How does understanding Christ as eternal deity in personal distinction, versus understanding the human flesh of Christ as the vessel through which eternal deity is revealed, affect how we see the nature of God?

Theology
1

I’d like to open a discussion that I believe touches the roots of how we read Scripture, how we speak about God, and even how we worship and pray. The question is not merely academic, and it’s not meant as a “gotcha.” It’s about whether our understanding of Christ shapes everything downstream—our doctrine of God, our hermeneutic, and our devotional life. In other words: when we say “Jesus is God,” what exactly do we mean, and what does that meaning do to the rest of our theology?

Some believers understand Christ primarily as the eternally distinct divine Son—eternal deity in personal distinction from the Father—who took on humanity in the incarnation. Others understand the incarnation differently: not as a second divine person entering a body, but as the one eternal God Himself manifesting in genuine human flesh, with the humanity of Christ functioning as the real “vessel,” the true manhood in which God revealed Himself and accomplished redemption. Both sides will quote Scripture, both sides affirm Christ’s deity, and both sides claim faithfulness to the biblical witness. Yet the differences are not small, because each framework reshapes how key passages are interpreted and how the unity of God is understood.

So here is the question I want to put on the table: How does understanding Christ as eternal deity in personal distinction, versus understanding the human flesh of Christ as the vessel through which eternal deity is revealed, affect how we see the nature of God? Does it change what we mean when we say “God is one”? Does it change how we understand Father/Son language? Does it change how we read texts like Isaiah’s repeated insistence that God is alone and beside Him there is no Savior, alongside the New Testament’s direct identification of Jesus as Lord and Savior? If one framework requires us to interpret Isaiah as mainly addressing false gods, while the other takes Isaiah as defining God’s absolute oneness, what does that do to the way we harmonize Old and New Testament revelation?

I’m also interested in how this affects our reading of Scripture as a whole. When we come to passages where Jesus prays to the Father, speaks of being sent, or speaks of glory “with” the Father before the world was, do we automatically read those as proof of eternal interpersonal distinction within God, or do we read them as the reality of incarnation—the true human life of Christ relating to God as Father? When the New Testament calls Jesus “Mighty God” and even “Everlasting Father” in prophetic language, do we take that as identity language or role language? When John says the Word was “with God” and “was God,” do we read “with” as requiring a second divine person, or do we read it as God’s self-expression and self-revelation—distinction without division? These are not small interpretive decisions; they determine the shape of an entire theology.

And beyond interpretation, I want to ask how this affects worship. If Jesus is the one God revealed in flesh, does that change how we address God in prayer, how we sing, how we preach, how we understand the name of God, and how we think about approaching the throne? If Jesus is an eternal divine person distinct from the Father, does that shape worship into a more “relational” model between divine persons? Does either framework risk creating practical confusion—like worship drifting into functional tritheism on one side, or Christ’s real humanity being diminished on the other? How do we keep from drifting into caricatures while still being honest about the implications?

I’m not asking for quick proof-text replies. I’m asking for thoughtful engagement. If you hold the eternal Son view, what do you believe it protects, and what does it explain best in Scripture? If you hold the “God manifested in flesh” framework as the controlling lens, what do you believe it preserves, and what does it harmonize most cleanly across both testaments? Most importantly, how does your view guard the purity of worship and the clarity of the gospel?

I’m genuinely interested in hearing how others reason through this, which Scriptures shape your approach the most, and where you think the other side is either forcing the text or failing to account for the full biblical witness. Let’s keep it respectful and Scripture-centered, because this isn’t about winning points—it’s about whether our understanding of Christ is forming our understanding of God the way the Bible intends.

2

The answer is easy. He is the god of all flesh.

3

That’s certainly true — Scripture does call Him “the God of all flesh.” But that statement alone doesn’t actually answer the question being asked.

The discussion isn’t whether God is sovereign over all flesh. It’s about how God has revealed Himself in Christ — whether Christ is understood as an eternally distinct divine person alongside the Father, or as the one eternal God Himself manifested in genuine human flesh.

Both views would happily affirm that God is the God of all flesh. The difference is what that means for how we understand:

• the oneness of God
• the incarnation
• the Father/Son language in Scripture
• and how Old Testament declarations of God being alone harmonize with the New Testament’s identification of Jesus as Lord and Savior

So I’m not questioning God’s authority or sovereignty. I’m asking how our framework for Christ’s identity shapes the way we interpret Scripture and worship.

If you’re willing, I’d love to hear which way you understand Christ — as eternal deity personally distinct from the Father, or as the one God revealed in flesh — and why you think that view best fits the whole biblical witness.

