²⁷Then he said to Thomas, “Reach here your finger, and see my hands. Reach here your hand, and put it into my side. Don’t be unbelieving, but believing.” ²⁸Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” ²⁹Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen, and have believed.” (John 20:27–29)

Did Thomas make a confession that Jesus himself was his God? That is what many people conclude, and if this verse were all we had of the whole story, it would appear to be justified and clear as day. But would Thomas have made that confession from what he had learned by being with Jesus for three-and-a-half years? The answer is no. Instead, his confession is a very logical and reasonable reaction to what Jesus had been teaching him, such as:

Even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for I am not alone, but I am with the Father who sent me. (John 8:16)

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

You will leave me alone. Yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me. (John 16:32)

Now, if Thomas really believed Jesus was “not alone,” it would be perfectly fitting upon seeing Jesus for Thomas to recognize that where Jesus was, there God also was. The key, again, is in not jumping to conclusions like the devil does, but in hearing the rest of the Scriptures on the topic.

For a little more context, let’s keep in mind that Jesus had just recently been raised from the dead. Let’s consider the ramifications and implications of that.

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)

¹⁹Jesus therefore answered them, “Most assuredly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing of himself, … 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… 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)

Jesus had been teaching about his resurrection in the context of his body being a temple. In this context, we see that Jesus clearly denied inherent authority. He would raise the temple of his body by a commandment.

We covered this topic in some depth in Chapter Nineteen. Jesus was very clear in stating that he could do nothing of himself, but that the Father gave him authority by commandment to take up his life again. Thus, in his confession, Thomas was acknowledging exactly and precisely that: Jesus was not alone.

Now keep in mind that the temple of the Lord signified God’s dwelling presence.

¹Now when Solomon had made an end of praying, the fire came down from heaven, and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices; and the glory of Yahweh filled the house. ²The priests could not enter into the house of Yahweh, because the glory of Yahweh filled Yahweh’s house. (2 Chronicles 7:1–2)

The idea of God’s presence actually dwelling in the temple and being with the children of Israel was a major part of the significance of the temple. But that never meant that the temple itself was God! This same truth was carried over into the NT, with the major difference being that God would no longer dwell in temples made with hands, but within us humans!

For you are a temple of the living God. Even as God said, ‘I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they will be my people.’ (2 Corinthians 6:16)

²⁴…The God who made the world and all things in it, he, being Lord of heaven and earth, doesn’t dwell in temples made with hands ,… ²⁶He made from one blood every nation of men… ²⁷ that they should seek the Lord, if perhaps they might reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. ²⁸“For in him we live, and move, and have our being.” As some of your own poets have said, “For we are also his offspring.” ²⁹ Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold, or silver, or stone, engraved by art and design of man. 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 17:24–31)

Now let’s consider Thomas’ reaction with the bigger NT picture in mind.

As Jews, the disciples had been looking for an heir of David to deliver them from bondage under Rome. It just wasn’t “right” that God’s chosen people should be held under the authority of a pagan empire: they desired and hoped for a return to the previous glory of Israel under God, as led by a Jewish king!

But Jesus’ resurrection from the dead was something way beyond their expectations of a restored Davidic kingdom! What had actually come to pass, and which they were called to be witnesses to, was that Jesus, who had claimed to be a human temple of God, had been raised from the dead by God!

For Thomas to exclaim, then, “my Lord and my God,” was simply to confess that Jesus is and was who he had been saying he was all along: an anointed man with whom God was always present!

Jesus did not claim to have resurrected himself by his own inherent power or authority! Rather, he had explicitly explained, as we saw above, that he was operating under direction, authority, and command of God!

So then, Thomas, in his confession and declaration, was affirming and recognizing both Jesus as his Lord, and the God who was with him. That is, Jesus wasn’t merely a man who had been given an anointing and all authority from God and who then set about using his power and authority and unction wherever and however he saw fit on his own. Rather, everything that Jesus said and did, he did by direction and commandment from God within him and working through him. So, far from being “equal” to God, Jesus remained under authority to God in everything he did, because God was always with him. Therefore, it was most fitting that Thomas would proclaim, “my Lord and my God.” Not just my Lord acting alone, but the one whom God had made Lord and Messiah acting completely within the very presence of God, and to an extent better than was ever realized in the temple presence of the Old Covenant! This is, after all, the ultimate hope and destiny of all true Christians: that God would be all in all (1 Corinthians 15:28).

