Who Do You Worship?

John 4:21-26 (ESV) ²¹ Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. ²² You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. ²³ But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. ²⁴ God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” ²⁵ The woman said to him, “I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things.” ²⁶ Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am he.”

As I sit here in my sun room reading, studying, writing, my mind wanders back to August of 2008 when I was doing much the same thing but in a different location and under different circumstances. At that time, having been a "born again" Christian for most of my life - about 40 years - I began to seriously question my faith; ie., why I believed the things I was taught to believe. I didn't doubt the existence of God, or the historical Jesus, but many of the ideas that I had been indoctrinated with seemed contradictory. And, in real life, my personal experience as well as the experiences of those I observed around me failed to line up to the supposed truths that I heard and accepted for so many years. If the Bible is God's Word, why do so many people arrive at different conclusions about what it teaches? If Christians are the "body of Christ" and we are supposed to be of the same mind, why are there so many denominations - sometimes being separated by the slightest points? The television evangelists were preaching that God wants people to prosper, but we must give - usually to their ministries - in order for God to bless us. And in reality, the only ones benefiting financially from their preaching seems to be the preachers themselves! Is this the message that Jesus brought? Is this the Church that Jesus said He would build? All these things, and more, led me on a "quest for truth"

Thank God that it didn't take years to arrive at an answer! It was literally within moments of throwing my hands in the air and calling out to the Lord Jesus that I began to be enlightened. In my search, I was led to a website that God used to open my eyes, but that was just the beginning. I have since discovered numerous resources that have aided me in my quest. I have now discovered the reality of the beatitude which says: “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied." - Matt 5:6 (ESV)


Steeped in Tradition
In the passage of Scripture above, Jesus confronts the "tradition" of a Samaritan woman with regard to the worship of God. She believed that God should be worshiped on "this mountain", referring to Mt Gerizim where her forefathers, the Samaritans, had worshiped for years, and where there was once a temple that rivaled that of Jerusalem. The Jews, of course, worshiped on Mt Zion, Jerusalem. But Jesus corrects both views by declaring that location was not of primary concern. Rather it was a matter of knowledge.

Jesus pointed out that they, the Samaritans, did not know what they worshiped. The Samaritans were an offshoot of Jewish ancestry but whose worship of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, was tainted by the introduction of various pagan rites and beliefs which they had incorporated as a result of foreign captivity. This is why they were despised by the Jews; their worship of God was not according to Torah; it was not pure. Jesus then goes on to assert not only that Jews DO know what they worship, but the time is coming, and now is, that "true worshipers" will worship the Father in spirit and truth."

Is it possible that Christianity has become, like the Samaritans, a religion tainted with pagan ideas and practices, Greek philosophy, so that we no longer know what we worship?

According to Jesus, worship is all about "the Father." The word "worship" appears eight times in these six verses. While there are numerous lessons that can be learned about worship here, what strikes me most is the fact that of the eight times the word is used, four of them refer to the true object of worship which is "the Father". Notice especially in verse 23 that Jesus says:

1. True worshipers worship the Father
2. True worshipers worship Him (the Father) in spirit and in truth
3. The Father is seeking such (true worshipers) to worship Him

It is a powerful realization, when one takes the time to examine the texts of Scripture, that in no place and at no time does Jesus ever accept worship as God. Attempts to find any reference to the worship of a 2nd person of a trinity, or any member of a trinity for that matter, are futile! In no place does the Bible ever speak of God as three, three in one, or triune.

In the birth account of Jesus, the kings (magi) desired to worship him (Jesus), but their purpose was to worship the newly born "King of the Jews"; ie. Messiah, or Christ - not God. (Matt 2:2) Further, in Rev 5:11-14 the elders said "with a loud voice, worthy is the Lamb that was slain (a direct reference to Jesus) to receive...honor, and glory, and blessing." But then in verse 13, the same is said of "Him that sits upon the throne (a direct reference to God Almighty) AND unto the Lamb..." However, with regard to the word worship, the elders "fell down and worshiped Him that lives forever and ever." (Rev 4:9-10; 10:6; 15:7 - where this phrase clearly refers to God, not Jesus)

Worship God
Worship is translated from the the Greek proskuneo meaning, literally, to bow down, or prostrate oneself; to do obeisance in respect of the honor, dignity, power and/or authority of the one receiving worship. In Rev 19:10 and Rev 22:8-9 the angel refused worship from John and clearly instructed him to "worship God". Again, in Matt 4:10 Jesus' temptation to worship Satan was answered with "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve." What is of particular interest is the fact that the word proskuneo is always applied to the worship of God Almighty, the Father, but can also be used of others. For example, in 1Chron 29:20, the Greek version (the Septuagint) employs the word proskuneo when it says that all the people "bowed... to the LORD and to the king". It is also used of the antichrist - the beast (Rev 13:8; 13:12). There are many other examples which I will leave to the reader to discover for him/herself, but it is imperative to understand that the word proskuneo itself does not designate the worship only of God.

