy 6:4 with the words, "Hear, O Israel; Yahweh is
our God; Yahweh is one." This concept of monotheism
separates Judaism (and Christianity) from any kind of
polytheistic religion. Given monotheism as a basis, it must be
stressed that the bald statement of monotheism does not imply nor
denote unitarianism. When the Bible says God is one, this does
not mean that God is unitarian (i.e., uni-personal) in his mode
of existence. Frequently individual writers will quote from the
many passages that teach that there is one God and will infer
from this a denial of the tri-personality of God. This is going
beyond what is written. It is vital, if justice is to be done to
the Biblical teaching, that all of the witness of Scripture be
given due consideration. If the Bible presents more data that
clarifies the meaning of God's "oneness," then this
information must be taken into account. Does, then, the Bible
indicate the existence of more than one Person in the divine
nature? It most certainly does. John Calvin expressed the proper
balance well in the Institutes:
"Again, Scripture sets forth
a distinction of the Father from the Word, and of the Word from
the Spirit. Yet the greatness of the mystery warns us how much
reverence and sobriety we ought to use in investigating this. And
that passage in Gregory of Nazianus vastly delights me: "
"I cannot think on the one without quickly being encircled
by the splendor of the three; nor can I discern the three without
being straightway carried back to the one." Let us not,
then, be led to imagine a trinity of persons that keeps our
thoughts distracted and does not at once lead them back to that
unity. Indeed, the words "Father," "Son," and
"Spirit" imply a real distinction - let no one think
that these titles, whereby God is variously designated from his
works, are empty - but a distinction, not a division."[4]
Before looking at the particular
Biblical data, it is good to make the same emphasis as made by
Gregory via Calvin - though this paper will emphasize the
triunity of God, this is only because of the object of
clarification, that being the Oneness teaching. Balance demands
that both elements - the existence of three persons as well as
the absolute claim of monotheism - be maintained. The Christian
church maintains that the terms Father, Son and Holy Spirit refer
to actual Persons, not simply modes of existence. As the popular,
short definition goes, "There is within the one being that
is God three co-equal and co-eternal Persons, the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Spirit." The Father is not the Son, the
Son is not the Spirit, the Spirit is not the Father, etc. Each is
eternal - the Father has always been, the Son has always been,
and the Spirit has always been. No person precedes the other, no
follows another. Charles Hodge said in reflecting on the early
church councils,
"These Councils decided that
the terms Father, Son, and Spirit, were not expressive merely of
relations ad extra, analogous to the terms, Creator, Preserver,
and Benefactor. This was the doctrine known as Sabellianism,
which assumed that the Supreme Being is not only one in essence,
but one in person. The Church doctrine asserts that Father, Son,
and Spirit express internal, necessary, and eternal relations in
the Godhead; that they are personal designations, so that the
Father is one person, the Son another person, and the Spirit
another person. They differ not as allo kai allo, but as allos
kai allos; each says I, and each says Thou, to either of the
others. The word used in the Greek Church to express this fact
was first prosopon, and afterwards, and by general consent, hupostasis; in the Latin Church, "persona," and in
English, person. The idea expressed by the word in its
application to the distinctions in the Godhead, is just as clear
and definite as in its application to men."[5]
Some Oneness writers have gone so
far as to say, "To say that God is three persons and find
substantiation for it in the Scripture is a work in futility.
There is literally nothing in the Bible that supports God being
three persons."[6] However, as the Church throughout the
ages has seen fit to reject the modalistic presentation, there
must obviously be some reason for this. Such reason is found in
the teaching of Scripture itself. The Bible presents a number of
categories of evidence that demonstrates the existence of three
Persons all sharing the one being that is God. First, the Persons
are described as personal; that is, the attributes of personhood
and personal existence are ascribed to the three. Secondly, clear
distinctions are made between the Persons, so that it is
impossible to confound or confuse the three. The second Person,
the Son, is described as being eternal (as is the Spirit, but in
this context, given the denial of the eternal nature of the Son
by the Oneness position, and the acceptance of the eternality of
the Spirit by the same group, this point is more tangent to the
issue) and is differentiated in this pre-existence from the
Father. Finally, we see real and eternal relationships between
the Persons (the opera ad intra.) One of the characteristics of
personal existence is will. Few would argue the point in
relationship to the Father, as He obviously has a will. So too,
the Son has a will, for he says to the Father in the Garden,
"not as I will, but as you will." (Matthew 26:39) The
ascription of will to the Persons indicates the ability to
reason, to think, to act, to desire - all those things we
associate with self-consciousness. As we shall see later, there
is a difference between nature and person, and one of those
differences is the will. Inanimate objects do not will; neither
do animals. Part of the imago dei is the will itself.
Another aspect of personhood seen
to exist with each of the Persons is the ability to love. In John
3:35 we read that "the Father loves the Son..." This is
repeated in John 5:20. In John 15:9 the Father loves the Son, and
the Son in return loves those who are His own. In Jesus' prayer
to the Father in John 17, we are again reminded of the Father's
love for Jesus in 17:23, and in verse 24 we are told that this
love between Father and Son has existed from all eternity. That
love marks every word of Jesus concerning the Father is beyond
dispute, and is it not fair to say that the giving of the Holy
Spirit to the Church is an act of love as well? Hence we see that
the persons described in these passages (and in many others) are
capable of love, a personal attribute. It might be argued that
these personal attributes are simply applied to the three
manifestations of God, but that this does not necessarily mean
that there are three Persons. However, the Bible clearly
differentiates between the three Persons, as the brief survey to
follow demonstrates. One of the more well-known examples of the
existence of three Persons is the baptism of Jesus recorded in
Matthew 3:16-17. Here the Father speaks from heaven, the Son is
being baptized (and is again described as being the object of the
Father's love, paralleling the Johannine usage), and the Spirit
is descending as a dove.[7] Jesus is not speaking to himself here
(as many non-Christian groups tend to accuse the Trinitarians of
making Jesus a ventriloquist), but is spoken to by the Father.
There is no confusing of the Persons at the baptism. The
transfiguration of Jesus in Matthew 17:1-9 again demonstrates the
separate personhood of the Father and the Son. The Son's true
pre- existent glory is unveiled for an instant in the presence of
the Father in the cloud. Communication again takes place, marked
with the familiar love of the Father for the Son. Both the deity
and the separate personhood of the Son is clearly presented in
this passage. The Father spoke to the Son at another time,
recorded in John 12:28. Again, the distinction of person of the
Father and the Son is clearly maintained.