The question is, does the Scripture state and support this view and understanding of Thomas’ confession?

Indeed, our understanding of the verse is exactly what all the apostles, speaking in one mind and accord, preached Christ to be on the day of Pentecost; that is, a man whom God raised from the dead and anointed to be the Son of David and whom God made Lord and Messiah:

²⁹…The patriarch David… ³⁰…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. ³²This Jesus God raised up, to which we all are witnesses. ³³Being therefore exalted by the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promiseof the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this, which you now see and hear. ³⁴For David… says himself, “The Lord [Yahweh] said to my Lord [Adoni], ‘Sit by my right hand, ³⁵Until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.’” ³⁶Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified. (Acts 2:29–36)

This is how the apostles explained and preached their confession of Jesus: as a man who was anointed and sent by God. This isn’t jumping to conclusions, this is the apostle’s express position. This was the apostles all together in one accord proclaiming what they witnessed and believed.

And what confession regarding Jesus were the apostles prompting from the Jews? That Jesus was God? No, not at all. Not here or anywhere else. Rather, they proclaimed that it was God who raised Jesus from the dead and made him Lord and Messiah (Anointed One).

We’ve seen Jesus saying that God hadn’t left him alone. We’ve also seen that the apostles never, ever clearly concluded or proclaimed that Jesus actually was God Himself. These Scriptures are all very clear and to the point. And yet there is still more that could be quoted in this regard. So next we’ll look at Scriptures explaining that we are always to view God and his Christ together and not separately (that is, not one in person, but one in purpose, and that purpose being the salvation of mankind):

²¹I have not written to you because you don’t know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth. ²²Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the Antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. ²³Whoever denies the Son, the same doesn’t have the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also. ²⁴Therefore, as for you, let that remain in you which you heard from the beginning. If that which you heard from the beginning remains in you, you also will remain in the Son, and in the Father. (1 John 2:21–24)

⁹Whoever transgresses and doesn’t remain in the teaching of Christ, doesn’t have God. He who remains in the teaching, the same has both the Father and the Son. ¹⁰If anyone comes to you, and doesn’t bring this teaching, don’t receive him into your house, and don’t welcome him… (2 John 9–10)

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me.” (John 14:6)

These verses explain that the Father and son are a “package deal.” No one comes to the Father “except through” the Son. This means there is no salvation in any other man-made forms of religion! Neither Buddhism, Islam, or any other form of religion will bring anyone to the Father.

What these verses also make clear is that the Father is not the person of the Son, and the Son is not the person of the Father. These also don’t “redefine” the terms father and son. These aren’t saying that son equals the flesh of the person of Jesus, and the Father equals his deity. We covered this topic thoroughly in Chapter Twelve, and those concepts apply here also.

The Bible is very clear that Jesus is not God. It is therefore a misrepresentation of the biblical record to interpret Thomas’ confession in a way that makes it appear that is what he believed.

The key is to interpret in the manner of Jesus, the true witness, rather than Satan, the known liar. In all our efforts, we’ve used clear “it is written again” Scriptures. Onenessians take John 20:28 and reinterpret it in a way that makes all the other explanatory Scriptures of no effect, just like the devil does.

That is to say, those who claim that Thomas was confessing Jesus to be God, rather than “the Son of God in truth,” who the Father was with, by being in the son, are lying about the biblical testimony. In fact, that is exactly what John was saying when he wrote, “²²Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the Antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:22).

Jesus Disagrees with Pharisee Conclusions

Let’s look at the following example where the Jews concluded that Jesus must have been claiming to be God. Ask yourself as you read whether Jesus felt these Jews had correctly understood him or not.

