Today I had a friend send me a link to a post written on the blog of Oneness Pentecostal theologian Jason Dulle. It is titled “Arguing from Silence“. In this post Dulle addresses two arguments from silence that he still feels make a strong case for his views. (1) That Matthew 28:19 may not have originally said “in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit” because Justin Martyr does not reference this passage when arguing for “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” as an “appropriate baptismal formula”. (2) The the Father-Son distinction may not be based in an eternal relationship between two persons of the Trinity because the “Father-Son terminology is mysteriously absent from the OT”. Let us consider these two issues.
“The Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit” in Matthew 28:19
Dulle writes,
“…in discussing whether Matthew 28:19 originally read “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” or “in my name,” some Trinitarian scholars argue that the latter is original. “In my name” does not appear in any extant manuscript, so what is there basis? One reason is Justin Martyr’s silence on the passage. In one of Justin’s work he was arguing for “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” as the appropriate baptismal formula, and yet he never once appealed to Matthew 28:19 for support as we would expect for him to have done if Matthew 28:19 originally read “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” Since he did not, it stands to reason that Matthew 28:19 did not read “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,” in Justin’s day (or at least in the manuscripts he had access to), but rather “in my name.” While this is an argument from silence, it is a strong argument nonetheless.”
There is a reason why Dulle preferences these statements by acknowledging that an “arguing from silence is a logical fallacy”. There is simply no textual evidence, at all, anywhere that “in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit” is not original. There is not a single manuscript that reads “in my name”.
The translation committee of the NET Bible places this footnote after Matthew 28:19:
Although some scholars have denied that the trinitarian baptismal formula in the Great Commission was a part of the original text of Matthew, there is no ms support for their contention. 1
While it may be peculiar that Justin Martyr did not reference Matthew 28:19 it says very little about the MSS history of The Gospel of Matthew.
Another very early Christian document, The Didache, in 7:1 reads, “Now about baptism: this is how to baptize. Give public instruction on all these points, and then baptize in living water, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” I am well aware that there are some who either date this part of the Didache as later than the rest of the document or who argue that the words have been changed, but it must be noted that these arguments are from silence, like that of Dulle. Even if it is a bit later, which some of the second half may very well be, it is likely that the baptismal formula of The Didache is dependent upon The Gospel of Matthew.
I find it interesting that Bart D. Ehrman–one who is well known for joyfully pointing out textual variants that may cause some problems for orthodox Christianity–gives special attention in his book Misquoting Jesus 2 to the fact that the phrase “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one” are not original in 1 John 5:7 yet he doesn’t appear willing to go as far as Dulle does by attacking a unanimous reading of Matthew 28:19. Nor does he join in with those who argue that the words “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” are not part of The Didache (though he does think that the second part of The Didache is not drawn from an “earlier source” and therefore is not as old as the first part). 3
Why would Dulle even suggest that the phase “in my name” could be the original reading of Matthew 28:19? There is a commission of sorts in the long ending of The Gospel of Mark that includes the words “in my name” (16:17), but while we are discussing textual criticism we should note that it is fairly unanimous that vv. 9-20 were not a part of the original text. In Luke 24:47 there is a statement that “repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name”, referring to Jesus. It may be somewhat fair to attach this to Acts 2:38 which says “Repent, and be baptized in the name of the Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins” since it was likely the same author who wrote both texts. But all this proves is that there was a Lukan emphasis on the “name of Jesus” that is not necessarily canonical nor necessary for church practice nor a commentary on Matthew 28:19. I cannot recall a Johannine equivalent to these texts.
So what do we have left at this point? We have a historical, doctrinal reference supporting baptism “in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit” in Matthew-Didache and we have a historical, doctrinal reference supporting “in the name of Jesus Christ” from Luke-Acts. It is likely that both are legitimate baptismal “formulas” with historical roots in the early church. Those who baptized “in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit” knew this was the God revealed through Jesus Christ. Those who baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ” knew this was into the God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The proto-orthodox Trinitarian position may not have been as fully developed as the later councils would develop it in the face of several different doctrinal challenges, but it is there and the wording of Matthew 28:19 is proof. This is one reason I assume Dulle wants to cast doubt on this matter.
