(This article uses Blue italic for emphasis for important matters of truth - Red italic for emphasis for more serious error throughout
- and David Eells' notes are left in the Red font of his website)
>>> Manifest Sons (Latter Rain)/Kingdom/Dominion Theology
Most heresies are simply re-hashing of old errors and it is difficult to spend too much time trying to screen every error printed, or in tracking down every heresy being spread in the church. Fortunately many 'Bereans' around the world are concerned enough to spend time addressing concerns and documentation of heresies that appear. All Christians are obliged to point out error and persuade others of the truth, and most of the New Testament and much of the Old (certainly the major and minor prophets and the epistles) was written for that very purpose. Paul corrected Peter publicly, named those who were leading others astray, and continually battled error in his epistles. We are to obey God's Word and 'earnestly contend for the faith once [for all] delivered to the saints' (Jude 3). Paul said that the Bible was given for 'doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness' (2 Timothy 3v16) and he exhorted Timothy to 'reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine' (4v2). Christ himself set the example we must follow, being gentle with those who had been deceived, but publicly and sternly rebuking the rabbis who had perverted God's Word by false teaching! As for the unsaved, Paul disputed daily in the synagogues and in the marketplace (Acts 17v17), doing all he could to 'persuade men' (2 Corinthians 5v11). Only the Holy Spirit can convict and convert the soul, but He is pleased to use his servants as His instruments and we collectively share that responsibility and privilege with the body of Christ.
We have already examined a 'group' of heresies that are still around at:
under the heading:
111. Beware the 'Manchild' Manifest Sons of God and Latter Rain heretical movement
Therefore, learning of a 'revival' of these heresies through the ministry of David Eells, we have briefly examined the material that emanates from his website:
A quick 'google' reveals comments, such as those from someone calling themselves 'managerie':
'I have studied a lot of prophecy and the guy, David Eells, who runs
www.americaslastdays.com is the real deal. I highly recommend all of the resources on his site.'
When comments such as these are examined it quickly becomes clear that Biblical testing of Eells 'prophecies' has not been made and his rambling 'generalisations' are sufficient to deceive many who believe they are following Christian teachings by accepting his messages.
On one mp3 tape (David Eells - 8-04-2004, Oneness, Trinity or truth? - Tape: Part 1) he quickly makes the false claim that Christians should only separate for reasons of 'immorality' (quoting 1 Corinthians 5) but fails to point out the clear Scriptural truth of Romans 16v17:
'Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.'
It is clear deception for Eells to appear to desire to create unity between 'Oneness Pentecostals' and 'Trinitarians' and then make such an obvious error. But Eells needs to convince us of his thorough examination of the true facts that divide these groups for, he claims, he was brought up as a Roman Catholic but then spent time in the 'Oneness' group. Thus he claims:
'The trinity came from Catholicism, it didn't come out of the Bible by the way, it came from Catholicism.' (David Eells - 8-04-2004, Oneness, Trinity or truth? - Tape: Part 1)
Eells then gives a convoluted and fanciful description of how he argued, particularly with one man, about: '... oneness and ... trinitarian [doctrine] and ...The Lord actually tricked me into deliverance because the thought came into my head and I accepted it, [that] 'you're not getting anywhere with this guy, what you need to do is set your doctrine down just for a minute and try to look at this thing through his eyes, so you can better understand where he's coming from ... And ... I no sooner did that than a (demon) spirit went right off the top of my head, there was a presence in me that went right out through the top of my head.'
His opposer, Wayne, claimed he:
"'... was both praying for and talking against David because he had rejected the Oneness doctrine ... at home, on the carpet in his living room and stretched out on the floor, he said 'Lord, I am praying and asking you Lord, don't let him be deceived, deliver him from that doctrine, don't let him be deceived.'
Wayne then came to church and apparently told David and some others what had happened while he was praying: ' ... while he was praying was, he was lying on his carpet with his face on the floor, with his hands out straight, kinda like he was lying on a cross, he said 'David, I don't know what you got, but you got something because I've been praying and the Lord picked me up off the floor, in the air, in the middle of the room, and he said to me, 'I'm teaching him the true relationship of the Father and the Son.' And then he set him back down on the carpet.'"
