Vain Deceit

Colossians 2:8 (ESV)

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

It is assumed, and taught, by many Trinitarians that a group of theologians got together in the 3rd century and solved the riddle. That is, how could Jesus be a man and yet say and do things that only God could; and more importantly, how can we maintain monotheism and still believe in the Godhood of both Jesus and the Father? But does anyone else find it odd that the formulation of this doctrine came three centuries after the death and resurrection of Christ? And further, isn’t it rather suspect that we can find no Biblical illustrations attempting to explain the Trinity such as those which are used today?

Man’s Thoughts

Probably the most well-known illustration used to prove how there could be three distinct persons in One God-Essence is that of water, steam, and ice. The argument is that they are of one substance, but different forms. There are however, numerous problems with this comparison. First, the Trinity doctrine states explicitly that each person of the Trinity is not only distinct from each other, but each are God in themselves, yet forming only One God, not three separate gods; so there is unity in trinity. The water, ice, steam illustration falls short in that water must be altered to form ice or steam. Even though ice and steam retain properties of water, they cannot be called water - they have been altered. In addition, in the Trinity, each Person exists simultaneously, each being fully God, whereas, water can only be in one form at a time - either it is water, steam, or ice - not all three! This may be a good illustration for Modalism, but not the Trinity.

There are other illustrations that have been tried as well. It has been pointed out that each beam of light is made up of three separate rays, the actinic which is invisible, the luminiferous which is visible, and the calorific which gives heat and can be felt but not seen. On the surface, this sounds like an excellent example of the Father who is invisible, the Son who is visible, and the Spirit whose presence can be felt. But again, take notice that all three rays must be present simultaneously in order for it to be light. The actinic ray alone, is not light. All three rays must be present together to make light. In the Trinity, Jesus is fully God, as are the other Persons.

There are more, such as the three leafed clover, the triangle, the egg, or even time - past, present, future - but these are also useless in describing the indescribable Trinity! But what is even more striking to me is that none of these attempts to explain or describe the idea that God is Triune, can be found in the pages of Scripture. In virtually every instance, Scriptures referenced to support the Trinity must be interpreted from a preconceived notion that God is Triune. In other words, you must already believe it is so, then you can infer it from certain Scriptures and construct all sorts of mental sketches to support the veracity of the idea. Every commentary, dictionary, or other resource book I have researched, agree that the doctrine of the Trinity is not found explicitly in Scripture. The assertion is that it is a revealed doctrine, but in reality it is a fabricated doctrine; high sounding words with no substance; an opinion, and nothing more.

So again, we are expected to believe that 3rd century theologians, called together by the Emperor Constantine, put in writing what was already believed and taught by the Christian majority. Nevermind that there are no explicit Scriptures that tell us God is three,while there are 1000’s that clearly describe Him as One, and that He alone is the creator. Nevermind that Jesus did not claim Deity or equality with God in any way, but always affirmed that God was greater than himself, that his authority and power were given to him by God, and that God was not only his Father, but his God. And nevermind that the Holy Spirit does not have a name, and seems to be curiously missing in many of the Scriptures where one would expect him to be if he were an equal member of the Trinity. The council of Nicea, in 325 AD, dealt primarily with advancing the idea of the Deity of Christ. Concerning the 3rd Person of the Trinity, it says only “and we believe in the Holy Spirit”. It took another 100+ years to formulate the Trinity that we know today stating that each Person - Father, Son, and Spirit - are equally God.

God’s Thoughts

The Bible tells a very different story and uses entirely different ideas to illustrate the relationship between the Father and the Son. In John 15, Jesus calls himself the Vine. He refers to the Father as the Gardener, and the disciples are the branches. Notice the figures in this teaching of Jesus. They show exactly the relationship between God, Jesus, and believers. Clearly, the Father and the Son are not of the same nature, or essence. God, the Gardener, planted the vine and cares for it, pruning its branches and so forth. The Vine, Jesus, has his roots in the soil and is of the same substance as the branches. The branches must be “in” the vine in order to bear fruit and be useful. The Vine gives life to the branches but nothing in this illustration attempts to describe a Triune God or that Jesus is himself God, for if that were the case, then every true believer would also be god because we are “in” Christ. John tells us how Jesus could have life in Himself, he says, “For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.” -John 5:26 (ESV)

