The Son Had His Beginning By His Begetting

 

The Trinity doctrine alleges that the Son never had a beginning because the Son as the Son is supposed to have always coeternally existed with the Father throughout eternity past. In contradistinction to the traditional Roman Catholic Trinity doctrine, the scriptures prove that the Son was not always a Son to the Father and the Father was not always a Father to the Son because the Son is the man who was conceived in the virgin who had his beginning by his virgin conception and birth.

 

Therefore, the whole Trinity idea of an alleged timeless God the Son without a beginning completely collapses in light of the scriptural evidence.

 

The Father and Son Relationship Began in Time

 

Hebrews 1:5 cites 2 Samuel 7:14 where the Father said, “I will be to him a Father, and he WILL BE TO ME A SON”.

 

If a God the Son was eternally “at the Father’s side” as James White and other Trinitarian apologists have alleged, how then could the Son have been literally alive at the Father’s anthropomorphic side while the Father prophetically spoke of His future Son by saying, “I will be to him a Father, and he will be to Me a son”? For how can any father have his own living son at his side while saying, “I will be to him a father, and he will be to me a son”? Such Trinitarian eisegesis of inspired texts contradicts many passages of inspired scripture, including the words of Christ himself when he said, “As the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son life in himself” (John 5:26).

 

 

Since the Son of God was “granted” a distinct “life in himself”, the Son could not have existed as a living Son before being granted that life by the Father through his virgin conception and birth. 

 

A Foreknown Son Could Not Be Timelessly Foreknown

 

1 Peter 1:20 proves that the Son was “foreknown before the foundation of the world”. The Greek verb “proginosko” is defined as being “known beforehand”.

 

How could a timeless Son have literally existed while being known beforehand? If an angel appeared to a married couple and said, “Your wife shall conceive and bear a son” then that son would be foreknown by that couple. Yet that couple could not say that their son literally existed before being “foreknown”. Therefore, a foreknown son could not have literally existed before being foreknown without the use of the word “foreknown” being rendered meaningless.

 

The Son was Begotten on a Specific Day

 

Psalm 2:7, “You are My Son, THIS DAY (yom) HAVE I BEGOTTEN (yalad) YOU”. Both Strong’s Concordance and the New American Standard Concordance say that “yom” means “day”. In fact, not a single verse of scripture ever indicates that the Hebrew noun “yom” ever means a timeless day.

 

Could Pharaoh have given a timeless command to the Israelite slaves in Exodus 5:6-7 (So the same day [yom] Pharaoh commanded the taskmasters over the people and their foremen, saying, You are no longer to give the people straw to make brick as previously; let them go and gather straw for themselves.…” – Ex. 5:6-7)? The same Hebrew verb “yalad” is used for the births of Cain and Abel in Genesis 4:1-2 which proves that the Son was born at a specific point in time rather than being “eternally begotten” as Trinitarians falsely allege.

 

Since not a single verse of scripture ever indicates that the Hebrew verb “yalad” means a timeless birth, we know that the Son of God had to have been begotten on a specific day. Therefore the Son of God could not have always been a timeless Son because the Son was literally conceived and born as a true Son on a specific day.

 

The Son Was Made Lord and Christ

 

Acts 2:36 proves that the Son of God was “made … both Lord and Christ:” “God has MADE this same Jesus both Lord and Christ.” “MADE” is translated from the Greek verb poieó (poy-eh'-o) which Strong’s defines as to “make, manufacture, construct,” (b) “cause”. It is hard to imagine that a timeless God the Son was “made Lordorcausedto be theLord” if he was already an alleged coequal God the Lord of the universe to begin with.

 

To be “made … both Lord and Christ” is the same thing as saying that the Son was “appointed heir of all things” by God in Hebrews 1:2 (Helps Word Studies defines Lord [Greek - ‘Kurios’] “properly, a person exercising absolute ownership rights; lord [In the papyri, 2962 (kýrios) likewise denotes an owner (master) exercising full rights.”]). Therefore the title Son of God refers to the man who was made Lord and Christ (Christ literally means “anointed one”) rather than to an alleged coequally distinct timeless God the Son.

 

The Son is the Reproduced Copy of the Father’s Person as a Human Person

 

Hebrews 1:3 states that the Son “is the brightness (apaugasma = “Reflected Brightness” - Thayer) of His glory (the Father’s glory), and the express image (charakter = “reproduction” / “imprinted copy”) of His Person (hypostasis = “Substance of Being” of the Father’s Person)”.

 

If the words of inspired scripture mean anything, then the Son could not have always existed before being “reproduced” as the “imprinted copy” of the Father’s Person. Luke 1:35 and Matthew 1:20 prove that the Son was reproduced or copied from the Father’s Person when the Holy Spirit descended upon the virgin (Luke 1:35 “the Holy Spirit will come upon you”; Matthew 1:20 “the child which has been conceived in her is out of the Holy Spirit”) to produce a man child.

 

Matthew 1:20 states that the Son was produced “ek” “out of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:20) and Galatians 4:4 states that the Son was produced “ek” “out of the woman” (Gal. 4:4). Thus, inspired scripture calls Jesus both “the Mighty God” and “the Everlasting Father” (Isaiah 9:6) according to his divinity from the Father’s Holy Spirit and “the child born and Son given” (Isaiah 9:6) according to his humanity from his mother Mary. 

