Chapter Twenty One – The Epistles

“I Am Not Alone”

Romans

¹Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the Good News of God, ²which he promised before through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, ³concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, ⁴who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 1:1–4)

The Book of Romans, the first book of the letters (epistles), begins by describing Jesus, the Anointed One. Paul doesn’t call him “God, the second person of the Trinity,” nor does he call him “God Incarnate.” To the contrary, he is the Anointed One and the Son of God who was “born of the seed of David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God… by the resurrection from the dead.” This is a particular definition and explanation of Jesus that is totally reversed by the false idea that Jesus was an incarnation of God.

Before going on with Paul, let’s look at some statements from James D. G. Dunn regarding the way in which Paul spoke of Jesus. Dunn is a highly respected, often quoted contemporary scholar. The following insights he provides are quite enlightening.

Within Jewish thought there was a fair amount of speculation about exalted heroes… Jewish monotheistic faith could accommodate the idea of one highly exalted, without (apparently) any thought that Jewish monotheism was compromised or would have to be rethought… Equally striking is the repeated formula in the Pauline letters in which God is spoken of as ‘the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (Rom. 15:6; 2 Cor. 1:3; 11:31; Col. 1:3; Eph. 1:3, 17; also 1 Pet. 1:3). The striking feature is that Paul speaks of God not simply as the God of Christ, but as ‘the God… of our Lord Jesus Christ.’ Even as Lord, Jesus acknowledges his Father as his God. Here it becomes plain that kyrios [lord] is not so much a way of identifying Jesus with God, but if anything more a way of distinguishing Jesus from God… That is, that Jesus’ lordship is a status granted by God, a sharing in his authority. It is not that God stepped aside and Jesus has taken over. It is rather that God shared his lordship with Christ, without it ceasing to be God’s alone. James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 252–254.

Does Paul speak of Jesus as ‘God/god’? The debate here revolves around one text in particular—Rom. 9:5 What is at issue is whether the final clause would be more fairly translated: ‘from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen’ (NRSV). This is stylistically the most natural reading, and it accords with Paul’s style elsewhere… On the other hand, the theology implied in referring the benediction to the Messiah would almost certainly jar with anyone sensitive to the context… It is equally notable that it is precisely the other Pauline benedictions which bless ‘the God and Father of our Lord Jesus (Christ).’ In other words, to infer that Paul intended Rom. 9:5 as a benediction to Christ as ‘God’ would imply that he had abandoned the reserve which is such a mark of his talk of the exalted Christ elsewhere. And this would be no insignificant matter… So, in terms of reconstructing Paul’s theology, we would be wiser to hear the benediction as a moment of high exultation (for Israel’s blessings) and not as a considered expression of his theology.

We need not discuss other possible references in the Pauline corpus. They either depend on contentious or little supported readings of the text, or are later… . Particularly Tit. 2:13—‘awaiting the blessed hope and appearance of the glory of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ.’ This is the most probable rendering… And is ‘Jesus Christ’ in apposition to ‘our great God and Saviour’ or to ‘the glory of our great God and Saviour’ (cf. particularly to John 1:14 and 12:41)? James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 255–257.

The point here, in observing that God is the “God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,” is that Paul speaks of Christ in radically different ways than Onenessians or even Trinitarians do. In fact, Dunn is strongly insinuating that to read into Paul’s words the idea that Paul taught Jesus to “be” God, would be to misrepresent what Paul was saying overall.

Furthermore, Dunn makes an excellent case that the term “Lord” for Christ is not a code word for deity, as some seem to suppose. The issue is that later theologians keep insisting on interpreting Paul, not through the lens (language and viewpoint) of a first-century Jew, but in the context of post-Nicene Trinitarianism and even post-gnostic views of Christ as an incarnation.

Getting back to our opening verse for this chapter, Paul’s description of Christ is foundational. This explanation is not a side note, as if it were so full of allegory as to be barely understandable. These are clearly terms of definition. Christ means the anointed one, who, like Aaron, hasn’t taken this honor unto himself. Son means offspring, just as we’ve learned. A son isn’t a root, a spring from a well, or a ray of light from the sun. Biblically, Jesus wasn’t God’s Son because he was of the same essence of the Father. Rather he was led by the Spirit and was declared to be the Son of God by the resurrection from the dead.

Romans 1 is remarkably similar to John 1. In fact, when both are considered synonymous—that is, one can be used for interpreting the other—then only one possible view emerges. Let’s take a look at John 1:

¹In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ²The same was in the beginning with God. ³All things were made through him. Without him was not anything made that has been made. ⁴In him was life, and the life was the light of men. ⁵The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness hasn’t overcome it… ¹⁴The Word 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 1:1–14)

Now let’s compare the two passages and let them interpret each other:

John 1	Romans 1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2The same was in the beginning with God.	1…Jesus The Anointed One…of God, 2…which He had promised before through his prophets in the holy Scriptures.
14The Word became flesh, and lived among us. We saw his glory, such glory as of the one and only Son of the Father.	3…concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4who was declared to be the Son of God…by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.

It is obvious that John was using poetic, allegorical language, whereas Paul was speaking in plain descriptive language to believing disciples. Paul’s words are the Scriptures that should be used to explain John’s meanings, rather than man’s opinions that are influenced by pagan Greek ideas of the logos. Why? Because, Paul’s words reiterate plainly what the OT Schoolmaster taught about the coming Messiah. It would be unfounded to think that John was using language to support pagan ideas. Pagans would interpret John’s “logos” as one of their deities of the same name. On the other hand, Jews like the apostles would interpret John’s “word” as God’s plan for a Messiah that was always in the mind of God (God’s foreknowledge) and would be revealed in God’s time. Furthermore, there are no other Scriptures in the entire Bible that corroborate the pagan-influenced view that the Messiah would be an emanation of the material or spiritual essence of God’s substance. That idea came directly from paganism and to jump to such a conclusion would be to ignore the way Jesus taught us to interpret Scriptures: by using clear statements, not by jumping to conclusions. It’s just that simple.

In fact, practically every epistle in the NT begins by establishing itself on the authority and model of the true Son of God doctrine. The pattern is always God over Christ over the apostle or author. Here are two examples:

Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God. (2 Corinthians 1:1)

Here, to take the terms literally, Paul was saying he was an apostle under Jesus the Anointed One, and both he and Jesus were such by the will of God.

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)

Paul wasn’t an apostle ordained by men, but through Jesus who was anointed by God the Father, who raised him from the dead. This is simple enough language. Jesus died, so Paul was not talking about some person who was coequal with God who could not die, nor was he saying that Jesus the Anointed One was himself God or God’s “human nature.” And so it goes in the following: Eph. 1:1; Phil. 1:1–2; Col. 1:1–2; 1 Thes. 1:1; 2 Thes. 1:1–2; 1 Tim. 1:1–2; 2 Tim. 1:1–2; Titus 1:1; Phil. 1:3; Heb. 1:1–2; James 1:1; 1 Peter 1:1–3; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 1:3; 2 John 1:3; Jude 1:1.

All the epistles begin by simply and consistently reiterating the hierarchy that Paul made so clear in Corinthians:

But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11:3)

Christ	Husband	God
Man	Wife	Christ

It is wrong to think that since God is the head of Christ they must be personally the same. That would mean a man and his wife would have to be personally the same in order for the man to be the “head” of the wife and the wife to be the “body” of the man in the marriage relationship. In fact, in the next chapter Paul teaches us that a “body” necessarily means there are “many members” that make up the “body.”

¹²For as the body is one, and has many members, and all the members of the body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ. ¹³ For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all given to drink into one Spirit. ¹⁴For the body is not one member, but many. (1 Corinthians 12:12–14)

The point is that in one sense Jesus is the bodily temple of God, just as much as we are all the one body of Christ and husbands and wives are one “body” or “flesh” in their own marriage. No one would claim that my wife and I are therefore the same person, or that each personal member of Christ’s body is the person of Christ. In this same manner, neither do these verses teach that Christ is the person of God.

The Greek Word kai

Some Onenessian theologians claim that the introductions to the epistles teach Onenessianism. They lean on the fact that the word kai in Greek means not only “and,” but can also mean “even” or “that is.” For example, they interpret Galatians 1 in this way… “Paul, an apostle… (through Jesus Christ, [that is] God the Father, who raised him from the dead)” (Galatians 1:1). However, this is just interpreting by presupposed bias. That is, they are just cherry-picking an option that suits them, regardless of the context, when they should instead be using a holistic approach to Paul’s theology of Messiah as the Son of God, and God as his Father. For example:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Ephesians 1:3)

Onenessians simply have no biblical explanation of how the “Lord” Jesus Christ could “have” a God and a Father!

We simply need to ask ourselves what the writers were actually trying to say. If the Oneness position was what they were trying to say, did they do a very good job of it? Or were they really trying to say something else?