(Update: Read Nick Norelli’s interaction with Ehrman on the authenticity on Matthew 28:19 here.)
Father-Son Terminology in the Old Testament
Let us hear from Dulle again:
“Trinitarians argue that God is eternally Father and eternally Son—two distinct persons in a triune Godhead. I observe from the Biblical data, however, that the Father-Son terminology is mysteriously absent from the OT (“father” appears a handful of times, but is used in a different sense than we find in the NT, and is never used to describe God’s relationship to another divine person; “son” is only used prophetically a few times in the OT, referring to the future Messiah, not a preexistent divine person), beginning to appear only in the NT. Why is this? If God is eternally Father and eternally Son, we would expect to read about the Son in the OT, or expect to see dialogues between Father and Son as we see in the NT. And yet we don’t.”
First of all it should be noted that there is Father-Son terminology in the Old Testament. In Psalm 2:7 the Father tells the Son, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you” (ESV, NASB) or “You are my Son; This very day I have become your Father” (a looser translation in the NET, NIV). This passage is about the Davidic king, it is fully fulfilled in the Messiah, Jesus.
Second, do we not expect the incarnation of the Son of God to further expound ideas that were only seedlings in the OT? Since when do we limit NT revelation to the OT? The Oneness position doesn’t do this either in that it at least acknowledges that the incarnation is something new about God.
Third, as Larry Hurtado’s scholarship has shown, as well as a reading through some of the DSS, there was an inter-testament development regarding the monotheistic nature of God. There are even some who argue that the Jews of OT times did not have as strict a monotheism as modern Jews do. Nevertheless, Christianity was not the first to see there as some sort of go-between being for God and the world. Christianity is not the first to develop some sort of Logos doctrine or personification of wisdom that was understood to be the same, yet distinct from God. I will let others more familiar to this subject speak to it if they wish, but I think my simple response is that Dulle’s argument from silence is too unwilling to acknowledge that there is a lot leading toward NT Christology and Trinitarianism. It was not developed in a vacuum.
As Oneness scholars come I appreciate Dulle. On the other hand, it is these types of arguments that make you wonder why someone would need to take such a shot in the dark to defend one’s position. Unfortunately for Oneness adherents this occurs all too often.
_____________________________________
[1] NET Notes, Mt. 28:19
[2] Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus (pp. 81-82).
[3] See Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (p. 413) and The New Testament and Other Early Christian Writings: A Reader (p. 313, 315).
the archives near Emmaus 
The reference you’re looking for is Misquoting Jesus, 81-2. Also see this post on my blog where I reproduce a personal email from Erhman as well as Peter Head in reference to Matthew 28:19.
Thanks Nick!
You’re welcome!
While I was surprised and pleased to see you referencing Jason here, I’m disappointed in that you chose to respond to his blog entry that was, at best, an academic exercise, and not his strongest defense of the Oneness of God.
Hopefully you’ll take the time to respond to some of his stronger assertions.
I responded to what was sent to me. As I scrolled through his blog I found mostly moral theology which I found no reason to debate nor interest in debating. If he post something more recent on the Oneness-Trinity debate I will happily write a response. On the other hand there is no reason to go through his archives one at a time writing responses when these posts are not apparently an issue for anyone.
Equally, Nick’s blog contains enough material to counterbalance Jason’s.
Hi Brian,
I am little disappointed in your handling of my post. For one, the purpose of the post was not to make a case for my views as you say. The purpose was to show that arguments from silence cannot be dismissed out of hand by labeling them a logical fallacy. While they cannot prove anything in themselves, sometimes they reveal points that need to be taken seriously in assessing a larger debate. Your post, however, comes across as if my post was principally about trying to provide (silent) arguments for my views.
