The Modern Day Modalists—Part III(b)

Examining the Proof Texts and Refuting the Christology of the Modern Day Modalists

In part III(a) of what was supposed to be only a five part series (now more like seven parts), I presented the modern day modalists' view of the nature of Christ. According to David K. Bernard, General Superintendent of the United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI)—the largest denomination representing modern day modalism in the world—Jesus has two natures: He is fully God (divine nature) and is fully man (human nature). On the surface such a confession looks like the orthodox view of the nature of Christ, but after some digging we found that what modern day modalists mean by their words is something far different than the truth as taught by the Apostles and Jesus Himself.

What the modern day modalist teaches is that Jesus, like other theophanies recorded in Scripture, is a temporary expression of the unipersonal monad, "God". However, Jesus is significantly different from other theophanies in that God uses real human flesh through which He fully expresses Himself to the world for the purpose of making Himself known, and to offer up the man, Jesus, as a sacrifice for the sins of humanity.

Indeed, according to Mr. Bernard, Jesus is unlike other theophanies (temporary expressions, or "manifestations" of God in history), because "He is the incarnation of the Father, the Jehovah of the Old Testament" ("The Oneness of God", Word Aflame Press, 1983. p. 144).

The name "Jesus", according to Bernard, refers to both the man and the Father dwelling in Jesus (p. 86). However, the term "Son of God" exclusively refers to the man, or to the flesh, but can also refer to the incarnate Father only because the flesh is attached (ibid. p. 98). As a consequence of their Christological view, Bernard and modern day modalist make it clear that when we speak of the death of Jesus on the cross, we are not talking about the death of the God-man, but only of the man (the flesh), Jesus (ibid. p. 86). We also found, according to the modern day modalists, the the "Sonship" of Jesus has a beginning and surprisingly an end. According to Bernard the "Sonship" began two thousand years ago when Jesus was born in Bethlehem and His "Sonship" will end at some time in the future "when the reasons for the Sonship cease to exist" (ibid. p. 106). At that time the "Sonship" will be "submerged back into the greatness of God, who will return to His original role as Father..." (ibid.), but continues to forever exist in the glorified body of Jesus.

In support of the modern day modalist Christology Bernard offers several proof texts for consideration: Malachi 2:10, Ephesians 4:6, Isaiah 9:6, Colossians 2:9, John 10:30, and various Scriptures from John chapter 8. Let's take a look at each of these Scriptures. (All Scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version.)

Malachi 2:10, "Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us? Why then are we faithless to one another, profaning the covenant of our fathers?"

Mr. Bernard quotes Malachi 2:10 in defense of the modalistic view that Jesus is "the Father". Isaiah 9:6 is marshalled in support of Malachi 2:10 with particular emphasis being placed on the term "Everlasting Father". Do either of these Scriptures support the modern day modalists' teaching that Jesus is His own Father?

The context of Malachi 2 is the Lord's rebuke of the corrupt priests of Judah and the profaning of the covenant God established with Abraham. "Have we not all one Father" is a reference to God who "fathered" the covenant He had with Israel, and is a refernce to His status as Creator. This Scripture in no way supports the idea that Jesus is His own Father. We can cross reference Malachi 2:10 with John 1:3 to show that the Word, who was with God, and was God, and who is also the creator of all things, is the creator Malachi is writing about with "Has not one God created us?" Yes, one God has created us and John 1 tells us that it was the Word who was with God in the beginning that created all things. In the words of Ignatius, a disciple of the Apostle John, "God the Word, the only-begotten Son" (quoted in part II(b)) is the creator and in that sense the Father of us all, including the priests of Judah.

Isaiah 9:6 fits nicely here, too. Mr. Bernard cites this scripture as additional proof from the Old Testament that Jesus is God the Father. The modern day modalists lift the term "everlasting father" from its context and claim that it teaches us that the "child born", the "son given", is God the Father incarnate. However, Isaiah 9:6 teaches no such thing. If we cross reference Isaiah 9:6 with John 1:14, we find that Isaiah is prophesying about the Word made flesh, whom John writes is the creator of all things and we have seen "his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father." The "Everlasting Father" in Isaiah is the Creator of the world. As creator, God the Son (the Word who become flesh), is our father. He is the father of all created things (John 1:3).