⁵Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven you.” ⁶But there were some of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, ⁷“Why does this man speak blasphemies like that? Who can forgive sins but God alone?” ⁸Immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, said to them, “Why do you reason these things in your hearts? ⁹ Which is easier, to tell the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven;’ or to say, ‘Arise, and take up your bed, and walk?’ ¹⁰ But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he said to the paralytic— ¹¹“I tell you, arise, take up your mat, and go to your house.” (Mark 2:5–11)

Clearly, Jesus did not agree with these Jews! While some claim these Jews were correct in their reasoning, Jesus didn’t. Instead, he criticized them for “reasoning in their hearts,” which is what they were doing that caused them to think he was claiming to be God! Jesus didn’t say, “You’re right, I’m claiming to be God the Father incarnate!” To the contrary, he explained to them something completely different. He said, “But that you may know that the son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins…”

The phrase “son of man” literally means the offspring of humanity! Jesus was simply demonstrating the authority, as he said later, in Matthew 28:18, that, “all authority has been given to me in heaven and earth!” Jesus was claiming this authority as to his personal humanity that was a separate personality from that of God who gave him such authority.

Does the Scripture say that only God can forgive sins? That is what many presume. Well, what does the Scripture say? If that is so, what do we do with this next Scripture and others like it?

²²When he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit! ²³Whoever’s sins you forgive, they are forgiventhem. Whoever’s sins you retain, they have been retained.” (John 20:22–23)

If only God can forgive sins, then how was Jesus able to give men the power to forgive sins? The answer is, the same way in which Jesus was given the authority by his Father. It comes from God through men when they are acting on behalf of God, just as the Jews did in the OT temple! So it is just a false dilemma type argument to claim that only God can forgive sins.

Let’s look at a couple of biblical commentators who explain what Jesus was telling these disciples.

John 20:23. The authorisation of the Apostles is completed in the words: … “Whosesoever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven to them: whosesoever ye retain, they are retained.”… The announcement is unexpected. Yet if they were to represent Him, they must be empowered to continue a function which He constantly exercisedand set in the forefront of His ministry. They must be able in His name to pronounce forgiveness, and to threaten doom. This indeed formed the main substance of their ministry, and it was by receiving His Spirit they were fitted for it. The burden was laid upon them of determining who should be forgiven, and who held by their sin. Cf. Acts 3:26; Acts 5:4. W. Robertson Nicoll, M.A., LL.D. (Editor), The Expositor’s Greek Testament (New York: Doran), as quoted at http://biblehub.com/commentaries/john/20-23.htm .

23. Whose soever sins, &c.] This power accompanies the gift of the Spirit just conferred. It must be noticed (1) that it is given to the whole company present; not to the Apostles alone. Of the Apostles one was absent, and there were others who were not Apostles present: no hint is given that this power is confined to the Ten. The commission therefore in the first instance is to the Christian community as a whole, not to the Ministry alone…

It follows from this (2) that the power being conferred on the community and never revoked, the power continues so long as the community continues. While the Christian Church lasts it has the power of remitting and retaining along with the power of spiritual discernment which is part of the gift of the Spirit. That is, it has the power to declare the conditions on which forgiveness is granted and the fact that it has or has not been granted. Alfred Plummer, The Gospel According to S. John, with Maps, Notes and Introduction (London: C. J. Clay and Sons, Cambridge University Press Warehouse, 1896), 344.

So, no, it isn’t only God who can forgive sins like the unbelieving Jews wrongly assumed! While it is true that Isaiah had God saying he blots out sins (i.e., Isaiah 43:25), verses such as that do not say that only God can and/or ever will be the only one with the authority to do so!

Now, in addition to referring to Luke 5:20–26, which we’ve just addressed, Mr. Bernard also referred to the following passages as proof texts:

John 8:19–27. This is where Jesus said that to know him and to see him is to know and see the Father. We covered this in Chapter Two, where we saw that Jesus refuted this interpretation by claiming he was not alone and could do nothing of himself.

John 5:17–18. In this passage the Jews sought to stone Jesus because he called God his Father. Calling God his Father is not grounds for biblically accusing Jesus of claiming to be God (see Chapter Six).

John 8:56–59. We dealt with this passage in the last two chapters. Jesus said, “Before Abraham comes to be, I am.” The Scriptures are very clear that the term “I am” is not equal to saying “I am that I am,” as God says of Himself, and that in the fullness of time Jesus was made of a woman. Thus Jesus did not claim to be God the Father in this passage either, as Mr. Bernard “reasons in his heart” him to be.

John 10: 30–33 and 38–39.This is where we turn our attention now…

Did Jesus claim to be God, and did the Jews understand him correctly in John 10:30–33 and 38–39?