 

Under Hebrews 1:3, the Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd edition (BDAG) confirms that the Greek noun “CHARAKTER” used in Hebrews 1:3 proves that the Son is God the Father’s “produced … reproduction, representation” as “a human being as the reproduction of his own identity/reality … Christ is an exact representation of God’s real being Hb 1:3”.

 

Since Hebrews 1:3 clearly states that the Son is “the brightness of his glory and the express image of his person” referencing the Father’s Person, the Son must be the “human being as the reproduction of his (the Father’s) own identity”.

 

Trinitarian theology alleges that a coequally distinct timeless God the Son Person has always existed throughout eternity past. How then could an alleged timeless God the Son be the “produced … reproduction” “of God’s real being” as “a human being” who is “the reproduction of his (the Father’s) own identity” if the Son has always timelessly existed without being “produced”?

 

Since Greek Lexicons show that Hebrews 1:3 in the original Greek proves that Jesus is a “produced … human being” “out of” (“ek” = “out of” - Matthew 1:20) the Father’s “own identity”, we know that the Son is the man who is “God’s real being” who became “a human being” in the incarnation through the virgin. Thus, we can clearly see that Hebrews 1:3 is addressing the Son as “the brightness of his glory (the Father’s glory) and the express image of his person (the Father’s Person)” as a fully complete human person in the incarnation within the Hebrew virgin rather than an alleged coequal and coeternally distinct timeless God the Son Person.

 

No Trinitarian apologist has ever been able to answer why Hebrews 1:3 uses the Greek noun “CHARAKTER” which shows that the Son was “produced” as “an exact reproduction” or “copy” of the Father’s “substance of being” (“hypostasis”) while remaining timeless. For it is impossible for something to be reproduced or copied from an original without a specific time of origin. How then could the Son have always existed as an alleged timeless Son while being “reproduced” as the “copy” of the Father’s Person as a “human being” (a human person)?

 

The Son is God with us as an Authentic Human Being who Began in Time

 

Just as I have been criticized for agreeing with Arius’ statement, “there was a time when the Son did not exist (in my debate with Trinity apologist Ethan Smith – ‘Is Jehovah Tri-Personal or Uni-Personal’)”, so Trinitarian apologist Edward Dalcour criticized Oneness author David K. Bernard for teaching like Arius, that “THERE WAS A TIME WHEN THE SON DID NOT EXIST…”

 

Dr. David Bernard wrote, "There was a time when the Son did not exist (The Oneness of God, pg. 105)...” Trinitarian author Edward Dalcour condemns David Bernard for "rejecting the preexistence of the Son" and for using a phrase "comparable to the key phrase in Arius’s teaching: 'There was a time when He [the Son] was not (A Definitive Look At Oneness Theology, Edward Dalcour, pg. 108)'” without bothering to mention the doctrinal distinction between Arianism and Oneness.

 

While Oneness theology can agree with the key phrase of Arius (“there was a time when the Son was not”), we differ from Arius in that we believe that the He who became the Son has always pre-existed his virgin conception and birth as the "Mighty God" and "Everlasting Father" (Isaiah 9:6) before also becoming incarnate as a true man.

 

Hence, Oneness theology affirms the deity of the God who became a child born and son given while Arius completely denied the deity of Christ. Therefore, while we deny Arius’ rejection of the timeless existence of the Holy Spirit of the Father who descended upon the virgin (Luke 1:35; John 6:38) to become incarnate as the Son (1 Tim. 2:5; Matthew 1:20; Heb. 1:3; Heb. 2:14), we agree with Arius in that the Son as a Son was never an eternal Son with no beginning.

 

Oneness theology believes that the Son of God lived an authentic human life because the Son is the Holy Spirit of God the Father who also became the man who was formed in the Hebrew virgin. Thus, the Son of God is not God living with humanity as God, but rather, the Son of God is God living with humanity as a true man among men. Since it is impossible for God as God to pray to God and for God as God be tempted of evil as God, we know that Jesus Christ of Nazareth is God incarnate with us as a genuine human being who was made exactly like all humans are made (Heb. 2:17).

 

The following excerpts are from J. L. Hall’s article in the Pentecostal Herald (a UPCI Publication):

“Did Jesus pray to Himself? No, not when we understand that Jesus was both God and man. In His deity Jesus did not pray, for God does not need to pray to anyone. As a man, Jesus prayed to God, not to his humanity. He did not pray to Himself as humanity, but to the one true God, to the same God who dwelled in His humanity and who also inhabits the universe.”