Some of the most obvious passages
relevant to the Father and the Son are found in the prayers of
Jesus Christ. These are no mock prayers - Jesus is not speaking
to Himself (nor, as the Oneness writer would put it, is Jesus'
humanity speaking to His deity) - He is clearly communicating
with another Person, that being the Person of the Father.
Transcendent heights are reached in the lengthiest prayer we
have, that of John 17. No one can miss the fact of the
communication of one Person (the Son) with another (the Father)
presented in this prayer. The usage of personal pronouns and
direct address put the very language squarely on the side of
maintaining the separate personhood of Father and Son. This is
not to say that their unity is something that goes far beyond
simple purpose; indeed, given the background of the Old
Testament, the very statements of the Son regarding His
relationship with the Father are among the strongest assertions
of His Deity in the Bible.
But, as stated before, the
doctrine of the Trinity is pre-eminently a balanced doctrine that
differentiates between the being or nature of God and the Persons
who share equally that being. If there is more than one God, or
if there is less than three Persons, then the doctrine of the
Trinity is in error. Striking is the example of Matthew 27:46
where Jesus, quoting from Psalm 22:1 cries out, "My God, my
God, why have you abandoned me?" That the Father is the
immediate person addressed is clear from Luke's account where the
next statement from Jesus in his narrative is "Father, into
your hands I commit my spirit." (Luke 23:46)[8] Some early
heresies (predominately gnostic in character) had to posit some
kind of "separation" of the Deity from the human Son at
this point (and indeed, some Oneness writers could be accused of
the same problem). That this is the Son addressing the Father is
crystal clear, and the ensuing personhood of both is inarguable.
One of the high-water marks of
Synoptic Christology is to be found in Matthew 11:27. Here the
reciprocity between the Father and Son is put forth with
exactness, while at the same time dictating the absolute deity of
both. The relationship of the Father and Son is the topic under
discussion in both John 5:16ff and John 8:12ff. The Apostle again
walks a tight line in maintaining the distinct personhood of
Father and Son while asserting the full deity of Jesus Christ.
Outside of a Trinitarian concept of God, this position of John's
is unintelligible. Important in this discussion is the fact that
in the very same passages that the Deity of the Son is emphasized
his distinction from the Father is also seen. This causes
insuperable problems for the Oneness position, as we shall see.
In John 5:19-24, Jesus clearly differentiates himself from the
Father, yet claims attributes that are only proper of Deity
(life, judgment, honor). In John 5:30 the Son says He can do
nothing of Himself, yet in 37-39 he identifies Himself as the one
witnessed to by the Scriptures who can give eternal life. Only
Yahweh of the Tanakh can do so.
Hence, the deity spoken of by
Jesus is not the Father dwelling in the Son, but is the Son's
personally. This is seen even more plainly in chapter 8. Here it
is the Son who utilizes the phrase ego eimi in the absolute
sense, identifying Himself as Yahweh. It is the Son who says He
is glorified by the Father (v. 54) and yet only four verses later
it is the Son who says, "Before Abraham came into existence,
I AM!" Clearly the Son is fully deity just as the Father.
And what of the Spirit? Jesus said in John 14:16-17 that the
Father would send another (Gr: allos) comforter. Jesus had been
the Comforter for the disciples during His earthly ministry, but
He was about to leave them and return to heaven where he had been
before (John 17:5). The Holy Spirit, identified as a Person by
John (through his usage of the masculine ekeinos at John 16:13),
is sent both by the Father (John 14:16) as well as by the Son (16:7).[9] The Spirit is not identified as the Father, nor as the
Son, for neither could send Himself.
Hence, it is clear from this short
review that the Scriptures differentiate between the Person of
the Father and the Person of the Son, as well as differentiating
between these and the Spirit. The next area that must be
addressed is the Biblical teaching of the pre-existence of the
Son, or, as often referred to by Oneness writers, the
"eternal Son theory." That the Son, as a divine Person,
has existed from all eternity, is a solidly Biblical teaching.
Most denials of this teaching stem from a misunderstanding of the
term monogenes[10] or the term "begotten" as used in
Psalm 2:7. Such denials cannot stand under the weight of the
Biblical evidence. Though other passages could be examined, we
will limit the discussion to seven Biblical sections that clearly
teach the pre-existence of the Son as a Person within the divine
being. What may be the most obvious passage is found in
Colossians chapter 1, verses 13 through 17. Here the
"beloved Son" is described as "the image of the
invisible God, the firstborn (Gr: prototokos) of all
creation." He (the Son) is then described as the Creator in
what could only be called exhaustive terms. Certainly, if the Son
is the creator, then the Son both pre-existed and is indeed
eternal, for God is the creator of all that is. It will not do to
say that this passage says that God created all things for the
Son who was yet to exist; for verse 16 is emphatic is announcing
that it was "in Him" that all things were created (the
usage of en is the instrumental of agency). Without doubt the Son
is presented here as pre-existent.
The same can be said of
Philippians 2:5-7, the Carmen Christi. This passage has
spawned literally hundreds of volumes, and an in-depth exegesis
is not called for here. Rather, it is obvious that the Son is
presented here as eternally existing (huparchon) in the very
morphe tou theou - the form of God. This One is also said to be
"equal with God." Note there is here no confounding of
the Persons (just as throughout Scripture) yet there is just as
plainly an identification of more than one Person under
discussion. It was not the Father with whom the Son was equal who
became flesh and "made Himself of no repute"; rather,
it was the Son who did this. The opening chapter of the book of
Hebrews identifies the Son as pre-existent as well. Verse 2
echoes Colossians 1:13-17 in saying that it was "through the
Son" that the worlds were made. This Son is the
"radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His
being." Again the distinction of the Son from the Father is
maintained at the exact same time as the absolute deity of the
Son is put forward, a balance found only in the doctrine of the
Trinity and not in non-Christian theories. The Son, verse 3 says,
"upholds all things by His powerful word." This is
directly analogous to the final statements of Colossians 1:17,
and demands the continuous and eternal existence of the Son to
make any sense whatsoever. In light of this, it is clear that the
interpretation of verse 5, which quotes from Psalm 2, that
asserts a beginning for the Son misses the entire point of the
opening of Hebrews. In its original context, this passage did not
indicate that God had literally fathered the king to whom the
Psalm was addressed; certainly, therefore, such a forced meaning
cannot be placed on this usage either. Rather, the writer of
Hebrew's purpose is to exalt the Son and demonstrate His
superiority even to the angels, going so far as to clearly
identify the Son as Yahweh in verses 10 through 12. It would be
strange indeed if the writer tried to show the real nature of the
Son by saying that He, like the angels, was a created,
non-eternal being. The Lord Jesus Himself never attempted to say
He had a beginning, but was instead aware of His true nature.