Also, consider 2Cor 4:4. Here, Paul says that Christ is the “image” of God. Image is eikon (icon) in the Greek. An icon is an image, a representation of something. We speak of certain persons as being “iconic figures”. The meaning is that these people are representative of something bigger than themselves - a movement, a corporation, etc. Bill Gates, for example, is an iconic figure as the founder of the massive, worldwide Microsoft corporation. When I look at my computer desktop I see icons. Each icon represents a different file or program. Whichever file or program I want to work with, I simply click on the appropriate icon and it takes me there. That’s what Paul meant when he said that Jesus is the image of God; He represents God - He is our way to God. It is this principle precisely that Jesus revealed when he said “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes to the Father but by (or through) me.” An icon is NOT the thing it represents, it gets you to the thing it represents!

Paul also speaks of Jesus as having “the fulness of the Godhead (God-essence, or Deity)” dwelling in him (Col 2:9; 1:19). If Paul believed Jesus was God, the 2nd Person of the Trinity, he would not have to say that the fulness of Deity dwelt in him. This would be already evident. Note that in Col 1:19 that God was pleased to have His fullness dwell in Christ. Paul understands Jesus as one in whom God’s fullness was expressed, and it was God’s plan that it should be that way. This is very different from being God. These are clear and unequivocal statements of Christ's nature. Not "God the Son", the 2nd Person of a Triune God, or any such metaphysical theory, but a man begotten by God, in whose character, actions, and words, we see the invisible God.

The Bible does not contain illustrations used to describe God’s nature as being “three in one”; because it never states that God is Triune in nature. But Paul warned us against falling prey to “philosophy and empty deception according to the traditions of men” (Col 2:8). The KJV uses the phrase “vain deceit”. Beginning in Paul’s day, and taking root in the creeds of the 3rd and 4th centuries, the Church has been led astray by deceitful vanities which have no ground in Scripture.

Brothers and sisters, truth matters! It’s time to take a serious look at the doctrines we have so blindly accepted and see the truth we’ve been missing!

Who is God in John 1:1?

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

--John 1:1 (ESV)

I have always found it interesting, to say the least, that the word “word” (logos) is capitalized here. Some years ago my son was questioning the doctrine of the Trinity after hearing arguments against it from an American convert to Islam. Now, I must confess that I was very flustered when questioned about this admittedly contradictory teaching. Before I even attempted to defend it, I prefaced my remarks with the undebatable statement, “it’s a mystery - you must take it by faith!” I knew that Trinitarian apologists depended heavily on the gospel of John, especially 1:1 to support the doctrine of the Deity of Christ and I remember going directly there to make my case. It made perfect sense to me at the time, that because the word was given a capital “W” it was obviously meant to highlight the fact that Jesus was being identified as the Word and the Word was God. If Jesus is God, and the Father is God, and the Spirit is God (although this passage says nothing about the Spirit), then the Trinity must be a true doctrine because the Bible also sets forth the truth that there is only One God. And since the Bible cannot contradict itself, the One God must be composed of three persons... case settled, the Trinity doctrine is upheld.

Of course, there were many Biblical facts I overlooked regarding the issue of Jesus’ nature, not the least of which is the irrefutable fact that Jesus NEVER claimed the designation “God”, for himself - EVER!. But, like most other Christians today (and the last 1700 years), I was taught the supposed “cornerstone” of Christian doctrine, the Trinity, and as all Trinitarians do, whether they realize it or not, I read that doctrine into this verse, as well as every other passage of Scripture that seemed to suggest it. I didn't realize it then, but I was guilty of reading my own preconceived ideas into the Scripture, thus changing its meaning in order to support what I believed to be true.

Every good Bible student knows that in the original manuscripts there is no punctuation or distinction between upper and lower case so, logos was NOT capitalized in the original documents. Further, there is nothing special or out of the ordinary about the syntax of logos in John 1:1 compared to its appearances everywhere else in the New Testament - over 300 times! It is always translated as word, saying, thought, account, speech, etc. Only here in John 1:1 is it capitalized and purported to provide proof for the Deity of Jesus. Further, logos is not used again in any verse of new testament Scripture as a reference to Jesus; so why do the translators capitalize logos in John 1:1?

