DOES HEBREWS 13:8 REFUTE ONENESS?

DOES HEBREWS 13:8 REFUTE ONENESS?

MF Blume


Trinitarians stress the scripture of He. 13:8 to attempt to prove that Sonship was eternal.

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Oneness doctrine teaches that Sonship had a beginning, although the God who became Son is eternal. Trinitarians infer that Hebrews 13:8 disproves this teaching. Let me, however, point out that an attempt to prove Oneness is wrong by using He. 13:8 only endangers Trinitarianism. Notice:

We believe Sonship was a manifestation which God took upon Himself through which He would redeem mankind. Trinitarianism states that Sonship is not simply a manifestation but is in fact an eternal Person. Now, Triniatarians state that He. 13:8 disproves the idea that a role can have a beginning as Oneness teaches the manifestation of Sonship had a beginning. The issue they propose is that Sonship as a role, that had a beginning, is supposedly denied possibility by He. 13:8. Yet the idea of Christ becoming mediator between God and man is a role which had a beginning, as all trinitarians would agree.

Now, keep in mind that Oneness looks upon Sonship only as a manifestation. A "mode" as some call it.

Does Christ's assuming the position of MEDIATOR at a specific time, after the blood was shed, prove that Jesus Christ is not the same yesterday, today and forever? Of course not. Then why say that Jesus' manifestation commencing as Son contradicts He. 13:8?

The lack of consistency is clear in the argument when realising that manifestations which had beginnings do not change the fact that the DIVINE NATURE of Jesus Christ is unchanging. The dual aspect of Christ's nature shows the human nature indwelt by the divine nature as being what we call the Son of God. Since God did not indwell humanity previous to this point how can we say that Sonship is eternal?

Remember that Christ had two natures - Deity and humanity. When referring to the unchangeableness of Christ we must realise the Bible is speaking about the DEITY element which cannot change.

When you maintain the idea that Christ had a dual nature, you can see no problem with Hebrews 13:8 or any other scripture.

Turn the tables around, also, and think of the humanity that trinitarians agree had a beginning in Christ's existence. Trinitarians, ask yourself, using your reasoning: "Does the fact that God incarnated as a man, which was never accomplished by Him before, deny the truth of Hebrews 13:8?" Of course not. You would not believe that. Then it stands to reason that when Oneness teaching maintains that the viewpoint of He. 13:8 should be taken from an understanding that it was Sonship that began, and that Sonship WAS the humanity, there is no contradiction with He. 13:8 either. Trinitarians simply look at Bethlehem's event from the beginning of the humanity of Christ. Oneness teaches that the Deity and the humanity, together in a fleshly tabernacle of the MAN Jesus Christ, IS THE SONSHIP. If this union of dual natures began on a certain date, then Sonship began. (Don't miss this one. Trinitarians agree that the Humanity of the Son had a beginning. Or was Christ an eternal human?) Since He. 13:8 supposedly doesn't contradict the Trinitarian thought of humanity BEGINNING, then why should it contradict the Oneness teaching that Sonship had a beginning, since Sonship, as we teach it, was simply a manifestation?

On the other hand, I propose that Trinitarianism indeed DOES refute He. 13:8. Why? It is due to the Trinitarian thought that the Son was "coequal" with the Father BUT LAID DOWN HIS COEQUALITY to be incarnate as a man. To me, that is indeed changeableness. His nature CHANGED. Trinitarianism states that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost were coeternal and co-equal. To lay down coequality is to be far more changing in nature than to say that a role of humanity began for the purpose of redemption.

Which denotes more of a change? - Nature changing, or simply playing another office or manifestation in order to manifest the same deity?

Oneness, however, teaches that a manifestation of Sonship BEGAN, but the nature of God, as possessing all the faculties of mercy, counsel, might, etc., did not change nor was altered.

To say that Oneness teaching contradicts He. 13:8 is to say that a merciful God changes whenever He sees the need to manifest mercy to one formerly not provided mercy by Him. What I am trying to say is that simply changing "suits" to perform a particular task does not change God's nature or character. We believe God, Himself, not another Person, simply took upon Himself the robe of flesh. That flesh included a selfaware will and soul. But that did not annihilate the ever unchanging deity of God in the process. Therefore He is the same.


HOME ONENESS