Critical for understanding is the fact that the Bible everywhere admonishes us to worship God alone. The fact that "worship" can be used of others demonstrates that we must understand who and why we worship! In our text, the woman tries to side step the issue by stating that when Messiah comes he would reveal everything, to which Jesus replied, "I am he". The point here is that Jesus admits to being the Christ, the anointed one of God. While Jesus is worthy of praise and adoration for his character, works, and status as both Lord and Christ, he never accepts, nor encourages the worship of Himself as God. Rather, He always points to the Father as the One men should worship. In fact, he refers to himself in John 14:6 as "the way" to the Father. This means he is not the destination, but the door. Further, in Col 1:15 he is the image of the invisible God. The word image in that verse is eikon in Greek. An icon is a representation. Those familiar with computers know that an icon is a picture, or symbol, that represents a file or program on your computer. When you click on that image it opens the file or program you want, but the icon is not itself the file or program, it is the way.


It has become clear to me that the Church today has unwittingly substituted the worship of God for the worship of Jesus. We have made Jesus, who is the icon, the image of God, the object and final destination of our worship, instead of the "way" which God provided to Himself. I make no judgments here regarding the practice of idolatry, I only wish to point out that this substitution is so subtle that most people don't realize they are doing it. Yet, it is a very slippery slope, and a dangerous error for which I personally have repented. Jesus declares without equivocation that "true worshipers will worship the Father..."!

Massive Deception
A "true" worshiper is one who worships in truth! Those who worship the Father "must worship Him in spirit and in truth." The question is, how is it possible to worship the Father 'in truth' when we fail to follow Jesus own teaching about who God is? In John 5:44 and John 17:3 Jesus describes the Father as "the only true God"; ie., the only one who is truly, or in reality, God. Throughout the gospels he declares himself as the one who speaks God's message, the words God gives him to speak, and does only what God tells him to do (references are too numerous to mention). And even after his resurrection and ascension to the right hand of God, Jesus refers to the Father as "my God" (Jn 20:17; Rev 1:6; 3:2; 3:12). Further, the apostle Paul makes reference not just to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, but "the God" and Father (Eph 1:3; 2Cor 1:3; 11:31), as also does Peter (1Pet 1:3) Does it not seem odd that God would have a God?


What strange blindness holds such power over believers that we cannot see the plain and simple truth of Scripture, but instead cling to, and in some cases vehemently argue for, an unintelligible creed which changes the person-hood of God into a substance made of three persons? I cannot comprehend all the dynamics included in this massive deception, but I know this, in the words of that great hymn, "I once was blind, but now I see".


So the question dear reader is this: Who do you worship? Are you willing to examine this issue with a clear mind and without bias, or will you simply continue to accept tradition without examination? As I complete this article it is Palm Sunday and therefore appropriate to reference John 12:13. When the crowds hailed Jesus, shouting "Hosanna, blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord", were they worshiping him as God, or as Messiah - king of Israel? Friends, Jesus is our king and as such, he is worthy of our praise and adoration. Without his life, his teaching, his death, resurrection and ascension, we would be lost in our sin and alienated to God, without hope of eternal life. But the Bible is clear, everything about Jesus points us to God, and to the fact that it was God who gave us Jesus' life and teaching; God who raised him from the dead and exalted him as Lord, to sit at His right hand.

So, as God is actively seeking those who will worship Him in spirit and truth, are you, or will you be, one found by Him?
-----------

Please  react to this post by checking one of the boxes below
and/or posting a comment.

The Bible’s Greatest Affirmation

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." - John 3:16 (KJV)

Is there any more well-known Bible verse than John 3:16? It is certainly the most recognized, memorized and repeated Bible verse of all time; at least, right up there with “The Lord’s Prayer” and “The 23rd Psalm”. And yet, in all it’s popularity it’s true message has evaded most of us, as it is very likely the least understood, and perhaps the most misinterpreted Scripture as well! Now that is a bold assertion to be sure but a simple examination will serve to explain.

Key Words

To discover what is really in this great verse it’s important to examine some “key” words. The first word we need to understand is God/god - "for God...". This word comes from the Greek theos meaning "the supreme divinity" or “general appellation for deities and divinities”. The word theos is used over 1300 times in the New Testament and virtually always refers to God the Father, the Almighty God - Yahweh. There are a few exceptions which we will discuss later.

According to Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament,

"Whether Christ is called God must be determined from John 1:1; 20:28; 1 John 5:20; Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8f, etc.; the matter is still in dispute among theologians" (emphasis mine)

1. Θεος is used of “whatever can in any respect be likened to God, or resembles him in any way”: Hebraistically, equivalent to “God’s representative or vice-regent,” of magistrates and judges, John 10:34f --Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.
2. the person or thing to which one is wholly devoted, for which alone he lives, Philippians 3:19  --Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.

