Jump to content

Bernard's The Oneness of God - Chapter 4

From BelieveTheSign
Revision as of 14:07, 27 May 2026 by Admin (talk | contribs)


Click on headings to expand them, or links to go to specific articles.


Click here to find out about THE definitive book on William Branham - Under The Halo: Examining the Legacy of William Branham



David Bernard's book, The Oneness of God, is, in the kindest possible reading, a theologically motivated exercise in confirmation bias dressed up in the costume of systematic theology. He sets out not to discover what the Bible teaches about God but to defend a conclusion already reached. The result is a book riddled with logical fallacies, selective use of evidence, category errors, and interpretive sleight of hand. What follows is a chapter-by-chapter and argument-by-argument analysis. References are drawn from Boyd's Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity, Grudem's Systematic Theology, and Geisler's Come Let Us Reason Together.

You are on the page that is in bold. Click on the links to go to a particular chapter:

Chapter 4 is the longest and most scripture-dense chapter in the book. Bernard marshals an impressive catalogue of OT and NT texts to prove the full deity of Jesus Christ — that Jesus is Jehovah, the Father incarnate, the Creator, the One on heaven's throne. On this specific point — the absolute, complete, unqualified deity of Christ — he is largely correct, and his evidence is substantial.

This is precisely what makes Chapter 4 so dangerous as Oneness apologetics. The chapter's entire argument rests on a false dilemma it never names: either Jesus is fully God (Oneness) or Jesus is merely a secondary divine figure (Arianism/subordinationism).

Trinitarianism — which affirms the full and unqualified deity of Christ without any reservation — is treated as if it falls into the subordinationist camp and is therefore silently refuted by every proof of Christ's deity. This is intellectually dishonest because every single proof text Bernard marshals for Christ's deity is fully accepted by Trinitarian orthodoxy. The chapter proves Christ is God without establishing that this requires the Father and Son to be one undivided person rather than distinct persons within one divine being.

Isaiah 9:6 — "The Everlasting Father": A Mistranslation Built Into an Argument

Bernard's Claim

"Isaiah 9:6 is one of the most powerful proofs that Jesus is God: 'His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.' The terms child and son refer to the Incarnation, or the manifestation of 'The mighty God' and 'The everlasting Father.'"

Bernard later uses this verse more explicitly: "Isaiah 9:6 calls the Son the everlasting Father. Jesus is the Son prophesied about and there is only one Father (Malachi 2:10; Ephesians 4:6), so Jesus must be God the Father revealed in the Son."

The Problems

The Hebrew Title Does Not Mean "The Father" in a Trinitarian Sense

The Hebrew is Abi-Ad — literally "Father of Eternity" or "Father of the Everlasting Age." This is a Hebrew construct phrase in which "father of X" means "one who possesses, embodies, or inaugurates X." The idiom is well-established in Hebrew:

  • Abi-shalom = "father of peace" = peaceful one (2 Samuel 15:1)
  • Abi-nezar = "father of the crown" = crowned one

Abi-Ad therefore means "possessor/source of eternity" or "one who inaugurates the eternal age" — it is a messianic title describing the nature of Christ's eternal kingdom, not an identification of the Son with the first person of the Trinity. Even classical Jewish commentators interpreted Abi-Ad as referring to the king's paternal care over his eternal kingdom. Grudem (Systematic Theology, p. 235) notes that "everlasting Father" in Isaiah 9:6 describes the Messiah as a "father-like" ruler of eternal duration — consistent with the surrounding political royal imagery ("government on his shoulder," "Prince of Peace") — not an ontological claim that the Son IS the first person of the Trinity.

The Verse Contains an Internal Contradiction for Bernard's Reading

The same verse calls this figure "a son" — "unto us a son is given." If Bernard's logic holds — that "everlasting Father" identifies Jesus as literally the divine Father — then the same verse's use of "son" must also be taken literally, giving us a figure who is simultaneously a son and the Father in the same sentence. Bernard resolves this by appealing to the dual nature of Christ (divine = Father, human = Son), but this resolution is his conclusion being imported into his premise. He needs the dual nature framework to read the verse this way, but he uses the verse to prove the dual nature framework. This is circular reasoning.