TCE: So Eells claims he was delivered of a demon that had him trapped in a false doctrine - and this supposedly happened at a distance from the man, Wayne, praying for him to be 'delivered ... from that doctrine.' At this point we will not dwell long on the popular, but un-Scriptural, 'carpet time' prayer of Wayne, his un-Scriptural 'levitation' which he attributes to 'the Lord' - or the 'relevance' of his claim that he was praying in a position 'kinda like he was lying on a cross.' To the uninitiated these points will probably seem irrelevant or even Biblical - after all how could praying as if 'lying on a cross' be wrong? In the ecumenical, mystical, pseudo-Christian circles which most of Eells devotees inhabit these will all seem bona fide experiences. Surely this is a great spiritual man? But try finding one Scriptural example of deliverance from a 'demon' at a distance and of the Lord 'tricking' anyone into 'deliverance'! Roman Catholics will accept this kind of thing of course, because the Apocrypha, which they naively accept as Scripture, includes God assisting in the telling of lies (Judith 9v10, 13)! We can certainly believe that Satan would 'trick' - and is tricking - Eells. And, in the clear light of Scripture (e.g. Romans 16v17) informing us of the importance of doctrine (i.e. absolute truth), he was supposedly advised by 'The Lord' who he claims 'tricked' Eells into deliverance by persuading him ('the thought came into my head and I accepted it'), [that] he should 'set [his] doctrine down' and 'try to look at this thing through his eyes, so you can better understand where he's coming from'.
It was, according to Eells account, at that moment that 'a (demon) spirit went right off the top of my head, there was a presence in me that went right out through the top of my head.' From this description both Eells and Wayne are 'demonised' (both clearly continue to have massive doctrinal problems!) and it is more likely that a real demon used their mystical, shamanic and utterly un-Scriptural processes to continue to deceive both of them! Eells recounts these tales as if they were all part of a great religious awakening in his ministry, yet fails to either notice or care that even this exposes him as a charlatan, for he still follows 'doctrine of demons' (1 Timothy 4v1-2), as we discover by listening further to the tape.
When his supposed 'deliverance' from 'doctrine of demon(s)' is so faulty why should anyone believe the rambling, erroneous teachings he then proceeds to deliver? After initially making the claim that the 'Trinity' originated with the Roman Catholic Cult, Eells attempts a convoluted explanation of the relationship of the Father to the Son, including trying to use John 1 to 'prove' that 'the Word was the Word before Jesus' by stating:
' ... the Word became flesh ... the Word didn't become the Word when the flesh came forth ... the Word was here before the flesh ... the Word became flesh - and dwelt among us ... the Word was the Word before Jesus - before the One we know as Jesus ... which is talking, not only about His 'godliness' but his humanity; He called Himself the Son of God and the Son of Man - and both are true'!
'In John 1v1 it says 'in the beginning was the Word - in the beginning was the Word - so the Word has been around a long time - as long as there's been time there's been the Word; you understand what I mean because 'the beginning' is not 'the beginning of everything,' it's the 'beginning of time.' When time starts, that's 'the beginning' - and God started time. You know why? Because there was 'eternity past' and there is also 'eternity future,' but 'beginnings' and 'endings' talk about time. And 'in the beginning' was the Word and the Word was with God. Now you can't get out of that!
TCE: Eells tries to use the reasoning of the Jehovah's Witnesses, attempting to apply their fallacious claim that 'since the Word was with God, the Word can't be God' and He must therefore have had 'a beginning', but was not there in 'the beginning'!
Eells: 'When the beginning started the Word was with God - with means 'two' - OK? Very clearly, it means 'two'. 'In the beginning' - excuse me - and - the Word was God. 'With God' and 'was God' so, if we accept both of those phrases, 'With God' and 'was God' - you got two there. Well, people say, 'but Jesus was God' - well, of course He was - and whenever God has a Son, that has to be God. You know the bible says 'each seed brings forth after its own kind, right? If a dog has an offspring, it's a dog, right? A cat, a cat. A human - a human. If God has an offspring, it has to be God. So we shouldn't argue with the fact that Jesus is God. The Name that was given to Jesus in Isaiah, Chapter 7 - 'Immanuel' is 'God with us.' So Jesus was God. God with us. God in flesh. He was the Word, He came down - manifested in flesh. But he was the Word before that flesh - began to exist. Verse 2 - 'was in the beginning with God and all things were made through Him, without Him was not anything made that was made. The same was in the beginning with God. So, you've got two there.'
