BelieveTheSign

Bernard's The Oneness of God - Chapter 4

Revision as of 22:46, 14 June 2026 by Admin (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


This is our series of articles analyzing David Bernard's book, The Oneness of God. You are on the page that is in bold. Click on the links to go to a particular chapter:


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


A Critical Analysis of Chapter 4 of The Oneness of God by David K. Bernard

"Jesus Is God"

"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Colossians 2:9).

Chapter 4 is the theological heart of Bernard's book. Everything that comes before it is groundwork; everything after it depends on it. The argument here is bold: not just that Jesus is God — which Trinitarians affirm without hesitation — but that Jesus is specifically God the Father in human flesh, the one solitary person of the Godhead wearing the costume of a Son. Bernard marshals an impressive collection of Scripture to make his case. The sheer volume of citations can feel overwhelming. But volume isn't the same as validity, and a careful reading of chapter 4 reveals serious and repeated flaws in how Bernard reads and reasons from the biblical text.

What Bernard Gets Right — And Why It Matters

Before the criticism, some honest credit. Bernard is right that Jesus is fully God. He is right that the New Testament announces this without apology. Thomas calling Jesus "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28), Paul writing that "the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily" in Christ (Colossians 2:9), John opening his Gospel with "the Word was God" — these are not ambiguous statements. Every Trinitarian theologian in church history has affirmed them, and the chapter's opening sections are on solid ground.

Bernard is also right that the Old Testament pointed forward to a Messiah who would himself be God — not merely a representative of God or an agent of God, but God come in person. Isaiah 7:14, 9:6, and Micah 5:2 all support this. The chapter's early lists of parallels between Jehovah and Jesus are largely valid as evidence that Jesus is God. The problem isn't that Bernard proves too little. The problem is that he tries to prove something the texts don't actually establish: that Jesus is not just God, but specifically and personally the Father, so that "Father," "Son," and "Spirit" are three names for a single person rather than three distinct persons within one divine being.

That is the jump the chapter never successfully makes.

The "Everlasting Father" of Isaiah 9:6

Bernard's first and most important proof that Jesus is the Father is Isaiah 9:6, where the coming Messiah is called "The everlasting Father." Since there is only one Father (Malachi 2:10; Ephesians 4:6), Bernard argues, and Jesus is called "Everlasting Father," Jesus must be God the Father himself.

This argument carries a lot of weight in Oneness teaching, but it rests on a misreading of how Hebrew names and titles work. As Gregory Boyd points out in Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity, the titles in Isaiah 9:6 are not claims about who the Messiah is in terms of the persons of the Godhead. They describe his character — what kind of king he will be for his people. "Everlasting Father" in Hebrew is literally "Father of Eternity" — a way of saying that this king will be the eternal source and giver of life to his people, that his care for them will never end. It is a throne-name about his role and character, not a statement that the Son is personally identical to the first person of the Trinity.

Consider the other titles in the same verse: "Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The Prince of Peace." No one argues from "Prince of Peace" that Jesus personally IS peace as an abstract concept, or from "Counsellor" that he cannot be distinct from whoever counsels him. These are descriptive titles, not identity claims. "Everlasting Father" belongs in the same category. Boyd notes that Jesus is called "Father" in this functional, caring sense throughout the New Testament — he calls his disciples "my children" (John 13:33), and John uses similar language with his readers (1 John 2:1, 12). No one concludes from this that John is claiming to be God the Father. The language of fatherhood describes a relationship of care and provision, not a claim about which person of the Godhead one IS.

The Septuagint

Let us look 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]

The term "everlasting Father" does not appear in the Septuagint. 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. Bernard's argument is out the window.

"He That Hath Seen Me Hath Seen the Father" — Revelation vs. Identity

Bernard's second major line of proof comes from John 14:9: "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." He treats this as a direct claim by Jesus that he and the Father are the same person. But look at the conversation that generates this statement.

Philip asks Jesus to show them the Father. He is treating the Father as someone distinct from Jesus — someone Philip hasn't yet seen. If Jesus and the Father were the same person, the right answer would have been, "Philip, I am the Father." That is not what Jesus says. He says, "If you've seen me, you've seen the Father" — meaning that he, the Son, perfectly represents and reveals the Father. He goes on immediately to explain why: "I am in the Father and the Father is in me" (v. 10). The relationship between them — mutual indwelling — is his explanation for why seeing one is like seeing the other. But mutual indwelling describes a relationship between two persons, not the identity of one person.

The very same chapter undermines Bernard's reading. Just a few verses later, Jesus says he will pray to the Father and the Father will send "another Comforter" (v. 16). He says "I go to the Father" (v. 12), that "the Father is greater than I" (v. 28), and that the Father will send the Holy Spirit in Jesus' name (v. 26). Someone can't pray to himself, go to himself, or be sent by himself. The John 14:9 statement can only mean what Bernard needs it to mean if you ignore everything else in the chapter it comes from.