 

Brother Hall went onto write in the same publication, “Biblical facts reveal that Jesus lived as an authentic human being, that He did not merely assume the appearance of flesh (1). Therefore we should not be surprised that He prayed to God, seeking strength, guidance, and assurance. Moreover, we should not be surprised that Jesus had a will distinct from God (2), that He was truly human in spirit and soul, that He possessed a self-awareness of His humanity. Jesus' prayers to God the Father came from His human life, from the Incarnation. His prayers were not those of one divine person to another divine person of God, but those of an authentic human praying to the one true God. Prayer is based on an inferior being in supplication before a superior being. If the one praying is equal in power and authority to the one to whom he is praying, there is no genuine prayer.” (Did Jesus Pray to Himself? Article from the July Pentecostal Herald, UPCI Publication, by J. L. Hall)

 

Oneness theology clearly teaches that God became “a genuine human being” in the incarnation through the virgin who lived as “an authentic human being”. This explains the prayers and temptations of Jesus Christ as a true man living among men. Therefore, Oneness theologians acknowledge that Jesus Christ is both “God Almighty” as to his true divine identity and “fully man” as to his true human identity because God Himself became a man within the Hebrew virgin.

 

Oneness author Talmadge French affirmed that God became a man in the incarnation through the virgin. At 9:40 into Dr. Talmadge French’s lecture on “Oneness Pentecostalism in Global Perspective” Talmadge French said, “How did God become a man and yet remain God? How is God Father, Son, and Spirit and yet One God? It is an awesome revelation." (Dr. Talmadge French’s lecture, Oneness Pentecostalism in Global Perspective / YouTube Video: https://youtu.be/Ag4taz7GRS8).

 

Oneness author Dr. Daniel Segraves wrote that Jesus is God manifest in genuine and FULL HUMAN EXISTENCE, “Everything that Jesus did and said He did and said as who He was, God manifest in genuine and full human existence.(Dr. Daniel Segraves Article, Thoughts on John 17:5, 3/23/2010 http://evidentialfaith.blogspot.com/2010/03/thoughts-on-john-175-by-dr-daniel-l.html)

 

William Chalfant is a respected Oneness author who wrote the following in A Critique of “Bible Writers” Theology:
"If Jesus Christ is not God Almighty (God the Father) then He is not able to save us (but He is). On the other hand, if Jesus of Nazareth is not the true Son of Mary, and a genuine human being, descended from David and Abraham, then He cannot be our Redeemer and our sacrifice for sins. To deny His wonderful divinity (as God the Father) is to rob Him of His rightful glory. On the other hand, to deny His genuine humanity is to rob us of our blood sacrifice, who hung in our place on the old rugged cross. If He is not one of us, then we do not have a true Mediator. 1 Timothy 2.5 states, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man (anthropos) Christ Jesus”. If He was not true anthropos and true God, then our faith is in vain. But it is not in vain, because He stood in my place."

 

At approximately twenty three minutes and forty five seconds into David Bernard’s Debate with Robert Morey, brother Bernard stated, "When we speak of Jesus conversing with the Father, it is understandable that Jesus was speaking as AN AUTHENTIC HUMAN BEING." And at twenty three minutes and thirteen seconds into the same debate, Dr. Bernard said that the prayers of Jesus were "always in the context of A REAL HUMAN LIFE".

 

Then at approximately twenty four minutes and thirty seconds brother Bernard said, "You must understand that it was as A REAL HUMAN BEING that he submitted his will to God." (From David K. Bernard’s Debate with Robert Morey, YouTube Video: https://youtu.be/MiWZKjbeMMc)

 

The Oneness theological position does not teach that Jesus ever prayed to the Father as the Father, as our position affirms that Jesus prayed and submitted his human will to the Father as “a real human being”. Hence, God the Father was able to operate as the unchangeable God outside of the incarnation with only one Divine will, while the child born and son given is God the Father with us as "an authentic HUMAN BEING" who prayed "in the context of A REAL HUMAN LIFE" with a real human will.

 

Thus, we have One Divine God Person as the Father and one mediator between that God Person and all humanity, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim. 2:5). For “the only true God” (John 17:3) also became "an authentic human being" as a human person because one person as one person cannot mediate or interact with himself.

 

Therefore, Dr. David Bernard's theological position is the same theological position as mine even though Trinitarian apologist Ethan Smith has claimed that I have “contradicted Oneness Theology” because I have stated that the Father’s Person also became a human person: God as One Divine Person and as one human person. (Ethan Smith’s YouTube Video: https://youtu.be/nk2kdrm4pT4 – Steve Ritchie’s responding YouTube videos: https://youtu.be/HxdDQqshMkY and https://youtu.be/hqgns1Dtrbk)

 

I have found that most non-Oneness people erroneously think we believe that Jesus is God the Father with us as God the Father rather than God the Father living with us as “a genuine human being.” Thus, they laugh and ridicule our position before taking the time to honestly examine what our position really is.

 

WE CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS IN WATER BAPTISM Romans 10:12-13 "The same Lord is Lord of all, and is rich to all who call on Him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”We are not alleging that Jesus is merely God in the flesh; we are affirming that Jesus is God with us as a genuine man in the flesh who could pray and be tempted by the devil as an authentic human being. 

 

The Son never possessed the Divine Name of Yahweh until it was given to him

 

The Trinity doctrine states that an alleged God the Son has always coequally and coeternally ruled as a distinct individual with God the Father. This would mean that an alleged God the Son should have possessed the Name of Yahweh (Jehovah) along with the Father throughout eternity past. But if the scriptures prove that the Son as the Son never possessed the Name of Yahweh before it was given to him, then the whole Trinity doctrine collapses.