4

I’m not certain like 100% sure. But this question has came up on my mind as well. I kinda explained it how I took it. Check this out. If you listen to what jesus is doing in the bible. He seems to be getting married. We are his body. He is our head. The brains behind the operation if you will. Together we are one. How did he learn this he saw his father do it. So maybe, hear me out. Him and his father the king. was never without a body. Him being the head the body being his people. Unified in one perfect body. If your a part of that body you have a purpose within that body. When your finger moves it’s because your mind tells it to. How does it do that. and for what reason, mysteriously. He is a god of mystery. I’m sure everyone on the planet is mystified at this point

5

his father the king. was never without a body.

God the Father is spirit, he does not have a physical body.

Jesus as Hebrews 1:1-3 says is the exact representation of God.

Not a copy, not a man imbued with divinity but God made man.

We don’t need to look for a mini God masquerading as man nor for a man with God like powers.

Jesus was fully God and fully human the God man.

If he wasn’t he could not atone for our sins.

6

My 2 cents, or a buck fifty, would have to say that I believe in the Trinity. God said, let us make man in our image. Who was He talking to? The Spirit, and the Word. So we are made up of three different, yet unique beings. {If you will} Our mind, thoughts, reason, emotions, ETC, fastioned after God the Father, our spirit, that goes on after the flesh dies, fastioned after the Holy Spirit, then as recorded in John 1, the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Our flesh is fashioned after the flesh of God, Jesus.

Now, the problem I see with saying, “as eternal deity personally distinct from the Father,” is that if He is not God, then there may be other ways to Heaven. If He is not God, then we really do not have to follow Him; we can follow the Holy Spirit, or follow God in heaven and be fine. Yet if He is God, then guess what? You cannot get to God if you leave God out of the equation. Not to mention, you would also call Jesus a liar for claiming to be God.

Peter

7

I appreciate you sharing your perspective, and you’re honoring both the unity of God and the fullness of Christ’s deity. Where I think the discussion needs a little more thought is in how some of those connections are being made—especially when we move from Scripture’s language into human analogies.

When God says, “Let us make man in our image,” I agree that the Word and the Spirit are involved, because Scripture shows God creating by His Word and moving by His Spirit. But that doesn’t automatically require three eternal divine persons speaking to one another the way humans do. Throughout the Old Testament, God speaks and acts in plural ways while still insisting again and again that He is one, alone, and beside Him there is no other/savior. The Word and the Spirit are not presented as separate gods or separate centers of deity, but as God Himself in action, revelation, and presence. So the “us” language can naturally fit with God’s own self-expression and Spirit at work, without requiring a Trinity of co-equal persons.

I also want to address the analogy about mind, spirit, and flesh being patterned after Father, Spirit, and Son. Scripture never actually draws that parallel. While it may sound helpful, analogies can sometimes end up shaping theology more than the text itself. The Bible doesn’t teach that our flesh (fallen Humanity) is fashioned after God’s flesh (Sinless Perfection) or that our mind is modeled after the Father. What it does teach is that God Himself became flesh in Jesus Christ, not that flesh is a divine category alongside the Father and the Spirit.

Where I fully agree with you is this: Jesus absolutely is God. If Jesus were merely a created being or a lesser divine figure, the gospel would fall apart. There would be room for other paths to God, and Jesus’ claims would lose their authority. On this point, Oneness believers stand firmly—Jesus is God. The difference is not over His deity, but over how that deity is revealed. We believe the eternal God dwelt fully in Christ, while the flesh of Jesus was truly human and was born in time. The deity is eternal; the humanity began in Bethlehem.

In fact, the concern you raised actually highlights this beautifully. You said that if Jesus were not God, people could simply follow the Father or the Spirit and still be fine. I agree completely. But Scripture never presents Jesus as one divine option among others. It presents Him as the one God revealed to us. That’s why you don’t reach the Father by bypassing Jesus—not because Jesus is a separate divine person granting access, but because the fullness of God is made known in Him.

When Jesus says, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father,” and when Scripture calls Him “Mighty God” and even “Everlasting Father,” it isn’t confusing language—it’s revealing who He truly is. It shows that the eternal deity dwelt in Christ bodily, while Christ’s flesh lived a real human life, prayed, obeyed, suffered, and died for our redemption.

So in the end, I don’t think the real difference between us is whether Jesus is God—we both affirm that He is. The real question is whether Scripture presents God as one eternal being who reveals Himself as Father, in the Son, and by the Spirit, or as three eternal divine persons sharing one essence. That difference shapes how we read Isaiah’s declarations that God is alone, how we understand the incarnation, and how we bring the whole Bible together into one consistent picture and even shapes are prayers and how we worship.