TCE: It does not seem to phase Eells that his claim would result in polytheism for, if God the Father had begotten Jesus in any way analogous to this moronic (or should we say, Mormonic, for it would be very much at home with their 'theology') exposition the result would be TWO - a BIG God (the Father) and His Son (Jesus), a little god:
'... You know the bible says 'each seed brings forth after its own kind, right? If a dog has an offspring, it's a dog, right? A cat, a cat. A human - a human. If God has an offspring, it has to be God. So we shouldn't argue with the fact that Jesus is God.'
Eells: 'Now, if you look at the Word - in the Old Testament - the Names that were given to God in the Old Testament. For instance, in Genesis 3, verse 22, He tells us there:
'And the Lord God said 'behold the man has become as one of us to know good and evil'.
' - he has become as one of us.' Now, the Oneness people say, of course, He is talking to the angels. But, the truth is - the Lord God - my Bible says 'Jehovah God, or Yahweh God. Actually, the original word there was the tetragrammaton - and it was YHWH ... . remember, when the Lord revealed Himself to Moses as the 'I Am.' He was the YHWH - Why did He reveal Himself as the 'I Am' - that's not really a name, is it? Well, because God kept adding this prefix 'I Am' to all these other descriptions of His Name: YHWH Ropheka (?), Tsidkenu, Jireh. 'I Am' this and 'I Am' that - 'I Am Healer(?)' - 'I Am Saviour' - 'I Am Provider'. He kept revealing His Name, and His Name got bigger and bigger and bigger all through the Old Testament as He revealed His Name! Which is what? His Nature, Character, and Authority. Even in the Hebrew the word name means Nature, Character, and Authority! So here we have YHWH - God! Now here's a revelation for you - YHWH, God - the word God here is elohim - and it means, and it is plural. Now, it is used many, many times in the Bible but 10 times to every 1 it is - the word God is elohim. And it is plural. You realise that YHWH is plural? 'And the Lord God said 'behold, the man has become as one of us to know good and evil'.
Another instance of this - Chapter 2 and verse 7. 'And the Lord God - that's YHWH elohim - formed man from the dust of the ground.' Note - we just read in John 1v1 where that the Word - that God through the Word made everything! And without Him nothing was made - you're seeing here the Father and the Son. The Father through the Son created everything - together - according to Proverbs Chapter 8! They created this creation that we know. OK? Now, let me point something else out to you. Chapter 14 and verse 19 (Genesis) is one of those places where the word God is singular - it's el - not elohim. In this case it's talking about 'God Most High'. Now, wouldn't you think that with the Father and the Son - that 'God most High' would be the Father - right? And in verse 19 it says: 'And He blessed him and blessed be Abraham of God Most High.' That's the word el, not elohim. Unusual - like I said - one time out of 10 the word el is used instead of elohim which is plural. So now you got 'God most High' being obviously the Father! El instead of elohim is used. ... Genesis 1v1 is a good example - it says: 'In the beginning God - that is elohim - created the heavens and the earth' - so you got a plurality there. And - 1v26: 'And God said - that is, elohim - said 'Let us make man in our image, after the likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish ... and over all the earth,' it says. ... that's the word elohim, meaning Father and Son.'
TCE: Eells' 'exposition' deals partially with the way in which God progressively revealed himself in Scripture, but he draws many conclusions that Scripture does not warrant.
The use of the plural by the Godhead occurs in many Old Testament passages, for example, Genesis 1v26:
'Let US make man in OUR image,'
yet, in the following verse we read:
' God created man in His (own) image.'
Such a passage rules out completely the possibility of God being a single Person, the Father, and the Son being a second 'god' whether created, as Jehovah's Witnesses teach, or 'born' or 'begotten,' in the theologically erroneous manner that Eells teachings - also through taking on board 'doctrine of demons.'