Make no mistake, this is not done as a result of pure translation! It is interpretation based on the bias of the translators. This interpretative maneuver does a disservice to the English Bible reading public because it equates the Word with a personal being, separate and distinct from God the Father, and having an existence in eternity along with Him. This Trinitarian doctrine of the literal  pre-existence of Jesus is no more than inference and conjecture given credence by translators capitalizing the Word. Thus, it is read as though John were saying that “Jesus was in the beginning with God and Jesus was God”, or that “the Son was in the beginning with God and the Son was God”.But we must posit the question: is this what the writer, John, wanted to say? If it is indeed what John meant to say then he could easily have done so plainly. But he did not! He said “the word” was in the beginning with God, and the word was God”! Further, the word of John 1:1 is said to be God, not the Son of God, or "God the Son". Look at it again: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” 

Who is God in this verse? 
Generally it is accepted that by God, in the first instance, is meant “the Father”. But if that’s true, then to be consistent, John must be saying that the Word was with the Father, and the Word was the Father. Do Trinitarian Christians really mean to say that Jesus (the Word) was Yahweh? Were they one and the same? If, as Trinitarians claim, the terms Jesus, the  Word, and God the Son are all synonymous, why didn’t John clarify by saying “in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was the God the Son”?

This traditionally accepted view of John 1:1 is fraught with inconsistencies and errors of reason. The kind of logic that identifies the Word of 1:1 as a separate being, now known as "God the Son", on the basis of verse 14 (and the Word became flesh) is frankly, unfounded and nonsensical!. It is true that the word did become flesh, and John definitely equates that word with Jesus. But, if the logos of John 1:1 is taken in it’s normal usage, (plan, purpose, account, message, etc.) the conclusion of a pre-existent being would not only be avoided, it would be preposterous.

It has been suggested that John was drawing on the Hellenistic thinking of the day in his use of the term “logos”. Under the definition of “logos” in the “Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon” it says that

“A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around 600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe. This word was well suited to John’s purpose in John 1.” --Strong, J. (2001). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

But the notion that John, an uneducated fisherman from Galilee, would have been familiar with the Greek philosophy of Heraclitus, Plato, or even a more contemporary Philo, doesn’t seem very likely. More probable is the observation that John used Hebraisms readily understood by Jewish readers of his day. In fact, John may well have been thinking in terms of the Hebrew davar (word), or perhaps more likely the Aramaic “memra” (word), in his use of logos. Remember that although the gospels were written in Greek, the authors, with the exception of Luke, were Hebrew and thought like Hebrews. In fact, modern scholarly work has recognized that Aramaic was the predominant language of the common people of Israel at that time, including Jesus himself. If this is true, then John would have used “word” (logos/davar/memra) as a synonym for God (Yahweh). This usage would have clear implications of John’s Jewish monotheistic roots and mindset. 

The “Encyclopedia of Religion” states:

“Exegetes and theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity … Although the Hebrew Bible depicts God as the father of Israel and employs personifications of God such as Word (davar), Spirit (ruah), Wisdom (hokhmah), and Presence (shekhinah), it would go beyond the intention and spirit of the Old Testament to correlate these notions with later trinitarian doctrine.”

In his book, “The Only True God, A Study of Biblical Monotheism”, the author, Eric H.H. Chang writes in detail regarding the usage of memra in the Targums (a commentary of the Hebrew Scriptures in Aramaic). The “Word of the Lord God” is often used in tandem with “Yahweh God” as though it were a separate being. For example, in Genesis 18:17 the Targum reads thus:

“And the Lord said with His Word, I cannot hide from Abraham that which I am about to do; and it is right that before I do it, I should make it known to Him.”

Here, “the Lord” is Yahweh and “with His Word” is memra. This distinction is not seen in English translations of the Bible. The Word here is not to be understood as a separate entity any more than we are to understand “Wisdom” as a separate being who was with God in the beginning (Prov 1:20; 3:19; 8:12). Rather, the Word, like wisdom of Proverbs, is a personification of God’s creative thought, speech, purpose and plan which, in reality, equates to God Himself since it expresses His very being. John also uses a similar grammatical construction in 1John 1:2 where he refers to “eternal life” as being “with the father”.

