Bernard's The Oneness of God - Chapter 3
Chapter 3 presents itself as a straightforward survey of the divine names in the Old and New Testaments. In reality, it is the most strategically important chapter in the entire book. Bernard uses the theology of the divine name to construct the core argument his entire system depends on:
- that Jesus" is the one true name of God, the culmination of all OT divine names, the name of the Father, and therefore the only valid name for Christian baptism.
Everything else in the book either prepares for or depends upon this chapter. The names survey is not neutral lexicography — it is a carefully engineered argument for a conclusion he never quite states openly in this chapter but positions everything to reach.
The Name Significance Section: Legitimate Premise, Illegitimate Application
Bernard's Claim
Names in biblical culture were deeply meaningful, revealing character and nature. God used names as self-revelation. Therefore, understanding God's names is key to understanding God's nature.
What is Correct
This premise is substantially accurate. Hebrew naming conventions did carry more semantic weight than modern Western naming practices. Bernard's citations from Flanders and Cresson, and the unnamed lexical authorities, are broadly sound. Names in the OT frequently encoded theological content.
The Problem: A Valid Premise Hijacked for an Invalid Conclusion
Bernard establishes the significance of divine names legitimately, then uses this established premise to smuggle in an illegitimate conclusion: that because names reveal nature, and because "Jesus" is the highest revealed name, therefore "Jesus" IS the Father's name, IS YHWH, and IS the only valid baptismal formula.
The logical structure is:
- Premise 1: Names reveal the nature and character of God ✓
- Premise 2: "Jesus" is the highest revealed name ✓
- Conclusion: Therefore "Jesus" = YHWH = the Father's actual name = the only baptismal name ✗
The conclusion does not follow from the premises. That a name reveals character does not mean the bearer is every prior name. A king may be progressively known by titles that reveal his character — his personal name does not absorb and replace all prior titles. Bernard commits an equivocation fallacy, shifting between "Jesus reveals God's character" (true) and "Jesus' name is the Father's name" (a much stronger claim requiring separate argument).
The Etymology of "Jesus" = "Jehovah-Savior": Overstretching a Linguistic Point
Bernard's Claim
"Jesus means Jehovah-Savior, Jehovah our Salvation, or Jehovah is Salvation." He argues that this etymology proves Jesus is the name in which the Father fully revealed Himself.
What is Correct
The etymology is partially accurate. Yeshua (Joshua/Jesus) derives from the Hebrew root yasha (to save/deliver) combined with the abbreviated divine name Yah (YHWH). The name does connote "YHWH saves" or "the LORD is salvation."
The Problems
The Name Was Common — Which Destroys Bernard's Argument
If the etymology of "Yeshua" = "Jehovah-Savior" proves that the bearer IS YHWH, then every person who bore this name in the OT was also YHWH. This is absurd on its face. Consider:
- Joshua son of Nun (Numbers 13:16) — bore the identical name (renamed from Hoshea to Yehoshua by Moses). Was he the culmination of all divine names?
- Joshua the high priest in the time of Zerubbabel (Zechariah 3:1–9) — same name.
- Jeshua the Levite (Ezra 2:2; Nehemiah 7:7) — same name.
The name "Jesus/Yeshua" was relatively common in Second Temple Judaism. The Gospels themselves reference multiple men named Jesus or Joshua. The name's meaning, however profound theologically, does not make its bearer the divine NAME of YHWH. Bernard's etymological argument proves too much and therefore proves nothing.
Acknowledging the Problem While Ignoring It
Bernard is aware of this objection. He writes: "Although others have borne the name Jehoshua, Joshua, or Jesus, the Lord Jesus Christ is the only One who actually lived up to that name." But this is a non-answer. The question is not whether Jesus uniquely fulfilled the salvific mission encoded in His name — of course He did. The question is whether the name "Jesus" is therefore identical with YHWH, the personal name of the Father. Those are entirely different claims, and Bernard conflates them without argument.