In Genesis 1v26 ('Let us make man in our image, after our likeness') the importance of the plural verb ('let us') and the plural pronoun ('our') led the Jehovah's Witnesses to try and suggest they are plurals of majesty, a form of speech a king would use in saying, for example, 'We are pleased to grant your request' (some Jehovah's Witnesses have even suggested Queen Victoria's 'WE are not amused'!). However, in Old Testament Hebrew there are no examples of a monarch using plural verbs or plural pronouns of himself in such a 'plural of majesty,' so this suggestion has no evidence to support it. As Eells mentions, one suggestion is that God is here speaking to angels. But angels did not participate in the creation of man, nor was man created in the image and likeness of angels, so this suggestion is unconvincing. It is reasonable to believe that we already have, in the first chapter of Genesis, an indication of a plurality of persons in God himself. We are not told how many persons, and we have nothing approaching a complete doctrine of the Trinity, but it is implied that more than one person is involved. The same can be said of Genesis 3v22 ('Behold, the man has become like one of us knowing good and evil'), Genesis 11v7 ('Come, let us go down, and there confuse their language'), and Isaiah 6v8 ('Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?') - note, in particular, the combination of singular and plural in the same sentence in the last passage.
There may be other aspects of his view of the godhead that Eells deals with on other tapes and, if any reader desires to peruse and record in written form the masses of audio material on this site to discover other views on these subjects, we would gratefully inspect such results. Time restrictions limit our examination of Eells and his website at the present time.
There are many Old Testament passages where one person is called 'God' or 'the Lord' and is distinguished from another person who is also said to be God. In Psalm 45v6-7 (NIV), the psalmist says, 'Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever.... You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.' Here the psalm passes beyond describing anything that could be true of an earthly king and calls the king 'God' (v6), whose throne will last 'forever and ever.' But then, still speaking to the person called 'God,' the author says that 'God, your God, has set you above your companions' (v7). So two separate persons are called 'God' (Heb. elohim). In the New Testament, the author of Hebrews quotes this passage and applies it to Christ: 'Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever' (Heb. 1v8 - ref. the way in which the deceptive 'translators' of the Jehovah's Witnesses 'New World Translation Bible' mutilate this verse to try and hide the truth about Jesus' equality with 'Jehovah'!)
Similarly, in Psalm 110v1, David says, 'The LORD says to my lord: 'Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet'' (NIV). Jesus rightly understands that David is referring to two separate persons as 'Lord' (Matt. 22v41-46), but who is David's 'Lord' if not God himself ? And who could be saying to God, 'Sit at my right hand' except someone else who is also fully God? From a New Testament perspective, we can paraphrase this verse: 'God the Father said to God the Son, 'Sit at my right hand.'' But even without the New Testament teaching on the Trinity, it seems clear that David was aware of a plurality of persons in one God. Jesus, of course, understood this, but when he asked the Pharisees for an explanation of this passage, 'no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did any one dare to ask him any more questions' (Matt. 22v46). Unless they are willing to admit a plurality of persons in one God, Jewish interpreters of Scripture to this day will have no more satisfactory explanation of Psalm 110v1 (or of Gen. 1v26, or of the other passages just discussed) than they did in Jesus' day.
Isaiah 63v10 says that God's people 'rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit' (NIV), apparently suggesting both that the Holy Spirit is distinct from God himself (it is 'his Holy Spirit'), and that this Holy Spirit can be 'grieved,' thus suggesting emotional capabilities characteristic of a distinct person. (Isa. 61v1 also distinguishes 'The Spirit of the Lord GOD' from 'the LORD,' even though no personal qualities are attributed to the Spirit of the Lord in that verse.)
Similar evidence is found in Malachi, when the Lord says, 'The Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the LORD of hosts. But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears?' (Mal. 3v1-2). Here again the one speaking ('the LORD of hosts') distinguishes himself from 'the Lord whom you seek,' suggesting two separate persons, both of whom can be called 'Lord.'