Take into account also that regarding the promise of the Messiah, the Bible never proclaims or even alludes to the idea that God Himself would become a man, or that a being known as “the Word” or “God the Son” would become a man. Note what God said to Moses:

“I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him.” -- Deut 18:18-19 (ESV)

Consider the critical points in this prophetic word:

1. That God Himself would “raise up” the prophet. God accomplished this "raising up" when He miraculously created and implanted human seed into the virgin Mary (Luke 1:35). In this way, the birth of Jesus, the "second Adam" (Rom 5:12-19; 1Cor 15:45-49), God's word became flesh in that HIs plan was given expression through the vehicle of a human being whom God Himself prepared for such purpose (Heb 10:5-10). Also, Luke adds the helpful insight that Jesus “increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man” (Luke 2:52)
2. That this prophet would be “like you [Moses]” and “from among their brothers”, meaning he would be a man, an Israelite, who had a close relationship with God, just like Moses. The bloodline of the Messiah can be traced through the Bible, but Matthew and Luke both give a detailed genelogical list of Jesus family tree. Take special note however, of Luke’s geneology where he traces Jesus ancestry all the way back to Adam, “son of God” (Luke 3:38). The point here is often overlooked but critical in understanding that Jesus was, according to Luke, a real human being with roots all the way back to the creation of the first man! There is no hint in Luke that Jesus was a hybrid "God-Man", only that Jesus was completely human and fathered by God. The parallel of two Adams found in Paul's' writings supports that he considered Jesus to be a man who came into existence like all men, through birth, with the exception that he was miraculously conceived.
3. That God would “put [his] my words in his mouth”. Over and over, Jesus himself declared that he did not speak his own words on his own authority but he spoke the words of his Father, God. The incarnation, “the word became flesh”, is God’s expressive mind embodied in the real flesh and blood person, Jesus of Nazareth, not a pre-existent being, God the Son, taking on human flesh. The Scripture says that “the Word became flesh”, not that God the Son became flesh! There is no such person as "God the Son" in the Bible or it's teachings. However, if Jesus was indwelt by the the Word (logos) or Memra of Yahweh, then it was Jesus explicitly speaking God's words, in God’s  Name, and not his own - which is exactly what Jesus said, and what Moses prophesied! (John 14:10, 24; 17:8; Deut 18:18-19)

The Last Word

Finally, if John intended to convey to his readers that Jesus was God, an equal member of a Trinity, he not only could have said it plainly in John 1:1, he would have had ample opportunity to say it plainly throughout his gospel. But conversely, he closes his gospel with the simple, straightforward, statement of intent; that “...these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,... (John 20:31). Neither the title “Christ” nor the phrase “Son of God” means God in the Bible. Christ is the equivalent of the Hebrew “Messiah” which means ‘anointed one’ or “chosen One”. John’s argument was the same as that of Paul and the early Church; that Jesus was the Christ, (Acts 5:42; 17:3; 18:5,28) not that he was God. LIkewise, “Son of God” is a synonym for Messiah. To interpret “Son of God” as meaning “of the same substance”, as do the creeds of Christendom, is to ignore all logic and meaning of words, and to insert Greek philosophy into God's word. One cannot be both a Son of God and God, equal in every sense.

Conclusion
There is no question that most English translations of the Bible make certain passages, especially in the gospel of John, misleading. However, prayer and reason can prevail in revealing the correct interpretation of Scripture, so long as the seeker is willing to admit that he/she may have been mislead in their current understanding. Too often, we Christians ask for guidance of the Spirit to aid in our understanding, while concurrently approaching the Bible as though we already know certain things we have been taught to be factual. This is closed mindedness, and a closed mind is certainly no way to discover distinctions between truth and error. We must value truth over all, and be willing to let go of tradition, no matter how deeply seated!