What we really need to do is simply to read the passages in their context. For example, let’s look at this verse: ¹“Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes, ²to the assembly of God which is at Corinth…” (1 Corinthians 1:1). If it were a hard and fast rule to interpret kai as “even/that is,” we would read something like this: “… God even/that is our brother Sosthenes…” Certainly no Onenessian would confuse this sentence to mean that dear brother Sosthenes was thereby meant to be understood as also being the person of God the Father. And yet basically that is exactly what they are assuming it says of Christ in relation to the Father. Conversely, there is not one instance of these introductions where kai is unquestionably used to mean that God and His Anointed One are one and the same individual. It is yet another way that Onenessians interject their ideas upon the text, rather than being something that is simply stated by the text. Thus, the key is simply reading the texts in context.

The key word in all of these instances is “Christ.” In all the introductions we’ve just listed, Jesus is called Christ (the Anointed One), which means the one who didn’t take this honor upon himself but was called as Aaron was. If Jesus is the one who is anointed and the one who anointed himself, then Galatians 1:1 would have to be interpreted like this: “Paul, an apostle… through Jesus the anointed one [who didn’t take this honor upon himself], [that is] God the Father [who anointed himself even though that contradicts the meaning of being anointed by another and], who raised him[self] from the dead).” Do you see how nonsensical the Onenessian use of kai becomes?

They are able to make that nonsensical conclusion simply by not keeping in mind, or purposely concealing, what the word Christ truly means.

Did you notice also, at the end of Galatians 1:1, that Paul used two personal pronouns (“who raised him”) to distinguish between God and Christ? In other words, Paul wasn’t referring to Jesus’ impersonal human nature in distinction with his deific nature; he was referring clearly and plainly to two personally distinct individuals.

Do you see how reading these words in context and with the plain meanings in sight allows us to see right through false, jumped-to conclusions of what they “could” mean. This is exactly how the Trinitarians interpret passages that “could mean” God is a Trinity when they actually don’t say so. The key is simply letting the Bible interpret the Bible, rather than using man’s opinions.

Romans Teaches Christ is a Man

Nowhere in the Book of Romans does Paul expound on the pagan idea of Jesus being an incarnation of God the Father. Rather, we continue to find the same types of explanations of what Jesus Christ is. For example, he writes:

¹⁰For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we will be saved by his life. ¹¹Not only so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation. ¹²Therefore, as sin entered into the world through one man, and death through sin; and so death passed to all men, because all sinned. ¹³For until the law, sin was in the world; but sin is not charged when there is no law. ¹⁴Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those whose sins weren’t like Adam’s disobedience, who is a foreshadowing of him who was to come. ¹⁵But the free gift isn’t like the trespass. For if by the trespass of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God, and the gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. (Romans 5:10–15)

This passage is very clear: the freely given gift of saving grace, and with it the promise of eternal life, came by one man who reversed the curse of death that also came upon mankind by one man. It begins by talking about Christ as God’s Son; that is, neither as an emanation of the Father’s essence, nor as the “impersonal human nature” in contrast to Jesus’ deific nature. Rather, Jesus is treated as though on the same level as Adam, and the passage contrasts Adam’s disobedience with Christ’s obedience. This means, in reality, that if Jesus were God incarnate he really didn’t do any great thing by being obedient to Himself.

What we see in Romans 5:10–15 is what Paul clearly taught in an explanatory way. We never find Paul clearly “teaching” an explanation of either the Oneness or Trinity view. Thus, these latter views are a way of negating what Paul actually did teach and explain in passages such as this one.

Let’s consider one final passage in Romans:

⁵Now the God of patience and of encouragement grant you to be of the same mind one with another according to Christ Jesus, ⁶that with one accord you may with one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Romans 15:5–6)

Here then, in verse six, is a good place where “and” could easily be interpreted as “even/that is,” because of the clear context. But that being the case, watch how it would look if we try to interpret it in a Onenessian sense:

…With one accord… with one mouth glorify the Deific Nature and Father of our Lord Jesus the impersonal Human Nature.

This ridiculous parody shows what Onenessians do by saying the humanity and deity of Christ are to be understood in such distinctions, and not as the personal distinctions the words father and son plainly mean. Do Onenessians really believe that the impersonal human nature of Jesus is our Lord? Of course not. The point is that they only interpret kai as “even/that is” when it fits their theology and is helpful for their cause to do so, regardless of the context. In context, the passage is simply reiterating a truth that Jesus clearly explained to us:

Jesus 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 20:17)

Jesus is clearly telling us that first, he has a God and Father, and second, that His God and Father is the same God and Father as ours—and in the same way that He is God and Father to us.

So we have gone through the Book of Romans, but we have not yet heard Paul discuss Jesus as an incarnation of God, either in a Trinitarian or in a Onenessian sense. Rather, he taught and explained something different: he has consistently upheld the Son of God doctrine just as it was understood in the OT Schoolmaster.

1 Corinthians – Jesus is God’s Son

As we read through the epistles to the Corinthians, we come upon this passage:

God is faithful, through whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord. (1 Corinthians 1:9)

This statement is pretty straightforward and continues the Son of God theme. However, what would it look like if it were interpreted through the lens of Onenessianism? For example, one Oneness preacher states their position like this:

And when you speak of Jesus Christ you are speaking of a dual nature. You are speaking of flesh and you are speaking of Spirit. And the flesh is the Son and the Spirit is the Father. Anthony Mangun, The Dual Nature of Christ, Disc 5, track 6, just over 2 minutes in.

“Our Great God and our Savior, He’s a dual nature. He’s Father and He’s Son, He’s God and He’s man. He’s absolutely God; He’s absolutely man.” Ibid., Disc 6, Track 1, 1:53.

So then, in the Onenessian understanding, 1 Corinthians 1:9 should be interpreted something like this:

…The [deific nature of Jesus] is faithful, through whom you were called into the fellowship of his [impersonal human nature], Jesus the [anointed impersonal human nature], our Lord.

If that is what it meant, I wonder why that isn’t what it says, here or anywhere else? The truth is that when the Bible speaks of Christ, it is speaking of an anointed man, period. The very term “Christ” (the Anointed One) directly refutes any interpretation claiming that Christ was a dual-natured individual. As we have shown, the idea of calling Jesus Christ a dual-natured individual is antichrist in nature, because it completely negates the truth of Jesus’ source of authority: his anointing that he did not take upon himself. Although it may seem sacrilege to criticize their position, in reality it is the Oneness position that is sacrilegious to what the Scriptures actually teach and explain about Jesus the Anointed One, God’s Son!

The True Apostolic Doctrinal Discourse on the Nature of Christ

When we get to 1 Corinthians 15, we find Paul explaining about Jesus. This is “Son of God Doctrine” through and through, spelled out plainly for us, with no mention of either Trinity or Oneness.

²⁰But now Christ has been raised from the dead. He became the first fruitsof those who are asleep. ²¹For since death came by man, the resurrection of the dead also came by man. ²²For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. ²³But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then those who are Christ’s, at his coming. ²⁴Then the end comes, when he will deliver up the Kingdom to God, even the Father; when he will have abolished all rule and all authority and power. ²⁵For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. ²⁶ The last enemy that will be abolished is death. ²⁷For, “He put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when he says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that he is excepted who subjected all things to him. ²⁸When all things have been subjected to him, then the Son will also himself be subjected to him who subjected all things to him, that God may be all in all. (1 Corinthians 15:20–28)

In this passage Paul purposely explains and defines who and what Christ is. There are no comparable explanations of the Trinity or the Onenessian incarnation doctrines. Therefore, those man-made opinions are substitutes that attempt to replace the truth Paul explained above.

In Paul’s explanation, Jesus is a man like Adam. Christ is the first fruits of those who sleep; that is, of those who die, which obviously means all the rest of us human beings. The reference to fruit is an agricultural and sacrificial term; Jesus himself is part of God’s harvest of souls, and Jesus was the first one because he was the first one to be resurrected from the dead into the presence of God forevermore!

In the latter part of the passage, Christ is personally distinct from God, who subjected all things unto him. There is no suggestion that this was Jesus’ deific nature in contrast to his impersonal human nature. To the contrary, in the end, Paul clearly says, the Son “himself ” will be subject to God, just as the rest of us are, so that God may be all in all. So Paul explicitly described this as one personal self in contrast to another personal self. This language is clear enough when theologians aren’t interjecting esoteric meanings that only they really understand. There is no Oneness talk here or Trinitarian talk. This is pure, simple and true “Son of God” teaching all the way.