The Argument Proves Too Much

If every title in Isaiah 9:6 identifies Jesus with a divine reality, then "Prince of Peace" would mean Jesus IS the divine Peace itself, "Wonderful Counsellor" would mean Jesus IS divine Wisdom, etc. Bernard selectively literalizes "everlasting Father" while treating the other titles as descriptors. This inconsistency of method is not argued — it is assumed.

The Septuagint

When one looks at this same passage in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, that is quoted by Jesus and the majority of the New Testament writers:

Because a child was born to us; a son was given to us whose leadership came upon his shoulder; and his name is called “Messenger of the Great Council,” for I will bring peace upon the rulers and health to him.[1]

What this means is that we can't rely on the exact wording of Isaiah 9:6 for the foundation of any doctrines. The exact wording in the original Hebrew is in doubt.

The Logos Argument: A Greek Grammar Error at the Foundation

Bernard's Claim

"The Word was not a separate person or a separate god any more than a man's word is a separate person from him. Rather the Word was the thought, plan, or mind of God."

Bernard then argues: "The Greek word 'pros,' translated 'with' in verse 1, is the same word translated 'pertaining to' in Hebrews 2:17 and 5:1. John 1:1 could include in its meanings... 'The Word pertained to God and the Word was God.'"

The Problems

A Basic Greek Grammar Error

Bernard's claim that pros in John 1:1 means "pertaining to" (citing Hebrews 2:17 and 5:1) involves a fundamental grammatical confusion. Pros is a preposition that takes different cases:

  • Pros + genitive = "pertaining to, concerning"
  • Pros + accusative = "toward, face-to-face with, in personal relationship with"

John 1:1 uses pros ton Theon — pros with the accusative — which denotes personal, face-to-face orientation. Hebrews 2:17 and 5:1 use pros with the accusative in context of priestly ministry "pertaining to" God — a different usage. Bernard's grammar argument conflates two different constructions of the same preposition to make John 1:1 mean something its grammatical structure does not support.

The standard scholarly consensus (Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich — the authoritative NT Greek lexicon) defines pros + accusative in John 1:1 as expressing personal relationship and communion. The Word was with God in the sense of face-to-face personal presence — which requires distinction between the Word and God, not identity.

The "Word as Thought" Interpretation Destroys the "With" Language

If the Logos is simply God's "thought, plan, or mind" — a divine attribute rather than a distinct person — then John 1:1's statement that "the Word was WITH God" is logically incoherent. A thought is not "with" its thinker in any meaningful sense — it IS the thinker's mental act. The preposition pros implying relational presence only makes sense if the Word has a distinct personal existence that can be "with" another person.

Bernard acknowledges this problem but only at the level of denying it: he asserts the Logos was a thought "with God" without explaining how a mere divine thought can be with God in the relational sense the Greek demands. The explanation is incoherent on his own terms.

=John 1:14 Confirms Personal Distinction

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father." The phrase "only begotten of the Father" — monogenes para Patros — uses the preposition para (from, from the side of) to describe a relational origin of the Word from the Father. If Word and Father are identical, "from the Father" is meaningless — a thing cannot come from itself in relational terms.

Boyd (Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity, pp. 76–84) addresses the Logos argument in detail, noting that Bernard's "divine thought" interpretation was precisely the kind of interpretation John wrote his prologue to refute, not support. John's deliberate use of personal language about the Logos (He dwelt, He was seen, He was with the Father) requires personal identity for the Logos.

"Jesus Is the Father Incarnate" — The Chapter's Central Syllogism

Bernard's Argument

"If there is only one God and that God is the Father (Malachi 2:10), and if Jesus is God, then it logically follows that Jesus is the revelation of the Father."

The Problem: The Key Premise Doesn't Mean What Bernard Claims

Malachi 2:10 Is Not a Trinitarian Identification

"Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us?" Bernard uses this to establish that "God = the Father" in a Trinitarian-identity sense, meaning that "the Father" is the one God and therefore Jesus (who is God) must BE the Father.

But Malachi 2:10 is not making a Trinitarian statement. It is a prophetic rebuke of Israel's social and religious faithlessness — using the imagery of God as a common divine Father-Creator to condemn Israel's mistreatment of fellow Jews. The "one father" language is about shared divine origin and covenant identity, not about the ontological identity of the first Trinitarian person. This is the same "father" language used in Isaiah 64:8 ("thou art our father") — clearly metaphorical and relational, not ontologically restrictive.