A little reason goes a long way in uncovering the verity of the matter, but sadly, the doctrine of the Trinity has prevailed for so long, because of group mentality and fear, that an incomprehensible mystery is now touted as divine truth.Someone has perceptively said, “A lie repeated often enough carries more weight than the truth!” It’s time for Christians to rethink this incomprehensible doctrine, ask honest questions, and desist from the reliance of creeds that were formulated centuries after the death of Christ and the apostles!

The more I study, pray, and contemplate this truth - that Jesus is the Son of God, not God the Son - the more concerned I become of the ramifications for today’s church. I cannot help but wonder how God will judge this enormous deception and twisting of Scripture that has invaded His Church and deified His Christ, usurping the place of God the Father who, according to Jesus, is the only true God! (John 5:44; 17:3) I can only pray that with the plethora of information available today via the internet, along with the many quality books being written on the subject, more and more people will become enlightened to the truth. If God could get through to me, having been thoroughly entrenched in the false doctrine of the Trinity for almost 40 years, then I am convinced that He can, and will, make Himself known to others who sincerely seek the truth!

The Supremacy of The Son

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. --The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Heb 1:1–4). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

We have been reading through the book of Hebrews recently and I was struck with the first four verses. It is truly astounding how indoctrination into trinitarian thinking causes one not only to ignore good scholarship, but also to simply overlook context and, simultaneously, miss entirely the important points of Scripture. These four verses serve as a prologue to the letter, as the writer gets right to the heart of the matter, setting the theme which is, the supremacy of the Son of God. Several points should be acknowledged here regarding the nature of God's Son.

According to orthodoxy, the trinity is comprised of three co-equal, co-eternal persons, but the evidence here and elsewhere throughout the Bible is contrary to that premise. In the first place, verse 2 declares that God spoke in times past by the prophets but in "these last days" He spoke by a Son. This fact argues strongly that the Son was not present in the past, as many trinitarians assert - certainly, at least, not present in any  tangible sense. Orthodoxy likes to think of "Son" in Hebrews as "God the Son". But in fact, there is no justification for the inversion of Son of God to God the Son. Not only is the title "God the Son" non-existent here, but neither does it appear anywhere else in the Bible.The writer makes it very simple... “in these last days” God spoke through a Son, because there was not a Son for Him to speak through prior to these last days!

Second, the Son was "appointed heir of all things'. It is common reason that one who has been appointed cannot in any sense be equal to the one who does the appointing! Even if one holds to the idea that the Son is Deity, it cannot be reasonably affirmed  that he is in any way an equal member of the Godhead - definitely not from this verse. Any attempt to make the Father and Son equal requires a great amount of double talk. This text, like the rest of the New Testament, simply does not support the teaching that Jesus is co-equal to God the Father, and therefore does not support the trinity.

Third, in setting forth the supremacy of the Son, the writer declares that it was "through the Son” that the world was created, or made. Again, trinitarianism associates this making of the world to John 1:1 where Jesus is said to be a person called “the Word” who existed with God in the beginning and was His agent in creation. However, a study of a few key words will lead us to a different conclusion. World, in the NT, is "usually the Greek word kosmos" according to the Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible. But in this text, the word is aion. The NASB has in it’s text notes "lit. ages", which is the basic meaning of aion. Further, the verb "made" is poieo in the Greek NT which has the meaning of creating something from something, as opposed to creation from nothing! Clearly, the writer is speaking of the world in the sense of “ages” of time.

Crucial to understanding this verse is the use of the word “through”. The word is dia in the NT Greek and can also be translated “for this reason”. Strong's Greek Concordance has

"‎2a the ground or reason by which something is or is not done. 2a1 by reason of. 2a2 on account of. 2a3 because of for this reason. 2a4 therefore. 2a5 on this account.” --Strong, J. (2001). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

This is significant in radically rethinking what the writer is saying here. What if the intention is that Jesus coming into existence is the "focal point" of time and creation? Perhaps the writer is saying that the entire world, especially the ages (past, present, and future) have Jesus as their glue, meaning, and purpose. This understanding would support the clear theme of Hebrews which is the superiority, or supremacy of the Son, without contradicting the teaching everywhere else in Scripture that God (the Father) alone, is the creator! The idea then would be that God ordered the ages of time (past, present, and future) with the Son in mind. .

