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

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:

A Critical Analysis of Chapter 8 of The Oneness of God by David K. Bernard

"New Testament Explanations: The Gospels"

"And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: and, lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (Matthew 3:16–17).

Three things happen at the same moment in this text. The Son stands in the river. The Spirit descends from above. A voice from heaven addresses him. Bernard's explanation: God is omnipresent, so Jesus could speak from heaven while standing in the Jordan. The dove was a sign for John's benefit. The voice was a sign for the crowd's benefit. No second person. No third person. Just one person expressing himself in three directions at once.

That explanation sounds tidy. But Chapter 8 reveals, more than any chapter before it, that Bernard is arguing backwards — starting with the conclusion and making every passage fit it. And occasionally, without meaning to, he admits it.

What Bernard Gets Right

Bernard does make one genuinely useful observation in this chapter: Jesus praying to the Father doesn't automatically prove that the Father and Son are two separate Gods. He's right that prayer alone doesn't settle the question. If Jesus were a lesser divine being praying upward to a superior God, that would be Arianism — exactly what Trinitarians have always rejected.

He's also right that the plural references in John's Gospel need to be read carefully. John is the Gospel that most loudly declares Jesus to be God — "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God" — and it's also the Gospel with the most Father-Son dialogue. Bernard is correct that you can't resolve the tension by simply saying "John shows two Gods." No responsible reading does that.

The problem is that Bernard doesn't just correct bad Trinitarian arguments. He concludes from those corrections that no genuine distinction between Father and Son exists at all. That's a much bigger step, and Chapter 8 shows why it doesn't hold.

The "Four Aids" Are Not Aids — They're the Conclusion

Before getting to any specific passage, Bernard offers four "important aids to understanding." He says these will make "most seemingly difficult verses" explainable. But read them carefully:

Aid 1: "When we see a plural (especially a duality) in reference to Jesus, we should think of the humanity and deity of Jesus Christ."

Aid 2: "Jesus spoke and acted both as God and as a genuine human, and some statements emphasize one role more than the other."

Aid 3: "When we see a plural in relation to God, we should view it as a plurality of roles or relationships to humanity, not a plurality of persons."

Aid 4: "The New Testament writers had no conception of the doctrine of the trinity."

These are not neutral reading principles. They're the Oneness conclusion imported into the reading process before a single verse is examined. Aid 1 decides in advance that every apparent distinction between Father and Son must be read as a distinction between humanity and deity. Aid 2 gives Bernard an all-purpose sorting mechanism: any statement where Jesus appears limited, dependent, or subordinate gets filed under "speaking as man," while any statement where Jesus claims divine authority gets filed under "speaking as God." The problem is that this tool can be applied anywhere without any signal from the text itself about which mode is active — it's an invisible switch that Bernard controls, not one the text signals. Aid 3 decides in advance that plural language about God never describes plural persons. Aid 4 assumes a historical claim about the apostles that is simply asserted, not demonstrated — and as Boyd documents, it's flatly wrong: the church fathers who condemned modalism as a heresy in the late second century were themselves the students of the apostolic generation.

When you stack three or four predetermined conclusions at the start and call them "aids," you haven't helped the reader interpret the text — you've told the reader what the text must mean before they've read it. The rest of the chapter is an exercise in applying these preset answers to every passage that raises a question. That's not Bible reading. It's Bible fitting.

The Baptism Scene: Divine Ventriloquism or Real Distinction?

Bernard's explanation of the baptism in Matthew 3 is that God's omnipresence accounts for everything. Jesus the man was in the Jordan. But the Spirit of Jesus was everywhere — omnipresent — and so could simultaneously descend in visible form and speak from heaven.

This has a real problem. The text doesn't say Jesus's Spirit spoke from heaven. It says "a voice from heaven" addressed Jesus. In Mark's version of the same event, the voice says: "You are my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (Mark 1:11). Second person. Someone speaking to Jesus, not Jesus speaking about himself. The same is true of the Transfiguration: "This is my beloved Son" — an announcement made to the disciples about Jesus from outside, not a self-declaration from within Jesus.

