Interlocutors & Methodology

Thesis tested. Classical Trinitarianism holds that the one divine essence subsists eternally in three co-equal, co-eternal Persons. Our project tests whether the biblical data on God's "right hand/arm/finger" can be read more coherently as unipersonal self-revelation, fulfilled and embodied in Jesus Christ.

Our dialogue partners. We engage modern exegetes whose canonical and intertextual work shapes contemporary Christology: Richard Bauckham, Larry Hurtado, and N. T. Wright. Where their exegetical findings illuminate the biblical data, we build on them; where their Trinitarian conclusions diverge from our unipersonal reading, we note the tension and offer an alternative construal. Classical Trinitarian theology — represented in the tradition of Augustine, Aquinas, and Barth — provides the doctrinal horizon against which our argument is tested, though a full systematic engagement with that tradition lies beyond the present scope of this work.

Method. Historical-grammatical exegesis of key Old and New Testament texts in their literary contexts. Intertextual tracing of canonical motifs — arm, hand, finger — across redemptive history. Critical dialogue with secondary literature, citing authors fairly and engaging their exegetical conclusions where they bear directly on the argument.

Burden of proof. We do not bear the burden of disproving the Trinity by mere silence, but rather demonstrate that Scripture's positive witness to God's "right hand" as a singularly personal divine agent culminates in the incarnate Christ as its eschatological embodiment. The argument is primarily exegetical and canonical; its systematic implications are noted but a full dogmatic engagement awaits further work.

A Note on Tradition. The argument advanced in this work shares certain exegetical conclusions with the Oneness Pentecostal theological tradition, represented scholastically in the work of David K. Bernard, particularly his The Oneness of God (Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1983). Where Bernard and the broader Oneness tradition have anticipated aspects of the canonical reading offered here, we acknowledge the convergence. However, the present work approaches the question primarily from a biblical-canonical and exegetical standpoint rather than from within any confessional tradition. Our conclusions are offered as an independent reading of the scriptural witness, intended for engagement across theological traditions.