The Plan became flesh, and lived among us. We saw his glory, such glory as of the one and only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

In the Book of John there are at least 149 passages that teach a clear personal distinction between the Anointed One (Christ) and God the Father.¹ This is an incredible number of Scriptures in light of the fact that John is considered the biblical figure most responsible for establishing a basis for believing Jesus was an incarnation of the Father Himself. In light of these many passages, it is a legitimate question to ask whether or not John believed that Jesus was an incarnation of the Father (as many believe but which he never actually said), or whether these great number of passages to the contrary are the ones that explain John’s belief.

We’ve already discussed John 1:1–2, 14 in Chapter Three and will do so again in Chapter Twenty-Seven, so we won’t spend much additional time here on that passage. What we would like to note here is that verse 14 describes the one who is made flesh as “the Son of the Father.” Again we must observe that nowhere does Scripture ever claim that anyone, including God and Christ, was ever a son to himself or a father to himself. The very words “son” and “Father” should be descriptive enough. Otherwise, it would be like saying it is biblical for one to be a husband to one’s self or a wife to one’s self.

Trinitarians like to claim that Jesus is a son to the Father, but they don’t believe that makes him either subordinate or inferior to the Father, other than in his temporary role as a human. The problem is: that view redefines the very roles of father and son and goes against God’s moral code for parents and children.

²“Honor your father and mother,” which is the first commandment with a promise: ³“that it may be well with you, and you may live long on the earth.” ⁴You fathers, don’t provoke your children to wrath, but nurture them in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. (Ephesians 6:2–4 and Exodus 20:12)

We know that Trinitarians are wrong in their extrabiblical tradition because a son is not coequal in time or authority with his father. Therefore, the Trinity is a redefinition of the meaning of the very word “son” and the concept that it represents.

This is likewise the case with the modalistic Oneness practice of redefining “son” to mean “the flesh” of the person of Jesus, and “Father” as “the deity” of the person of Jesus. The only difference is that the former is the Trinitarian result of adding to the word of God, while the latter is the Oneness result of adding to the word of God. Both are also a “taking away,” or “subtracting from,” because they take away from the biblically established contexts, meanings and usages of the terms as the Bible writers would have given them.

Furthermore, John didn’t say that God transmutated into flesh, or that God ‘joined’ to flesh, or any other of those extrabiblical ideas, suppositions, and inventions that men come up with. John said the word, or plan, was made flesh. This also has specific meaning. If it really said what these groups assert it means, then John said that God was made into flesh. That’s because they unashamedly declare that since John said the plan “was with God and the plan was God… and the plan was made flesh,” it means (to them) the same as saying “God was made flesh.” But the Scripture doesn’t say “God was made flesh” for very good reason: God cannot change. What did change was that God’s plan became a reality. God’s plan went from being only in the mind of God to being a reality in our physical universe. God’s word/plan is/was conceptual until that concept was made into a human being. This way of understanding John agrees completely with how the writer of Hebrews explained the same event from a different angle:

¹God, having in the past spoken to the fathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, ²has at the end of these days spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds. (Hebrews 1:1–2)

Simply stated, God used to speak through prophets, but now He speaks through His Son. God appointed His Son as heir of all things, so, just as Jesus claimed, all power and authority was given to him. Now some (as the Trinitarians do with Genesis 1:26–27) will focus on just the part they want, and say, “See here, it says ‘through whom also he made the worlds.’” We’ll explore this passage more fully when we examine Hebrews, but in brief, the Trinitarian idea comes from viewing this passage through the pagan notion of an incarnation of deity, as described in Acts 14:11, and also polytheism (many-god-ism), as was renounced by Paul in 1 Corinthians 12. This is why we must keep in mind the biblical idea of God’s foreknowledge, which we covered in Chapter Sixteen. If we view these issues within the biblical, Jewish view of God’s foreknowledge, we can keep ourselves from being “spoiled by philosophy,” as we are warned in Colossians 2:8.

Take, for example, the words of God to Jeremiah the prophet:

⁴Now the word of YHWH came to me, saying, ⁵Before I formed you in the belly I knew you, and before you came forth out of the womb I sanctified you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations. (Jeremiah 1:4–5)

Are we to believe, by these words, that Jeremiah preexisted his earthly life? Absolutely not. Rather, this is how God speaks based on His absolute foreknowledge. Now, if Jeremiah were to believe God and go out and say, “before I was born God knew me and sanctified me,” would we be correct in presuming Jeremiah was claiming that he literally preexisted? No, we’d just be jumping to conclusions and not listening to what was said in context.

