Is God the Father Also the Son?

Summary

Summary prepared by Acts 2:38 Life from the transcript below — the preacher’s words follow in full.

Not 'the Father Is the Son,' but the Father in the Son

• The question posed: we've recorded many episodes offering explanations and greater understanding of the oneness of God. The relationship that we see in the gospels, between the Father and the Son. In your book, The Oneness of God, you wrote: 'We do not believe that the Father is the Son; we do believe that the Father is in the Son' — citing John 14:10, where Jesus asks his disciples: 'Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you, I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does the works.' Can you explain this relationship between the Father and the Son?
• Yes. This is absolutely crucial, to understanding the doctrine of God, the doctrine of Christ, and therefore to accurately understand and express the oneness concept. Even Oneness people sometimes don't fully grasp this, and certainly people who are not Oneness commonly misunderstand this. So we start, as Oneness people, believing there's absolutely one God: Deuteronomy 6:4. So we're not open to the idea that there are multiple persons, in an abstract godhead. Rather, God is a personal being, who is revealed in Jesus Christ. So we don't understand that there could be three centers of consciousness, or three persons of God: there's one personal God. So from that point, some people just say: well, you just say the Father is the Son is the Spirit. But no: there is a significance in these terms, and it's actually essential to understand this from an Oneness perspective.

Scriptures: John 14:10; Deuteronomy 6:4

Father: A Term of Relationship; Son: God Manifest in the Flesh

• So when we say the Father: that's a term of relationship. The Bible does speak of God the Father: he's in relationship to us. He created us, so he's the Father of all humans, by creation. He redeemed the believers, so he's the Father of all of us believers, in a second sense, through the new birth — or alternatively, through adoption. You can look at these as two different analogies, of saying we as believers have a special relationship with God. And then there's yet another significance, which comes into the New Testament prominently: God is the Father of the child born of Mary. So Jesus was not conceived by Joseph, or any other earthly man; but God, by a miracle — the Spirit of God overshadowed his mother Mary, and caused her to conceive. And so Jesus was born of a virgin. So he was a true human, inheriting human identity from Mary; but also, he was truly God, because God caused the conception. And you can see the scriptural definitions of the Son — and I'm giving you the background here. The Bible never, one time, says 'God the Son,' as if Son were a term of deity, eternal deity. It never says 'the eternal Son.' It speaks of the only begotten Son. The Son was born in time — Galatians 4:4 — not in eternity.
• In fact, the scriptural definition of the Son is found in Luke 1:35, when the angel Gabriel spoke to Mary, and said: 'The Holy Spirit will overshadow you; the power of the Highest will come upon you. Therefore' — and so that word 'therefore' shows the logical connection — 'Therefore, the holy one who will be born of you will be called the Son of God.' So Jesus is not called Son of God, because he's an eternal second person, whose eternal name is Son. He's called the Son of God, because, as a human, he was conceived by God. So, just as my son is called my son, because I'm the agent of conception: so Jesus is called God's Son, because God is the agent of conception. So God doesn't make baby gods; God doesn't multiply himself into different gods; but God caused that child to be born. Now, that child to be born was actually God himself, incarnate. So God came in that child. And you see this in John 1:1: the Word was with God; the Word was God. Verse 14: the Word became flesh. You also see this in 1 Timothy 3:16: God was manifest in the flesh. You see it in 2 Corinthians 5:19: God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself. So when we say Father, we're speaking of the one true God, in personal relationship with us: our Creator, the origin of our life. And you actually see, Malachi 2:10: 'Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us all?' So that's a term of relationship. When we say Son, we're referring to God, as he is manifested in the flesh. So the Son is a true human being, in whom God dwelt.
• So therefore, when you understand this: the term Father is not prominent in the Old Testament, for God. It is used occasionally — Isaiah 63:16: our Father is our Redeemer. So again, not two persons: but the same one who created us is the same one who redeems us. And Deuteronomy 32:6: God is called the Father of the nation of Israel, because he established Israel as a nation. But the term Father is not prominent for God, in the Old Testament. It becomes prominent in the New Testament, to distinguish Father and Son. So here's the significance, particularly in the New Testament. The term Father speaks of God in his transcendence: God above and beyond us; God, who is the omnipresent Spirit, who created us, who fills the universe. The term Son is usually the true human being, in whom God came, and whom God dwelt. So the only thing to understand, from an Oneness perspective: these are not two persons of God; these are not divisions of God, in two parts. But this is the one God, who is everywhere, who's transcendent, who rules the universe, who directs the angels, but also came in flesh, as Jesus Christ. But the terms Father and Son then become very important, to protect and announce the genuine, authentic humanity of Jesus Christ. So that's why you find this distinction. It's not a distinction of eternal divine persons, but it's a distinction of God in his transcendence, versus God coming in the flesh. So it's trying to protect the true humanity of Jesus Christ.