I appreciate you engaging thoughtfully on this, and I think these kinds of discussions are important for sharpening our understanding of Scripture.

8

What happened? A change of mind?

J.

9

I can see why you’d ask that, but no—there hasn’t been a change of mind at all. I’ve consistently held and stated that Jesus is truly God. That’s actually central to the Oneness position, not a departure from it.

What Oneness believers are saying is not that Jesus is less than God or a separate being from God. We’re saying that the one eternal God Himself dwelt fully in Christ, while the flesh of Jesus was genuinely human and born in time. The deity is eternal; the humanity began at the incarnation. So when I say, “Jesus is God,” I mean that in the strongest biblical sense—that the fullness of God was manifest in Him.

If Christ’s human flesh itself were God in the sense of being eternal deity, then the humanity would have to be eternal as well. That would mean Jesus’ body was not truly born in time, not truly part of our human history, and not truly capable of growing, suffering, and dying. But Scripture is careful to show the opposite. The flesh of Christ had a beginning. He was conceived, born, grew in wisdom and stature, became tired, suffered, and died. The eternal part is not the flesh—it is the deity who dwelt in the flesh.

The Bible doesn’t say God became flesh in the sense that deity transformed into humanity. It says God was manifest in the flesh—that the eternal God took on true human life as a vessel of revelation and redemption. The humanity is real and temporal; the deity is eternal and infinite.

Keeping that distinction actually protects both truths: that Jesus is fully God, and that He is fully human. It avoids making the humanity eternal (which Scripture never teaches), and it avoids reducing Jesus to something less than God (which Scripture also never teaches).

Sometimes the confusion comes from thinking Oneness means denying Christ’s deity or reducing Him to a created person. That isn’t what we believe at all. We affirm that Jesus is the visible revelation of the invisible God, the only Savior Isaiah spoke about, and the One in whom all the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily.

And honestly, I don’t think any of us can fully grasp how the eternal God could be perfectly God and perfectly human at the same time, while still being omnipresent and infinite. Our finite minds naturally want everything to fit into neat categories. We tend to assume that if Christ’s humanity is real, it must also be eternal—but Scripture shows us that the humanity was born in time, while the deity is without beginning or end. There is mystery there, but mystery doesn’t cancel truth; it simply reminds us that God is bigger than our full comprehension.

So there’s no shift in position here—just a clarification. Jesus is God, and He is also truly man. The real difference in this discussion is about whether Scripture presents God as one eternal being who revealed Himself in flesh, or as three eternal divine persons sharing one essence. But Christ’s deity has never been in question on my end.

10

You agree?

The “Jesus Only” movement, also known as Oneness Pentecostalism or oneness theology, teaches that there is only one God, but denies the tri-unity of God. In other words, oneness theology does not recognize the distinct persons of the Godhead: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It has various forms / modes / manifestations—some see Jesus Christ as the one God, who sometimes manifests Himself as the Father or the Holy Spirit. The core doctrine of Oneness Pentecostal / Jesus Only is that Jesus is the Father and Jesus is the Spirit. There is one God who reveals Himself in different “modes.”

This teaching of the Jesus Only / Oneness Pentecostals has been around for centuries, in one form or another, as modalism. Modalism teaches that God operated in different forms or modes at different times—sometimes as the Father, sometimes as the Son, and sometimes as the Holy Spirit. But passages like Matthew 3:16-17, where two or all three Persons of the Godhead are present, contradict the modalistic view. Modalism was condemned as heretical as early as the second century A.D. The early church strongly contended against the view that God is strictly a singular person who acted in different forms at different times. They argued from Scripture that the tri-unity of God is evident in that more than one Person of the Godhead is often seen simultaneously, and they often interact with one another (examples: Genesis 1:26; 3:22;11:7; Psalm 2:7; 104:30; 110:1; Matthew 28:19; John 14:16). Oneness Pentecostalism / Jesus Only doctrine is unbiblical.

The concept of the tri-unity of God, on the other hand, is present throughout Scripture. It is not a concept that is easily grasped by the finite mind. And because man likes everything to make sense in his theology, movements such as the Jesus Only movement—not to mention the Jehovah’s Witnesses—regularly arise to try to explain the nature of God. Of course, this simply cannot be done without doing violence to the biblical text. Christians have come to accept that God’s nature is not subject to the limitations we might like to put on Him. We simply believe Him when He says, “‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the LORD. 'As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts”’ (Isaiah 55:8-9). If we can’t understand His thoughts and ways, we accept that we cannot fully understand His nature, either.

J.