The Syllogism Has an Undistributed Middle

Even granting Bernard's premises, his conclusion does not follow:

  • Premise 1: God = the Father (questionable, but granted for argument)
  • Premise 2: Jesus = God (correct)
  • Conclusion: Jesus = the Father (does NOT follow)

This is the fallacy of the undistributed middle — the conclusion only follows if there is nothing else that is God besides the Father. If God = Father + Son + Spirit in one being (Trinity), then Jesus = God does NOT require Jesus = Father. The conclusion only follows if Oneness theology is already true — meaning the argument is circular: it assumes the Oneness conclusion to reach the Oneness conclusion.

John 14:9 — "He That Hath Seen Me Hath Seen the Father": Revelation vs. Identity

Bernard's Claim

Jesus' statement "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9) proves that Jesus IS the Father — seeing one is seeing the other because they are one person.

The Problems

The Language Is Revelatory, Not Ontological Identity

Bernard's argument requires that "seeing Jesus = seeing the Father" means "Jesus = the Father as the same person." But this is not what the language of visual revelation requires. If I show you a perfect photograph of someone, you have "seen" that person through the photograph — but the photograph is not the person. Jesus is the perfect image and revelation of the Father ("the image of the invisible God" — Colossians 1:15), meaning seeing Him perfectly reveals the Father. This is revelatory language, not identity language.

The Immediate Context Demolishes Bernard's Reading

John 14:10-11, immediately following verse 9: "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works."

If Father and Son are one undivided person (modalism), the phrase "I am in the Father, and the Father in me" is literally meaningless — a single person cannot be "in" itself in relational terms. The language of mutual indwelling (perichoresis) makes sense only if there are two distinct persons sharing one divine nature so completely that each is said to dwell "in" the other. Jesus explicitly distinguishes His own speaking from the Father's works: "the words I speak... I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." This is not one person talking to Himself — it is a person distinguishing His own activity from the Father's activity within Him. Bernard reads John 14:9 in isolation from verses 10-11, which directly undercut his interpretation.

Verse 28 in the Same Chapter

Just nineteen verses later, Jesus says: "the Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). If Jesus IS the Father, this statement is ontological self-contradiction — a person cannot be greater than themselves. Bernard will resort to the human/divine nature distinction here (Jesus says this of His humanity), but this interpretation requires imposing a framework on the text that the text itself does not provide.

John 10:30 — "I and My Father Are One": Neuter Grammar Bernard Ignores

Bernard's Claim

"'I and my Father are one' (John 10:30). Some try to say that He was one with the Father much as a husband and wife are one... This interpretation attempts to weaken the force of the assertion."

The Problem: Greek Grammar Decides the Question

Bernard dismisses the "unity" interpretation as weakening the text, but the Greek grammar actually mandates it. The word "one" in John 10:30 is hen — neuter gender, meaning "one thing" (one in essence, nature, or purpose). If Jesus had intended to claim identity of person — "we are one person" — the Greek would use heis (masculine). The neuter hen grammatically points to unity of nature or essence, not identity of person.

This is not a liberal scholarly dodge — it is basic Greek grammar. Every major NT Greek lexicon and grammar (Moulton, Turner, Robertson, Wallace) confirms this distinction. The neuter hen in John 10:30 is consistent with Trinitarian theology — the Father and Son are one in divine essence and nature — and cannot legitimately be used to prove numerical identity of person. The Jewish response in verse 33 confirms this: they accused Jesus of "making himself God" (claiming divine nature), not of "claiming to be the Father specifically." "Making himself God" is the accusation of claiming divine equality — the language of two beings in relationship, not of one person claiming to be another person.