 

Jeremiah 23:5-6, “I will raise to David a righteous branch, and a King shall reign … and this is HIS NAME whereby he SHALL BE CALLED, YAHWEH (JEHOVAH) our righteousness.”

 

We know that the context of Jeremiah 23:5-6 is addressing Jesus Christ as the “righteous branch” who came from the seed of David. Since Christ would be “called Yahweh” in the prophetic future, we know that Christ Jesus as a Son could not have always been called Yahweh throughout eternity past. For why would the scripture say that Christ “shall be called Yahweh” if he was always timelessly called Yahweh to begin with?

 

Matthew 1:21-23, “She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus (Yahweh is Salvation), for He will save His people from their sins. Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel (which means ‘God with us’)".

 

The Name of Jesus in Hebrew literally means, “Yahweh (Jehovah) is Salvation”. Notice that the context of Matthew 1:21-23 states that the Son would be called Jesus (Yahweh is Salvation) rather than the Son always being called Yahweh our Savior throughout eternity past. Therefore we know that the Son is the man who had to be given the name of Yahweh because of his beginning by his virgin begetting.

 

The scriptures repeatedly inform us that the Son is the man Christ Jesus who was given the name of Yahweh God the Father rather than always possessing that divine name.

 

John 5:43, “I have come in MY FATHER’S NAME.”

We know that the context of Jeremiah 23:5-6 is addressing Jesus Christ as the “righteous branch” who came from the seed of David. Since Christ would be “called Yahweh” in the prophetic future, we know that Christ Jesus as a Son could not have always been called Yahweh throughout eternity past. For why would the scripture say that Christ “shall be called Yahweh” if he was always timelessly called Yahweh to begin with?

 

Matthew 1:21-23, “She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus (Yahweh is Salvation), for He will save His people from their sins. Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel (which means ‘God with us’)".

 

The Name of Jesus in Hebrew literally means, “Yahweh (Jehovah) is Salvation”. Notice that the context of Matthew 1:21-23 states that the Son would be called Jesus (Yahweh is Salvation) rather than the Son always being called Yahweh our Savior throughout eternity past. Therefore we know that the Son is the man who had to be given the name of Yahweh because of his beginning by his virgin begetting.

 

The scriptures repeatedly inform us that the Son is the man Christ Jesus who was given the name of Yahweh God the Father rather than always possessing that divine name.

 

John 5:43, “I have come in MY FATHER’S NAME.”

John 17:11 (NASB), “Holy Father, keep them through YOUR NAME, the name which YOU HAVE GIVEN ME.

Philippians 2:9, “God exalted him to the highest place and GAVE HIM THE NAME THAT IS ABOVE EVERY NAME …

Hebrews 1:4, “He has by inheritance OBTAINED A NAME more excellent than they (the angels).”

 

We ask our Trinitarian friends why the Son would come in his Father’s Name in John 5:43 if the Son is the name of an alleged second divine person of an alleged three person Trinity? For if the Son is coequally the Second God Person of the Trinity, then he would have come in his own coequally distinct Name rather than the Father’s Name. In like manner, if the Son as a Son has always possessed “the name that is above every name”, then how could the Son be given the Father’s Name while always possessing it? Therefore the Son had to have obtained the name above all names because the Son is the man Christ Jesus rather than an alleged timeless God the Son. 

 

The scriptural evidence which proves that the Son was given the Father’s name explains why the apostles always baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ alone (Acts 2:38; Acts 8:16; Acts 10:48; Acts 19:5; Romans 6:3-5; Colossians 2:12; Galatians 3:27). For Christ Jesus has by human inheritance received the divine name of his Father (“Yahweh is Salvation”) because the Son is Immanuel God with us as a true man living among men. Thus, Matthew 28:19 proves that there is only One Divine Name of the Father, Son, and Spirit.

 

Matthew 28:19, “… baptizing them in the name (the Greek “anoma” is a single name) of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit…”

Isaiah 9:6 (ESV), “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Isaiah 7:14 (ESV), “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”

Matthew 1:23 (ESV), “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us).”

Matthew 1:23 confirms that the prophecy in Isaiah 7:10-14 was fulfilled in Jesus because Jesus is "Immanuel” which is translated as “God with us." Thus, Isaiah 9:6 is a prophecy predicting that the name of the child born and son given would be called the same name as the "Mighty God" and "Everlasting Father” (John 17:11, Philippians 2:9, Heb. 1:4).

 

That is why the prophet Jeremiah wrote that the Son "shall be called (future tense), Yahweh our righteousness" (Jer. 23:5-6 – An alleged God the Son should have always been called Yahweh). And this is why Psalm 118:14 says, "Yahweh is my strength and my song, He also has BECOME MY SALVATION."

 

The Son is the Predestined Lord of the Universe

 

Hebrews 1:1-2 (Weymouth NT), “God, who in ancient days spoke to our forefathers in many distinct messages and by various methods through the Prophets, has at the end of these days spoken to us through a Son, who is the pre-destined Lord of the universe, and through whom He made the Ages.”