2 Corinthians – God is the Father

In 2 Corinthians, we find again that God is the Father of Jesus, with no mention that Jesus the Son is code for the human nature of the person of God.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. (2 Corinthians 1:3)

The God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, he who is blessed forevermore, knows that I don’t lie. (2 Corinthians 11:31)

These two passages are reminiscent of these sayings of Jesus:

Jesus said to her, “…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 20:17)

He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will go out from there no more. I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from my God, and my own new name. (Revelation 3:12)

About the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying… “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46)

Again, these statements explicitly refer to personal whos, not impersonal natures.

Furthermore, when Paul gets down to the task of explaining who and what Jesus is, he is very clear and to the point:

¹⁸But all things are of God, who reconciled us to himself through Jesus the Anointed One, and gave to us the ministry of reconciliation; ¹⁹namely, that God was in the Anointed One reconciling the world to himself, not reckoning to them their trespasses, and having committed to us the word of reconciliation. ²⁰We are therefore ambassadors on behalf of Christ, as though God were entreating by us. We beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. ²¹For him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:18–21)

This is one of those passages that Onenessians take out of context in order to use it to “prove” their position. They claim that since God reconciled us to “himself” through Christ, that can only mean that Christ is the “himself” of God. However, that conclusion simply ignores the grammar of the passage. If that is necessarily the case based only on this wording, then when we have God dwelling in us and working through us it would also have to mean that we too are the “himself” of “God in us.”

The real meaning of the passage can be found in Paul’s explicit interpretation in verse 21. Yet again Paul uses distinct personal pronouns in personal distinction from each other. Thus, “ Him who knew no sin” is personal pronoun #1. Then Paul says “He,” which is personal pronoun #2, made (personal pronoun #1) to be sin on “our” (personal pronoun #3) behalf. Personal pronoun #1 is the person of Christ, who is held in personal distinction to God (personal pronoun #2). There is no explanation that these meant or were intended to be interpreted as impersonal natures of the one person of Jesus. So whoever claims they mean other than they say, without any scriptural support saying so, is really saying they don’t believe this or other Scriptures like it!

In our final passage from 2 Corinthians, Christ is once again held in personal distinction from God in the same exact way that we are also held in personal distinction to God.

For he was crucified through weakness, yet he lives through the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we will live with him through the power of God toward you. (2 Corinthians 13:4)

“He” (Christ) was weak in the same way that “we” are also weak, and we as with him will live through the power of God. We are not God any more than Christ is God, for we are just as personally weak as he is without God. This we have explicitly from Jesus, who said, “Most assuredly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing of himself…” (John 5:19), and again, “I can of myself do nothing” (John 5:30). The word that Christ uses, “himself,” explicitly contradicts and thus refutes the antichristian notion that Christ is a dual-natured individual.

Galatians

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)

Paul continues his description of Christ being personally distinct from God, who raised him from the dead. The two personal pronouns are all we need to understand he is reiterating the same hierarchy he gave us in 1 Corinthians 11.

¹⁵But when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me through his grace, ¹⁶to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I didn’t immediately confer with flesh and blood. (Galatians 1:15–16)

Paul still holds Jesus to be God’s Son, not God incarnate. Furthermore, Paul explains to us, yet again, what this son is that he is referring to:

⁴But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, ⁵To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.. (Galatians 4:4–5, KJV)

There is no discussion of how “son” really means God’s impersonal flesh, no teaching on how Christ is an incarnation of the third person of the Gnostic Trinity. Rather in specific terms, God sent forth his son made of a woman. It thus refutes the ancient Trinitarian and Gnostic idea that the Son is made of no other essence or substance than that of the Father. It also refutes the idea that the Son was made of a purer “pre-fall” humanity, as many Onenessians would like to presume. What Paul certainly did not say is that “God made Himself a body and incarnated Himself into human form.” That is what we would expect this to say if Onenessianism were at all actually biblical.

Paul’s language here is quite reminiscent of Jesus’ words that we are to believe not in him, but in Him who sent him. There is a sender and a sent one, and if you believe they are the same, then you simply don’t believe what the Bible says:

⁴¹So they took away the stone from the place where the dead man was lying. Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, “Father, I thank you that you listened to me. ⁴²I know that you always listen to me, but because of the multitude that stands around I said this, that they may believe that you sent me.” (John 11:41–42)

Imagine how this looks in the Oneness view: “Father, I thank me, that I have listened to me. I know that I always listen to me, but because of the multitude… I said this that they may believe that I sent me.” This is nonsense. But it is the same nonsense to think that is what Paul “was trying to say” or that he “really meant to say” (but didn’t) in Galatians 4:4–7.

It means what it says. When the time came, God sent His Son made of a woman.

Ephesians

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ. (Ephesians 1:3)

That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him. (Ephesians 1:17)

¹⁴For this cause, I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, ¹⁵from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, ¹⁶that he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, that you may be strengthened with power through his Spirit in the inward man; ¹⁷that the Anointed One may dwell in your hearts through faith; to the end that you, being rooted and grounded in love. (Ephesians 3:13–17)

These passages are clear and descriptive. The terms used are “Father” and “son,” not natures in one personal individual. Don’t forget that father means father, not deific nature, and son or Christ doesn’t mean impersonal human nature. That is the way Onenessians read it, but that isn’t what Paul said, wrote, or meant. He explained what he meant. God is the Father of Christ. A Father is always and consistently a distinct personal entity to a son.

But it says Christ dwells in our hearts, so must that mean he is God? After all, a person can’t be in two places at once, let alone in the hearts of all believers. No, that would be the wrong conclusion. When Paul wrote “…you being gathered together, and my spirit” (1 Corinthians 5:4), did he mean to imply he was God or omnipresent? Of course not. The scriptural concept is this : “…he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit” (1 Corinthians 6:17). So the answer is to continue reading what Paul said. He said, in Ephesians 3:17, that Christ dwells in our hearts “…by faith.” And what does Paul say about faith?

Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, proof of things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1)

²⁴For we were saved in hope, but hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for that which he sees? ²⁵But if we hope for that which we don’t see, we wait for it with patience. (Romans 8:24–25)

So then, when we walk in Christ, we let his spirit—that is, his attitude—work in and through us. We have counted ourselves dead to sin, but alive to God through the righteousness of Christ. Does that mean we are actually righteous? Only as long as we are righteous in Christ working through us. Let’s see how the Bible talks about the Spirit of Christ dwelling in us:

¹⁶Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly; in all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your heart to the Lord. ¹⁷Whatever you do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father, through him. (Colossians 3:16–17)

In this passage, having Christ dwell in us means that we allow the word of Christ to lead us in wisdom teaching, and admonishing one another with spiritual songs.

Now let’s look at the “Spirit” that was in Christ:

¹A shoot will come out of the stock of Jesse, And a branch out of his roots will bear fruit. ²The Spirit of YHWH will rest on him: The spirit of wisdom and understanding, The spirit of counsel and might, The spirit of knowledge and of the fear of YHWH. ³His delight will be in the fear of YHWH. He will not judge by the sight of his eyes, Neither decide by the hearing of his ears; ⁴ But with righteousness he will judge the poor, And decide with equity for the humble of the earth. He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth; And with the breath of his lips he will kill the wicked. ⁵ Righteousness will be the belt of his waist, And faithfulness the belt of his waist. (Isaiah 11:1–5)

Through these words we see that having the Spirit of Christ in us is to take on his attitudinal characteristics. The opposite way of viewing these traits is as the pagans do, in assigning to each characteristic a separate personality. Thus they come up with gods for the skies and the seas and so forth. Such is carnal, pagan thinking!

The Spirit of Christ is the attitude of Christ, for these are the “spirits” that were in him: wisdom, understanding, counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge, and yes, even the fear of YHWH was in Christ! Is the Spirit of YHWH a distinct person in the godhead? No? Then neither is Christ a distinct person in the godhead or an incarnation of God.

Philippians

We first addressed this next passage in Chapter Seventeen, when we discussed Jesus’ prayer “not my will, but yours be done.” Here we will focus on it in greater detail.

⁵Have this in your mind, which was also in Christ Jesus, ⁶ who, existing in the form of God, didn’t consider it robbery to be equal with God, ⁷but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men. ⁸And being found in human form, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, yes, the death of the cross. ⁹Therefore God also highly exalted him, and gave to him the name which is above every name; ¹⁰that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, those on earth, and those under the earth, ¹¹and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. ¹²So then, my beloved, even as you have always obeyed, not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. (Philippians 2:5–12)

This passage is extremely simple if read without attempting to impose pagan ideas of incarnation and the like into it. Nothing in this passage says anything about a preexistent Christ humbling himself before coming to earth. However, it does explicitly say, in verse 8, that this humbling happened while Jesus was a human being. It goes on to teach how and why this human being was exalted by God. Note how Young’s Literal Translation has this passage:

⁷But did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made, ⁸and in fashion having been found as a man, he humbled himself… (Philippians 2:7-8, YLT)

Christ was “having been made” in the likeness of men, and it was in that state that he emptied himself and took the form of a servant, not before. This says nothing at all of him “divesting himself” of his personal deific powers or nature. That idea is something that men have read back into the text, but the context betrays the error in such an interpretation.

