The Modern Day Modalists—Part III(a)

The Christology of the Modern Day Modalists

"Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also. Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you too will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is the promise that he made to us—eternal life." —1 John 2:22-25

In the previous articles of this series we have been focused on the modern day modalist's concept of the nature of God and why it is a grave error. The modern day modalists, as represented by the United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI), reject the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and have embraced a very subtle, ancient, heresy taught by the third century A.D. priest Sabellius called modalistic monarchianism. In this part of the series I am turning our attention to the modern day modalists' doctrine on the nature of Jesus Christ and will show in part III(b) why the modern day modalists profess belief in a Jesus foreign to the Holy Scriptures. Their denial that Christ is God the Son come in the flesh is an error that puts them outside the Church, for they have neither the Son or the Father.

David K. Bernard writes in his book, "The Oneness of God", that in the Old Testament "...God chose to reveal aspects of His nature to man through various theophanies. In the New Testament era, the progressive revelation of God through theophanies culminated and found perfect fulfillment in Jesus Christ" (p. 40). So who is Jesus Christ according to these modern day modalists? Is He just another theophany of God?

Mr. Bernard writes that Jesus "...was more than a theophany. He was not just God appearing in the form of a man but He was God clothed with a real human body and nature" (ibid. p.40). For the modern day modalist, Jesus is the full expression of the unipersonal monad, the Father. Unlike other theophanies which gave partial expression of the nature of God to man, Jesus fully conveys God's essence, since the man Jesus is the embodiment of God, or the Father. Mr. Bernard writes,

"God is the Father of us all and in a unique way the Father of the man Jesus Christ. God manifested Himself in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ, called the Son of God...."

"God is not limited to these three manifestations [Father, Son, and Holy Spirit]; however, in the glorious revelation of the one God, the New Testament does not deviate from the strict monotheism of the Old Testament. Rather, the Bible presents Jesus as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Jesus is not just the manifestation of one of three persons in the Godhead, but He is the incarnation of the Father, the Jehovah of the Old Testament" (ibid. p. 144).

We have to keep in mind that when a modern day modalist, such as Bernard, states that Jesus is the incarnation of the Father, that what they mean is the "role of Father... must dwell in Jesus (sic)" (ibid. p.67), and not just the "role of Father", but the roles of both "Father" and "Holy Spirit." How do they arrive at such a bizarre view of God?

As I indicated earlier, the modern day modalist is committed to the erroneous view that God is one person, or is a unipersonal monad. Because of this view of the nature of God, it is inconceivable to the modern day modalist that there is a plurality of persons existing within the one essence, or substance, of God. The upshot of this view is that any scriptures which speak of the deity of Jesus must, by their concept of God, refer to God in either His role of "Father", or in His role of "Holy Spirit." Any Scriptures that mention Jesus as being hungry, sleeping, or in pain must refer to His human nature alone, or to his "Sonship." the modern day modalists' view of the nature of God profoundly shapes their doctrine of the nature of Christ.

The modern day modalist agrees with historic, orthodox, Christianity that Jesus Christ has two distinct natures; Jesus is both fully God and fully man. To Christians who have been raised in the orthodox teaching of the Holy Trinity, the modalistic view of Christ may be indistinguishable from their own, which makes this false teaching even more dangerous than it looks at first blush. David K. Bernard writes,

"From the Bible we see that Jesus Christ had two distinct human natures in a way that no other human being has ever had. One nature is human or fleshly; the other nature is divine or Spirit. Jesus was both fully man and fully God" (ibid. p. 86).

On the surface such a confession looks Scriptural, but when we dig deeper we find real trouble. Bernard continues,

"The name Jesus refers to the eternal Spirit of God (the Father) dwelling in the flesh. We can use the name Jesus to describe either one of His two natures or both. For example, when we say Jesus died on the cross, we mean His flesh died on the cross. When we say Jesus lives in our hearts, we mean His Spirit is there" (ibid.).

For Mr. Bernard and the modern day modalists, "Father" refers to God Himself, to the single, unipersonal, divine monad. The term "Son of God", on the other hand, only refers to the human nature of Jesus Christ, as Bernard writes, "However, the Bible does not use the term "God the Son" even one time. It is not a correct term because the Son of God refers to the humanity of Jesus Christ" (ibid. p. 98). However, according to Mr. Bernard, the modern day modalists may use the term "Son of God" in referring to the incarnate "Father", since the human nature is also being referred to (ibid. pp. 98-99). How Bernard and the modern day modalists arrive to this view of Christ's nature is as follows and in Mr. Bernard's own words,

"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 Father" (ibid. p. 66).