Isaiah 9:6 also tells us something very special about "the son", He is "given" to us. What does it mean that the Son was "given"? In the gospel of John 8:23 Jesus is recorded as saying, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world." In John 6:38 we read, "For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me" (see also John 3:13, 4:34, 5:30). Isaiah tells us that "the son" is "given" to us. This same son is the Word, who was with God, is God, and whom Isaiah calls the "Mighty God". He was sent to make the Father known to the world. Jesus Himself makes it perfectly clear that He was sent (or given) by the Father in heaven to do the will of His Father. The divine Word, The Everlasting Father, the Mighty God, Jesus, the Son, is rightly called the "Everlasting Father", because He is the creator of the world. He is not His own Father who sent Himself into the world, but He is given to us by God the Father as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

The modern day modalist is mistaken in their interpretation of Malachi 2:10 and Isaiah 9:6, both of which do not state that Jesus is His own Father, but demonstrate that He is not the Father and that He is eternal, contrary to the claims of the modern day modalists.

Colossians 2:9, "For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily".

Colossians 2:9 was one of my favorite proof texts when I was a modern day modalist. Just like David K. Bernard, I argued from that Scripture that it could only mean that the roles of "Father", "Son", and "Holy Spirit" apply to Jesus and that this Scripture proves if there were three persons in the Holy Trinity, then Christ has to be all three persons; which effectively means that there is only a single divine person who exists in the man, Jesus.

What is wrong with the modalists' interpretation of Colossians 2:9? The issue goes back to part II where I point out that the modern day modalist confuses the indivisibility of the divine essence of God with a single person. It is absolutely true that the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily in Christ. What this means is that Jesus has each and every property, or attribute, of the divine essence. Simply, He is God. What this Scripture is not saying is that Christ was His own Father, or that the Father and Holy Spirit do not exist as persons in the one essence of God.

In fact, if we interpret Colossians 2:9 as the modern day modalists do, then what do we say of Colossians 1:12-20? Paul, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit writes, "giving thanks to the Father..." (verse 12) who has "...delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son..." (verse 13). "The Father", according to Paul, rescued us from darkness; He "delivered" us. A person identified by "he" did an action. Part of that action was transferring us to "the kingdom of his beloved Son", which according to verse fourteen, "in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." Paul continues to write that this "whom", the object of the Father's action of transferring us, is also the creator of all things in heaven and in earth (verse 16) and "17 ...he is before all things, and in him all things hold together."

The above Scriptures are clear that there are divine persons in the one essence of God, and not simply "roles" or "offices" being played out by a unipersonal monad. The Father acts towards the Son who is the Creator and existed before all things. Once again, we find that Jesus preexisted with the Father in eternity. The Son is truly eternal. Indeed, to interpret these texts as the modalists do is to torture their meaning. It is simply not the case that the "role" of the Father delivered us and transferred us to the kingdom of the "role" of the Son which will end in the future. Another way of putting this is that the Father didn't transfer us to a "Son" in name only.

John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."

The modern day modalists use John 10:30, in conjunction with John 14:7, in their attempt to demonstrate that Jesus is His own Father. Once again the modalists' confusion of one essence with one person rears its ugly head in their interpretation of these scriptures.

There is no doubt that the Jews took Jesus' statement, "I and the Father are one", as His claim to deity. Verse 33 informs us that the Jews took up stones because according to them, Jesus blasphemed in making Himself God. This is a very powerful scripture to use when discussing the deity of Christ with those, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, who reject the Scriptural teaching that Jesus is God.