The Elohim Plural — Dismissed Without Argument
Bernard's Treatment
Bernard notes that "Elohim is the plural form of Eloah, and the Old Testament uses this word more than any other to mean God. In this case, the Hebrew plural is an intensive form denoting the greatness, majesty, and multiple attributes of God." He then directs the reader to Chapter 7 for fuller discussion.
The "Plural of Majesty" Claim is Linguistically Contested
The claim that Elohim is a "plural of majesty" or "intensive plural" (pluralis majestatis) — meaning it expresses grandeur rather than plurality — is a common Oneness and Jewish apologetic move. But this explanation faces significant linguistic challenges:
- Genuine plurals of majesty in Hebrew are extremely rare and linguistically debated. Most grammarians (including Gesenius, the foundational Hebrew grammar authority) acknowledge that Elohim is unusual.
- The more significant problem is verb agreement: when Elohim refers to the one true God, it consistently takes singular verbs — which is itself syntactically extraordinary for a plural noun. Normal plural nouns take plural verbs. The pattern of plural noun + singular verb in reference to God is grammatically unique and demands explanation — and Bernard's "intensive plural" explanation does not provide one.
- Genesis 1:26: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." The plural cohortative here is not a "plural of majesty" — Hebrew does not use first-person cohortatives as majestic plurals. Bernard dispatches this to Chapter 7 without engaging it here, but it is the decisive counter-example to his grammar claim.
Grudem (Systematic Theology, pp. 228–229) notes that while Elohim alone does not prove the Trinity, it is consistent with it and represents a divine self-reference that anticipates the NT's fuller Trinitarian revelation.
The Dispatch to Chapter 7 is a Structural Evasion
Bernard raises the Elohim question in Chapter 3 while explicitly discussing divine names, then postpones engagement to Chapter 7. This is not responsible systematic theology — it is strategically separating a challenge from its most relevant context, ensuring the reader has moved past the name discussion before the counter-argument is presented. By Chapter 7, the momentum of his narrative has already been established.
The Zechariah 14:9 Misuse: An Inverted Proof Text
Bernard's Claim
"Zechariah prophesied that a time would come when the LORD would be king over all the earth, and 'in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one' (Zechariah 14:9)." Bernard uses this to argue that in the eschaton, all divine names will converge in the one name "Jesus."
The Problem: The Text Argues the Opposite Direction
Zechariah 14:9 is set in an explicitly eschatological context — the day of the LORD's universal reign. The verse asserts: "the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one."
This is a statement about the eschatological unification of divine worship — a rejection of the syncretism and polytheism Israel was tempted by. It affirms that all nations will worship one God under one name. It says nothing about "Jesus" being that name. Bernard imports "Jesus" into the verse from outside the text entirely.
More damaging to Bernard's case: the verse says "one LORD" — using YHWH — not "one Jesus." If this verse establishes the one divine name, it establishes YHWH, not "Jesus," as that name. Bernard is using a text that points toward YHWH to argue for "Jesus" as the supreme name, which requires assuming his conclusion in order to reach it — a circular argument.
Furthermore, the verse is a powerful affirmation of monotheism: one LORD, one name. A Trinitarian can embrace this fully. The one God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) will be worshipped universally under the one divine name. This is entirely compatible with Trinitarianism and does not remotely necessitate Oneness theology.
The Proverbs 30:4 Speculation: Building Theology on a Rhetorical Question
Bernard's Claim
Proverbs 30:4 — "What is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?" — is interpreted as Agur looking forward prophetically to when God would reveal Himself as the Son, i.e., in the Incarnation.
The Problem: Rampant Speculation Presented as Exegesis
Bernard himself acknowledges the speculative nature: "If he referred to God, then he was looking into the future..." The conditional "if" is doing enormous theological work here. This is hypothetical exegesis — building a doctrinal argument on a condition he cannot establish.
Proverbs 30:4 is a wisdom poem (the words of Agur) that uses rhetorical questions to express human limitation before divine mystery. The questions — "Who has ascended into heaven? Who has gathered the wind? What is his name?" — are expressions of humble ignorance, not prophetic inquiries into the divine name. The "son's name" clause is most naturally read as a further rhetorical intensifier: "If you know God's name, do you also know the name of His son?" — i.e., "Of course you don't, so stop pretending to wisdom."