Fourth, the Son is the "exact imprint" of His (God's) nature. No matter how exact, an imprint is still an imprint and not the original. An imprint is a charakter in the Greek NT which is an exact representation. NLT translates that he (the Son) expresses the “very character” of God. Certainly this is not too difficult to understand! The fact that the Son expresses perfectly God’s character does not make him God, 2nd Person of a trinity or otherwise. Again, even if one insists that he is Deity, God the Son, he is still not equal to the Father because he radiates God’s glory.

Fifth, after his sacrificial death he was raised and ascended into the heavens where "he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high". Again, how can we come away with a dogma that says the Son is equal with the Father from this picture? While the position of "right hand" is a high honor, indeed the highest honor, it is still a place of subordination to the one who has the throne. The "Majesty on HIgh" is a clear reference to Yahweh, the Supreme God.

Sixth, the writer clearly states in v4 that he (the Son) "became" (having become) superior to angels. The fact that he became superior to the angels is a clear indication that he was not previously superior. It is not insignificant that the writer chooses to use Psalm 8 here in reference to the Son.

Finally, the the Son's name was "inherited". Note that Philippians 2:10-11 establishes the fact that God exalted Jesus to his position as Lord and gave him the Name which is above all. All this is "to the glory of God the Father". There is no need to resort to double talk and mysteries to make sense of the Bible. And there is no requirement to accept a logical contradiction in order to have a saving relationship with God through Christ. Paul said in Romans 10:9-10 that if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved!

I came to understand the error of the trinity a few years ago and now continue to be amazed at how totally blinded I was to the plain truth of Scripture. The message that God the Father alone is the only one who is truly God (John 17:3; 5:44-47), and that Jesus His Son, is the chosen human vessel in whom God’s fullness was pleased to dwell (Col 1:19; 2:9), jumps out of the pages of the Bible once one sees it!!

The author desires your reaction and comments. Please check one of the reaction boxes below. To share your thoughts, post a comment.

The Only Begotten What?

I’ve been perusing the gospel of John recently to test a theory. Trinitarians turn to John’s gospel almost exclusively to support the orthodox doctrine that Jesus is both God and man. The number of verses in John used to prove Jesus’ Deity are really not all that substantial. I suggest that there are actually many more verses in John that disprove the doctrine of the trinity! Further, those texts purported to prove the trinity, when properly understood, falter miserably. John 1:18 is an example.

John 1:18 (NASB)18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in thebosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
John 1:18 (HCSB)18 No one has ever seen God. The One and Only Son— the One who is at the Father’s side— He has revealed Him.

The different translations of this verse are the result of opposing Greek manuscripts. The HCSB, along with the KJV and others use the “textus receptus” (the received text) which reads “only begotten Son”. On the other hand, the translators of the NASB (and others - notably the NIV and ESV) favor a different, older, Greek document which has “only begotten God”. The oldest texts should typically be regarded as the most reliable, but in this case there is more to consider. For starters, how about the use of simple sense and reason.

If the documents are different it can only mean that somewhere along the way one was changed. It’s difficult to comprehend that a person, no matter how well-meaning, could wilfully alter the text of Scripture. But we know as a matter of historical fact that Biblical texts have at times been tampered with for various reasons. Most instances of textual corruption are the result of simple error in transmission and these are easily detected. Some changes however, reveal blatant partiality for a particular view. In this case the question is: was John 1:18 changed from “only begotten son” to “only begotten God” or the other way around? Since there are no older documents to compare, we can’t make that determination with absolute certainty. However, I propose that the easiest way to determine an acceptable answer is the use of sense and reason.

The word begotten in Greek is genos. It means “descendant, family”, and is from the root ginomai meaning  “to be made - to come into existence”. If God, by definition, is immortal, uncreated, then how does “begotten God” make any sense? How can one be both begotten and immortal - created, and uncreated? One of the early Church fathers tried to resolve this dilemma by coming up with the term “eternal generation”. The line of reasoning here is that since the Son is eternal as the Father is eternal, the begetting must also be eternal. Wow! Try and wrap your head around that one!! So, God the Son is always being born?? 