In Hosea 1v7, the Lord is speaking, and says of the house of Judah, 'I will deliver them by the LORD their God,' once again suggesting that more than one person can be called 'Lord' (Heb. Yahweh) and 'God' (elohim).
And in Isaiah 48v16, the speaker (apparently the servant of the Lord) says, 'And now the Lord God has sent me and his Spirit.' Here the Spirit of the Lord, like the servant of the Lord, has been 'sent' by the Lord GOD on a particular mission. The parallel between the two objects of sending ('me' and 'his Spirit') would be consistent with seeing them both as distinct persons: it seems to mean more than simply 'the Lord has sent me and his power.' In fact, from a full New Testament perspective (which recognizes Jesus the Messiah to be the true servant of the Lord predicted in Isaiah's prophecies), Isaiah 48v16 has trinitarian implications: 'And now the Lord God has sent me and his Spirit,' if spoken by Jesus the Son of God, refers to all three persons of the Trinity.
Furthermore, several Old Testament passages about 'the angel of the LORD' suggest a plurality of persons in God. The word translated 'angel' (Heb. mal'ak) means simply 'messenger.' If this angel of the LORD is a 'messenger' of the LORD, he is then distinct from the LORD himself. Yet at some points the angel of the LORD is called 'God' or 'the LORD' (see Gen. 16v13; Ex. 3v2-6; 23v20-22 [note 'my name is in him' in v. 21]; Num. 22v35 with 38; Judg. 2v1-2; 6v11 with 14). At other points in the Old Testament 'the angel of the LORD' simply refers to a created angel, but at least in these texts the special angel (or 'messenger') of the LORD seems to be a distinct person who is fully divine.
More complete revelation of the Trinity in the New Testament is found as we enter into the history of the coming of the Son of God to earth. It is to be expected that this great event would be accompanied by more explicit teaching about the Trinitarian nature of God, and that is in fact what we find.
Eells' 'exposition' clearly fails to adequately answer the way in which God revealed himself in the Old Testament - here is a brief examination of the material we addressed to the Jehovah's Witnesses at:
'Each person of the Godhead is presented in the Scriptures as being Deity with the attributes and titles of Deity. God reveals Himself as a three-in-one God even in the Old Testament. First, we think of the names for God. There are three primary names found in the Old Testament for God which is a Triunity in itself: Elohim, 'Yahweh' (from the tetragrammaton - YHWH - sometimes 'Anglicised' as 'Jehovah'), and Adonai. There are three compounds used with Elohim: El Shaddai, El Elyon, and El Olam. There are also three compounds used with 'Yahweh': 'Yahweh' Elohim, Adonai 'Yahweh', and 'Yahweh' Sabaoth. Thus we find three groups of three each in these names of Deity.
The one name for Deity which presents the 'Trinity' is Elohim. Instead of being used in the singular, as are the others, it is plural, but it is with a singular verb as in Genesis 1v1:
'In the beginning God (Elohim) created the heavens and the earth.'
The use of the Hebrew word, elohim, which is often translated 'God'
Two important points, with regard to the word in Genesis, are that the plural as it occurs here is recognised by Hebrew scholars as a plural of majesty, referring to the one true God, and the very fact that the Hebrew verb forms which have elohim as their subject are in the singular (as in 'created' in Genesis 1v1) alludes to the plurality of God. Even more important is the fact that, in many Old Testament passages, Elohim and 'Jehovah' (from the tetragrammaton YHWH), appear together as designating the same being. So, for example, we read in Genesis 2v7, rendered in the King James: 'And the Lord God [Hebrew: 'Jehovah' Elohim] formed man of the dust of the ground.' (cf. Genesis 2v4, 5, 8, 16, 18, 21, 22 - and so on). The important point made by the use of Elohim in the Old Testament is that we can be certain when it refers to God - or whether angels are acting on God's behalf.'