            
It should be clear from reading the above that the exact meaning of “God/god” must be determined from context. It is important to see that both the Father and Jesus are referenced here, but only one is called God. It is a striking thought that those who subscribe to trinitarian dogma fail to recognize or question the fact that if the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Spirit is God, then to make reference to "God" must of necessity refer to all three persons equally and at the same time. This then would render this sentence illogical. To maintain the sense of the trinity it should read, "the Father" so loved the world that He gave "the Son". But again, this would  create another big problem because according to trinitarianism, there is perfect equality among the persons of the godhead. How is it then that only the Father loved the world and how can the “giving” of the Son be considered in any way equality? Without the hindrance of trinitarian doctrine, we are free to see that it is, in fact, God's love (the Fathers love) that is at the heart of the entire plan of salvation involving His Son. We will take up this subject later in this document.

The second key word is "so". This little word is generally overlooked but it carries a great deal of information. It is popularly understood quantitatively, ie: "this much". But "so" is translated from the Greek outos and although it can legitimately be understood quantitatively, it is better understood qualitatively, meaning "in this way, in this manner, like this"! It is beneficial to understand that the wording is NOT "God loved the world 'so much'", but rather, "God 'so loved' the world". This does not detract from the measure of God's love for the world, but places the emphasis where it should be, on the manner in which He demonstrates His love! In what way did God love the world? He loved the world in this way... "so"!!

This brings us to the next word for our study. The third key word to understand is "gave". When God loved he gave. Love is an active verb. But just how are we to understand the meaning of God giving His son? The word gave is edoken the 3rd person singular, indicative, aorist, active form of the verb didomi in the Greek text. This indicates the giving of a person for the benefit of others (Thayer's Greek Dictionary)

Again, the popular interpretation of God giving His son is that he was sent from heaven where he resided prior to becoming a human. In that sense of giving, God the Father sacrificed His son by allowing him to leave heaven, enter a woman's womb, get born, and become a man. This is the traditional, orthodox view of incarnation; ie. God the Son taking on human flesh yet never giving up deity.

There are numerous problems with interpreting the Bible narrative in this way; so much so, we cannot possibly address them all here. There is, however, a better way, one which does not lead to the many contradictions associated with the traditional view. The word “give” is related, especially in John’s gospel, to the word “sent”. God giving his Son and sending His Son are one and the same act. A thoughtful reader will readily comprehend that the one who sends is greater than the one being sent. It expresses the subordination of the one sent (given) to the one who sends (gave). When John said that God "gave" His only son he meant literally that the life of Jesus, the man, was God's gift to benefit the world. Consider the following arguments.

1. Luke 1:35 declares Jesus to be "born" (not transferred from heaven into the womb of Mary) as a result of the miracle power of God creating within Mary the seed of a human without physical relations with a man. Paul understood this well, and gave us the analogy of the "two Adams" in his letters to the Romans and the Corinthians, also referring to Jesus as the "indescribable gift" in 2Cor 9:15 (not all scholars agree that Paul refers to Jesus here), and the gift of grace in Rom 5:15 (the direct reference is to salvation, indirectly of Jesus since it comes by him).
2. This idea of the "giving" of a human being for the benefit of others is seen in Isa 9:6 where the prophet foretells of a child who would be born to a young woman (a virgin) - "unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given". Jesus makes this clear when he says unequivocally that he “did not come to be served, but to serve - and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Matt 20:28, Mark 10:45 And at the last supper in Luke 22:19 declaring the bread to be “my body, which is given for you.”
3. Another idea associated with the verb "gave" is the fact that Jesus in no way deserved death because he never sinned. Death came through sin, the result of the first Adams failure. The second Adam, Jesus, never sinned and therefore was not subject to death; yet God permitted or allowed (both words may be rightfully translated from didomi) his death on our behalf.
4. It should also be noted that Acts 13:21 uses the same construction where it says that Israel asked for a king so "God gave them Saul". Saul became God's anointed one - messiah - and was given as king for the benefit of the nation of Israel. No one would suggest that because God gave Saul that he was sent from heaven!

We could go on and on here, but let me encourage the reader to study this usage on his/her own to gain a thorough understanding.

One last point should be mentioned. Just as God gave Jesus to the world, Jesus’ wisdom, words, authority, and even his disciples, were all given to Him by God. Note especially Jesus words in John 17:2

“even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life.”

Certainly, this does not suggest that we Christians came down out of heaven! There is no valid reason to interpret the giving of God’s Son in a manner which assumes a literal, pre- existence of Jesus in heaven.

The next key word is a phrase in it's english translation, "only begotten son". This is the Greek word monogenes, a compound word from mono, meaning alone, only, unique, and genes which indicates kinship, one who is fathered, a son. So then, another way to translate monogenes is "uniquely sired human". It is imperative to know that the title “Son of God” has nothing to do with deity. Traditional orthodoxy regards Jesus as being of the same substance as the father. But this cannot be the case.