This type of “foreknowledge” language is the manner of speaking that the Bible uses for Jesus, and that Jesus uses of himself. This is why it is important to align our way of thinking with the OT law as our Schoolmaster, and not the world of paganism with its ideas of preexistent beings and incarnations of deity.

And just as importantly, we have the rest of the Book of John to help us understand what is meant. That is, unless we willfully choose to be ignorant of all the Scriptures where the gospel speaks quite clearly.

So let’s do that instead. Let’s look through the Book of John and see whether or not it clearly explains things for us. Let’s start with verses where John described Jesus:

No one has seen God at any time. The one and only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him. (John 1:18)

What does it mean that the Son is in the bosom of the Father? Well, in Luke 16:22–23 we read a parable from Jesus where a man named Lazarus died and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom, and a beggar is spoken of as seeing Lazarus in Abraham’s bosom. The word (kolpos) in this context simply means lap, or perhaps breast. In John 13:23 we find the disciple John leaning against Jesus’ bosom. In other words, it is saying that Jesus was held close to God in a place of honor with God, like John was to Jesus. So then, no one has seen God, but they most definitely both saw and touched Jesus (John 1:14 and 1 John 1:1). Jesus is as close as a person can get to God. That’s what these passages are telling us.

Now let’s consider John the Baptist’s testimony. As we read, try to resist the tendency to interpret the way your traditions have conditioned you to read, and try to understand John’s language in the Jewish idiomatic way that he would be speaking:

²⁶John answered them saying… ²⁷“He is the one who comes after me, who is preferred before me…” ²⁹The next day, he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! ³⁰This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who is preferred before me, for he was before me.’… ³⁴I have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God.” ³⁵Again, the next day, John was standing with two of his disciples, ³⁶and he looked at Jesus as he walked, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God!” (John 1:26–35)

Very simply, the individual whom John is describing is, first the Lamb of God, and secondly the Son of God. From the OT perspective, the title Son of God means he is the promised son of David that God swore by an oath would come out of David’s body.

The title “Lamb of God” has to do explicitly with the fact that Christ came into this world to lay down his life for our sins. We’ve covered this in Isaiah 53:3–12: he was wounded for our transgressions, and his soul was made an offering for sin.

We’ve also covered God’s foreknowledge of the event of Christ’s passion. There are those who would jump to conclusions because he was the lamb slain from the foundation of the earth (Revelation 13:8). Yet Hebrews 10:5, 7, 9–14, 18–20 teaches us that in actuality Christ was slain only once, in the end of the earth. So John is using typical biblical imagery to declare that this is the man, sent from God, who would sacrifice his life in payment of our sins.

Moving on, we come to Nathanael’s confession of who Jesus is:

⁴⁹Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are King of Israel!” ⁵⁰Jesus answered him… ⁵¹… “Most assuredly, I tell you, hereafter you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.” (John 1:49–51)

So then, within the first chapter of John we have the words of the Bible explaining for us exactly what all these things really mean. It is all so very simple if we allow the Bible to set the meanings for the terms and words it uses. Incarnationists want us to believe that John said one thing in John 1:1–2, 14, but then described something else throughout the rest of his writings! We believe John clearly explained what he meant. The problem is that some readers jump to conclusions over unclear passages that are explained elsewhere differently in John’s writings.

If we read John’s words through the words of the OT Schoolmaster, we will come up with these conclusions: Jesus is the promised son of David that would come and be the Son of God; and he is also, as was spoken by Isaiah, the one who would lay his life down for our sins as the Lamb of God; and all of this was the plan of God since before the world began. And thus we understand what John meant when he said, and “the plan was made flesh.”

Destroy This Temple and in Three Days I Will Raise It Up

In John 2 is found one of the incarnation theorist’s favorite proof texts:

¹⁸The Jews therefore answered him, “What sign do you show us, seeing that you do these things?” ¹⁹Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” ²⁰The Jews therefore said, “Forty-six years was this temple in building, and will you raise it up in three days?” ²¹But he spoke of the temple of his body. (John 2:18–21)

The way that some people interpret this passage is a classic case of not seeing the forest for the trees. It’s also a classic case of jumping to conclusions. But worst of all, it’s a case of not “hearing” Jesus, something he often admonished his disciples to do. And indeed, those who truly are his disciples hear his word, which means all of his word, not just selected portions taken out of context and in isolation from all other Scriptures on the subject.