 

Oneness author Dr. Daniel Segraves wrote, “…the statement that God has 'in these last days spoken to us by His Son,' which contrasts with God's prior communication through the prophets, indicates grammatically that God has not spoken by His Son prior to 'these last days.' If we could use 'Son' in a preincarnational sense, it would be incredible to think that God never spoke by the Son from all eternity and throughout the entire era of the Hebrew Scriptures until the Incarnation.” (Daniel Segraves, Hebrews: Better Things. Vol. 1 (Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1996), 31-32)

 

 

Could a coequal God the Son have been mute from Genesis to Malachi?

 

Trinitarian apologists often allege that a God the Son could be seen as one of the angels who spoke to the Israelite forefathers even though Hebrews 1:1-2 states that God has not “spoken to us through a Son” until “the end of these days”.

 

If the Son of God actually spoke to the Israelite forefathers prior to “the last days” then why does Hebrews 1:2 say that “God, who in ancient days spoke to our forefathers in many distinct messages and by various methods through the prophets, has at the end of these days spoken to us through a Son, who is the pre-destined Lord of the universe?” (Peter cited Joel 2:28 in Acts 2:17 to show that the first century was the beginning of the last days, “And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh” -KJV)?

 

If the Son has always existed as a timeless coequal and coeternal God the Son, then it seems strange that such a God the Son would have been completely silent until the last days.

 

No Trinitarian cannot explain why there is not a single verse of scripture to show that the Son as a God the Son ever actually spoke in the Hebrew Scriptures. It also seems very strange that “the predestined Lord of the universe” could have actually created the human ages as the Father’s agent while being “foreknown” (1 Peter 1:20), “predestined” (Hebrews 1:2), and “appointed” by God the Father as the one who is the predestined “heir of all things” (Hebrews 1:2) and who is “appointed over the works of His (the Father’s) hands (Hebrews 2:7; Psalm 8:6)”.

 

For how is it possible for an alleged pre-incarnate God the Son to have been “appointed the heir of all things” (Hebrews 1:2) if that God the Son was already a coequal ruler over all things to begin with? In like manner, an alleged coequal God the Son should not have been “appointed over the works of” the Father’s “hands” (Psalm 8:6; Hebrews 2:7) if the Son as the Son actually did the creating as the Father’s agent in creation.

 

The Son became better than the Angels as He inherited the Father’s Name

 

Hebrews 1:4 (NASB), “having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.

 

How exactly could an alleged timeless and coequal God the Son have “BECOME … better than the angels” if he was already better than the angels as a coequal God the Son to begin with? In like manner, how could an alleged timeless and coequal God the Son be said to have “inherited a more excellent name than” the angels if he has always had that name throughout eternity past? Furthermore, since Trinitarian theologians have traditionally alleged that the title “Son” is the name of a timeless God the Son, how exactly could the Son have “inherited” his name as the Son if he has always had that name from eternity past?

 

God the Father Commanded the Angels to worship the Son in the World

 

How can Trinitarians believe that a coequal and coeternal (timeless) God the Son was a pre-incarnate God the firstborn before actually being born? Can God as God literally be a God the firstborn before he was actually born? The only viable understanding of the word “firstborn” in relation to Christ Jesus is that he was “firstborn” in the prophetic mind and planning of God just as he was already called “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” in Revelation 13:8.

 

Therefore, the God who calls the things which be not as though they were (Romans 4:17), had already spoke of Christ as being first slain and firstborn before he was actually slain and born.

 

The Son of God is also called “the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation” in Colossians 1:15 before the Son was actually born. Hence, God literally brought forth his “firstborn into the world” after the Son was “foreknown before the foundation of the world” (1 Peter 1:20).

 

For why else would the angels have been commanded to worship the Son after being brought into the world if the angels were already worshiping the Son as an alleged pre-incarnate God the firstborn? Therefore, the Son could not have timelessly existed as a God the Son because the angels would not have been commanded to worship the Son if they had always been worshipping the Son as the Son in the first place.

 

The Son is Yahweh Incarnate Who will sit on the Throne of David – Heb. 1:8-12

 

Hebrews 1:8-9 (Berean Literal Bible), “But unto the Son: ‘Your throne, O God, is to the age of the age, and the scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and have hated wickedness; because of this, God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of exultation above Your companions.’”

 

We know that Hebrews 1:8-9 is a direct quote from a Messianic prophesy found in Psalm 45:6-7 in which the future child born and son given would love righteousness and hate wickedness after being conceived and born on planet earth. For it is impossible for a coequal God the Son to have a God (“Your God, has anointed you”) while being anointed by his God “above” his human “companions”. In like manner, it is ridiculous to assert that a coequal God the Son could be anointed by his God, as he who anoints is greater than he who is anointed.

 

The Berean Literal Bible excludes “He says” from the text of Hebrews 1:8 because it does not appear in any of the original Greek manuscripts. Hence, the Trinitarian idea that God the Father actually spoke to His Son saying, “Your throne O God”, is entirely speculative and without any evidential scriptural support.