The "Father Sends / Jesus Sends the Comforter" Parallels: Undistributed Middle Again

Bernard's Claim

Bernard lists a series of parallels:

  • Jesus says He will send the Comforter (John 16:7)
  • The Father will send the Comforter (John 14:26)
  • Jesus raises the dead; the Father raises the dead
  • Jesus draws all people; the Father draws all people → Therefore Jesus = the Father

The Problem: The Logic Proves Too Much and Therefore Proves Nothing

This argument commits the fallacy of the undistributed middle repeatedly. If the logical form is "both X and Y do action Z, therefore X = Y," then consider what else the same logic proves:

  • Both the Father and the Spirit intercede for believers (John 16:23; Romans 8:26–27) → Father = Spirit?
  • Both the Father and Jesus are called "holy" throughout Scripture → Father = Jesus by this attribute alone?
  • Both Jesus and the Spirit are sent by the Father (John 15:26; Galatians 4:4–6) → Jesus = Spirit?

Bernard's parallel action argument, if applied consistently, collapses all three Trinitarian persons into one indistinguishable entity. This actually produces a stronger form of modalism than he intends — not just Father = Son, but Father = Son = Spirit by exactly the same logic. He never explains why he applies this argument only to the Father/Son relationship and not to the Spirit, because doing so would expose the problem.

The Trinitarian explanation is straightforward and far more coherent: Father, Son, and Spirit act in perfect unity because they share one divine nature. When one acts, the others co-act. This accounts for the parallel-action language without requiring personal identity.

The Revelation 4 Throne Argument: Ignoring the Lamb

Bernard's Claim

Because Jesus and the "One on the throne" in Revelation 4 share the same titles (Almighty, Alpha and Omega, First and Last, etc.), they must be the same person. Therefore Jesus is the One on the throne.

The Problems

Shared Divine Attributes Prove Shared Divine Nature, Not Personal Identity

The parallel titles between Revelation 1 (Jesus) and Revelation 4 (the One on the throne) prove that Jesus shares the full divine nature with the One on the throne — they are both fully, completely God. Trinitarians affirm this without reservation. But shared attributes do not require personal identity. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all share omnipotence, omniscience, holiness, and eternity — because they share one divine nature. The parallel attributes prove divine unity of nature, not unity of person.

Revelation 5 — The Strategic Omission

Bernard acknowledges that Revelation 5 introduces the Lamb as a distinct figure and dispatches it to Chapter 9. But this is a critical evasion. Revelation 5:6–7 describes:

And I beheld... a Lamb standing... and he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.

The Lamb is a distinct figure who COMES TO the throne and receives the scroll FROM the one sitting on it. The Lamb and the one on the throne engage in a distinct transactional relationship. If they are the same person, this scene is theatrically nonsensical — a person coming to himself and receiving something from himself.

Bernard's argument in Chapter 4 about "one throne" in Revelation 4 cannot be separated from the Revelation 5 scene of the Lamb coming to that throne, but he separates them anyway. This is another strategic deferral designed to let the Chapter 4 argument land before the decisive counter-evidence is engaged.

Revelation 22:3 — "The Throne of God and of the Lamb"

Bernard cites Revelation 22:3–4 to argue that "one throne, one face, and one name" means God and the Lamb are one person. But the text says "the throne of God AND OF THE LAMB" — explicitly naming them as two distinct entities sharing one throne. The text distinguishes them while affirming their unity — which is precisely the Trinitarian claim. Bernard's reading of "one face and one name" as proof of personal identity requires him to ignore the conjunction "and" that separates them in the same verse.

The Jewish Reaction Argument: Unreliable Witnesses Used Selectively

Bernard's Claim

The Jews understood that Jesus was claiming to be the Father incarnate: "The Jews were right in believing that... Jesus claimed to be the one God (the Father and Jehovah) incarnate."

The Problems

The Jews Were Wrong About Jesus on Every Other Count

Bernard explicitly acknowledges that the Jews were wrong to reject Jesus' claim. But if the Jews were wrong about the conclusion (that Jesus' claim was blasphemous and should be rejected), why does Bernard treat their interpretation of the claim as theologically authoritative? He uses their understanding of what Jesus claimed while rejecting their evaluation of the claim. But if the Jews consistently misunderstood Jesus (John 8:27 — "They understood not that he spake to them of the Father"), their reactions are unreliable guides to what Jesus was actually claiming.