Bernard compares the voice to "the voice of God from Sinai," saying that the voice at Sinai didn't make the mountain a second person. Fair enough. But at Sinai, God spoke to the people from the mountain. No one was there addressing the mountain in the second person while simultaneously being the mountain. The baptism scene is different: someone is addressing Jesus ("You are my Son") while Jesus is present and being addressed. That's relational communication, not just omnipresent self-expression.

And what about the dove? Luke 3:22 says the Holy Ghost descended "in a bodily shape." This is language of external arrival — something coming upon Jesus from outside, not something arising from within him. You can call it a "sign" or a "manifestation," but a sign that descends upon someone from above doesn't naturally describe one person signaling himself. It naturally describes one person communicating to another.

Bernard's omnipresence argument could explain almost anything. If God is everywhere and can manifest himself in any direction simultaneously, then nothing in the Gospels would ever require more than one person. But the same argument would make every prayer of Jesus meaningless — because why would you need to speak outward to someone omnipresent within you? The omnipresence explanation neutralizes the baptism scene by explaining away what makes it what it is.

The Prayer Dilemma: A False Either/Or

Bernard's handling of the prayers of Jesus is his most developed argument in Chapter 8, and it deserves a careful response.

His logic goes like this: Either Jesus prayed as God, or he prayed as man. If he prayed as God, then God was asking another person of the Godhead for help — implying that one person of the Godhead is inferior to, dependent on, another. That contradicts the definition of God, who is self-sufficient and omnipotent. Therefore Jesus could only have prayed as a man.

The problem is that this argument only works if you assume the Trinitarian view of prayer is what Bernard says it is. Trinitarians don't say Jesus prayed as an inferior God to a superior God. They say the Son prayed to the Father as Son — expressing the eternal relationship of loving deference that the Son has toward the Father. This isn't subordination in the sense of one being less God than another. It's the relationship that defines what it means to be Son.

The Father being "greater" than the Son (John 14:28) isn't an embarrassment to Trinitarian theology — it's an expression of how the Father and Son relate eternally. The Son is fully God and equal in nature to the Father. But within the one God, the Son relates to the Father as Son — receiving from him, honoring him, expressing in the relationship the very love that defines God's inner life. Bernard's argument assumes that "being God" means "being subject to no one ever in any sense." But this is a philosophical claim he's bringing to the text, not something the text itself teaches.

There's also a much simpler problem with Bernard's prayer argument. He says Jesus "prayed as a man" — as his humanity. But John 17 is the longest prayer recorded in the Gospels, and in it Jesus says: "Glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began" (v. 5). Bernard says this is the man asking for the glory God had always planned for him. But the man didn't exist before the world began. Human nature didn't preexist. If Jesus is praying as his humanity, how is his humanity claiming to have personally shared glory with the Father before creation? On Bernard's own framework, that sentence is impossible to explain.

The With Passages and the Meaning of Pros

Bernard returns to John 1:1 in this chapter to address the word with — "the Word was with God." His explanation is that the Greek word pros, usually translated "with," can also be translated "pertaining to" (as it is in Hebrews 2:17 and 5:1). So the Word was "with" God in the sense of "belonging to" God — not as a distinct person alongside God, but as God's own thought or expression.

Boyd's analysis is directly relevant here. The Greek word pros, followed by an accusative noun as it is in John 1:1, most frequently describes personal relationships in the New Testament — orientation toward someone, face-to-face relationship. This is why many translators render it as "in the presence of" or "facing toward" God rather than simply "with." The preposition carries a personal, relational weight.

Bernard's "pertaining to" reading does exist in some uses of pros, but it's not the dominant sense of the word when it describes a relationship between persons. And the immediate context makes this plain. The Word "was with God" and "was God" — not impersonally belonging to God like a quality or attribute, but genuinely divine while also being in relationship with God. Then in verse 14 this same Word "became flesh." Thoughts don't become flesh. Plans don't dwell among us full of grace and truth. The Word John describes is a someone, not a something — and pros is describing a genuine personal relationship, not mere attribution.