Scriptures: Galatians 4:4; Luke 1:35; John 1:1; John 1:14; 1 Timothy 3:16; 2 Corinthians 5:19; Malachi 2:10; Isaiah 63:16; Deuteronomy 32:6

The Son Always Relates to the Incarnation

• I will hasten to add — which I think we discussed in another podcast — that the term Son doesn't mean flesh only. It means God coming in the flesh. So, for example, in Mark 2, the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins. Are we saying, because Jesus was human, he has power to forgive sins? No. But we're saying: the Son of Man, on earth. So, you know, you could pray to God, the invisible omnipresent Spirit, and ask for forgiveness. But that wasn't what was going on in Mark 2, when Jesus healed the paralyzed man, and forgave his sins. It was on the spot, in the flesh: Jesus, God manifest in the flesh. So he was able to forgive, because he was God. Who can forgive sins but God? But he did so from the perspective of standing there, as God incarnate in the flesh. So the significance of Son is: it always relates to the incarnation; it always relates to God, as he is manifest in the flesh. So there's one God. The one God is our Father, in relationship to us. The one God came in flesh, as a Son of God. But we don't want to confuse the categories, or confuse the terms. If we say the Father is the Son, it's like we're saying God is flesh; it's like we're saying eternal God was eternal flesh — which would be false. So the more accurate thing is not to say the Father is the Son. So people that accuse us: 'You're modalist; you believe there's just one God who changes roles, who changes masks' — you know, that was an accusation against some ancient teachers, which we actually don't have the records of those ancient teachers. So I think even that was a mischaracterization, but certainly it's a mischaracterization of us. We're not saying there's one God who changes roles, or changes masks. That would be saying the Father is the Son. We're not saying that. We're saying the Father came in flesh, as the Son.
• So, for example, in John 10:30, Jesus said: 'I and my Father are one.' Why didn't he just say: 'I am the Father'? Well, if I can put it this way: because he was more than the Father. So look at the context: he's talking to unbelieving Jewish leaders. He says: 'I, this man that you see — you admit, you acknowledge, you know I'm a man — you're talking to me; and the Father — you believe in the Father; you worship the Father; you believe in one God; you think of the Father as the omnipresent Spirit, who dwells in heaven, that you can talk to — so you see no connection; you see they're two different entities, not related to each other. I, this man you're talking to, and the Father whom you worship in heaven, are not two, as you suppose: I and the Father are one and the same.' And they understood that that was a claim of deity. Now, if you think about it, in the first century, they weren't saying: 'Oh, so you're the second person, that you claim to be the second person of the Trinity — how crazy is that?' They didn't even have the concept of a Trinity. They didn't even really have a concept of a second God. They're all Jews; Jesus is a Jew. It wasn't open for discussion, that there could be multiple deities, or even persons. They didn't have that terminology, or concept of persons, in the later Trinitarian sense. So when Jesus said, 'I and my Father are one,' they saw that as a claim of deity. He's not just saying he gets along with God, or he is united with God, as a good man: he's claiming to be God. But for them to process that, they couldn't have said: 'Oh, he's claimed to be part of the Trinity; oh, he's claimed to be a second person.' No, those categories weren't even available to them. And even had they thought of them, they wouldn't have thought of Jesus in that category. So basically, what they're saying: 'You're claiming to be the one God.' And so they took up stones to kill him. And of course, Jesus, being a little ironic, says: 'Well, for which of my good works are you killing me?' And they said: 'Not for your good works, but because you, being a man, make yourself God.' So they understood his claim, but couldn't accept it. Of course, they got it backwards: he wasn't a man who was trying to make himself God; he was God, who made himself man.