The very fact of being a son disqualifies Jesus from having the exact same substance because God is himself uncreated and eternal. This means He has no beginning. It is not a matter of later, so called, progressive revelation, it is clearly revealed in Scripture that God is an uncreated being with no equals. Therefore a son of God cannot, by mere conceptual estimation of the word son, be an eternal God! If he is a son, he must have a beginning!

This contradiction was recognized early in the history of the development of the doctrine of the trinity and the strange teaching was advanced that the Son was "eternally begotten". But this attempt to rectify a contradiction only leads to another! How can one be both eternal and begotten at the same time, since, to be begotten means to come into existence? The Bible nowhere sets forth such a mystical and confusing idea. We would do well to listen to the words of the late Eric H.H. Chang, who wrote in his book about the errors of the trinity:

“Trinitarians argue that they are "...monotheists not polytheists, because our faith is in one God in three persons. We closed our eyes (and ears) to the fact, which should have been perfectly obvious. If the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Spirit is God, and all three are co-equal and co-eternal, then the conclusion is inescapable that there are three Gods. So how did we manage to maintain that we still believe in one God? There was only one way: the definition of God had to be changed - from "Person" to a divine "Substance" (or Nature) in which the three persons share equally. The plain fact is, however, that the God of the Bible is undoubtedly a very personal Being and was never merely a "substance", no matter how wonderful that substance might be." --("The Only True God", Eric H.H. Chang, p30.)

As the Son of God, Jesus is the uniquely created human commissioned by God to fulfill His promise of redeeming the world and restoring man back to his original state as intended in the garden of Eden. It should not be overlooked that Paul clearly referred to Jesus’ activity as God working in and through him.

2 Corinthians 5:18-20 (HCSB)“Everything is from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: That is, in Christ, God was reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed the message of reconciliation to us. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, certain that God is appealing through us. We plead on Christ’s behalf, “Be reconciled to God.”

Again, it is significant that while modern Cristological terminology speaks of "God the Son", this phrase is simply not found anywhere in the pages of Scripture

Who is it that loved the world?

Under my first point I noted that the word God is used some 1300 times in the New Testament and always refers to "the Father". John 3:16 is no exception. We often refer to Jesus as being the one who loved us so much that he gave his life. While it is certainly true that Jesus loved the world we must apprehend that it was God's love for the world that caused Him to act on our behalf in commissioning Jesus. Jesus loved the world because He learned it from the Father; it is what He saw the Father doing. Note also the following Scriptures:

• Romans 5:8 (NASB) But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
• Ephesians 2:4 (NASB)  But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,...”
• Colossians 3:12 (GW)  As holy people whom God has chosen and loved, be sympathetic, kind, humble, gentle, and patient. 
• 1 Thessalonians 1:4 (GW) Brothers and sisters, we never forget this because we know that God loves you and has chosen you. 
• 2 Thessalonians 2:16 (NASB) Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us eternal comfort and good hope by grace,
• 1 John 4:7-11 (NASB) In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
• Jude 1:1 (HCSB) Jude, a slave of Jesus Christ and a brother of James: To those who are the called, loved by God the Father and kept by Jesus Christ.

The result of trinitarianism has unwittingly relegated God the Father (supposedly the 1st Person of the trinity) to a secondary place in the scheme of salvation, and elevated the Son (the 2nd Person) to the place of God Himself. This spinning and twisting of Scripture has gone on far too long and it’s time for the Church to awaken to it’s error.

Contrasting life and death

Every reasonable person must acknowledge that the word translated "perish" in no way means eternal punishment! The promise in this verse is to those who believe; ie. put their trust, in Jesus. The result of faith is the promise of life as opposed to the certainty of death. "Will not perish, but have everlasting life" draws a stark contrast between life and death. We call certain items "perishable" because unless steps are taken to preserve them they will surely waste away until there is nothing left, as though they have never been. This is what it means to perish. This is what it means to die! To relate perishing with an eternity in a place called hell which we understand as perpetual fire and torment, is not only a gross misinterpretation and misunderstanding of Scripture, it also reveals a vulgar concept of the nature and character of God!

Overwhelmingly, throughout the Bible, when the subject of judgement is addressed, it is within the context of destruction and/or extinction. Words and phrases are employed such as "ashes, return to dust, be as though they never were, smoke" and other similar concepts. Some little known versions translate this portion of John 3:16 as follows:

"may not be lost, TCNT...  shall not die, Norlie... not come to destruction, BB... need not be destroyed, Klingensmith." --Complete Biblical Library Various Versions - Complete Biblical Library – John.