From the context of John 10, it should be clear that Jesus is not claiming to be His own Father. Take for example verses 17-18, "For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father" (emphasis mine). Jesus speaks of the "love" of His Father for Him. This relationship of love between the Father and the Son is utterly meaningless if we are talking about "roles" or "offices" existing in the man, Jesus. Also notice that Jesus speaks of Himself receiving from His Father authority to take up HIS life again. Jesus is not speaking of His mere flesh dieing, but is telling us that He, as a whole person, will die and will resurrect Himself from the dead. Jesus is not speaking of "roles" or "modes" interacting with each other. "Roles" and "modes" are not persons that can interact with each other, or show emotion to each other such as love. They exist in name only.

John is clear that Jesus is speaking as an "I", a whole person, about the love another person, the Father, has for Him. John does not separate the person of Jesus Christ into two persons, one divine and one human, which love one another. And if there is any doubt that Jesus is not simply speaking from His "role" as Son ("sonship"), verse 18 makes it clear that He is speaking of his whole person who will be raised from the dead ("I have authority to take it up again") and this authority is given to Him by His Father. In short, John is not dividing Jesus up into "roles" or "offices", but is writing about real persons who interact with each other; the Son loves the Father, and the Father gives to the Son.

So, if Jesus isn't the Father, then what does Jesus mean when He says, "If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him" (John 14:7)?

Let's approach this with the modalists' hermeneutic. According to the modalist Jesus is telling his disciples that they have seen the Father, or the unipersonal monad, "God". Mr. Bernard writes,

"Since God is an invisible Spirit and is omnipresent, He certainly does not have a body as we know it... Of course, in Christ, God had a human body and now has a glorified, immortal human body" (ibid. p.27).

If what this modern day modalist says is true, then Jesus can't possibly be speaking of the Father dwelling in His flesh, because nobody could see an invisible spirit. Bernard must mean that Jesus is claiming that anyone who has seen His human body, has seen a representation of the Father, and not literally the "invisible Spirit." In which case, the modern day modalist, can not be claiming that the human nature of Jesus is the Father. Therefore, Jesus can't be saying to His disciples that those who see Him literally see the Father. This "proof text" used by modern day modalists like Mr. Bernard is of no support for their view even from their own system of interpretation. Unless they wish to claim that Jesus, in the "role" or "office" of Son ("Sonship" or the flesh) is claiming to be the Father?

Setting aside their method of interpreting these Scriptures, what does the text itself offer as an explanation for Jesus' words?

"10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves." —John 14:10-11

Once again we are confronted by the unity Christ claims to have with another person, His Father. This isn't a conceptual unity between "offices" or "roles" held by one human being and a unipersonal monad, as the modern day modalists teach. Jesus said, "And he who sent me is with me. He has not left me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to him" (John 8:29). This is a real unity amongst persons in the Trinity. It is a unity of power, will, activity, and most importantly essence. There can be no real sense of such unity between a divine person's "roles" or "offices". The "office" of Son can't be said to be one with the "office" of father in a real sense, since these offices exist in name only, they are simply titles held by the one unipersonal monad, according to the modern day modalist.

When Jesus said to those around Him that those who have seen Him, have seen the Father, He was not claiming they had literally seen the person of His Father, but that what they were witnessing was the unity of power, authority, will, activity, and essence He has with the Father. He perfectly does the work of His Father before their eyes, or as Paul explains it, "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation" (Colossians 1:15).

The Scriptures are full of verses which demonstrate that Jesus is God the Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity. One cannot read the Gospels and allow them to stand on their own without coming to the view that Jesus is not only the Son of God who is a distinct person from His Father, but that Jesus is also God. Writing as a former modern day modalist, I think the clearest scriptures on this topic are John chapters one, eight, seventeen, Hebrews chapter one, and Matthew 28:19.

In John chapter eight Jesus says, "In your Law it is written that the testimony of two people is true. I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me" (John 8:17-18). Here Jesus clearly tells us that the Father is a person separate from Himself. If Jesus was really only speaking about "roles", "offices", or "modes" held by Himself, then His appeal to the Jewish law regarding establishing the truth of a testimony was meaningless. Jesus could appeal to the law regarding testimony, because He is not the Father and the Father is not Him. Jesus then goes on to say in the same chapter,

54 Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’ 55 But you have not known him. I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and I keep his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” 57 So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am” (emphasis mine).