Keeping things in context, Paul began this passage by telling us how we are to think: “Have this in your mind.” His main purpose was to establish what our attitude should be regarding our position before God. The passage uses Christ as an example for us to help us understand what should be in our minds. The apostle reiterated that purpose in the conclusion in verse 12. This he began by saying, “So then…” Through this phrase, he linked what was said about the mind of Christ to what he said next. “So then… as you have always obeyed… now… work out your own salvation…” (Philippians 2:12). To paraphrase, he was primarily saying to us, “Here’s how you are to think of yourself: the way Christ thought of himself.”

Obviously, none of us consciously remembers being in heaven and thinking, “Being as I am God, I am going to become a human in order to show people how submissive to God I can be and how they should be.” That isn’t what Paul said, but some people want us to believe that is what Paul implied Christ was thinking. When we see the stated purpose of the passage, which was how we are to think of ourselves, we can see the passage actually refutes that whole idea.

Next, it says that Jesus found himself “in the form of God.” What it does not say is, “Jesus Christ being God…” There are perfectly good biblical reasons why Jesus could think of himself as being in the form of God without meaning he actually was God. Genesis 1:26–27 provides an ideal context for interpreting what is meant here, since that is where the Bible first mentions mankind being in the form of God:

God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion…” God created man in His own image. In God’s image He created him… (Genesis 1:26–27)

This Scripture teaches us that when God made man He made man in His own image, and in doing so, God gave man dominion, which means rule and domination over the rest of creation. This is the “form of God” that Jesus found himself in: having dominion, from God, over the rest of creation. That isn’t to say he was God, or was even equal to God, for it is written again:

For, “He put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when he says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that he is excepted who subjected all things to him. (1 Corinthians 15:27)

So then, the authority given to Jesus (Matthew 28:18), is what causes people, who weren’t and aren’t used to seeing such authority in humans, to wrongly assume such authority was his inherently, by personality. But clearly, the Bible teaches Jesus’ authority was not inherent and, in fact, was not unlimited. He was still, and always will be, under authority to God.

In the Book of Romans, Paul taught, “that to whom you present yourselves as servants to obedience, his servants you are whom you obey; whether of sin to death, or of obedience to righteousness” (Romans 6:16). God had given Adam and Eve dominion over all things, including over the serpent, when He created them. When Adam and Eve submitted to the serpent, they gave up their God-given dominion to the serpent and became servants of unrighteousness. That is, they turned God’s divine order of authority upside down. On the other hand, Jesus never relinquished his God-given dominion to anyone. Rather, Jesus took responsibility for it and acted on it in a righteous manner. This was actually the whole point of the passage in Philippians. Jesus’ attitude in finding himself in the form of God was that he didn’t think it was stealing from God to wield that authority. After all, it was God who gave him all authority. But he still recognized that the true God, the Father, still had authority over him.

Whereas the worldly mind thinks, “If I’m in charge, I’m going to do things my way,” Jesus had the better way. He determined not to build his own reputation. Instead, he made himself a servant to God and mankind and became a complete reflection of God’s character traits. It was just this kind of thinking that God foresaw and foreordained in Jesus. It was that kind of thinking that God loved Jesus for. And it was that attitude for which God exalted him. Thus, Philippians continues by saying, in verse 9, “Therefore God also highly exalted him.” The very fact that it says God exalted him is the internal evidence that this passage is not saying Jesus was first God, who then later made himself human, as many suppose.

We see, then, that Paul was simply reiterating biblical teachings in Philippians. Jesus’ thinking of himself in the form of God is how we should expect Christ to think of himself as the second Adam. As the second Adam, he was created with the same dominion as the first Adam.

So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However that which is spiritual isn’t first, but that which is natural, then that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, made of dust. The second man is ⁵⁰ from heaven. (1 Corinthians 15:45–47)

The idea of Christ as second Adam aligns perfectly with the proclamation that God explicitly made Jesus Lord and Christ. There are no biblical grounds for interpreting Philippians in a way that assigns preexistence or deity to Jesus. To interpret the passage as if the word “form” was not there and imply it means Jesus simply was “being… God” would be to tamper with the Bible. To claim that it says Jesus humbled himself before being made human would be adding to the Bible which is strictly forbidden.

There is, then, no reason to believe this wasn’t the type of “form of God” that Paul had in mind in Philippians 2:6. The main purpose of the passage was to teach us how we are to think. Theologians jump to the conclusion that this passage was primarily meant to explain Christ’s pre-human God-Person choice to be incarnated. That idea has no parallel to the way we could realistically think of ourselves.

Colossians

We give thanks to God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you. (Colossians 1:3)

Who delivered us out of the power of darkness, and translated us into the Kingdom of the Son of his love. (Colossians 1:13)

With these words, the apostle set the context for what he went on to say in the rest of the epistle. That is, he talked about Jesus being the Son of God, but not about Jesus being an incarnation of God, or the shell of a human without personality other than God’s person.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Ephesians 1:3)

Onenessians simply have no biblical explanation of how the “Lord” Jesus Christ could “have” a God and a Father!

They are able to make that nonsensical conclusion simply by not keeping in mind, or purposely concealing, what the word Christ truly means.

Romans Teaches Christ is a Man

¹⁰For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we will be saved by his life. ¹¹Not only so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation. ¹²Therefore, as sin entered into the world through one man, and death through sin; and so death passed to all men, because all sinned. ¹³For until the law, sin was in the world; but sin is not charged when there is no law. ¹⁴Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those whose sins weren’t like Adam’s disobedience, who is a foreshadowing of him who was to come. ¹⁵But the free gift isn’t like the trespass. For if by the trespass of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God, and the gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. (Romans 5:10–15)

Let’s consider one final passage in Romans:

⁵Now the God of patience and of encouragement grant you to be of the same mind one with another according to Christ Jesus, ⁶that with one accord you may with one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Romans 15:5–6)

…With one accord… with one mouth glorify the Deific Nature and Father of our Lord Jesus the impersonal Human Nature.

Jesus 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 20:17)

Jesus is clearly telling us that first, he has a God and Father, and second, that His God and Father is the same God and Father as ours—and in the same way that He is God and Father to us.

1 Corinthians – Jesus is God’s Son

As we read through the epistles to the Corinthians, we come upon this passage:

God is faithful, through whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord. (1 Corinthians 1:9)

And when you speak of Jesus Christ you are speaking of a dual nature. You are speaking of flesh and you are speaking of Spirit. And the flesh is the Son and the Spirit is the Father. Anthony Mangun, The Dual Nature of Christ, Disc 5, track 6, just over 2 minutes in.

“Our Great God and our Savior, He’s a dual nature. He’s Father and He’s Son, He’s God and He’s man. He’s absolutely God; He’s absolutely man.” Ibid., Disc 6, Track 1, 1:53.

So then, in the Onenessian understanding, 1 Corinthians 1:9 should be interpreted something like this:

…The [deific nature of Jesus] is faithful, through whom you were called into the fellowship of his [impersonal human nature], Jesus the [anointed impersonal human nature], our Lord.

The True Apostolic Doctrinal Discourse on the Nature of Christ

When we get to 1 Corinthians 15, we find Paul explaining about Jesus. This is “Son of God Doctrine” through and through, spelled out plainly for us, with no mention of either Trinity or Oneness.

²⁰But now Christ has been raised from the dead. He became the first fruitsof those who are asleep. ²¹For since death came by man, the resurrection of the dead also came by man. ²²For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. ²³But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then those who are Christ’s, at his coming. ²⁴Then the end comes, when he will deliver up the Kingdom to God, even the Father; when he will have abolished all rule and all authority and power. ²⁵For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. ²⁶ The last enemy that will be abolished is death. ²⁷For, “He put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when he says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that he is excepted who subjected all things to him. ²⁸When all things have been subjected to him, then the Son will also himself be subjected to him who subjected all things to him, that God may be all in all. (1 Corinthians 15:20–28)

2 Corinthians – God is the Father

In 2 Corinthians, we find again that God is the Father of Jesus, with no mention that Jesus the Son is code for the human nature of the person of God.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. (2 Corinthians 1:3)

The God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, he who is blessed forevermore, knows that I don’t lie. (2 Corinthians 11:31)

These two passages are reminiscent of these sayings of Jesus:

Jesus said to her, “…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 20:17)

He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will go out from there no more. I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from my God, and my own new name. (Revelation 3:12)

About the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying… “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46)

Again, these statements explicitly refer to personal whos, not impersonal natures.