To extract from this a prophecy about the Incarnation and the name "Jesus" requires:
- Assuming Agur is referring to God specifically (not established)
- Assuming "son's name" is a messianic reference (not established)
- Assuming this constitutes a prophetic inquiry about the divine name (not established)
- Assuming the answer to this inquiry is "Jesus" (not established)
Every step requires an undefended assumption. This is a four-stage question-begging argument dressed as biblical exegesis. Geisler would call this precisely the kind of reading-into-the-text (eisegesis) that undermines credible biblical scholarship.
Hebrews 1:4 — Misidentifying "The Inherited Name"
Bernard's Claim
"He inherited His name from the Father (Hebrews 1:4)." Bernard uses this to argue that the name Jesus — meaning "Jehovah-Savior" — was inherited from the Father, proving that Jesus and the Father share one name.
The Problem: The Context Identifies a Different Name
Hebrews 1:4 reads: "Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they."
The context of Hebrews 1:1–14 is the post-resurrection/ascension exaltation of the Son above the angels. The chapter's argument is built on a chain of OT quotations demonstrating the Son's superiority. Critically, verse 5 immediately follows: "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?"
The "name more excellent than angels in context is clearly "Son" — a title declaring the eternal and unique Sonship of the divine person who was exalted above all angels. This is what verse 5 unpacks. It is not referring to the personal human name "Jesus" as the inherited name of the Father YHWH.
Bernard's interpretation requires him to:
- Ignore the immediate context (verses 5–14)
- Import "Jesus = Jehovah" into a passage that is specifically about Sonship
- Treat the exaltation language as applying to the divine name rather than to the messianic title
This is a decontextualized proof-text — lifting a verse from its argument and inserting it into a different argument without exegetical justification.
Acts 4:12 — Soteriological Claim Converted to Ontological Argument
Bernard's Use
Acts 4:12 serves as the chapter's heading: "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Bernard uses this to establish the exclusive salvific and divine supremacy of the name "Jesus."
The Problem: Wrong Category of Claim
Acts 4:12 is a soteriological statement — it concerns salvation and through whom it is available. Peter's point is unambiguous: salvation is exclusively through Jesus Christ, not through any other claimant, religious system, or spiritual power. This is orthodox Christian doctrine and both Trinitarians and Oneness believers affirm it.
But Bernard leverages this soteriological claim to make an ontological argument about the Godhead: that "Jesus" is the one divine name, that it equals YHWH, and that "Father" and "Holy Spirit" are not names but titles subsumed under "Jesus." This is a category error — moving from a statement about salvation pathways to a statement about divine ontology without any logical justification for the transition.
Acts 4:12 does not say:
- "Father" and "Holy Spirit" are titles, not names
- "Jesus" is the name of the Father
- Baptism must be performed using "Jesus" rather than the Trinitarian formula
- The name "Jesus" replaces YHWH
It says: salvation is exclusively in Jesus Christ. Trinitarians have always affirmed this.
John 17 — Praying Himself a Prayer to Himself
Bernard's Claim
"Jesus asserted that He had manifested and declared the name of the Father (John 17:6, 26)." He uses this to argue that Jesus' works revealed that His name was the Father's name, and that the two are therefore one person.
The Problem: John 17 Demolishes Modalism
The passage Bernard cites as supporting his position is among the most powerful refutations of modalism in the entire New Testament. John 17 is Jesus' extended prayer to the Father. Consider what this requires:
- Jesus addresses the Father in the second person throughout ("Father," "thee," "thou") — treating the Father as a distinct addressee
- Jesus prays for things He desires the Father to do ("Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am" — v.24)
- Jesus distinguishes His own glory from the Father's glory ("glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was" — v.5)
- Jesus speaks of a shared glory existing before creation ("before the world was") — which demolishes the Oneness claim that the Son only began at the Incarnation
- Jesus asks the Father to keep the disciples in His name ("Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me" — v.11)
If Father and Son are one person in modalist sense, this prayer is either:
- Incoherent — a single person conducting an elaborate soliloquy
- Theatrical — God staging a performance prayer for the disciples' benefit with no ontological reality
- Deceptive — creating the appearance of personal communion where none exists
None of these options is theologically acceptable. Bernard quotes vv.6 and 26 in isolation while the surrounding verses are among the most potent evidences for Trinitarian personal distinctions in the entire canon. This is cherry-picking at its most egregious.