One thing you will never hear Jesus saying or explaining is that he did this or any other thing of his own inherent power. You will never read anywhere in the Bible that Jesus was able to raise himself from the dead because he was God incarnate. We do have places where Jesus expressly explained how he could make statements like the one above and yet not be God himself. Will you hear him, or man’s traditions to the contrary? That is the question.

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… ²⁶For as the Father has life in himself, even so he gave to the Son also to have lifein himself. ²⁷ He also gave him authority to execute judgment, because he is a son of man… ³⁰I can of myself do nothing.” (John 5:19–30)

¹⁷Therefore the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. ¹⁸No 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)

In what way did Jesus explain himself to be the very person of God incarnate who was operating through his own impersonal human nature? In no way! Rather, he clearly explained the exact opposite:

• • The son can do nothing of himself
  • The Father gave to his son authority and to have life in himself (therefore, the Father’s life is inherent, but the son’s life was not inherent—it was given to him)
  • Jesus received the power to take up his life again by commandment from the Father.

   

  So in one passage Jesus claimed that he would raise his body up, but in many subsequent explanations he clarified that he could actually do nothing of himself and that the Father actually gave him the authority by commandment to rise from the dead. As for the bulk of the Scriptures on the subject, the rest all teach that God, who raised Jesus from the dead, was personally distinct from the one whom God raised from the dead. Here are some of those passages:

  ¹⁴But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, ¹⁵and killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, to which we are witnesses. (Acts 3:14–15)

  Acts 3:14–15 tells us that the Holy and Righteous One who was the Prince of life was killed, and was a distinctly different “who” from God, who raised him from the dead.

  ¹⁰Be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that in the name of Jesus the Anointed One of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, in him does this man stand here before you whole. ¹¹He is “the stone which was regarded as worthless by you, the builders, which has become the head of the corner.” ¹²There is salvation in none other, for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, by which we must be saved! (Acts 4:10–12)

  Acts 4:10–12 tells us that Jesus, the Anointed One of Nazareth, was killed, and he was yet again a distinct “who” from God, who raised him from the dead.

  ³²We bring you good news of the promise made to the fathers, ³³that God has fulfilled the same to us, their children, in that he raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second psalm, “You are my Son. Today I have become your father.” ³⁴Concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he has spoken thus: “I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.” (Acts 13:32–34)

  Acts 13:32–39 shares some additional crucial details about how the resurrection fits into God’s prophetic plan. According to the apostle’s interpretation, the resurrection was the actualization of God’s sworn oath to raise up a son. They applied God’s phrase, “Today I have become your father,” to that day. Next we are told, again in reference to the resurrection, that it was also a fulfillment of God’s promise to give the sure mercies of David, a covenantal oath, to the offspring of David. And finally, we are told that the resurrection of Jesus was the actualization of David’s prophetic words, “You will not allow your Holy One to see decay.” It must be kept in mind that this phrase in the Hebrew was not a reference to God, but a clear and distinct reference to a, that is one, saint of God.

  Therefore, if we do away with man’s jumped-to conclusions and pet theories and rely on what the word of God says and explains for us, we find the Scriptures are quite descriptive about how God was a person distinct from the man whom He raised from the dead.

  ³⁰The times of ignorance therefore God overlooked. But now he commands that all people everywhere should repent, ³¹ because he has appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he has ordained; of which he has given assurance to all men, in that he has raised him from the dead. (Acts 17:31)

  With regard to the resurrection, Acts 17:30–31 makes very clear that the one who is ordained is necessarily by definition personally distinct from the one who does the ordaining. This is evidence of God’s assurance to all the rest of us “men,” or humankind. So this passage reiterates that, like Aaron, Christ didn’t take this honor on himself (Hebrews 5:4). So then once again, by definition, Jesus can’t be “the Anointed One” and also be the one who anointed or ordained himself.

  Another point made in Acts 17:31 is that God gave assurance to all men by the resurrection of Christ. If Christ’s resurrection were merely a matter of God raising His own impersonal flesh from the dead, in what way would this equate to assurance to all men? If God merely raised Himself from the dead, that would hardly equal any assurance to the rest of us mortals. So the incarnation of God theory neutralizes the very real and true hope that God has given and shown to all men by raising Jesus from the dead.