In the real "Lord's
prayer" of John 17, he states in verse 5, "And now you
glorify me, Father, with the glory I had with you (para seauto)
before the worlds were made." Jesus is here conscious of the
glory which He had shared with the Father in eternity, a clear
reflection of Philippians 2, Hebrews 1, and, as we shall see,
John 1. As Yahweh declares that he will give his glory to no
other (Isaiah 48:11) yet another identification of the Son as
being one with the Father in sharing the divine name Yahweh is
here presented. This glorious pre-existence of which Jesus here
speaks is also seen in John 14:28 when Jesus, having said He was
returning to the Father, points out to the disciples that they
should have rejoiced at this, for rather than His continued
existence in His current state of humiliation (the "being
made of no repute" of Philippians 2), He was about to return
to His glorious position with the Father in heaven, a position
which is "greater" than the one He now was enduring.
Many passages in the New Testament
identify the Lord Jesus Christ as Yahweh. One of these is John
8:58, where, again speaking as the Son, Jesus asserts his
existence before Abraham. As pointed out above, it does not do to
say that this was simply an assertion that the deity resident
within Him pre-existed (in Oneness teaching, the Father) but
rather it was He as the Son who was "before Abraham."
In John 3:13 Jesus said, "no one has gone up into heaven
except the one who came out of heaven, the Son of man."[11]
Jesus' own words indicate that He was aware of His origin and
pre-existence. What is also interesting is the name for Himself
that is used - the Son of Man. One would expect the Son of God to
be used here, but it is not. Jesus was one Person, not two. The
Son of God was the Son of Man. One cannot divide Him into two
Persons.
The most striking evidence of the
pre-existence of the Son is found in the prologue of the Gospel
of John. This vital Christological passage is incredible for its
careful accuracy to detail - even down to the tenses of verbs the
author is discriminating in his writing. It again must be
asserted that, without a Trinitarian understanding of God, this
passage ends up self-contradictory and illogical. John defines
his terms for us in verses 14 and 18. In verse 14 he tells us
that the Logos of whom he has been speaking became flesh in the
person of Jesus Christ. He also tells us that it is Jesus Christ
who, though clearly not the Father Himself, is the one who
"makes the Father known" and who is, indeed, the
monogenes theos[12] the "unique God." That verse 18 has
under consideration two separate Persons is beyond disputation.
That these two Persons are the Father and the Son is just as
sure, for John so identifies them. With this in mind, the first
three verses are crystalline in their teaching. John asserts that
the Logos was "in the beginning," that is, the Word is
eternal. This Logos was "with God" (Gr: pros ton theon.)[13] This latter phrase can only refer to personal contact
and communion, a point to be expanded on in much of the Gospel of
John. Hence, from this phrase, it is clear that one cannot
completely identify the Person of God (in John's usage here, the
Father) with the Logos (i.e., the Son). However, he goes on in
the third clause to provide that balance found throughout the
inspired text by saying, "the Word was God." The NEB
renders this clause, "and what God was, the Word was."
Perhaps Dr. Kenneth Wuest came the closest when he translated,
"And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity." By
placing the term theos in the emphatic position, and by using
that term itself (rather than theios - a "godlike"
one), John avoids any kind of Arian subordinationism. At the same
time, John does not make logos and theos identical to one
another, for he does not put an article before theos. By so doing
he walks the fine line between Arianism and Sabellianism,
subordinationism and modalism. Finally, John asserts, as did Paul
before him, that the Logos is the Creator. "Through him were
all things made which have been made." This is exactly the
point of Colossians 1:15-17 and Hebrews 1:2. As John identified
the Logos as Jesus Christ, the Son of God, then his testimony
must be added to all the others in proclaiming the pre-existence
of the Son. Having seen the pre-existence of the Son, then we are
forced by the Biblical data itself to deal with the internal
relationships of the Persons who make up the Godhead. Though many
Oneness writers would object to the terminology utilized to
discuss this subject, it is they, not the Trinitarian, who are
ignoring the Biblical material and its clear teaching. Though an
in-depth discussion of the opera ad intra is not warranted in
this paper, it might be good to point out that we are obviously
here not discussing simply an economic trinity. All of the above
evidence points to real and purposeful distinctions (not
divisions) within the Being of God that are necessary and
eternal, not temporal and passing. God has eternally been trinal
and will always be so. The relationship between the essence of
God and the Persons is not a subject of Biblical discussion
directly; but we are forced to deal with the issue nevertheless -
by the Scriptural testimony itself. G. T. Shedd expressed it this
way:
"The essence...is not prior,
either in the order of nature or of time, to the persons, nor
subsequent to them, but simultaneous with them. Hence, the
essence is not one constituent factor by itself, apart from the
persons, any more than the persons are three constituent factors
by themselves, apart from the essence. The one essence is
simultaneously three persons, and the three persons are one
essence. The trinity is not a composition of one essence with
three persons. It is not an essence without distinctions united
with three distinctions, so as to make a complex. The trinity is
simple and uncomplex. "If," says Twesten,... "we
distinguish between the clearness of light and the different
degrees of clearness, we do not imply that light is composed of
clearness and degrees of clearness." Neither is God composed
of one untrinal essence and three persons."[14]
With these Trinitarian concepts in
mind, the specific Christological questions must now be
addressed.