Furthermore, v.5 explicitly states Jesus shared glory with the Father "before the world was" — a direct affirmation of the eternal pre-existence of the Son as a distinct person, not merely a mode that began at the Incarnation.
The Baptismal Formula: The Hidden Agenda of Chapter 3
What Bernard is Setting Up
Although Bernard never states it explicitly in Chapter 3, the entire chapter is constructing the foundation for the Oneness baptismal doctrine: that Matthew 28:19 ("baptize in the name — singular — of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost") points to a single name, that name is "Jesus," and therefore baptism must be performed using "in Jesus' name" rather than the Trinitarian formula.
The Problems with This Argument (Pre-emptive Analysis)
The Singular "Name" in Matthew 28:19
Bernard will argue that "name" (singular) in Matthew 28:19 cannot refer to three persons and must therefore refer to one name — Jesus. But the singular "name" is grammatically unremarkable in this context. A family can share one family "name" while being multiple persons. The singular "name" indicates unity of divine identity, not numerical singularity of person. It is perfectly coherent to say three persons share one divine name/authority.
Jesus' Own Words vs. Bernard's Interpretation
Matthew 28:19 records Jesus' own explicit words: "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Bernard's argument requires concluding that Jesus' own baptismal command meant to say "Jesus" rather than "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." This makes Bernard's interpretation more authoritative than Jesus' own words — a staggering theological overreach.
The Acts Baptism Texts Do Not Contradict Matthew 28:19
Bernard will argue that the apostles baptized "in Jesus' name" (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5), proving this is the correct formula. But this argument fails on multiple grounds:
- The Acts formula represents the authority invoked in baptism (baptized under the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ), not a liturgical formula replacing Matthew 28:19
- Early church practice and Acts narrative do not mean the full Trinitarian formula was not used
- Both formulas can be correct simultaneously: baptizing in the name of the Father/Son/Spirit is baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ, because Jesus embodies the divine presence of the triune God
Grudem and Boyd both note that the "Jesus name" baptism texts in Acts describe the theological significance of Christian baptism (done in the authority and name of Jesus as Lord), not a prescriptive magical formula excluding the Trinitarian expression.
The Progressive Revelation Framework: Legitimate Concept, Distorted Application
What is Correct
Bernard's section on progressive revelation is theologically sound in its basic framework. God did reveal Himself progressively — first as Creator, then as Deliverer (Exodus 6), then as Healer, Provider, Victory, and so on. This is standard evangelical theology.
The Fatal Distortion
Bernard applies the progressive revelation framework to argue that "Jesus" is the final, complete, and all-absorbing name that replaces all prior names. But orthodox progressive revelation theology does not work this way. The new revelation does not cancel or absorb the old; it fulfills and enriches it. The name YHWH was not cancelled when Jesus was revealed. The compound names (Jehovah-jireh, Jehovah-rapha, etc.) were not cancelled — they found their fullest expression in what Christ accomplished.
Bernard's progressive revelation schema is actually a supersessionist name theology — the divine names are progressively discarded until only "Jesus" remains. But this is not what the NT teaches. The NT continues to use "Father," "Lord," "God," "Spirit" as meaningful, distinct identifiers — not as archaic names absorbed into "Jesus."