 

Many translations italicize “he says” because the words were added later by the translators. In fact, since Hebrews 1:8-9 is a direct Messianic quote from the Psalmists song in Psalm 45:6-7, we know that God was not directly speaking the words in Psalms 45:6-7. Thus, it would be more scripturally accurate to add “the scripture says” in italics to Hebrews 1:8 rather than “He says”.

 

 

1My heart overflows with a pleasing theme; I address my verses to the king; my tongue is like the pen of a ready scribe … 3Gird your sword on your thigh, O mighty one, in your splendor and majesty! 4In your majesty ride out victoriously for the cause of truth and meekness and righteousness; let your right hand teach you awesome deeds! 5Your arrows are sharp in the heart of the king’s enemies; the peoples fall under you. 6Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.

The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness; 7you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.” (Psalm 45:1-7 ESV)

 

Benson’s Commentary indicates that the Psalmist was the individual who composed the words in Psalm chapter forty five rather than God the Father speaking directly to His Son. Benson’s Commentary explains the Hebrew meaning of the Psalmists words in Psalms 45:1,

 

“I will speak of the things I have made” — Hebrew, מעשׂי, magnasi, my work, or composition; touching the king — The King Messiah and his government.” (Benson’s Commentary, Psalm 45:1)

 

While the Spirit of God inspired the Psalmist to write Psalm chapter forty five, we know that it was the Psalmist who wrote, “I address my verses to the king” in a Psalm (a song) rather than God the Father directly speaking to His future child born and son given. For if God the Father was speaking directly to His Son saying, “your throne O God” then how can God the Father also say, “Therefore God, your God, has anointed you…”?

 

Thus, we know that the Psalmist was inspired to address the Messiah as God who would ascend to the throne of David (Isaiah 9:7 ESV- “Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness…”) which inspired scripture identifies as “the throne of Yahweh” (1 Chronicles 29:23-ESV, “Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD [Yahweh] as king in place of David his father.”) and “the throne of God and of the Lamb” (Rev. 22:3 BSB - “The throne of God and of the Lamb will be within the city, and His servants will worship Him.”).

 

Hebrews 1:10-12 then moves on to citing a completely different Psalm (Psalm 102:25-27) in which the Palmist is praying to His Creator saying, “24I say, ‘O my God, do not take me away in the midst of my days, Your years are throughout all generations. 25Of old You founded the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. 26Even they will perish, but You endure; And all of them will wear out like a garment; Like clothing You will change them and they will be changed. 27But You are the same, And Your years will not come to an end (Psalm 102:25-27 NASB).”

 

Anyone who reads Psalm chapter 102 in its entirety will clearly see that the entire chapter is a prayer of the Psalmist to Yahweh his God asking for help (Psalm 102:1 says, “Hear my prayer, O LORD! And let my cry for help come to You”). Hence, the same Psalmist who said, “O my God, do not take me away in the midst of my days” goes on to pray, “Of old You founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands”.

 

We know that Hebrews 1:10 addresses the Father’s hands as Hebrews 2:7 cites Psalm 8:5-6 to show that the Father appointed the Son over the works of His hands (“You crowned him with glory and honor and appointed him [the Son] over the works of Your hands”- Heb. 2:7; Psalm 8:5-6). Thus, we can clearly see that Hebrews 1:10 cites Psalm 102:25 to show that Jesus is the Creator as Yahweh God the Father before he became the human child born and son given.

 

Hebrews 1:10-12, “And: ‘You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are works of Your hands. They will perish but You remain; and all will grow old like a garment; and like a robe You will roll them up, and like a garment they will be changed; but You are the same, and Your years will never end.”

 

Oneness theologians agree that the true identity of the Son is the Spirit of Yahweh God the Creator before the Holy Spirit became incarnate as the human child born and Son given. In contradistinction, Trinitarians falsely assume that Hebrews 1:10-12 is addressing a coequally distinct pre-incarnate Yahweh God the Son Person who created all things as a Son.

 

Yet there is not a shred of scriptural evidence to suggest that the Son pre-existed his birth as the Son because the scriptures only speak of Yahweh God the Father as the creator who “made him Lord (the Son) over the works of Your hands (the Father’s hands – Psalm 8:6 Holman’s Christian Standard Bible).” We ask Trinitarians how the Son could have been the Father’s agent in creation while the Son has been “made Lord over the works” of the Father’s “hands”?

 

Hebrews 2:7 cites Psalm 8:5-6 to prove that the Son has been appointed over the works of the Father’s hands. “YOU HAVE MADE HIM FOR A LITTLE WHILE LOWER THAN THE ANGELS; YOU HAVE CROWNED HIM WITH GLORY AND HONOR, AND HAVE APPOINTED HIM OVER THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS” (Heb. 2:7 NASB).

 

Some have alleged that Psalm 8:5-6 and Hebrews 2:7 is not addressing Jesus as the one who has been appointed over the works of the Father’s hands, but Hebrews 2:8-9 goes on to clearly affirm that this passage is speaking about Jesus: “YOU HAVE PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. For in subjecting all things to him, He left nothing that is not subject to him. But now we do not yet see all things subjected to him. But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus…”

 

Trinitarian apologists cannot explain how the Son created all things as a Son while being appointed over the works of the Father’s hands. The only viable explanation is held by Oneness believers. While the Son is the man who has been appointed over the works of the Father’s hands, He who became a man as the child born and son given is the Father Himself incarnate as a true man (Isaiah 9:6 KJV, “unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given … and his name shall be called … the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father...”).