Secondly, you say I was “attacking a unanimous reading of Matthew 28:19,” “suggest that the phase “in my name” could be the original reading of Matthew 28:19,” and want “to cast doubt on this matter.” Everything you wrote suggests that it is my position that Mt 28:19 as it appears in all extant manuscripts is not original, and/or that I was arguing for that position. That is not the case. In fact, if you would have continued in your quotation of me your readers would see that I went on to say, “My point is not to make any claims for the originality or non-originality of Mt 28:19, but rather to point out that we can’t just dismiss an argument based on silence by labeling it is fallacious.” And in the comments section I was even more explicit: “For the record, I am not of the opinion that the traditional reading of Mt 28:19 is not original, although there are some good reasons to doubt its authenticity. What I find interesting is that it is not Oneness people who are advancing these arguments, but (some) Trinitarians! They are using the argument from silence against the traditional wording of Mt 28:19.”
Jason
Sorry, a few more quotes of mine from that post to add. I went on to say again:
“me just give you four reasons why I don’t think “in my name” is the original wording of Mt 28:19:
1. Why would the church/scribes change Matthew 28:19, but not Luke 24:46-47 and all the references in Acts?
2. No extant Greek manuscript contains the shorter reading. While not conclusive proof, it is suggestive.
3. All early translations such as the Syriac contain the traditional wording.
4. If the traditional reading is not original it would seem that the conspirators would have been more careful in their grammar. While I think it is grammatically acceptable to use “name” singular followed by three names (plural), the more obvious choice would be to use the plural form. The fact that the grammar is difficult, and that no Fathers felt the need to correct or amend it later (which they often did to what they thought were copying errors) argues for its authenticity.”
Jason
Jason,
You are correct where you note that I mishandled your position on the matter. It appears I responded too quickly to your suggestions without giving equal attention to your conclusions. My apologies.
I do wonder why, if you see this as something of a mute point, you would propose it at all?
Brian,
Thanks for the prompt reply and apology. Apology accepted. I likewise apologize if I sounded a bit too defensive (as I think I did, as I re-read my comments). It’s just that lately I seem to be encountering a number of instances in which I have been partially quoted, and those quotes have been used to portray me as believing something that I expressly repudiate in another portion of the very post being quoted. It gets frustrating, and I apologize if you felt any of the heat of that frustration.
I simply wished to illustrate that an argument from silence can be a real force to be recockoned with at times, and thus it won’t due to merely label and dismiss them. Sometimes they raise interesting questions that need to be addressed. I chose the only two examples I could think of to illustrate this point, one example of which I agree with the conclusion, and one of which I don’t.
Jason,
Thanks for the clarification. I didn’t feel that your response was too defensive. The point of your post makes more sense now.
Mr. Dulle,
Hope all is well. I posted a comment and question on what I thought was your blog page. I am new to blogging, so I must have made a mistake.
I have enjoyed reading your view points from a oneness perspective.
I pastor an Assemblies of God church in Fort Worth, Texas and have read a fair amount of doctrinal works based on the oneness viewpoint.
I do have a question, not for argument sake but for your thoughts. In Paul’s letters to the church, if Jesus is God and I believe that He is, why does Paul mention in his opening words, “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” or “We give thanks to God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
From an initial reading, one would assume a distinction between the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Look forward to your response. God bless.
Wade DeForest
Wade,
While I do not want to write in place of Jason I am not sure if he will know about this comment b/c I do not think he follows this blog with any regularity. If he does answer that would be great, but I will let you know how I think he would answer being that I am a former Oneness Pentecostal, and therefore very familiar with their doctrinal positions.
The distinction between the Father and Jesus in the Pauline greetings would be attributed to a diversity not within God (as Trinitarians confess) but without. In other words, the incarnation being very real has allowed God to exist in two primary manners: eternal, omnipresent, and transcendent as Father; quasi-temporal, limited, and imminent in the incarnate Son.
The Spirit tends to be seen as the “Father in action”, “God in action”, and even the deity aspect of the Son, depending on which Oneness Pentecostal you ask. Since the Spirit is not directly mentioned in many Pauline greetings Oneness Pentecostals often use these greetings as evidence that Paul had no concept of a Trinity, but rather the distinction is grounded elsewhere: God transcendent (Father) and God incarnate (Son).
So while Oneness Pentecostals do think “Jesus is the Father” it is qualified by “Jesus is the Father incarnate” or something like that.
Wade,
Welcome to Near Emmaus. Allow me to add to Brian’s well-explained post. As with Brian, I don’t speak for Jason, but I come as one who has ties with the Oneness movement.
