³A Man of sorrows… ⁵he was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities… ¹¹My righteous Servant shall justify many, For he shall bear their iniquities. ¹²Therefore I will divide him a portion with the great, And he shall divide the spoil with the strong, Because he poured out his soul unto death, And he was numbered with the transgressors, And he bore the sin of many, And made intercession for the transgressors. (Isaiah 53:3, 5, 11–12; NKJV)

Our focus in this chapter is the biblically stated reason why Christ was anointed, which is clearly indicated by the words “because” and “therefore” in the passage cited above. (It will become clear that the point being made in this chapter is similar to our earlier comparison of “alone” and “not alone.”) We can state at the outset the reason is clearly not because he is an incarnation of a deific personality. That is a jumped-to conclusion of Trinitarians and Onenessians. The biblically stated reason refutes both those extrabiblical conclusions.

In verse 12, above, Isaiah gave no less than four reasons why the Messiah would be counted “great” and “strong.” Not one of these reasons had to do with him being an incarnation of God. The reasons provided were: 1) his death; 2) his being “numbered with the transgressors” (that is, he was made in all things like his brethren, as described in Hebrews 2:17–18); 3) his having borne the sins of many; and 4) his having “made intercession for the transgressors.”

But these reasons are just the beginning of our “because and therefore” type of Scriptures. The following twin passages provide two more reasons why Jesus was anointed above the rest of us, his brothers:

You have loved righteousness, and hated wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows. (Psalm 45:7)

You have loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows. (Hebrews 1:9)

Jesus loved righteousness and hated wickedness, and those are two more reasons why God anointed him above the rest of us.

Recall what we established previously about personal pronouns. These passages begin with the personal pronoun “you.” They are thus not talking about YHWH’s mythical, unbiblical “human nature” being exalted by his supposed “deific nature” for loving righteousness and hating iniquity. No, these are speaking personally, much like Jesus used distinctions of persons in John 8:17. These verses finish by saying that the subject (“you”) person is exalted above other persons (“your fellows”), whom we know as Christ’s brother-followers.

Anyone who rejects the truth clearly stated in these passages minimizes what Jesus Christ accomplished as a human person. Men have made up the idea that he was God acting as a man, but they have absolutely no Scriptures that say so. If it were true, the Bible would have explained in detail his being so, but instead it clearly and consistently describes in detail something different. If Jesus was the person of God in any manner, then he simply did not accomplish these things as a human being. That is the ugly truth behind the Trinitarian and Onenessian theories and any other theory that assigns deific personality to Jesus the Anointed. In effect, they are implying that he “cheated,” because there is no way that God Himself could ever have really been tempted the way we are. They give lip service to believing in Jesus’ humanity, when they claim he is “also” God, just as Trinitarians give lip service to believing that God is one, when they remain adamant He is three. God being tempted while pretending to be a man is just such religious nonsense! Jesus was exalted by God because he overcame! That is the powerful truth these Incarnationists are belittling and denying, whether they realize or admit it or not! By making Jesus into God, they have attempted to cloak their sins, for who could truly accomplish what Jesus did if indeed he were God incarnate? This false notion is what these “therefore… because” Scriptures are effective in neutralizing, but only for those who are truly willing to hear the word of God!

Here is yet another “therefore” type passage in which Jesus tells us the reason why God his Father and our Father did not leave him alone:

He who sent me is with me. The Father hasn’t left me alone, for [because, since] I always do the things that are pleasing to Him. (John 8:29)

Again we see a clear and specific reason given for a result between two distinct personal pronouns. This isn’t the person of God’s human nature speaking to his deific nature; this is between two personal individuals. Because personality number two (Christ Jesus) always does the things that are pleasing to personality number one (God the Father), personality number one (God) does not leave number two (Christ) alone. Clearly the Bible establishes two personalities (not mere natures) who are not alone. Which one of us would say that “ I am not alone because I always do the things that are pleasing to my brain”? Putting it this way shows how unreasonable, even nonsensical, the Onenessian conclusion is.

This next passage explains the exact reason that Jesus was given a name above all names. Once again, it wasn’t because he “was God”; rather, it was because he was obedient to the one who commanded him:

Have this in your mind, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, existing in the form of God, didn’t consider it robbery to be equal with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, yes, the death of the cross. Therefore God also highly exalted him, and gave to him the name which is above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, those on earth, and those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. So then, my beloved, even as you have always obeyed, not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. (Philippians 2:5–12)

This passage is often misunderstood, but if we use other Scriptures that talk about the same topic, we can gain a better understanding. For example:

Therefore the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down by myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. I received this commandment from my Father. (John 10:17–18)

When we compare and interpret these two passages together, it should be hard to miss the true meaning. The first thing to note in Philippians is that it begins and ends with how we are to think and how we are to put those thoughts into action. Certainly we aren’t supposed to think that we eternally preexisted and temporarily submitted ourselves to be made human so that we could show how submissive we can be to our deific nature. But that is basically what it means if viewed through the lenses of Trinitarians and Onenessians.