III. Christological
Concepts
"Therefore, following the
holy Fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one
and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in
Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man,
consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance [homoousios] with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the
same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like
us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead,
begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his
manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the
Virgin, the God-bearer [theotokos]; one and the same Christ, Son,
Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without
confusion, without change, without division, without separation
[en duo phusesin, asungchutos atreptos, adiairetos achoristos];
the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union,
but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and
coming together to form one person and subsistence [hupostasis],
not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same
Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as
the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus
Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the Fathers has handed
down to us."[15]
In 451 A.D. the Council of
Chalcedon formulated this definition of the Person of Christ. The
council was called as a result of the controversy concerning the
relationship of the divine and the human in the Lord Jesus.[16]
The Nestorian controversy, monothelitism, the Eutychian
controversy, and others, had precipitated the council. It can be
safely said that we have yet to get beyond Chalcedon in our
theology - modern orthodox Christological formulations have not
proceeded beyond the Chalcedonian definition. Chalcedon's
emphasis on the two natures but one person in Christ was
anticipated in its main elements by the Athanasian creed. A
portion of that creed reads, "He is perfect God and He is
perfect man, with a rational soul and human flesh...Although He
is God and man, He is not two but one Christ...because He is one
person." The relationship between the divine and the human
in Christ is as unique as the God who brought this situation
about. Indeed, to understand this relationship one must first
define the terms being utilized, and this was one of the main
contributions of Chalcedon. Schaff noted that one of the main
importances of Chalcedon was
"The precise distinction
between nature and person. Nature or substance is the totality of
powers and qualities which constitute a being; person is the Ego,
the self-conscious, self-asserting, and acting subject. There is
no person without nature, but there may be nature without person
(as in irrational beings). The Church doctrine distinguishes in
the Holy Trinity three persons (though not in the ordinary human
sense of the word) in one divine nature of substance which they
have in common; in its Christology it teaches, conversely, two
nature in one person (in the usual sense of person) which
pervades both. Therefore it cannot be said: The Logos assumed a
human person, or united himself with a definite human individual:
for then the God-Man would consist of two persons; but he took
upon himself the human nature, which is common to all men; and
therefore he redeemed not a particular man, but all men, as
partakers of the same nature of substance. The personal Logos did
not become an individual anthropos, but sarx, flesh, which
includes the whole of human nature, body, soul and
spirit."[17]
In his discussion of the Person
and work of Christ, Dr. Berkhof gives the following information:
"The term "nature"
denotes the sum-total of all the essential qualities of a thing,
that which makes it what it is. A nature is a substance possessed
in common, with all the essential qualities of such a substance.
The term "person" denotes a complete substance endowed
with reasons, and, consequently, a responsible subject of its own
actions. Personality is not an essential and integral part of a
nature, but is, as it were, the terminus to which it tends. A
person is a nature with something added, namely, independent
subsistence, individuality."[18]
What does all of this mean? It
means that when Jesus spoke, He spoke as one Person, not two. One
cannot say that, when claiming deity, Jesus' "deity"
spoke, or when He referred to His humanity, it was His
"human nature" that spoke. It can be seen from this
that natures don't speak - only Persons do. And, since Jesus is
one Person, not two, He speaks as a whole Person. Hence, when
Jesus speaks, He speaks as Jesus. This is in direct
contradistinction to Oneness teaching that is fond of making
either the Deity in Jesus speak (whom they identify as the
Father) or the humanity (the Son). The two natures (divine and
human) make up but one Person, Jesus Christ. The divine nature is
the Son of God, the eternal Logos. The Chalcedonian definition
defines the unipersonality of Christ.[19] Jesus was a true
Person; he was not non-human, nor less than human, nor a multiple
personality. He had two natures, but those natures were made
personal by only one Person, the Word made flesh. Hence, though
Jesus may say things that indicate his two natures, what he says
represents His whole being, not a certain part thereof. One might
well ask the question, what does Scripture say concerning this
question? How does the Bible present this teaching? Stuart Olyott
answers that question:
"It does so by three strands
of teaching. The first is its entire failure to give us any
evidence of two personalities in our Lord Jesus Christ...In all
that is recorded of our Lord Jesus Christ there is no word spoken
by him, no action performed and no attribute predicated of him,
which suggests that he is not a single indivisible person...A
second line of biblical evidence is found in considering the
terms in which the New Testament writers wrote of Christ...There
is not a hint that two personalities came to redeem them that
were under the law, but one. Both natures are represented as
united in one person...But there is a third line of scriptural
proof which settles the issue beyond question...It is the fact
that what can be true of only one or the other of Christ's two
natures is attributed, not to the nature, but to the one person.
He is spoken of in terms true of either one or the other of his
natures."[20]
Olyott gives a number of Biblical
examples. Acts 20:28 is cited. Here Paul speaks of the Church of
God which "he purchased with His own blood." Christ's
blood, of course, was part of his human nature, yet this
attribute (the blood) is predicated here directly of the divine
nature ("God"). "What could only be true of his
human nature is said to have been accomplished by the divine
person. There is not a human Christ and a divine Christ - two Christs. There is but one Christ." (p. 105) Another example
is 1 Corinthians 2:8 which speaks of the fact that the rulers of
this age "crucified the Lord of glory." Again, though
Christ died in human terms, it is the divine Person who is said
to have been crucified. No hint is given whatsoever of two
persons in the one Jesus; rather, Christ is one Person composed
of two natures. But could the term "Father" simply
refer to the divine nature in Christ, as Oneness writers assert?
The New Testament does not allow for this. As we have already
seen, the Biblical witness sharply distinguishes between the
Father and the Son. We have seen that Jesus Christ is unipersonal; He is one person. It is just as clear that the Lord
Jesus Christ is never identified as the Father, but is shown to
be another Person beside the Father. A large class of examples of
this would be the greetings in the epistles of Paul. In Romans
1:7 we read, "Grace to you and peace from God our Father and
the Lord Jesus Christ."[21] 1 Corinthians 1:3 is identical,
as is 2 Corinthians 1:2. Galatians 1:3, Ephesians 1:2, and
Philippians 1:2. Nowhere does Paul identify Jesus as the Father.