Jesus establishes beyond any doubt that not only is He not the Father with "If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing" but immediately wipes away any notion that He is His Father when He says, "It is my Father who glorifies me...." If Jesus were His own Father, then He could not truthfully have stated that He does not glorify Himself.

Finally, John chapter eight lays to rest any notion that the Son had a beginning and will come to an end, as claimed by the modern day modalists. Jesus, speaking of Himself says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." Here Jesus is claiming to be the great "I AM", Jehovah (YWYH) recorded in the Old Testament. The Jews listening to Jesus understood this and so they attempted to stone Him for blasphemy. Jesus unquestionably established His deity as He also proved with out a doubt that He is not the Father who sent Him. The only sound explanation for the claim of Christ is the Scriptural one that He is not the Father and the Father is not Him. Yet, both Jesus the Son of God, and the Father are God. What this means is that the Son, who said He was the great I AM, is eternal. His "Sonship" doesn't cease as the modern day modalists claim. Christ Jesus is the eternal Word, the Creator of all things who was with the Father in the beginning, and will reign in power and authority into eternity (see Matthew 28:18).

The "Jesus" of the modern day modalists is not the Jesus of the Holy Scriptures. The modern day modalists reject the clear teaching of Scripture that Jesus is God the Son, who is eternal. Because they do not have the Son, they do not have the Father (1 John 2:22-25). Jesus is truly God the Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity.

This ends our examination of the modern day modalists' Christology. In the next installment of this series we will take a look at the "plan of salvation" promoted by the modern day modalists of the UPCI.

Addendum: The Sacrifice of a Perfect Man for Our Salvation

In parts one through three of this series, we learned of the modern day modalists' rejection of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and found that their "Jesus" is not Christ of the Holy Scriptures. Instead, they confess that the Son of God is not eternal, because he is the "flesh" or man and that the divine nature in him is that of his "Father" who is "God". Furthermore, the "Father" never forsook the Son of God on the cross, but remained until the man Jesus died, then the Father left his body. The upshot of this view is that God the Son incarnate did not die on the cross for the sins of the world, instead a perfect man—the Son of God—died. The reasoning for such a view is that the modern day modalist wants to avoid the heresy called "Patripassianism", which teaches that God the Father died on the cross and for good reason, the Christian Church has always rejected such a view.

However, the modern day modalist is left with an equally false teaching as is Patripassianism and namely, merely a man suffered and died on the cross. Albeit, he was a perfect man, but still just a man. The divine and human natures are apart from each other to such an extent that divine nature in Christ does not suffer with the man on the cross. The death of even a perfect man is insufficient for accomplishing our salvation.

The Scriptural teaching is represented by the Lutheran Confessions.

"the Christian Church always and at all times has simply believed and held that the divine and the human nature in the person of Christ are so united that they have a true communion with one another, whereby the natures [do not meet and] are not mingled in one essence, but, as Dr. Luther writes, in one person.... On account of this personal union, which cannot be thought of nor exist without such a true communion of the natures, not the mere human nature, whose property it is to suffer and die, has suffered for the sins of the world, but the Son of God Himself truly suffered, however, according to the assumed human nature, and (in accordance with our simple Christian faith) [as our Apostles' Creed testifies] truly died, although the divine nature can neither suffer nor die." —FC SD, VIII 20, 23

Because of the union of natures in Christ, it is unthinkable that the whole Christ didn't suffer and die on the cross for our sins. We can't understand through human reason how the Son of God did in fact suffer and die through His human nature, but the Scriptures are clear that it was Christ Jesus who died for our sins on the cross and that Christ, the Son of God, is God. Trying to explain this mystery any further than what the Scriptures teach us leads to errors, such as we see in the Christology of the modern day modalists.