"Equal with God" Is Trinitarian Language

The Jewish charge in John 5:18 was that Jesus was "making himself equal with God" (ison theo) — the language of equality between two beings, not the language of one person claiming to be another person. "Equal with God" presupposes the Father's divine existence as a reference point distinct from Jesus. If Jesus were simply the Father in flesh, there would be nothing to be "equal with" — He would simply BE God. The equality language the Jews used actually implies personal distinction.

John 8:27 — Bernard's Own Text Refutes Him

Bernard cites John 8:27 to show that the Jews did NOT understand Jesus' claim: "They understood not that he spake to them of the Father." He uses this to show that the Jews missed Jesus' self-identification with the Father. But this text actually refutes the claim that the Jewish reactions to Jesus are reliable theological evidence. If they failed to understand in John 8, their understanding in John 10:33 or John 5:18 is equally suspect.

"The Mystery of Godliness" — Inventing the Limits of Mystery

Bernard's Claim

"There never has been a mystery as to 'persons' in the Godhead. The Bible clearly states that there is only one God, and this is easy for all to understand. The only mystery about the Godhead is how God could come in flesh." The Problem: This Is a Bare Assertion, Not an Argument

Bernard simply declares the limits of divine mystery and then proceeds as if the declaration is an argument. He offers no scriptural support for the claim that personal distinctions in the Godhead are not mysterious — he merely asserts that one God is "easy for all to understand" while the Incarnation is mysterious. But:

  • Matthew 11:27 — "No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." Knowledge of the Father and the Son is not simple and universal — it requires divine revelation. The Father-Son relationship is hidden from human understanding apart from revelation.
  • 1 Corinthians 2:10–11 — The deep things of God are known only by the Spirit of God. The Trinitarian relations are precisely the "deep things of God" Paul describes.
  • The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) and the Athanasian Creed explicitly designate the Trinitarian relations as mysteries that transcend human comprehension while still being real and revealed.

Bernard is not making a theological observation — he is defining away the Trinitarian mystery to make Oneness theology appear simpler and therefore more accessible. This is an appeal to simplicity (ad simplicitatem) — presenting the simpler answer as if it is therefore the correct one.

The Attribute Lists — Proving What No One Disputes

Bernard's Claim

The extensive two-part tables comparing Jehovah's attributes to Jesus' attributes (19 parallels plus the 11 compound Jehovah names) prove that Jesus IS Jehovah.

The Problem: All of This Is Fully Orthodox

This is the chapter's most significant red herring. Every single parallel in these tables is fully accepted by Trinitarian theology. Orthodox Christology affirms that:

  • Jesus is Almighty (Revelation 1:8)
  • Jesus is the I AM (John 8:58)
  • Jesus is the Rock (1 Corinthians 10:4)
  • Jesus is the only Savior (Acts 4:12)
  • Jesus is the Creator (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16)
  • Jesus is the First and Last (Revelation 1:17)
  • Jesus is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Revelation 19:16)

None of this is disputed. The question is not whether Jesus is divine — the question is whether His full divinity requires denying that the Father and Spirit are distinct divine persons. Bernard's lists prove the former without addressing the latter. He is spending the majority of his chapter arguing for a conclusion his opponents already accept, then acting as if the extensive proof has established something his opponents reject.

Grudem calls this a classic example of arguing past the opposition — setting up and defeating a position (Arian denial of Christ's full deity) that is not the Trinitarian position Bernard claims to be refuting.

Colossians 2:9 — "All the Fullness of the Godhead Bodily": Misreading the Scope

Bernard's Claim

"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Colossians 2:9). Bernard uses this repeatedly, arguing: "If there were several persons in the Godhead, according to Colossians 2:9 they would all be resident in the bodily form of Jesus."

The Problem: The Text Speaks to the Quality of Christ's Deity, Not Its Exclusivity

The Greek theotetos (Godhead, divine nature) in Colossians 2:9 speaks to the fullness of divine nature dwelling in Christ — that He is not a partial, secondary, or diminished deity but fully and completely God. This is Colossians' counter to the Colossian heresy that offered spiritual intermediaries as supplements to Christ.