Even more significant in this respect is what is known as
Granville Sharp's Rule. This rule of Greek grammar basically
stated says that when two singular nouns are connected by the
copulative kai, and the first noun has the article, while the
second does not, both nouns are describing the same person. There
are a number of Granville Sharp constructions in the New
Testament that emphasize the deity of Christ, most especially
Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. But, no Granville Sharp construction
ever identifies the Father as Jesus Christ. The care taken by
Paul and the other apostles in differentiating between the Father
and Jesus Christ speaks volumes concerning their faith. Some
might object to the Trinitarian doctrine of Christ by saying that
if we say the Son is (to use a human term) "begotten"
eternally by the Father (i.e., there is a relationship that is
eternal and timeless between the Father and the Son) that we are
in effect positing either subordinationism or tri-theism,
depending. Dr. Shedd replied as follows:
"But if the Father is
unbegotten, does it not follow that he alone is the absolute
Being? and is not this Arianism? Not so. For one and the same
numerical essence subsists whole and undivided in him who is
generated, as well as in him who generates; in him who is spirated, as well as in those two who
spirate. There can
therefore be no inequality of essence caused by these acts of
generation and spiration."[22]
Such language seems, to many, to
be foreign to the "simple" message of the Gospel. But
such an objection ignores the heights of Ephesians 1, as well as
the object under discussion - that being the very Person of the
Lord of glory. One writer expressed it this way:
"Jesus cannot be analyzed and
calculated. But whoever speaks of him in human words is entering
into the realm of "rational" speech. There is no unique
language for the realm of the incalculable and the
"irrational." Thus, where we express
"eschatological history," the origin and the goal,
God's reality in the man Jesus, our language collapses; it
becomes paradoxical. We could also say that our language then
expresses awe. It says those things which leave men
"speechless." Its terms are not then a means for
grasping but rather for making known that we have been grasped.
It is not then a form of mastery, but testimony to the
overpowering experience which has come upon man."[23]
IV. Oneness Theology Defined
Having examined some of the pertinent issues relevant to
Christian theology, the statements of Oneness exponents
themselves will now be examined. The following material is taken
from original sources and materials. Following the definition of
the position, specific objections will be dealt with. David K.
Bernard presented a paper at Harvard Divinity School in 1985. In
this paper, Bernard provided a good summary of Oneness teaching:
"The basis of Oneness
theology is a radical concept of monotheism. Simply stated, God
is absolutely and indivisibly one. There are no essential
distinctions or divisions in His eternal nature. All the names
and titles of the Deity, such as Elohim, Yahweh, Adonai, Father,
Word, and Holy Spirit refer to one and the same being, or - in
trinitarian terminology - to one person. Any plurality associated
with God is only a plurality of attributes, titles, roles,
manifestations, modes of activity, or relationships to
man."[24]
He added in his book, The
Oneness of God,
"They believe that Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit are manifestations, modes, offices, or
relationships that the one God has displayed to man."[25]
Hence, from Bernard's statements
it is clear that the Oneness position adheres to the classical
modalistic terminology of such ancient writers as Praxeas of
Sabellius or Noetus. However, it would be an error to think that,
from the Oneness perspective, the Father, Son and Spirit are one
Person. To see exactly what this position is stating, it would be
good to look at statements regarding each of the
"Persons" as seen by the Trinitarian perspective.
First, the question can be asked, "Who is the Father in
Oneness theology?"
"The term Father refers to
God Himself - God in all His deity. When we speak of the eternal
Spirit of God, we mean God Himself, the Father."[26]
"If there is only one God and
that God is the Father (Malachi 2:10), and if Jesus is God, then
it logically follows that Jesus is the Father."[27]
Hence, from this perspective, God
is the Father. All that can be predicated of God is predicated of
the Father and the Father only. This shall be seen more clearly
as we examine the other required questions. "Who is the Word
in Oneness theology?" This question receives two answers
from Oneness writers - there is a seeming contradiction in
response to this question. John Paterson identified the Word as
the Father Himself:
So we conclude that the Word was
the visible expression of the invisible God - in other words, the
invisible God embodied in visible form;...From the Scriptures
quoted it should be obvious that the Word was not merely an
impersonal thought existing in the mind of God but was, in
reality, the Eternal Spirit Himself clothed upon by a visible and
personal form..."[28]
In distinction to this, other
writers put forward a non-personal "Word":
"The Logos (Word) of John 1
is not equivalent to the title Son in Oneness theology as it is
in trinitarianism. Son is limited to the Incarnation, but Logos
is not. The Logos is God's self expression, "God's means of
self disclosure," or "God uttering Himself."
Before the Incarnation, the Logos was the unexpressed thought or
plan in the mind of God, which had a reality no human thought can
have because of God's perfect foreknowledge, and in the case of
the Incarnation, God's predestination. In the beginning, the
Logos was with God, not as a separate person but as God Himself -
pertaining to and belonging to God much like a man and his word.
In the fulness of time God put flesh on the Logos; He expressed
Himself in flesh."[29]
Bernard further added in The
Oneness of God:
"The Word or Logos can mean
the plan or thought as it existed in the mind of God. This
thought was a predestined plan - an absolutely certain future
event - and therefore it had a reality attached to it that no
human thought could ever have. The Word can also mean the plan or
thought of God as expressed in the flesh, that is in the Son.
What is the difference, therefore, between the two terms, Word
and Son? The Word had pre-existence and the Word was God (the
Father), so we can use it without reference to humanity. However,
the Son always refers to the Incarnation and we cannot use it in
the absence of the human element. Except as a foreordained plan
in the mind of God, the Son did not have pre-existence before the
conception in the womb of Mary. The Son of God pre-existed in
thought but not in substance. The Bible calls this foreordained
plan the Word (John 1:1, 14)."[30]
Thomas Weisser adds, "The
Logos of John 1 was simply the concept in the Father's mind. Not
a separate person!"[31] But Robert Brent Graves muddies the
water even more by stating, "Only when we begin to take John
at his word that God "became flesh" can we begin to
understand the power and the authority of Jesus Christ."[32]
Hence, one group of Oneness exponents seem to be saying that the
Word was the Father Himself, but manifested in the flesh
(Paterson and possibly Graves) while others see the Word as
simply the plan of God put into place at the opportune time.
Asking the further question, "Who is the Son in Oneness
theology?" might shed some light on the Word issue as well.
The answer to this is unanimous - the Son is the human aspect of
Christ. The Son is a created being who is not in any way divine.
The Son did not pre-exist, and indeed, the "Sonship" of
God will cease at a time in the future.[33] Important for Oneness
teachers is the idea of a begotten Son (see footnote #10 and
discussion at that point).