³⁰“I and the Father are one.” ³¹Therefore Jews took up stones again to stone him. ³²Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from my Father. For which of those works do you stone me?” ³³The Jews answered him, “We don’t stone you for a good work, but for blasphemy: because you, being a man, make yourself God.” ³⁴Jesus answered them, “Isn’t it written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods?’ ³⁵If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture can’t be broken), ³⁶do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God?’ ³⁷If I don’t do the works of my Father, don’t believe me. ³⁸ But if I do them, though you don’t believe me, believe the works; that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” ³⁹ They sought again to seize him, and he went out of their hand. John 10:30–39)

In what verse did Jesus say, “You’re right. I am claiming to be God the Father because that is who I am.” Somehow, that is what Onenessians believe he meant and said here. The problem is, he didn’t say any such thing. In fact, he challenged, criticized, and corrected their faulty reasoning as not being in line with the Scriptures.

False teachers want you to go along with the faulty “reasoning in their hearts” that the Jews were practicing, rather than to hear what Jesus was trying to explain to them.

To understand what Jesus was telling these Jews, let’s look at the context. Jesus was actually referring to Scriptures that the Jews should have understood. And by Jesus’ reference, they should have understood that God did set men in the place of God over other men.

To see this, let’s first look at the passage Jesus quoted. The verse says:

I said, “You are gods, All of you are sons of the Most High.” (Psalms 82:6)

This is the context in which Jesus claimed himself to be the Son of God. In other words, Jesus said he was only claiming himself to be a child of God in the sense that Israelites were “sons of the Most High.” The difference between Jesus and the rest of them is that he did claim to be The Son. But that certainly wouldn’t have been enough for them to accuse him of blasphemy. After all, God had also sworn with an oath that David’s offspring would be God’s Son!

So what Jesus actually said to the Jews was simply that his personal authority came from the same context of authority that God had given corporately to the leaders of the Israelites. The OT clearly taught this authority in the corporate body of Israel, and it did so, in the Bible, by calling them “gods.”

God presides in the great assembly. He judges among the gods. (Psalms 82:1)

In this verse we find an explanation of how God dwells in the congregation of His people. That is, when they follow His law and stand in judgment (according to His commandments) of the wrongs people do against each other, God Himself is among them. Passages such as Exodus 21:6 and Exodus 22:8–9 express the commandments for the Sons of God to sit in judgment with God in their midst. Here is how the King James Version translates the passages:

If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges (elohim = gods), to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods. For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whom the judges (elohim)shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour. (Exodus 22:8–9, KJV)

Then his master shall bring him unto the judges (Elohim = gods); he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever. (Exodus 21:6, KJV)

In both of the above passages, the phrase “the judges” comes from the Hebrew word elohim. That is a word used non-exclusively for “God” in the OT. These passages represent what Jesus was referring to in saying that God Himself called His people “gods” (elohim). According to the interpretation of these verses in Psalms 82:1 (the Scripture interpreting Scripture), when the children of Israel sat in judgment according to God’s commandments, there was God Himself in the midst of them presiding over the assembly.

As if to address this very issue, Paul wrote: “⁵For though there are things that are called “gods,”… ⁶yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus the Anointed…” (1 Corinthians 8:5–6).

So then, just as Jesus pointed out, the concept that God bestows authority on people and resultantly, in that context, calls them “gods” (elohim) is biblically established. But that does not make them “true God.” Jesus was clearly telling them that his authority was a derived authority, as was the case with the Israelite judges/elohim, and thus not an authority that was inherent to his person. The Jews refused to accept Jesus in this context out of their own Scriptures. The Onenessians also refuse to hear Jesus when he proclaims that he himself is not the “true God”: “³This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ” (John 17:1–3).

Thus, to assign inherent deity to the person of the Son is to take Jesus’ words totally out of his own context and reject Jesus’ clear explanation of himself.

The Jews’ problem wasn’t in understanding Jesus’ claim of god-like authority over them. It was in not accepting that he was just what he said he was: a man exalted in God’s plan before time began and who had been given all authority in heaven and earth (just as he had said). Therefore, the problem many Christian people have is exactly the same problem the Jews had—they cannot understand, believe, or accept that this man Jesus could be made to appear equal to God because he was sent by God and thus came in all of God’s authority! This is what is literally meant by being anti-christ: being against an anointed man being given and exercising such authority!