  ⁶But the righteousness which is of faith says this, “Don’t say in your heart, “Who will ascend into heaven?” (that is, to bring Christ down); ⁷or, “Who will descend into the abyss?” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead.)” ⁸But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth, and in your heart;” that is, the word of faith, which we preach: ⁹that if you will confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10:6–9)

  Romans 10:6–9 is a very popular and well-known passage. And it offers yet stronger and more powerful words with regard to the resurrection. It doesn’t say that God raised Himself, or for us to believe Jesus raised himself, but that God raised the Anointed One (the one who didn’t take this honor on himself). Then it clearly says it is the righteousness of faith to believe that “God raised him” from the dead. So then those of us who believe in the two “whos” are the true people of the righteousness which is of faith.

  ¹²Now if Christ is preached, that he has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? ¹³But if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither has Christ been raised. ¹⁴If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith also is in vain. ¹⁵Yes, we are found false witnesses of God, because we testified about God that he raised up Christ, whom he didn’t raise up, if it is so that the dead are not raised. (1 Corinthians 15:12–15)

  The context for 1 Corinthians 15:12–15 is the apostle’s certainty of the resurrection of Jesus the Anointed One. And part of that established truth is the element about God: “that He raised up the Anointed One.” These very terms indicate in the strongest manner that, in raising Christ, God did not raise Himself up from the dead.

  Those who claim to the contrary, saying that God raised Himself from the dead, either don’t believe that He was truly dead, or they must redefine death. For the Scripture says, “there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom in the grave” (Ecclesiastes 9:10).

  Paul, an apostle (not from men, neither through man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead). (Galatians 1:1)

  In Galatians 1:1, we are told that Jesus the Anointed One is a distinct “who” from God the Father who raised him from the dead. Paul used very clear, biblical terminology that did not mean God raised Himself from the dead.

  ²⁰Which he worked in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and made him to sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, ²¹ far above all rule, and authority, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in that which is to come. ²²He put all things in subjection under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things for the assembly. (Ephesians 1:20–22)

  Consistently, when the Bible is allowed to explain Christ’s resurrection, it is shown to be God who raised Jesus, while whatever part Jesus played, he did so by commandment from his Father. Jesus said, “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).

  This saying of Jesus brings to mind two examples where Jesus actually did raise people from the dead. Notice his wording in doing so:

  …Turning him to the body said, Tabitha, arise. And she opened her eyes: and when she saw Peter, she sat up. (Acts 9:40, KJV)

  And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. (John 11:43, KJV)

  In both examples, we see Jesus commanding the dead people to act. Note that Jesus didn’t say, “I am God and I say you are alive,” or anything like that. No, he gave them a commandment to come to life! So not only do we have Jesus’ express statement that he received a commandment from his Father to take up his life, but he also exemplified for us through his actions how such a commandment looks.

  Trinitarians love to quote Matthew 28:19 as the source of their baptismal formula, but they have no examples of any biblical figure being baptized the way they do it. Those who baptize into the name of Jesus Christ have many examples in the Bible, including Jesus himself indirectly telling Paul to be baptized into his name (Acts 9:5–6, in conjunction with Acts 22:16 and Romans 6:3). Likewise, we who hold the true Son of God doctrine not only have clearly explained Scriptures that testify to our position, but the words and examples of Jesus himself as well.

  To this list could be added many other Scriptures teaching that God, who raised Jesus, was personally distinct from the one He raised: Acts 10:40, Acts 13:30; Eph. 1:20; Col. 2:12; 1Th. 1:10; 1Pe. 1:21; Rom. 4:24, Rom. 6:4, Rom. 8:11; 1Co. 6:14; 2Co. 4:14; Heb. 13:20.

  In contrast to all these Scriptures, there is not one verse of Scripture anywhere that says that Jesus’ deific nature raised his impersonal human flesh-nature from the dead, or that Jesus raised himself because he was inherently God. So even when they quote John 2:18–21, neither it, nor any other verse actually goes on to say, proclaim, or teach what Onenessians believe to be the case. Once again, they have to interpret it and interject their preconceived ideas before they can try to use it as one of their proof texts.

  The resurrection of the dead has to be held as one of the most important doctrines that the apostles preachedin the Book of Acts. This doctrine represents the great hope that God offers to humankind. The specific hope the apostles preached to humanity is actually thwarted and made suspect if Jesus was an incarnate deity that raised himself from the dead. We’ve already quoted four places in Acts where the apostles preached the resurrection. Notice in the following verses how the apostles indicated that the resurrection was a central part of their message of Jesus.