In addition to citing Malachi 2:10 in support of his view, Mr. Bernard also quotes Ephesians 4:6, Isaiah 9:6, Colossians 2:9, John 10:30, and various verses from John chapter 8. We will take a look at these verses shortly, but there is an additional caveat with this false teaching that needs to be exposed.

According to David K. Bernard, and modern day modalists, the Son is not eternal, but has a beginning and an end. Mr. Bernard writes,

"The Sonship—or the role of the Son—began with the child conceived in the womb of Mary. The Scriptures make this perfectly clear. Galatians 4:4 says, "But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law." The Son came in the fullness of time—not in eternity past. The Son was made of a woman—not begotten eternally.... Hebrews 1:5-6 also reveals that the begetting of the Son occurred at a specific point in time and that the Son had a beginning in time... the Son was begotten on a specific day in time; there was a time when the Son did not exist.... From all of these verses, it is easy to see that the Son is not eternal, but was begotten by God almost 2000 years ago" (ibid. pp. 104, 105).

Bernard continues on in the same chapter to discuss the modalistic view that the "Sonship" will end.

"Not only did the Sonship have a beginning, but it will, at least in one sense, have an ending. This is evident from 1 Corinthians 15:23-28. In particular, verse 24 says, 'Then cometh the end, when he [Christ] shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father...' Verse 28 says, 'And when all things shall have been subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.' This verse of Scripture is impossible to explain if one thinks of a 'God the Son' who is co-equal and co-eternal with God the Father. But it is easily explained if we realize that 'Son of God' refers to a specific role that God temporarily assumed for the purpose of redemption. When the reasons for the Sonship cease to exist, God (Jesus) will cease acting in His role as Son, and the Sonship will be submerged back into the greatness of God, who will return to His original role as Father, Creator, and Ruler of all" (ibid. p. 106).

Once the role of "Sonship" ceases, will the resurrected and glorified body of Christ also cease to exist? Not according to Bernard who writes,

"Jesus will continue to use His glorified body throughout eternity.... Although the glorified body of Christ will continue to exist, all the reasons for the reign of the Sonship will be gone and all the roles played by the Son will be over. Even the Son will be placed under subjection so that God may be all in all. It is in this sense that the Sonship will end" (ibid. p. 108).

In summation, the modern day modalist confesses that Jesus is both fully God and fully human, but what they mean by that is the unipersonal divine monad (God, in all his roles) was incarnated in the man, Jesus. Furthermore, the term "Son of God" refers to the humanity of Christ, that is to say God the Father, "...made a body for Himself, called the Son of God" (ibid. p.122). The purpose of the body He made for Himself, according to Bernard, was to reveal Himself to men in the role of the Son, and to provide the flesh necessary for the final sacrifice to God, the Father, to reconcile the world to the Father ("God", the unipersonal divine monad).

To understand this better, let's use an example Bernard provides in explanation of Matthew 27:46, "...the human nature of Jesus cried out on the cross as Jesus took on the sin of the whole world and felt the eternal punishment of separation for that sin (1 Peter 2:24)" (ibid. p. 180). According to Bernard, and the modern day modalists, when Jesus uttered the words, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" he was not really forsaken by the Father. The man Jesus, "...felt the anguish, hopelessness, and despair as if he were a man eternally forsaken by God.... Thus, the eternal Spirit of God, the Father, did not leave the human body of Christ until Christ's death" (ibid.) Jesus simply felt forsaken by the Father. The Father, who in this view is the "spirit" of Jesus, doesn't leave the body of Christ until Jesus' death. The upshot is that the man Jesus suffered and died on the cross for our sins and not the God-Man. Once the human flesh, Jesus, was ready to give up his spirit, the unipersonal monad, the Father, exited the human body used as a sacrifice and the man, Jesus, died on the cross.


Clearly, the "Son of God" for the modalists is much like a fleshly puppet that the Father has inserted His "hand" into in order to play a part on the world stage. The "Son of God" is the human side of the dual nature of Christ, whereas the divine side of His nature is none other than the Father. Once the Father is through with playing the role of "Son of God", the "Sonship" will cease, being subsumed by "the Father" role.

In part III(b) I will examine the proof texts offered by Mr. Bernard above in support of the modern day modalistic view of the nature of Christ, and I will set out the Scriptural view of Jesus in refutation of their false doctrine.