To expand on the descriptions of God given in the Old Testament, and fulfilled in the New Testament, when we read (Matthew 1v22-23):
Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
We discover that Emmanuel is Jesus' name descriptively, a Name which was never spoken to Him directly. Jesus is His human name, Christ His official name, and Jehovah-tsidkenu His prophetic name. Overall, these fuller, compound, Names of God are to be found:
(1) Jehovah-ropheka, the Lord that healeth thee, Ex 15v26; cf. Jer 33v6, 16 (2) Jehovah-jireh, the Lord will provide, Ge 22v14. (3) Jehovah-nissi, the Lord our banner, Ex 17v15. (4) Jehovah-mekaddishkem, the Lord that doth sanctify you, Ex 31v13; Lev 20v8; 21v8; 22v9, 16, 32; Ezk 20v12. (5) Jehovah-shalom, the Lord our peace, or the Lord send peace, Jg 6v24. (6) Jehovah-tsebahoth (sabaoth), Ro 9v29. Ja 5v4), the Lord of hosts, 1 Sam 1v3. (7) Jehovah-roi, the Lord my shepherd, Ps 23v1. (8) Jehovah-elyon, the Lord most high, Ps 7v17; 47v2; 97v9. (9) Jehovah-tsidkenu, the Lord our righteousness, Je 23v6; 33v16. (10) Jehovah-shammah, the Lord is present, or the Lord is there, Ezk 48v35. (11) Jehovah-hoseenu, the Lord our maker, Ps 95v6. (12) Jehovah-elohim, the eternal creator, Ge 2v4. (13) Adonai-Jehovah, the Lord our sovereign, or Master Jehovah, Ge 15v2, 8. (14) Jehovah-eloheenu, the Lord our God, Ps 99v5, 8, 9. (15) Jehovah-eloheka, the Lord thy God, Ex 20v2, 5, 7. (16) Jehovah-elohay, the Lord my God, Zec 14v5.
Isaiah 9v6-7 reads:
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
The Gift-Child in this passage is the same divine Child as Immanuel. Again, using the prophetic perfect, the prophet sees Him as though He were already born. Wonderful, Counselor (pele˒yō˓ēts) is actually one term in Hebrew. A wonder is indicative of a miracle. Counselor is often used in parallel with king (cf. Mic. 4v9). Thus miraculous counsel is given by this God-like King. The mighty God (El Gibōr) is the strongest of these titles. In Isaiah, El is always used of God and never refers to man. Gibōr means 'Hero.' Together they describe One who is indeed God Himself. Everlasting Father (abıl̄˓d) literally means Father of Eternity. He alone is the source of eternal life. Prince of Peace (Sar-Shalōm) indicates that the mighty God will be a benevolent ruler bringing eternal peace on earth through the establishment of His kingdom. Thus the obscure figure of Immanuel is now brought to clear light: He is Himself God incarnate!
Eells: 'So now we see that there is a Oneness, but it is a Oneness of unity. You see that? For instance, Jesus said - in John, Chapter 10 ... verse 36 ... this is one that the Oneness people like to use. ... No - verse 30: And Jesus said: 'I and the Father are one.' ... The dispute is in - how are they 'one'? The Trinity believers believes that they are One - and the Oneness believers believe that they are a 'oneness of essence' - the Trinity believes that they are a 'oneness of unity' . And the truth is - we just saw, in the Old Testament, their Name which is One Name - it's the Family Name - right? And they are obviously a Oneness of unity, not a oneness of essence. And let's see if we can prove that. Jesus said: 'I and the Father are one.' And, in John 17 ... verse 22 ... Jesus says: 'And the glory which thou hast given Me I have given unto them, that they may be one, even as We are one.' So now we seeing that Jesus and the Father are One in the same way that the church is supposed to be one. And the Bible tells us how the church is one in Galatians 3 ... verse 28: 'There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free man, there can be neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.' And, of course, man is in italics, but it's meaning that 'we are the body of Christ'- we are a oneness of unity - not a oneness of essence as 'the Oneness' say, as the 'Jesus Only' say. So, when Jesus said: 'I and the Father are One' - and He also said: '... Father I pray that they may be one as we are One' - He's talking about a 'oneness of essence.' Now, how can we be 'one'? If you want to know how Jesus and the Father can be One, you have to figure out how we can be one because - that it's the same way! So, since we're living with one another and talking to one another - like Jesus did with the Father - we know that we're not one physical body, we're one corporate body, right? And since we've inherited different ... physical traits ... different wills, different emotions, different minds - we know that our soul is not one, right? However, we know that we come to one mind by coming into agreement through all of us studying the Word and all of us accepting what the Word says, but still one mind there is a oneness of unity. It's not a 'oneness of essence' ... because we all still have our separate minds. So, again, what we're seeing here is Jesus and the Father are still, in body and in soul, they are a 'oneness of unity.'