You asked: In Paul’s letters to the church, if Jesus is God and I believe that He is, why does Paul mention in his opening words, “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” or “We give thanks to God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
In regard to the first quotation you mentioned, some would appeal to the basis that the word translated “and” has a range of meaning that includes “even” and “also.” So for them, the meaning of the phrase would look something like this: “Grace to you and peace from God our Father [who is] even the Lord Jesus Christ.” I believe that Robert Brent Graves has argued this, or something similar, in his book The God of Two Testaments.
The second quotation is harder to understand from a Oneness perspective, simply because there isn’t much agreement as to how to explain it. Brian gave one view where the Father would refer to God as He is transcendent and the Son would refer to God in the Incarnation; in my opinion, this is probably the strongest Oneness argument. Others have tried to explain it by saying that “God the Father” refers to Jesus’ deity while “the Son (that is, the Lord Jesus Christ)” refers to Jesus’ humanity. Within the latter view, there are those who hold that the Father’s name is Jesus and the Son’s name is Jesus: there are thus two Jesuses–one a spirit, one a human–in view. It can get even more complicated than that.
Brian & John,
Thanks so much for the reply.
I appreciate your explanation. It’s interesting though. If God is seen as transcedant in the Father and as imminent in the Son, would that still not indictate a distinction.
Also, I am interested in the oneness view on I Corinthians 15:24-28.
Look forward to your comments.
Hello Pastor Wade,
Yes, you did post on my blog, and I responded on Jan 12th(http://theosophical.wordpress.com/creedo/).
I’ve got to run, but I plan to read through and probably respond to John and Brian’s comments next week.
Jason
@Wade
Oneness Pentecostals do not deny a distinction between Father and Son. At least I find this to be true at the scholarly level. Those like Jason Dulle and Dan Segraves who have taken the time and effort to really clarify the Oneness position do not sound like “popular” Oneness Pentecostalism which says all kinds of silly things. Rather, it is a time of Bitarianism that is grounded in the incarnation more than the eternal nature of God.
If Jason is able to reply in detail next week he may be able to fill in the gaps. On another note though most lay people in Oneness Pentecostal churches do say things like “When Jesus hungered this is the Son, when he fed the multitude this is the Father” but I don’t think Jason or others like Dan Segraves would say such things.
Okay, is it just me or do Brian, Jason, and I all have pictures shot from the front with suits on? Couple this with the fact that we’re all associated with the same undergraduate college and have (or are working on) similar graduate degrees . . .
Jason, glad to have you jump in the mix. Look forward to hearing any thoughts you might post next week.
It looks like Dannie Odle won. We still think suits are necessary for respectability! 🙂
Wade,
You are welcome. Some would agree that there really isn’t a distinction–this would be especially true in classical modalism (sometimes known as sequential modalism where the one unipersonal God is exclusively Father, exclusively Son, and exclusively Holy Spirit successively at different points in time). Others acknowledge a distinction because of the Incarnation: when God became incarnate, He took on a completely new way of interacting with the world, while at the same time remaining the Father beyond the Incarnation; this new way of experiencing the world creates the distinction between the Father and the Son.
With regard to 1 Corinthians 15:24-28, have you read David K. Bernard on it? If not, you can do so here: http://www.newlifeupc.org/wp-content/uploads/online-books/oneness/One-Ch5.html (“The Ending of the Sonship”). Daniel Segraves has another take on this but I don’t have his writings at hand right now.
Looks like D.G. Odle has more influence on us that we realize! 🙂
Brian,
I think you have done a pretty good job at capturing the OP view. The Father-Son distinction is not understood as eternal or located within the Godhead itself, but a temporal distinction caused by the incarnation. The one divine person becomes a man without ceasing to be God, and thus post-incarnation He exists in two distinct modes: cosmic (as God), incarnate (as man). God’s cosmic mode of existence is denominated by “Father,” while His incarnate, or human mode of existence is denominated by “Son.”