11

I appreciate you laying that out, and I understand why those descriptions are often used when people talk about Oneness theology. I just want to gently clarify something, because some of that language doesn’t really reflect how many of us actually understand or express what we believe.

Personally, I’m not comfortable with the terms “modes” or “Jesus Only,” and I don’t hold to the idea of God appearing in sequential manifestations—first as Father, then as Son, then as Spirit—as if He changes roles over time. I agree that kind of framework can become misleading, and I don’t think it does justice to the fullness of Scripture.

What I (and many Oneness believers) am trying to affirm is the absolute oneness of God, while also taking seriously everything the Bible says about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is real, the Son is real, and the Spirit is real. The difference is not about whether those realities exist, but about whether Scripture presents them as three eternal divine centers of consciousness internally in God (Which still divides God even if Internally) , or as the one eternal God revealing Himself in genuine ways—most fully in Jesus Christ.

When I say Jesus is God, I’m not saying the Father ceased to exist or that the Spirit is just a temporary role. I’m saying the fullness of the one God dwelt in Christ, while Christ’s humanity was truly human and born in time. The Father was still in heaven, the Spirit was still at work, and yet God was also truly present in the man Christ Jesus. There is mystery there, but it’s the kind of mystery Scripture itself presents.

So I’m not trying to defend a label or a system. I’m simply trying to hold together what the Bible teaches about God’s oneness and about the incarnation, without forcing it into categories that Scripture itself never clearly uses. And I appreciate being able to talk about it openly and respectfully like this.

12

I’ll leave it here, because I am often misunderstood and misrepresented. Some are deep divers in the Scriptures, others lean heavily on isolated proof texts like “the Holy Spirit will teach you everything,” and still others approach the Bible primarily in a devotional manner rather than with careful study.

Shalom.

J.

13

I understand why that historical label gets attached so quickly, but I don’t think it actually captures what I’m trying to express. I’m not arguing that God simply shifts roles over time—sometimes Father, then later Son, then later Spirit—as if those are temporary masks or sequential phases. That kind of thinking really does fall short of the biblical picture, and I don’t embrace it either.

What I’m describing is closer to what I would call incarnational monotheism and Simultaneous Manifestations—the one eternal God who is always Father in His divine being, always Spirit in His presence and power, and who in the fullness of time truly became man in the person of Jesus Christ. That doesn’t deny the Father in heaven while Jesus walked the earth, and it doesn’t deny the Spirit working simultaneously. It simply holds that the deity behind all of this is one, not three eternal divine persons.

When Scripture shows the Father speaking, the Son being baptized, and the Spirit descending, I don’t see that as God switching modes. I see it as the reality of the incarnation: the eternal God relating to humanity through the true man Christ Jesus, while still remaining transcendent as Father and active as Spirit. The relationships are real because the humanity of Christ is real, not because there are multiple centers of consciousness within God.

As for the early church debates, I respect the history, but I’m also careful not to let later philosophical categories become the final authority over the biblical text itself. The early creeds were trying to safeguard important truths about Christ’s deity and the oneness of God, but they were also working through those truths using concepts shaped by their cultural and Greek philosophical context. My desire is simply to start with Scripture and let it define the framework as much as possible.

So I wouldn’t describe what I’m saying as ancient modalism, and I wouldn’t say God is a single person merely changing forms over time. I’m trying to affirm what Scripture seems to hold together: one eternal God, fully revealed in Jesus Christ through a real incarnation, while still transcendent as Father and active as Spirit. Whether we call that incarnational monotheism or something else, the heart of it is taking seriously both God’s absolute oneness and the reality of Christ as God with us.

I simply ask that you diligently read through all I wrote and compare it faithfully alongside Scripture and then show Scriptural proof where we differ. That way we truly can study to show ourselves approved by God rightly dividing the Word of Truth.

14

No, I’ve already noticed inconsistencies in what you wrote, if you did, along with a lack of Scriptural references. That is a red flag to me, no offense intended.

J.

15

I understand your concern, and I appreciate you saying it respectfully. I’m honestly not seeing where I’ve contradicted myself, though. What I’ve tried to do is explain the same position from different angles as different questions were raised — that Jesus is fully God, that His humanity was born in time, and that God is one.

If there is a specific place where you believe I said something inconsistent with something else I wrote, I’d genuinely like to look at it. It would help the discussion to point to an actual statement rather than a general impression.

My goal isn’t to confuse or shift positions, but to clarify how I understand Scripture. So if there’s a particular line you think doesn’t line up with the rest, feel free to quote it and explain what you see as the contradiction. I’m open to that conversation. If I receive no feedback, then there is apparently no inconsistencies or contradictions.