TCE: Eells uses the same false reasoning that the WBTS of Jehovah's Witnesses have made infamous. The United Pentecostal Church that Eells refers to ('Jesus Only') is modalistic in its doctrinal position. Some of the leaders who formed this group had earlier been forced out of the Assemblies of God when the Assemblies decided to insist on a trinitarian statement of faith for its ministers in 1916. The United Pentecostal Church is identified with the slogan 'Jesus Only,' because it insists that people should be baptized in the name of Jesus, not in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Because of its denial of the three distinct persons in God, the denomination should be considered heretical. We have already more than adequately dismantled the claims of the WBTS ff. And the same reasoning demolishes the claims of the 'Jesus Only' and Eells' heresy.
Here we will briefly state the facts Eells glosses over. When we read, in John 10v30, ' I and my Father are One,' this is not the Oneness of will and design merely but, as the context shows, Oneness of Power and Operation. Jehovah's Witnesses and Eells err badly in comparing this with the Oneness of John 17v20-22.
In John 10 the context shows that Christ was claiming, not merely the same will and purpose as the Father, but the same irresistible power as the Father:
' Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand ' (verse 28), ' no man is able to pluck, them out of my Father's hand' (verse 29).
The Lord Jesus ascribes the same thing to Himself as to the Father. He promises eternal security to His followers, because of His and the Father's Almighty power. The response of the Jews (in verse 31) shows how they had interpreted, ' I and My Father are one.' They obviously deduced He meant Oneness of Essence, Equality, and Godhead, and therefore sought to stone Him. Had the Jews received a false impression, He would undoubtedly have corrected this, but rather than do that Christ makes further statements to confirm that He was One in essence with the Father, with the result that (in verse 39) they still seek His life.
Eells continues his foolish exposition in this manner:
'Did you know that the Father has 'a soul' - in Hebrews, Chapter 10, He says: 'My righteous ones shall live through faith and, if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him'. The Father has a soul, the Son has a soul. Hebrews tells us that Jesus had to be made 'in all points, just like His brethren.' Meaning: Jesus came in the likeness of mankind and He had a spirit, He had a soul, and He had a body, when He came. And we were made in the 'image of God' - elohim! The Father has a spirit, a soul, and a body! And the Father said that His 'soul' would not be pleased if anyone would shrink back from faith - He would have no pleasure in them. So, he has a soul. He has a body because - I'm not talking about a physical body, a fleshly body - we know that's not true. But people have seen His body - you know, John saw His body in Revelation - he described Him! Daniel saw His body - calling Him the 'Ancient of Days'. The reason we know that it is the Father is because - in both cases - the Son came up to Him. The Lamb in one case - came up to the 'Ancient of Days' - so, the Lamb in the Book of Revelation opened the seals. So we know it had to be somebody other than Jesus Christ. And what was described was a body - on a throne ...' [end of tape!].
TCE: Eells quotes Hebrews 10v38:
'Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.'
The Greek word translated 'soul' is psuche and, according to Greek expert W.E. Vines, 'denotes 'the breath, the breath of life,' then 'the soul,' in its various meanings.' He notes the many ways that the word is used in the New Testament and that its use in this verse from Hebrews is 'the equivalent of the personal pronoun, used for emphasis and effect.'
The context in which a word is used is extremely important and, if you examine the erroneous ways in which Jehovah's Witnesses try and twist the meaning of this Greek word, you find Eells is guilty of the same kind of error. To make the colossal jump and teach that the word must mean God has a 'soul' is a serious error, but indicative of the nature and origin of Eells' beliefs - and the probable influence of the heretical Dake's Study Bible.