As for saying “Jesus is the Father,” I have a problem with the terminology. If all one means to say is that the divine person who is incarnate in Jesus Christ is numerically identical to the divine person denominated by “Father,” I agree. But I diverge from most OPs in that I do not agree with calling Jesus “the Father.” Not only did Jesus and the Biblical authors not do this, but it is theologically confusing as well because it collapses the very distinction intended by the “Father-Son” terminology. Jesus’ personal identity is the same as the Father’s, but since Father and Son are two distinct modes in which that one person exists, to conflate the appellations is to eliminate the distinction.
Jason
JohnDave Medina,
Yes, some OPs have tried to explain these passages by saying kai should be translated as “even.” I think that is an exegetical stretch, and unnecessary.
As for “God the Father” and “the Son,” it is true that many OPs say the former refers to Jesus deity and the latter to His humanity (not me, however), but I have never heard anyone say there are two Jesuses, one a spirit and one a human. Admittedly, Nestorianism is prevalent in our ranks (as it is in many circles) so some OPs views might reduce to as much, but even then, no one would actually say there are two Jesuses. At best, they might say there is in Jesus two persons: one who is divine (Father), and one who is human.
Jason
Brian,
I would not identify my position as “bintarian,” and I’m sure Segraves would not either. Binitarianism refers to the view that there are two persons in the Godhead, but that is not what we are advancing. On our view, there is only one person in the Godhead. Speaking only for myself now, I would say that one person exists and functions in two modes simultaneously (divine, human). But only one person is the conscious subject of both modes of existence.
And you’re right, I would never say such a thing (as God Jesus did X, but as man Jesus did Y). Neither would Segraves. Many others do, however.
Jason
JohnDave Medina,
While this is a side issue, I don’t think there is good evidence to conclude that there ever was a period of “classical modalism” in which people thought Father, Son, and Spirit were successive modes of existence. Only some of Sabellius’ detractors accused him of this view, but we don’t have any writings from Sabellius or anyone else confirming such a view. Indeed, it seems too unbelievable to think this was anything more than a caricature of Sabellius’ views given the NT data. How could anyone, even a heretic, honestly argue that the Father and Son were successive modes of God’s self-revelation when we see the Father and Son interacting on the pages of the NT? And what we know about other modalists from the time does not support the view either.
Jason
Thanks to all for you comments.
Re: my original question pertaining to Paul’s reference to the Father and the Son, if Jesus is God, why would this wording be important?
Also, I have read David Bernard’s writings and look forward to his explantion of I Cor. 15:24-28.
Several months ago I read an intersting the book, The God-man – A Guide To Understanding the Godhead, authored by Robert Spearman. Any of you familiar with him?
Two questions: 1. From a trinitarian view, Jesus’ reference to the glory He had with the Father before the world was in John 17:5 would indicate distinction in the Godhead before the incarnation.
2. II John 9 “Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and Son.” Again the ref to the Father and Son indicates distinction.
How do you explain these passages from the oneness view?
Again, my goal is not for argument sake, but for clarification.
Look forward to your response. God bless.
Wade
Jason,
You said: “Speaking only for myself now, I would say that one person exists and functions in two modes simultaneously (divine, human). But only one person is the conscious subject of both modes of existence.”
I am having problems with seeing how these statements do not lead either to Sabellian modalism or two persons. From my view, if you have “only one person [as] the conscious subject of both modes of existence” then anytime the Bible shows interaction between the Father and the Son, it is the one person interacting with His own self – or there must be two persons (one divine, one human) for personal interaction.
Jason,
You said: “Yes, some OPs have tried to explain these passages by saying kai should be translated as “even.” I think that is an exegetical stretch, and unnecessary.”
Yes, I agree that it is both a stretch and unnecessary. I don’t know if you’ve written on the greetings but what is your take?
You said: “As for “God the Father” and “the Son,” it is true that many OPs say the former refers to Jesus deity and the latter to His humanity (not me, however), but I have never heard anyone say there are two Jesuses, one a spirit and one a human. Admittedly, Nestorianism is prevalent in our ranks (as it is in many circles) so some OPs views might reduce to as much, but even then, no one would actually say there are two Jesuses. At best, they might say there is in Jesus two persons: one who is divine (Father), and one who is human.”