Jesus emphatically did not deny that he was a man who was exercising what previously would have been considered god-like authority. Instead, he justified and explained his authority through the Scripture! Even though Jesus explained it, most people still can’t simply accept it. People will not hear Jesus’ explanation of himself: “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth” (Matthew 28:18).

We simply need to hear what Jesus explained, rather than jumping to conclusions about what he meant.

The False Witnesses at Jesus’ Trial

Most Oneness preachers adamantly contend that the Jews knew and correctly understood that Jesus was claiming to be God. As we’ve seen above, Jesus clearly refuted the idea that he was claiming to be God incarnate and explained himself to the contrary from their own Bible.

When we take a look at the biblical testimony around Jesus’ trial and condemnation, we find that no Jew directly accused Jesus of being God during this time. That is, they ultimately didn’t consider his “I am” statements to be grounds for accusing him of claiming to be God, so they had to look elsewhere for condemning material.

So now, let’s look at the passages relating to Jesus’ trial.

⁵⁹Now the chief priests, the elders, and the whole council sought false testimony against Jesus, that they might put him to death; ⁶⁰and they found none. Even though many false witnesses came forward , they found none. But at last two false witnesses came forward, ⁶¹and said, “This man said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.’” ⁶²The high priest stood up, and said to him, “Have you no answer? What is this that these testify against you?” ⁶³But Jesus held his peace. The high priest answered him, “I adjure you by the living God, that you tell us whether you are the Christ, the Son of God.” ⁶⁴Jesus said to him, “You have said it. Nevertheless, I tell you, henceforth you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of the sky.” ⁶⁵Then the high priest tore his clothing, saying, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Behold, now you have heard his blasphemy.” (Matthew 26:59–65)

⁵⁵Now the chief priests and the whole council sought witnesses against Jesus to put him to death, and found none. ⁵⁶For many gave false testimony against him, and their testimony didn’t agree with each other. ⁵⁷Some stood up, and gave false testimony against him, saying, ⁵⁸‘We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.’’ ⁵⁹Even so, their testimony did not agree. ⁶⁰The high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, ‘Have you no answer? What is it which these testify against you?’ ⁶¹But he stayed quiet, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, ‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?’ ⁶²Jesus said, ‘I am.You will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of the sky.’ (Mark 14:55–62)

What did Jesus confess here? That he was God? No, rather, that he was “the Son of the Blessed… I am…”

⁶⁶As soon as it was day, the assembly of the elders of the people was gathered together, both chief priests and scribes, and they led him away into their council, saying, ⁶⁷“If you are the Christ, tell us.” But he said to them, “If I tell you, you won’t believe, ⁶⁸and if I ask, you will in no way answer me or let me go. ⁶⁹From now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God.” ⁷⁰They all said, “Are you then the Son of God?” He said to them, “You say it, because I am.” ⁷¹They said, “Why do we need any more witness? For we ourselves have heard from his own mouth!” (Luke 22:66–71)

What did Jesus confess here? Once again, “the Son of God… I am…” “son” does not equal “father”! A son and a father are never, ever a son to themselves or a father to themselves. This is the “I am” of Jesus: he is the son of God. God is not a man…neither the son of man (Number 23:19)!

These are the “official” accusations that were brought against Jesus, and his replies. He was put to death for claiming to be the Son of God, not God Himself.

In not one of these accusations was Jesus accused of directly claiming to be God the Father. If Jesus had been so plain, as some claim, then they would not have needed to seek other witnesses. Apparently even these Jews were shrewd enough to realize that “reasoning in their hearts” alone wasn’t enough to accuse Jesus of claiming to be God incarnate.

In these passages, Jesus agreed with them that he called himself the Son of God and the Son of Man. And yet, the apostles, in the Scriptures that cannot be broken, referred to his accusers as false witnesses over and over again.

Why is that so? It is simply because the things Jesus did claim of himself were not crimes that were worthy of death. They had “sought false testimony against Jesus, that they might put him to death; and they found none” (Matthew 26:59–60). That is, they found no testimony worthy to put him to death over! You see, it was a two-part proposition. Just finding testimony is one thing; finding testimony of a crime worthy of death is quite another.