For some reason, many people just don't think that death is enough punishment for sin, even though it is what God Himself prescribed! (Rom 6:23, Eze 18:4,20, Heb 9:27) Apparently, the same kind of morphing of definitions that changed God from a Person to a Substance also changed the definition and scope of death. There is no room to develop this thought further here, but for more information on the subject of death and the afterlife, you can refer to my earlier blog post here and/or this excellent article here.

Conclusion

John 3:16 is the Bible’s greatest affirmation of God’s love for the world, and His plan (in condensed form) for redeeming the world! A thoughtful reading of the Scripture should reveal

• that God the Father alone is God and that He is and has been intimately and personally involved in the affairs of mankind from the beginning (for God so loved the world);
• that it was His love for mankind that initiated His plan for the redemption of man to Himself by commissioning a unique human being (God so loved the world that He gave);
• that Jesus is not God Almighty or a second God, but the one of a kind, human son of God given with the intention that we should put our trust in him as God’s provision (He gave His only begotten son);
• and finally, that the result of that trust would be to gain immortality and escape the fate of permanent death (that whosoever believes in him would not perish but have everlasting life).

Could it be any simpler, any more wonderful, than that?   

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?

An Inconvenient Truth

Al Gore produced a documentary film a few years ago entitled "An Inconvenient Truth" in which he set out to prove as scientific fact that global warming would destroy the earth in due time unless we made some radical changes in our lifestyles. Sadly, many people bought into his idea and are now actively setting out to "save the planet". And thanks to the help of certain celebrities, and businesses seeing an opportunity to capitalize on the world's supposed dilemma, “going green” is the new standard for responsible citizenship. Now don’t misunderstand me, I am in favor of responsible stewardship of the earth, but Al Gores “inconvenient truth” has been shown to be nothing more than lies based on bad science; yet, millions around the globe continue to subscribe to the idea that man is destroying planet earth through greed and irresponsible industry.

While I do not share Mr. Gore’s notion that earth will be destroyed due to man-made global warming, there remains, I believe, an inconvenient truth! However, the truth I speak of has nothing to do with global warming! The inconvenient truth as I see it has to do with a teaching widely held by Christians around the world regarding the nature of God and Jesus. Simply put, the real inconvenient truth is that the so called orthodox Church has embraced a doctrine which has as it’s foundation Greek philosophy rather than Scripture. Despite the fact that not one shred of solid Scriptural evidence exists that the doctrine is true, multiple millions since the formulation of Church creeds in the 3rd thru 5th centuries, regard it as the most important teaching of the Christian faith. This is truly amazing when you think about it… the reformed Church has as it’s motto sola scriptura (Scripture alone) yet supports the doctrine that God exists in three distinct persons yet remains only One God, a teaching which not only defies the reasoning faculties God created us with, but cannot be found in the Bible anywhere.

The word inconvenient as used in this article means "not suiting ones needs or purposes". Some synonyms are "awkward, annoying, troublesome, bothersome". This expresses exactly the problem we have in the Church today. Volumes enough to fill libraries have been written, careers and reputations have been made, and mega churches have been built on the premise that Jesus is "God the Son", a phrase never found in Scripture. Still, men will not open their hearts and minds to the clear words of Scripture on the matter because it does not fit their preconceived ideas and long held traditions. The truth that Jesus is the “Son of God”, a title meaning God’s Chosen One, Messiah, is awkward and troublesome to mainstream Christianity. It does not suit their needs and purposes; it is indeed an “inconvenient truth”!

If you are reading this and have ever questioned the doctrine of the trinity, I ask you to consider well what you read here. One of the main Scripture verses used to support the idea that Jesus is God is John 1:1

“In the beginning was the Word,and the Word was with God,and the Word was God.
He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him
was not any thing made that was made.”

This is coupled with John 1:14 which says:

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory,
glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

Ask yourself dear reader, if it makes any sense at all that God would have John write something in the opening verses of his gospel to declare that Jesus is God the Son, a being in every way equal to God the Father, then close out his gospel with a purpose statement which reads:

“Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;  but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” –John 20:30-31 (emphasis mine)

Does it sound as though John is trying to make the point in these verses that Jesus is God? No, of course it doesn’t, because he is not! John clearly tells us that Jesus is “the Christ”. This term has as it’s equivalent the Hebrew messiah and means anointed one, or one chosen by God. In the Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament) all of Israel’s kings and prophets were anointed ones; ie. messiahs. But Jesus was THE messiah, the one all other messiahs expected and prophesied about, the one who was promised by Moses and would come from the lineage of David the king (messiah) to fulfill God’s plans for Israel and the world. Also, notice the parallelism used in the above verse equating “Christ” and “Son of God”. Christ, Messiah, and Son of God are all synonymous terms referring to God’s appointed man, not a divine being equal to God. 