The next thing it says in Philippians is that Christ existed “in the form of God,” which refers to the truth that he is the second Adam, who was also made in the form, or image, of God. Adam was told the purpose of mankind was to have dominion over the earth and subdue it. Philippians goes on to state exactly how Jesus overcame Adam’s failure: by his obedience even unto death. And if we are confused about what this all means, we have Jesus’ own explanation that the Father loves him because he lays down his life. The real clincher is that Jesus said he received this as a commandment from his Father. This shows that Jesus neither was the Father (as in the Onenessian theory), nor was he “coequal” with the Father (as in the Trinitarian theory).

Along these same lines, and totally in harmony with what we’ve just seen established by the Scriptures, the Book of Hebrews provides yet another “because… therefore” passage.

¹Therefore, holy brothers, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider the apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus; ²who [personal pronoun] was faithful to Him [personal pronoun] who appointed him, as also was Moses in all his house. ³For he has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who built the house has more honor than the house. ⁴For every house is built by someone; but He who built all things is God. ⁵Moses indeed was faithful in all his house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were afterward to be spoken, ⁶but Christ is faithful as a Son over his house; whose house we are, if we hold fast our confidence and the glorying of our hope firm to the end. (Hebrews 3:1–6)

Jesus was faithful to another, his Father, who is God, and Jesus was therefore, as verse 3 says, “counted worthy” of more glory and honor than Moses. The point this passage was making is that he (Jesus) had to be faithful to Him (God the Father) who appointed him (Jesus). This demonstrates that Jesus was not inherently worthy by “deific substance” (as in Trinitarianism), nor was he an incarnation of the Father (as in Modalism). Rather, it says he had to prove himself through faith; thus, Jesus was “faithful to Him who appointed him.” These personal pronouns specifically mean, not merely imply, “personalities” and not “natures.”

Furthermore, in saying that Jesus was faithful, and thereby counted worthy, this passage in Hebrews reiterated what was said in Psalms 45:7: “You have loved righteousness, and hated wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows.” It is in this context that God designated, exalted, and anointed Jesus above all his fellow human beings.

How do we know that Jesus was exalted above his fellow human beings? For one, because Jesus told us so in yet another “Because… Therefore” passage found in John:

¹⁹Jesus therefore answered them, “Most assuredly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father doing. For whatever things he does, these the Son also does likewise. ²⁰For the Father has affection for the Son, and shows him all things that he Himself does. He will show him greater works than these, that you may marvel. ²¹For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom he desires. ²²For the Father judges no one, but he has given all judgment to the Son, ²³that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who doesn’t honor the Son doesn’t honor the Father who sent him. ²⁴Most assuredly I tell you, he who hears my word, and believes him who sent me, has eternal life, and doesn’t come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. ²⁵Most assuredly, I tell you, the hour comes, and now is, when the dead will hear the Son of God’s voice; and those who hear will live. ²⁶For as the Father has life in himself, even so he gave to the Son also to have life in himself. ²⁷He also gave him authority to execute judgment, because he is a son of man. ²⁸Don’t marvel at this, for the hour comes, in which all that are in the tombs will hear his voice, ²⁹and will come out; those who have done good, to the resurrection of life; and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment. ³⁰I can of myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is righteous; because I don’t seek my own will, but the will of my Father who sent me.” (John 5:19–30)

This passage is simply packed with personal pronouns. The son is explicitly shown to be personally distinct from the Father through Jesus’ use of “myself” in contrast to the Father (verses 19 and 20). Then, Jesus clearly explains again why he has the authority to judge: because the Father gave all judgment to the Son (verse 22). This means exactly what it says: that personality number one (God the Father) bestowed an authority upon personality number two (Christ Jesus), who did not previously have any authority inherent to his person. Thus, according to Jesus himself, he was neither coequal with the Father (as in Trinitarianism), nor was he simply an incarnation of the person of the Father (as in Onenessianism), clearly and explicitly because this authority was given to “him” by another “He” [i.e., Himself, verse 20] being God the Father.

Verse 27 clears up any issue or so-called mystery by stating again ever so clearly that Jesus was given this authority from God “because he is a son of man.” Thus, it isn’t talking about a deific nature giving His human nature its own inherent personal authority. Rather, the one personal God is bestowing upon another personal son this specific authority.

Finally, in verse 30, Jesus declares that his judgment is righteous not because he is God, but because he doesn’t seek his own will. Think of how nonsensical this all becomes if this is the non-personal flesh of the person of the Father speaking.