The Athanasian creed declares Jesus to be begotten and not made. Here is another statement that simply makes a muddle out of lanquage! There is no difference between begotten and being made in the context of birth. The Bible is full of genealogical records.  We readily understand the meaning when it says so and so begat (fathered) so and so. The begetting brought the child into existence; a baby was made. Why then should genos take on a different meaning when it comes to the birth of Jesus?

Angels are called “sons of God”, the nation of Israel is termed “God’s son”, and Christian believers are also “sons of God”. But Jesus is the unique, one of a kind, only “begotten” Son of God! What makes Him unique is that He was begotten in the womb of a young virgin girl. According to Luke 1:35, the angel of the Lord told Mary that the Holy Spirit would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her and for that reason (therefore), the child being born in her would be called “Son of God”. Did you get that? “For that reason”! Because the Spirit of God came upon Mary, the child “shall be called” the Son of God. That means that Jesus could not have been the ”Son of God” prior to his conception in Mary. Think about it! He is called Son of God because He was begotten - came into existence - by a miracle which God performed in Mary’s womb!

A second point to consider here is the use of the term God. We err when we attach 21st century meaning to a 1st century word. In Jesus day this word had a much wider meaning. When we refer to God in 21st century western culture, we almost always mean the all powerful and supreme creator. This was not the case in the age and culture of Jesus and the apostles. The word god could be used to describe anyone with authority to speak for Yahweh, such as a prophet or judge (John 10:34). In Exodus 4:16 God told Moses he would be “god” to Aaron. And, in 1 Cor 8:5 Paul makes reference to other “gods” and “lords” as secondary and inferior to the God of Christians, who is “The Father”. Additionally, Paul refers to Satan as “the ‘god’ of this present age”. With that understood, if only begotten god is in fact the correct and original reading,  then certainly John’s reference to  Jesus as “only begotten god” would have been understood in a secondary sense. This means Jesus could be called god because of His derived power and authority, just as in John 20:28 when Thomas confessed of Jesus, “my lord and my god”. There is no need to read into the text that He was God Almighty or an additional person of the Godhead. As God’s true and legitimate representative, he could be called god, and still be begotten!

One last argument in favor of the correct reading of John 1:18 as “only begotten Son”. The phrase in question comes from one Greek word - not just genos but monogenos. Mono means “only, one, unique” - monogenos then is the one and only descendant, unique son, only begotten son. This phrase is used only by John when referring to Jesus and we find it also in John 1:14; John 3:16 and 18, and 1 John 4:9. We do not, however, find any other occurrences of “begotten God” in Scripture, not in John’s gospel, not in any epistle. Nowhere! Not even in the oldest documents.

In my estimation these are compelling arguments that should be taken seriously by all who, like me, have accepted without question, the orthodox view of the trinity and the two natures of Christ. In their book, “The Doctrine of The Trinity: Christianity’s Self-inflicted Wound”, authors Anthony Buzzard and Charles Hunting perceptively write:

“Part of Christian growth is the willingness to admit we have been deceived, that we have not had sufficient information to make good decisions on Bibleissues.” (page 162)

When I made the leap from the trinitarian aberration to seeing what the Bible clearly teaches about God and His Son, it was, at first, both fearful and unsettling; but that quickly changed as the truth washed away the lies. I don’t profess perfect understanding of everything in the Bible but I know that my faith is stronger today than ever before because I have been enlightened to reality. I encourage and challenge readers to do your own research of this information with an open mind. What makes more sense?

1. God became a man but never stopped being God so He could explain Himself to man, subjected Himself to death (even though it’s impossible for God to die), then raised Himself from the dead and made Himself Lord.
   - OR -
2. God begat a man, a chosen Son, whose life revealed God perfectly, who gave himself up to death knowing that His Father would raise Him from death and bestow upon Him the highest honor!

It’s a pretty clear choice for me! How about you?

