Manifest in the Flesh
When challenged to show where the Bible presents their patented definition,
'Oneness' Pentecostals present 1 Timothy 3:16: "And without controversy
great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, justified
in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the Gentiles, believed on in the world,
received up in glory." On the plus side, this stab at a Biblical definition does
contain one of the terms they seek to unite, 'the flesh'.
But scripture makes it clear it was 'the Son' who was manifest,
not that 'the Son' is the very flesh in which God was manifest:
"...For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He
might destroy the works of the devil." (1 John 3:8).
The Bible says that the Son came in the flesh: "For many deceivers
have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ
as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist."
(2 John 1:7). Strange proof-texts to offer for the theory
that 'the Son' means 'the flesh'! May I offer examples of their procedure:
'General Patton came in a tank'
equates to
'General Patton' means 'a tank'.
But if 'General Patton' means 'a tank', then who is it who came in
the tank? 'General Patton' cannot both be the one who came in
a tank, and the very tank he came in.
'Queen Elizabeth came in a red dress'
equates to
'Queen Elizabeth' means 'a red dress'.
But if 'Queen Elizabeth' means 'a red dress', then who is it who came
in the red dress?
Since the One who came in the flesh cannot also be the very flesh in which
He came, the Bible fact of the Son's advent in the flesh can
scarcely help the cause.
Pluto and Antares
Jesus Christ has two natures, human and divine:
Thus the Bible teaches. But the Bible does not teach that one of Christ's
two natures is called 'the Father', and the other 'the Son'! Nevertheless,
when Bible-believing Christians question the novel definitions at the heart
of 'Oneness' Pentecostalism, 'Oneness' Pentecostals accuse them of denying...that
the Son has two natures! They would like to bundle the orthodox doctrine
of 'two natures' together with their novel definitions and offer it to
customers on a 'take-it-or-leave-it' basis.
As an example of this logic, let us envision an unorthodox astronomer who
proposes: 'a.) the earth revolves around the sun, and b.) the sun is called
'Antares', and the earth is called 'Pluto'.' When the puzzled hearer responds,
'but the sun is not called 'Antares', nor the earth 'Pluto'', the theorist
triumphantly shouts, 'Aha! So you deny that the earth revolves around the
sun!' But surely one can reject the unheard-of and erroneous definitions
of b.) without rejecting the accurate facts depicted in a.)!
Christians have traditionally affirmed, with the Bible, that Jesus Christ
is both man and God. He is true God, before the ages
with the Father: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was God. " (John 1:1) - and in the
fulness of time, He took on our nature, becoming true man: "Inasmuch
then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself
likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy
him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release
those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject
to bondage. " (Hebrews 2:14-15). This is why Christians
affirm that He has two natures, human and divine. There
is, of course, not one hint in the Bible that His human nature
is called 'the Son', nor that His divine nature is called 'the
Father'...any more than the sun is called 'Antares' or the earth
'Pluto'! Just so:
a.) The earth revolves around the sun [true], and
b.) the sun is called 'Antares' and the earth is called 'Pluto' [false];
a.) Jesus Christ has two natures, human and divine [true], and
b.) the human nature is called 'the Son' and the divine nature
is called 'the Father' [false].
Tail-Chasing
Because it's so easy to produce Bible verses where 'the Son' cannot mean
'the flesh', yet the 'Oneness' Pentecostals have no other way to get out
of the implications of the 'I-thou' relation between Father and Son presented
in the gospels, 'Oneness' writers go into a blur of constant motion, hoping
that no one can hit a moving target. David Bernard, for one, whirls
around a spinning merry-go-round where 'the Son' can mean 'the flesh'...or
wait, maybe it means 'the Father'...or anything in between: "The title
of Son sometimes focuses solely on the humanity of Christ, as in 'the death
of His Son' (Romans 5:10). Sometimes it encompasses both His deity
and humanity, as in 'Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the
right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven' (Matthew 26:64)."
(Oneness and Trinity A.D. 100-300, by David K. Bernard). So the 'Oneness'
Pentecostals make the meaning of scripture hinge upon an esoteric 'secret
key to scripture', namely that 'the Son' means 'the flesh'...yet even they
have to admit their secret key works only some of the time!
It's easy enough to disprove, by the Bible, each theory advanced thus
far; Father, Son and Holy Spirit cannot be three 'titles, offices
or manifestations,' because we learn in the Bible that these
three love one another, and 'titles' or 'offices' do not love:
"Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with
Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have
given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world."