There are those within the Oneness movement(s) that I’ve encountered who hold to an ultra-Nestorian position (a minority position I’m sure). I don’t remember exactly where I have heard or read these positions, but their stance at the time was virtually explicit that because the both the Father and the Son have the name Jesus and because the Incarnation is external to the Godhead there are two Jesuses. But one prays only to one of the Jesuses (the Father) as the Son named Jesus is not God and should not (or cannot) be prayed to. That is why I told Wade it gets more confusing with that group.
Jason,
You said: “While this is a side issue, I don’t think there is good evidence to conclude that there ever was a period of “classical modalism” in which people thought Father, Son, and Spirit were successive modes of existence. Only some of Sabellius’ detractors accused him of this view, but we don’t have any writings from Sabellius or anyone else confirming such a view. Indeed, it seems too unbelievable to think this was anything more than a caricature of Sabellius’ views given the NT data. How could anyone, even a heretic, honestly argue that the Father and Son were successive modes of God’s self-revelation when we see the Father and Son interacting on the pages of the NT? And what we know about other modalists from the time does not support the view either.”
You bring up great points, especially about not having any of Sabellius’s writings. I only call Sabellius’s modalism “classical modalism” because those I’ve had interaction with on modalism know Sabellian modalism as the ancient standard of modalism.
Wade,
Thanks for keeping up with the discussion (and for keeping it moving with the questions). I’m a little confused: when you say you “look forward to his explanations” on 1 Corinthians 15, who are you referring to?
I’m not familiar with Spearman, but if the book you mentioned is the one I am thinking of, one Oneness theologian I know feels the book is not an adequate representation of and argument for Oneness theology.
A response to your first question that I’ve seen would be that the glory is the glorification of Christ that culminates in the ascension. This glory pre-existed in the mind of God (generally, this seems to be the majority view), as did the Son. Jesus is asking for that glory that pre-existed only in God’s mind before the foundation of the world. Daniel Segraves gives an intricate argument for this at http://danielsegraves.blogspot.com/2008/08/thoughts-on-john-175.html.
For the second question, one response would turn to 1 John 2:23 (“Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also”) and say that Oneness Pentecostals acknowledge the Son and therefore have the Father also.
Perhaps the Oneness Pentecostals like as Jason Dulle and Brad Titus can weigh in on this.
Blessings,
JohnDave
Thanks John.
When I said that I was looking forward to his comments, I was referring to David Bernard. As stated I have read some of his writings, but not the comments about the Corinthian passages. I did read them yesterday.
I appreciate your insight.
Wade
Another question that I have given thought to:
At the time of Jesus’ death, what happened to his human spirit and soul? I realize that deity did not die, but being fully human, what happened? Some believe that he went to hell for three days and was tormented by Satan and the demonic forces, then resurrected when His suffering was complete. I find no Biblical basis for this anywhere.
Look forward to your response. God bless.
Wade
That makes sense now. I should note that I’m only conveying what I know of the views of Oneness Pentecostals in my circles. I don’t advocate or agree with everything I’m writing.
Hey Jason. Good replies.
Greetings to everyone else
It’s good to see a forum where people can state their position, clarify it and answer questions in an intellectual atmosphere and not the slug fests I have witnessed on other forums 🙂
Any response to the question I posed on January 19th. God bless.
Wade DeForest
Hello everyone, I was reading the posts and would like to join the conversation although i am way late. I am a 23 year old Oneness brother; although young, i am very knowledgable on the subject of Oneness and the Trinity. Brian said in one of his posts “Those like Jason Dulle and Dan Segraves who have taken the time and effort to really clarify the Oneness position do not sound like “popular” Oneness Pentecostalism”, I find this interesting and totally agree. I am affiliated with Jason Dulle and like him, i love to clarify my belief.
If anyone would like to chat about anything, im here. God bless
Hello Jason,and All,
I too am wondering about how you would explain Jesus desiring to return to the Glory He had with The Father before He came to earth.
Concerning tongues, how do you explain your postion when Paul said not all speek in tongues?
Thank you for your time. Marijo
You write this in me assuming you haven’t read all his articles and you have questions you should email him, he will respond.