If Bernard's reading were correct, the opening of John would say: "God had a thought, and that thought was God himself, and through that thought all things were made." But if the thought is identical to the thinker with no genuine distinction, why say the thought was "with" the thinker at all? You don't need a preposition of relationship to describe something that's simply part of yourself.

The Two Witnesses: One Person Can't Be Two

One of the most revealing passages in Chapter 8 is Bernard's handling of John 8:16-18, where Jesus says: "I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me."

Bernard's explanation: the two witnesses are "the Father (the divine Spirit) and the man Jesus." Both the divine nature within Jesus and the human nature of Jesus can testify that God was manifested in flesh. So there are two witnesses — but they're both aspects of one person, not two distinct persons.

This doesn't work, and the reason is simple. The Pharisees' objection was that Jesus was testifying about himself (v. 13). Jesus answers by invoking the legal requirement for two witnesses. If the "two witnesses" he cites are just two aspects of the same person — his divinity and his humanity — then he hasn't answered the objection. He's still only one person testifying about himself. Two modes of one person still make one person. The law required two persons, not two facets of one person.

Jesus is pointing to a genuinely distinct witness: "the Father that sent me." This is the Father as someone other than Jesus — an external, independent confirmation of his identity. That's why the Pharisees immediately ask, "Where is your Father?" (v. 19) — they understood Jesus to be pointing to someone other than himself. And Jesus responds not by saying "my Father is my divine nature within me," but by saying "you know neither me nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also." The Father is someone you could know or not know — not an aspect of Jesus's own person.

Bernard notes that the law could ask for three witnesses where two would do, and wonders why Jesus didn't mention the Spirit as a third. But that misses the point. Jesus isn't counting up witnesses to add theological complexity. He's answering the Pharisees' challenge by pointing to the one witness beside himself who can establish his claim: his Father. The Spirit's role in this passage is not the question Jesus was answering.

Plural Usage and the "Constant Mode-Switching" Problem

Bernard addresses the many places in John where Jesus refers to himself and the Father in the plural — "I and my Father," "if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also," "the Father is with me." His explanation is consistent: all of this expresses the distinction between Jesus's humanity (Son) and the divine Spirit within him (Father). When Jesus says "I and my Father," he means "I as man, and the Spirit within me."

But this requires a kind of constant, unmarked mode-switching that the text itself never signals. Look at John 6:40: "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." In this sentence, Jesus refers to the Son in the third person. Who is speaking when Jesus calls himself "the Son" and then says "I will raise him up"? If the Father is speaking when Jesus says "I will raise him up," then the Father is referring to himself in the third person as "the Son." If the Son is speaking, then the Son is saying he will raise the dead — which contradicts Bernard's claim that the Father is the one with all divine power while the Son has nothing of himself.

Throughout John 6, Jesus says six times that he "came down from heaven" while also consistently distinguishing himself from "him that sent me." If the Father is speaking when Jesus says "I came down from heaven," then the Father is saying he came down from the Father who sent him. That's incoherent.

Boyd puts it plainly: if Jesus had wanted to say he really did exist with the Father before he came to earth, how would he have said it differently than he actually did? The text describes a person who came from the Father, entered the world, and is going back to the Father. The going and the coming are parallel — and the returning is clearly real, so the original departure must also be real. The mode-switching reading requires you to believe Jesus was teaching with a split personality that his audience and his own disciples were somehow expected to follow without any of the clues that Bernard now supplies two thousand years later.

The Two-Level Oneness: Bernard's Argument Undermines Itself

The most revealing section of Chapter 8 comes near the end, where Bernard addresses John 17:21-22. Here Jesus prays for his disciples "that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us."

Bernard acknowledges that Christians being "one" in this verse doesn't make them members of the Godhead. The oneness here is "unity of purpose, mind, and life." Fine. But then he says something that quietly unravels his own framework. He writes that Jesus was one with the Father "in his humanity" in the sense of unity of purpose — and "in his deity" in a way that "transcends mere unity of purpose" and describes actual identity with the Father.

