Table comparison of the Father and Jesus, the Son

Two persons

The Father sent the Son – yet in oneness, they are the same person. The Son sent the disciples – yet in oneness, they are different persons. In the latter case, they are correct that Jesus is a separate person from the disciples. After all, one person (Jesus) sending another person (the disciples) shows the distinction between the persons. But in oneness, the logic is abandoned when the person of the Father sends the person of the Son. After all, they say that the same person. But the Father speaks to the son (Matt. 3:17; John 12:27–28), which designates a plurality of persons. Jesus has a different will than the Father (Luke 22:42), which designates the plurality persons. The evidence shows that they are different persons, no matter what oneness adherents say.

If the oneness adherent says that it was the human nature that did not know, then they are saying that Jesus is really two persons because they are dividing up the natures. But that would mean that the single person of Jesus did not possess both attributes of humanity and divinity. That is the heresy of Nestorianism.

Is it Jesus praying to the Father? Yes. The text says so.

If Jesus is the Father, then He is praying to Himself. Nothing in scripture states that God prays to Himself. (See the Table examining the phrases pray to, prayed to, and prays to) Who is the “Me” in Luke 22:42? It is Jesus. Is it the whole person of Jesus?

YES. If yes, then the person of Jesus is speaking about someone else besides Himself: The Father. This means there are two persons. If the oneness says it is just an expression, the way someone speaks to himself, then show that it is the case from scripture – which never occurs (See the Table examining the phrases pray to, prayed to, and prays to). Oneness should not impose a non-biblical assertion into the text.

NO: Then it must be that the human nature that is praying to the divine nature. But that means two persons: one human and one divine. This is because one person prays to another.If the person of Jesus is also the same person of the Father, then why do they have different wills? Remember, Jesus has two distinct natures: divine and human. Therefore, the one person of Christ has the attributes of both divine and human natures (communicatio idiomatum) – as one person! If Jesus the person has a different well than someone else (the Father), then they are different persons.

If the oneness says that it was the human nature speaking to the divine nature, then this implies that the human person was talking to the divine person. After all, to have a will and to speak are attributes of personhood. Therefore, oneness would be implying that when the Son speaks to the Father and designates different wills. This means they are different persons and is the heresy of Nestorianism.

YES.  If yes, then the person of Jesus is speaking about someone else besides Himself: The Father.  This means there are two persons.

If the oneness says it is just an expression, the way someone speaks to himself, then show that it is the case from scripture. Don’t impose a non-biblical assertion into the text.

NO: Then it must be that the human nature that is praying to the divine nature. But that means two persons:  one human and one divine.  This is because one person prays to another. Nothing in scripture states that God prays to Himself.

Jesus, the person, prays to the Father who responds and uses the word “I” in regard to Himself as an answer to Jesus’ prayer.

Question: Is the “I” in “I have both glorified it” the person of Jesus or is it the person of the Father? (Remember, the attributes of personhood)

Jesus: If it is Jesus who answered himself when Jesus prayed to the Father, then this implies one person. But according to the attributes of personhood, one person is speaking to another person. So, one person doesn’t work. Furthermore, it would mean that the human nature is praying to the divine nature (as oneness routinely state). But that means two persons since on nature is performing the action of praying to another. This is because one person prays to another.  (See the article on “PRAYING TO”)

Father: If it is the Father who answered, and this implies two persons because the person of the Father, is responding to the person of Jesus.

So, the person of the Son was praying to the Father who answered as would a person. There is the distinction of two simultaneous persons and oneness is refuted.

If it is the case that the human nature of Jesus is departing to be with the Father, then it is the human nature that is separate from the divine nature that is departing to be with the Father (Himself). But that would mean that the human nature is in heaven with the Father. The human nature must have attributes of personhood – or it isn’t human. So, that would mean there is the person of the human nature in heaven with the divine nature, the Father. This would mean there are two persons in heaven, a divine person and a human person.

If the oneness person states that the human nature was speaking here and not the divine nature, then the human nature is speaking as a person. But why then would the human nature raise itself to an equal level of belief with that of God?

If Jesus is the Father, why didn’t he say no one comes to me but through me? Why not say that He is the only way to Himself?If it is the human nature that is speaking about the divine nature of the Father, then that would mean the human nature of Jesus is the way to God the Father. But, this is equivalent to stating that a mere man, with one nature, is the way to God. This would negate the hypostatic union which teaches that Jesus is a single person has two distinct natures.If it is the whole person of Jesus speaking, then the person of Jesus would be speaking about someone else, the Father. But that implies two persons.

Question: But if Jesus is the Father and Jesus says that no one’s ever seen the Father (John 6:46), then how is it true that to see Jesus is to see the Father? If the oneness person says the divine nature is hidden in the body of Christ, so that it cannot be seen, then it would not be the case that to see Jesus is to see the Father. It would have to be that to see Jesus is to see the representation of the Father. Jesus is the “exact  representation of His [the Father] nature.” Therefore, Jesus can say that to see him is to see the Father. But, would imply two person: Jesus and the Father. Again, Heb. 1:3 says that Jesus is the “exact representation [χαρακτήρ, charaktḗr ] of His nature.” This means that Jesus is not the Father. Instead, he is a representation of the Father. This distinction here implies two persons. Lexicon:

“χαρακτήρ, ῆρος m: a representation as an exact reproduction of a particular form or structure—‘exact representation.’ ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ ‘who is the reflection of his glory and the exact representation of his being’ He 1:3.” (Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene Albert Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. New York: United Bible Societies, 1996, underline added)

Question: If Jesus is the same person as the Father, then how can Jesus and the Father be in each other? After all, Jesus speaks as though they are distinct. If the oneness person says that Jesus is speaking as a single person with two distinct natures (hypostatic union), then Jesus, the person, is speaking about someone else, the Father ( who is in heaven, Matt. 6:9). This implies two distinct persons.

Since Jesus says, “I am in the Father,” that cannot be that human nature speaking since the human nature is not in the Father. Therefore, according to Oneness, it could be the divine nature speaking. That would mean then that the divine nature, which is the Father, is saying that he is in the Father. But this makes no sense.

Question: How could one divine nature that is Jesus’s divine nature, speak about being in the Father who is really himself?

Questions: 1) If Jesus and the Father are the same person, why does Jesus say “we”?  2) If God is one person, then why does Jesus speak in the plural about himself and the Father?

Questions: 1) If Jesus is the person with two natures, how do Oneness people understand that Jesus existed with the Father before creation? 2) Did Jesus exist with himself?

If, however, the oneness person says that it was the human nature that was speaking about the divine nature, then it would mean that the physical, human nature of Jesus ascended into heaven. This is consistent with Acts 1:9-11, where Jesus physically ascended into heaven and is prophesied to return in the same way. But this means that Jesus must still be a person in heaven, a person with two natures: divine and human. If Jesus is not the person with two natures, then he is no longer Jesus. Because, by definition, Jesus has two distinct natures, God and man. But, according to oneness, this would mean that God is in heaven with himself. This makes no sense.

Questions: 1) How does the oneness person explain the incongruity of Jesus, who is supposed to be the Father, ascending into heaven to be with Himself who is the Father?  2) according to acts 1:9-11, Jesus will return in the same way he ascended into heaven, physically. Does the oneness person deny that Jesus retains his personhood in heaven and presently has two distinct natures: divine and human?  3) Does the oneness person affirm that Jesus retained his two natures and is presently in heaven?  If so, then the person of Jesus who is divine is with the person of God the Father. That would mean to simultaneous persons who are God and this
refutes oneness.

Question: If Jesus is the same person as the Father, then how could he be standing at the right hand of himself?

If the oneness person says that it’s the human part of Jesus standing next to himself who is the father, then we must ask if Jesus is still a person. After all, Jesus exhibited the attributes of personhood. But by definition, Jesus has two distinct natures: divine and human.

Question: Is the incarnated divine nature standing next to the non-incarnated divine nature?

The context is dealing with things sacrificed to idols (v.4). Paul then mentions that there are many so-called gods and many lords (v. 5). This sets up v. 6, where Paul says there is only one God the Father from whom are all things and one Lord Jesus by whom are all things. Note that it does not say there is only one God, the Father. But that there is “one God the Father from whom [ἐξ οὗ] are all things” (v. 6). He also says, “one Lord, Jesus Christ, by [διά οὗ] whom are all things.” “From whom are all things” modifies “one God, the Father,” who is the ultimate source of all things.

Paul is saying that all things are from God the Father – who is the first person of the Trinity. Furthermore, He is called Father in relation to Jesus, the Son, the second person of the Trinity. Verse 6 also says that there is “one Lord, Jesus Christ by whom are all things.” This designates the pre-existence of the Son in relation to the Father. If the oneness position is true, then the Father and the Son are NOT distinct before creation. Yet this verse implies that they are distinct since both are referenced as before the creation yet with distinction in prepositions (from, by). The “from whom” and “by whom” show distinction: from one and by another. It is the Father from whom (source) are all things, and the Son by whom (agency) are all things. The pre-incarnate Christ is the intermediate agent in creation, as Col. 1:15-17 demonstrates. This shows the difference in functions, hence, the economic trinity.

Questions: 1) Was God the Father, eternally the Father?  If yes: Then how is He eternally the Father without a son? If no: Then why do the Oneness deny the clear teaching of references to God the Father in relation to the Son (Matt. 3:17; 11:27; John 6:37, etc.)

ἔμπροσθεν, emprosthen = “a position in front of an object, whether animate or inanimate, which is regarded as having a spatial orientation of front and back—‘in front of, before.” (Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene Albert Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. New York: United Bible Societies, 1996.)
Different Bible Translations

• ASV, Darby, WEB, Wycliffe,  – “Jesus Christ, before our God and Father.”
• CEB, LEB, NASB, Young’s Literal – Jesus Christ in the presence of our God and Father.”
• KJV, NKJV, Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father

• John 5:44, “How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the only God?”
• 1 Corinthians 8:6, “yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.”
• Ephesians 4:6, “one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.”
• 1 Timothy 2:5, “For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,”

Question: But if Jesus is the Father and Jesus says that no one has ever seen the Father (John 6:46), then how is it true that to see Jesus is to see the Father? If the oneness person says the divine nature is hidden in the body of Christ so that it cannot be seen, then it would not be the case that to see Jesus is to see the Father. It would have to be that to see Jesus is to see the representation of the Father. Jesus is the “exact representation of His [the Father] nature.” Therefore, Jesus can say that to see him is to see the Father. But, would imply two person: Jesus and the Father.

Again, Heb. 1:3 says that Jesus is the “exact representation [χαρακτήρ, charaktḗr] of His nature.” This means that Jesus is not the Father. Instead, he is a representation of the Father. This distinction here implies two persons.

Representation, χαρακτήρ charaktḗr,
1. “χαρακτήρ, ῆρος m: a representation as an exact reproduction of a particular form or structure—‘exact representation.’ ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ ‘who is the reflection of his glory and the exact representation of his being’ He 1:3.” (Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene Albert Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. New York: United Bible Societies, 1996.)“… in Heb. 1:3 where it is translated “express image,” referring to Jesus Christ. Here He is described as the charaktḗr tḗs hupostáseōs autoú (tḗs [3588], the [gen. fem.]; hupostáseōs [5287], essence [gen.]; autoú [846], he [gen. masc.]), “the exact image of His [God’s] essence” (a.t.). Whatever the divine essence is, Jesus is said to be its perfect expression.” (Zodhiates, Spiros. The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament. Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2000.)“In the N.T. it is used metaphorically in Heb. 1:3, of the Son of God as “the very image (marg., ‘the impress’) of His substance,” R.V. The phrase expresses the fact that the Son “is both personally distinct from, and yet literally equal to, Him of whose essence He is the adequate imprint.” (Vine, W.E., and F.F. Bruce. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. Old Tappan NJ: Revell, 1981.)

Nature
1. The word for “nature” is ὑπόστασις hupóstasis. It occurs five times in the New Testament: 2 Cor. 9:4; 11:17; Hebrews 1:3; 3:14; 11:1.
hupostasis: “In general, that which underlies the apparent, hence, reality, essence, substance; that which is the basis of something, hence, assurance guarantee, confidence.” (Zodhiates, Spiros. The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament. Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2000.)
hupostasis: “lit., a standing under, support (hupo, under, histēmi, to stand), hence, an “assurance,” is so rendered in Heb. 11:1, R.V., for A.V., “substance.” (Vine, W.E., and F.F. Bruce. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. Old Tappan NJ: Revell, 1981.)

The five verses where ὑπόστασις hupóstasis occurs

• 2 Cor. 9:4, “otherwise if any Macedonians come with me and find you unprepared, we—not to speak of you—will be put to shame by this confidence.
• 2 Cor. 11:17, “What I am saying, I am not saying as the Lord would, but as in foolishness, in this confidence of boasting.”
• Heb. 1:3, “And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,”
• Heb. 3:14, “For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end,”
• Hebrews 11:1, “1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”