The "John 1 Word" Problem

Bernard's treatment of John 1:1 is central to his entire framework. He argues that "the Word" was not a separate person from God but merely "the thought, plan, or mind of God." On this reading, "the Word was with God" means the divine plan existed in God's mind, not that a distinct person existed in relationship with the Father. When the Word became flesh, God simply acted on his plan.

This reading doesn't hold up to the Greek. John says the Word was "pros ton theon" — literally, toward or with God. This preposition in Greek describes a face-to-face relationship between two parties. It is not the language of a thought existing in a mind; it is the language of one person facing another. And from verse 2 onward, John uses the personal pronoun "he" (autos) to refer to the Word: "He was in the beginning with God." You don't call a thought or plan "he" in a sentence that is making precise theological claims. John is deliberately describing the Word as a personal being in relationship with God — not an aspect or attribute of God.

Grudem's Systematic Theology notes that this is precisely why John's opening is so theologically loaded. "The Word was God" establishes the full deity of the Word. "The Word was with God" establishes his personal distinction from the Father. Both statements are necessary, and they cannot be collapsed into one. Bernard's reading preserves the first but erases the second.

The Parallel Actions Fallacy

The chapter's longest section lists sixteen Scripture pairs to show that actions attributed to the Father are also attributed to Jesus — raising the dead, sending the Comforter, answering prayer, drawing people to himself, and so on. Bernard presents these as proof that Jesus IS the Father, since the same being is doing the same things.

But this argument doesn't follow. What it actually proves is that the Father and the Son work in unity — which is exactly what Trinitarian theology teaches. It is not a contradiction to say that both the Father and the Son answer prayer, because Trinitarians have always understood their work as inseparably unified without being personally identical. Boyd makes this point sharply: the same kind of shared activity applies to the Son and the Spirit. If shared action proves personal identity, then Jesus and the Spirit must also be the same person, since both intercede for believers (Romans 8:26-27, 34; Hebrews 7:25). Oneness theology doesn't want to say that, but the argument requires it.

Moreover, Bernard's use of John 14:26 actually works against him in this section. He cites it to show the Father sends the Comforter. But earlier in the same passage, he cites John 16:7 to show that Jesus sends the Comforter. His conclusion is that this proves Jesus IS the Father. But look at what John 14:26 actually says: "The Father… will send him in MY NAME." The Father sends the Spirit in the name of Jesus — not because the Father IS Jesus, but because the Spirit comes as the representative of Jesus, continuing his ministry. The verse presupposes that the Father and Jesus are distinct persons with distinct names and distinct roles in this sending.

"I and My Father Are One" — What the Greek Actually Says

Bernard handles John 10:30 by dismissing the relational reading. He acknowledges that some interpret the "oneness" as unity of purpose or agreement, then waves it aside by saying other verses prove Jesus claimed to be the Father personally. But the Greek here is actually decisive. The word translated "one" is the Greek hen — neuter gender. If Jesus were claiming to be the same person as the Father, the natural word would be heis — the masculine form, meaning "one person." But hen means "one thing" — unity, oneness of nature and purpose, not personal identity.

The Jews who heard this in John 10:33 accused Jesus of blasphemy for making "himself equal with God" — not for claiming to be the Father. They understood him to be claiming divine equality, not personal identity with the Father. Jesus' own response in verses 34-38 is illuminating: he appeals to Psalm 82, where human judges are called "gods," and then argues "the Father is in me, and I in him." His defense against the accusation doesn't say "I'm not claiming to be the Father" — it reframes the question of divine identity. But the response only makes sense if the Father and the Son are understood to be in relationship with each other, not as a single person making a self-referential claim.

Revelation 4-5: The Most Problematic Text in the Chapter

Bernard argues that since the same titles apply to Jesus (in Revelation 1) and to the One sitting on the throne (in Revelation 4), Jesus must be the One on the throne — and since there is only one throne, there is only one person who is God.

But Revelation 4-5 creates a massive problem for this reading. In chapter 5, John sees the One sitting on the throne holding a sealed scroll. He weeps because no one is found worthy to open it. Then he is told: "The Lion of the tribe of Judah… has overcome to open the scroll." He looks and sees "a Lamb standing as though it had been slain" (5:6). The Lamb then takes the scroll from the right hand of the One on the throne (5:7). The twenty-four elders fall down and sing a new song to the Lamb (5:9). Then both the One on the throne and the Lamb receive the worship of every creature: "Blessing and honor and glory and power be to Him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb forever and ever!" (5:13).