The "No Magic Formula" Disclaimer That Fails
Bernard's Claim
"Does this mean the name of Jesus is a kind of magical formula? No... The power does not come from the way the name sounds." The Problem: The Disclaimer Contradicts the Surrounding Argument
In the same paragraph, Bernard writes: "When we speak the name of Jesus in faith, Jesus Himself is actually present and begins to work." And throughout the chapter he has argued that:
- Baptism is only valid "in Jesus' name"
- Healing, casting out devils, miracles must be done "in the name of Jesus"
- The invocation of the name is what activates divine presence and power
This is functionally indistinguishable from a magical name-formula theology. The disclaimer "power does not come from the way the name sounds" is immediately undermined by "when we speak the name... Jesus Himself is actually present." The invocation of the specific name IS what triggers the divine response in his theology — which is precisely what a name-formula theology claims.
This is doublespeak — denying the conclusion while maintaining every premise that produces it.
Summary: Chapter 3's Argumentative Failures
| Section | Primary Failure |
|---|---|
| Name Significance | Valid premise hijacked; equivocation between "reveals" and "is" |
| Jesus Etymology | Proves too much — all OT bearers of Yeshua would equally be YHWH |
| Elohim Plural | Linguistically contested; Genesis 1:26 evaded |
| Zechariah 14:9 | Text names YHWH, not Jesus; circular argument |
| Proverbs 30:4 | Four-stage speculation built on conditional exegesis |
| Hebrews 1:4 | Context identifies "Son" not "Jesus" as inherited name |
| Acts 4:12 | Soteriological text weaponized for ontological argument |
| John 17 | Quoted selectively; surrounding text demolishes modalism |
| Baptismal Formula | Jesus' own words in Matthew 28:19 contradict Bernard's conclusion |
| Progressive Revelation | Legitimate concept distorted into name-supersessionism |
| "No Magic Formula" | Disclaimer contradicted by surrounding argument |
The Chapter's Deepest Structural Problem Chapter 3's fundamental failure is an identity fallacy — the systematic confusion between a name meaning something about God and a name being identical with God. The following distinctions, which Bernard consistently collapses, must be maintained:
"Jesus" reveals God's salvific nature ≠ "Jesus" IS the Father's name Jesus is the fullest revelation of God ≠ "Jesus" replaces all other divine names Salvation is exclusively in Jesus ≠ "Jesus" is the only valid divine name ontologically Matthew 28:19 uses a singular "name" ≠ That singular name is specifically "Jesus"
The Trinitarian position is that Jesus Christ — the second person of the Trinity — fully reveals the triune God, that all the compound names of Jehovah are fulfilled in His person and work, and that salvation is exclusively through Him. This affirms everything Bernard claims to value. What Trinitarianism refuses is Bernard's further step: that recognizing Jesus as the fullest divine revelation requires collapsing the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit into one person. Boyd (Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity, pp. 52–67) notes that the entire Oneness name theology depends on conflating what Bernard's own sources actually say — that names reveal character — with what he needs them to say — that names constitute identity. The sources he cites in his opening pages (Flanders, Cresson, the Amplified Bible footnote) all support the former. Bernard builds his entire chapter on the latter. Recommended Response Strategy for Message Followers Using Chapter 3
On "Jesus = Jehovah-Savior": "Joshua son of Nun had the same name. Was he also the culmination of all divine names? If the name's meaning makes the bearer YHWH, you have a problem with every other Yeshua in the OT." On Matthew 28:19: "Jesus said to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Bernard is saying Jesus didn't mean what He said. Are you more confident in Bernard's interpretation than in Jesus' own words?" On John 17: "Bernard quotes John 17:6 to support Oneness. But in that same prayer, Jesus says He had glory with the Father before the world existed. How does the Son have shared pre-creation glory with the Father if the Son only began at the Incarnation?" On Zechariah 14:9: "Zechariah says the one name will be YHWH — not Jesus. How does Bernard get 'Jesus' out of a verse that uses the divine name YHWH?" On the baptismal argument: "Acts 2:38 says 'in the name of Jesus Christ.' Matthew 28:19 says 'in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.' Both are Scripture. Trinitarians accept both as compatible. Oneness theology requires rejecting Matthew 28:19 as either misquoted or misunderstood. Which is more likely — that the whole church misunderstood the baptismal formula for centuries, or that Oneness theology has misread Acts 2:38?"
Footnotes