These are biblically stated purposes and reasons, and not guesswork, jumped-to conclusions, or speculation.

All these Scriptures are made totally and completely of no effect by Onenessianism. This means that it is impossible to believe Jesus’ words and the Scriptures we’ve cited while at the same time believing in Onenessianism. They are as incompatible as the Trinity is with Jesus’ assertion that Jews know what they worship. Likewise, the apostles never explained Jesus as one individual that was made of two natures.

Onenessians Substitute Christ’s Qualifications

Compare the Scriptures we’ve discussed thus far with what Onenessianism says:

While on earth Jesus differed from an ordinary human… in that he had all of God’s nature within him. He possessed the unlimited power, authority, and character of God. He was God by nature, by right, by identity; he was not merely deified by an anointing or indwelling. In contrast to a Spirit–filled believer, the Spirit of God was inextricably joined with the humanity of Jesus. Without the Spirit of God there would have been only a lifeless human, not the living Christ. Only in these terms can we describe and distinguish the humanity and deity in Jesus… David K. Bernard, Symposium on Oneness Pentecostalism 1986, 130.

This statement attempts to defend and justify what the term antichrist (against the anointed) explicitly means. Note very carefully that Bernard described Jesus’ humanity as being lifeless without the Spirit of God. In contrast, Jesus had declared that all authority had been given to him. That would mean, in the Oneness view, that Christ’s human, lifeless flesh was given god-like authority. That is nonsense. Christ declared that authority was given to his “person” and that is why he said “given to me.” In clear contradiction to Jesus’ declaration, Bernard’s definition of Christ is simply not of a man who was made in all things like you and me, to whom was given all authority. For Bernard, Jesus was “God by nature, by right, by identity. This is the exact opposite of what it means to be “given” authority which is what the term Christ explicitly means and identifies about Jesus! And thus, Onenessianism, is “against-the-anointed” which is anti-christ.

If Christ “possessed the unlimited power, authority, and character of God” and was “God by nature,” then in no way, shape, or form would any of the above “because and therefore” Scriptures have any real meaning whatsoever. But words do have meaning. So if this Oneness position is true, then the Bible is full of meaningless gibberish! The truth is simply that Onenessianism makes all these Scriptures, and many more, of “no effect.”

Bernard goes on to write:

How were Christ’s humanity and deity united? How did God become man?…First, the Bible does not give us complete information in this area. It does not describe Christ’s childhood, for example, nor does it reveal the inner workings of Christ’s mind. Secondly, the very nature of the subject places it beyond the comprehension of the finite human mind. Ibid., 131–132.

Contrary to Mr. Bernard’s position, the Bible actually tells us that it thoroughly furnishes us with all good teachings and doctrines (2 Timothy 3:16–17). His problem is that this thoroughly furnished doctrine does not anywhere describe the essential tenets of the Oneness belief system. Furthermore, the Scriptures we’ve been quoting do exactly what he claims the Bible does not do. The Scripture does describe Christ’s childhood to the extent that as a son he “learned obedience by the things he suffered” (Hebrews 5:8), and “he increased in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and man” (Luke 2:52). These passages describe a different upbringing than Onenessians should be comfortable with, in the same way that Trinitarians should be uncomfortable because the Bible doesn’t anywhere describe a relationship of a “God the Father” with a “God the Son.” The real issue is that neither of those relationships exist in the Bible (let alone are they explained in the Bible) because they are mythological and unbiblical! And they both deny and negate what the Bible does describe.

As far as we are concerned, the Scriptures have made Jesus’ relationship to the Father very understandable. They’ve even explained that we are to have the same “inner workings of Christ’s mind” in us as Christ had (Philippians 2:5, 12; Luke 22:42). The Scriptures have put the explanation of Christ’s relationship to the Father well within our ability to understand, ro one in particular, by using the very understandable terms of father and son to describe their relationship. These Scriptures have, as the Scripture says, “thoroughly provided” us with every good thing we need to know. What is absent from the Scriptures is any kind of systematic explanation of Modalism, just as there is no systematic description of the Trinity. Such positions must be “read into” the text.

So we see that the problem isn’t that the Bible doesn’t give us complete information. The Onenessian problem is simply that the biblical information we do have does not fit the antichristian dual nature doctrine, or the incarnation doctrine which Onenessianism embraces, preserves, and defends.