Robert Brent Graves says,
"Although some religious
authors have depicted Christ as an "eternal Son. Actually
the concept of an eternal Son would not allow the possibility of
a begotten Son; for the two would be a contradiction in
terms."[34]
For the Christian to understand
just what the Oneness position is asserting, it is necessary
that, before continuing looking at each Person individually, we
must look to Jesus and the Oneness teaching concerning Him. The
key to understanding this theological viewpoint is found in the
teaching that Jesus is both the Father and the Son. Paterson
explains as follows:
"Therefore, when we say that
Jesus is both God and Man, we mean that He is both Father and
Son. As the Father, He is absolutely and PURELY God; as the Son,
He is absolutely and PURELY Man. When Jesus claims to be God, it
is with respect to His Essence as the Eternal Spirit, the Father;
and when He says, "My Father is greater than I" (John
14:28), it is with respect to His created nature as Man, the
Son...In this connection, let me make this point crystal clear -
the doctrine enunciated in this booklet emphasizes the very real
humanity of Christ; it is not at all the same as teaching that
the Father IS the Son, or that the Son IS the Father. Such
teaching is confused, illogical, and unscriptural - but when we
say that Jesus is BOTH Father and Son, BOTH God and Man, that is
a vastly different matter."[35]
Likewise, Bernard states,
"Oneness believers emphasize
the two natures in Christ, using this fact to explain the plural
references to Father and Son in the Gospels. As Father, Jesus
sometimes acted and spoke from His divine self-consciousness; as
Son He sometimes acted and spoke from His human
self-consciousness. The two natures never acted in conflict, for
they were united into one person. Aside from their emphasis on
the two natures of Christ, Oneness teachers have given inadequate
attention to many areas of Christology. Some have made statements
that sound Apollinarian because of failure to define and use
terms precisely, but Oneness scholars overwhelmingly reject this
implication. If carefully developed, Oneness may be seen as
compatible with the Christological formulation of the Council of Chalcedon, namely that Christ as two complete natures - deity and
humanity - but is only one person."[36]
Despite Bernard's assertion, the
Oneness position patently denies the uni-personality of Christ.
To maintain the uni-personality of God, the Oneness position has
to make Jesus into two persons, the Father and the Son. Even
Bernard demonstrates this when he says, "Sometimes it is
easy to get confused when the Bible describes Jesus in these two
different roles, especially when describes Him acting in both
roles in the same story...He could speak as man one moment and
then as God the next moment."[37] As we've seen, natures do
not speak, only persons do. Bernard seems aware of the weakness
of the Oneness position at this point, for he is much more
willing to admit the depths of the subject than most Oneness
writers. He says,
"While the Bible is clear in
emphasizing both the full deity and full humanity of Jesus, it
does not describe in detail how these two natures are united in
the one person of Jesus Christ. This, too, has been the subject
of much speculation and debate. Perhaps there is room for
divergent views on this issue since the Bible does not treat it
directly."[38]
Bernard is one of the few Oneness
writers who does not directly attribute the doctrine of the
Trinity to Satan. He seems aware of the fact that the Oneness
position avoids the supposed "philosophical language"
by basically ignoring the issue that was faced squarely at Nicea
and Chalcedon.
This viewpoint gives a unique
twist to what otherwise might sound somewhat like orthodox
teaching:
"From the Bible we see that
Jesus Christ had two distinct natures in a way that no other
human being has ever had. One nature is human or fleshly; the
other nature is divine or Spirit. Jesus was both fully man and
fully God. The name Jesus refers to the eternal Spirit of God
(the Father) dwelling in the flesh. We can use the name Jesus to
describe either one of His two natures or both. For example, when
we say Jesus died on the cross, we mean His flesh died on the
cross. When we say Jesus lives in our hearts, we mean His Spirit
is there."[39]
But what Biblical support can the
Oneness teacher gather? One of the favorite references is
Colossians 2:9, which, in the King James Version (which seems to
enjoy predominance in their camp) reads, "For in him
dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." For them,
the Godhead would refer to all that makes up God, i.e., the
Father:
"According to these verses of
Scripture, Jesus is not a part of God, but all of God is resident
in Him. If there were several persons in the Godhead, according
to Colossians 2:9 they would all be resident in the bodily form
of Jesus."[40]
However, even here the position is
foundationless, for the Greek term, theotetos, is best rendered
"Deity" and refers to the being of God - "that
which makes God God" is how B. B. Warfield expressed it. Not
only this, but the same epistle had already clearly
differentiated between the Lord Jesus Christ and the Father in
1:3, and had asserted the pre- existence of the Son in 1:15-17.
The many passages that teach the
pre-existence and separate personality of the Son cause the
Oneness position great difficulties, as can be seen from the
attempts to fit these passages into the system. Hebrews chapter
one gives a good example:
"Hebrews 1:2 states that God
made the worlds by the Son. Similarly, Colossians 1:13-17 says
all things were created by the Son, and Ephesians 3:9 says all
things were created by Jesus Christ. What does creation "by
the Son" mean, since the Son did not have a substantial
pre-existence before the Incarnation? "Of course, we know
that Jesus as God pre-existed the Incarnation, since the deity of
Jesus is none other than the Father Himself. We recognize that
Jesus (the divine Spirit of Jesus) is indeed the Creator. These
verses describe the eternal Spirit that was in the Son - the
deity that was later incarnated as the Son - as the Creator. The
humanity of Jesus Christ could not create, but God who came in
the Son as Jesus Christ created the world. Hebrews 1:10 clearly
states that Jesus as Lord was the Creator. "Perhaps these
scriptural passages have a deeper meaning that can be expressed
as follows: Although the Son did not exist at the time of
creation except as the Word in the mind of God, God used His
foreknowledge of the Son when He created the world."[41]
Elsewhere Bernard added,
"According to Hebrews 1:2,
God made the worlds by the Son. Certainly, the Spirit (God) who
was in the Son was also the Creator of the worlds. This passage
may also indicate that God predicated the entire work of creation
upon the future manifestation of the Son. God foreknew that man
would sin, but He also foreknew that through the Son man could be
saved and could fulfill God's original purpose in creation. As
John Miller stated, "Though He did not pick up His humanity
till the fulness of time, yet He used it, and acted upon it, from
all eternity." "[42]
Likewise, the problem of Jesus'
prayer life elicits some intriguing interpretation:
"The prayers of Christ
represent the struggle of the human will as it submitted to the
divine will. They represent Jesus praying from His human
self-consciousness not from His divine, for by definition God
does not need to pray. This line of reasoning also explains other
examples of the inferiority of the Son in power and knowledge. If
these examples demonstrate a plurality of persons, they establish
the subordination of one person to the other, contrary to the
trinitarian doctrine of co-equality. "Other examples of
communication, conversation, or expression of love between Father
and Son are explained as communication between the divine and
human natures of Christ. If used to demonstrate a distinction of
persons, they would establish separate centers of consciousness
in the Godhead, which is in effect polytheism."[43]
"Do the prayers of Christ
indicate a distinction of persons between Jesus and the Father?