We must keep in mind that Judea was under Roman occupation. Claiming any other type of authority, at that time, was a capital crime (“worthy of death”) under Roman law. The Romans killed people for a lot less, as Josephus and other contemporary sources make clear. The issue with the Jews was not whether Jesus thought he was God; the issue was whether the role he claimed was a challenge to the existing authority and could bring down the wrath of Rome upon the populace, and there is no question that it was. Any anointing going on was in the control of Rome, which is to say, no kings, and the high priest was a Roman appointee who could and was deposed at Roman will. The charges against Jesus likely had more to do with Roman context than scriptural content.

Another thing we need to keep in mind is that, according to the testimony of the apostles, the Romans didn’t find Jesus guilty; they wanted to release him. This seems to lend further support to the idea that the Jews were merely offering trumped up charges by which they could get rid of him.

That is the religious, political, and historical context in which Jesus was forcefully rejected by the religious leaders of his day. They accused him, primarily, of two things: a) he claimed that he would destroy the temple and in three days he would raise up a temple made without hands; and b) he claimed he was the Christ, (meaning the Messiah, or the Anointed One), and the Son of God (meaning the heir to David’s kingdom), or in other words, king of the Jews.

So what makes these accusations false? It wasn’t that he didn’t make these claims, because he did. Rather, it is simply that his claims didn’t break any biblical laws as the Jews were implying they did.

…Where there is no law, neither is there disobedience. (Romans 4:15)

Or, as the King James put it: “…Where no law is, there is no transgression.” (Romans 4:15)

The simple fact is that there were no OT laws that said what Jesus was doing were things that “only” God could do or say. He simply wasn’t guilty of any sin! He didn’t claim to be God! He had transgressed no commandment that the Pharisees pointed to, so apparently they had to make up some accusations!

Let’s look at the Scriptures that these accusations are typically said to be based upon and see what they tell us.

A) Scriptures that speak about God and the temple.

¹⁷The place, Yahweh, which you have made for yourself to dwell in; The sanctuary, Lord, which your hands have established. ¹⁸Yahweh shall reign forever and ever. (Exodus 15:17–18)

Although the Scriptures do teach that God “made” the sanctuary, we know that in actuality it was the workers who were enlisted for the work who actually constructed the buildings. So did God build the temple alone? Absolutely not! When Jesus said that he would raise up the temple in three days, as we have seen previously in Chapter Nineteen, he claimed to have been given the power to take up his life again by commandment. Such are not the words of God! God doesn’t need to command himself to do something! It was specifically in regard to raising from the dead that Jesus explained he could do nothing of himself…

¹⁹Jesus therefore answered them, “Most assuredly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing of himself… . ²⁶… 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… ³⁰I can of myself do nothing.” (John 5:19–30)

So then, for later Incarnationists to assert that Jesus was claiming to be God, or even claiming to be equal to God, because he prophesied that he would raise the temple of his body in three days, is to bear false witness against Jesus just like the Pharisees had done. This is exactly what the Jews who crucified him were guilty of! Let anyone who claims this produce the Scripture that says, “anyone who claims he can destroy the temple and build it again in three days (while also claiming he can do nothing of himself) is claiming himself to be equal to God and is worthy of death.” Where is that Scripture? Such a scriptural commandment simply does not exist, and where there is no commandment there is no transgression. The Jews were making up their own rules by which to judge Jesus. And the Onenessians and Trinitarians just love them for doing so! Of course, there is always the option that the apostles were the ones who were making things up against the Jews; but that isn’t my position or, in general, the position of those for whom this book is intended.

B) He claimed he was the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God.

We covered each of these three titles in Chapters Six and Seven. Here are the basic conclusions:

David’s son was to be the Son of God by sworn oath from God:

⁸Now therefore thus shall you tell my servant David, Thus says YHWH … ¹²When your days are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall proceed out of your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom… ¹⁴I will be his father, and he shall be my son… (2 Samuel 7:8–14)

Note that God explicitly said that David’s son would be God’s Son: “I will be his father, and he shall be my son.” This, coupled with other Scriptures like it, is the biblical source for calling the Messiah the Son of God.

Brothers, 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. 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. (Acts 2:29–30)

Let us also recall that God Himself made Moses a “god” by making him a redeemer (Exodus 7:1). Certainly no Jew would have accused Moses of claiming to be God Himself because God had made him a god to Pharaoh.