So, again we must ask ourselves, is John 1:1 and 1:14 trying to tell us that Jesus was a divine being called the Word who pre-existed His earth life and created the world? Or, was Jesus a human being, born to a virgin girl through the line of David, by a miracle of God, who was in every way the outworking of God’s word (promise and plan) from the beginning, the one to whom God gave His word and through whom His word (His will and plan) and character would be made known? If you’re still uncertain of the answer, let Jesus tell it in His own words from the gospel of John. Consider the following Scriptures:

• “but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did.”  –John 8:40
• ”For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment—what to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has told me." –John 12:49-50
• “Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me.” –John 14:24
• “For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me.” –John 17:8 
• “I have much to say about you and much to judge, but he who sent me is true, and I declare to the world what I have heard from him." –John 8:26
• “So Jesus said to them, 'When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me.'” –John 8:28
• “I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.” –John 17:14

The New Testament is crystal clear on this matter. Jesus is the “Son of God” NOT “God the Son”. As Son of God He is “a man whom He [God] has appointed” (Acts 17:31 – also see Acts 3:20 and 10:42). Paul says of Jesus that “there is one God, and one mediator between God and man, the man, Christ Jesus.” (1Tim 2:5). It is an inconvenient truth because embracing it changes everything. It changes how we interpret other Scriptures and how we understand God’s Word. It requires that men rethink their position, let go of their man-made tradition and truly embrace the clear language of the Bible and the teaching of Jesus Himself when He called the Father “the only true God” (John 17:3). It’s an inconvenient truth, but it’s a truth that will set you free from the bondage of religion and error, and the word of God will open up to you as never before.

Filled

Have you ever heard one of those songs that just sticks with you… you know, a melody you just can’t get out of your head? Sure you have. We’ve all had the experience. And it’s particularly annoying when the song that’s “stuck” in your head happens to be one you don’t even like!

I play the bass guitar in the praise and worship band at our fellowship and we introduced a new song this past Sunday that I can’t stop singing. I’m OK with being “stuck” on this song because I genuinely like it. The song was written by a young man in our congregation, one of our worship leaders. The lyrics to the chorus say, “I wanna be filled, I wanna be filled, I wanna be filled with the holy spirit”. This is repeated several times in the chorus while the verses speak of surrendering our will to God.

The writer, I’m sure, understands the Holy Spirit to be a Person – the 3rd Person of the Trinity. This also was my belief until I learned the truth about the trinity. I now know that the bible teaches no such thing as God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, all being of the same essence and equality, yet not three gods, but one. Rather, the holy spirit as presented in Scripture, is God’s gift to the believer at conversion. E.W. Bullinger’s work “The Giver and His Gift” is helpful on this subject. Although a trinitarian himself, Bullinger notes the different usages of “holy spirit” throughout Scripture. Sometimes it is used to refer to God’s gift, and other times as a synonym for God Himself. The gift of holy spirit is God’s personal power at work in our lives; the imparting of divine nature, and that which gives the power we need to become like Jesus. But we must surrender to that influence at work in our hearts. I guess this is why the song has had such an impact on me these last few days. (I wake up singing it to myself… I sing it throughout the day… I’m singing it now!) I realize how often I fail at surrendering my will to His, and allowing myself to be led by the gift of God’s holy spirit within me.

Nevertheless, it is my desire to be “filled” with the holy spirit! But the real issue is: What exactly does that mean? Paul helps us understand by contrasting spirit-filling with intoxication. He says, “don’t be drunk with wine… but be filled with spirit.” (Eph 5:18) To be intoxicated with wine is to lose control of one’s faculties. A drunk person cannot be reasoned with or properly judge reality. By contrast Paul says, be filled with spirit.
I was amazed in my research to realize that I have been mislead about the real meaning of this verse, but I suppose this is also true of the majority of Christians with an orthodox background. Most bible translations capitalize the word “spirit” which automatically leads  the reader to believe that Paul is referring to the Holy Spirit. Some translations even add the word “holy” to the text for  clarity. And most translations add the definite article “the” so there is no mistaking that Paul refers here to the Holy Spirit. However, the original Greek text does NOT have the definite article, nor does it include the word holy, it simply says “plerousthe en pneumati” – be filled with spirit. To capitalize the word spirit and add “the Holy” is not only inaccurate, but misleading!

Further, this verse is read by many as though Paul is saying don’t be intoxicated with wine but be intoxicated with the Holy Spirit. This is just not the case at all! Paul uses methusko for wine, which means “to be drunken”; but for “filled” he uses the word pleroo, which has nothing to do with intoxication! The word is variously translated as “complete, fulfilled, finish, made full, satisfy, filled,” etc. .Consider how the word is used in the “Sermon on the Mount”. Jesus said “Blessed are you who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for you will be filled” (Matt 5:6). Also in Acts 5:3, “why has Satan filled your heart to lie…”. As in the previous two passages, the word is used figuratively here in Ephesians to mean “be fully supplied or abound with spirit; that is,  live in such a way that we are satiated with, and motivated by, our new spiritual nature rather than a carnal one. Paul said the same thing in Gal 5:16 where he uses the term “walk in the spirit”. Again, there is no article in Gal 5:16, nor should spirit be capitalized. Literally, he says “walk in spirit”; ie. live your life according to the spiritual nature.

