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.

What The Resurrection Means to Me

Easter 2013 has just passed and I've been ruminating on the whole message of the resurrection. Being a Christian means believing the impossible! We believe in an invisible, eternal God; a God no one has ever seen and who has always existed. He has no beginning or ending, yet we believe not only that He exists, but that He is personally interested and involved in our lives. Impossible!? Trinitarian teaching complicates this impossibility even more by insisting that there are three separate and distinct persons which make-up the nature of the Godhead. All three persons of the Trinity are equally God, yet there are not three Gods, but One. And if that's not impossible or illogical enough, the 2nd person of this Trinity is both man AND God simultaneously! Trinitarianism maintains that this "mystery" of God is what sets Christianity apart from all other world religions. To that assessment I heartily concur... it does set it apart. The problem though is that it sets it apart from reason as well. It creates not just an impossibility, but a logical contradiction. Is it necessary for Christians to be set apart from reason? More important, does the Bible make those declarations about His nature? No, it does not.


In a nutshell, the invisible, eternal God, revealed Himself to the world through a son, a man He appointed (Heb 1:1-2, Acts 17:31). Because this man, His only begotten son, was obedient and successful in overcoming every temptation to sin (Heb 4:15), perfectly reflecting God's image (Heb 1:3), God raised him from the dead and made him Lord over all (Phil 2:9-11). Over all except for Himself, of course - 1 Cor 15:27-28. Now, we're still talking impossibilities here, but there is no need to go further than what is written in the Scriptures. There is no contradiction in the above statements. God is still invisible and eternal, one single person, or entity. Our salvation is founded on knowing Him through the one He sent, and on believing that God raised him from the dead! (John 17:3, Rom 10:8-9) The only other impossibility involved in the Christian faith is our hope, ie. the hope of resurrection. Because Jesus lives, we are told that we too will be raised from the dead to live forever, and to reign with King Jesus in the age to come. Impossible!?


Traditional, orthodox Christianity, has made much of Jesus birth (the incarnation) and deity. According to the creeds he (Jesus) is "very God of very God". But the Bible says little about his birth - just a couple of chapters in two of the four gospels - and nothing at all about his deity, except what is inferred by the doctrine of the Trinity! What it does say  clearly however... what it makes as the central issue of Christianity, is the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. An impossibility to be sure, but not a contradiction! Now when I say impossibility, of course, I mean impossible with men. But with God, all things are possible. It is a matter of faith, but faith does not require acceptance of a contradiction. The validity of Christianity as a credible religion hangs on the veracity of the resurrection. If Jesus wasn't raised from the dead, the apostle Paul says, then we are still in our sins and have no hope of life beyond the grave. (see 1 Cor 15)


There was a time when resurrection was little more to me than a word. I'm not referring only to my life prior to conversion, but as a believing Christian. And I'm certain that I'm not alone in this matter. Somewhere in history, the focus of our hope moved from the resurrection of the dead, to death itself! Because the majority of traditional Christians believe that they will go to heaven when they die, resurrection has lost it's impact. This idea of the soul leaving the body to go directly into the presence of God at death has relegated resurrection to a reuniting of the soul with a new body when Jesus returns, all the while living with him in heaven (without bodies?). Even if one believes that the "spiritual" body Paul speaks of in 1 Cor 15, is literally an unseen ghostly body, it renders the purpose of a new body at resurrection pointless! But the fact is, this whole scenario of a soul leaving the body and going to heaven at death, changes the fundamental meaning of death AND resurrection!


The basic definition of death is "cessation of life". When death occurs, life ceases! It is not just a body that expires and stops functioning, it is the entire person who dies. This is why Paul calls death an enemy! When Jesus died, he really died. He didn't go anywhere or do anything as a disembodied spirit, he just lied there in the tomb. But the good news is that God raised him up out of that tomb. He was resurrected! That's what resurrection means. It means to get your life back after being dead! Over and over, when the Bible speaks of the resurrection of Jesus, it uses the term "from the dead". This is significant because "the dead" is a plural noun in the Greek text. It literally means "the dead ones"; ie. dead people, not living spirits. Further, the word "from" is a preposition meaning "out of" or "among". The point should be clear. Jesus was raised back to life from among all those in the state of being dead.


If Jesus didn't really die in this basic, literal sense, then it couldn't be said of him that he should "taste" death for all men. (Heb 2:9) And if Jesus didn't literally and genuinely die, he couldn't have been resurrected! But he really was dead, and now he lives! Further, the good news is that we who have repented towards God and have faith in Jesus, who believe that God raised him from the dead - we Christians - are given the promise - the hope - of resurrection as well! Paul says that Jesus is the "firstfruits" of those who sleep (1 Cor 15:20-23). Firstfruits simply means that Jesus was the first one to be raised from the dead, never to die again - there are more to follow! That's me... and you too, if you're a believer! Hallelujah!!


Further, sleep is a metaphor for death. Think about it. Why would death be referred to as sleep if we were present with the Lord in a state of acute awareness? When you sleep you don't know anything, it's as though you don't even exist. Time passes without awareness. What a wonderful thought that when death comes, time will have no meaning, and the next thing we experience is being awakened when God calls us! (John 5:28) And not only will we awaken when we hear His voice, we will awaken with new bodies which God will provide - a body just like that of the risen Lord Jesus (Phil 3:21). This is the "spiritual" body that Paul refers to in 1 Cor 15.


So, the resurrection, for me, means LIFE! Life now, and life in the age to come! Jesus said, "I am the resurrection and the life, if any man believes in me, even though he dies, he will live." (John 11:23-26) To "sleep in Jesus" or be "dead in Christ", is to have the assurance that we will arise from death at his return, never to die again. (1 Thess 4:13-18) Because of this hope I have purpose in this life. I have a real incentive to follow Jesus' example and learn obedience to the Father. I have no fear of death because I know that nothing can separate me from the love of God in Christ Jesus! (Rom 8:37-39). The resurrection is no longer just a word, or idea to which I give lip service, but the focus of what it means to be a follower of Jesus Christ. In the words of that old song,

Because he lives, I can face tomorrow
Because he lives all fear is gone
Because I know, I know who holds the future
And life is worth the living, just because he lives.

This is what the resurrection means to me!!

Please check one of the reaction boxes below. To share you thoughts, post a comment.

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?