Scriptures: Mark 2; John 10:30

John's Climax: 'My Lord and My God'

• So the term Son of God refers to God, as he is manifested in the flesh. And as Oneness believers, we must preserve that distinction between Father and Son. Not of two persons, but of God in transcendence, versus God in flesh. That's the only way we can understand the New Testament. And so, that's why I don't say the Father is the Son, because that's confusing the categories. That's like saying a man is God, a flesh is spirit. We wouldn't say that. But we say God came as a human; the Spirit of God came in human identity, came in human flesh. And you can see, John 20:28, the climax of the whole book. So all through the book, John is giving you signs of who Jesus really is. And if you carefully think it through — I don't have time to go through it — but he gives specific miracles, and specific sayings, that only God could fulfill. Only God could create food, to feed 5,000; only God could turn water into wine; only God could raise Lazarus from the dead; only God could forgive sins. And on and on and on. So the disciples were gradually coming to an awareness, and presumably the readers who are reading John are gradually coming to an awareness. But the climax comes, when Jesus arose from the dead. That puts it all together: there could be no other explanation. If a man can raise himself from the dead, he has to be more than a man. And so, when Jesus appeared to Thomas, who had not believed that this could happen — when Thomas actually saw the resurrected Christ, in John 20 and verse 28, he said: 'My Lord and my God.' So, as a Jew, knowing: 'Here, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one' (as captioned) — Deuteronomy 6:4: there's only one Lord; there's only one God; there can't be a second Lord, a second God. Again, no concept of multiple persons, or multiple centers of consciousness, or Trinity. He's confessing Jesus as the one God of Israel, his God. And Jesus accepted that designation, and said: 'You're blessed, Thomas; but also blessed are those who haven't seen, yet believe.'
• So this is the climax of the whole Gospel of John. John has constructed the whole book, to bring the reader to the same revelation, and acknowledgement, of who Jesus is. But then it's interesting: John 20 is really the climax of the book; there's one more chapter — it's an epilogue — but here is the teaching part of the book, reaching its main point. So after relating that Thomas said Jesus is my Lord and my God, then John said: 'I wrote all these things, that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, and that, the Son of God; and that, believing, you might have life through his name.' In that context, when he said Son of God, he meant God manifest in the flesh. Otherwise, it doesn't even make sense. If Son of God means a second person, or Son of God means just a human, then you're defeating the whole point. Here's the confession: you are the one Lord and the one God, the God of Israel, my God. And John says: okay, I wrote that you would understand Jesus, as the Son of God. In that context, he's saying: I wrote this, so you would know Jesus is God, but manifest in the flesh. If you just said Jesus is God, people would be puzzled: you mean that man is the invisible Spirit? That's impossible. But the man is the invisible God, in the flesh, as a human. And so you could see that John is working with this definition: the Son of God means God manifest in the flesh. If it was anything else: I wrote this so you know Jesus is the second person — well, wait a minute: there's a big disconnect. He, Thomas, just said he's the one God, the only God, and he's a Jew: that's all he believes in. So where does this second person come from? Where does that suddenly intrude in the text? Where do you get that? That's a leap of logic; that's not there. So you can see: or, if Son of God just means a man — well, he's God; so I wrote this, so you know he's just a man.

Scriptures: John 20:28

1 John 5:20 and the Godhead in Jesus

• And then, one more place: 1 John — same author — the very end of that book; the second-to-last verse, 1 John 5:20: 'And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding, that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ.' So if you stop there, you might think: okay, there's God, and then there's a Son of God. But then the last statement — and others try to say 'he,' referring right back to his Son Jesus — 'he is the true God, and eternal life.' So he says: I wrote this, that you know Jesus, the Son of God; that you know God, who is true, and his Son Jesus: actually, he is the true God. And so he brings it back around.
• So, to answer your question: it's actually not a problem. It's essential, for Oneness people, to have a distinction between the Father and the Son. It's essential, because that's the only way you can establish the authentic humanity of Jesus Christ. The only thing we would say is: Father and Son do not represent two different persons in the godhead, as if there could be anything in the godhead. Instead, the godhead is in Jesus: Colossians 2:9 — all the fullness of God, the godhead, dwells in him bodily. So they're not two centers of consciousness; they're not two divine persons. But there is the one God, that we know from the whole Bible, and Jesus Christ, an authentic human being, in whom God dwells. So actually, he is the true God, manifested in the flesh.

Scriptures: 1 John 5:20; Colossians 2:9

Scripture index: John 14:10; Deuteronomy 6:4; Galatians 4:4; Luke 1:35; John 1:1; John 1:14; 1 Timothy 3:16; 2 Corinthians 5:19; Malachi 2:10; Isaiah 63:16; Deuteronomy 32:6; Mark 2; John 10:30; John 20:28; 1 John 5:20; Colossians 2:9.