Furthermore, when Paul gets down to the task of explaining who and what Jesus is, he is very clear and to the point:

¹⁸But all things are of God, who reconciled us to himself through Jesus the Anointed One, and gave to us the ministry of reconciliation; ¹⁹namely, that God was in the Anointed One reconciling the world to himself, not reckoning to them their trespasses, and having committed to us the word of reconciliation. ²⁰We are therefore ambassadors on behalf of Christ, as though God were entreating by us. We beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. ²¹For him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:18–21)

In our final passage from 2 Corinthians, Christ is once again held in personal distinction from God in the same exact way that we are also held in personal distinction to God.

For he was crucified through weakness, yet he lives through the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we will live with him through the power of God toward you. (2 Corinthians 13:4)

Galatians

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)

¹⁵But when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me through his grace, ¹⁶to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I didn’t immediately confer with flesh and blood. (Galatians 1:15–16)

Paul still holds Jesus to be God’s Son, not God incarnate. Furthermore, Paul explains to us, yet again, what this son is that he is referring to:

⁴But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, ⁵To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.. (Galatians 4:4–5, KJV)

⁴¹So they took away the stone from the place where the dead man was lying. Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, “Father, I thank you that you listened to me. ⁴²I know that you always listen to me, but because of the multitude that stands around I said this, that they may believe that you sent me.” (John 11:41–42)

It means what it says. When the time came, God sent His Son made of a woman.

Ephesians

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ. (Ephesians 1:3)

That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him. (Ephesians 1:17)

¹⁴For this cause, I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, ¹⁵from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, ¹⁶that he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, that you may be strengthened with power through his Spirit in the inward man; ¹⁷that the Anointed One may dwell in your hearts through faith; to the end that you, being rooted and grounded in love. (Ephesians 3:13–17)

Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, proof of things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1)

²⁴For we were saved in hope, but hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for that which he sees? ²⁵But if we hope for that which we don’t see, we wait for it with patience. (Romans 8:24–25)

¹⁶Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly; in all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your heart to the Lord. ¹⁷Whatever you do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father, through him. (Colossians 3:16–17)

In this passage, having Christ dwell in us means that we allow the word of Christ to lead us in wisdom teaching, and admonishing one another with spiritual songs.

Now let’s look at the “Spirit” that was in Christ:

¹A shoot will come out of the stock of Jesse, And a branch out of his roots will bear fruit. ²The Spirit of YHWH will rest on him: The spirit of wisdom and understanding, The spirit of counsel and might, The spirit of knowledge and of the fear of YHWH. ³His delight will be in the fear of YHWH. He will not judge by the sight of his eyes, Neither decide by the hearing of his ears; ⁴ But with righteousness he will judge the poor, And decide with equity for the humble of the earth. He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth; And with the breath of his lips he will kill the wicked. ⁵ Righteousness will be the belt of his waist, And faithfulness the belt of his waist. (Isaiah 11:1–5)

Philippians

We first addressed this next passage in Chapter Seventeen, when we discussed Jesus’ prayer “not my will, but yours be done.” Here we will focus on it in greater detail.

⁵Have this in your mind, which was also in Christ Jesus, ⁶ who, existing in the form of God, didn’t consider it robbery to be equal with God, ⁷but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men. ⁸And being found in human form, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, yes, the death of the cross. ⁹Therefore God also highly exalted him, and gave to him the name which is above every name; ¹⁰that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, those on earth, and those under the earth, ¹¹and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. ¹²So then, my beloved, even as you have always obeyed, not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. (Philippians 2:5–12)

⁷But did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made, ⁸and in fashion having been found as a man, he humbled himself… (Philippians 2:7-8, YLT)

God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion…” God created man in His own image. In God’s image He created him… (Genesis 1:26–27)

For, “He put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when he says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that he is excepted who subjected all things to him. (1 Corinthians 15:27)

So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However that which is spiritual isn’t first, but that which is natural, then that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, made of dust. The second man is ⁵⁰ from heaven. (1 Corinthians 15:45–47)

Colossians

We give thanks to God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you. (Colossians 1:3)

Who delivered us out of the power of darkness, and translated us into the Kingdom of the Son of his love. (Colossians 1:13)

The point is, Paul started out by specifically referring to the father and son relationship portrayed on the left, not the Oneness theory on the right. Paul established that foundation and context first of all.

Secondly, it will also be helpful to recall our discussion in Chapter Sixteen about the difference between the biblical concept of God’s foreknowledge and the unbiblical, pagan idea of incarnated deities.

With these two thoughts in mind, let’s see if we can read the next passage, Colossians 1:15–22, without jumping to the false, unbiblical conclusion that Paul was “trying to say” that Jesus was an incarnation of God.

v.15: who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation…

Note that Paul described Christ as “the image of the invisible God”—not God Himself—and then, “the firstborn of all creation.” With these thoughts in mind, we begin to untangle the preconceptions that Onenessians impose on these texts.

v.16: For by him (image/firstborn) were all things created, in the heavens and on the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and for him.

v.17: He is before all things, and in him all things are held together.

v.18: He is the head of the body, the assembly, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Remember, “God calls the things that are not, as though they were” (Romans 4:17). So we have two choices here, interpret these verses by the pagan idea of “Gods come to the earth in the form of man” (Acts 14:11), or interpret them in the light of the Scriptures, including this one, which reiterates twice that we are talking about “the first of all creation” (not the Creator Himself, mind you, but the first creation of God).

This man who is the firstborn from the dead was God’s plan from before He set creation in motion. Creating the world through and by Christ was not an afterthought. And, having foreknown that man, God planned the following for him:

v.19 For all the fullness was pleased to dwell in him;

v.20 and through him to reconcile all things to himself, by him, whether things on the earth, or things in the heavens, having made peace through the blood of his cross.

v.21 You, being in past times alienated and enemies in your mind in your evil works,

v.22 yet now he has reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and without blemish and blameless before him,

So then, Colossians 1:15–22, when interpreted in the light of all the “beginning oracles of God” that we’ve covered thus far, reveals there is only one way to understand this passage. God had this plan of this man in His mind from before time. God’s plan was for this man to save mankind from our sins, and this plan included God dwelling in this man, just as He would dwell in us. This is the plan that existed from the beginning. In fact, it was through this planned man and for this planned man that God created this world in the first place!

We will address Colossians 2:9 in Section Five.

1 Thessalonians

⁹…you turned to God from idols, to serve a living and true God, ¹⁰and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who delivers us from the wrath to come. (1 Thessalonians 1:9–10)

First Thessalonians continues the theme that Jesus is God’s Son that God raised from the dead.

1 & 2 Timothy

³God our Savior… ⁴… desires all people to be saved and come to full knowledge of the truth. ⁵For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:3–5).

There is one God, and the man Christ Jesus is the one mediator between God and men. How does this verse imply that it is only speaking of Jesus’ humanity as his impersonal human nature? The same word is used to describe both Jesus and all other men. Does Jesus only mediate between God and our impersonal human natures? Absolutely not. In fact, we are supposed to be dead to the flesh. So then, this passage is very clear if not interpreted through the dark lenses of man’s preconceptions. God is God, and Jesus is the man distinct from God who mediates between God and mankind on our behalf.

Titus

³I was entrusted according to the commandment of God our Savior; ⁴to Titus, my true child according to a common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior. (Titus 1:3–4)

This book starts out with the usual distinction between God the Father and Jesus the Anointed One. There is no confusion here as long as we keep in mind that one doesn’t anoint himself, and God needs no anointing. Thus the statement itself supports the true Son of God doctrine.

¹⁰…that they may adorn the doctrine of God, our Savior, in all things. ¹¹For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, ¹²instructing us to the intent that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we would live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world; ¹³looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ; ¹⁴who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify for himself a people for his own possession, zealous for good works. (Titus 2:10–14)

This is a perfectly legitimate way of rendering Titus 2:13. This is how it is translated in the World English Version, Revised Standard Version, American Standard Version, New American Standard, New Revised Standard Version, English Standard Version, Douay-Rheims, New American Standard Bible, Complete Jewish Bible, New Living Translation, Young’s Literal Translation and New Century Version. In each of these translations Titus 2:13 reads in accordance with the World English Bible above: “the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.”

The problem is that there are other translations that put these words together differently. For example, the New International Version, King James Version, New King James Version, New English Translation, and Noah Webster’s Bible translate Titus 2:13 like this: “…the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.”

To say “looking for the appearing of the glory of…” and “looking for the glorious…” God and savior, is saying two completely different things. The former is talking about an event in time and place precipitated by God, the latter makes it about two individuals which Onenessians try to squeeze into one. So how can we tell what is the correct translation and word order?

Well, the first problem with this translation is that it isn’t true to the Greek grammar. It changes the Greek noun “glory” (doxees) into an adjective “glorious.” This is what the Bible calls “handling the word of God deceitfully.”