Ephesians 5:18 is also written as an imperative in the present tense indicating that it is a command to be carried out on a continuing basis rather than as a single, or occasional event. I have actually heard it taught in the past that because we are imperfect vessels, we leak, and therefore Paul tells us we need to be refilled from time to time. But this really reveals a most unfortunate and basic misunderstanding not only of the nature of man, but, but the nature of God as well. We are not empty vessels to be filled up with a substance called “spirit”, much less to be inhabited by another person; ie. the person of The Holy Spirit. Paul does not teach that we are to be intoxicated, consumed, or taken over by a force or influence outside of ourselves. Instead, we are commanded to yield the right of way to the divine nature; to leave no room in our lives for wasteful, carnal, activities. We are to become complete, fully satisfied in spiritual things.

Furthermore, it is our responsibility to do this. More than making good decisions, it is learning to hear what God is saying to us on a personal level and responding in a positive manner. This is how Jesus lived, and He is our example. Not that we can ever achieve intimacy on the same level as the uniquely begotten Son of God, but it is certainly a worthy goal.

Faulty, nonsensical, and foolish interpretations of Scripture could be avoided if those in responsible positions would take the time to be more investigative and thorough in their research and study. More attention should be paid to the volume of excellent scholarly work available today, enabling us to more accurately interpret Biblical literature. But it seems that many, while paying lip service to being “filled” with the spirit, are more interested in quirky manifestations or keeping within their traditions than exploring the truth as it is already revealed in Scripture. God help us - help me - to be a better student of the word, and a better example of what it truly means to be “filled with spirit”!

The Plain Words of Scripture

"Those who accept my commandments and obey them are the ones who love me. And because they love me, my Father will love them. And I will love them and reveal myself to each of them.” --John 14:21

Have we missed this simple truth? Has it been lost in traditional Christian "theo-il-logical"doctrine? Notice the language. 'If you obey me it shows that you love me, and the One who sent me will love you, and I will love you.' Is this the language you would expect from the 2nd person of a tri-unity, as understood (or, at least taught) in trinitarian theology? The key word is "unity". If indeed there are three persons within the One God, and if there is unity among the three persons of the Godhead, does this verse even make sense? Doesn't it contradict the "unity" within the godhead?
The note in the JFB commentary on this verse reads,

"Mark the sharp line of distinction here, not only between the Divine Persons but the actings of love in Each respectively, towards true disciples." — Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

I don't suggest that JFB endorses a unitarian view of God, but it is interesting that they note the "line of distinction" between the "actings of love" as they put it, as well as the divine persons. And they are absolutely right to point out that distinction. But the complexities involved in Jesus' simple statement are immense if we are to understand him as a 2nd person of a trinity! Isn't it more sensible to simply recognize that he speaks as a person who is not God, yet acting and speaking on His behalf, as the one commissioned by Him? He is, after all, the very 'image and likeness of God', according to Hebrews 1:3. And everyone knows that an image and a likeness, no matter how exact it may be, is still a representation, and not the actual thing itself.

I urge my readers to look at the entire context of this verse (the whole chapter) and see that Jesus consistently refers to the Father as "greater" than he, as well as the One who gives him the words to speak. I think most people instinctively understand this passage, and others like it, as demonstrating the unique and close relationship Jesus had with the Father. But when we attach divinity to Jesus and insist that he is also God Almighty, we not only go beyond what is written, we also complicate beyond understanding what was given to us in plain words!

Image via Wikipedia

Now lets look at the phrase "accept my commandments and obey them". What does it mean to "accept" the commandments of Jesus? Accept is the word "echo" in the Greek. It is a verb meaning to hold, possess, to receive, to take into oneself, have ability. Indeed, it is translated variously as, has, possess, accept, keep. In other words, more than the acknowledgment of and/or rote obedience to this command or that command, it means to allow the commandment to become a part of one's thinking and action in everyday life. Observe that the only place in the NT where Jesus gives a specific 'command' is John 13:34; 15:12 and 17 where he tells his disciples to follow his example and "love one another" as he has loved us.

I think it very likely that the sense of Jesus words about obeying his commandments relate to the idea of patterning our lives after His... to love what He loves and hate what He hates... to embrace what He clearly taught as truth, as important and vital to faith, and to reject all else. This quite naturally brings to mind the place where Jesus was asked a simple, direct question by a scribe. In Mark 12:28-29 the scribe asked, "which is the greatest commandment?" Jesus' answer tells all. In this passage, Jesus first quotes the 'shema' - "Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is One". Clearly, He was speaking of His God and His Lord as One single person - God, the Father! What could be more simple and straight forward? God the Father, the Lord God Almighty, Yahweh, is One single person and Jesus recognizes and affirms that truth! It is this God, the One True God of Israel (John 17:3), that Jesus also affirms as being worthy of our complete love and devotion; ie. with all the heart, soul, and strength. The point should be obvious. If Jesus subscribed to and lived by the creed of Israel, affirming it as THE GREATEST commandment, then it is wise for us who claim to be His followers to subscribe to and live by the same creed... is it not?

