²²Men of Israel, hear these words! Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God to you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you, even as you yourselves know, ²³him, being delivered up by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by the hand of lawless men, crucified and killed; ²⁴whom God raised up, having freed him from the agony of death, because it was not possible that he should be held by it… ³⁶Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified. (Acts 2:22–36)

This section contains manifold Scriptures that clearly state and prove that Jesus is personally distinct from the Father and that he is completely human. This is in contrast to the Oneness and Trinitarian ideas that Jesus is an incarnation of deity. In this section, the reader may wish to skim the data, or spot check it in certain places, if they would like. Of course we’d like to think the reader would want to, at least eventually, read every reference. But part of our point here is the sheer volume of this information. We understand it may become overly tedious. We’d rather readers skim this section rather than get so bogged down they fail to finish.

In our passage above, Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God, was made both Lord and Christ. These simple and clear words state exactly what we are intended to believe. These words also happen to lay the foundation of the true apostolic assembly of Jesus Christ by way of his apostles.

People holding other views simply cannot quote Scripture like this that simply and clearly states their positions. No apostle ever simply preached that God is a Trinity of Persons and the Second Person of the godhead who robed himself in flesh and came to earth. Similarly, no apostle ever simply preached that Jesus Christ is the very person of YHWH God who incarnated Himself as a man. Neither one of these man-made doctrines is simply stated as such anywhere in the Bible.

Our opening passage is not alone, nor has it been taken out of context. In no way is it an exception to other usual and customary descriptions of Jesus. And yet, for some entirely groundless reason, this description of the Anointed One is considered miserably inadequate, even heretical, by the great majority of professing believers if it is not immediately supplemented and “improved” upon by man’s extrabiblical ideas! That is, if you tell most people that you believe Jesus is a man who was approved of God, whom God made Lord and Christ and raised from the dead and that’s all he is, they will call you a heretic and dissociate from you. We know this by experience. How can it be wrong, let alone heretical, to confess belief in Christ exactly the way that the apostles constantly and consistently preached and clearly explained him to be?

So in this section we are going to address what could suitably be called “the elephant in the room.” That is, we are going to look at a great many Scriptures that matter-of-factly describe and explain that Jesus the Messiah is the human descendant of King David who was foreknown by God and has been highly exalted by God. In doing so we will also describe and defend our view that those other positions have misinterpreted Christ’s role as God’s perfect representative to mankind and have confused such passages by “identifying” Christ as “personally” being that God whom Jesus represented, which idea Jesus himself clearly denounced many times!

But first let’s ask whether “Representative” is a good choice of words for describing Jesus. What Scriptures give us the authority or set the precedence for this word and the view it symbolizes? Well, it’s the following, some of which we’ve already mentioned:

²²For Moses indeed said to the fathers, “The Lord God will raise up a prophet for you from among your brothers, like me. You shall listen to him in all things whatever he says to you.” (Acts 3:22)

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)

For I spoke not from myself, but the Father who sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. (John 12:49)

These verses embody the meaning of what the word “Representative” means. In Jesus, God raised up a prophet, through whom God would speak to us; therefore, in that capacity Jesus represents the Father to us. Jesus himself testifies that he spoke by commandment from God. This language couldn’t be clearer in explaining that Jesus was, in this sense of speaking for God, God’s representative.

In Trinitarianism, it is theorized that it was “God the Son” who was incarnated somewhat in the pagan sense of Acts 14:11, and that is who was speaking the words that God the Father gave. In Onenessianism, it is imagined that it was God the Father Himself who incarnated Himself, thereby becoming a son to Himself. Neither of these views are what Jesus ever said of himself. They are both, however, clearly contradicted by Jesus’ words. In the first case it was the Lord God who would raise up a prophet, not the second person in a Trinity. In the second case, Jesus clearly said he didn’t speak from himself, which utterly demolishes the Onenessian view that Jesus is just an incarnation of the person of the Father.