No. On the contrary, His praying indicates a distinction between
the Son of God and God. Jesus prayed in His humanity, not in His
deity...How can God pray and still be God? By definition, God in
His omnipotence has no need to pray, and in His oneness has no
other to whom He can pray...Some may object to this explanation,
contending that it means Jesus prayed to Himself. However, we
must realize that, unlike any other human being, Jesus had two
perfect and complete natures - humanity and divinity."[44]
The above hardly squares with
Bernard's earlier statement that the two natures are joined into
one person. Communication between natures is illogical; between
persons it is normal. If Oneness teachers wish to maintain a
surface acceptance of Chalcedonian definitions, they should at
least make it clear that they are defining terms in a completely
different way than orthodox theology.
Finally, a common element of
Oneness-Pentecostal writing is the criticism of the usage of
non-Biblical terminology to answer the questions of God's
existence and being. This is a common attack utilized by many
anti-Trinitarian groups. Why use such terms as "nature"
or "person" or "ousia" or any of the other
terms borrowed from philosophy? Doesn't this indicate a reliance
upon pagan sources? we are asked. Though this point will be
answered more fully below, it might be pointed out that the
Oneness position is faced with the same choice as the Trinitarian
- questions can be put to their position that cannot possibly be
answered in solely Biblical terminology. Either these questions
must be ignored or they must be answered by using words or
phrases not drawn directly from the Scriptural witness. In
summary, the Oneness position asserts that God is uni-personal.
All the titles of Deity are applicable to the one being who is
God - Father, Lord, King, Holy Spirit, Jehovah, etc. The Son of
God is the manifestation of the Father in the flesh. The Son is
not eternal nor pre-existent. Jesus is the Father and the Son -
Father in his divinity and Son in his humanity. Hence, the
Trinity is said to be a misunderstanding of the Biblical
teaching, and many Oneness writers attribute the doctrine to
pagan sources.[45]
V. Brief Criticism and
Reply
Since the opening of this paper
dealt with the Scriptural witness concerning the doctrine of the
Trinity, space need not be taken in rebutting many of the
statements of the Oneness position. The following points should
focus on the particular problems:
A) The Oneness position cannot
explain logically or Biblically the clear references to the
pre-existence and Creatorship of the Son such as Colossians 1,
Hebrews 1 and John 1.
B) This position fails to
demonstrate any kind of identification of Jesus Christ as the
Father, and ignores or inadequately explains the many references
that demonstrate the personal distinctions of Father and Son.
C) This position relies heavily on
assumed and unproven presuppositions, such as the uni-personality
of Yahweh. These writers tend to be very selective in their
choice of facts, which can also be seen in their easy rejection
of textual evidence that contradicts their position.[46]
D) The Christological formulation
of the Oneness position is untenable and without Scriptural
support. There is no evidence that Jesus was two persons, nor
that the two "natures" communicated with one another.
E) The understanding of the Logos
given in Scripture is totally lacking in the Oneness perspective.
The clear personal nature of the Logos must be sacrificed to
maintain the system.
F) The position asserts historical
claims[47] that are not solidly based in fact.[48]
For example,
Oneness writers will assert that the "three persons
theory" was a late innovation, while noted patristic
authority J.N.D. Kelly has noted,
"Before considering formal
writers, the reader should notice how deeply the conception of a
plurality of divine Persons was imprinted on the apostolic
tradition and the popular faith. Though as yet uncanonized, the
New Testament was already exerting a powerful influence; it is a
commonplace that the outlines of a dyadic and a triadic pattern
are clearly visible in its pages. It is even more marked in such
glimpses as are obtainable of the Church's liturgy and day-to-day
catechetical practice."[49]
These criticisms, substantiated by
earlier references, are sufficient to allow the student of
Scripture to reject the Oneness position as holding any real
claim to being a "biblical teaching." The only
remaining question is the validity of the criticism regarding the
usage of non-biblical language and terminology. It has already
been pointed out that any theological system that makes any kind
of brave attempt to answer the inevitable questions that arise
when the nature, attributes and being of God is discussed will
have to utilize non-Biblical terminology in framing its answers.
Why? First, since the Scriptures themselves rarely ask these
questions, and the questions themselves are often derived from
non-Biblical sources and utilize non- Biblical language and
categories of thought, the honest respondant will have to express
truth in such as way as to both be intelligible to the
questioner, as well as be honest with the subject. The important
question is, are we willing to sacrifice the true teaching of
Scripture on the imaginary altar of slavery to the limited
terminology of the Biblical writers? Benjamin Breckenridge
Warfield aptly addressed this very question:
"The term "Trinity"
is not a Biblical term, and we are not using Biblical language
when we define what is expressed by it as the doctrine that there
is one only and true God, but in the unity of the Godhead there
are three coeternal and coequal Persons, the same in substance
but distinct in subsistence. A doctrine so defined can be spoken
of as a Biblical doctrine only on the principle that the sense of
Scripture is Scripture. And the definition of a Biblical doctrine
in such un-Biblical language can be justified only on the
principle that it is better to preserve the truth of Scripture
than the words of Scripture. The doctrine of the Trinity lies in
Scripture in solution; when it is crystalized from its solvent it
does not cease to be Scriptural, but only comes into clearer
view. Or, to speak without figure, the doctrine of the Trinity is
given to us in Scripture, not in forumulated definition, but in
fragmentary allusions; when we assemble the disjecta membra into
their organic unity, we are not passing from Scripture, but
entering more thoroughly into the meaning of Scripture. We may
state the doctrine in technical terms, supplied by philosophical
reflection; but the doctrine stated is a genuinely Scriptural
doctrine."[50]
References: 1. David Bernard, The
Oneness of God, (Hazelwood, Missouri: Word Aflame Press)
1985, p.298 2. Thomas Weisser, Three Persons from the Bible?