My wife and I recently moved into a new home and after 3 months, we're still unpacking and getting organized. While going through some things in my office I came across an interesting document. It's something I found several years ago and printed out for distribution to a Bible class I was teaching at the time. Apparently, since I took the time to copy and print it, I thought it was a clever argument proving beyond doubt that Jesus is God. Now, however, I see the flaw in the reasoning. Take a moment to look at the document below.

Now look at it again from the very top. This supposed "trilemma", is founded upon the assertion that Jesus claimed to be God. And therein lies the problem! Jesus NEVER claimed to be God! And if Jesus never CLAIMED to be God then the entire argument is without merit and, in fact, has no practical significance.
My friends, the words of Jesus should not be ignored. To obey him is to love him, and loving him guarantees that God will love us as well! When we love Jesus, we love God because he acts and speaks on behalf of, and with the authority of God the Father. Then, says Jesus, he will reveal, or show himself to us, and both he and the Father will come to us. Understood in context, it is "on that day" that we will know that Jesus is "in" the Father and the Father "in" him, and also that we are "in" him. It is of resurrection day that Jesus speaks. Want assurance that God loves you? Want to know that you will enter into life in the coming age when Jesus returns? If we love Jesus, God will love us also, and in the same way that He raised Jesus from the grave, so He will raise us and we will then see Jesus face to face, and reign with him in the kingdom of God. What a glorious hope!

The Calf Path

I came across a wonderful poem recently that speaks truth so eloquently. Perhaps, like me, this will be your first encounter with these sage words penned over a century ago. But whether you've heard it before or not, I thought it worthwhile to share on this blog. Enjoy the wise words of an obscure poet named Sam Walter Foss.

One day, through the primeval wood,
A calf walked home, as good calves should;
But made a trail all bent askew,
A crooked trail as all calves do.

Since then three hundred years have fled,
And, I infer, the calf is dead.
But still he left behind his trail,
And thereby hangs my moral tale.

The trail was taken up next day
By a lone dog that passed that way;
And then a wise bell-wether sheep
Pursued the trail o'er vale and steep,
And drew the flock behind him, too,
As good bell-wethers always do.
And from that day, o'er hill and glade,
Through those old woods a path was made.

And many men wound in and out,
And dodged, and turned, and bent about
And uttered words of righteous wrath
Because 'twas such a crooked path.
But still they followed - do not laugh -
The first migration of that calf,
And through this winding wood-way stalked,
Because he wobbled when he walked.

This forest path became a lane,
That bent, and turned, and turned again;
This crooked lane became a road,
Where many a poor horse with his load
Toiled on beneath the burning sun,
And traveled some three miles in one.
And thus a century and a half
They trod the footsteps of that calf.

The years passed on in swiftness fleet,
The road became a village street;
And this, before men were aware,
A city's crowded thoroughfare;
And soon the central street was this
Of a renowned metropolis;
And men two centuries and a half
Trod in the footsteps of that calf.

Each day a hundred thousand rout
Followed the zigzag calf about;
And o'er his crooked journey went
The traffic of a continent.
A hundred thousand men were led
By one calf near three centuries dead.
They followed still his crooked way,
And lost one hundred years a day;
For thus such reverence is lent
To well-established precedent.

A moral lesson this might teach,
Were I ordained and called to preach;
For men are prone to go it blind
Along the calf-paths of the mind,

And work away from sun to sun
To do what other men have done.
They follow in the beaten track,
And out and in, and forth and back,

And still their devious course pursue,
To keep the path that others do.
They keep the path a sacred groove,
Along which all their lives they move.
But how the wise old wood-gods laugh,
Who saw the first primeval calf?
Ah! Many things this tale might teach -
But I am not ordained to preach.

For those who may be interested, this poem is found in the book "Pagan Christanity?" by Frank Viola and George Barna. This is a must read for anyone who has questions about the established orthodox Church, as it exists today. The book does not address doctrinal issues, but rather examines various practices common to many church denomiations today. This small work (only 269 pages) is packed with eye-opening, documented fact, and historical information of which most people have no awareness. It simply asks the question, "have we really been doing it by the book?"

If you value truth you'll appreciate this book. Whether you agree with all the author's conclusions or not, the facts cannot be disputed. This is not about bashing the Church. I love the Church that is the body of Christ, but the institution it has become is a far cry from the organism it is meant to be!