All of this means that those asserting that Jesus claimed to be “God” are guilty of the same false accusations that the Jews who put Jesus to death were guilty of:claiming he blasphemously claimed to be God by claiming to be the Son of God and that he would raise himself (by commandment from God) in three days after they crucified him.

The apostles said the accusers of Jesus were false. To the contrary, false teachers would have us believe the apostles were false and the unbelieving Jews were telling the truth!

In fact, if Incarnationists are right, and telling the truth, then the apostles were the ones who were the liars for claiming the Jews bore “false witness” against Jesus! Remember, we’ve heard such teachers claim the Jews knew what Jesus meant. The Incarnationists have thus checkmated themselves by their doctrine. If they are right, then that means the apostles lied and aren’t to be trusted (i.e., 1 Corinthians 15:14–17). This, of course, would invalidate all of Christianity, which is built on the testimony of the apostles! (See, for example, John 17:20; Ephesians 2:20.) This then would also nullify their position as “apostolics,” and they should condemn Jesus along with the apostles since they have taken up sides with the Jews against the apostle’s testimony!

Dear Oneness reader, how are you going to justify agreeing with the Jews’ false accusations? By “reasoning in your heart”? Will that work for you better than it worked for the Jews who falsely accused him of making himself equal with God? No!

We have chosen to believe the apostles and thus to be apostolic. Since Onenessians don’t believe the testimony of the apostles, they should stop calling themselves “apostolic,” because, in fact, they actually deny the apostle’s doctrine and make the apostles out to be liars.

The Snake-Handler Factor:The idea that Jesus claimed to be “God,” and the Jews understood him correctly, even though he refuted the accusation, is yet another classic case of handling the Scriptures the way the snake handlers do. When Jesus is given the opportunity to explain himself, and his explanation is actually heeded, we find him explaining himself completely otherwise than the Oneness conclusion.

Jumping to Conclusions. In this chapter we’ve learned a new expression for jumping to conclusions: “reasoning in their hearts.” The Bible teaches that the heart is desperately wicked above all things (Jeremiah 17:9). This is why “heart-reasoning” is most often contrary to biblically stated concepts. Thus, ignoring what the Bible explains in order to hold a teaching that is never clearly stated in the Bible but is actually refuted over and over again, is just more jumping to conclusions the way the devil interprets the Bible. Finally, we found out that the conclusions that Onenessians jump to just happen to be the same type of false accusations that the Jews who murdered Jesus were guilty of: accusing Jesus of claiming to be equal to God by the things he said, which was the primary false accusation that sent Jesus to the cross!

The OT Schoolmaster.The OT never taught, and no true Jew ever believed, that the Messiah would be God the Father Himself incarnate. Furthermore, the NT account of the “official” trial of Jesus doesn’t present the Jews as accusing him of claiming to literally “be” the person of God (as Incarnationists falsely claim). Besides, Jesus had clearly and effectively refuted their false accusation that he was trying to make himself “equal” with God head-on when they had tried to pin it on him earlier (John 10:30–39). Their accusation that he was a “man” making himself “equal” to God is a completely different idea than the Incarnationist view. So now we have a case of the Incarnationists falsely accusing the false accusers of Jesus! The Jews no more assumed Jesus to be saying that he was God than they understood God to be a Trinity! It is the same with claiming the Jews were accusing Jesus of being God incarnate: it didn’t happen, and it is dishonest for Incarnationists to make such a false claim.

On the other hand, one thing that was a real concern would be someone claiming to be the king of the Jews. This would bring the whole community of Jews into danger. It was the Romans who oversaw all leadership in Judea at that time. For a Jew like Jesus to claim himself king would have been regarded as treason by the Romans. However, the Roman officials, according to what we read in the NT, found no guilt in Jesus (Luke 23:4). So, the condemnation of Jesus did fall back upon the Jews at that point. They let a known criminal go free, and had a man considered guilt-free by Rome, crucified at the hands of the Romans.

Teach no other doctrine. Nowhere did the apostles expound on the idea that Jesus claimed to be God the Father incarnate; nor did Jesus.

References:

Here is another site that does a good job of dealing with John 20:28: http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/TTD/verses/john20_28.html

 Print This Post