The next thing we need to do is to interpret the way Jesus taught us: by looking for clear verses on the subject that will help us to keep from stretching the Scriptures beyond what they intend. And so, it is written again:

For the Son of Man will come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he will render to everyone according to his deeds. (Matthew 16:27)

The glory which you have given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, even as we are one. (John 17:21)

These verses support the “appearing of the glory” translation of Titus 2:13. They also tell us that Jesus’ glory, like his name and authority, was not inherent to his person; they were derived from the Father. Furthermore, the glory that Jesus was given from the Father is a glory he is also able to turn and give to the saints, so that we may be one in the same way that the Father and the Son are one.

Next, let’s look at the context of Titus 2:13 and see what it tells us. For one thing, we don’t find Paul saying his intention was to explain anything new here. In other words, he didn’t say this passage was meant to explain the nature or relationship between Jesus and the Father. Rather, the context of the passage was, according to Paul, “instructing to the intent” of “denying ungodliness” and instead living “soberly, righteously and godly in this present world.” So to claim the intent was to teach that Christ was an incarnation of God is to take the passage wildly out of context to say the least!

The proper, biblically influenced way to understand what this passage is saying is simply to accept that Paul was using typical language that reflected Jesus’ words; namely, that Jesus’ doctrine was not his own and that he did only what the Father commanded him. And furthermore, that Christ was never alone for the Father was always with him. How much more so, then, when Christ returns to earth!

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)

Thus, when Christ returns, we don’t expect him to return alone or under the power of his own human authority. Rather, we look “for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and (our) Savior Jesus Christ.” That is, we expect Christ, the living temple of the living God to return in the same oneness that Christ promised we would share with him and the Father.

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)

Hebrews

¹“God, 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. ³His Son is the radiance of his glory, the very image of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself made purification for our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.” (Hebrews 1:1–3)

This passage seems pretty clear, but let’s look more closely at what it says. In verse two, Jesus is again called God’s Son, not an emanation like a ray from the sun or a river from a well or spring as in Trinitarianism. Nor is he called an impersonal nature of flesh as part of an incarnation of God the Father, as in Onenessianism. Now look at the details: God speaks to us through His Son. How many of us go around saying things like, “Bob speaks to me through his impersonal human nature”? Do you see how out of context that is? The word “son” isn’t a code word here; it means what it says.

In verse 3, Christ is called the radiance of God’s glory and the image of God’s “substance.” The word “image” is a word that is also applied to all human beings, so it should be obvious that this doesn’t mean he is God. Rather, in Colossians we get the impression that being the image of God has to do with him being the firstborn of all creation by the resurrection of the dead.

God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion…” God created man in His own image. In God’s image He created him… (Genesis 1:26–27)

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation… (Colossians 1:15)

The definition of “image” in Strong’s is: “ charakter (khar-ak-tare’) from the same as NT:5482; a graver (the tool or the person), i.e. (by implication) engraving ([“character”], the figure stamped, i.e. an exact copy or [figuratively] representation).”

Recall from Chapter Sixteen our example of Abraham Lincoln’s image on a penny. The reason the image is there is to represent the person in place of the person. Jesus Christ is like that image of Lincoln on a penny. Christ is the “very image” of God’s person specifically because he is not the person of God. One difference is that the image on the penny is incomplete. Jesus Christ is a complete image (or representation) of almost all of the personal, attitudinal characteristics of the Father. What the verse doesn’t say is that Christ is the very same substance of God the Father. One instance where Jesus isn’t a perfect image of God is that God is invisible but Jesus is visible. Another is that Christ was unwilling (“not my will…”) to die within his own personality; nevertheless, he submitted in obedience to God’s will (“…but thy will be done…”).

Although the word for image was only used once in the NT, we are not totally without backup material. Note that Strong’s says this word is related to another word, #5482, which is the word charax. In defining this word, Strong says it is “from charasso (to sharpen to a point; akin to NT:1125 through the idea of scratching); a stake, i.e. (by implication) a palisade or rampart (military mound for circumvallation in a siege).”

This analogy indicates that Christ is a scratched-out image of the person of God. An “image” or “scratching,” like a kind of engraving, hardly fits the Trinity dogma that he is of exactly the same substance of God the Father, or the Oneness view that he is a mode of the person of the Father. In the biblical analogy, Jesus is the image of God, particularly so that we can see Him. The Father remains invisible, while the Son is the visible character of the person of God the Father. Thus Jesus can say,

⁷If you had known me, you would have known my Father also… ⁹He who has seen me has seen the Father. How do you say, “Show us the Father?” ¹⁰Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I tell you, I speak not from myself; but the Father who lives in me does His works. (John 14:7–10)

What the idea of the image teaches us is that Jesus was a visible representation of the very person of God the Father. It is in this way that if you’ve seen Jesus, you’ve seen the Father, because Jesus is the visible representation, the exact image, of the Father made flesh, or human. In this passage Jesus himself refuted the idea he was trying to say he was the Father when he said he didn’t speak from himself.

Next is the word “substance,” in that Jesus is called the express image of God’s “substance.”

The word that is translated here as “substance” simply does not mean physical substance. The Greek word is hupostasis, and it is the same word that is found in Hebrews 11:1:

…faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1, KJV and NKJV).

Although the old and the New King James versions use the word substance here, other versions say “being sure of” (NIV), “the assurance of” (WEB, NRSV, NASU), or “being confident of” (CJB). Thus, all versions agree that faith is defined as an attitudinal concept and not a physical or material reality.

If we were to translate Hebrews 1:3 in the same way these versions translate that word, it would look like this: “His son is the radiance of his glory, the very image of his assurance.”This should show that the word hupostasis simply doesn’t mean some physical substance. Rather, it is like faith to the Christian, which is totally substantial, yet it is not physical.

Other verses using the word hupostasis are usually also interpreted as a non-physical thing that they call “confidence.” For example:

…If there come with me any of Macedonia and find you unprepared, we (to say nothing of you) should be disappointed in this confident boasting. (2 Corinthians 9:4)

That which I speak, I don’t speak according to the Lord, but as in foolishness, in this confidence of boasting. (2 Corinthians 11:17)

For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our confidence firm to the end. (Hebrews 3:14)

All this means is that the Bible, in Hebrews 1:3, by using the word hupostasis (substance, confidence, or assurance), described God in a manner similar to how it described faith. As we know, faith is an attitude, and not by any means is it a physical or material substance.

So then, all Hebrews was saying in calling Jesus the very image of God’s substance was that Jesus perfectly reflected God’s character traits in a way that we can see and understand, just as Jesus said in John 14:7–10, which we quoted above.

The passage continues by saying, today I have become your Father:

For to which of the angels did he say at any time, “You are my Son, Today have I become your father?” and again, “I will be to him a Father, And he will be to me a Son?’” (Hebrews 1:5)

Once again we find Jesus being called the Son of the Father at a certain point in time. He wasn’t called the impersonal flesh, or an eternal person of the mythological Trinity. He was born and became the Son of the Father at a certain time.

Jesus Prayed to One: “He” Who Was Able to Save Him

In reading through the Book of Hebrews, we come to this passage:

⁷He, in the days of his flesh, having offered up prayers and petitions with strong crying and tears to him who was able to save him from death, and having been heard for his godly fear, ⁸though he was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he suffered. ⁹Having been made perfect, he became to all of those who obey him the author of eternal salvation, ¹⁰named by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek. (Hebrews 5:7–10)

The passage clearly speaks about a human Jesus (“in the days of his flesh”). In this case, Jesus was a real man who prayed to a God whom he held in reverential fear. This man learned obedience, so it obviously wasn’t part of his nature. He also had to be made perfect, indicating he didn’t start out perfect. Since the context of the discussion is obedience and godliness, we know it is moral “perfection” that Jesus had to learn. Finally, it wasn’t until after he was perfected that he “became” the author of eternal salvation and was named by God to be a priest after the order of Melchizedek.

Each of these simple, matter-of-fact descriptions of Christ completely demolishes any idea that he was an incarnation of a preexistent deity. This shows that biblical descriptions and explanations of Christ must be explained away by Trinitarians and Onenessians alike.

But for us, these are true, biblical descriptions about our Lord Jesus the Anointed One. There are no such matter-of-fact Scriptures that describe Jesus as the second person of the Trinity or the incarnation of God the Father Himself.

Believing on the Son of God really comes down to simply accepting what the Bible describes about him.

Various Other Sub-Topics on the Son of God Found in Hebrews But Addressed Elsewhere

There are many additional verses in the Book of Hebrews addressing the distinctions and reasons for them between Jesus the Son and God the Father. But we have covered these already in other places. So rather than repeat them here, we will list them and allow the reader to cross-reference those chapters as they will.

Hebrews 1:6 will be addressed in Chapter Twenty-Six on worshiping Jesus in Section Five.