Believers on Jesus simply must listen to Jesus, and that means not being taken in by traditions of men. We pray that those who are more interested in hearing what Jesus says than being justified in their false teachings, will “come out of her my people” and really start to hear Jesus, who said:

…I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. (John 8:16, KJV)

…I am not alone, because the Father is with me. (John 16:32, KJV)

¹⁷It’s also written in your law that the testimony of two people is valid. ¹⁸I am one whotestifies about myself, and the Father who sent me testifies about me. (John 8:17–18)

Therefore the Father loves me, because I lay down my life… I received this commandment from my Father. (John 10:17–18)

Compare the Scriptures we’ve discussed thus far with what Onenessianism says:

While on earth Jesus differed from an ordinary human… in that he had all of God’s nature within him. He possessed the unlimited power, authority, and character of God. He was God by nature, by right, by identity; he was not merely deified by an anointing or indwelling. In contrast to a Spirit–filled believer, the Spirit of God was inextricably joined with the humanity of Jesus. Without the Spirit of God there would have been only a lifeless human, not the living Christ. Only in these terms can we describe and distinguish the humanity and deity in Jesus… David K. Bernard, Symposium on Oneness Pentecostalism 1986, 130.

This statement attempts to defend and justify what the term antichrist (against the anointed) explicitly means. Note very carefully that Bernard described Jesus’ humanity as being lifeless without the Spirit of God. In contrast, Jesus had declared that all authority had been given to him. That would mean, in the Oneness view, that Christ’s human, lifeless flesh was given god-like authority. That is nonsense. Christ declared that authority was given to his “person” and that is why he said “given to me.” In clear contradiction to Jesus’ declaration, Bernard’s definition of Christ is simply not of a man who was made in all things like you and me, to whom was given all authority. For Bernard, Jesus was “God by nature, by right, by identity. This is the exact opposite of what it means to be “given” authority which is what the term Christ explicitly means and identifies about Jesus! And thus, Onenessianism, is “against-the-anointed” which is anti-christ.

If Christ “possessed the unlimited power, authority, and character of God” and was “God by nature,” then in no way, shape, or form would any of the above “because and therefore” Scriptures have any real meaning whatsoever. But words do have meaning. So if this Oneness position is true, then the Bible is full of meaningless gibberish! The truth is simply that Onenessianism makes all these Scriptures, and many more, of “no effect.”

Bernard goes on to write:

How were Christ’s humanity and deity united? How did God become man?…First, the Bible does not give us complete information in this area. It does not describe Christ’s childhood, for example, nor does it reveal the inner workings of Christ’s mind. Secondly, the very nature of the subject places it beyond the comprehension of the finite human mind. Ibid., 131–132.

Contrary to Mr. Bernard’s position, the Bible actually tells us that it thoroughly furnishes us with all good teachings and doctrines (2 Timothy 3:16–17). His problem is that this thoroughly furnished doctrine does not anywhere describe the essential tenets of the Oneness belief system. Furthermore, the Scriptures we’ve been quoting do exactly what he claims the Bible does not do. The Scripture does describe Christ’s childhood to the extent that as a son he “learned obedience by the things he suffered” (Hebrews 5:8), and “he increased in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and man” (Luke 2:52). These passages describe a different upbringing than Onenessians should be comfortable with, in the same way that Trinitarians should be uncomfortable because the Bible doesn’t anywhere describe a relationship of a “God the Father” with a “God the Son.” The real issue is that neither of those relationships exist in the Bible (let alone are they explained in the Bible) because they are mythological and unbiblical! And they both deny and negate what the Bible does describe.

As far as we are concerned, the Scriptures have made Jesus’ relationship to the Father very understandable. They’ve even explained that we are to have the same “inner workings of Christ’s mind” in us as Christ had (Philippians 2:5, 12; Luke 22:42). The Scriptures have put the explanation of Christ’s relationship to the Father well within our ability to understand, ro one in particular, by using the very understandable terms of father and son to describe their relationship. These Scriptures have, as the Scripture says, “thoroughly provided” us with every good thing we need to know. What is absent from the Scriptures is any kind of systematic explanation of Modalism, just as there is no systematic description of the Trinity. Such positions must be “read into” the text.

So we see that the problem isn’t that the Bible doesn’t give us complete information. The Onenessian problem is simply that the biblical information we do have does not fit the antichristian dual nature doctrine, or the incarnation doctrine which Onenessianism embraces, preserves, and defends.

Believers on Jesus simply must listen to Jesus, and that means not being taken in by traditions of men. We pray that those who are more interested in hearing what Jesus says than being justified in their false teachings, will “come out of her my people” and really start to hear Jesus, who said:

…I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. (John 8:16, KJV)

…I am not alone, because the Father is with me. (John 16:32, KJV)

¹⁷It’s also written in your law that the testimony of two people is valid. ¹⁸I am one whotestifies about myself, and the Father who sent me testifies about me. (John 8:17–18)

Therefore the Father loves me, because I lay down my life… I received this commandment from my Father. (John 10:17–18)

 Print This Post