or Babylon, (U.S.) 1983, p. 3. 3. Louis Berkhof, Systematic
Theology, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing
Company, 1941) pgs. 87-89. 4. John Calvin, Institutes of the
Christian Religion, John McNeill, ed. (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press) 1960, pp. 141-142. 5. Charles Hodge, Systematic
Theology, 3 Volumes, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's
Publishing Company) 1986, 1:459. 6. Weisser, Three Persons,
p. 2. 7. The particular responses of the Oneness theologians will
be noted at a later point in the presentation. 8. The words of
Jesus at Matthew 27:46 have come in for many kinds of
interpretation. Unfortunately, many of the theories have
compromised both theology proper, as well as Christology. That
the Father never was separated from or abandoned the Son is clear
from many sources. The second person is utilized by Jesus, not
the third in verse 46. Immediately on the heels of this statement
Jesus speaks to the Father in the vocative ("Father, into
your hands..."). Whatever else Jesus was saying, He was not
saying that, at the very time of His ultimate obedience to the
Father, that the Father there abandoned Him. Rather, it seems
much more logical to see this as a quotation of Psalm 22 that is
meant to call to mind all of that Psalm, which would include the
victory of v. 19ff, as well as verse 24 which states, "For
he has not despised or disdained the suffering of the afflicted
one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his
cry for help." 9. It would be a grave error to identify the
Father and the Son as one person, or to say that Jesus is both
the Father and the Son, simply due to their mutual work and
actions. As there is only one God, overlapping of work and action
is hardly to be thought unusual, and does not indicate an
identity of person but rather an identity of nature. 10. James
Hope Moulton, George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek
Testament. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing
Company) 1930, pp. 416-417. See also Barclay Newman and Eugene Nida, A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of John.
(New York: United Bible Societies) 1980, p. 24. 11. The variant
reading "...who is in heaven." is opposed by P66 and
P75 along with Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. These witnesses
are joined by the Coptic versions, a few uncials, minuscules, and
Fathers. 12. The reading monogenes theos is strongly
supported by the manuscript witnesses. This is the reading of P66
and P75 as well as the original reading of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, a few other uncials, and a large number of the early
Fathers. That there is good reason to see monogenes huios
as an assimilation to John 3:16 is obvious; just so, that
monogenes theos has no logical antecedent is just as true. 13.
Some try to render this as "the Word was pertaining to
God" on the basis of the occurrence of pros ton theon
in Hebrews 2:17 and 5:1. However, this attempt fails for the two
instances in Hebrews are different syntactical constructions; the
presence of the neuter plural article before the phrase in
Hebrews changes the subject to an assumed "things."
Also, John 1:1b represents a sentence structure using the verb
form en while this is not so in Hebrews. 14. William G. T.
Shedd,
Shedd's Dogmatic Theology. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson
Publishers) 1980, pg. 253. 15. As cited by Henry Bettenson, Documents
of the Christian Church. (New York: Oxford University Press)
1963, pp. 144-145. 16. For a discussion of the Council of
Chalcedon, see Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church.
(Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company) 1910,
3:740-762. 17. Schaff, History of the Christian Church,
3:751. 18. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, (Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company) 1941, pp. 321-330. 19. See
Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Doctrine of the
Person and the Work of Christ, Section III, "The
Unipersonality of Christ." 20. Stuart Olyott, Son of
Mary, Son of God, (England: Evangelical Press) 1984, pp.
103-105. 21. Some Oneness writers such as Robert Brent Graves
have attempted to assert that the copulative kai found
here and in the other epistolary greetings should not be
translated in its normal sense of "and" but rather as
the equative "even." Hence, Graves translates 1 Cor.
1:3 as "Grace to you and peace from God our Father even the
Lord Jesus Christ." That there is no scholarly support for
such an assertion is clear, for Graves would hardly be consistent
and say "Grace to you, even peace..." which would be
required should he follow his own suggestion through. 22. Shedd, Dogmatic
Theology, p. 303. 23. Otto Weber, Foundations of
Dogmatics, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing
Company) 1962, 2:116. 24. David K. Bernard, Essentials of
Oneness Theology, (Hazelwood, Missouri: Word Aflame Press)
1985, p. 8. 25. Bernard, The Oneness of God, p. 15. 26.
Bernard, The Oneness of God, p. 98. 27. Bernard, The
Oneness of God, p. 66. 28. John Paterson, God in Christ
Jesus, (Hazelwood, Missouri: Word Aflame Press) 1966, p. 29.
Bernard, Essentials in Oneness Theology, p. 22. 30.
Bernard, The Oneness of God, p. 103. 31. Weisser, Three
Persons, p. 35. 32. Robert Brent Graves, The God of Two
Testaments, (U.S.) 1977, p. 35. 33. See Bernard, The
Oneness of God, p. 106. 34. Graves, The God of Two
Testaments, p. 44. 35. Paterson, God in Christ Jesus,
p. 22. 36. Bernard, Essentials in Oneness Theology, p.
19. 37. Bernard, The Oneness of God, p. 88. 38. Bernard,
The Oneness of God, p. 90 39. Bernard, The Oneness
of God, p. 86. 40. Bernard, The Oneness of God, p.
57. 41. Bernard, The Oneness of God, p. 115. 42.
Bernard, Essentials in Oneness Theology, p. 21. 43.
Ibid., p. 22. 44. Bernard, The Oneness of God, pp.
176-177. 45. See Weisser, Three Persons, pp. 17-28. 46.
Bernard rejects, for example, the reading of monogenes theos
at 1:18 by saying, "We do not believe these variant readings
are correct...This verse of Scripture does not mean that God is
revealed by God, but that God is revealed in flesh through the
humanity of the Son." Here theology determines textual
criticism. 47. Bernard, The Oneness of God, pp. 236 ff
as an example. 48. Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of
Christianity, 2 Volumes, (New York: Harper and Row) 1975,
2:144-145 gives a brief account of the origins of the modalistic
teaching. 49. J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines,
(New York: Harper and Row) 1978, p. 88. 50. B. B. Warfield, The
Works of B.B. Warfield, 10 volumes, (Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House) 1929, 2:133.
|