Hebrews 1:13 (“right hand”) is addressed in Chapter Twenty.

Hebrews 1:8 (“your throne, O God”) was addressed in Chapter Six.

Hebrews 1:9 (“anointed… above your fellows”) was addressed in Chapter Fifteen.

Hebrews 2:17–8 (“Obligated in all things to be made like us”) has been addressed in many places, for example Chapters Three, Four, Five, Seven, Twelve, and Fourteen.

Hebrews 3:1–6 (“faithful to him who appointed him”) has also been addressed in many places, such as Chapters Six and Fifteen.

Hebrews 5:4–6 (“nobody takes this honor on himself”) has been addressed in several places and is the major subject of Chapter Nine.

James

¹³Let no man say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God,” for God can’t be tempted by evil, and he himself tempts no one. ¹⁴But each one is tempted, when he is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed. ¹⁵Then the lust, when it has conceived, bears sin; and the sin, when it is full grown, brings forth death. (James 1:13–15)

Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. (Matthew 4:1)

James presents us with yet another powerful passage of Scripture that totally refutes the idea that Jesus was God incarnate. Since God cannot be tempted by sin, Jesus absolutely could not have been tempted as a man while possessing deific characteristics at the same time.

Since we already covered the topic of Jesus’ temptation in Chapter Twelve, we won’t repeat it here other than to note James’ major contribution toward our understanding that the apostles did not view Christ as God, since Jesus was tempted and God cannot be tempted.

1 Peter

Who, when he was cursed, didn’t curse back. When he suffered, didn’t threaten, but committed himself to him who judges righteously. (1 Peter 2:23)

In this passage we see that Jesus was distinct from the person of God because he committed his trust to “Him who judges righteously.” This passage is much like Philippians 2:5–9 in that it also tells us how we are to think. In 1 Peter 2:21–24 it says, “For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving you an example, that you should follow his steps… Who his own self bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live to righteousness…”

Clearly this passage was not talking about a human nature in distinction from a deific nature. Rather it spells out that this is the “his own self” of Jesus in contrast to another “who,” being “Him who judges righteously.”

Very similar passages showing that Jesus was personally distinct from God with reference to his atoning death, are found in Hebrews:

¹Therefore, holy brothers, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus; ²who was faithful to him who appointed him, as also was Moses in all his house. (Hebrews 3:1–2)

¹⁷Therefore he was obligated in all things to be made like his brothers, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make atonement for the sins of the people. ¹⁸For in that he himself has suffered being tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted. (Hebrews 2:17–18)

These passages clearly teach us that Jesus was a faithful priest in things pertaining to God. As we build on this thought, let’s keep in mind that by definition a priest is a man who offers sacrifices to God on man’s behalf:

¹For every high priest, being taken from among men, is appointed for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins. ²The high priest can deal gently with those who are ignorant and going astray, because he himself is also surrounded with weakness. ³Because of this, he must offer sacrifices for sins for the people, as well as for himself… ⁵So also Christdidn’t glorify himself to be made a high priest, but it was He who said to him, ‘You are my Son. Today I have become your Father. (Hebrews 5:1–3)

So Jesus was taken from among men and made to be a priest to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins for the people, as well as for himself. Chances are very, very high that you never heard that from your Oneness preacher, that it says Jesus also had to sacrifice for himself! This is Scripture, and those who don’t believe it and twist it to mean other than it says just prove they don’t really believe what their Bible says about the biblical Christ. Although Jesus never committed sin, it does nevertheless say that “he himself is also surrounded with weakness. Because of this, he must offer sacrifices for sins of the people as well as for himself.” That is because he was human, and also explains why he had to pray daily, for one example. He himself was surrounded by weakness, and that was why he had to sacrifice for himself. For the people, however, he had to sacrifice for their sins.

This passage must be understood in light of the following explanations:

For him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:21)

For what the law couldn’t do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God did, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh. (Romans 8:3)

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law , having become a curse for us. For it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.’ (Galatians 3:13)

Jesus had to sacrifice for himself, not because he personally committed sin, but because he was made to be sin on our behalf. It’s hard to imagine anyone thinking for a moment that God Himself could be “made to be sin for us on our behalf.” Of course, we don’t have to. It is written that there were two individual personalities involved here: the one who was made to be sin on our behalf, and the one who made him so. This was another important element of being a priest that Jesus could only accomplish by not being the God to whom he offered such gifts and sacrifices to.

Keeping this definition of the duties of the priest in mind, we go back to Hebrews 3:1–2 and Hebrews 2:17–18 above, and we note again that Jesus performed his duty of a priest faithfully.

That is the key word that ties these discussions on Christ’s role as “priest in things pertaining to God” back to 1 Peter, when he said that Jesus “committed himself to him who judges righteously.” That is, Jesus had faith in God and therefore performed the duties of a priest faithfully. That Jesus had faith in God is more evidence that he was not himself personally God.

So what does it mean for Christ himself to have been faithful? Faith is biblically defined as hope that is not seen (Romans 8:24). It is also defined as the “assurance of things hoped for, proof of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1; see also 2 Corinthians 5:6–7; Romans 3:21–22; and Galatians 2:16). Our faith in God exists in contrast to any ability to see God, “for we walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Corinthians 5:7). To be our example of faith, Jesus also had to walk by faith, not by sight. The only way Jesus could walk by faith was to have had a human self-awareness that could not “see” God. These are things the Bible tells us about Jesus when it says he was made like us in all things.

When anyone insists that Jesus had to have a deific self-awareness, or even some form of pre-human existence, they reject and deny the biblical teaching that Christ was in submission to the Father through faith. That is because one cannot consciously be God and hope to see God at the same time. They are mutually exclusive concepts. Therefore, if Christ did not submit to the Father through faith, then he is no true example of the “faithfulness of Christ” that we are to emulate. Also, if Christ is God and fully aware of his deity, then we have no hope of ever actually being like Christ.

The testing of our faith is the ultimate test of our Christianity. To be a Christian literally means to be like Christ. So then, we are to have faith after Christ’s example in order to be Christ-like. Christ was tempted like us in all things and yet, as Peter says, committed himself to him who judges righteously. Therefore, to assign inherent deific characteristics to the human Christ is to negate the faith of Christ. Yet the faith of Christ is the very heart and core of the practice of being Christ-like (Christianity).

2 Peter

¹⁷For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, ‘This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.’ ¹⁸This voice we heard come out of heaven when we were with him in the holy mountain. (2 Peter 1:17–18)

Very simply, Peter was using common expressions about God the Father in relation to His Son Jesus Christ. He was talking about God testifying to us, not that God was the Son, not that God incarnated himself as a man, and not that what they touched and felt was just God’s impersonal human nature—none of that. God who can’t lie called Jesus His Son and said He was pleased in him. It hardly seems to need any more commentary than that.

1–3 John

Let’s take a walk through the epistles of John and see what he has to say about Jesus Christ, the Son of God. What we want to discover is whether John understood things the way Onenessians and Trinitarians claim, or if he held Jesus as a true Son of God.

…our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son, Jesus Christ. (1 John 1:3)

Here we have, yet again, the same consistent testimony: there is a father and there is a son. No mention of these being code words. We have no reason to believe that “father” meant something different than it always does. These words always indicate a relationship between separate and distinct individuals.

If anyone sins, we have a Counselor with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous. (1 John 2:1)

John doesn’t say we have a counselor with the Father that is the impersonal human flesh of the person of Jesus. Do we ever find in Scripture that something impersonal can be a counselor to someone personal? Since there aren’t such Scriptures, let’s just let these passages mean what they simply and clearly say.

²²Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Anointed One? 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. (1 John 2:22–23)

In this verse John identified a very clear and understandable term to describe people who don’t believe in a true Father and son: “liar.” He used this word five times in his first epistle, three of them for people who claim to love God but don’t keep His commandments, and two of them for those who deny the Father and the Son and deny that Jesus is the Anointed One. John didn’t say, “Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is a dual-natured God-man hybrid wherein his flesh is one nature and his deific nature is another and the two natures make up his single personality.” John also did not say, “Who is a liar that denies that Jesus isn’t just an Anointed One but is also God Himself incarnate.” Rather, we recall that it was in John’s gospel where Jesus said many times and in many ways:

¹⁶“I am not alone, but I am with the Father who sent me… ²⁶…However he who sent me is true; and the things which I heard from him, these I say to the world…” ²⁸Jesus therefore said to them, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and I do nothing of myself, but as my Father taught me, I say these things.” (John 8:17–28)

So then, whoever denies that Jesus is the Anointed One is of an antichrist spirit. Also, whoever denies the Father and the Son that John refers to is of an antichrist spirit. These statements are according to the apostle that wrote John 1:1–2, 14 and John 10:30, and John 8:58, and other such verses. John heard Jesus say he could “do nothing of himself,” and John heard Jesus say, “I am not alone.”