  ²⁹Brothers, I may tell you freely of the patriarch David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. ³⁰ Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, he would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, ³¹he foreseeing this spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was his soul left in Hades, nor did his flesh see decay. (Acts 2:29–31)

  ¹As they spoke to the people, the priests and the captain of the temple and the Sadducees came to them, ²being upset because they taught the people and proclaimed in Jesus the resurrection from the dead. (Acts 4:1–2)

  But God raised him from the dead. (Acts 13:30)

  ²Paul, as was his custom, went in to them, and for three Sabbath days reasoned with them from the Scriptures, ³explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.” (Acts 17:2–3)

  Men and brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. Concerning the hope and resurrection of the deadI am being judged! (Acts 23:6)

  Having hope toward God, which these also themselves look for, that there will be a resurrection of the dead. (Acts 24:15)

  Unless it is for this one thing that I cried standing among them, ‘Concerning the resurrection of the dead I am being judged before you today!’ (Acts 24:21)

  Why is it judged incredible with you, if God does raise the dead? (Acts 26:8)

  How the Christ must suffer, and how, by the resurrection of the dead, he would be first to proclaim light both to these people and to the Gentiles. (Acts 26:23)

  Instead of man’s traditions negating the bulk of the Scriptures we’ve covered here, we have chosen to believe Paul: “… I fear, lest somehow… he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached… you may well put up with it!” (2 Corinthians 11:2–4, NKJV).

  As a comparison, we ask our Oneness neighbors to consider how similar their attitude on this subject is to the Trinitarian use of Matthew 28:19 in defense of their practice of baptizing into the titles. Against the bulk of the Scriptures that teach to baptize into the name of Jesus, and in spite of the examples of the apostles doing only just that, the Trinitarians still stubbornly cling to their baptismal formula because of what Jesus said in one verse. In opposition to their position, we even have Jesus himself, in Acts 9:6, telling Paul what he “must do”; namely, to “call on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16), and that name was provided to Paul by Jesus himself back in Acts 9. So really it is those of us who baptize into Jesus’ name who hear Jesus, because we listen to his explanation and do not just jump to conclusions over one verse.

  In like manner Onenessians have their one sole verse (John 2:18–21) they also tenaciously cling to against the bulk of the Scriptures to the contrary. Jesus himself said he could do nothing of himself (John 5:19–30) and that he was given the authority to rise from the dead by commandment from God (John 10:17–18).

  Onenessianism completely disregards Paul’s dire warning in 2 Corinthians:

  ³But I fear, lest by any means… ⁴… if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. (2 Corinthians 11:3–4, KJV)

  Paul’s warning isn’t exactly stated as a commandment; however, others that are very similar are commandments. Note that he mentioned another gospel along with another Christ. Any incarnation theory definitely is another gospel because it is preaching that God Himself became Christ, not that Christ was a man approved of God. We are commanded to call accursed those who present any other gospels than the one the apostles preached.

  ⁹If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:6–9, KJV)

  In addition, we are commanded to “teach no other doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:3).

  No incarnation doctrine is spelled out in the Scriptures. The idea of “incarnation” can only be concluded by interpreting the way the devil interprets. Even clearer is the fact that no apostle even came close to preaching an Incarnationist view of Christ. This distortion of the Scriptures is devastating for those who love the word of God!

  In Summary

  The idea that Jesus was an incarnation of YHWH who raised Himself from the dead negates a great many Scriptures and supplants them with an idea that is never clearly spelled out or explained in the Scriptures.

  Since we cover many other passages in John throughout this book, we’ll leave John for now and go on next to the Acts of the Apostles.

  Notes

  1. The following verses are the places where Jesus is clearly and irrefutably held in personal distinction from God the Father in the Book of John: John 1:14, 18, 29, 36, 49, 51; 2:16; 3:2, 16–17, 34–35; 4:34; 5:17, 19, 20–24, 26–27, 30–31, 36–38, 43, 45; 6:27, 29, 32, 37, 39, 40, 44, 46, 57, 65, 69; 7:16–18, 28–29, 33; 8:16, 18–19, 26–29, 38, 40, 42, 49–50, 54–55; 9:4; 10:15, 17–18, 25, 29, 30, 32, 35–37; 11:22, 27, 41–42; 11:51–52; 12:13, 27, 30, 44, 49–50; 13:1, 3–4, 20, 31–32; 14:1–2, 6–7, 10, 12–13, 16, 20–21, 23–24, 26, 28, 31; 15:1–2, 8–10, 15–16, 23–24, 26; 16:3, 5, 10, 15–17, 23, 25–28, 30, 32; 17:1–15, 18, 21–26; 18:11; 20:17, 21, 31; 21:19.

 Print This Post