Let’s consider how similar these two positions are to each other:

A) There are absolutely no Scriptures saying that God consists of three persons. This is a huge problem for those supporting the Trinity. And yet, as many of us have discovered, Trinitarians seem totally unfazed by this glaringly obvious problem. They have literally hundreds of verses that they feel “prove” the Trinity, even though no biblical passage ever calls God that or describes Him as such, and many verses can be quoted to refute the theory. Furthermore, most Trinitarians are quite adamant that if you don’t believe in the Trinity you are most likely, if not definitely, not saved. The Trinity is, thus, an extrabiblical “revelation,” which really means you have to believe beyond what the Bible says in order to receive it.

B) Likewise with Onenessianism, there is not one verse that simply and clearly states that Jesus is an incarnation of God the Father, or that Jesus is the very person of YHWH God Himself, or that God became a son to Himself, or that the person of Jesus is made of dual natures of humanity and deity, or that when the Bible talks about Jesus as son it is referring to his impersonal flesh, but when it is speaking of God or Father it is speaking of his deity. And yet these are fundamental “truths,” according to most Onenessians, and if you don’t believe in them, according to them, you most likely aren’t a true, saved believer! Oneness is, thus, an extrabiblical “revelation,” which really means you have to believe beyond what the Bible says in order to receive it.

So you see, even though the results appear different, the method Onenessians use is actually very similar to that of Trinitarians. The end result is to destroy the actual faith spelled out in the Bible and replace it with a man-made imitation, which is idolatry.

Furthermore, there are literally hundreds of verses that clearly and consistently teach against the Oneness view by stating or showing that God the Father is numerically personally distinct from His Son, Jesus Christ. Usage of the very title Christ is really all the evidence that many passages need because being anointed is by biblical definition a role someone cannot take upon himself. And yet Onenessians often seem just as unfazed as Trinitarians are at the complete lack of Scriptures that state, explain, or expound on their position in simple terms.

We are not at all saying that either group ignores the problem. Rather, we are asserting that both groups have their ready-to-order responses (we could honestly call them “excuses”) that make these volumes of Scriptures of no effect through their respective traditions of men.

For example, according to Oneness writer Jason Dulle, quoted below, those hundreds of verses are, ironically, a huge “problem.” They are definitely a problem for them, but not for us. For us that would be like saying that “the commandment not to tempt God is a problem, but…” We would expect a response like this from someone expecting Jesus to jump from a pinnacle to prove he is God’s Son. But we wouldn’t expect such a statement from someone who wanted to live by every word of God. It begs the question, why is the sheer volume of descriptions of Jesus throughout the Bible a problem? Why are the bulk of the descriptions of Jesus not rather the true descriptions of what we are really supposed to believe, understand, and confess about Jesus the Anointed One? Why is the practice of “reading into a small number of verses what they don’t actually say or expound on” not counted as “the problem,” instead of the clear bulk of Scriptures to the contrary?

I will tell you the answer without the sugar coating of political correctness: it is because Gnosticism is all about reading a hidden, esoteric meaning into the text that allows them to feel a certain “spiritual exceptionalism” over other “less spiritually enlightened” individuals. In a word, it is spiritual arrogance. The opposite of that spiritual arrogance is to “receive with meekness the engrafted word which is able to save your souls” (James 1:21). But don’t take my word for it—here’s what Jesus says:

¹⁶Jesus therefore answered them, “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. ¹⁷If anyone desires to do his will, he will know about the teaching, whether it is from God, or if I am speaking from myself. ¹⁸He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory, but he who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.” (John 7:16–18)

Jesus said he was speaking from God, not from himself. He didn’t claim the Oneness position at all! So Jesus himself tells us that even his doctrine isn’t his, but the Father’s who sent him. He also says that those who speak from themselves, who add to and take away from the word of God according to their own opinions, do so to seek their own glory, and by that act reveal their unrighteousness. That is what Jesus said; don’t shoot the messenger.