Some Thoughts About Incarnation and Resurrection

Christmas is the time of year when Christians celebrate the birth of Christ. Never mind all the tradition and commercial baggage that the holiday has acquired over the years, or the fact that Jesus was probably not even born in December; it is still recognized as one of the holiest days on the Christian calendar. We talk about the Christmas “spirit” which is a spirit of peace and love, and we give gifts to one another in remembrance of the greatest gift ever given, the gift that God gave to the world – His Son. Now I’m all for peace and love and the giving of gifts… that’s a good thing; but at the same time, I’m concerned that the real meaning and impact of the Christmas story is lost in all the hype of the Christmas holiday.

It seems to me that religious tradition and retail business have joined forces to mask the real story of Christmas – the one the Bible actually teaches. When one carefully reads the accounts of Jesus birth in the Scripture it becomes obvious that many liberties have been taken to embellish the story. Commercialism hasn’t embellished it, but religious tradition has certainly done so.
It is an interesting fact that, aside from Matthew and Luke and a few Old Testament prophecies, neither the birth of Christ nor any details of his birth are mentioned anywhere else in Scripture. The birth event is a given. In fact, there is no clear record of any Christian group celebrating the birth of Christ before around the 4th century CE. Interesting, to say the least. Of course his birth is an important fact of history, but the central tenet of the Christian faith is that God raised Jesus from the dead! The resurrection of Christ is the foundation of Christianity. Paul said,

“For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received — that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures ..."  -- 1 Cor 15:3 (NET)

The 4th – 5th centuries were a turning point for Christianity. At that time the creeds were formulated, demanding belief in the deity of Christ as a requirement for salvation. Today, the Christian Church celebrates the Christmas story, telling about how Christ was born, but beneath the plain words of Scripture lies the teaching that his birth was not really a birth at all, but an “incarnation”. I question whether most ordinary Christians even understand what “incarnation” means! Literally, it is “enfleshment” – the taking on of human flesh. The whole idea of pre-existence comes into play here. Now, rather than a savior being “born” we have a being who always existed as God, entered the womb of a young girl and became a human, literally wrapping himself in human flesh. It's interesting that Paul did not include this in his list of things of "first importance." Certainly, if the incarnation were a true Biblical fact, it would be of great importance!


I don’t mean to be crude in the use of this artwork, but when I finally got my head out of the sand I didn’t like what I saw! I realize that I had been misled. How foolish I felt, not to have discovered the simple truth before! I pray that somehow, God will use me, use this blog, to help others get their heads out of the sand as well. I like what the the authors of “One God and One Lord” write in a footnote on page 369 of their book.

"The reader can decide for himself which of the following sounds more logical and scriptural:
a) God Himself became a man, coming down to earth from heaven to do a job. He is treated poorly while trying to do the job, and is killed. He then raises Himself from the dead and goes back to where He came from, declaring Himself victorious.
b) God created a human being, whom God prepared and commissioned to do a job. The man comes from a humble, earthly origin, is treated poorly and killed. Because he did such a good job, however, God raised him from the dead and promoted him to an exalted position in heaven."

The incarnation has led us away from the resurrection, in so far as vital Christian doctrine is concerned. Even John Knox, one of the reformers, warned:

“the more fully the logic of pre-existence is allowed to work itself out in the story [of Jesus], the less important the [his] resurrection is bound to become.”

There is no better, no more beautiful, way to tell the story of Jesus’ birth than is given in the pages of holy Scripture. There is no need to embellish the truth as God gave it. I don't wish to stop celebrating Christmas, I simply think it should be understood accurately! And when I hear from Christian leaders that the incarnation is of primary importance to the Christian faith, I cringe.

The central point of the Christian faith is NOT that God became a man! But God commissioned a man who died and was buried for the remission of sins; whom also God raised from the dead as the "firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep", by whom we might obtain immortality through faith in him. (1 Cor 15:20-21)

This is the Christian hope! Jesus lived a sinless life remaining obedient to death, and God raised him from the dead and exalted him to the highest place of honor, making him both Lord and Christ. (Phil 2:8-11; Acts 2:36) Through his death, atonement for our sin has been made, and by faith, we will also live as he now lives. He truly is, as James Moffatt puts it, our “divine hero”!

“For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us; the royal dignity he wears, and this the title that he bears – A wonder of a counselor, a divine hero, a father for all time, a peaceful prince!” – Isaiah 9:6 (Moffatt)