(John 17:24). It's easy enough to prove that 'the Son' cannot
mean 'the flesh', because that makes gibberish out of passages
like Hebrews 1:8-12 which ascribe eternal Deity "to the Son":
"But to the Son He says: 'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom...And: 'You, LORD, in the beginning
laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish,
but You remain; and they will all grow old like a garment; like a cloak You will fold them up,
and they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will not fail.'"
Nor can this latest stop-gap be defended against the Bible. The newest
theory, that 'the Son' means 'the Father in the flesh', fails
before scriptures like John 14:28: "You have heard Me say to
you, "I am going away and coming back to you." If you loved
Me, you would rejoice because I said, "I am going to the Father,"
for My Father is greater than I.'" (John 14:28). How can
'the Father' be greater than 'the Father in the flesh', the
part greater than the whole? Not only can none of these
three theories be reconciled with the Bible; they are not even
compatible with one another. If 'the Father' means 'the
Spirit' and 'the Son' means 'the flesh', then 'Son' and 'Father'
are not 'titles' or 'offices', but rather different natures.
So the 'Oneness' Pentecostals are obliged to remain in
constant motion, hoping no one can hit a moving target, shuffling
from one of these inadequate and unbiblical explanations to the next...and back again.
Communicatio Idiomatum
If the Bible authors had agreed with the 'Oneness' Pentecostals that
Jesus' divine and human attributes inhere in different subjects
('the Father' and 'the Son'), we should expect to see them segregate
divine attributes from human accordingly. Do they? No;
they ascribe divine attributes like omnipresence to "the Son
of man", a title which on its face speaks of Jesus' humanity:
"No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that
is, the Son of Man who is in heaven." (John 3:13).
It was precisely in order to die that Jesus Christ became man: "Inasmuch
then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself
likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy
him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release
those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject
to bondage." (Hebrews 2:14-15). So does the Bible carefully
say that "the Son of man" died? No, the Bible says that "the
Lord of glory", a divine title, was crucified:
"But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom
which God ordained before the ages for our glory, which none
of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would
not have crucified the Lord of glory." (1 Corinthians 2:8).
How to account for the Bible's mixing up of divine and human traits...unless
there is one person, Jesus Christ, to whom both united natures belong?
Another: forgiving sins is a divine prerogative - which the Bible ascribes
to the "Son of man": "Why does this Man speak blasphemies like
this? Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (Mark 2:7).
This is the Bible truth:
"I, even I, am He who blots out your transgressions for My own sake;
and I will not remember your sins." (Isaiah 43:25).
"Who is a God like You,
Pardoning iniquity
And passing over the transgression of the remnant of His heritage?
He does not retain His anger forever,
Because He delights in mercy.
He will again have compassion on us,
And will subdue our iniquities.
You will cast all our sins
Into the depths of the sea." (Micah 7:18-19).
"Have mercy upon me, O God,
According to Your lovingkindness;
According to the multitude of Your tender mercies,
Blot out my transgressions.
Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity,
And cleanse me from my sin...
Against You, You only, have I sinned,
And done this evil in Your sight -
That You may be found just when You speak,
And blameless when You judge." (Psalm 51:1-4).
"So David said to Nathan, 'I have sinned against the LORD.' And Nathan
said to David, 'The LORD also has put away your sin; you shall
not die.'" (2 Samuel 12:13).
"Let the heavens declare His righteousness,
For God Himself is Judge." (Psalm 50:6).
But Jesus says explicitly it's the "Son of man" who forgives sins: "'But
that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins' - He said
to the paralytic, 'I say to you, arise, take up your bed, and go to your house.'" (Mark 2:10-11).
Yet another: "But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should
come to me?" (Luke 1:43). Elizabeth, no 'Oneness' Pentecostal,
was not careful to address Mary as 'the mother of the humanity
of my Lord', like she should have according to some folks! 'Lord'
is a divine title; Elizabeth knew that the child Mary was carrying
was God incarnate.
So the Bible does not do as 'Oneness' Pentecostals expect it should;
it does not segregate Jesus' divine attributes from His humanity,
ascribing them to different subjects with divergent biographies.
There is only one Jesus known to the Bible, not two of 'em.
Came Down from Heaven
The Bible teaches that "the Son of Man" came down from heaven: "No one
has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that
is, the Son of Man who is in heaven." (John 3:13).
Hmmm...let's try the Revised Fleshy Version: 'No one has ascended to heaven
but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Flesh which is
in heaven.' How could it be that, while Jesus walked on earth,
His 'Flesh' was in heaven?
The Bible teaches that "the Son of Man" was in heaven "before": "What
then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before?" (John 6:62).