If I redefine “father” and “son” to mean “mother” and “daughter,” would that be acceptable? How about if we describe the Father as the first eternal coequal person in the godhead in contrast to the Son as the second eternal coequal person, would these be acceptable? No, because father and son have meaning, and a father is always prior in time and functionally superior, whereas a son is always after in time and inferior or subject.

How then do Onenessians believe they can redefine the terms father and son at their whim and count themselves guiltless of John’s accusation that if you don’t have the Father and the Son you are antichrist? Onenessians redefine explanations given in God’s word just as Trinitarians do, but they come up with a different conclusion. They are both, however, just as unbiblical and antichristian because they redefine the terms father and son and deny that Jesus is an anointed man.

⁹By this was God’s love revealed in us, that God has sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. ¹⁰ In this is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son as the atoning sacrifice for our sins. (1 John 4:9–10)

Did God send the second eternal person in the Trinity godhead into the world that we might live through him? This passage doesn’t state or imply that anymore than it says He sent his impersonal human nature into the world to save us. Why then don’t people who claim to love God accept what the apostles say God did for us through the man He calls His Son?

We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as the Savior of the world. (1 John 4:14)

Once again, do we read “Father and Son” here in the common meaning, or as unbiblical “deific nature sent his own impersonal human nature” as the Savior of the world? Hopefully by now it’s getting easier and clearer for you.

Whoever believes that Jesus is the Anointed One is born of God. Whoever loves the father also loves the child who is born of him. (1 John 5:1)

What does this say? It says that he who believes that Jesus is an anointed man is born of God. Does it say he who loves God also loves the impersonal nature that is born of Him, or that he loves the child who is born of Him? Is the child a that or a whom?

Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? (1 John 5:5)

Who is it who overcomes the world? This verse does not say it is he who believes that Jesus is an incarnation of God is an overcomer, rather it says that he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God is the person who overcomes the world. Do you want to be a biblical overcomer, or a succumber to man-made teachings that make the word of God of no effect?

¹⁰He who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. He who doesn’t believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning his Son. ¹¹The testimony is this, that God gave to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. (1 John 5:10–11)

We’ve read where God Himself spoke from the heavens calling Jesus His Son. Has God called from the heavens and said, “You can redefine what the terms father and son mean; it will still be the same thing”? No! He did not! He gave us testimony that Jesus was His Son and that in His Son He was well pleased. He didn’t say, “being as I am my son I am well pleased.” Why then do people who claim to love this same God feel they know better how to declare and describe God’s relationship with His Son than God does?

We know that the Son of God has come, and has given us an understanding, that we know him who is true, and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. (1 John 5:20)

What a perfect verse to pick for jumping to conclusions. See, it calls Jesus “the true God and eternal life.” Right? Really? Let’s back up a minute and remember the first principles of the oracles of God: “we are in him who is true, in his son Jesus Christ.”

Did that stop meaning “son,” as in one who was born after the Father in time and who is someone who is inferior or subordinate to the father? If it did, then is it saying that the inferior son who was made in the process of time was the “true God”? Or, as in the Onenessian view, where the flesh is the impersonal human nature, is this saying that the inhuman personal nature is God? And again, it calls Jesus the “Anointed One” (Christ), which we’ve learned necessarily means a role that someone doesn’t take upon themselves. Was it this one who was anointed who is the true God? No, because the meanings of these words (son and Christ) are incompatible with the definition of “true God.”

True God is truly “I Am that I Am,” who needs nothing from anyone, who is subordinate to no one, who is eternally the same, and who is the Father of eternity and not the offspring of humanity, nor needs anyone to anoint Him to be God!

So what is the biblical truth? It is just as Jesus simply said:

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)

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

Believe in God. Believe also in me. (John 14:1)

So then, John says, this is the true God (i.e., the Father who is with Jesus and sent Jesus), and eternal life which life is in the Son—not the impersonal human nature, but rather the Son of God, which means he that is personally distinct, inferior in authority, and definitely much younger in time as he is God’s creation rather than God’s coequal.

Of course, John actually spells this all out for us. We just need to hear what he is saying and describing without redefining his words to mean something he never meant or intended:

¹¹The testimony is this, that God gave to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. ¹²He who has the Son has the life. He who doesn’t have God’s Son doesn’t have the life. ¹³ These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God. (1 John 5:11–13)

Here John sets out to explain to us “the testimony.” The Son of God was John’s unifying theme when summarizing the important elements he wanted to relay. Not the Trinity theme and not the Oneness theme and not any other God incarnate theme. Eternal life can only be found in the doctrine of God’s true son. Only by redefining John’s words is it possible for these others to use John as a proof text for their theories.

Not in pretense, not in redefinition, not in twisting the words of the Scriptures to our destruction, here it is one more time as clear as can be in John’s second epistle:

Grace, mercy, and peace will be with us, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love. (2 John 3)

I rejoice greatly that I have found some of your children walking in truth, even as we have been commanded by the Father. (2 John 4)

Whoever 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. (2 John 9)

In verse 3 John exhorts us to believe in the Son of the Father in truth. That means don’t distort what father and son mean! Then in verse 4 he says it is a commandment from the Father to walk in truth. That means it is a sin to make up untrue meanings and teach people to believe them! He reiterates this in verse 9: it is a transgression not to remain in the teaching of the Anointed One, whereas one should remain in the teaching of the Father and the Son.

Why was he writing these things? Because in his time the antichristians were starting to interject extra meanings to Christ and son that so blurred the truth that they were teaching sinful lies!

Keeping in the truth, then, is so incredibly simple with John: believe in the Anointed One and believe that there is a true father and a true son.

The following verses from the epistles of Romans through Jude reveal Jesus to be clearly and irrefutably held in personal distinction from God the Father:

Romans 1:1, 2–3, 7, 8, 9, 16; 2:16; 3:22, 25; 4:24; 5:1, 8, 10, 11, 15; 6:4, 10, 11, 23; 7:4, 25; 8:3, 9, 11, 17, 29, 32, 34, 39; 9:5, 33; 10:3–4, 9; 14:18; 15:5, 6, 7, 8, 16, 17, 19, 30; 16:20, 25, 27.

1 Corinthians 1:1, 2, 3, 4, 24, 30; 2:16; 3:22–23; 4:1; 6:11, 14, 15; 8:6; 9:21; 10:4–5; 11:3; 12:27–28; 15:15, 24, 25, 27, 28, 57.

2 Corinthians 1:1, 2, 3, 18–19, 20, 21; 2:14, 15, 17; 3:3, 4–5; 4:4, 6, 14; 5:18, 19, 20, 21; 9:13; 10:5; 11:31; 12:2, 19; 13:4, 14.

Galatians 1:1, 3, 4, 15–16; 2:21; 3:17, 21–22, 26; 4:4, 6, 7, 14; 6:14.

Ephesians 1:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 17, 19–20; 2:4–5, 7, 10, 12, 16, 18, 19–20; 3:1–6, 9, 10–11, 14, 21; 4:32; 5:2, 5, 20; 6:6, 23.

Philippians 1:2, 8, 11; 2:5–6, 9, 11; 3:3, 9, 14; 4:7, 19–20.

Colossians 1:1, 2, 3, 12–13, 15, 19, 27; 2:2, 12; 3:1, 3, 16–17; 4:3, 12.

1 Thessalonians 1:1, 3, 9–10; 2:14, 15; 3:2, 11, 13; 4:16; 5:9, 18, 23.

2 Thessalonians 1:1, 2, 8, 12; 2:14, 16–17; 3:5.

1 Timothy 1:1, 2, 16–17; 2:5; 4:5–6; 5:21; 6:13.

2 Timothy 1:1, 2, 9; 2:8–9, 19; 3:15–16; 4:1.

Titus 1:1, 4; 2:13.

Philemon 1:3.

Hebrews 1:1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13; 2:3, 9, 12, 13, 17; 3:1–2; 4:14; 5:5, 6, 7, 8–10; 6:1; 7:21–22, 25; 8:1; 9:14, 9:24; 10:7, 9, 12–13, 21; 11:25–26; 12:2, 22–24; 13:20–21.

James 1:1.

1 Peter 1:2, 3, 17–19, 21; 2:4, 5, 20–21, 23; 3:15–16, 18, 21, 22; 4:1–2, 11, 14; 5:1–2, 10.

2 Peter 1:1, 2, 17.

1 John 1:3, 5–7; 2:1, 22, 23, 24; 3:8–9, 23; 4:2, 3, 9, 10, 14; 5:1, 5, 9, 10, 11, 20.

2 John 1:3, 9.

Jude 1:1, 4, 21.

Print This Post

Previous Chapter

Table of Contents

Next Chapter

Download Free PDF of Book

Back to All Books