So Bernard ends up with two different kinds of oneness: a unity-of-purpose oneness (which humans can share) and an identity oneness (which only Jesus has with the Father). The first is real but not exclusive to Jesus. The second is exclusive to Jesus because he actually is the Father.

But if Father and Son are simply one person, this two-level structure makes no sense at all. A person cannot be related to himself in two different ways. You can't have both a relational unity with yourself (purpose, will) and an identity unity with yourself (being the same person) as if these were two distinct things. Saying "I am one with myself in purpose" is just strange — you'd never distinguish those two kinds of oneness about a single individual.

The reason Bernard needs two levels is that the text keeps describing what looks like genuine relationship — genuine love, genuine communication, genuine sending. He grants the "purpose and will" level to honor the language while maintaining the "identity" level for the Oneness doctrine. But the structure he's built reveals the pressure the text is placing on his framework. You don't need two kinds of oneness unless you're sensing that the relationship the text describes is more than a single person can have with himself.

The Real Logical Problem

Step back from the individual arguments and the shape of Chapter 8 becomes plain. Bernard's chapter works by presenting four predetermined conclusions as reading principles, then using those principles to reinterpret every passage that appears to describe more than one divine person. The dove is a sign. The voice is a manifestation. The prayers are humanity. The two witnesses are two natures. The plural pronouns are the humanity/deity distinction. The Comforter is Jesus in a different form. Every seemingly relational interaction between the Father and Son resolves, on Bernard's reading, into one person relating to his own inner modes.

Boyd identifies what this amounts to: the God of the Oneness framework is always hidden. What we see in Scripture — Father speaking to Son, Son praying to Father, Spirit interceding for believers — is not what it appears to be. It's one person managing multiple simultaneous self-expressions. The relational language is real but the relationships are not.

That's a heavy price to pay. The Gospel of John tells us "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son." If the Father and the Son are the same person, the giving is God offering himself — which changes the nature of the gift entirely. Jesus cries from the cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" If there is no genuine distinction between the one forsaking and the one forsaken, what exactly happened in that moment? Bernard says Jesus was experiencing the sensation of spiritual death on our behalf. But if God cannot really forsake himself, what was the spiritual reality behind the experience?

The Trinitarian answer is that something real and costly happened at the cross — the Son, in genuine relationship with the Father, bore the weight of sin and the real withdrawal of fellowship with the Father in order to reconcile us. That is the Gospel the New Testament describes. Flattening Father and Son into one person doesn't preserve the mystery. It dissolves the relationship that makes the sacrifice what it is.

A Word to the Reader

If you've grown up being told that the Gospel accounts of Jesus praying to God, or speaking of "my Father," are easy to explain — just humanity talking to deity within the same person — Chapter 8 may sound compelling. Bernard covers a lot of ground, and the framework holds together on the surface.

But pay attention to what he has to do to make it work. He has to read the "voice from heaven" as Jesus speaking to himself. He has to read every prayer of Jesus as humanity addressing the Spirit within the body. He has to read the two witnesses in John 8 as two aspects of one person — while knowing that only two distinct persons would actually answer the Pharisees' challenge. He has to explain why the Holy Spirit is conspicuously absent from every "conversation" between Father and Son if all three are the same person in different modes.

And at the end, he has to introduce two different kinds of "oneness" between Father and Son to account for what the text keeps showing — which quietly admits that the text is doing something his framework can barely contain.

John's Gospel gives you a Jesus who came from the Father, knows the Father, loves the Father, returns to the Father, and sends the Spirit from the Father. That's not one person in three modes. That's a real relationship — and it's the relationship that makes the Gospel what it is.

Navigation

Home Our Podcast The List of Problems Life Story Prophecies & Visions Seven Seals Was William Branham Honest? Doctrines	Church Ages Jesus Languages Videos Print Resources Help! Facebook Contact Us