Hmmm...let's try the Revised Fleshy Version: 'What then if you should see
the Flesh ascend where it was before?' Where was 'the Flesh' before
the incarnation? Certainly not in heaven.
The One who came down from heaven is God, not 'the Flesh' or 'the humanity'.
So we see again that the Bible does not segregate Jesus' divine attributes
from His human attributes and ascribe them to another subject. Traditional
theology disputes the 'Oneness' Pentecostal claim 'Son of God' is a description
of the 'flesh' of the incarnation but concedes the title 'Son of man.'
Given the Bible's insistance on ascribing divine attributes to the 'Son
of man,' is this concession justified?
Son of Man
Jesus identified Himself both as Son of God and Son of man:
"When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His
disciples, saying, 'Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?'" (Matthew
16:13).
"When Jesus heard that, He said, 'This sickness is not unto death,
but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified through
it.'" (John 11:4).
He also called Himself 'the Son' without qualification: "Then Jesus answered
and said to them, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what
He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner.'" (John 5:19).
Since in this latter usage 'Son' correlates with 'Father,' it belongs with 'Son of God.'
By rights, the 'Son of man' must be man, just as the 'Son of God' must be God. 'Son of' in Bible
idiom can mean 'of the order of' or 'of the nature of'; the "sons of the prophets" are
prophets: "Now a certain man of the sons of the prophets said to his neighbor by the word of the
LORD, 'Strike me, please.'" (1 Kings 20:35). At times, without doubt, 'Son of man' is addressed
to mortal men: "And He said to me, 'Son of man, stand on your feet, and I will speak to you.'" (Ezekiel 2:1).
But when we first encounter the Messianic 'Son of man' in the Bible, He's in heaven, not upon the earth:
"I was watching in the night visions,
And behold, One like the Son of Man,
Coming with the clouds of heaven!
He came to the Ancient of Days,
And they brought Him near before Him." (Daniel 7:13).
The 'Son of man' of Psalm 8 was understood by the apostles as the Messiah:
"What is man that You are mindful of him,
And the son of man that You visit him?
For You have made him a little lower than the angels,
And You have crowned him with glory and honor.
You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands;
You have put all things under his feet..." (Psalm 8:4-6).
Paul understands the "Son of man" of Psalm 8 as the Messiah:
"For 'He has put all things under His feet.' But when He says 'all
things are put under Him,' it is evident that He who put all things under
Him is excepted. Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the
Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that
God may be all in all." (1 Corinthians 15:26-28). Why?
Moses taught that man was made in the "image" of God: "Whoever
sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of
God He made man." (Genesis 9:6). In Bible philosophy, things below
are images of things above: "...who serve the copy and shadow of the
heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to
make the tabernacle. For He said, 'See that you make all things according
to the pattern shown you on the mountain.'" (Hebrews 8:5).
Jesus is the Image of God the Father:
"...whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ,
who is the image of God, should shine on them." (2 Corinthians 4:4);
"Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of
his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high..." (Hebrews 1:3).
"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation."
(Colossians 1:15).
He is not, as we are, a created image, which must fall far short of the original, but the "express image", without deviation
from the original, which is the person of God the Father. Thus, having being made in the image of God, but the image having become obscured
and dirtied by sin, inasmuch as we were first made in Christ, we are also renewed after His image: "And have put on the new man, which
is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:..." (Colossians 3:10).
"Hence there is nothing to prevent there being one Image of the Father
and of the Son, since they are one; for even man is one image of the whole
Trinity...The image of a thing may be found in something in two ways. In
one way it is found in something of the same specific nature, as the image
of the king is found in his son. In another way it is found in something
of a different nature, as the king's image on the coin. In the first sense
the Son is the Image of the Father; in the second sense man is called the
image of God..." (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, First Part Question
XXXV, Article 2.)
Modern Bible-readers may take comfort in realizing that even Jesus' hearers
did not 'get' what He meant when He called Himself the 'Son of man': "...how
can You say, 'The Son of Man must be lifted up'? Who is this Son of Man?"
(John 12:34). It's possible that it refers to the archetypal man in whose
image man was created. If that's the case it's a divine title.
As we've seen, 'Oneness' exegesis levels the titles 'Son of God' and 'Son
of man', combining them into one. On the surface they are different, to
just the extent that God is not man: "God is not a man, that He should
lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent." (Numbers 23:19). It's
possible they're right, but in the wrong direction; perhaps 'Son of man'
is a divine title recalling the creation of man in the image of the Son.
|
God spoke the worlds into being:
