Defining the Oneness of God

March 1994

The oneness of God is undeniably revealed in the Scriptures.  Both Old Testament and New Testament contain numerous references to God’s oneness.  But while all professing Christians believe in the oneness of God, they are irreconcilably divided over the actual meaning of His oneness.

Millions of fundamental evangelical Christians have adopted the view that God’s oneness means that God is literally “one” in number, not realizing that this teaching stems from ancient philosophy rather than from Scripture.  As one author who espouses this belief states,  “In reference to God, oneness means the state of being absolutely and indivisibly one, or one in numerical value....Oneness (capitalized) [is used] to mean the doctrine that God is absolutely one in numerical value, that Jesus is the one God, and that God is not a plurality of persons.  Thus Oneness is a modern term basically equivalent to modalism [of the ancient philosophers] or modalistic monarchianism” (Bernard, The Oneness of God,  pp. 321-322).   

Modalistic Oneness

Ancient philosophers called Modalists taught that God is a single divine Being Who manifests Himself in different modes or ways.  Based on this philosophic concept, whole denominations of Christians firmly believe that God has always been only one divine Being.  In Old Testament times He was known as Jehovah, and since the New Testament, they say, He is both the Father and the Son—a single Being.   Leaders of these denominations claim that this belief is Scriptural:  “What is the essence of the doctrine of God as taught by the Bible—the doctrine we have labelled Oneness:  First, there is one indivisible God with no distinction of persons.  Second, Jesus Christ is the fulness of the Godhead incarnate.  He is God the Father—the Jehovah of the Old Testament—robed in the flesh.  All of God is in Jesus Christ, and we find all we need in Him.  The only God we will ever see in heaven is Jesus Christ” (Ibid., p. 304). 

The God of the Old Testament, according to this definition, was a “one in one” God, and the New Testament God appears to be a “two in one” God.  The author of the above definition of oneness readily admits that this doctrine, embraced by tens of millions of fundamental evangelical Christians, has its origin in ancient Modalism.  He also shows that this Modalist belief is actually similar to the Trinitarian belief in a “three in one” God. Notice his summary statement in the glossary: 

“Modalism.  Term used to describe a belief in early church history that Father, Son, and Spirit are not eternal distinctions within God’s nature but simply modes (methods or manifestations) of God’s activity.  In other words, God is one individual being, and various terms used to describe Him (such as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are designations applied to different forms of His action or different relationships He has to man....Also called modalistic monarchianism, Patripassianism [the teaching that the Father suffered on the tree], and Sabellianism [the philosophy of Modalism as taught by the philosopher Sabellius ca. 100 A.D.].  Basically, modalism is the same as the modern doctrine of Oneness....Modalistic monarchianism held that God is one individual being and that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are terms which apply to different modes of action of the one God.  Unlike dynamic monarchianism, modalistic monarchianism identified Jesus Christ as God Himself (the Father) manifested in flesh” (Ibid., pp. 318-319). 

Modalism holds that while only one divine Being exists, that single divine Being can manifest Himself in three different modes at once—as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Although Modalism supports a “three in one” God, the author who espouses the Modalist definition of oneness asserts that “Oneness believers ... reject trinitarianism as a departure from biblical monotheism” (Ibid., p. 319).

Trinitarian Oneness

The majority of Christians around the world hold the Trinitarian view of God’s oneness.  In the Western world, most of these Christians follow the form of Trinitarianism that is based on the Athanasian Creed. To these Christians, the term “oneness” means that three distinct deities coexist in a single divine Nature or Substance.  These three distinctions are called “Persons,” but are not actually persons in the true sense of the word.  Here is a statement of the Trinitarian belief:  “There are then (as the statement may run) three Persons (Hypostases) or real distinctions in the unity of the divine Nature or Substance....As a ‘person’ in Trinitarian usage is more than a mere aspect of being, being a real ground of experience and function, each divine Person, while less than a separate individuality, possesses His own hypostatic character or characteristic property”  (W. Fulton,  Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, “Trinity,” pp. 459-460).

The doctrine of Trinitarianism states that there are three distinctions, called “Persons” or “Hypostases,” in one divine Substance, but only one distinction or “Person” can be manifested at any given time.   This definition of God contradicts that of the Modalist, who claims that the single divine Substance can manifest itself in all three modes (or “Persons”) at the same time.

Trinitarianism views God as a sort of hide-and-seek, peek-a-boo God who has neither body nor personality, but who can manifest Himself as Father or Son or Holy Spirit—only one at a time.  Unlike the Trinitarian belief, the God of Modalism can manifest Himself as Father, Son or Holy Spirit all at the same time. 

According to the Trinitarian statement of belief, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all divine “Persons,” but each is “less than a separate individuality.”  In other words, these “Persons” are not actually individuals.  This statement is confusing and contradictory because it is expressing philosophical concepts that were deliberately intended to be interpreted in different ways. These philosophic constructs have always been ambiguous statements of belief.  A word or phrase used in these statements may be given a variety of philosophic definitions.  The result is that more than one meaning can be drawn from the same statement. 

When we read such statements, we should be aware that the problem in understanding them is not due to our own lack of intellect but to the ambiguous construction of the statements themselves.  This type of grammatical structure is known as “amphiboly.”  Statements which are worded in an amphibolous manner allow room for a variety of interpretations.  Amphiboly has long been a favorite tool of philosophers and politicians.  “Amphibolously worded predictions [and philosophic constructs] have long been exploited by astrologers [ancient Magi/Chaldean philosophers], tea-leaf readers, political columnists, and even ancient oracles [demonically inspired mediums]” (Rescher, Introduction to Logic, p. 75).   

To add to the confusion, the names used in philosophical statements are often vacuous; i.e., the names as they are used actually designate nothing!  Names are properly used to designate a thing or entity or to describe an aspect of a thing or entity—a quality that the entity has or a relationship it bears to something else.  Names that do not represent such actual things or entities are vacuous—empty and meaningless.  Here is a warning against being misled by such names:  “A name that literally designates nothing [the “One” or the “Hypostases” of philosophy] is called a vacuous name.  Because of vacuous names, care must be taken when some name is presented to avoid the conclusion that there necessarily exists a thing which answers to this name.    A subtle but important line of separation must be drawn between names with fictitious or imaginary designations [such as characters in plays, novels or movies] and vacuous names.  This distinction is sometimes obscured by the fact that one and the same name may fall into either category, depending upon how it is understood”  (Ibid., p. 23). 

The names “One,” Hypostases, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, God, Person and Being can be categorized either as authentic names or as vacuous names, depending on how they are used.  These terms are vacuous as used in philosophic statements about the Trinity.   These names are not vacuous when we understand them in the light of God’s Word.  To define these terms solely in the artificial framework of philosophic constructs and then attempt to superimpose this philosophy upon Scripture makes these names vacuous and meaningless.  

Those who profess allegiance to the God of the Bible and then proceed to distort God’s Word, elevating the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle above His Word, are not Christian but pagan.  The paganism of ancient and modern philosophers is not compatible with the Holy Scriptures.  As the pagan philosopher Mortimer J. Adler so forcefully and honestly wrote in How to Think About God:  A Guide for the 20^th-Century Pagan: “The God that is the object of pagan philosophical thought is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, or of Moses, [or] Jesus ...” (p. 28).

Tritheistic Oneness

One school of thought among Trinitarians insists that God’s oneness is manifested in three individual Beings, each possessing a separate personality, body and intellect.  Modalists and Trinitarians are quick to brand Tritheism as a form of ancient pagan polytheism, the belief in a plurality of gods.  Polytheism taught that the gods bore human shapes, animal shapes, or half human/half animal shapes, and human or animal characteristics; i.e., personality, self-awareness, form, intellect, emotions.  Other human characteristics attributed to these false gods were procreation, family structure, industry and warfare. The process of attributing human characteristics to deities is called anthropomorphism. 

While it is true that many ancient pagan religions were guilty of anthropomorphism, it does not negate the fact that the true God shares many of the same characteristics which He bestowed upon humankind!  God Himself declares that He has made us in His image (Gen. 1:26-27).  It is utter folly to assert that Christians are anthropomorphizing God by accepting and believing what God reveals about Himself in His Word.    

Belief in a personal God Who possesses emotion and intellect, and a spiritual body with eyes and ears, arms and legs and hands and feet, should not be discredited and dismissed under the label of anthropomorphism.  The determining factor in evaluating any belief should not be how it is categorized, but whether or not the teaching agrees with the revealed Word of God. 

Even pagan philosophers, with all their misguided speculations on the nature of God, admit that the Word of God clearly reveals Him as a fully personal Being.  Notice this admission in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy: “In the preceding sections [article “God, Concepts of”] it has been assumed that God has personality.  The assumption is justified by the fact that... philosophers (in the West, at any rate) have nearly always described His nature to some extent by analogy with the human self....While Aristotle’s first mover contemplates Himself, He does not have any knowledge of the world.  Therefore, like Spinoza’s God, He cannot return the love that He receives....Some thinkers have attempted to mediate between philosophy and religion by suggesting that concrete images of God are inadequate attempts to grasp a reality that is suprapersonal.  Thus Hegel [the philosophic father of Nazi Germany] held that absolute spirit can be adequately known only by speculative intellect [philosophy].  Consequently, when he speaks of the absolute as God he means by God (as Aristotle meant) self-thinking thought.  The personal God or Theism is a prerational [pre-philosophical] and imperfect representation (Vorstellung) of the absolute....Christians, however, are obliged by revelation [the Word of God] to identify the absolute with a God who is fully personal, both in Himself and in His dealings with mankind.  Such primary images as Father, King, and Friend mediate a knowledge that cannot be surpassed by abstract speculation [philosophy]”(p. 347).

Ditheistic Oneness (Binitarian or Bi-personal) 

Another little known concept of God’s oneness is Ditheism (also called Bi-personal or Binitarianism), the belief that there are two personal, intelligent, equally powerful Beings Who are both God.  These two Beings possess personality and spiritual senses, experience emotions, and have spiritual bodies with arms and legs, and heads with eyes, ears, noses and mouths.    

These divine Beings are Persons in the true sense of the word.  They communicate with mankind through spiritual thought (prayer) and through Their written Word.  They are revealed in the Old Testament both as Jehovah and Elohim, and individually as the Ancient of days and the Son of man (Dan. 7:13-14, 22).  They are revealed in the New Testament as God the Father and God the Son.  There is no other God besides these two Beings.  In this sense they are the only God. 

Although few people today have ever heard the terms Ditheism or Binitarianism, the belief in two divine Beings was widely held among Christians in early New Testament times.  As one authority states,”...the whole history of early Christianity gives us abundant examples of binitarian thought” (Essays on the Trinity and the Incarnation, edited by A. E. J. Rawlinson, p. 201). 

Contrary to modern opinion, the doctrine of Trinitarianism did not naturally develop from the teachings of the early New Testament Church.  In fact, a study of early Christian beliefs shows that “contemporary [New Testament] thought—if it had been allowed to mould or influence the [modern] Christian conception of God in any way—would have produced a doctrine not of three, but of two persons in the Godhead.  Further, there is ample evidence to show that it did actually have such an effect; and that Trinitarianism had to fight its way and make good its footing against a strong tendency, both within and without the Church, towards belief in a Godhead of two persons only” (Ibid., p.162).

Even early Jewish belief did not totally reject the concept of a Bi-personal or Binitarian God.  Here is a striking admission:  “If, then, we find that, without abandoning his dominant monotheism, the pious Jew was prepared to admit a divine Being distinguishable in name and function from Jahweh, and to some degree self-existent, of whom personal relationship with man is predicable, we must conclude that even this strict school of monotheism recognised at least the possibility of a bi-personal God”  (Ibid., p. 184).

As the doctrine of Trinitarianism began to develop, the early Binitarian Christians were caught in a controversy over the two opposing beliefs.  It was “a struggle between a binitarian and trinitarian interpretation of the Christian facts—a struggle which maintained itself for nearly four centuries [spanning one fifth of the entire history of Christianity]” (Ibid., p. 199). 

A major element of the controversy was the relationship of Christ and the Holy Spirit.  Was the Spirit a distinct person, or did the Spirit come from Christ as His power?  Rawlinson, an Anglican bishop and scholar, finds abundant evidence in the New Testament to illustrate a strong Christian belief in the Spirit as the power of Christ and the Father.  He states, “...in the New Testament, there can be no doubt that the other strain of thought in which the Spirit is regarded in the main as an ‘influence,’ ‘gift,’ or ‘power’ sent by the Father and the Son, and not as a distinct person, is fully represented.  M. Lebreton  [Les Origines du Dogme de la Trinite, pp. 347-348] repeatedly admits that large numbers of texts represent the Spirit as an impersonal force, both in Acts and in St. Paul” (Ibid., p. 203). 

Rawlinson makes it clear that the apostle Paul did not regard the Holy Spirit as a distinct person, but as the power of Christ.  He writes, “When, therefore, we are told, as we commonly are, that St. Paul ‘identifies’ the Risen Christ with the Spirit [II Cor. 3], we must assume the critics to mean that his theology in the main belongs to the second (or ‘Macedonian’) type previously mentioned.  A second divine being, who may be called indifferently the ‘Son,’ ‘Image,’ or ‘Wisdom’ of the Father...has been incarnate among men, and now from his risen sphere extends his fellowship to men and sheds out his influence [through the Holy Spirit as just attested] upon those who accept it” (Ibid., pp. 204-205).

Rawlinson further attests to the contrast between Trinitarianism and the Binitarian theology of the apostle Paul:  “The result of his [the apostle Paul’s] innovation, however, is to reinforce the conclusion that we cannot eliminate from his thought a very large admixture of purely binitarian elements, in which the Spirit—if distinguished from Christ at all—is distinguished as the thing from the person, the gift from its giver, the influence from its fount, and not as one hypostasis in the Godhead from another” (Ibid., p. 207).

The writings of the apostle Paul clearly reveal a Binitarian view of the Holy Spirit.  The predominance of Binitarian thought in early Christianity is evident not only in Paul’s epistles but also in other New Testament epistles, as Rawlinson shows in the following summary: “Of the seventeen Epistles which open with the invocation of ‘grace and peace’ or the like upon the readers, in thirteen these gifts are specifically mentioned as coming from ‘God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ’; in two there is explicit mention of the first two Persons of the Trinity in the same context, though not definitely as the source of grace; in one (Colossians) the reading varies between ‘from God’ and ‘from God and Christ’; in one only (I Peter) is there any mention of the Spirit at all, and then not as a source of grace.  Of the formulae of thanksgiving or blessing which in eleven cases follow the opening salutation, three are addressed to the Father alone, one to the Father and the Son, six to the Father with an immediate and closely related mention of the Son (e.g. ‘the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ’); one is quite vague; but in not a single case is there any mention of the Spirit at all.  The facts are startling in their importance.  Here are formulae as fixed and solemn, in their way, as the baptismal formula itself; twenty-two of them are definitely binitarian, only one [in I Peter] is [remotely] trinitarian” (Ibid., pp. 203-204).

The New Testament bears ample evidence of the Binitarian beliefs of the apostles of Jesus Christ.  Yet in the centuries that followed, the doctrine of Trinitarianism came to dominate Christian thought.  If the apostles of Christ did not profess the Trinity, upon what authority was the doctrine of Trinitarianism introduced into the Christian Church?  How can the acceptance of Trinitarianism as a Christian doctrine be explained?  Rawlinson gives the answer when he states that “...if the faith [in the Trinity] be logically and empirically unverifiable [not supported by the New Testament], even the fact that the earliest [Roman] Christians held it cannot vindicate it, unless our appeal be to bare authority [of the Roman church] and that alone”  (Ibid., p. 210).

It is a historical fact that the doctrine of the Trinity entered the New Testament church through the influence of Rome.  As the influence of the Roman church grew, belief in the Trinity spread throughout the Christian churches.  In time, the doctrine of Trinitarianism replaced the earlier Christian belief in a Bi-personal God. 

Although Trinitarianism had the greatest influence on Christian belief in the early centuries, the doctrine of Modalism also had its effect.  Introduced by the philosopher Sabellius about 100 A.D., the teaching that Jesus and the Father were one and the same God soon had followers in many churches.  While some Christians embraced this Modalist teaching, other Christians denounced it as heresy.  A record from 170 A.D. shows the Ephesus brethren resisting the doctrine of Modalism and holding to their belief in a Bi-personal divinity.  Here is that historical account:  “Noetus [a Smyrnan brother who as a devout Modalist founded the Patripassian heresy], when cited before a council in Asia Minor [the elders at Ephesus], sought to conceal his Patripassian learning by emphasizing his monotheism, and pathetically exclaimed: ‘What wrong have I done?  I adore the One God, I know but One God, and none beside Him, who was born, suffered, and died! [Ephiphanius, Haeres., 57, 1].  The assembled bishops (called presbyteri, [Polycrates among them]) did not reply that they were Ditheists.  They simply declared:  ‘We, too, adore the One God, but in a manner in which we know that He is adored rightly.  And we likewise possess the One Christ,...the Son of God, who suffered and died” (Preuss, The Divine Trinity:  A Dogmatic Treatise, p. 119).     

The elders of Ephesus in New Testament times affirmed their belief in two Beings who are God—God the Father, and God the Son.  Does this statement of belief fit the Scriptural definition of the oneness of God?

We should not base our answer to this question on the teachings of philosophers and theologians.  God Himself reveals the true answer in His Word.  Let us examine the Scriptures to find the true meaning of God’s oneness.

The Scriptural Meaning of “One”

Any definition of the oneness of God is valid only if it conveys truthful meaning about the God of Scripture.  Truthful meaning will obviously be supported by contextual use of the word “one” in Scripture.  A systematic study of the use of this word in Scripture will reveal the true meaning of God’s oneness.  The Holy Scriptures reveal God as He really is and not as He is conceived to be in the vain imaginations and reasonings of pagan philosophers and modern theologians.   We must be careful not to interpret God’s Word in the artificial framework of ancient philosophy or our modern language and culture. 

The Scriptures clearly reveal the meaning that God attaches to the word “one.”  This word is used too numerously to check every usage in the Old Testament and the New Testament.   However, we can find prime examples in Scripture to illustrate that the word “one” is used both quantitatively (as a cardinal or ordinal number) and qualitatively (as a characteristic or attribute, or to show unity).   We will first investigate the quantitative usage of the word “one” and then investigate its qualitative usage in Scripture.

“One” Used as a Cardinal Number 

“One” is most often used in Scripture as a cardinal number.  Cardinal numbers tell us how many units there are in a group.  A good example of this usage is found in Deuteronomy 1:23: “...and I took twelve men of you, one [Hebrew echad] of a tribe.”   The obvious meaning of “one,” as defined by the context, is that one person (the unit) was to be chosen from each of the twelve tribes (the group).  Other examples in Deuteronomy are:  “... that fleeing unto one [the unit] of these cities [the group]” (Deut. 4:42); “...the Lord shall choose in one [the unit] of thy tribes [the group]” (Deut. 12:14).  

We find other examples of the usage of “one” as a cardinal number in Isaiah: “seven women [the group] shall take hold of one man [the unit]” (Isa. 4:1);  “...ten acres [the group] shall yield one bath [the unit of measure]” (Isa. 5:10).

“One” Used as an Ordinal Number 

“One” is also used in Scripture as an ordinal number.  An ordinal number denotes order, succession or degree.  Ordinal numbers are expressed as “first, second, third,” as opposed to “one, two, three.”  We find many examples in the Old Testament of this usage of “one.”  In the first chapter of Genesis we read, “And God said, ‘Let there be light’ and there was light.  And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.  And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night.  And the evening and the morning were the first [Hebrew echad] day” (verses 3-5). 

The word “first” is the same Hebrew word that is elsewhere translated “one.”  In this verse it is translated “first” and is used as an adjective to qualify the noun “day.”  The meaning of “day” in Genesis 1:5 is limited or qualified by the adjective “first”; it is the first day of seven days.  “First” is an ordinal number which positions this day in relationship to six others; it is the first day or day one in a series of seven.  It is thus the first of a unit of seven days.

Another Old Testament example of the word “one” as an ordinal number is found in Isaiah 41:4: “Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning?  I the Lord [Jehovah], the first, and with the last; I am He.”  A similar example of “one” as an ordinal number is found in Isaiah 48:12: “Hearken unto Me, O Jacob and Israel, My called; I am He; I am the first, I also am the last.”  And again in Isaiah 44:6: “Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his Redeemer the Lord of hosts; ‘I am the first, and I am the last; and beside Me there is no God.’ “ When God states, “...beside Me there is no God,” He is revealing that He is the only God!  Here God Himself defines what He means by the statement, “I am the first, and I am the last.”    

The above statement is also found in the New Testament in reference to the glorified Jesus Christ:  “And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead.  And He laid His right hand upon me, saying unto me, ‘Fear not; I am the First and the Last’ “ (Rev. 1:17). 

Another example of the ordinal use of “one” in the New Testament is found in Matthew 28:1:  “In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.” 

The Greek word translated “first” in Matthew 28:1 is the feminine mia.  The word “day” in this verse is not found in the Greek text.  A more accurate translation is “the first of the weeks.”   This day that was dawning was the day of the Wave Sheaf, the day from which seven sabbaths or weeks were numbered to Pentecost;  it was the beginning of the first week of seven weeks.

“First” is an ordinal number which positions this week in relationship to six others; it is the first week or week one in a series of seven.    “In the end of [Greek opse ge, meaning “after the close of”]the sabbath [Greek sabbaton, sabbaths(plural)], as it began to dawn toward the first of the week [Greek mia sabbaton, the first of sabbaths or weeks], came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre” (Mat. 28:1).

The account in the Gospel of Mark also uses “one” as an ordinal number.  Mark confirms that this day was the “first of the weeks.”  In Mark 16:2 we read,  “And very early [Greek proi] in the morning the first day [”day” is not in the Greek text] of the week [Greek sabbaton, sabbaths or weeks] they come to the tomb, having risen the sun [Greek anateilantos ton helios]” (Berry, The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament). 

Luke’s account also confirms that this was the “first of the weeks,” which began the seven weeks leading to Pentecost.  “Now [But] upon the first day [the word “day” is not in the Greek text] of the week [Greek sabbaton, sabbaths or weeks; the expression “first of the weeks” designates the Day of the Wave Sheaf], very early in the morning [Greek orthros bathus, at deep or early dawn], they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared” (Luke 24:1).

John records of these events, “The first [Greek mia] day [not in the Greek text] of the week [Greek sabbaton, weeks or sabbaths] comes Mary Magdalene early [Greek proi] when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and sees the stone taken away from the sepulchre” (John 20:1).

John records that as Mary Magdalene approached the tomb of Jesus it was yet dark, but the darkness was beginning to be tempered by the first glint of light at daybreak (Greek proi).  Bullinger equates Greek proi with 3 to 4 A.M., a period of time well before sunrise!  John’s testimony affirms that by the first light, the stone had already been rolled back by the angel.  Jesus had been resurrected before sunrise.  

All four Gospel writers agree in their use of “one” as an ordinal number to pinpoint the Day of the Wave Sheaf as the day immediately following the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 

We have studied Scriptural examples of the use of “one” as both a cardinal number and an ordinal number.  Now that we have examined the quantitative use of “one” in Scripture, let us take a close look at Scriptural examples of the qualitative use of “one.”   In qualitative usage, “one” may be used either to show unity or to designate attributes or characteristics.  Let us first examine the Scriptural use of “one” as an expression of unity.