If the Lamb and the One on the throne are the same person, John's vision collapses into nonsense. A person cannot take a scroll from his own right hand. The entire drama of chapter 5 — the weeping, the announcement, the search for someone worthy — only has meaning if the Lamb and the One on the throne are genuinely distinct. Bernard's own table from this section lists "One on the throne" as one of Jesus' titles in Revelation — but this proves too much. Revelation 3:21 has Jesus himself say, "I sat down with my Father on his throne" — explicitly distinguishing Jesus' authority from the Father's throne. The One on the throne in Revelation 4 is the Father. The Lamb is the Son. Their unity is real, but their distinction is just as real.

Colossians 2:9 — A Text That Actually Cuts Both Ways

Bernard's anchor verse for the entire chapter is Colossians 2:9: "In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." He says this proves that if there were several persons in the Godhead, they would all reside in Jesus.

In a certain sense, Trinitarians agree — and that's the problem for Bernard's argument, not the solution. What Colossians 2:9 establishes is that the full divine nature resides in Jesus, not merely a portion of it. Trinitarian theology teaches exactly this: the Son is not one-third of God; he is fully God. The Father is not one-third of God; he is fully God. The Spirit is the same. This is what theologians call mutual indwelling — wherever one person of the Godhead is, the fullness of the divine nature is present. Boyd explains this plainly: "Wherever and however God exists — as Father, or Son, or Holy Spirit — all of God exists." Colossians 2:9 supports this view entirely. What it doesn't do is tell us that the Father, Son, and Spirit are therefore a single person rather than three distinct persons who share the one divine nature.

Bernard reads "fullness of the Godhead" as meaning "all persons of God are in one person." But the verse doesn't say that. It says the fullness of what God is — his nature, his attributes, his character — dwells bodily in Jesus. That is a statement about the Son's full divine nature, not a statement that the Father and Spirit have no distinct personal existence.

The Jewish Accusers Argument

Bernard makes the point that the Jews understood Jesus to be claiming to be God the Father, and treats this as confirmation that he actually was making that claim. But this is shaky ground. The Jews were accusing Jesus of blasphemy for claiming equality with God (John 5:18) and for claiming to be the Son of God (John 19:7). They did not consistently understand him to be claiming to be the Father. In John 8:19-27, when Jesus spoke of his relationship to the Father, "they understood not that he spake to them of the Father" — they were confused. In John 10:33, their accusation was that "thou, being a man, makest thyself God" — not that he was claiming to be the Father. They understood a claim to divine status; they did not clearly understand him to be collapsing the Father and Son into one person.

More fundamentally, the Jews' understanding of Jesus' claims — right or wrong — can't function as the standard for what those claims actually meant. These were men who rejected Jesus as Messiah. Building a theological argument on what the enemies of Christ thought he meant is a thin foundation.

The Real Logical Problem

Step back from all the individual arguments and the structural problem becomes clear. Bernard's entire chapter assumes that because Jesus shares all the attributes and actions of God, and because God is one, Jesus must be the Father. But this is like arguing: if a son has all the qualities of his father — the same last name, the same trade, the same character, the same family estate — he must therefore BE his father rather than a distinct person who shares the father's nature.

The whole chapter is built on a hidden assumption it never proves: that "one God" means "one person." If one God can exist as three distinct persons who share one divine nature — which is precisely what Trinitarian theology proposes — then everything Bernard argues in chapter 4 is perfectly consistent with Trinitarian belief. Jesus having all the attributes of God, Jesus being the full revelation of the Father, Jesus and the Father doing all the same things — none of this requires them to be the same person. It requires them to be of the same divine nature, which is exactly what both views affirm.

What the Trinitarian view says that Oneness theology must deny is this: that there are real, genuine distinctions within God — that the Father who sent the Son is not the same person as the Son who was sent, and that when Jesus prays to the Father in Gethsemane or calls out "My God, My God" from the cross, something real is happening between two genuinely distinct persons. Bernard's framework must ultimately say these are illusions — performances, roles, human-side/divine-side splits. The New Testament never says this. It presents the Father and the Son relating to each other as distinct persons, not as one person talking to himself.

A Word to the Reader

If you've spent time in Oneness or Message churches, you've probably heard chapter 4 taught with great power and conviction. The sheer number of Scripture references can feel like the case is settled before it's even begun. But every single text Bernard cites to prove that "Jesus is the Father" can be read — and reads more naturally — as showing that Jesus is the full and perfect revelation of the Father, the one in whom all that God is has become visible and tangible.

Trinitarians don't have a low view of Jesus. They believe he is fully God, that in him the whole fullness of deity dwells, that to see him is to see what God is like. The question is whether the God revealed in Jesus is a solitary person doing a solo performance, or whether he is the eternal Son who has existed forever in a real relationship with the Father and the Spirit. Read the Gospel of John from start to finish. Count how many times Jesus speaks to the Father, is sent by the Father, glorifies the Father, and distinguishes himself from the Father. Then ask yourself: does this read like one person pretending to be two? Or does it read like a Son who genuinely loves his Father?

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=27809"