 

Hebrews 3:3-4 (KJV) confirms the fact that the true identity of the Son is Yahweh God the Creator before he became a Son as “the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5). “For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house. For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.”

 

Notice how the subject of the text is Jesus as a man who is counted worthy of more glory than Moses because he “built all things” as “God” before becoming the child born and Son given. The text does not state that the Son built all things as the Son. The text clearly states that Jesus is the true divine identity who “built all things” as “God” before becoming a human Son.

 

The Son is the Man Who Ascended to the right hand of Yahweh

 

Hebrews 1:13 (NASB), “But to which of the angels has He ever said, ‘Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for your feet.”

 

The inspired author of Hebrews cited a portion of Psalm 110:1 to show that Jesus Christ is the one addressed in a prophecy referencing his ascension into heaven. Psalm 110:1 in the Hebrew text shows that Yahweh spoke prophetically to David’s Lord [the Messiah as a “human lord”] saying, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”

 

“The LORD [Yahweh] says to my Lord [adon]: "Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet." (Psalm 110:1 NASB)

Notice that the divine name of Yahweh appears in the text for the Most High God Who speaks to another Lord which is the Hebrew noun “adon”. Adon is normally used of human masters and lords throughout the Hebrew Bible, but rarely used to reference the Most High God Himself.

 

Thus, the normative use of “adon” in the context of being distinguished from Yahweh in Psalm 110:1 indicates that the only true God is our Heavenly Father Who prophetically spoke of his future child born and son given as the human “adon” who would be exalted to his anthropomorphic right hand in the prophetic future.

 

Acts 2:34-35 proves that Psalm 110:1 is a Messianic prophecy about the ascension of the man Christ Jesus into heaven because the apostle Peter cited Psalm 110:1 to prove that Jesus ascended into heaven in his resurrected body.

 

“For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says, ‘The LORD [Yahweh] said to my Lord [adon], Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.” (Acts 2:34-35)

 

Here we find through the inspired apostle that Psalm 110:1 refers to the Messiah’s bodily ascension into heaven in which the Son would be exalted to the highest position of authority under God the Father Himself.

 

We ask our Trinitarian friends how God the Father could have said to a coequally distinct Yahweh God the Son (before the incarnation), “Sit at my right hand,” if the Son was already at the Father’s anthropomorphic right hand to begin with? Therefore we can see that the Son of God is the man who had his beginning by his virgin begetting, whilst the God who became the Son as a true man among men could never have had a time of origin (1 Timothy 3:16; John 8:58; Isaiah 9:6; Matthew 1:18-23).

 

Yahweh God became a Son in order to Save us

 

When we read the entire chapter of Psalm 118 in context, we find that Yahweh became our salvation as Jesus by becoming the child born and Son given (Isaiah 9:6).

 

"This is the gate of Yahweh (Jesus is the door); the righteous will enter through it. I shall give thanks to You, for YOU HAVE BECOME MY SALVATION. The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone. This is Yahweh's doing. It is marvelous in our eyes (Psalm 118:20-23)."

 

Jesus cited Psalm 118:23 (in Matthew 21:42, Mark 12:10-11, and Luke 20:17) referencing himself which proves that Jesus is Yahweh who has become our salvation by His own Holy Spirit who descended upon the virgin to become the Christ child (Luke 1:35).

 

Therefore Jesus proved that He is Yahweh God incarnate as the Messiah when he said, “Have you not even read this scripture: The stone which the builders rejected, this became the chief corner stone; this came about from the LORD, and it is marvellous in our eyes? And they were seeking to seize him, and yet they feared the people (Mark 12:10-12 NASB) …”

 

 

The Pharisees not only perceived that Jesus had spoken the previous parable against them, but were obviously familiar with the context of Psalm 118 which says that Yahweh would become our salvation. Thus, when Jesus cited Psalm 118 about himself, the Pharisees became enraged at Jesus and sought to kill him because they assumed that he had also spoken blasphemy by claiming to be Yahweh Himself.

 

Therefore the Pharisees could not accept the fact that Jesus is Yahweh who became our salvation as “God with us” (Matthew 1:23) as a true man.

 

Jesus is Honoured to the Glory of God the Father

 

Philippians 2:10-11 informs us that all of humanity will one day bow to Jesus and confess him as LORD. But Isaiah 45:23 shows that the Father is the speaker (cited in Philippians 2:10-11) who says that all of humanity will bow and swear to Him (the context prove the Father) as LORD (YAHWEH). 

 

Philippians 2:9-11, "God highly exalted him, and bestowed on Him the name which is ABOVE EVERY NAME [Yahweh is the only Name above every Name], so that at the name of Jesus [Yahweh Saves] EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that EVERY TONGUE WILL CONFESS that Jesus Christ is Lord [Yahweh is translated as Kurios throughout the Greek Septuagint], to the glory of God the Father."