The verse says "in Him dwells all the fullness of divinity." It does NOT say:

  • "Only in Him and nowhere else does God exist"
  • "The Father and Spirit have no existence apart from Jesus"
  • "The Father and Spirit are contained within Jesus' physical body"

Bernard's reading requires the scope "all the fullness of God exists ONLY in Jesus to the exclusion of any other divine person's existence." But the text asserts the quality and completeness of Christ's deity — not the exclusive localization of God's entire being. The same letter affirms that the Father raised Jesus from the dead (Colossians 2:12) — implying the Father's distinct existence and action. Bernard cannot use 2:9 to make Jesus the exclusive locus of divine existence while 2:12 describes the Father acting distinctly.

Hebrews 10:20 — "He Veiled in Flesh": Selective Typology

Bernard's Claim

Jesus is "God veiled in flesh" (Hebrews 10:20), and Genesis 22:8 ("God will provide himself a lamb") proves God became the sacrifice — proving Jesus is the Father incarnate.

The Problem

Genesis 22:8 in Hebrew ("Elohim yireh-lo hasseh") means "God will provide for himself the lamb" — referring to God's provision of a sacrifice, not to God becoming the sacrifice Himself. The reflexive "for himself" indicates God will supply what is needed. Bernard reads the verse as "God will provide himself as a lamb" — a different meaning requiring a different grammatical reading that the Hebrew text does not support. This is translation manipulation — importing a Christological meaning through a reading of the text that the original language does not require and most translators do not adopt.

=The Chapter's Deepest Structural Problem

Chapter 4's foundational error is the systematic confusion of two distinct theological claims:

  • "Jesus is fully God" — affirmed by both Trinitarianism and Oneness theology ✓
  • "Jesus being fully God requires that the Father and Spirit are not distinct divine persons" — asserted by Oneness theology but never argued in this chapter ✗

Bernard proves claim 1 exhaustively and then presents it as if it establishes claim 2. But these claims are logically independent. The full deity of Christ is consistent with Trinitarian personal distinctions because Trinitarianism teaches that each divine person fully possesses the one divine nature — not that divinity is divided between three persons.

Every verse Bernard cites showing Jesus to be Almighty, Creator, Savior, First and Last, and One on the throne is fully embraced by Trinitarian Christianity. The chapter's enormous scriptural apparatus proves nothing that Trinitarians dispute. What the chapter never does — what it cannot do — is demonstrate that the Father praying to the Son in John 17, the Father speaking while the Son is baptized in Matthew 3, and the Lamb coming to the throne in Revelation 5 are compatible with one person operating in modes rather than three persons in eternal personal communion.

Recommended Response Strategy to those using Chapter 4's arguments

  1. On Isaiah 9:6: "'Everlasting Father' in Hebrew is Abi-Ad — father of eternity. Using the same Hebrew idiom, 'Prince of Peace' means 'peaceful one,' not the divine Peace itself. Why does Bernard selectively literalize one title while reading others as descriptors?"
  2. On John 14:9–10: "Jesus says 'he that hath seen me hath seen the Father.' Then in the very next verse He says 'I am in the Father and the Father in me.' Can a person be 'in' themselves? Doesn't 'in the Father' require the Father to be a distinct person that Jesus can be inside?"
  3. On John 10:30: "'I and my Father are one' — the Greek word for 'one' is neuter, hen, meaning one thing, not heis which means one person. Jesus is claiming unity of divine nature with the Father. Why does Bernard never mention that the Greek grammar undermines his reading?"
  4. On the parallel actions: "Bernard argues that because both Jesus and the Father send the Spirit, they must be the same person. But the Spirit also prays for us (Romans 8:26). By Bernard's logic, the Spirit = Father = Son. Is that what he believes?"
  5. On the attribute lists: "I agree with everything on those lists — Jesus is Almighty, Creator, First and Last, Savior, and Shepherd. So does every Trinitarian Christian. What do those lists actually prove against the Trinity?"
  6. On Revelation 5: "Bernard says Jesus is the One on the throne in Revelation 4. But in Revelation 5, the Lamb comes to the throne and takes the scroll from the One sitting on it. How does Jesus come to himself and take something from himself?"


Footnotes

  1. ↑ Rick Brannan et al., eds., The Lexham English Septuagint (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012), Is 9:6.


Navigation

Retrieved from "https://en.believethesign.com/index.php?title=Bernard%27s_The_Oneness_of_God_-_Chapter_4&oldid=27635"