Thus all Christians should give great caution to any teachings or attitudes that originated outside the Bible and especially those extrabiblical opinions and formulations that originated in Gnosticism. And the truth is, historically speaking, Gnosticism was where that hidden meaning or spiritual revelation type of attitude originated.

In contrast to the secrecy of Gnosticism, with its hidden mysteries and unwritten traditions, the apostles had quite an open attitude toward what they were preaching and teaching. That is, they expressed no inclination toward hiding the truth in mysterious sayings. Quite to the contrary, they wrote such things as these…

¹²Having therefore such a hope, we use great boldness [or plainness/openness] of speech, ¹³and not as Moses, who put a veil on his face…
¹Therefore seeing we have this ministry, even as we obtained mercy, we don’t faint. ²But we have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by the manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. ³ Even if our Good News is veiled, it is veiled in those who perish; ⁴ in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the Good News of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn on them. (2 Corinthians 3:12; 4:1–4)

Whereas Jesus had told the disciples that he spoke in parables, this was not the method the apostles used to preach and teach the gospel. In fact, they said that if what they were saying was veiled or hidden at all, it was only hidden to those who were unbelievers! That means that if someone believes in a teaching or doctrine that is not clearly spelled out, explained, and expounded upon in the Scripture provided by the apostles, but instead is something different than what is spelled out, that doctrine is a teaching of disbelief in the apostles’ doctrines, and thus not a biblical truth!

In order to make his message clear, Paul contrasted verse 3:12 with the veil over Moses’ face. The contrast he made was between that which was hidden and that which is now made clear. The Greek word Paul used (which is translated as “boldness” in the quote above) carries with it the idea of freedom of speech:

NT:3954 parreesia, refers properly to one’s freedom to say anything … and thence to straightforwardness and openness in speech. In the Greek realm this word group occurs above all among political authors. Parressia is virtually the equivalent of the “freedom (of speech)” of free citizens in the Attic democracy (Demosthenes Or. 111.3 f.), which admittedly existed only among equals… –Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament

Paul used great freedom of speech in making known what he was teaching. All of this should tell us that we shouldn’t be looking for hidden or veiled meanings in the teachings of the apostles. Rather, we should be looking for what they were plainly, clearly, and openly telling us. Does this not indicate that any idea viewing the very large bulk of Scriptures on a topic as “problematic” should be instantly held with the highest suspicion?

This begs yet another question: if the apostles used such great plainness of speech, why didn’t their speech sound like that of Trinitarians or Onenessians? The answer is simple. It’s because that isn’t what they were preaching or teaching! The apostles were preaching and teaching something different from the Trinity or Oneness!

So not only should we read the Bible in such a way as to glean what it is simply saying; we should also shun teachings that can only be found by reading between the lines, particularly those ideas that make other Scriptures null and void. If we observe anything about the way both Trinitarians and Onenessians try to show their doctrines in the Scripture, it is their constant negating and denigrating of what the Bible clearly and abundantly explains and describes, particularly about who and what Jesus Christ truly is.

This is what we come up against in considering Jason Dulle’s attitude regarding the very numerous Scriptures that speak directly on the topic of Christ’s relationship to his Father. Dulle himself notes he is up against a problem of some “magnitude” (in support of Onenessianism) in explaining why such passages can’t really mean what they so clearly and plainly state. Here is how Dulle explains this problem:

To convey a sense of the magnitude of the problem confronting us, consider this small sampling of passages in which a clear distinction is made between the Father, Son, and Spirit: In the Great Commission, Jesus said all power was given to Him in heaven and in earth (Matthew 28:18). To be given something implies a distinction between one who gives and one who receives, and thus a distinction between Jesus and the one who gave Him all power.
Jesus said the Father was greater than Himself (John 14:28). ‘Greater’ is a comparative term that implies the presence of two distinct entities. Surely Jesus did not mean to say He was greater than Himself! On another occasion He said, ‘The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father do; for whatever he does, the Son does likewise. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all things that he himself does’ (John 5:19–20; see also 3:32). Here we have one showing, and one doing. Clearly Jesus is not showing Himself what to do. In another context He plainly said of His own ability, ‘I can of mine own self do nothing’ (John 5:30). Even the words Jesus taught were first given Him by the Father (John 12:49–50). Once again we have one giving, and one receiving. All such statements point to a genuine distinction between Father and Son.
Furthermore, Jesus said, ‘… even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love’ (John 15:10b). One cannot keep their own commandments and abide in their own love. Such a statement implies the existence of one who gives the commandment, and one who keeps the commandment; one who loves, and one who abides in that love.
Jesus spoke of the Father as being with Him (John 8:29), and Himself as proceeding from and being sent by the Father (John 8:42; 14:24; 16:27–28; 17:8, 18), returning to the Father (John 16:5, 7, 10), and as being sanctified by the Father (John 10:36). The Father is even said to honor the Son (John 8:55).
Jesus told His disciples He would pray to the Father to send them the Spirit. The Spirit is said to proceed from the Father, speaking not of Himself, but speaking that which He will hear (Hear from whom? Himself?). The Spirit is even said to glorify Jesus (John 14:16–17; 15:26; 16:13–14).
On another occasion Jesus said that if we love Him, then His Father will love us, and they will come to us and make their abode with us (John 14:23). If there is only one God, and both Jesus and the Father are that God, why does Jesus speak of the Father and Himself in the plural?
Finally, Jesus said, ‘My Father has not left me alone; for I always do those things that please him’ (John 8:29). Did He mean to say He always pleased Himself? It seems evident that Jesus was speaking of the Father as being someone other than Himself. –Jason Dulle, http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/ugstsymposium.htm (emphasis mine).

It is simply amazing that such verses are a magnitude of a problem, as if they are a threat to a core teaching. For us, Dulle has just captured exactly what these verses are saying… and then swiftly rejected their clear and obvious meaning! What, we ask, needs to be added to them by man’s reasoning abilities? What, pray tell, is wrong with looking at these Scriptures and accepting that these aren’t the problem, but that these “hundreds of distinctions we find in the NT between Father and Son” (quoting Dulle) are the gospel truth, and anything that doesn’t align with these hundreds are actually the problem? Mr. Dulle is right about one thing: there are, at our count, roughly 578 verses at a minimum in the NT where God and Jesus the Anointed are clearly and irrefutably referred to as “personally” different individuals in one way or another. There are even more if one counts the verses that have “unclear” mentions of both Father and son together in the same passage.

The actual “problem” is that Mr. Dulle has simply failed to “receive with meekness” (James 1:21) what he admits these Scriptures describe! We quote from above, “Such a statement implies the existence of one who gives the commandment, and one who keeps the commandment…” Here we have Dulle himself noting there are two “who’s” being testified to in the Scriptures. But for Dulle these passages only “imply” something, and this then has become Dulle’s “yea, has God said” declaration: “Yea, has God’s word said that there are two who’s, the Father and the Son? No, that can’t be right, for God knows that… xxx,” and thus he proceeds to insert his idea of what God’s word means but never even says let alone explains! Truly that is what we should consider to be “a magnitude of a problem!”