 

Notice that the context of Isaiah 45:21-23 shows that Yahweh God is the speaker Who says, “Declare and set forth your case; Indeed, let them consult together. Who has announced this from of old? Who has long since declared it? Is it not I, the LORD [YHWH]? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me. Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other. I have sworn by Myself, The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness And will not turn back, That to Me EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, EVERY TONGUE WILL SWEAR allegiance."

 

Anyone who compares the context of Isaiah 45:23 with Philippians 2:9-11 should clearly see that to bow the knee to Jesus and to confess him as Lord (the context proves at the end of this age) is to bow the knee to the Father and confess that the Father is Lord.

 

Hence, all bowing and confession to Jesus as Lord (at the end of this age) is all “to the glory of God the Father” alone rather than to the glory of two other alleged coequal members of a Trinity (Isaiah 45:14-15 says that men “will bow” to the Messiah saying, “surely God is in you, there is none else, there is no other God. Truly you are a God who hides Himself, O God of Israel the Saviour”; Zechariah 14:9 “And Yahweh shall be King over all the earth; in that day there shall be One Yahweh and His Name One”).

 

This is not what we would expect if the Son is a coequally distinct true God Person beside the Father. For why would bowing the knee to Jesus and confessing him as LORD be “to the glory of God the Father”? If the Son is a coequally distinct true God Person, then the Son should also have His own divine glory and dignity rather than just the Father.

 

The words of Isaiah 45:23 in context prove that Yahweh God the Father is the speaker who said, "The word (Jesus is the word/logos in John 1:1, 14) has gone forth from My Mouth (the Father's mouth) in righteousness and will not turn back, That TO ME EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, EVERY TONGUE WILL SWEAR ALLEGIANCE." 

 

The context of Isaiah 45:23 proves that the Father is the speaker who said that His word (the Father’s word is Jesus – John 1:1, 14; Rev. 19:13) “has gone forth” from His “mouth” (i.e. the Father’s mouth). Since the Son of God is clearly the word that has gone out of the Father’s mouth, it is nonsensical to believe that a timelessly coequal true God Person could have gone forth from the Father’s anthropomorphic mouth while being timeless and coequal.

 

Therefore the Son of God existed as the logos of God the Father (as the Father’s expressed thought) that was later made flesh to become the Christ child. 

 

Since Philippians 2:10-11 cites Isaiah 45:23, we know that to bow and confess Jesus as LORD is to bow and swear "TO ME" [TO THE FATHER]. John 14:24 proves that Jesus is the Father's word (logos) who "has gone forth from" the Father's "mouth", so when every knee bows and confesses Jesus Christ as LORD, we know that all are bowing and confessing Jesus Christ as YAHWEH proves that the deity in Jesus ("God with us" as a man) is the deity of the Father who gets all of "the glory".

 

For if Jesus was a coequally distinct divine person then the scripture would say, "to the glory of the Son and the Father." The Father gets all the glory because the Son is "the brightness of His (the Father's) glory and the express image of His (the Father's) Person" as a fully complete human person (Heb. 1:3).

 

Furthermore, how could the Son as the Son have always existed as an alleged Yahweh God the Son Person while the Name of Yahweh was “bestowed on Him” at a specific point in time (God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name – Phil. 2:9)? Can God as a true God Person be “given” or “bestowed” the Name of Yahweh while always eternally existing as a timeless and coequal true God Person distinct from the Father to begin with?

 

Therefore the Trinitarian idea of a timeless God the Son cannot harmonize with Philippians 2:9 and other scriptures which state that the Son was given the Father’s Name in time (Jesus in Hebrew means “Yahweh Saves” – John 5:43; John 17:11; Jer. 23:6)

 

God Became A Man

 

In conclusion, while the Son is the man who had his beginning by his virgin begetting, Hebrews 2:14-17 proves that the "He" who "partook of flesh and blood" is Yahweh who has become our salvation by being made as a fully complete human son “out of the Holy Spirit” ("Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is [‘ek’] out of the Holy Spirit”- Matthew 1:20) and [‘ek’] “out of” the virgin Mary (“God sent forth his Son, made of [‘ek’ = “out of”] a woman”- Gal. 4:4; “He has granted the Son life [a human life] in himself”- John 5:26) in order to save us.

 

 

Hence, the Father’s own Name (Yahweh) was given to the Son at a specific point in time because the angel gave the Son’s name to Joseph ("She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus [Jesus means ‘Yahweh Saves’], for He will save His people from their sins” – Matthew 1:21)

 

Therefore the Holy Spirit of the only true God miraculously became a man (Luke 1:35; 1 Tim. 3:16; Matthew 1:20; Heb. 1:3) at a specific point in time (Psalm 2:7; 2 Samuel 7:14; Hebrews 1:5) as the child born and son given (Isaiah 9:6) within the virgin in order to “save His people from their sins” (Matthew 1:20-23).

 

For More ARTICLES

For Free BOOKS

For Video Teachings, subscribe to our YOUTUBE CHANNEL

 

 

Please reload

C O N T A C T

© 2016 | GLOBAL IMPACT MINISTRIES