One of the
best refutations of Modalism, the theology that states that the Father and the
Son (as well as the Holy Spirit) are the same person, can be found in the New
Testament’s use of the Old, including Messianic texts that reveals a
differentiation between the Father and the person of the Messiah. For this
post, I will briefly discuss two texts which reads as follows:
I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me,
Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. (Psa 2:7)
Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre
of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest
wickedness: therefore, God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness
above thy follows. (Psa 45:6-7)
Both these
texts are Messianic texts and were addressed to the king of Israel, a Davidic
King who would serve as a proto-type of the ultimate Davidic King, the
then-future Messiah, Jesus.[1] Clearly, in the Old Testament context of these,
and similar, texts there was clearly a differentiation, not conflation, of the
persons of God and the Davidic King—obviously, two separate person are in view
here. I am sure that all apologists in favour of Modalism (e.g., members of the
United Pentecostal Church and other denominations holding to a form of this
theology) will agree with this. However, when we examine how the New Testament
texts use the above passages, in part, to discuss the relationship between the
Father and the Son, one has to, I argue, posit an unnatural use (abuse, even)
on the part of the NT authors to argue that they held to a Modalist perspective
vis-à-vis the relationship between Father and Son.
Psa 2:7 is
used in Acts 13:33:
God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in
that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm,
Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
Luke here
records the words of Paul affirming that God (the Father) “raised” Jesus; in
Oneness theologies, the Father raised his own person, but this verse
differentiates the persons of the Father and the Son, only to be coupled with
Psa 2:7 which differentiates the persons of God (the Father) and the Davidic
King. The prima facie and even secunda facie reading of this text
disproves Modalism.
This same
text is also used in Heb 1:1-5, which presents a cantata of Old Testament texts
proving, not the identity of persons of the Father and the Son, but the
superiority of Jesus to the angels, and in a context that clearly
differentiates Father and Son in terms of their personality:
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake
in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken
unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, but whom he also
made the ages[2]; Who being in the brightness of his glory, and express image
of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had
by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a
more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said he at any
time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to
him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
In this
important Christological text, there is a clear differentiation between the
Father and the Son—God’s speaking to his people by the prophets in the Old
Testament is mirrored with His speaking to the people by the Son, using the
same preposition (εν). Furthermore, it would be
nonsensical for the author of Hebrews, if he held the view that the
Father and Son were the same person, to refer to Jesus as being “in the express
image” of God or that the Father (v.3) or to speak of God having “appointed”
Jesus heir of all things and by (δια)
the Son, the Father created the “ages” (v.4). The use of the Messianic text,
Psa 2:7, only serves to further prove this point, where God “begets” the
Davidic King, again showing separate persons.
Continuing
in the same chapters in Hebrews, the author quotes Psa 45:6-7 in vv.8-9. Why is
this significant? This text differentiates between two “Gods.” In Heb 1:8 (cf.
Psa 45:6), the Son is referred to as “God” (θεος), but, in the subsequent verse, this “God” is
differentiated from another “God,” namely the Father (“God, thy God”)—this is
not just an artifact of translation, it is part-and-parcel of both the Greek NT
and LXX, as well as the Hebrew. The Greek NT, following the LXX, reads “o θεὸς ὁ
θεός σου,” literally, "the God, the God of you." The Hebrew of Psa 45:7 reads,
"אֱלֹהִ֣ים אֱ֭לֹהֶיךָ," literally, “Elohim, your Elohim.” Why is this so
significant? Not only does this show two separate persons, but also shows Jesus
Christ can be called “God,” and yet is still subordinate to another God, the
Father. This is nonsensical, not just in Modalist, but Trinitarian theologies,
but is utterly consistent with “Mormon” Christology.[3]
As we have
seen, a proponent of a form of Modalism are in the unenviable position of
having to defend a theology that requires one, not just to explain away all
texts that, at a primae facie reading, presents the Father and Son as separate
persons (e.g., Matt 3:13-17; John 17:3, 5; 1 Tim 2:5; 1 Cor 15:22-28), but also
the New Testament author’s use of Old Testament that speak of God addressing a
second, distinct person, the Davidic King, and apply the second person of these
Messianic passages to the person of Jesus Christ.
Notes
for the Above
[1] For a
recent, scholarly book-length study, see Shirley Lucass, The Concept of the
Messiah in the Scriptures of Judaism and Christianity (T&T Clarke,
2013).
[2] The
Greek uses αιων not κοσμος, thus my replacing the KJV
“worlds” with the more proper “ages.”
[3] For a
further discussion on “God” in Latter-day Saint theology and discourse, as well
as biblical evidence for the “plurality of the Gods” doctrine, see Blake T. Ostler, Exploring
Mormon Thought: The Attributes of God (Greg Kofford Books, 2001) and idem., Exploring Mormon Thought: Of God and Gods (Greg Kofford Books,
2008).