Following, then, is the way that Jason Dulle proposes his own brand-new solution to the so-called problem that the magnitude of the Scriptures impose against the Oneness position. Unfortunately, the true Son of God doctrine, which Dulle himself admits is spelled out in hundreds of Scriptures, is not given even as an unviable option here, since he had already ruled that out prior to this next passage of his:

When it comes to reconciling the Biblical distinctions between Father and Son with Biblical monotheism we are met with only a few viable options. We could conclude that:
1. It is a separation between two divine essences (Bitheism, Tritheism).
2. It is a distinction between two divine persons within one divine essence (Binitarianism, Trinitarianism).
3. It is a distinction within Jesus, between His divine nature (identified as “Father”) and His human nature (identified as “Son”).
4. It is a distinction between YHWH’s transcendent (cosmic) and incarnate modes of existence.
…I will argue that only option four can do full justice to the Father-Son distinction, while at the same time maintaining God’s uni-personal nature, the deity of Christ, and the unity of His person. –Jason Dulle, accessed 8/3/2015, “Avoiding the Achilles Heels of Trinitarianism, modalistic monarchianism, and Nestorianism: The Acknowledgement and Proper Placement of the Distinction Between Father and Son,” http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/ugstsymposium.htm.

This is a clear case of starting with a preconceived denominational bias, and then proceeding to justify it at any cost. It betrays a loyalty to the error of man’s traditions rather than to the word of God preached by the apostles, which is truth. The proof of this is in the acknowledgement of the sheer volumes of scriptures that need to first be explained away through artificial, man-made ideas, rather than to receive them as the truth that sets free.

In case you didn’t notice, Dulle listed and ruled out the common Oneness “dual-nature” belief in point three. Yet for whatever reason he decided not to label it as such. Then, instead of going to the Scriptures for his position, he simply took the liberty of inventing and proposing yet another new doctrine. There is no Scripture teaching that Christ consists of distinctions “between YHWH’s transcendent (cosmic) and incarnate modes of existence.” Apparently Mr. Dulle has forgotten the exhortation to “teach no other doctrine” and “to teach no other Jesus” either! Otherwise, perhaps Mr. Dulle would care to quote chapter and verse where this teaching of YHWH’s “modes of existence” is spelled out and explained, or better yet preached by the apostles, and further yet is taught in the OT schoolmaster that brings us to the true Christ. Perhaps it is right next to the lost biblical verse where the word Trinity is coined and its doctrinal elements of “one substance in three persons” are spelled out.

For the record, our Bible doesn’t exhort us to give respect to misrepresentations of the gospel of truth. It tells us ever so clearly that if anyone preaches any other gospel than the apostles preached, they are to be accursed (Galatians 1:6–11).

What is the difference between the Trinitarians saying that God is one substance in three persons and Dulle saying the difference between Christ and the Father is a difference between God’s “transcendent (cosmic) mode and incarnate mode”? There is no difference apart from some holding one opinion while others hold another: they are both man-made opinions and nothing more! Furthermore, they are both equally contrary to what the Bible actually describes! Remember, again, that no father was ever a son to himself and no son was ever his own father. These very terms are all we need to express and explain the personal and moral relational differences between Jesus and the Father. We don’t need man-made theories such as Dulle has invented and imagined.

Dulles’ basic problem is simply that he recognizes that hundreds of Scriptures aren’t in harmony with the Oneness position, so rather than discarding Onenessianism in favor of what the Bible actually says (as many of us have done), he is left searching for an alternate meaning to explain away what those verses do say. This is exactly how the Trinitarians deal with Scriptures that refute their false teaching. The problem isn’t in the Scriptures themselves, but in people’s willingness to receive them. The symptom of this unwillingness shows itself in methods of interpretation used to weaken, neutralize, and then ultimately contradict what the Scriptures actually do teach.

The real solution is simply to get back to what the Bible clearly teaches. So in this section that is what we are going to do. We are going to bring to light a hearty sampling of this “magnitude of Scriptures” that clearly teaches the personal distinctions between Jesus the Anointed One and his God and Father, who is also our God and Father. That is the purpose in this fourth section.

¹⁶Jesus said to her, “Mary.” She turned and said to him, “Rhabbouni!” which is to say, ‘Teacher!’ ¹⁷Jesus said to her, “Don’t touch me, for I haven’t yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brothers, and tell them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” (John 20:16–17)

 Print This Post