Thus Eells quickly proves that his doctrine is still the 'doctrine of demons' and thoroughly at home with the gross errors of the Jehovah's Witnesses, for we find him misusing Proverbs 8 in exactly the same manner attempted by this cult!
Eells claims he was taught this 'truth' from the Bible! Even if he had been reading the Jehovah's Witnesses appalling mis-translation of the Bible, the New World Translation, he would not have found the doctrine he seeks spelt out in any other way than that promulgated by the cult.
Eells: 'Proverbs, Chapter 8, is another place - where, actually, wisdom speaks ... and this verse tells us the exact same thing we just saw - that is - that He and the Father were here. Proverbs 8v22: 'The Lord possessed me in the beginning of His way' - now, when was 'the Word' come forth? 'In the beginning was the Word' - you know that the Bible doesn't claim for Jesus Christ anything further back than 'the beginning'. We'll look at that in a minute - but 'the Lord possessed me in the beginning of His way, before His works of old; I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning'. Do you know why He says 'from everlasting'? 'The beginning' starts from where eternity leaves off - time starts where eternity leaves off. See? Now I'm not saying eternity didn't continue on, but there came a place in eternity where God started time and that's what we call 'the beginning' ... God the Father always existed in eternity, always existed in eternity, but the Son did not, the Son had a beginning. The Father had no beginning, the Son had a beginning. We'll look at this - we're going to prove this: 'The Lord possessed me in the beginning of His way - I was set up from everlasting.' From the time that God started time, Jesus was - from 'the beginning' - before the earth was - when there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no mountains abounding with water, before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I was brought forth'. What does it mean by 'brought forth'? We're going to look at that too - because He was actually born of the Father. Born! Verse 30: 'Then I was by Him, as a master workman' - there it is, right there - together! 'And I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him, rejoicing in His habitable earth, and my delight was in the sons of men.' This is wisdom speaking! You know - in the New Testament - THREE TIMES wisdom is called Jesus Christ. He is the wisdom of God. Wisdom is speaking here - and wisdom is saying that he was there - in the beginning.'
TCE: One of the most disputed Old Testament texts that could show distinct personality for more than one person is Proverbs 8v22-31. Although the earlier part of the chapter could be understood as merely a personification of 'wisdom' for literary effect, showing wisdom calling to the simple and inviting them to learn, vv. 22-31, one could argue, say things about 'wisdom' that seem to go far beyond mere personification. Speaking of the time when God created the earth, 'wisdom' says, 'Then I was the craftsman at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence, rejoicing in his whole world and delighting in mankind' (Prov. 8v30-31 NIV). To work as a 'craftsman' at God's side in the creation suggests in itself the idea of distinct personhood, and the following phrases might seem even more convincing, for only real persons can be 'filled with delight day after day' and can rejoice in the world and delight in mankind.
But if we decide that 'wisdom' here really refers to the Son of God before he became man, there is a difficulty. Verses 22-25 (RSV) seem to speak of the creation of this person who is called 'wisdom':
The LORD created me at the beginning of his work,
The first of his acts of old.
Ages ago I was set up,
at the first, before the beginning of the earth.
When there were no depths I was brought forth,
when there were no springs abounding with water.
Before the mountains had been shaped,
before the hills, I was brought forth.
Does this not indicate that this 'wisdom' was created?
In fact, it does not. The Hebrew word that commonly means 'create' (bara') is not used in verse 22; rather the word is qanah which occurs eighty-four times in the Old Testament and almost always means 'to get, acquire.' The NASB is most clear here: 'The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his way' (similarly KJV). (Note this sense of the word in Gen. 39v1; Ex. 21v2; Prov. 4v5, 7; 23v23; Eccl. 2v7; Isa. 1v3 ['owner'].) This is a legitimate sense and, if wisdom is understood as a real person, would mean only that God the Father began to direct and make use of the powerful creative work of God the Son at the time creation began or the Father summoned the Son to work with him in the activity of creation. The expression 'brought forth' in verses 24 and 25 is a different term but could carry a similar meaning: the Father began to direct and make use of the powerful creative work of the Son in the creation of the universe. Again, for a fuller explanation, see our pages refuting the Jehovah's Witnesses.
(Continued on page 217)